Amendment 14

AMENDMENT 14 TO THE
ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH (MSB)
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP)
Final Environmental Impact Statement

-------------------August 2013 -------------------Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) in cooperation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or “NOAA Fisheries”)
CONTACT: Jason Didden, (302) 526-5254
MAFMC, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790
Abstract: Amendment 14 considers alternatives that would improve monitoring of the fisheries
managed under the Atlantic mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) and alternatives to reduce catch of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) and shad
(American shad and hickory shad) in these fisheries. This document provides decision-makers
and the public with an evaluation of the environmental, social, and economic effects of changes
to the MSB FMP pursuant to meet these goals, and addresses the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12866.

A Publication of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council pursuant to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Award NA10NMF4410009

1.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................9

2.1 SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS.................................................................... 14
2.1.1 Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures ..................................................................... 15
2.1.2 Alternative Set 2 – Additional Dealer Reporting Measures ................................................................... 23
2.1.3 Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures .............................................. 28
2.1.4 Alternative Set 4 - Port-side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures ................................................ 41
2.1.5 Alternative Set 5 – At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements .................................................................. 46
2.1.6 Alternative Set 6 - Mortality Caps ............................................................................................................ 57
2.1.7 Alternative Set 7 – Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch ................................................................... 65
2.1.8 Alternative Set 8 – Hotspot Restrictions .................................................................................................... 75
2.2 IMPACTS SUMMARIES ........................................................................................................................ 86
2.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ................................................................................................................... 99
2.4 CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS................................................................... 99
2.5 REGULATORY BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT .................................................................................. 101
3.0

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. 102

4.0

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 103

4.2
HISTORY OF FMP DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 107
4.3
FMP GENERAL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES/GOALS ........................................................... 109
CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ...................................................................... 110
5.1 ALTERNATIVE SET 1: ADDITIONAL VESSEL REPORTING MEASURES ........................................... 113
5.1.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 113
5.1.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 113
5.1.3 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 115
5.2 ALTERNATIVE SET 2: ADDITIONAL DEALER REPORTING MEASURES .......................................... 121
5.2.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 121
5.2.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 121
5.2.3 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 122
5.3 ALTERNATIVE SET 3: AT-SEA OBSERVATION OPTIMIZATION MEASURES .................................. 125
5.3.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 125
5.3.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 125
5.3.3 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 126
5.4 ALTERNATIVE SET 4 - PORT-SIDE, 3RD PARTY, AND OTHER SAMPLING/MONITORING MEASURE ...... 134
5.4.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 134
5.4.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 134
5.4.3 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 135
5.5 ALTERNATIVE SET 5 - AT-SEA OBSERVER COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 141
5.5.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 141
5.5.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 141
5.5.3 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 143
5.6 ALTERNATIVE SET 6 - MORTALITY CAPS ......................................................................................... 161
5.6.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 161
5.6.3 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 161
5.6.4 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 162
5.7 ALTERNATIVE SET 7 – RESTRICTIONS IN AREAS OF HIGH RH/S CATCH....................................... 170
5.7.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 170
5.7.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 170
5.7.3 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 172
5.8 ALTERNATIVE SET 8 – HOTSPOT RESTRICTIONS ............................................................................... 178

5.8.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action .................................................................................................. 178
5.8.2 General Rationale & Background ......................................................................................................... 178
5.8.3 Management Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 179
6.0

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 189

6.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................. 189
6.2 BIOLOGY OF THE MANAGED RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 191
6.2.1
Atlantic mackerel (mackerel)............................................................................................................ 191
6.2.2
Illex illecebrosus ................................................................................................................................ 194
6.2.3
Butterfish ........................................................................................................................................... 196
6.2.4
Longfin Squid ..................................................................................................................................... 197
6.2.5
Atlantic Herring ................................................................................................................................. 203
6.3 NON-TARGET SPECIES (FISH)......................................................................................................... 204
6.3.1 Past Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 204
6.3.2
River Herrings (blueback herring and alewife) ................................................................................. 208
6.3.3
Shads (American and hickory) ........................................................................................................... 211
6.4 HABITAT (INCLUDING ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH)) ............................................................ 217
6.5 ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES ...................................................................................... 220
6.5.1
Description of species that are known to interact with MSB fisheries ............................................ 223
6.5.2
Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Plan ....................................................................................... 228
6.5.3
Description of Turtle Species with Documented Interactions with the MSB Fisheries ................. 230
6.5.4
Birds ................................................................................................................................................... 231
6.5.5
Atlantic Sturgeon .............................................................................................................................. 232
6.5.6
Description of Candidate Species for Listing Under the ESA ......................................................... 234
6.6 FISHERY, PORT, AND COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (HUMAN COMMUNITIES) ...................................... 235
6.7 FISHERY AND SOCIOECONOMIC DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 237
6.7.1
Atlantic mackerel (mackerel)............................................................................................................ 237
6.7.2
Illex illecebrosus .............................................................................................................................. 249
6.7.3 Atlantic butterfish ................................................................................................................................. 257
6.7.4
Longfin Squid................................................................................................................................... 265
7.0

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 274

7.1 ALTERNATIVE SET 1: ADDITIONAL VESSEL REPORTING MEASURES ............................................... 277
7.2 ALTERNATIVE SET 2 – ADDITIONAL DEALER REPORTING MEASURES ............................................. 301
7.3 ALTERNATIVE SET 3: ADDITIONAL AT-SEA OBSERVATION OPTIMIZATION MEASURES .................. 314
7.4 ALTERNATIVE SET 4 - PORT-SIDE AND OTHER SAMPLING/MONITORING MEASURES ....................... 346
7.5 ALTERNATIVE SET 5 – AT-SEA OBSERVER COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS .......................................... 356
7.6 ALTERNATIVE SET 6 - MORTALITY CAPS ......................................................................................... 377
7.7 ALTERNATIVE SET 7 – RESTRICTIONS IN AREAS OF HIGH RH/S CATCH ............................................ 398
7.8 ALTERNATIVE SET 8 – HOTSPOT RESTRICTIONS ............................................................................... 416
7.9 SUMMARY BY VEC OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES' IMPACTS ........................................................... 441
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 444
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM PROPOSED ACTION AND ASSESSMENT GOALS ........................... 445
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES ...................................................................................................... 446
TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES.......................................................................................................... 446
IDENTIFY OTHER ACTION AFFECTING THE RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES OF
CONCERN. ........................................................................................................................... 446
RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED IN SCOPING IN TERMS OF THEIR
RESPONSE TO CHANGE AND CAPACITY TO WITHSTAND STRESSES ................................... 460
STRESSES AFFECTING THE RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR
RELATION TO REGULATORY THRESHOLDS ....................................................................... 460
BASELINE CONDITION FOR THE RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES .... 464
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS,
AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................... 468
MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................... 468

9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
10.0

CONSISTENCY WITH THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT ............................................................................................................................. 471
NATIONAL STANDARDS........................................................................................................... 471
OTHER REQUIRED PROVISIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT .................................... 474
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 477
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER APPLICABLE LAW ........................................................................... 478

10.1
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) ............................................................. 478
10.1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 478
10.1.2 Development of EIS .......................................................................................................................... 479
10.1.3 List of Preparers and EIS Distribution List ..................................................................................... 479
10.2
MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT (MMPA) ................................................................... 482
10.3
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) ........................................................................................ 482
10.4
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT ..................................................................................... 482
10.5
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT..................................................................................... 483
10.6
INFORMATION QUALITY ACT................................................................................................. 483
10.7
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT............................................................................................... 485
10.8
IMPACTS RELATIVE TO FEDERALISM/E.O. 13132................................................................. 485
10.9
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT/E.O. 12866 ........................................................................ 486
10.9.1 Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ............................................ 486
10.9.2 Description of Management Objectives .............................................................................................. 486
10.9.3 Description of the Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 486
10.9.4 Statement of Problem/Need for Action ............................................................................................... 487
10.9.5 Description of the Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 487
10.9.6 Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 487
10.9.7 Determination of Significance under E.O. 12866 .............................................................................. 487
10.9.8 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.................................................................................................. 488
10.9.9 Reasons for Considering the Action ................................................................................................... 488
10.9.10 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Action ........................................................................................ 488
10.9.11 Description and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Applies ........................................... 489
10.9.12 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ................................................................................... 490
10.9.13 Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Other Federal Rules ........................................................... 490
10.9.14 Economic Impacts on Small Entities ................................................................................................ 490
11.0

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................. 491

12.0

INDEX ........................................................................................................................................................ 525

13.0

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 526

1.1 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. EXAMPLE RIVER HERRING CAPS FOR MACKEREL ....................................................................................... 58
TABLE 2. EXAMPLE SHAD CAPS FOR MACKEREL ........................................................................................................ 59
TABLE 3. EXAMPLE RIVER HERRING CAPS FOR LONGFIN SQUID ................................................................................ 61
TABLE 4. EXAMPLE SHAD CAPS FOR LONGFIN SQUID ................................................................................................. 63
TABLE 5. DIRECT-NON-TARGET IMPACT SCHEMATIC .................................................................................................. 66
TABLE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF MACKEREL REVENUES IN AND OUT OF RH/S AREA.......................................................... 67
TABLE 7. DISTRIBUTION OF LONGFIN SQUID VTR CATCHES IN AND OUT OF RH/S AREA. ........................................... 68
TABLE 8. ALTERNATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE .................................................................................................... 90
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEMS/NEEDS FOR ACTIONS AND PURPOSES. ........................................................... 103
TABLE 10. HISTORY OF FMP DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 107
TABLE 11. SEA DAYS ASSOCIATED WITH ALT. 5E C.V. TARGETS. .............................................................................. 157
TABLE 12. EXAMPLE RIVER HERRING CAPS FOR MACKEREL .................................................................................... 164
TABLE 13. EXAMPLE SHAD CAPS FOR MACKEREL .................................................................................................... 165
TABLE 14. EXAMPLE RIVER HERRING CAPS FOR LONGFIN ........................................................................................ 167
TABLE 15. EXAMPLE SHAD CAPS FOR LONGFIN ........................................................................................................ 168
TABLE 16. DIRECT/NON-TARGET IMPACT SCHEMATIC ............................................................................................. 171
TABLE 17. KEY SPECIES OBSERVED TAKEN AND DISCARDED IN DIRECTED TRIPS FOR MACKEREL, BASED ON
UNPUBLISHED NMFS NORTHEAST FISHERIES OBSERVER PROGRAM DATA AND UNPUBLISHED DEALER
WEIGHOUT DATA FROM 2006-2010. (SEE TEXT FOR CRITERIA). THERE ARE 2204.6 POUNDS IN ONE METRIC
TON. ................................................................................................................................................................. 205
TABLE 18. KEY SPECIES OBSERVED TAKEN AND DISCARDED IN DIRECTED TRIPS FOR ILLEX, BASED ON UNPUBLISHED
NMFS NORTHEAST FISHERIES OBSERVER PROGRAM DATA AND UNPUBLISHED DEALER WEIGHOUT DATA
FROM 2006-2010. (SEE TEXT FOR CRITERIA). THERE ARE 2204.6 POUNDS IN ONE METRIC TON. .................... 206
TABLE 19. KEY SPECIES OBSERVED TAKEN AND DISCARDED IN DIRECTED TRIPS FOR LONGFIN SQUID, BASED ON
UNPUBLISHED NMFS NORTHEAST FISHERIES OBSERVER PROGRAM DATA AND UNPUBLISHED DEALER
WEIGHOUT DATA FROM 2006-2010. (SEE TEXT FOR CRITERIA). THERE ARE 2204.6 POUNDS IN ONE METRIC
TON. ................................................................................................................................................................. 207
TABLE 20. BLUEBACK HERRING MIGRATION PATTERNS (SA = SOME ACTIVITY; PA = PEAK ACTIVITY) .................. 209
TABLE 21. ALEWIFE MIGRATION PATTERNS (SA = SOME ACTIVITY; PA = PEAK ACTIVITY) .................................... 210
TABLE 22. SHAD MIGRATION PATTERNS (SA = SOME ACTIVITY; PA = PEAK ACTIVITY).......................................... 212
TABLE 23. RH/S CATCH ESTIMATES AND C.V.S. MIDWATER TRAWL STARTS IN 2005. ............................................ 213
TABLE 24. MSB PORTS ............................................................................................................................................. 236
TABLE 25. MACKEREL DAH PERFORMANCE. (MT) ................................................................................................... 240
TABLE 26. 2010 TOTAL MACKEREL LANDINGS, VALUE, ACTIVE VESSELS, TRIPS, AND PRICE. ................................ 240
TABLE 27. MACKEREL LANDINGS (MT) BY STATE IN 2010. ....................................................................................... 241
TABLE 28. MACKEREL LANDINGS (MT) BY MONTH IN 2010. ..................................................................................... 241
TABLE 29. MACKEREL LANDINGS (MT) BY GEAR CATEGORY IN 2010. ..................................................................... 242
TABLE 30. MACKEREL VESSEL PERMIT HOLDERS AND ACTIVE PERMIT HOLDERS IN 2010 BY HOMEPORT STATE
(HPST). ............................................................................................................................................................ 242
TABLE 31. MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH DEALER PERMIT HOLDERS AND THOSE THAT MADE MACKEREL
PURCHASES IN 2010 BY STATE. ........................................................................................................................ 243
TABLE 32. MACKEREL LANDINGS BY PERMIT CATEGORY FOR THE PERIOD 2001-2010. ........................................... 244
TABLE 33. STATISTICAL AREAS FROM WHICH 1% OR MORE OF MACKEREL WERE KEPT IN 2010 ACCORDING TO VTR
REPORTS. .......................................................................................................................................................... 244
TABLE 34. RECREATIONAL HARVEST (ROUNDED TO NEAREST METRIC TON) OF MACKEREL BY STATE, 2001-2010. 248
TABLE 35. RECREATIONAL HARVEST (ROUNDED TO NEAREST METRIC TON) OF MACKEREL BY MODE AND TOTAL,
2000-2010. ....................................................................................................................................................... 248
TABLE 36. ILLEX DAH PERFORMANCE. (MT) ............................................................................................................. 252
TABLE 37. TOTAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF ILLEX DURING 2010. ........................................................................... 253
TABLE 38. ILLEX LANDINGS (MT) BY STATE IN 2010. ............................................................................................... 253
TABLE 39. ILLEX SQUID LANDINGS (MT) BY MONTH IN 2010. ................................................................................... 253

TABLE 40. ILLEX LANDINGS (MT) BY GEAR CATEGORY IN 2010. ............................................................................... 254
TABLE 41. ILLEX MORATORIUM VESSEL PERMIT HOLDERS AND ACTIVE VESSELS IN 2010 BY HOMEPORT STATE
(HPST). ............................................................................................................................................................ 254
TABLE 42. MACKEREL, SQUID, BUTTERFISH DEALER PERMIT HOLDERS AND PERMITTED DEALERS WHO BOUGHT
ILLEX IN 2010 BY STATE.................................................................................................................................... 255
TABLE 43. ILLEX LANDINGS BY PERMIT CATEGORY FOR THE PERIOD 2000-2010. .................................................... 255
TABLE 44. STATISTICAL AREAS FROM WHICH 1% OR MORE OF ILLEX WERE KEPT IN 2010 ACCORDING TO VTR
REPORTS. .......................................................................................................................................................... 256
TABLE 45. BUTTERFISH DAH PERFORMANCE (MT) ................................................................................................... 259
TABLE 46. TOTAL LANDINGS AND VALUE OF BUTTERFISH DURING 2010. ................................................................ 260
TABLE 47. BUTTERFISH LANDINGS (MT) BY STATE IN 2010. ..................................................................................... 260
TABLE 48. BUTTERFISH LANDINGS (MT) BY MONTH IN 2010. ................................................................................... 261
TABLE 49. BUTTERFISH LANDINGS (MT) BY GEAR CATEGORY IN 2010. .................................................................... 261
TABLE 50. BUTTERFISH LANDINGS BY PORT IN 2010. ............................................................................................... 262
TABLE 51. LONGFIN SQUID/BUTTERFISH MORATORIUM VESSEL PERMIT HOLDERS IN 2010 BY HOMEPORT STATE
(HPST) AND HOW MANY OF THOSE VESSELS WERE ACTIVE........................................................................... 263
TABLE 52. MACKEREL, SQUID, BUTTERFISH DEALER PERMIT HOLDERS AND HOW MANY WERE ACTIVE (BOUGHT
BUTTERFISH) IN 2010 BY STATE. ....................................................................................................................... 263
TABLE 53. BUTTERFISH LANDINGS BY PERMIT CATEGORY FOR THE PERIOD 2001-2010. ......................................... 264
TABLE 54. STATISTICAL AREAS FROM WHICH 1% OR MORE OF BUTTERFISH WERE KEPT IN 2010 ACCORDING TO
VTR REPORTS. ................................................................................................................................................. 264
TABLE 55. LONGFIN SQUID DAH PERFORMANCE (MT) ............................................................................................. 268
TABLE 56. TOTAL LANDINGS AND VALUE LONGFIN SQUID DURING 2010. ............................................................... 269
TABLE 57. LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS (MT) BY STATE IN 2010................................................................................. 269
TABLE 58. LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS (MT) BY MONTH IN 2010............................................................................... 270
TABLE 59. LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS (MT) BY GEAR CATEGORY IN 2010................................................................ 270
TABLE 60. LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS BY PORT IN 2010........................................................................................... 270
TABLE 61. LONGFIN SQUID-BUTTERFISH MORATORIUM VESSEL PERMIT HOLDERS IN 2010 BY HOMEPORT STATE
(HPST) AND HOW MANY OF THOSE VESSELS WERE ACTIVE (LANDED LONGFIN SQUID) ................................. 271
TABLE 62. MACKEREL, SQUID, BUTTERFISH DEALER PERMIT HOLDERS BY STATE AND HOW MANY WERE ACTIVE
(BOUGHT LONGFIN SQUID) IN 2010 BY STATE. .................................................................................................. 271
TABLE 63. LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS BY PERMIT CATEGORY FOR THE PERIOD 2000-2010. .................................... 272
TABLE 64. STATISTICAL AREAS FROM WHICH 1% OR MORE OF LONGFIN SQUID WERE KEPT IN 2010 ACCORDING TO
VTR REPORTS. ................................................................................................................................................. 272
TABLE 65. MACKEREL MID-WATER TRAWL COSTS AND REVENUES ........................................................................ 361
TABLE 66. MACKEREL SMBT COSTS AND REVENUES .............................................................................................. 364
TABLE 67. LONGFIN SQUID TRAWL COSTS AND REVENUES ....................................................................................... 369
TABLE 68. EXAMPLE RIVER HERRING CAPS FOR MACKEREL .................................................................................... 381
TABLE 69. EXAMPLE SHAD CAPS FOR MACKEREL.................................................................................................... 385
TABLE 70. EXAMPLE RIVER HERRING CAPS FOR LONGFIN SQUID. ............................................................................. 389
TABLE 71. EXAMPLE SHAD CAPS FOR LONGFIN SQUID. ............................................................................................. 393
TABLE 72. DIRECT/NON-TARGET IMPACT SCHEMATIC ............................................................................................. 398
TABLE 73. MACKEREL REVENUES IN AND OUT OF RH/S AREA ................................................................................ 403
TABLE 74. LONGFIN SQUID KEPT VTR CATCH IN AND OUT OF RH/S AREA ............................................................... 406
TABLE 75. IMPACTS OF PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ON THE FIVE VECS.
THESE ACTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE THOSE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS AMENDMENT. ................................. 448
TABLE 76. SUMMARY EFFECTS OF PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ON THE VECS
IDENTIFIED FOR AMENDMENT 14 (BASED ON ACTIONS LISTED IN TABLE 75). ................................................... 459
TABLE 77. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO CEQ STEPS 5 AND 6 THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 6.0. 461
TABLE 78. CEA BASELINE CONDITIONS OF THE VECS. ............................................................................................. 465

1.2 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. RH/S MACKEREL MANAGEMENT AREA (WOULD APPLY IN QUARTER 1 ONLY) OVER QUARTER 1 MWT
EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH .................................................................................................................................. 72
FIGURE 2. RH/S LONGFIN SQUID MANAGEMENT AREA OVER SMALL MESH BOTTOM EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH
(QUARTERS 1 AND 2) .......................................................................................................................................... 73
FIGURE 3. RH/S LONGFIN SQUID MANAGEMENT AREA OVER SMALL MESH BOTTOM EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH
(QUARTERS 3 AND 4) .......................................................................................................................................... 74
FIGURE 4. JANUARY – FEBRUARY HERRING AREAS ..................................................................................................... 76
FIGURE 5. MARCH – APRIL HERRING AREAS ............................................................................................................. 77
FIGURE 6.MAY – JUNE HERRING AREAS ..................................................................................................................... 78
FIGURE 7.JULY – AUGUST HERRING AREAS ................................................................................................................. 79
FIGURE 8.SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER HERRING AREAS .................................................................................................... 80
FIGURE 9.NOVEMBER – DECEMBER HERRING AREAS .................................................................................................. 81
FIGURE 10. BLUEBACK MWT 2009 ........................................................................................................................... 147
FIGURE 11. BLUEBACK MWT 2010............................................................................................................................ 147
FIGURE 12. ALEWIFE MWT 2009 .............................................................................................................................. 148
FIGURE 13. ALEWIFE MWT 2010 .............................................................................................................................. 148
FIGURE 14. BLUEBACK SMBT 2009 .......................................................................................................................... 151
FIGURE 15. BLUEBACK SMBT 2010 .......................................................................................................................... 152
FIGURE 16. ALEWIFE SMBT 2009 ............................................................................................................................. 153
FIGURE 17. ALEWIFE SMBT 2010 ............................................................................................................................. 153
FIGURE 18. RH/S MACKEREL MANAGEMENT AREA ................................................................................................. 175
FIGURE 19. RH/S LONGFIN SQUID MANAGEMENT AREA OVER SMALL MESH BOTTOM EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH
(QUARTERS 1 AND 2) ........................................................................................................................................ 176
FIGURE 20. RH/S LONGFIN SQUID MANAGEMENT AREA OVER SMALL MESH BOTTOM EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH
(QUARTERS 3 AND 4) ........................................................................................................................................ 177
FIGURE 21.JANUARY – FEBRUARY HERRING AREA .................................................................................................... 179
FIGURE 22.MARCH – APRIL HERRING AREA .............................................................................................................. 180
FIGURE 23.MAY – JUNE HERRING AREA .................................................................................................................... 181
FIGURE 24.JULY – AUGUST HERRING AREA ............................................................................................................... 182
FIGURE 25.SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER HERRING AREA .................................................................................................. 183
FIGURE 26.NOVEMBER – DECEMBER HERRING AREA ................................................................................................ 184
FIGURE 27. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE MACKEREL, SQUID AND BUTTERFISH FISHERIES. ......................................... 190
FIGURE 28. 2010 MACKEREL TRAC SSB FINAL MODEL OUTPUT. ............................................................................ 192
FIGURE 29. SPRING NEFSC SURVEY MACKEREL INDICES 1968-2011. GEOMETRIC MEAN, NUMBERS PER TOW ...... 193
FIGURE 30. SPRING SURVEY MACKEREL INDICES 1968-2011. GEOMETRIC MEAN, KG PER TOW ............................. 193
FIGURE 31. FALL NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY - ILLEX MEAN #/TOW. ............................................................................. 194
FIGURE 32. FALL NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY - ILLEX MEAN KG/TOW. .......................................................................... 195
FIGURE 33. 2010 ASSESSMENT FIGURE B6 - ANNUAL BIOMASS IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED BIOMASS
THRESHOLD (WHICH IS ½ OF THE TARGET) - SHOWN HERE AS A RELATIVE VALUE .......................................... 199
FIGURE 34. FALL NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY – LONGFIN SQUID MEAN KG/TOW ALL SIZES. ........................................ 199
FIGURE 35. FALL NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY – LONGFIN SQUID MEAN #/TOW PRE-RECRUITS. .................................... 200
FIGURE 36. FALL NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY – LONGFIN SQUID MEAN #/TOW RECRUITS. ........................................... 200
FIGURE 37. SPRING NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY – LONGFIN SQUID MEAN KG/TOW ALL SIZES. ..................................... 201
FIGURE 38. SPRING NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY – LONGFIN SQUID MEAN #/TOW PRE-RECRUITS. ................................. 202
FIGURE 39. SPRING NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY – LONGFIN SQUID MEAN #/TOW RECRUITS. ........................................ 202
FIGURE 40. RIVER HERRING LANDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 216
FIGURE 41. SHAD LANDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 216
FIGURE 42. HISTORICAL ALT. MACKEREL LANDINGS IN THE U.S. EEZ. ................................................................... 237
FIGURE 43. U.S. MACKEREL LANDINGS. ................................................................................................................... 238
FIGURE 44. U.S. MACKEREL EX-VESSEL REVENUES. ................................................................................................ 238

FIGURE 45.
FIGURE 46.
FIGURE 47.
FIGURE 48.
FIGURE 49.
FIGURE 50.
FIGURE 51.
FIGURE 52.
FIGURE 53.
FIGURE 54.
FIGURE 55.
FIGURE 56.
FIGURE 57.
FIGURE 58.
FIGURE 59.
FIGURE 60.
FIGURE 61.

U.S. MACKEREL EX-VESSEL PRICES. ...................................................................................................... 239
UNCANCELED MACKEREL PERMITS PER YEAR ....................................................................................... 243
NMFS STATISTICAL AREAS .................................................................................................................... 245
WORLD PRODUCTION OF MACKEREL, 1950-2008 BASED ON FAO (2010)............................................... 246
HISTORICAL ILLEX LANDINGS IN THE U.S. EEZ. ..................................................................................... 249
U.S. ILLEX LANDINGS. ............................................................................................................................. 250
U.S. ILLEX EX-VESSEL REVENUES. .......................................................................................................... 250
U.S. ILLEX EX-VESSEL PRICES. ................................................................................................................ 251
HISTORICAL BUTTERFISH LANDINGS IN THE U.S. EEZ. .......................................................................... 257
U.S. BUTTERFISH LANDINGS................................................................................................................... 258
U.S. BUTTERFISH EX-VESSEL REVENUES. ............................................................................................... 258
U.S. BUTTERFISH EX-VESSEL PRICES...................................................................................................... 259
HISTORICAL LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS IN THE U.S. EEZ. ..................................................................... 265
U.S. LONGFIN SQUID LANDINGS. ............................................................................................................ 266
U.S. LONGFIN SQUID EX-VESSEL REVENUES. ......................................................................................... 267
U.S. LONGFIN SQUID EX-VESSEL PRICES. ............................................................................................... 267
RH/S MACKEREL MANAGEMENT AREA (WOULD APPLY IN QUARTER 1 ONLY) OVER QUARTER 1 MWT
EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH ................................................................................................................................ 412
FIGURE 62. RH/S LONGFIN SQUID MANAGEMENT AREA OVER SMALL MESH BOTTOM EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH
(QUARTERS 1 AND 2) ........................................................................................................................................ 413
FIGURE 63. RH/S LONGFIN SQUID MANAGEMENT AREA OVER SMALL MESH BOTTOM EFFORT AND RH/S CATCH
(QUARTERS 3 AND 4) ........................................................................................................................................ 414
FIGURE 64.JANUARY – FEBRUARY HERRING AREA .................................................................................................... 418
FIGURE 65.MARCH – APRIL HERRING AREA .............................................................................................................. 419
FIGURE 66.MAY – JUNE HERRING AREA .................................................................................................................... 420
FIGURE 67. JULY – AUGUST HERRING AREA .............................................................................................................. 421
FIGURE 68.SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER HERRING AREA .................................................................................................. 422
FIGURE 69.NOVEMBER – DECEMBER HERRING AREA ................................................................................................ 423
FIGURE 70. EXAMPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES OF POSITIVE IMPACTS (UP ARROWS) AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS
(DOWN ARROWS) FOR THE FIVE VECS. ............................................................................................................. 463

2.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Via this document, the Council is recommending a variety of actions to be implemented by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as described below and labeled as “PREFERRED”
and surrounded by an "outlining box." The actions labeled as “PREFERRED” were approved
to be recommended by the Council to NMFS at the Council’s June 2012 Council meeting. Some
actions were considered but were not recommended, and those are described as well. Ultimately
NMFS chooses which of the alternatives are appropriate to implement.
This Amendment deals with monitoring and/or controlling all catch of blueback herring, alewife,
American shad, and hickory shad in the Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. In this
document, "river herrings" include blueback herring and alewife. "Shads” include American shad
and hickory shad. These four species are described together as "RH/S" and the Amendment
addresses three potential RH/S management problems, described below (A,B, and C).
In this document, "catch" refers to all fish caught in a fishery (whether targeted or not and
whether retained or discarded). Targeted fish are those intended to be caught. Non-target
species are those caught but not targeted. Bycatch usually refers to discards but is a term often
used in fishery management to refer to several different things and so it is not used in this
document except where unavoidable (for example a report title, quotation, etc.). Instead, fish
caught and then discarded at sea are called "discards." Fish that are not targeted but are landed
are called "incidentally landed catch." "Incidental permits" allow retention of relatively small
amounts of fish/squid.
Considering, and if appropriate, implementing solutions to these potential problems are the
purposes of this Amendment. The analytical goals described below summarize the analyses
conducted to support decisions for this Amendment.

Problem A: Relatively low levels of catch monitoring have resulted in relatively high
uncertainty about the catch of river herrings and shads in ocean intercept fisheries.
Purpose A: "Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring" – Purpose A is to consider
alternatives that would implement monitoring programs for the Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish (MSB) fisheries that are sensitive enough and robust enough to the spatial and
temporal variability of RH/S distributions so that good RH/S catch estimates from MSB
fishing can be generated. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) requires Councils “to specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the
Secretary with respect to…fishing…in the fishery” (Section 303(a)(5)) and Section 8 under
discretionary fishery management plan provisions allows implementation of observer
requirements. Additional monitoring has to fit into an existing monitoring framework and
be appropriate for the species and the fishery in order to develop good RH/S estimates in
the MSB fisheries, which led to the specific suite of alternatives considered in this
document.

Analytical Goals:

A1. "RH/S Catch" - Establish the best available information on
the catch of RH/S in the MSB and/or other fisheries.
A2. "Effectiveness" - Evaluate how effective various alternatives
would be in terms of improving the precision of RH/S catch
estimates.
A3. "Practicability" - Evaluate the socioeconomic impacts from
the alternatives and the ability of management to implement them.

Problem B: Catch of RH/S in the MSB fisheries may be negatively impacting RH/S populations.
While the relative contribution from various causes is unknown (habitat, fishing, predation, etc.),
most RH/S stocks are believed to be depleted, with many near historic low points according to
the most recent RH/S assessments (see 6.2.5 and 6.2.6).
Purpose B: "Reduce RH/S Catch" – Purpose B is to consider alternatives to reduce catch
of RH/S in the MSB fisheries. The MSA requires Councils to minimize discards to the
extent practicable (Section 301 – National Standard 9) and provides discretionary authority
to “include management measures in the plan to conserve…non-target
species…considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations”
(Section 303(b)(12)). Because information on how much RH/S catch might be sustainable
is lacking, it is not currently possible to quantify the impact on RH/S stocks of any catch
reductions that may occur but any catch reductions would be likely to have a positive
impact to some degree.
Analytical Goals:

B1. "RH/S Catch" - Evaluate if discards of river herrings and
shads in the MSB fisheries has been minimized to the extent
practicable (National Standard 9).
B2. "Effectiveness" - Evaluate how effective various alternatives
would be in reducing the catch of RH/S.
B3. "Practicability" - Evaluate the socioeconomic impacts from
the alternatives and the ability of management to implement them.

Problem C: The overall existing federal/state/regional management framework may be
insufficient to adequately conserve RH/S stocks.
Purpose C: "Consider RH/S NS1 Stock Issues" – Purpose C was to consider
alternatives that would bring RH/S into the MSB plan as a managed stock in terms of
Council management responsibilities, including annual catch limits and accountability
measures, in order to improve overall RH/S management and conservation. The Council
chose no action for that entire alternative set, and initiated Amendment 15 to consider the
issue. Accordingly, the stock in the fishery issue has been moved into the “considered
but rejected” section (2.4) and is summarized there. Amendment 15 will allow the
Council to fully evaluate the merits of potentially adding RH/S as stocks and fisheries
directly managed by the Council.

Alternatives
In this document, each purpose will be referenced by the bolded phrases in quotes above. Each
purpose is addressed by one or more related set of alternatives, organized below by each
purpose, summarized later in this executive summary, and fully described and analyzed in this
document. Throughout this document the reader will note that the focus of the alternatives is on
the Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. This is intentional because those are the MSB
fisheries that appear to have substantial RH/S interactions. The specific alternatives that have
been recommended by the Council to NMFS for implementation are marked later in the
Executive Summary as "PREFERRED" and have boxes around them.
Alternatives Related to Purpose A: Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring
Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures
Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
Alternative Set 4: Port-side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
Alternatives Related to Purpose B: Reduce RH/S Catch
Alternative Set 6 : Mortality Caps
Alternative Set 7 : Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
Alternative Set 8 : Hotspot Restrictions
An extremely abbreviated summary of the preferred alternatives to preview section 2.1
("Summary of the Alternatives and their Impacts") is:

The preferred alternatives would: require weekly VTR reporting for all MSB vessel permits (1c);
require a 48-hour pre directed mackerel trip notification (1d48); require VMS and daily VMS
catch reporting for mackerel and longfin squid vessels (1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack, and 1fLong);
and require a 6-hour pre-landing notification via VMS for mackerel landings greater than 20,000
pounds (1gMack). The preferred alternatives would also require federal MSB dealers to weigh
all landings of mackerel over 20,000 pounds (2d) and longfin squid over 2,500 pounds (2f) or
document why they cannot weight landings (2g). (If all fish are not weighed separately, dealers
would have to document with each transaction how they estimate the relative composition of
mixed catches.). The preferred alternatives would also require for mackerel and longfinbutterfish permits that: reasonable assistance be provided to observers (3b); notice of haul-back
or pumping be provided to observers (3c); one observer is provided for each vessel on pair-trawl
operations whenever possible (3d). Unless safety, mechanical, or spiny dogfish issues make it
inappropriate, the same vessels would not be able to release hauls of fish (“slippage”) prior to
observer documentation, and catch affidavits would have to be completed for any pre-observed
net release (3j). For mackerel limited access vessels, there would also be a fleet-wide cap of 10
non-emergency (safety, mechanical, spiny dogfish) slippages after which further non-emergency
slippages would require a vessel to terminate their trip (3l). The Council also made
implementation of additional portside monitoring and catch avoidance based on portside
monitoring frameworkable (4f). The Council recommended 100% observer coverage of midwater trawl (MWT) mackerel trips (5b4) as well as tiered coverage levels for small mesh bottom
trawl mackerel trips (100% for Tier 1, 50% for Tier 2, and 25% for Tier 3) (5c4) along with
requiring mackerel vessels to pay $325 when they carry observers to help fund the desired
coverage levels (5f). Coverage levels would be re-evaluated after 2 years (5h). Since RH/S
catch is greatest in the mackerel fishery, and current analysis suggested that area-based could not
be determined to be an effective measure, the Council recommended mortality caps for RH/S on
the mackerel fishery (6b and 6c) and added future mortality caps and hotspot closures as
frameworkable actions (6f and 8b respectively).
Approximate Timeline
June 1, 2013

– Proposed Rule and FEIS made available for public comment

Aug 1, 2013

– Comment Period Closes

Dec 1, 2013

– Final Rule Publishes

Jan 1, 2014

– Rule Effective

Wording Conventions
All acronyms and abbreviations used in this document should be listed in Section 2.0, List of
Acronyms and abbreviations. Several critical wording conventions are noted below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the primary law governing
marine fisheries management in United States federal waters. The Act was first enacted in 1976
and amended in 1996 and in 2007. In this document, the abbreviation "MSA" refers to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as currently amended.
"Mackerel" refers to "Atlantic mackerel." "Am14" refers to "Amendment 14 to the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP)." "The Council" refers
to "the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council." "River herrings" include blueback herring
and alewife. "Shads” include American shad and hickory shad. These four species are described
together as "RH/S."
In this document, "catch" refers to all fish caught in a fishery (whether targeted or not and
whether retained or discarded). Targeted fish are those intended to be caught. Non-target
species are those caught but not targeted. Bycatch usually refers to discards but is a term often
used in fishery management to refer to several different things and so is not used in this
document except where unavoidable (for example a report title, quotation, etc.). Instead, fish
caught and then discarded at sea are called "discards." Fish that are not targeted but are landed
are called "incidentally landed catch." "Incidental permits" allow retention of relatively small
amounts of fish/squid.
Longfin squid have previously been referenced as Loligo pealeii or just Loligo. There has been a
scientific name change for this species from Loligo pealeii to Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii. To
avoid confusion, this document will utilize the common name “longfin squid” wherever possible.
Some historical documents will still refer to these squid as “Loligo.” All of these names
reference the same species, it is just a name change due to improved understanding about the
taxonomy (how species are grouped on the basis of shared characteristics) of the species.
The term "mortality cap" refers to a management system whereby directed fishing for one
species may be stopped or limited when catch of some other species reaches a pre-set limit.
Similar terms include bycatch caps or discard caps.

2.1 SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS
The alternatives in this document are primarily designed to: 1) consider improving monitoring
and observing of river herring and shad (RH/S) catch and 2) consider ways to reduce RH/S catch
in the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB) fisheries. While there are some potential
impacts related to the managed species, habitat, and protected resources, those effects are
secondary to the primary goals of Amendment 14. Given the impacts to the managed species,
habitat, and protected resources are generally low, indirect, and positive, the textual summary in
this Executive Summary focuses on impacts related to non-target species, especially river
herrings and shads, and the related fishery business and human community impacts (SocioEconomic impacts). Managed species, habitat, and protected resource impacts are described in
Section 7 and summarized in Table 8 later in this Executive Summary. Some alternatives with
very similar impacts are grouped together.
In the DEIS, Alternative Set 9 considered whether to add RH/S as stocks in the fishery. Since
the Council chose no action for that entire alternative set, and also has begun Amendment 15 to
more fully consider the issue, the stock in the fishery issue has been moved into the “considered
but rejected” section (2.4) and is summarized there.
Some alternatives have been modified compared to the DEIS. Those modifications are
highlighted with double underlines in the Executive Summary and Alternatives Section. An
explanation for the modification is included, and the modifications do not create novel
alternatives that extend beyond the range, impacts, or intent of alternatives analyzed in the DEIS.
There are about 80 alternatives in this document. This means that there are millions of different
possible combinations. At the beginning of each Alternative Set, it is noted which alternatives
may, and which alternatives may not be, grouped together within the Alternative Set. Between
Alternative Sets, alternatives generally may be combined without problem. The only broad
exception to this rule is that it would be unlikely that alternatives from both of the area-based
alternatives (Sets 7 and 8) would be chosen together.
To the extent that alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other species, then choosing such alternatives might result in long
term additional benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e.
value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved
successfully). However, due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of RH/S is impacted
by current catch levels, it is difficult to quantity such benefits. The amount of benefit to RH/S
stocks from any action affecting the MSB fisheries is unknown, so even though one might
contemplate what the value of rebuilt RH/S fisheries might be, it is not possible to know if an
action in this document might lead rebuilt RH/S fisheries because of the range of issues likely
affecting RH/S stocks. One would expect that higher related benefits would result from actions
that were more likely to restore RH/S populations. This theme is repeated as appropriate in the
Impacts Section (Section 7) and in the rest of this Executive Summary the following sentence is
used to reiterate the ideas described in this paragraph rather than repeating the paragraph many

times: "While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could
be human community benefits as described in Section 2.1."
The reader will note that more alternatives were selected for the mackerel fishery relative to the
longfin squid fishery. This is because, as described in the affected environment section, there
appear to be substantially more catches of RH/S in the mackerel fishery compared to the longfin
squid fishery.
2.1.1 Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements may be insufficient to estimate RH/S
catch in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries precisely enough to facilitate effective
management goals (such as reducing catch).
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase vessel reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of
RH/S catch estimates in the MSB fisheries. While some of the focus may appear to be on
mackerel and/or longfin squid general reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries,
because extrapolations of non-target species are often made based on total landings (including
the target species), accurate monitoring of the target species are important for determining
encounter rates and total interactions with RH/S. A summary of the key biological and human
community impacts (detailed in section 7) follows for each alternative.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Most of the Alternative Set 1 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 1c (weekly VTRs for all MSB permits)
would encompass 1bMack and 1bLong so these would not be selected together. The 48-hr
mackerel pre-trip notification (1d48) and 72-hr mackerel pre-trip notification (1d72) would also
be mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. The VMS reporting alternatives
(1f’s and 1g’s) would need the respective 1e’s (that require VMS) for each fishery as a
prerequisite before requiring VMS reporting.
1a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 1 would be implemented and
the existing reporting measures (as described in section 5.1) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below.
1bMack. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for mackerel permits.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that more rapid VTR reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure
that fishery closures occur appropriately, there could be potentially low positive impacts. Such
closures could be related to directed fishery closures or mortality cap closures for non-target
species including RH/S.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
The number of total mackerel permits can vary from month to month. Of the 1,974 vessels that
had mackerel permits in November 2011, 67 did not also have a weekly VTR reporting
requirement from another permit (herring or NE multispecies). Thus, about 67 vessels would
ultimately be subject to additional reporting requirements because of this measure. Those 67
vessels must currently submit VTR reports monthly. This alternative would result in 40 (52
(weeks) -12 (months) = 40) additional VTR submissions per year for permit holders that don’t
currently submit weekly VTRs. This would result in additional mailing costs of $19.36 per year
(40 x $ 0.44 postage) per permitted vessel.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.
1bLong. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for longfin squid/Butterfish permits.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that more rapid VTR reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure
that fishery closures occur appropriately, there could be potentially low positive impacts. Such
closures could be related to directed fishery closures or mortality cap closures for non-target
species including RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
The number of incidental squid/butterfish permits can vary from month to month. Of the 1,891
vessels that had longfin squid//Butterfish Moratorium permits or squid/butterfish incidental
permits in November 2011, 74 did not also have a weekly VTR reporting requirement from
another permit (herring or NE multispecies). Thus, about 74 vessels would ultimately be subject
to additional reporting requirements because of this measure. Those 74 vessels must currently
submit VTR reports monthly. This alternative would result in 40 (52 (weeks) -12 (months) = 40)
additional VTR submissions per year for permit holders that don’t currently submit weekly
VTRs, resulting in additional mailing costs of $19.36 per year (40 x $ 0.44 postage) per
permitted vessel. For informational purposes, about 9 of the 351 longfin squid//Butterfish
moratorium permits do not currently have a weekly VTR reporting requirement from another
permit (herring or NE multispecies).
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1c. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for all MSB permits (Mackerel, longfin
squid//Butterfish, Illex) so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed landings and/or
mortality cap if applicable) and cross checking with other data sources. (PREFERRED)

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that more rapid VTR reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure
that fishery closures occur appropriately, there could be potentially low positive impacts. Such
closures could be related to directed fishery closures or mortality cap closures for non-target
species including RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
The number of total mackerel permits and the number of squid/butterfish incidental permits can
vary from month to month. Of the 2,622 vessels that have MSB permits in November 2011, 121
did not also have a weekly VTR reporting requirement from another permit (herring or NE
multispecies). Thus about 121 vessels would ultimately be subject to additional reporting
requirements because of this measure. This alternative would result in 40 (52 (weeks) -12
(months) = 40) additional VTR submissions per year for permit holders that don’t currently
submit weekly VTRs, resulting in additional mailing costs of $19.36 per year (40 x $ 0.44
postage) per permit holder. The 121 vessels encompass the same affected vessels from 1bMack
and 1bLong above (there is also some overlap between 1bMack and 1bLong).
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1. One specific advantage of this
alternative compared to 1b and 1c is that there would be uniformity of reporting in the MSB
FMP and other Northeast Region fisheries.

1d48. Require 48 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement. (PREFERRED)
This would be used to facilitate observer placement. If vessels did not notify they would not be
able to land more than an incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds).
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better observer data leads to more effective reduction of discards, and to the
degree that this alternative leads to better observer data collection, this alternative could lead to
positive impacts for non-target species. If a mortality cap on RH/S is implemented, obtaining a
complete list of trips to sample becomes very important to ensure that unbiased estimates can be
calculated.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This is similar to an initially 72-hour but now 48-hour trip notification requirement in the longfin
squid fishery that became effective in 2011 initially and became 48 hours in 2013. Fishermen
have reported that the 72-hour notification sometimes means they are unable to target fleeting
aggregations of longfin squid because they are not able to put to sea on short notice, especially if
they are selected to take an observer.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1d72. Require 72 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement.
This would be used to facilitate observer placement. If vessels did not notify they would not be
able to land more than incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds).
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better observer data leads to more effective reduction of discards, and to the
degree that this alternative leads to better observer data collection, this alternative could lead to
positive impacts for non-target species. If a mortality cap on RH/S is implemented, obtaining a
complete list of trips to sample becomes very important to ensure that unbiased estimates can be
calculated.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This is similar to an initially 72-hour but now 48-hour trip notification requirement in the longfin
squid fishery that became effective in 2011 initially and became 48 hours in 2013. Fishermen
have reported that the 72-hour notification sometimes means they are unable to target fleeting
aggregations of longfin squid because they are not able to put to sea on short notice, especially if
they are selected to take an observer.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1eMack. Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels. (PREFERRED)
Vessel Monitoring Systems are currently utilized in many New England fisheries. They are
generally used to facilitate compliance and enforcement of area-based management measures as
well as catch monitoring by means of a satellite connection between shore and a fixed electronic
unit installed on vessels.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If area-based management alternatives are eventually selected for purposes of reducing catch of
RH/S, VMS can be a useful tool for compliance/enforcement of area-based management. If
port-side sampling requirements are eventually selected for purposes of monitoring landings of
RH/S, VMS could also be used for compliance/enforcement if catch reporting via VMS is also
required (see 1fMack and 1gMack below). Having VMS is a prerequisite for VMS catch
reporting as well (see related alternatives below).
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Of the approximately 2,200 vessels that had open access mackerel permits at some point in 2011,
684 were not also required to have VMS. While not all of these vessels will qualify for mackerel
limited access (being implemented currently), 684 would be an upper bound on how many
vessels could have to buy new VMS units. Amendment 11 estimated that around 400 vessels
might qualify for limited access. If one maintains the ratio of open access boats (684/2,200 =
31%) that would need VMS for the 400 likely qualifiers for mackerel limited access, 31% of 400
equals 124 vessels that would actually need new VMS units. Since limited access qualifiers,
being more active participants, may be more likely to have other permits that require VMS, the
likely range is from somewhat lower than 124 up to 684. Until the final number of qualifiers is
determined it is not possible to further quantify the number of vessels that may require VMS
units under this provision. The costs to equip a vessel with a VMS are approximately $1,700$3,300, with operating costs for the unit of approximately $40-$100 per month. In addition, the
vessel would need a constant power source such as a generator, or access to dockside energy,
which would add to the costs.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1eLong. Require VMS for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels (see 1f and 1g
below). (PREFERRED)
Vessel Monitoring Systems are currently utilized in many New England fisheries. They are
generally used to facilitate compliance and enforcement of area-based management measures as
well as catch monitoring by means of a satellite connection between shore and a fixed electronic
unit installed on vessels.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If area-based management alternatives are eventually selected for purposes of reducing catch of
RH/S, VMS can be a useful tool for compliance/enforcement of area-based management. If
port-side sampling requirements are eventually selected for purposes of monitoring landings of
RH/S, VMS could also be used for compliance/enforcement if catch reporting via VMS is also
required (see 1fLong and 1gLong below). Having VMS is a prerequisite for VMS catch
reporting as well (see related alternatives below).
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Of the 351 vessels that had longfin squid//butterfish moratorium permits in 2011, 7 were not also
required to have VMS because of other permits and would have to equip their vessel with VMS
under this provision. The costs to equip a vessel with a VMS are approximately $1,700-$3,300,
with operating costs for the unit of approximately $40-$100 per month. In addition, the vessel
would need a constant power source such as a generator, or access to dockside energy, which
would add to the costs.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1fMack. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by limited access mackerel vessels so as to
facilitate monitoring (directed and/or unintentional catch) and cross checking with other
data sources. Requiring VMS (see 1eMack above) and requiring trip declarations (would
be a prerequisite for this alternative. (PREFERRED)
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If area-based management alternatives are eventually selected for purposes of reducing catch of
RH/S, VMS catch reporting can be a useful tool for compliance/enforcement of area-based
management. In high-volume fisheries like MSB, daily reporting of catch can also assist in the
effective and timely execution of fisheries closures.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This alternative could only be selected if 1eMack was also selected. VMS costs are discussed
under the 1eMack alternative. The cost of transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per
transmission.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1fLong. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by longfin squid moratorium permits so as
to facilitate monitoring (directed and/or unintended catch) and cross checking with other
data sources. Requiring VMS (see 1eLong above) and requiring trip declarations would be
a prerequisite for this alternative. (PREFERRED)

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If area-based management alternatives are eventually selected for purposes of reducing catch of
RH/S, VMS catch reporting can be a useful tool for compliance/enforcement of area-based
management. In high-volume fisheries like MSB, daily reporting of catch can also assist in the
effective and timely execution of fishery closures.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This alternative could only be selected if 1eLong was also selected. VMS costs are discussed
under the 1eLong alternative. The cost of transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per
transmission.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1gMack. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 20,000
pounds of mackerel, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside
monitoring. (PREFERRED)
This would be used to facilitate catch monitoring (directed or unintended catch), cross checking
with other data sources, and portside monitoring (if applicable).
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Pre-landing notifications could facilitate enforcement of landings limits, proper landings
reporting, and port-side monitoring.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This alternative could only be selected if 1eMack was also selected. VMS costs are discussed
under the 1eMack alternative. The cost of transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per
transmission.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

1gLong. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 2,500 pounds
of longfin squid, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside
monitoring.
This would be used to facilitate catch monitoring (directed or unintended catch), cross checking
with other data sources, and portside monitoring (if applicable).
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Pre-landing notifications could facilitate enforcement of landings limits, proper landings
reporting, and port-side monitoring.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This alternative could only be selected if 1eLong was also selected. VMS costs are discussed
under the 1eLong alternative. The cost of transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per
transmission.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

2.1.2 Alternative Set 2 – Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements may be insufficient to precisely
estimate RH/S catch. Also, practices on how landing weights are determined are not
standardized.
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates. While some of the focus may appear to be on mackerel and/or longfin squid
general reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries, because extrapolations are often
made based on total landings, accurate monitoring of the target species can be as important as
determining the encounter rates of RH/S. A summary of the key biological and human
community impacts (detailed in section 7) follows for each alternative.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Most of the Alternative Set 2 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 2c and 2d (weighing mackerel) would be
mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. Likewise, 2e and 2f (weighing longfin
squid) would be mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. 2g (dealers can use
volume to weight conversions) would modify 2c, 2d, 2e, or 2f so 2g could only be chosen if at
least one of those four alternatives was also chosen.
2a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 2 would be implemented and
the existing reporting measures (as described in section 5.2) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below.

2b. Require federally permitted MSB dealers to obtain vessel representative confirmation
of Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System transaction records for mackerel
landings over 20,000 lb, Illex landings over 10,000 lb, and longfin squid landings over 2,500
lb.
This would be accomplished by vessels via Fish Online, an existing internet-based program that
currently allows vessels to voluntarily check their landings records. Dealers would have to
confirm with vessels that a vessel representative had checked Fish Online to confirm landings.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Accurate landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded and for accurate stock
assessments. To the extent that landings data informs mortality caps, accurate landings data can
also be important for managing catch of non-target species including RH/S.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Since internet access is pervasive in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, either vessel owners or
their representative should be able to make an internet-based confirmation of dealer transactions
records without substantial cost. Improving records could benefit fishermen if additional
qualifications are ever considered for holding MSB permits.
2c. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document in dealer applications how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Accurate landings data is important to ensure that directed fishery quotas are not exceeded and
for accurate stock assessments. To the extent that directed landings informs mortality caps
(often substantially), accurate directed landings data can be important for managing catch of nontarget species including RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be low. Other dealers use volume to
weight conversions and could have to purchase scales. Purchasing a truck or hopper scale can
range up to $100,000 per installation or $50,000 per installation respectively while smaller scales
could be bought for several hundred dollars with a wide range in between. Smaller scales could
slow down processing however.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

2d. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document with each transaction how they estimated the relative composition of a mixed
catch. (PREFERRED)
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Accurate landings data is important to ensure that directed fishery quotas are not exceeded and
for accurate stock assessments. To the extent that directed landings informs mortality caps
(often substantially), accurate directed landings data can be important for managing catch of nontarget species including RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be low. Other dealers use volume to
weight conversions and could have to purchase scales. Purchasing a truck or hopper scale can
range up to $100,000 per installation or $50,000 per installation respectively while smaller scales
could be bought for several hundred dollars with a wide range in between. Smaller scales could
slow down processing however.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

2e. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document in dealer applications how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Accurate landings data is important to ensure that directed fishery quotas are not exceeded and
for accurate stock assessments. To the extent that directed landings informs mortality caps
(often substantially), accurate directed landings data can be important for managing catch of nontarget species including RH/S.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be low. Other dealers use volume to
weight conversions and could have to purchase scales. Purchasing a truck or hopper scale can
range up to $100,000 per installation or $50,000 per installation respectively while smaller scales
could be bought for several hundred dollars with a wide range in between. Smaller scales could
slow down processing however.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

2f. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document with each transaction how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
(PREFERRED)
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Accurate landings data is important to ensure that directed fishery quotas are not exceeded and
for accurate stock assessments. To the extent that directed landings informs mortality caps
(often substantially), accurate directed landings data can be important for managing catch of nontarget species including RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be low. Other dealers use volume to
weight conversions and could have to purchase scales. Purchasing a truck or hopper scale can
range up to $100,000 per installation or $50,000 per installation respectively while smaller scales
could be bought for several hundred dollars with a wide range in between. Smaller scales could
slow down processing however.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

2g. Related to preferred requirements to weigh all fish (2d, 2f), allow dealers to use volume
to weight conversions if they cannot weigh landings – they would need to identify their
conversion methods in their dealer application and explain why they cannot weigh all
landings. (PREFERRED)
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Accurate landings data is important to ensure that directed fishery quotas are not exceeded and
for accurate stock assessments. To the extent that directed landings informs mortality caps
(often substantially), accurate directed landings data can be important for managing catch of nontarget species including RH/S. Volume to weight conversions may not be as accurate as simple
weighing and this option could essentially make 2c-2f equivalent to the status quo (except for the
documentation provision) because dealers would no longer have a requirement to weigh all
landings.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact. This alternative would only be selected if 2c-2f
were chosen. Determining volume to weight ratios would be less expensive than purchasing
scales for those dealers that would need to do this, so compared to if 2c-2f were chosen alone,
impacts would be expected to be positive for those dealers. However to the extent that not
getting accurate measurements interferes with sustainable management, there could be long-term
negative impacts on managed and/or non-target species compared to if just 2d and 2f (the
relevant preferred alternatives) were implemented.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2.1.3 Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of observer monitoring requirements may be insufficient to precisely estimate
RH/S catch.
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
facilitate more accurate monitoring by observers with the overall goal of improving the precision
of RH/S catch estimates. Each alternative addresses an aspect of observer coverage that
potentially could be improved to ultimately lead to better RH/S estimates. A summary of the key
biological and human community impacts (detailed in section 7) follows for each alternative.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Many of the Alternative Set 3 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 3h (trip termination after 1 slipped haul)
and 3i (trip termination after 2 slipped hauls) would be mutually exclusive – only one would be
chosen if either. Likewise, 3k (fishery-wide slippage cap at 5 mackerel slippage events) and 3l
(fishery-wide slippage cap at 10 mackerel slippage events) would be mutually exclusive – only
one would be chosen if either. 3m (fishery-wide slippage cap at 5 longfin slippage events) and
3n (fishery-wide slippage cap at 10 longfin slippage events) are also mutually exclusive – only
one would be chosen if either. 3p would replace fishery-wide slippage caps with vessel slippage
caps and it would be expected that either 3p could be chosen or 3k-3n could be chosen (if any).
Also, if 3j (slippage prohibition with exceptions) was chosen then 3f or 3g could not be selected
(3f and 3g require all catch to be brought aboard but 3j provides some exceptions).
If alternatives 3f – 3p are selected for mackerel, they would also require the selection of
Alternative 1d48 (48-hr pre-trip notification) or 1d72 (72-hr pre-trip notification). There is
already a pre-trip notification requirement in effect for longfin squid moratorium permit holders.

3a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 3 would be implemented and
the existing monitoring measures (as described in section 5.3) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below.

3b. Require the following reasonable assistance measures: provision of a safe sampling
station; help with measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; help with fish collection;
and help with basket sample collection by crew on vessels with mackerel limited access
and/or longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits. Requirements can be modified via
the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the
DEIS and clarifies that the requirements may be modified through the annual
specifications process.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Such assistance could help improve observer data by allowing the observer to focus on technical
aspects of observing such as species identification, weighing, measuring, etc. To the degree that
such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to
non-target species, including RH/S. Most vessels do most of these things already so impacts
would be low.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts should be negligible as most vessels provide such assistance voluntarily.

3c. Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when pumping/haul-back occurs
on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits.
Requirements can be modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the
DEIS and clarifies that the requirements may be modified through the annual
specifications process.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Such notification could help improve observer data by making sure the observer is aware of all
sampling opportunities. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Most
vessels do most of these things already so impacts would be low.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts should be negligible as most vessels provide such assistance voluntarily.

3d. When observers are deployed on trips involving more than one vessel, observers would
be required on any vessel taking on fish wherever/whenever possible on vessels with
mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits. Requirements can be
modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the
DEIS and clarifies that the requirements may be modified through the annual
specifications process.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels are working in pairs conducting pair trawling or other types of fishing (e.g. using purse
seines or carrier vessels) where both vessels are receiving fish, having observers on both vessels
ensures that all catch from the pair trawling trip is observed. To the degree that such data is used
to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species,
including RH/S. The observer program usually does this already so impacts would be low.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
This is generally occurring already (pers com Amy VanAtten). To the extent that it is not,
NMFS would have to spend additional funds on observers, or if industry funding is approved in
this amendment pair-trawl vessels would always have to arrange for two observers.
3e. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require slippage reports - “Released Catch Affidavits” from captains on observed trips if
they slip a haul.
Slippage is an important concept in this amendment and is defined as:
Unobserved catch, i.e., catch that is discarded prior to being observed, sorted, sampled, and/or
brought on board the fishing vessel. Slippage can include the release of fish from a codend or
seine prior to completion of pumping or the release of an entire catch or bag while the catch is
still in the water.
• Fish that cannot be pumped and that remain in the net at the end of pumping operations
are considered to be operational discards and not slipped catch. Observer protocols
include documenting fish that remain in the net in a discard log before they are released,
and existing regulations require vessel operators to assist the observer in this process.
Management measures are under consideration in this amendment to address this issue
and improve the observers’ ability to inspect nets after pumping to document operational
discards.
• Discards that occur at-sea after catch brought on board and sorted are also not
considered slipped catch.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
This alternative would be used to improve the quality of data collected by observers by
developing a better understanding of slippage events. To the degree that such data is used to
better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species,
including RH/S. Since there no direct incentive not to slip impacts should be low. If a “trip
termination because of slippage” alternative was selected (see below), the slippage reports could
also be used by enforcement to determine if vessels had terminated appropriately after reaching
the trigger number of slippage events.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Minimal impacts would be expected. Vessel captains would have to fill out a form explaining
the reason for any slipped hauls.

3f. Prohibit vessels with Mackerel limited access permits that have notified for a mackerel
trip and are carrying an observer from releasing any discards before they have been
brought aboard for sampling by the observer.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Some fishing time may be lost because nets have to be fully brought aboard after each haul.
Also, this alternative could create safety problems if a vessel attempts to bring aboard a catch
and/or net in dangerous conditions. The observer program reports that most vessels are already
doing this a majority of the time on a voluntary basis (pers com Amy VanAtten).
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3g. Prohibit vessels with longfin squid moratorium permits that have notified for a longfin
squid trip and are carrying an observer from releasing any discards before they have been
brought aboard for sampling by the observer.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Some fishing time may be lost because nets have to be fully brought aboard after each haul.
Also, this alternative could create safety problems if a vessel attempts to bring aboard a catch
and/or net in dangerous conditions. The observer program reports that most vessels are already
doing this a majority of the time on a voluntary basis.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.
3h. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require trip termination following 1 slipped haul on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip any hauls on an observed trip so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. It would apply to vessels that had notified for a mackerel or longfin squid trip.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
It is difficult to predict the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of safety issues
and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety could be

reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they might
have made on the rest of the trip. Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant
responses, the diversity of trips types, and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul
might occur, it is not possible to further quantify revenue impacts related to this alternative.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3i. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require trip termination following 2 slipped hauls on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip 2 hauls on an observed trip so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. It would apply to vessels that had notified for a mackerel or longfin squid trip.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
It is difficult to predict the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of safety issues
and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety could be
reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they might
have made on the rest of the trip. Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant
responses, the diversity of trips types, and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul
might occur, it is not possible to further quantify revenue impacts related to this alternative.
Negative socioeconomic impacts would presumably be less than with 3h where just a single
slippage event causes a trip termination.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3j. With the exceptions noted below, mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid
moratorium permitted vessels that have notified the observer program of their intent to
land over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid or over 20,000 pounds of mackerel and have been
selected to carry an observer would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net
for inspection and sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be
required to bring all fish aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer.
Vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net (slippage), transferring fish to
another vessel (that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer), or otherwise discarding
fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel and made available for
sampling and inspection by the observer.
Exceptions: 1) pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel/crew
2) mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch
aboard the vessel; or
3) spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent
pumping of the rest of the catch.
If a net is released, including the exemptions above, the vessel operator would be
required to complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information
about where, when, and why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of
the total weight of fish caught on the tow and weight of fish released. Released
Catch Affidavits must be submitted within 48 hours of completion of the trip.
Exemptions and provisions of this measure can be modified via the annual
specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the DEIS
and clarifies that the exemptions and provisions of this requirement may be modified through the
annual specifications process.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Vessel captains would have to fill out a form explaining the reason for any slipped hauls. Since
there are no termination provisions in this particular alternative, there should be negligible
impacts.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3k. Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 5 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage
events on any notified and observed Mackerel trip would result in trip termination fleetwide for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once 5 slippage events have occurred overall in a year by vessels declaring
mackerel trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
It is difficult to predict the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. If less than 5 slippage events occur the impacts may be negligible. Once
terminations are triggered, some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and
the only extra cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of safety
issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety could
be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they might
have made on the rest of the trip. Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant
responses, the variety of trip types, and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might
occur, it is not possible to further quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3l. Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage
events on any notified and observed Mackerel trip would result in trip termination fleetwide for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events. The only slippages
that would count against the cap are non-emergency events, so the exceptions 1, 2, and 3 in
3j would not count against the slippage cap. Operational discards (small quantities of fish
that remain in the net) that are made available to the observer for visual access prior to
discarding would also not count against the slippage cap. Requirements and provisions of
the measure can be modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once 10 non-exempt slippage events have occurred overall in a year by vessels
declaring mackerel trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events. The double
underlined section is a minor modification from the original alternative in the DEIS and clarifies
what kind of slippage events would count against the cap and allows the requirements and
provisions of the cap to be modifiable via the annual specifications process.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
It is difficult to predict the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. If less than 10 slippage events occur the impacts may be negligible. Once
terminations are triggered, some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and
the only extra cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of safety
issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety could
be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they might
have made on the rest of the trip. Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant
responses, the variety of trip types, and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might
occur, it is not possible to further quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative.
Negative socioeconomic impacts would presumably be less than with 3k where 5 slippage events
triggers trip terminations upon additional slippages.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3m. Related to 3j, for longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 5 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid trips then subsequent
slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip would result in trip
termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events.

This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once 5 slippage events have occurred overall in a trimester by vessels declaring
longfin squid trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
It is difficult to predict the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. If less than 5 slippage events occur per trimester the impacts may be
negligible. Once terminations are triggered, some vessels may just not slip where they would
have previously, and the only extra cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously
because of safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then
vessel/crew safety could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the
value of catch they might have made on the rest of the trip. Because of the impossibility of
predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types, and the impossibility of
predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further quantify socio-economic
impacts related to this alternative.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3n. Related to 3j, for longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid trips then subsequent
slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip would result in trip
termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events.

This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once 10 slippage events have occurred overall in a trimester by vessels
declaring longfin squid trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
It is difficult to predict the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. If less than 10 slippage events occur per trimester the impacts may be
negligible. Once terminations are triggered, some vessels may just not slip where they would
have previously, and the only extra cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously
because of safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then
vessel/crew safety could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the
value of catch they might have made on the rest of the trip. Because of the impossibility of
predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types, and the impossibility of
predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further quantify socio-economic
impacts related to this alternative. Negative socioeconomic impacts would presumably be less
than with 3m where 5 slippage events per trimester triggers trip terminations upon additional
slippages.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3o. For mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels, if a trip is terminated within 24
hours because of any of the anti-slippage provisions (3g, 3h, 3k-3n), then the relevant vessel
would have to take an observer on its next trip.
This would reduce a vessel’s incentive to slip a haul early in a trip in order to cause a trip
termination and thereby avoid having an observer on board for an extended trip.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
This alternative would seek to discourage observer avoidance strategies so that data can be
obtained on the composition of typical trips. To the degree that such data is used to better
minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Vessels may experience reduced revenue and/or higher costs due to waiting for another observer
or due to paying for another observer if an industry-funded observer program is in place.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

3p. Allow mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels to be assigned an annual quota
(set during specifications) of slippage events related to 3j, specified annually. Once their
slippage quota was reached, vessels would have to terminate an observed trip as well as
upon any slippage event on subsequent observed trips for the remainder of the calendar
year.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once a certain number of slippage events have occurred annually by that same
vessel. While this is more intensive to track (by vessel versus by fleet), the advantage is that one
vessel is not penalized for another vessel’s slippage event.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If vessels being observed can release catch without it being recorded, observer data will be
biased. Avoiding such events would improve the observer data and any analysis or management
measures that depend on observer data, including reducing catch of non-target species including
RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
This alternative would allow the Council to consider implementing slippage triggers for trip
termination upon additional slippage events at the individual vessel level. The advantage of
having the slippage quota be vessel based is that vessels have a direct incentive to minimize
unnecessary slippage events to save their slippage quota for when they really need it (e.g. due to
safety issues) and thereby avoid situations where subsequent slippage events result in forced trip
terminations. Trip terminations could still occur however.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2.1.4 Alternative Set 4 - Port-side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements are insufficient to precisely estimate
RH/S catch.
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates.
From a practical standpoint, it is more efficient to subsample the landings of river herring and
other non-target species when a mackerel vessel reaches the dock than when it is at sea. Discards
that occur at sea of non-target species are easier to monitor than are the landed fractions that go
into the hold due to the large volumes that go into the hold. Dockside sampling could have
higher sampling rates to better characterize the species in retained catch and an entire catch could
be evaluated in one day or less as opposed to having a person at sea for multiple days. This
option does not mean that at sea monitors are unnecessary – they are essential to monitor
discards. However, since most RH/S are retained (esp. for mackerel trips), portside sampling
could increase sampling coverage from current levels with lower costs than at-sea observers. For
longfin squid trips the preceding discussion probably does not apply because most RH/S are
discarded so they are not available dockside.
Several other sampling/monitoring alternatives are also included in the Alternative Set as
described below including alternatives to require volumetric hold certification of Tier 3 mackerel
limited access permits and longfin squid moratorium permit holders. While in Amendment 11
the fish hold certification was primarily for purposes of capacity control (not allowing vessels to
reconfigure to have substantially larger fish holds), in this Amendment the measure is being
considered for purposes of facilitating rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for
portside sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
There is also an ongoing voluntary project by industry to use fleet communication to avoid river
herring hotspots. Since this project uses extensive post-side sampling it was included in this
Alternative Set – the relevant alternative in this document just commits the Council to consider
the project’s results once completed to determine potential management implications. A
summary of the key biological and human community impacts (detailed in section 7) follows for
each alternative.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in this Alternative Set could be
implemented singly or in combination with any other alternative(s) in this Alternative Set.

4a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 4 would be implemented and
the existing monitoring measures (as described in section 5.4) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below.
4b. Require industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling program (including
total weight documentation) for mackerel landings over 20,000 pounds. Required coverage
levels would be specified annually during specifications. NEFSC would accredit samplers
and manage the program/data. Vessels would contract directly with providers and pay
providers directly. If selected, vessels would have to wait until their sampler arrived unless
a waiver is obtained from the observer program.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better incidental landings data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Non-target
species would also benefit if the costs of monitoring generally discouraged effort which would
reduce interactions.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Dockside monitors for groundfish cost $50-$70/hr and each trip would only require 1 sampling
event compared to the $800/day of at-sea samplers (plus $400 in administrative costs). Different
sized vessels would have different costs for offload monitoring due to different hold sizes and
processor offload speeds, but a 6-14 hour offload from a 3-5 day trip would costs $300-$980 for
dockside monitoring versus $3,600-$6,000 for observer costs. If the Council required 25%,
50%, 75%, or 100% of trips to be monitored then participants would have to pay for
approximately that percentage of their trips to be monitored unless additional funds are available.
Revenue information for different mackerel vessels/trips is available in Alternative Set 5 below.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

4c. Require industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling program (including total
weight documentation) for longfin squid landings over 2,500 pounds. Required coverage
levels would be specified annually during specifications. NEFSC would accredit samplers
and manage the program/data. Vessels would contract directly with providers and pay
provider directly. If selected, vessels would have to wait until their sampler arrived unless
a waiver is obtained from the observer program.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better incidental landings data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. However,
since most RH/S caught on longfin squid trips are discarded rather than retained, portside
sampling is probably would not be an effective way to obtain RH/S catch information. Nontarget species would benefit if the costs of monitoring generally discouraged effort which would
reduce interactions.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Dockside monitors for groundfish cost $50-$70/hr and each trip would only require 1 sampling
event compared to the $800/day of at-sea samplers (plus $400 in administrative costs). Different
sized vessels would have different costs for offload monitoring due to different hold sizes and
processor offload speeds, but a 6-14 hour offload from a 3-5 day trip would costs $300-$980 for
dockside monitoring versus $3,600-$6,000 for observer costs. If the Council required 25%,
50%, 75%, or 100% of trips to be monitored then participants would have to pay for
approximately that percentage of their trips to be monitored unless additional funds are available.
Revenue information for different mackerel vessels/trips is available in Alternative Set 5.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

4d. Require volumetric vessel-hold certification for Tier 3 limited access mackerel permits
and specify a volume to weight conversion.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
This alternative could facilitate rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for portside
sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
To the degree that better incidental landings data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Informal contacts by council staff with several marine surveyors during the Amendment 11
development process revealed that a fish hold measurement could run approximately $13.30-$40
per foot of vessel length, which could range from as low as $1,000 for a 75 foot vessel to as high
as $6,000 for a 150 foot vessel, not including travel expenses. To the extent that surveys are
already required for insurance purposes these costs may be already part of a vessels operating
costs. Industry members have communicated to Council staff that, while some smaller vessels
are configured in a way that could facilitate hold certifications (the refrigerated seawater or
“tank” boats), many vessels that participate in a “fresh” product fishery are not configured in a
way that facilitates a certification of a fixed hold capacity.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

4e. Require volumetric vessel-hold certification for longfin squid moratorium permits and
specify a volume to weight conversion.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
This alternative could facilitate rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for portside
sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
To the degree that better incidental landings data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
Informal contacts by council staff with several marine surveyors revealed that a fish hold
measurement could run approximately $13.30-$40 per foot of vessel length, which could range
from as low as $1,000 for a 75 foot vessel to as high as $6,000 for a 150 foot vessel, not
including travel expenses. To the extent that surveys are already required for insurance purposes
these costs may be already part of a vessels operating costs. Industry members have
communicated to Council staff that, while some longfin squid vessels are configured in a way
that could facilitate hold certifications (the refrigerated seawater or “tank” boats), many vessels
that participate in a “fresh” product fishery are not configured in a way that facilitates a
certification of a fixed hold capacity.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

4f. Within 6 months of the completion of the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition RH/S
avoidance project (expected late 2013), the Council will meet to formally review the results
and consider the appropriateness of developing a framework adjustment to implement any
additional catch avoidance strategies that are suggested by the results of the Sustainable
Fisheries Coalition avoidance project. (PREFERRED)
This would commit the Council to consider the findings from this project as they could apply to
reducing the catch of RH/S in pelagic fisheries. Full details on this project are included in
Appendix 7, but generally the project is testing if oceanographic and fishery data can be used to
help industry avoid potential RH/S hotspots. Implementing measures similar to this project (i.e.
making participation mandatory) would be a frameworkable action.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
No immediate impacts would be expected. This would ensure that the Council considers the
findings from this project as they could apply to reducing the catch of river herrings and/or shads
in pelagic fisheries. Impacts would not be known until completion of the Sustainable Fisheries
Coalition avoidance project and alternatives were developed, which would be subsequently
analyzed and considered separately.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
No immediate impacts would be expected. There are no costs associated with considering the
results of the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition avoidance project. If the project revealed a way for
industry to cooperatively and voluntarily avoid RH/S such work could lead to a cost-efficient
way to reduce RH/S interactions. Any potential actions would be subsequently analyzed and
considered separately.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2.1.5 Alternative Set 5 – At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements is insufficient to precisely estimate
RH/S catch.
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates. The focus of these alternatives is on increasing the observer coverage rates of
mackerel and longfin squid trips. Implementation of mandatory coverage would require a trip
notification provision to be implemented as well (see Alternative Set 1). NMFS has strongly
communicated that the at-sea portion of any additional observer coverage would have to be paid
for by industry. A summary of the key biological and human community impacts (detailed in
section 7) follows for each alternative.
NOTE ON C.V.s (coefficient of variation): A C.V. of 0.30 means that the true value has
approximately a 95% probability of being within ± 60% of the estimate. A C.V. of 0.20 means
that the true value has approximately a 95% probability of being within ± 40% of the estimate
(both assuming a normal distribution of data). Also, since some sources of uncertainty are not
integrated into the C.V. calculations, the C.V.s generated by the science center are lower (look
better) than they really are. As described in Section 5, since obtaining a given C.V. can require
very different coverage levels from year to year, and the inter-annual variability in the data
drives the precision, it may be quite difficult to consistently obtain precise catch estimates via
observer data when the coverage levels are determined from prior years’ data (as occurred with
the SBRM).
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Only one of the 5b (observer coverage for mackerel mid-water
trawl) alternatives could be chosen. Likewise, only one of the 5c (observer coverage for
mackerel small mesh bottom trawl) and one of the 5d (observer coverage for longfin squid small
mesh bottom trawl) alternatives could be chosen. One alternative from each of these could be
selected (a total of three). 5e1 and 5e2 (strata-fleet alternatives for mid-water trawl) are mutually
exclusive as are 5e3 and 5e4 (strata-fleet alternatives for small mesh bottom trawl) but one
alternative from the first pair could be chosen with one from the second pair. If any of the 5e
alternatives were chosen, they would not be combinable with any of the 5b, 5c, or 5d alternatives
(coverage could be based on a set percentage of trips or a set target coefficients of variation
(C.V.s) but not both). 5f, 5g, and 5h provide for industry funding and review of the increased
observer coverage levels proposed in 5b-5e so they could be added on to any of the other action
alternatives.
If any measure in this Alternative Set is selected for mackerel, the Council would also need to
select Alternative 1d48 (48-hr pre-trip notification) or 1d72 (72-hr pre-trip notification). There
is already a pre-trip notification requirement in effect for longfin squid moratorium permit
holders.

5a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 5 would be implemented and
the existing observer measures (as described in section 5.5) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below.
5b. Mackerel Mid-Water Trawl (MWT)
Coverage of this fleet has historically primarily occurred because of the winter mixing of the
herring and mackerel fisheries as opposed to focusing on the mackerel fishery. The subalternatives below would require a range of percentage-based coverage levels to improve
coverage from the very low levels currently occurring and improve catch estimation.
5b1. Require 25% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5b2. Require 50% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5b3. Require 75% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5b4. Recommend 100% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel. (PREFERRED)
Note: Require was also changed to recommend since the Council makes
recommendations to NMFS.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Coverage of this fishery has historically been low, leading to low precision of RH/S catch
estimates. Higher coverage would lead to better precision. To the degree that better data is used

to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species,
including RH/S. Since mackerel trips do not comprise all MWT activity, one can not specify the
precision for RH/S catches in MWT gear if only mackerel trips increase observer coverage.
Details on expected precision if all MWT activity achieved the above coverage levels can be
found in Section 7. Non-target species would also benefit if the costs of coverage generally
discouraged effort which would reduce interactions.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
NMFS has strongly communicated that the at-sea portion of any additional observer coverage
would have to be paid for by industry. The at-sea cost of observers in the Northeast region is
about $800 per day at sea while NMFS incurs about $400/day in administrative costs. The
alternatives recommended by the Council for industry funding specify that vessels would pay
$325/day toward the cost of observers to meet the Council's goals. Since different vessels have
different average trip lengths and trip length varies by trip it is not possible to describe the
impact on any given vessel. However, cost data collected through the observer program was
used to estimate the increase in daily trip costs that $325/day would cause for MWT mackerel
trips:
-9% for single MWT mackerel trips ($3,494 to $3,819)
-12% for paired MWT mackerel trips ($2,602 to $2,927)
The average trip cost values cited in this analysis include variable costs such as fuel, oil, ice,
food, fishing supplies, vessel/gear damages, and water but do not include crew shares/wages,
dockage fees, or boat mortgage payments. Trip costs were estimated based on 2010 observer
data. These are the larger, higher-volume vessels – smaller vessels that start off with lower costs
would see a higher percentage increase.
While the per-trip costs are most relevant to vessels, total costs can also be considered. Since
coverage in this alternative would be related to 20,000 pound mackerel trips, 2006-2010 VTR
data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on midwater trawl
trips that kept 20,000 pounds or more of mackerel. These trips averaged 643 sea days each year
ranging from 272 in 2010 to 926 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average seadays
(643) were observed it would require 161, 322, 482, and 643 days respectivly. Multiplying these
days by $325/day results in at-sea costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage of the average
seadays of approximatley $0.05 million, $0.10 million, $0.16 million, and $0.21 million per year
respectivly. Multiplying these days by $400/day results in administrative costs for 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of approximatley $0.06 million, $0.13 million,
$0.19 million, and $0.26 million per year respectivly.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

5c. Mackerel Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT)
A very small percentage of mackerel trips are observed overall. The sub-alternatives below
would require a range of percentage-based coverage levels to improve coverage from the very
low levels currently occurring and improve catch estimation. Analysis in the document relates
these coverage levels to potential ranges of uncertainty that would result from such coverage
levels.
5c1. Require 25% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5c2. Require 50% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5c3. Require 75% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5c4. Recommend the following observer coverages percentages for mackerel limited
access vessels intending to fish for or retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel when
using small mesh (<3.5 inches) bottom trawl gear: Tier 1: 100%; Tier 2: 50%; Tier
3: 25%. The NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels
would not be able to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had
notified their intent to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
(PREFERRED)

Note: The double underlined section highlights a modification from the original
alternative in the DEIS. 5c4 has been modified to essentially combine 5c1, 5c2, and the
original 5c4 by applying higher coverage levels for the higher tier vessels and lower
coverage levels for the lower tier vessels. Since the original alternatives considered 25%100% coverage applied to all mackerel permitted vessels, the modified alternative is
within the scope of the alternatives considered in the DEIS. The rationale is that the
vessels accounting for most mackerel landings should have the highest levels of coverage
and other vessels would have coverage in proportion to their potential landings. Require
was also changed to recommend since the Council makes recommendations to NMFS.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Coverage of this fishery has historically been low, leading to low precision of RH/S catch
estimates. Higher coverage would lead to better precision. To the degree that better data is used
to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species,
including RH/S. Since mackerel trips comprise a small part of SMBT activity, one can not
specify the precision for RH/S catches in SMBT gear if only mackerel trips increase observer
coverage. Details on expected precision if all SMBT activity achieved the above coverage levels
can be found in Section 7. Non-target species would also benefit if the costs of coverage
generally discouraged effort which would reduce interactions.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
NMFS has strongly communicated that the at-sea portion of any additional observer coverage
would have to be paid for by industry. The at-sea cost of observers in the Northeast region is
about $800 per day at sea while NMFS incurs about $400/day in administrative costs. The
alternatives recommended by the Council for industry funding specify that vessels would pay
$325/day toward the cost of observers to meet the Council's goals. Since different vessels have
different average trip lengths and trip length varies by trip it is not possible to describe the
impact on any given vessel. However, cost data collected through the observer program was
used to estimate the increase in daily trip costs that $325/day would cause for higher volume
SMBT mackerel trips:
-20% for higher volume SMBT mackerel trips ($1,639 to $1,964)
The average trip cost values cited in this analysis include variable costs such as fuel, oil, ice,
food, fishing supplies, vessel/gear damages, and water but do not include crew shares/wages,
dockage fees, or boat mortgage payments. Trip costs were estimated based on 2010 observer
data. These are the larger, higher-volume vessels – smaller vessels that start off with lower costs
would see a higher percentage increase.
While the per trip costs are most relevant to vessels, total costs can also be considered. Since
coverage in this alternative would be related to 20,000 pound mackerel trips, 2006-2010 VTR
data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on SMBT trips that
kept 20,000 pounds or more of mackerel. These trips averaged 172 sea days each year ranging
from 113 in 2009 to 286 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average seadays (172) were
observed it would require 43, 86, 129, and 172 days respectivly. Multiplying these days by
$325/day results in at-sea costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of
approximatley $0.01 million ($14,000), $0.03 million, $0.04 million, and $0.06 million per year
respectivly. Multiplying these days by $400/day results in administrative costs for 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of approximatley $0.02 million, $0.03 million,
$0.05 million, and $0.07 million per year respectivly.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

5d. Longfin Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT)
While coverage has increased in 2011 related to the implementation of the butterfish mortality
cap on the longfin squid fishery, a small percentage of longfin squid trips have been observed
historically. The sub-alternatives below would require a range of percentage-based coverage
levels to improve coverage from the very low levels currently occurring and improve catch
estimation. Analysis in the document relates these coverage levels to potential ranges of
uncertainty that would result from such coverage levels.

5d1. Require 25% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d2. Require 50% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d3. Require 75% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d4. Require 100% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels
intending to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The
NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be
able to retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their
intent to retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Coverage of this fishery has historically been low, leading to low precision of RH/S catch
estimates. Higher coverage would lead to better precision. To the degree that better data is used
to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species,
including RH/S. Since longfin squid trips do not comprise all SMBT activity, one can not
specify the precision for RH/S catches in SMBT gear if only longfin squid trips increase
observer coverage. Details on expected precision if all SMBT activity achieved the above
coverage levels can be found in Section 7. Non-target species would also benefit if the costs of
coverage generally discouraged effort which would reduce interactions.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
NMFS has strongly communicated that the at-sea portion of any additional observer coverage
would have to be paid for by industry. The at-sea cost of observers in the Northeast region is
about $800 per day at sea while NMFS incurs about $400/day in administrative costs. The
alternatives recommended by the Council for industry funding specify that vessels would pay
$325/day toward the cost of observers to meet the Council's goals. Since different vessels have
different average trip lengths and trip length varies by trip it is not possible to describe the
impact on any given vessel. However, cost data collected through the observer program was
used to estimate the increase in daily trip costs that $325/day would cause:
-35% for higher volume SMBT longfin squid trips ($939 to $1,264)
-77% for lower volume SMBT longfin squid trips ($424 to $749)
The average trip cost values cited in this analysis include variable costs such as fuel, oil, ice,
food, fishing supplies, vessel/gear damages, and water but do not include crew shares/wages,
dockage fees, or boat mortgage payments. Trip costs are based on 2010 observer data.
While the per trip costs are most relevant to vessels, total costs can also be considered. Since
coverage in this alternative would be related to 2,500 pound longfin squid trips, 2006-2010 VTR
data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on SMBT trips that
kept 2,500 pounds or more of longfin squid. These trips averaged 5,357 sea days each year
ranging from 3,932 in 2010 to 6,743 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average
seadays (5,357) were observed it would require 1339, 2678, 4017, and 5,357 sea days
respectivly. Multiplying these days by $325/day results in at-sea costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or
100% coverage of the average seadays of approximatley $0.4 million, $0.9 million, $1.3 million,
and $1.7 million per year respectivly. Multiplying these days by $400/day results in
administrative costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of
approximatley $0.5 million, $1.1 million, $1.6 million, and $2.1 million per year respectivly.
However, there may be returns to scale in the sense that at higher coverage levels NMFS
marginal costs may become less than $400/day.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

5e. Strata-Fleet-Based Alternatives
Analysis performed for the amendment and detailed in Section 7 suggests that around 65%
coverage could result in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 90% coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V. goal
for Mid-Atlantic MWT for alewife and blueback. Also, for small mesh bottom trawl, around
40% coverage could result in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 60% coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V.
goal for alewife and blueback. This was determined by averaging the required sea days from
2009-2010 for these goals, and then comparing those averages with total average days at sea for
relevant trips from VTR data, 2009-2010. However it is emphasized that from year to year it
will be very hard to hit a particular C.V. target due to the inherent variability from year to year in
both the directed fisheries involved and their catch of river herrings. Since one cannot predict
which years will require the highest coverage, some years would likely be over covered and
some years would be under covered if coverage rates are determined by the previous year’s data.
Note: This alternative has a major implementation issue in that NMFS has said it will not
approve increased observer coverage that is not funded by industry but the MAFMC
cannot compel all fisheries by gear type to pay for observer coverage (only its own).
The following sub-alternatives would require coverage levels that would be expected to result in
the specified C.V. levels for river herrings. Shad were not included because very high coverage
levels would be required to achieve the respective C.V.s due to lower encounter rates.
5e1. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that Mid-Atlantic alewife and
blueback catch C.V.s for MWT would each be expected to be at or below 0.30.
5e2. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that Mid-Atlantic alewife and
blueback catch C.V.s for MWT would each be expected to be at or below 0.20.
5e3. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that alewife and blueback catch C.V.s
for SMBT would each be expected to be at or below 0.30.
5e4. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that alewife and blueback catch C.V.s
for SMBT would each be expected to be at or below 0.20.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be
positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Non-target species would also benefit if
the costs of coverage generally discouraged effort which would reduce interactions.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
The approximate cost for an observer is $800/day. In addition to at-sea costs, NMFS has
estimated that it incurs approximately $400/day in administrative costs related to each additional
day at sea.
Compared to the approximate sea days provided in 2010, achieving a 0.3 C.V. for both blueback
herring and alewife in the Mid-Atlantic for MWT would require 232-476 extra sea days (costing
about $0.2-$0.4 million) and achieving a 0.2 C.V. for both blueback herring and alewife in the
Mid-Atlantic for MWT would require 686-344 extra sea days (costing about $0.3-$0.5 million),
with at sea costs being $800/day. Administrative costs to NMFS would equal an additional 50%
of the at-sea costs ($400/day). The range is related to the fact that C.V.s vary from year to year
related to variation in the underlying data.
Compared to the approximate sea days provided in 2010, achieving a 0.3 C.V. for both blueback
herring and alewife in the SMBT (Mid-Atlantic and New England) would require 1,410-2,478
extra sea days (costing about $1.1-$2.0 million) and achieving a 0.2 C.V. for both blueback
herring and alewife in the Mid-Atlantic for MWT would require 2,850-3,757 extra sea days
(costing about $2.3-$3.0 million), with at sea costs being $800/day. Administrative costs to
NMFS would equal an additional 50% of the at-sea costs ($400/day). The range is related to the
fact that C.V.s vary from year to year related to variation in the underlying data.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

5f. Vessels would have to pay $325 (modifiable via specifications) for observers when they
carry observers to meet the observer coverage goals adopted by the Council in 5b4 and
5c4. NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay
observers. (PREFERRED)
Note: This alternative represents a modification from the original alternative in the DEIS. In the
original alternative, vessels had to pay the full cost of observer days beyond the standard NMFSestablished coverage. The Council modified this alternative such that vessels selected for
coverage would have to pay $325 per day to fund the overall observer goals. Since the original
alternative considered full industry funding of the required observer days, this is within the range
between no funding and full funding. The original DEIS analyzed industry paying for 100% of
the at-sea cost ($800) of all related observer trips due to the possibility of reduced federal
funding of observers in the future, so having all observed trips pay only $325 lies in between the
no action and the original alternative.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Biological impacts should be independent of who pays for data.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
See 5b-5e above.

5g. Phase-in industry funding over 4 years such that to achieve the target coverage selected
in 4b-4e above, NMFS would pay for 100%, 75%, 50%, then 25% of the at-sea portion of
the specified observer coverage (NOTE: NMFS has indicated this is not feasible from a
funding point of view).
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Biological impacts should be independent of who pays for data.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Alternatives 5b-5e above compare the cost of observer coverage relative to different coverage
levels and precision targets. In the short term cost-sharing with NMFS would make the
economic impacts less but would not have an impact on the long term. For this alternative, if
NMFS paid 100% of the observer coverage there would be negligible socio-economic impacts.
For the phase in years, the impacts per trip would be the same as described above, but the
number of trips for which industry would have to pay for observers would be less, at least
initially.

5h. Require reevaluation of coverage requirement after 2 years to determine if catch rates
justify continued expense of continued high coverage rates. (PREFERRED)

The Council would conduct an examination of the results of any higher coverage rates
implemented through this action and consider if adjustments to the coverage rates are warranted.
Depending on the results and desired actions, subsequent action could be accomplished via
specifications, a framework adjustment, or an Amendment as appropriate.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
No immediate impacts would be expected. Any potential follow-up actions would be
subsequently analyzed and considered separately.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
No immediate impacts would be expected. Any potential follow-up actions would be
subsequently analyzed and considered separately.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2.1.6 Alternative Set 6 - Mortality Caps
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
There are currently no limits on catch of RH/S in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries
other than state landing requirements.
The alternatives would seek to directly limit the mortality of the relevant RH/S species in the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. While the actual mortality cap quantities would be
determined during the specifications process just as annual ACLs/AMs are set, this document
explores a range of options so that likely impacts may be evaluated. The range of mortality cap
quantities would be evaluated in an environmental assessment during the specifications process
(though without comprehensive RH/S assessments it is not possible to determine if any particular
quantity of RH/S catch is sustainable). The following values are primarily provided to give the
reader a sense of impacts from a range of mortality caps that will be investigated in greater depth
during the specifications process. A summary of the key biological and human community
impacts (detailed in section 7) follows for each alternative. It is possible that a single cap for
RH/S combined may be used to implement the preferred alternatives 6b and 6c if the Council
chooses to do so via the annual specifications.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in this Alternative Set could be
implemented singly or in combination with any other alternative(s) in this Alternative Set.
6a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 6 would be implemented and
the existing state management measures (as described in section 5.9) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below.

6b. Implement a mortality cap for river herrings for the mackerel fishery whereby the
mackerel fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of river
herring mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification
process unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be
involved in ABC setting for RH/S). (PREFERRED)
One way to assign mortality caps for river herring would be to base it on the range of estimated
river herring mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic
mid-water trawl (MWT) fishing in Quarter 1, which is largely but not completely mackerel
fishing, accounted for 35% of total river herring mortality 2005-2010. MWT fishing in Quarter
1 is mixed, with mackerel comprising over 50 % of the landings, but herring making up a large
amount of landings in January (see Figure 21A of Appendix 2). The table below describes total
ocean and quarter 1 mid-water trawl mortalities in the leftmost columns.

Table 1. Example River Herring Caps For Mackerel

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

245
664
672
361
244

Mid-Water Trawl
Quarter 1 mortality
(mt) (35% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
86
232
235
126
85

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.86%
9,975
27,029
27,333
14,679
9,911

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.45%
19,063
51,656
52,237
28,053
18,940

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.02%
428,908
1,162,263
1,175,335
631,190
426,160

Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 50% or at least 100,000 pounds of mackerel
(encompasses almost all landings) results in annual river herring mortality ratios from 0.02% in
2007 to .86% in 2009 with a mean of 0.45. If these values were used with the above range of
mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be
harvested by trips as defined above before the mackerel fishery was shut down by the river
herring mortality cap is illustrated in the rightmost 3 columns depending of the ratio of river
herring. The main point is that whether mackerel would close because of a cap would depend on
how much the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of river herring was,
and what the mackerel availability was. In the above table the range of caps is just a percentage
of the observed catch over the years 2006-2010. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially
from year to year, it is not possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some
years a closure could come very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If a cap was set low enough to shut the directed fishery down, there would be some benefits to
RH/S. However, since the linkage between catch of RH/S and RH/S stock status and
productivity is not known, the impacts are not quantifiable. Smaller caps and earlier closures
should lead to relatively higher benefits.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
If a low cap is chosen and a high ratio is observed, the directed fishery would close due to the
cap before it reached the directed fishery quota. This could result in revenue losses to fishery
participants that would be dependent on the exact level of the cap, the catch ratio, and prices for
the directed species that are "left in the water” because of the cap closure. The ranges described
in the above table would suggest potentially forgone revenue as high as about $8 million or as

low as zero dollars at 2010 ex-vessel prices depending on the above factors and based on the
2012 quota.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

6c. Implement a mortality cap for shads for the mackerel fishery whereby the mackerel
fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of shad mortality
(that level would be determined annually by Council in specification process unless RH/S
were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be involved in ABC setting for
RH/S). (PREFERRED)
One way to assign mortality caps for shad would be to base it on the range of estimated shad
mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic mid-water
trawl fishing in Quarter 1, which is largely but not completely mackerel fishing, accounted for
12% of total shad mortality 2005-2010. The table below describes total ocean and quarter 1 midwater trawl mortalities in the leftmost columns (2006 omitted because of lack of shad records).
Table 2. Example Shad Caps For Mackerel

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2007
2008
2009
2010

60
60
70
47

Mid-Water Trawl
Quarter 1 mortality
(mt) (12% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
7
7
8
6

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.05%
14,364
14,450
16,903
11,338

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.03%
23,940
24,084
28,172
18,896

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.004%
179,550
180,630
211,290
141,720

Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 50% or at least 100,000 pounds of mackerel
(encompasses almost all landings) results in annual shad mortality ratios from 0.004% in 2009 to
0.05% in 2007 with a mean of 0.03. If these values were used with the above range of mortality
caps, the amount of total fish (the ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by
trips as defined above before the mackerel fishery was shut down by the shad mortality cap is
illustrated in the rightmost 3 columns depending of the ratio of shad. The main point is that
whether mackerel would close because of a cap would depend on how much the Council set the
cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of shad was, and what the mackerel availability
was. In the above table the range of caps is just a percentage of the observed catch over the
years 2006-2010. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it is not
possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could come
very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If a cap was set low enough to shut the directed fishery down, there would be some benefits to
RH/S. However, since the linkage between catch of RH/S and RH/S stock status and
productivity is not known, the impacts are not quantifiable. Smaller caps and earlier closures
should lead to relatively higher benefits.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
If a low cap is chosen and a high ratio is observed, the directed fishery would close due to the
cap before it reached the directed fishery quota. This could result in revenue losses to fishery
participants that would be dependent on the exact level of the cap, the catch ratio, and prices for
the directed species that are "left in the water” because of the cap closure. The ranges described
in the above table would suggest potentially forgone revenue as high as about $7 million or as
low as zero dollars at 2010 ex-vessel prices depending on the above factors and compared to full
utilization of a quota at the 2012 level.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6d. Implement a mortality cap for river herrings for the longfin squid fishery whereby the
longfin squid fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of river
herring mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification
process unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be
involved in ABC setting for RH/S).
One way to assign mortality caps for river herring would be to base it on the range of estimated
river herring mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic
small mesh bottom trawl accounted for 5% of total river herring mortality. While Mid-Atlantic
small mesh bottom trawl encompasses a variety of fisheries besides longfin squid (including
Atlantic herring), some of the New England small mesh bottom trawl mortality is probably
related to longfin squid fishing so using the full Mid-Atlantic value is probably reasonable. The
table below describes total ocean and 5% of total mortalities in the leftmost columns.
Table 3. Example River Herring Caps For Longfin Squid

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

245
664
672
361
244

Mid-Atlantic Small
Mesh Bottom Trawl
mortality (mt) (5%
of total) = Mortality
Cap Possibility
12
33
34
18
12

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.17%
7,233
19,534
19,754
10,608
7,162

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.06%
20,424
55,346
55,968
30,057
20,293

Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid (encompasses almost all
landings) results in annual river herring mortality ratios from almost zero in 2007 to .17% in
2009 with a mean of 0.06%. If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps,
the amount of total fish (the ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as
defined above before the longfin squid fishery was shut down by the river herring mortality cap
is illustrated on the rightmost 2 columns depending of the ratio of river herring. The main point
is that whether longfin squid would close because of a cap would depend on how much the
Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of river herring was, and what the
longfin squid availability was. In the above table the range of caps is just a percentage of the
observed catch over the years 2006-2010. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from
year to year, it is not possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a
closure could come very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If a cap was set low enough to shut the directed fishery down, there would be some benefits to
RH/S. However, since the linkage between catch of RH/S and RH/S stock status and
productivity is not known, the impacts are not quantifiable. Smaller caps and earlier closures
should lead to relatively higher benefits.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
If a low cap is chosen and a high ratio is observed, the directed fishery would close due to the
cap before it reached the directed fishery quota. This would result in revenue losses to fishery
participants that would be dependent on the exact level of the cap and the catch ratio, and prices
for the directed species that “is left in the water” because of the cap closure. The ranges
described in the above table would suggest potentially forgone revenue as high as about $35
million or as low as zero dollars at 2010 ex-vessel prices depending on the above factors and
compared to full utilization of a quota at the 2012 level.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6e. Implement a mortality cap for shads for the longfin squid fishery whereby the longfin
squid fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of shad
mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification process
unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be involved in
ABC setting for RH/S).
One way to assign mortality caps for shad would be to base it on the range of estimated shad
mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic small mesh
bottom trawl accounted for 11.5% of total shad mortality. While Mid-Atlantic small mesh
bottom trawl encompasses a variety of fisheries besides longfin squid (including Atlantic
herring), some of the New England small mesh bottom trawl mortality is probably related to
longfin squid fishing so using the full Mid-Atlantic value is probably reasonable. The table
below describes total ocean and 11.5% of total mortalities in the leftmost columns.
Table 4. Example Shad Caps For Longfin Squid

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

47
60
60
70
47

Mid-Atlantic Small
Mesh Bottom Trawl
mortality (mt)
(11.5% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
5
7
7
8
5

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.21%
2,587
3,278
3,297
3,857
2,587

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.10%
5,433
6,883
6,924
8,099
5,433

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.03%
18,109
22,943
23,081
26,998
18,109

Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid (encompasses almost all
landings) results in annual shad mortality ratios from almost 0.03% in 2009 to 0.21% in 2010
with a mean of 0.10%. If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the
amount of total fish (the ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as
defined above before the longfin squid fishery was shut down by the shad mortality cap is
illustrated in the rightmost 2 columns depending of the ratio of shad. The main point is that
whether longfin squid would close because of a cap would depend on how much the Council set
the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of shad was, and what the longfin squid
availability was. In the above table the range of caps is just a percentage of the observed catch
over the years 2006-2010. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it is
not possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could
come very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
If a cap was set low enough to shut the directed fishery down, there would be some benefits to
RH/S. However, since the linkage between catch of RH/S and RH/S stock status and
productivity is not known, the impacts are not quantifiable. Smaller caps and earlier closures
should lead to relatively higher benefits.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
If a low cap is chosen and a high ratio is observed, the directed fishery would close due to the
cap before it reached the directed fishery quota. This would result in revenue losses to fishery
participants that would be dependent on the exact level of the cap and the catch ratio, and prices
for the directed species that “is left in the water” because of the cap closure. The ranges
described in the above table would suggest potentially forgone revenue as high as about $45
million or as low as zero dollars at 2010 ex-vessel prices depending on the above factors and
based on the proposed 2012 quota.

While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

6f. Add mortality caps to list of measures that can be frameworked. (PREFERRED)

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Allowing a cap to be considered via a framework should not have any impacts other than
allowing more rapid management responses in the future. No immediate impacts would be
expected. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Allowing a cap to be considered via a framework should not have any impacts other than
allowing more rapid management responses in the future. No immediate impacts would be
expected. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.

2.1.7 Alternative Set 7 – Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
There are currently no limits on catch of RH/S in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries
other than state landing requirements
The Council originally hoped to include some alternatives that would restrict fishing in relatively
small areas that appeared to be “hotspots” for RH/S catch. The Amendment’s Fishery
Management Action Team’s found that small-area management is unlikely to be successful (see
Appendices 1 & 2). Because the Council instructed the FMAT to generate area-based
alternatives that would be likely to provide protection to RH/S, the FMAT generated several
alternatives that are area based but the FMAT also acknowledged that such large-scale closures
would effectively close the fisheries for many participants.
Council staff attempted to perform additional smaller-scale examinations of the data (for
example around Hudson canyon) and while at such small scales there were too few observations
to draw conclusions, even at small scales catch events usually exhibited strong spatial-temporal
variability.
The FMAT analysis suggests that because of the spatial and temporal variability of observed
(Northeast Fishery Observer Program or “NEFOP”) RH/S catch, the same kind of variability in
mackerel and longfin squid effort and catch, and the same kind of variability in RH/S NEFSC
trawl survey catches, that very large areas would be required to ensure that management was not
just redistributing effort, possibly in a way that even increased RH/S catch. For this reason
Council staff used the FMAT GIS analysis (See appendices 1 and 2) to construct areas for
mackerel and longfin squid based on the mid-water and small-mesh bottom trawl fleet effort data
and RH/S catch data. The table below is designed to help illustrate how even if you reduce catch
rates of one species, for example blueback, but reduce catch rates of the directed species (for
example mackerel) even more, it can be possible to do more harm than good if the fleet increases
effort to maintain the same amount of harvest. In the table below "good" means a net reduction
of blueback catch, "negligible" means no appreciable change, and "bad" means a net increase in
blueback catch. The general point is that if RH/S catch rates are reduced but targeted species
catch rates are reduced more, the net effect (because of more overall effort) may be bad for
RH/S. Larger areas would not allow such redistribution of effort however. A summary of the
key biological and human community impacts (detailed in section 7) follows for each alternative.

Table 5. Direct-Non-target Impact Schematic
Effects on RH catch of moving effort assuming effort changes to
maintain constant mackerel catch if CPUE changes
Mackerel
CPUE Changes

a little lower a lot lower

negligible

bad

bad

a little lower

good

negligible

bad

a lot lower

good

good

negligible

neutral
Blueback

neutral

NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: 7bMack and 7cMack are mutually exclusive – the Council could
close the area to directed fishing (7bMack) or require observers (7cMack) but not both.
Likewise 7bLong and 7cLong are mutually exclusive – the Council could close the area to
directed fishing (7bLong) or require observers (7cLong) but not both. One of the mackerel
alternatives (either 7bMack or 7cMack) could be combined with one of the longfin squid
alternatives (either 7bLong or 7cLong) however. 7d could be added to any 7b or 7c alternative
to make those provisions only applicable after a cap-based trigger was reached. The Council
would have to specify in this case that the Alternative Set 6 cap trigger was only a trigger for
Alternative Set 7 rather than a stand-alone cap measure. 7e could be chosen in addition to any
other alternative in this Alternative Set.
Given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that alternatives
would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could select an
alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from another
set, but not from both sets for one fishery.
The enforceability of area-based management alternatives could be facilitated by the selection of
the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement in Alternative Set 1 (alternatives 1eMack or
1eLong).
The selection of alternatives that include observer coverage requirements (7cMack and 7cLong)
would require the selection of observer program notification alternatives for limited access
mackerel permits in Alternative Set 1(1d48 and 1d72).
7a. No-action regarding large closed areas (PREFERRED)
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 7 would be implemented and
the existing state management measures (as described in section 5.9) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below.

7bMack. Closed Area - Prohibit retention of more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel in RH/S
Mackerel Management Area (applies in quarter 1 only – see map below) for vessels with
federal mackerel permits.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Given the RH/S Mackerel Management Area encompasses most quarter-one mid-water trawl
effort as well as most quarter-one observer data observations of RH/S catch, which are estimated
to account for 35% of total RH/S catch, it is likely that effectively closing this area to mackerel
fishing would create some positive impacts for mackerel as well as RH/S and other non-target
species, but it is not possible to quantify the effect (if any) on RH/S stocks of catching one
amount of RH/S versus some other amount due to the paucity of assessment information.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
As described in the table below, about 85% of mackerel revenues with an assigned area (2/3 to ¾
of total landings) from 2006-2010 came from within the RH/S Mackerel Management Area.
While vessels would compensate as best they could so impacts are difficult to further quantify,
vessels that typically rely on mackerel would likely suffer economically.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.
Table 6. Distribution of Mackerel Revenues in and out of RH/S Area

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
%

Outside Mackerel
Value ($)

Inside Mackerel
Value ($)

3,149,111
946,926
553,705
681,665
471,663
5,803,070
15%

17,323,851
2,666,001
3,200,344
6,655,122
2,920,919
32,766,237
85%

Source: Unpublished VTR Data

7bLong. Closed Area - Prohibit retention of more than 2,500 pounds longfin squid in RH/S
Longfin Squid Management Area (applies year-round – see maps below) for vessels with
federal longfin squid moratorium permits.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Given the RH/S Longfin Squid Management Area encompasses most small mesh bottom trawl
effort, which is responsible for 24% of RH/S catch, it is likely that effectively closing this area to
longfin squid fishing would create some positive impacts for longfin squid as well as non-target
species such as RH/S, but it is not possible to quantify the effect (if any) on RH/S stocks of
catching one amount of RH/S versus some other amount due to the paucity of assessment
information. However, examination of targeting information in the observer data suggests that
RH/S encounters in SMBT fisheries are more associated with targeting of Alt Herring so impacts
may not be large from restrictions only on SMBT longfin squid fishing.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
As described in the table below, about 71% of longfin squid kept catch (VTR data) from 20062010 came from within the RH/S longfin squid Management Area. While vessels would
compensate as best they could so impacts are difficult to further quantify, vessels that typically
rely on longfin squid would likely suffer economically.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

Table 7. Distribution of longfin squid VTR catches in and out of RH/S Area.

Outside Loligo Pounds Inside Loligo Pounds
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
%

7,139,722
16,516,551
6,692,942
4,352,451
4,050,619
38,752,285
29%

Source: Unpublished VTR Data

30,323,237
12,991,085
20,772,623
17,991,543
12,510,747
94,589,235
71%

7cMack. Require observers in RH/S Mackerel Management Area (applies in quarter 1 only
– see map below) for vessels with federal mackerel permits to retain more than 20,000
pounds of mackerel. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).
NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay observers.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be
positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. To the degree that fishermen did not fish
because of the requirement there could be benefits to the managed species as well as non-target
species and protected resources. To the extent that fishermen transferred effort there could be
unknown impacts on other managed species, non-target species, habitat, and protected resources.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
The cost of observers relative to vessel revenues and existing costs is described in Alternative
Set 5.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.

7cLong. Require observers in RH/S longfin squid Management Area (applies year round)
for vessels with federal longfin squid permits to possess more than 2,500 pounds of longfin
squid. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer coverage goals
adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations assigned through
the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries). NEFSC would
accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay observers.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that better data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be
positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. To the degree that fishermen did not fish
because of the requirement there could be benefits to the managed species as well as non-target
species, habitat, and protected resources. To the extent that fishermen transferred effort there
could be unknown impacts on other managed species, non-target species, habitat, and protected
resources.

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
Impacts are mixed with an uncertain net impact.
The cost of observers relative to vessel revenues and existing costs is described in Alternative
Set 5.
While there are human community costs associated with this alternative, there also could be
human community benefits as described in Section 2.1.
7d. Make above requirement(s) in effect only when a mortality cap "trigger" is reached.
Operation of a “trigger” would be identical to the operation of a mortality cap (see
Alternative Set 6 above) but the consequence of hitting the cap would be implementing
7b and/or 7c above if this alternative is selected in conjunction with 7b and/or 7c above.
Trigger levels would be specified annually via specifications.
This option would use a mortality cap but instead of shutting down the fishery either the closed
area or 100% observer coverage requirements in this Alternative Set would go into force. This
alternative could only be selected in conjunction with 7b and/or 7c above.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
To the degree that a mortality cap gave fishermen incentive to avoid RH/S there could be
positive impacts to RH/S. Once a cap was reached, then the same impacts as discussed above
with 7b and/or 7c would be applicable but to a lesser degree since they would not be in force for
the full year.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
To the degree that a mortality cap gave fishermen the opportunity to avoid RH/S and avoid more
onerous requirements such as 7b or 7c above, a mortality cap trigger could have a positive
impact compared to 7b or 7c alone. Once a cap was reached, then the same impacts as discussed
above with 7b and/or 7c would be applicable but to a lesser degree since they would not be in
force for the full year.

7e. Stipulate that any areas designated in Amendment 14 would be considered for updating
every other year in specifications considering the most recent data available when
specifications are developed.
Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
7e should not have any impacts other than facilitating future management responses.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
7e should not have any impacts other than facilitating future management responses.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Figure 1. RH/S Mackerel Management Area (would apply in Quarter 1 only) over Quarter
1 MWT effort and RH/S Catch

Figure 2. RH/S Longfin squid Management Area over small mesh bottom effort and RH/S Catch (Quarters 1 and 2)

Figure 3. RH/S Longfin squid Management Area over small mesh bottom effort and RH/S Catch (Quarters 3 and 4)

2.1.8 Alternative Set 8 – Hotspot Restrictions
Background/Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
There are currently no limits on catch of RH/S in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries
other than state landing requirements
The Council originally hoped to include some alternatives that would restrict fishing in relatively
small areas that appeared to be “hotspots” for RH/S catch. The Amendment’s Fishery
Management Action Team’s found that small-area management is unlikely to be successful (see
Appendices 1 & 2). However, the New England Fishery Management Council’s Amendment 5
to the Atlantic Herring FMP is considering small area “hotspot” alternatives. While Amendment
5 concluded that low positive impacts would result from the hotspot alternatives, it also noted
that catch rates could increase outside of the hotspot areas which would seem to mirror the
conclusions of the FMAT for Amendment 14 regarding the problems with small area
management.
Regardless, to allow for potential coordination between this Amendment and Amendment 5 to
the Atl. Herring FMP, the hotspot alternatives have been included as alternatives that would
apply to mackerel and/or longfin squid fishing. Also, Since Atlantic herring and mackerel are
often targeted by the same vessels and are sometimes targeted together at the same time, it makes
sense to consider these alternatives even though they were based on observer data from “herring
trips” as defined below.
The smallest areas are termed “River Herring Protection Areas.” These Protection Areas were
identified bimonthly as the quarter degree squares with at least one observed tow of river herring
catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast Fisheries Observer Program data
from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic herring during the respective 2-month
period. The protection areas include just the portion of the monitoring/avoidance areas
(described below) that have the highest river herring catches on Atlantic herring trips as defined
above. Since the raw observer data were pooled across years, the threshold was only one tow,
and the results are only from Herring Trips, they do not reflect how much total river herring was
caught in the Protection Area versus other areas in a given year.
Slightly larger areas are termed “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas.” These
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas were identified bimonthly as the quarter degree squares with at
least one observed tow of river herring catch greater than 40 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic
herring during the respective 2-month period. They include all of the area identified in the
protection areas as well is areas where a more modest amount of river herring was caught. Since
the raw observer data were pooled across years, the threshold was only one tow, and the results
are only from Herring Trips, they do not reflect how much total river herring was caught in the
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas versus other areas in a given year.
These protection and monitoring/avoidance areas are mapped below by their respective bimonthly periods. Since seeing them on the same page clarifies the differences among the areas,

they are illustrated together below (where applicable). Management measures that could apply
to these areas follow the maps.
Figure 4. January – February Herring Areas

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 5. March – April Herring Areas
Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 6.May – June Herring Areas
Protection Area
None proposed – there were no qualifying observer records (quarter degree squares with at least
one observed tow of river herring catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic
herring).

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 7.July – August Herring Areas

Protection Area
None proposed – there were no qualifying observer records (quarter degree squares with at least
one observed tow of river herring catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic
herring).

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 8.September – October Herring Areas

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 9.November – December Herring Areas

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Management Measures
For the areas described above a variety of management measures are being considered. A
summary of the key biological and human community impacts (detailed in section 7) follows.
Related to the FMAT findings that small, inter-annually fixed “hotspot” closures are unlikely to
be effective, the impacts for all of the alternatives are the same and are described after all of the
potential alternatives are described.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in the set could be adopted
individually or together. 8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this
Alternative Set only applicable when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring
fishery, would only be chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack,
8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong was also chosen.
Given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that alternatives
would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could select an
alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from another
set, but not from both sets for one fishery.
The enforceability of area-based management alternatives could be facilitated by the selection of
the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement in Alternative Set 1 (alternatives 1eMack or
1eLong).
The selection of alternatives that include observer coverage requirements (8cMack and 8cLong)
would require the selection of observer program notification alternatives for limited access
mackerel permits in Alternative Set 1(1d48 and 1d72).
If an overall observer coverage requirement in Alternative Set 5 was selected but did not result in
a trip covered by an alternative in this Alternative Set having an observer, this Alternative Set
would effectively require additional coverage.
NOTE: Due to their similar likely impacts, all impacts for the action alternatives in this
Alternative Set are summarized below 8f.

8a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 8 would be implemented and
the existing state management measures (as described in section 5.9) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below.

8b. Make implementing area-based "hotspot closures" to reduce catches (similar to those
considered in NEFMC’s Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Plan) frameworkable.
(PREFERRED)

The wording of this alternative has been modified from the DEIS to clarify the Council's intent
but the substance of the alternative has not changed.
The Council would make the hotspot requirements considered below frameworkable under a
subsequent action. Biological and Socioeconomic considerations would be reevaluated when the
framework was developed. No immediate impacts would be expected. Any potential follow-up
actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered separately.

8cMack. For Atlantic mackerel permitted vessels, more than an incidental level of fish
(20,000 pounds mackerel) may not be retained/transferred/ possessed if any fishing occurs
in a River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area without a NMFS-approved observer at any
point during the trip. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).

8cLong. For longfin squid permitted vessels, more than an incidental level of fish (2,500
pounds longfin squid) may not be retained/transferred/ possessed if any fishing occurs in a
River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area without a NMFS-approved observer at any
point during the trip. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).

8dMack. If a mackerel-permitted vessel is fishing in any River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas identified in this alternative with an observer onboard,
vessels would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net for inspection and
sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be required to bring all fish
aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer. Unless specific conditions
are met (see below), vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net,
transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or
otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel
and made available for sampling and inspection by the NMFS-approved observer.
• Vessels may make short test tows in the area to check the abundance of target and non-target
species without pumping the fish on board if the net is reset without releasing the contents of the
test tow. In this circumstance, catch from the test tow would remain in the net and would be
available to the observer to sample when the subsequent tow is pumped out.

• Fish that have not been pumped aboard may be released if the vessel operator finds that:
1. pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel;
2. mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch aboard the vessel; or
3. spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent pumping of the rest of the
catch.
• If the net is released for any of the reasons stated above, the vessel operator would be required
to complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information about where, when, and
why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of the total weight of fish caught on
the tow and weight of fish released. The Released Catch Affidavit must be submitted within 48
hours of completion of the fishing trip.
• Following the release of the net for one of the three exemptions specified above, the vessel
would be required to exit the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area. The vessel may
continue to fish but may not fish in the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas for the
remainder of the trip.

8dLong. If a longfin squid-permitted vessel is fishing in a River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas identified in this alternative with an observer onboard,
vessels would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net for inspection and
sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be required to bring all fish
aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer. Unless specific conditions
are met (see below), vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net,
transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or
otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel
and made available for sampling and inspection by the NMFS-approved observer.
• Vessels may make short test tows in the area to check the abundance of target and non-target
species without pumping the fish on board if the net is reset without releasing the contents of the
test tow. In this circumstance, catch from the test tow would remain in the net and would be
available to the observer to sample when the subsequent tow is pumped out.
• Fish that have not been pumped aboard may be released if the vessel operator finds that:
1. pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel;
2. mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch aboard the vessel; or
3. spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent pumping of the rest of the
catch.
• If the net is released for any of the reasons stated above, the vessel operator would be required
to complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information about where, when, and
why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of the total weight of fish caught on
the tow and weight of fish released. The Released Catch Affidavit must be submitted within 48
hours of completion of the fishing trip.

• Following the release of the net for one of the three exemptions specified above, the vessel
would be required to exit the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area. The vessel may
continue to fish but may not fish in the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas for the
remainder of the trip.
8eMack. Vessels possessing a federal mackerel permit would not be able to retain, possess
or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds mackerel) while in a River
Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.
8eLong. Vessels possessing a federal moratorium longfin squid permit would not be able to
retain, possess or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds longfin squid)
while in a River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard
the vessel.

8f. Make the above measures 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong only
effective if/when they are effective for Atlantic Herring vessels, including if they become
effective in the middle of a season because a catch-cap based trigger is reached by the
Atlantic Herring fleet under a trigger established by Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring
FMP.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small, while
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to these alternatives, it would
not be expected that over time the new areas would be substantially different than the old areas
in terms of non-target impacts (including RH/S) given the wide and variable distribution of most
non-target species including RH/S. RH/S catch may be decreased inside the hotspot but increase
outside the hotspot. This is consistent with the findings of the FMAT analyses detailed in
Appendices 1 and 2.
Summary of Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
A low negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Given the
complexity of fishermen’s responses to regulations and given the protection areas are relatively
small, the effects may be negligible for most fishermen in most years compared to the no-action
alternative (they will fish other areas around the hotspots). However, near-shore fishermen near
the closed areas may be disproportionately impacted by closures around their home port.

2.2 Impacts Summaries
Section 2.2 summarizes the impacts of the alternatives. First the impacts of the preferred
alternatives are summarized by the two purposes of the Amendment and then impacts of all
considered alternatives are summarized qualitatively in tabular form.
Purpose A: "Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring" – Purpose A is to consider
alternatives that would implement monitoring programs for the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
(MSB) fisheries that are sensitive enough and robust enough to the spatial and temporal
variability of RH/S distributions so that good RH/S catch estimates can be generated.
The preferred alternatives in alternative sets 1-5 together are designed to be integrated with
existing monitoring and reporting requirements to create an overall complementary system that
provides accurate data on the catch of RH/S in the mackerel and longfin squid fleets. Thus the
preferred alternatives cannot be compared to each other in terms of one being more or less
important for RH/S conservation since they will function as a unit. Each preferred alternative
will add incremental information about RH/S catch and thus provide incremental benefits in
terms of better data to perform assessments and guide management.
The preferred alternatives would: require weekly VTR reporting for all MSB vessel permits (1c);
require a 48-hour pre directed mackerel trip notification (1d48); require VMS and daily VMS
catch reporting for mackerel and longfin squid vessels (1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack, and 1fLong);
and require a 6-hour pre-landing notification via VMS for mackerel landings greater than 20,000
pounds (1gMack). The preferred alternatives would also require federal MSB dealers to weigh
all landings of mackerel over 20,000 pounds (2d) and longfin squid over 2,500 pounds (2f) or
document why they cannot weight landings (2g). (If all fish are not weighed separately, dealers
would have to document with each transaction how they estimate the relative composition of
mixed catches.). The preferred alternatives would also require for mackerel and longfinbutterfish permits that: reasonable assistance be provided to observers (3b); notice of haul-back
or pumping be provided to observers (3c); one observer is provided for each vessel on pair-trawl
operations whenever possible (3d). Unless safety, mechanical, or spiny dogfish issues make it
inappropriate, the same vessels would not be able to release hauls of fish (“slippage”) prior to
observer documentation, and catch affidavits would have to be completed for any pre-observed
net release (3j). For mackerel limited access vessels, there would also be a fleet-wide cap of 10
non-emergency (safety, mechanical, spiny dogfish) slippages after which further non-emergency
slippages would require a vessel to terminate their trip (3l). The Council also made
implementation of additional portside monitoring and catch avoidance based on portside
monitoring frameworkable (4f). The Council recommended 100% observer coverage of midwater trawl (MWT) mackerel trips (5b4) as well as tiered coverage levels for small mesh bottom
trawl mackerel trips (100% for Tier 1, 50% for Tier 2, and 25% for Tier 3) (5c4) along with
requiring mackerel vessels to pay $325 when they carry observers to help fund the desired
coverage levels (5f). Coverage levels would be re-evaluated after 2 years (5h).

Taken together, and when combined with existing reporting and monitoring requirements, these
measures should allow for accurate estimates of RH/S catch in the MSB fisheries (most RH/S
catch in the MSB fisheries occurs in the mackerel fishery). While not directly impacting RH/S
stocks, better catch data should help improve RH/S assessments and management indirectly. All
of these alternatives should have relatively small impacts on the MSB fisheries except the
observer coverage provisions, which could add $325/day in costs for mackerel fishing.
Purpose B: "Reduce RH/S Catch" – Purpose B is to consider alternatives to reduce catch of
RH/S in the MSB fisheries. The MSA requires Councils to minimize discards to the extent
practicable (Section 301 – National Standard 9) and provides discretionary authority to “include
management measures in the plan to conserve…non-target species…considering the variety of
ecological factors affecting fishery populations” (Section 303(b)(12)).
Alternative sets 6, 7, and 8 examined measures to reduce catch of RH/S in the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries. Since RH/S catch is greatest in the mackerel fishery, and current analysis
suggested that area-based could not be determined to be an effective measure, the Council
recommended mortality caps for RH/S on the mackerel fishery (6b and 6c) and added future
mortality caps and hotspot closures as frameworkable actions (6f and 8b respectively). The
impact of 6b and 6c will depend on what the cap is ultimately set at, and the cap will be set and
analyzed through the annual specifications process. If a cap is set relatively high then status-quo
fishing should continue and status-quo impacts on RH/S would also likely continue. If a cap is
set relatively low then less fishing may occur, which would mean less mortality related to fishing
but the overall impact on RH/S stocks is unquantifiable (could be unsubstantial or substantial)
given the information presented in the most recent assessment.

Overview of Measures Table
Table 8 provides a concise general summary of the measures and their anticipated effects. The
combined effects of the preferred alternatives related to the purposes of this Amendment are
described above. For all Alternative Sets (1-8) and all valued ecosystem components (VECs),
the first alternative ("a") equals no-action, which is what is predicted to happen with the status
quo management measures. Subsequent alternatives are the action alternatives and diverge from
the status quo management measures as described in Section 5. The impact analysis focuses on
the valued ecosystem components (VECs) that were identified for Amendment 14 and described
in detail in Section 6.0 of this document. These VECs include (see next page):

VECs:
Atlantic mackerel stock
Illex stock
Longfin squid stock
Atlantic butterfish stock

1.

Managed Resources

2.

Non-target species
-Non-Target species include river herrings (blueback and alewife) and shads
(American and hickory), collectively referred to as RH/S. Given the lack of
information on how these species travel and mix in the ocean, different impacts
are generally not discernible between these species but are noted where
appropriate (for example in caps that are placed on particular species)
Habitat including EFH for the managed resources and non-target species
Endangered and other protected resources
Human Communities

3.
4.
5.

While in previous MSB FMP EISs the impacts from all alternatives are grouped together for
each VEC, with the large number of alternatives in this amendment (about 80), the result would
that one would start with managed resources, have ~80 associated impacts, then have ~80
impacts for non-target species, and so on with the other VECs. That format seemed to lead to a
disconnect in evaluating each alternative in terms of its overall positive and negative impacts
across different VECs. As a result, the impact analysis in this EIS proceeds alternative by
alternative with impacts for each VEC described for a given alternative before moving on to the
next alternative’s impacts.

In these tables, a variety of terms (e.g. positive or negative) have specific meanings for each
VEC and are described below. These are the same as are used in the impact analysis section,
Section 7.
Managed Species, Non-Target Species, Protected Species:
Note: Often impacts are indirect in that an action may change overall effort, which would
decrease impacts if effort goes down or increase impacts if effort goes up.
Neutral/negligible: actions that are expected to have no discernible impact on stock/population
size. The table below uses just “negligible” to save space.
Positive: actions that increase stock/population size
Negative: actions that decrease stock/population size
Habitat:
Note: Often impacts are indirect in that an action may change overall effort, which would
decrease impacts if effort goes down or increase impacts if effort goes up.

Neutral/negligible: actions that are expected to have no discernible impact on habitat. The table
below uses just “negligible” to save space.
Positive: actions that improve the quality or reduce disturbance of habitat
Negative: actions that degrade the quality or increase disturbance of habitat
Human Communities:
Neutral/negligible: actions that are expected to have no discernible impact on human
communities. The table below uses just “negligible” to save space.
Positive: actions that increase revenue and well-being of fishermen and/or associated businesses
Negative: actions that decrease revenue and well-being of fishermen, associated businesses, or
other interested parties.
Mixed: The action would create benefits for some and costs for others. Generally there are costs
to MSB fishery participants but potential benefits to other fishermen (commercial or
recreational) or other interested parties who value MSB or RH/S resources. Since the linkages
between catches in MSB fisheries and RH/S resources is not known, it is generally uncertain
regarding which would be greater, costs to current MSB participants or benefits to other
interested parties.
Impact Qualifiers:
The following qualifiers are also used in the impact analysis:
Low (as in low positive or low negative): to a lesser or small degree
High (as in high positive or high negative) to a greater or large degree
Potentially: A relatively higher degree of uncertainty is associated with the impact. Often this
qualifier is used when an action may lead to better data, but future actions would have to actually
use that data in decision making in order for there to be a concrete benefit.
If impacts are expected to be isolated to a particular species, usually either mackerel, longfin
squid, Illex squid, butterfish, or river herrings and shads (RH/S) then this fact will be noted as
well.
To some the extent the operation of the MSB fisheries may currently be negatively affecting the
directed fisheries, RH/S stocks, other non-target species, habitat, and protected resources
compared to if there was no fishery. However the fisheries exist currently, so their continued
operation under “no-action” would result in similar impacts as occur presently. As such, all
comparisons in Table 8 are in reference to changes from the no-action alternative but Section 7
also discusses how the no-action alternative may compare to the action alternatives.

Table 8. Alternative Impact Summary Table
Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures

1a
No Action

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

1bMack
mackerel weekly
VTRs

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

1bLong
longfin weekly
VTRs

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

1c
MSB weekly VTRs

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

1d48
48hr notice for
mackerel trips

Potentially Low
Negligible - no
Potentially Positive - Mixed (positive and
Positive - better
Positive - better
substantial change in
better observer
negative impacts for
observer placement
observer placement
effort expected
placement
different interests)

1d72
72hr notice for
mackerel trips

Potentially Low
Negligible - no
Potentially Positive - Mixed (positive and
Positive - better
Positive - better
substantial change in
better observer
negative impacts for
observer placement
observer placement
effort expected
placement
different interests)

1eMack
VMS for mackerel
vessels

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Potentially Positive - Mixed (positive and
Potentially Positive substantial change in
supports area
negative impacts for
better monitoring
effort expected
closures
different interests)

1eLong
VMS for longfin
vessels

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Potentially Positive - Mixed (positive and
Potentially Positive substantial change in
supports area
negative impacts for
better monitoring
effort expected
closures
different interests)

1fMack
VMS reporting
for mackerel

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

1fLong
VMS reporting
for longfin

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

1gMack
6hr pre-land VMS
for mackerel

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Potentially Positive substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
better monitoring
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

1gLong
6hr pre-land VMS
for longfin

Potentially Low
Positive - better
monitoring

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Potentially Positive substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
better monitoring
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

(continued)
Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures

2a
No Action
2b
Vessel SAFIS
Confirmation
2c
mackerel catch
weighing with
annual sorting
documentation

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo
Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Low positive - better Low positive - better
substantial change in substantial change in
record keeping
record keeping
effort expected
effort expected

Potentially Low
Positive - better
record keeping

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Low positive - better Low positive - better
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
monitoring
monitoring
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

2d
mackerel catch
Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Low positive - better Low positive - better
weighing with sort
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
monitoring
monitoring
doc for each
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)
transaction
2e
longfin catch
weighing with
annual sort doc

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Low positive - better Low positive - better
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
monitoring
monitoring
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

2f
longfin catch
Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Low positive - better Low positive - better
weighing with sort
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
monitoring
monitoring
doc for each
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)
transaction
2g
Allow volume to
weight
conversions

Neutral - equivalent Neutral - equivalent Neutral - equivalent Neutral - equivalent Neutral - equivalent
to status quo
to status quo
to status quo
to status quo
to status quo

(continued)
Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures
3a
No action

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

3B
reasonable
assistance

Low Positive improves observer
data

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Low Positive substantial change in improves observer
effort expected
data

Neglible

3c
pump/haul
notice

Low Positive improves observer
data

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Low Positive substantial change in improves observer
effort expected
data

Neglible

Low Positive 3d
improves observer
paired observers
data

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Low Positive substantial change in improves observer
effort expected
data

Neglible

3e
slippage reports

Low Positive improves observer
data

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
substantial change in substantial change in
effort expected
effort expected

Neglible

3f
no discards
before sampling
mackerel

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3g
no discards
before sampling
longfin

Positive - improves
observer data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3h
1 slip
termination

Positive - improves
observer data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3i
2 slip
termination

Positive - improves
observer data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3j
Closed Area 1
Rules

Positive - improves
observer data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

Low Positive improves observer
data

Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3k
5 annual
mackerel slips
then trip
termination for
if more
3l
10 annual
mackerel slips
then trip
termination for
if more

(continued)

Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts (cont)
Management
Measures

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

3m
5 trimester
Positive - improves
longfin slips then
observer data
trip termination
for if more

Neglible - no
Neglible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3n
10 trimester
Positive - improves
longfin slips then
observer data
trip termination
for if more

Neglible - no
Neglible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - improves
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
observer data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

3o
repeat observers
Low Positive for canceled
improves observer
trips
data

Low Positive improves observer
data

3p
individual vessel
slippage quota

Potential Positive Neglible - no
Neglible - no
Mixed (positive and
improves observer substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
data
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

Potential Positive improves observer
data

Neglible - no
Neglible - no
Mixed (positive and
substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

(continued)

Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures

4a
No Action

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

4b
port-side sampling
for mackerel
landings

Neglible - landings
already well
monitored

Positive - better
Negligible - fishery
landings data for nonmostly uses MWT
targets

4c
portside sampling
for longfin landings

Neglible - landings
already well
monitored

Neglible - most nonMixed (positive and
Potentially positive - Potentially positive target catch is
negative impacts for
may lower effort.
may lower effort.
discarded at set
different interests)

4d
Tier 3 mackerel
hold certification

Neglible - landings
already well
monitored

Potentially low
Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
Positive - better data substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
for non-targets
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

4e
longfin hold
certification

Neglible - landings
already well
monitored

Potentially positive Negligible - no
Negligible - no
Mixed (positive and
better data for non- substantial change in substantial change in negative impacts for
targets
effort expected
effort expected
different interests)

4f
Sust. Fish.
Coalition
frameworkable

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

Mixed (positive and
Potentially positive negative impacts for
may lower effort.
different interests)

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

(continued)
Management
Measures
5a
No action

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

5b
Observer
coverage for
mackerel MWT

Potentially low
positive - better
discard data

Positive - better
incidental catch data

5c
Observer
coverage for
mackerel SMBT

Potentially low
positive - better
discard data

Negligible (positive if Negligible (positive if
Mixed (positive and
Positive - better
industry has to pay industry has to pay
negative impacts for
incidental catch data
which would
which would
different interests)
decrease effort)
decrease effort)

5d
Observer
coverage for
longfin SMBT

Positive - better
discard catch data

Negligible (positive if Negligible (positive if
Mixed (positive and
Positive - better
industry has to pay industry has to pay
negative impacts for
incidental catch data
which would
which would
different interests)
decrease effort)
decrease effort)

5e
Strata-FleetBased
Alternatives

Positive - better
discard catch data

Negligible (positive if Negligible (positive if
Mixed (positive and
Positive - better
industry has to pay industry has to pay
negative impacts for
incidental catch data
which would
which would
different interests)
decrease effort)
decrease effort)

Negligible - fishery
mostly uses MWT

Negligible (positive if
Mixed (positive and
industry has to pay
negative impacts for
which would
different interests)
decrease effort)

Mixed (positive and
5f
Negligible but tied to Negligible but tied to Negligible but tied to Negligible but tied to
negative impacts for
Industry Funding
5b-5e above.
5b-5e above.
5b-5e above.
5b-5e above.
different interests)

5g
Mixed (positive and
Negligible but tied to Negligible but tied to Negligible but tied to Negligible but tied to
phased industry
negative impacts for
5b-5e above.
5b-5e above.
5b-5e above.
5b-5e above.
funding
different interests)

5h
NA - describes future NA - describes future NA - describes future NA - describes future NA - describes future
2-year coverage
action
action
action
action
action
re-evaluation

(continued)
Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures

6a
No Action

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

Potentially low
positive - lower catch

Potentially positive lower catch
depending on cap
amount

Negligible - fishery
mostly uses MWT

Potentially positive Mixed (positive and
lower effort
negative impacts for
depending on cap
different interests)
amount

6c
Potentially low
Mackerel Shad Cap positive - lower catch

Potentially positive lower catch
depending on cap
amount

Negligible - fishery
mostly uses MWT

Potentially positive Mixed (positive and
lower effort
negative impacts for
depending on cap
different interests)
amount

6b
Mackerel River
Herring Cap

6d
Longfin River
Herring Cap

Potentially positive lower catch
(butterfish)

Potentially positive - Potentially positive - Potentially positive Mixed (positive and
lower catch
lower effort
lower effort
negative impacts for
depending on cap
depending on cap
depending on cap
different interests)
amount
amount
amount

6e
longfin shad cap

Potentially positive lower catch
(butterfish)

Potentially positive - Potentially positive - Potentially positive Mixed (positive and
lower catch
lower effort
lower effort
negative impacts for
depending on cap
depending on cap
depending on cap
different interests)
amount
amount
amount

6f
Make Caps
Frameworkable

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

(continued)

Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures

7a
No Action

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

7bMack
Closed Area
Mackerel

Potentially low
positive - lower catch

7bLong
Closed Area
Longfin

Potentially low
Low Positive - lower
positive - lower catch
effort/catch

Positive - lower
effort/catch

Negligible - fishery
mostly uses MWT

Positive - would
reduce effort

Mixed (positive and
negative impacts for
different interests)

Positive - would
reduce effort

Positive - would
reduce effort

Mixed (positive and
negative impacts for
different interests)

7cMack
observer area
mackerel

Potentially positive
Potentially low
Negligible - fishery
(better observer data
positive - lower catch
mostly uses MWT
and/or lower effort)

Positive - would
reduce effort

Mixed (positive and
negative impacts for
different interests)

7cLong
observer area
longfin

Potentially low
Potentially low
positive (better
positive - lower catch observer data and/or
lower effort)

Positive - would
reduce effort

Mixed (positive and
negative impacts for
different interests)

7d
trigger option

Tied to 7b-7c.
Tied to 7b-7c.
Tied to 7b-7c.
Tied to 7b-7c.
Tied to 7b-7c.
Would reduce
Would reduce
Would reduce
Would reduce
Would reduce
impacts (positive or impacts (positive or impacts (positive or impacts (positive or impacts (positive or
negative) because
negative) because
negative) because
negative) because
negative) because
those measures
those measures
those measures
those measures
those measures
would only be in
would only be in
would only be in
would only be in
would only be in
place for part of year place for part of year place for part of year place for part of year place for part of year
after trigger was
after trigger was
after trigger was
after trigger was
after trigger was
reached.
reached.
reached.
reached.
reached.

7e
Area Updating

Negligible - allows
future action

Negligible - allows
future action

Positive - would
reduce effort

Negligible - allows
future action

Negligible - allows
future action

Negligible - allows
future action

(continued)
Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) Impacts
Management
Measures
8a
No action
8b
make hotspots
frame- workable

Managed
resource

Non-target
species
Esp. RH/S

Habitat including
EFH

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo Neutral - Status Quo

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

NA - allows future
action

Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8cMack
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
Observers in
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
Monitoring/
variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
Avoidance Area
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits
Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8cLong
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
Observers in
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
Monitoring/
variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
Avoidance Area
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits
Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8dMack
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
Closed Area 1
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
rules w/exit for
variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
slipping
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits
Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8dLong
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
Closed Area 1
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
rules w/exit for
variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
slipping
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits
Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8eMack
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
closure in
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
protection area variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits
Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8eLong
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
closure in
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
protection area variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits
Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots Negligible - hotspots
Low negative 8f
are too small given are too small given are too small given are too small given
possible costs to
Tie alternative
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
geo-temporal
fishery without any
implemen-tation
variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and variability of fish and
conservation
to Atl Herring
fishing
fishing
fishing
fishing
benefits

Note: The FMAT analysis (see Appendices 1 & 2) found that the small-area based “hotspot” alternatives considered
in this Alternative Set are likely to just redistribute effort and that given the widespread distribution of RH/S the end
result could be to increase impacts on RH/S just as easily as reducing impacts on RH/S and that one would not be
able to predict the actual outcome.

2.3 Areas of Controversy
Many measures considered in this document have been controversial at least at some point in the
development of the Amendment. The controversy generally hinges on three primary factors.
They are: 1) the relatively high potential cost of some of the alternatives (especially industryfunded observer coverage [Set 5], mortality caps [Set 6] and large-scale area-based restrictions
[Set 7]); 2) the concern by some segments of the public about the impacts of large scale trawling
on river herring and shad populations; and 3) the lack of firm science (i.e. high uncertainty)
about either the coast-wide populations of river herring and shad or about the impact on those
populations from at-sea trawling versus other sources of mortality (natural or human-caused).
The decision to effectively move consideration of whether to directly manage RH/S into
Amendment 15 to the MSB FMP also caused some controversy but the Council ultimately
decided a separate Amendment was the best vehicle to address the complicated issues raised by
potentially adding RH/S as directly-managed species.

2.4 Considered but Rejected Management Actions
1. The Council decided not to add a provision for annual forage set-asides for mackerel, squids,
and butterfish. Instead, the Council noted that the recent Omnibus Annual Catch Limit
Amendment already allows harvest reductions due to forage concerns and concluded that formal
set-asides would be better considered after the Council develops ecosystem level goals and
objectives that are informed by the ongoing work of the ecosystem subcommittee of the
Scientific and Statistical Committee.
2. The Council considered including consideration of catch shares for the squid fisheries during
the scoping process but concluded that it would be more effective to focus Amendment 14 on
river herring and shad issues. Also, there was strong public comment against including squid
catch shares at the current time.
3. The Council considered requiring 6 hour pre-landing notification via phone to land more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate quota monitoring. This was removed because
NMFS is trying to phase out phone notifications of this kind.
4. The Council considered requiring 6 hour pre-landing notification via phone to land more than
2,500 pounds of longfin squid so as to facilitate quota monitoring. This was removed because
NMFS is trying to phase out phone notifications of this kind.
5. The Council considered requiring daily electronic reporting by MSB-permitted dealers so as
to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. This was removed
because other options seemed equally effective and the infrastructure for 24hr reporting is
burdensome for both NMFS and dealers.
6. The Council considered requiring 48 hour electronic reporting by MSB-permitted dealers so
as to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. This was removed

because other options seemed equally effective and the infrastructure for 48hr reporting is
burdensome for both NMFS and dealers.
7. The Council considered requiring 72 hour electronic reporting by MSB-permitted dealers so
as to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. This was removed
because other options seemed equally effective and the infrastructure for 42hr reporting is
burdensome for both NMFS and dealers.
8. The Council considered requiring trip termination following 3 slipped hauls on an observed
trip so as to minimize slippage events. The goal is to minimize slippage events. This was
removed because other options seemed equally effective (termination after 1 or 2 hauls) and
having 3 slipped hauls on one trip would be a rare event.
9. The Council considered using mesh changes to reduce the catch of river herrings and shads
but concluded such measures were not feasible due to the lack of trawl mesh selectivity for
mackerel, river herrings, and shads. Selectivity information would be necessary to evaluate both
potential benefits to river herrings and shads and potential costs to the relevant directed fisheries.
10. Some measures under consideration address slippage where the contents of a net on an
observed haul on an observed trip are released in the water. In these cases the observer cannot
sample the released catch. Some alternatives considered requiring ¼ of the catch to be pumped
on board but these were rejected because a) catch may be patchy and only sampling ¼ of the net
11. To obtain information on fish that may remain in the net, the Council conserved alternatives
that would require nets to be periodically brought aboard after pumping for sampling. These
alternatives were rejected because the observer program had already begun such sampling at
higher rates than those considered in the document. An alternative was also added to prohibit
any discarding of un-sampled fish, even operational discards.
12. To consider broader RH/S conservation and management issues, the DEIS considered
adding any or all RH/S species as directly managed “stocks in the fishery” within the MSB FMP.
The Council considered adding none, one, or any combination of the RH/S species as “stocks” in
the fishery. Selecting any of the action alternatives would have resulted in the Council
immediately beginning another amendment to add all of the required Magnuson provisions for
an FMP. Based on guidance from NMFS and NOAA General Counsel, the Council chose to
instead develop a separate amendment, Amendment 15, which would fully consider the
complicated issues associated with potentially commencing Council management of RH/S.
Further details are available in the DEIS, available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/regs/ under the
2012 “past action link,” but generally the DEIS found that direct Council management impacts to
RH/S would be expected to be positive for all relevant RH/S species and in approximately the
same fashion but to an unknown degree given the various sources of RH/S mortality and
limitations on RH/S productivity. Positive RH/S impacts were primarily related to: 1) potential
additional federal support of RH/S management (assessments, FMP and specifications review,
etc.); 2) additional coordination of conservation activities across agencies; 3) Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) designation and consultations; and 4) implementation of Annual Catch Limits
(ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs).

The two key questions that will have to be answered by the Council in Amendment 15 are: 1) Is
the current management framework is sufficient to conserve RH/S stocks; and 2) Can federal
management by the Council substantially improve management of RH/S. The uncertainty
regarding the current factors causing RH/S populations to remain in depressed states means that
it will be difficult to identify specific causes and link remedies to specific outcomes. Given this,
the extent of benefits from adding RH/S as stocks in the fishery will be difficult to quantify even
though impacts are likely to be positive, but that will be the task of Amendment 15. The
development of Amendment 15 has begun and may be tracked at the Council website:
http://www.mafmc.org/, and then clicking through to the Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish section or
by contacting Jason Didden at [email protected] (302-526-5254).

2.5 Regulatory Basis for the Amendment
Amendment 14 was developed in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the former
being the primary domestic legislation governing fisheries management in the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). The MSA requires Councils to minimize discards to the extent
practicable (Section 301 – National Standard 9) and provides discretionary authority to “include
management measures in the plan to conserve…non-target species…considering the variety of
ecological factors affecting fishery populations” (Section 303(b)(12). How these provisions
apply to RH/S catch in the mackerel and Longfin Squid fisheries is the primary concern of Am14
(see purposes A and B above). The MSA also provides for Councils to submit new fishery
management plans for fish stocks, including anadromous species (see purpose C above).
NEPA requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning
and decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal
agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and
alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These statements are
commonly referred to as environmental impact statements (EISs). This document constitutes the
EIS for the management measures currently under consideration and was prepared by the
Council in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
This document also addresses the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedure
Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Information Quality
Act, and Executive Orders 13132 (Federalism), 12898 (Environmental Justice), 12866
(Regulatory Planning), and 13158 (Marine Protected Areas). These other applicable laws and
Executive Orders help ensure that in developing an FMP and/or FMP amendment, the Council
considers the full range of alternatives and their expected impacts on the marine environment,
living marine resources, and the affected human environment. This integrated document
contains all required elements for these laws and executive orders including MSA and NEPA,
and the information to ensure consistency with the applicable laws and executive orders.

3.0

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABC
ACL
ACT
AM
ASMFC
ATGTRT
CEA
CEQ
CFR
C.V.
DAH
DAP
DPS
DEIS
EA
EEZ
EFH
EIS
EPA
ESA
FMAT
FMP
FR
FEIS
ICES
ICNAF

IOY
ITQ
JV
MAFMC

Allowable Biological Catch
Annual Catch Limit
Annual Catch Target
Accountability Measure
Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission
Atlantic Trawl Gear Take
Reduction Team
Cumulative Effects
Assessment
Council on Environmental
Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
coefficient of variation
Domestic Annual Harvest
Domestic Annual Processing
Distinct Population Segment
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Environmental Assessment
Exclusive Economic Zone
Essential Fish Habitat
Environmental Impact
Statement
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
Fishery Management Action
Team
Fishery Management Plan
Federal Register
Final Environmental Impact
Statement
International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea
International Convention of
the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries
Initial Optimum Yield
Individual Transferrable
Quota
Joint Venture
Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council

MMPA
MSA

MSB
MSY
MT (or mt)
MWT
NE
NEFMC
NEFOP
NEFSC
NEPA
NK
NMFS
NOAA
RFF
RFFA
RH/S
RSA
RV
SA
SARC
SAW
SBRM
SMBT
SSC
U.S.
VEC
VMS
VTR

Marine Mammal Protection
Act
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and
Management Act
Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish
Maximum Sustainable Yield
metric tons
Mid Water Trawl
New England
New England Fishery
Management Council
Northeast Fishery Observer
Program
Northeast Fisheries Science
Center
National Environmental
Policy Act
Not classified
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries)
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
reasonably foreseeable future
Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions
River Herring and Shad
Research Set-Aside
Research Vessel
Some Activity
Stock Assessment Review
Committee
Stock Assessment Workshop
Standardized Bycatch
Reporting Methodology
Small Mesh Bottom Trawl
Scientific and Statistical
Committee
United States
Valued Ecosystem
Component
Vessel Monitoring System
Vessel Trip Report

4.0

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

4.1

PROBLEMS/NEEDS FOR ACTION AND CORRESPONDING PURPOSES AND BACKGROUND

Table 9 summarizes the Problems/Needs for Action and corresponding purposes. The
"Problem/Need for Action" describes 'Why is the Council taking a given action?' For each
Problem/Need for Action there is a "Corresponding Purpose," which is how the Council
proposes to address the Problem/Need for Action. Additional details on the purposes are
provided after the table. The alternatives described in this document provide a reasonable range
of specific tools to implement the purpose, i.e. solve the problem.

Table 9. Summary of the problems/needs for actions and purposes.
SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION
PROBLEM/NEED FOR ACTION
CORRESPONDING PURPOSE
There is insufficient Monitoring of Implement Effective RH/S Monitoring
Purpose RH/S catch
A
catches may be negatively
Reduce RH/S Catch
Purpose impacting RH/S
B
Insufficient management
Consider RH/S NS1 Stock Issues
Purpose framework for RH/S
C

4.1.A Purpose A - Implement Effective RH/S Monitoring
While current levels of monitoring, especially at-sea observer coverage, document that RH/S are
caught in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, the current relatively low monitoring levels
do not allow for management to precisely understand how much RH/S different fisheries are
catching. This makes it difficult to determine what, if any actions would be appropriate by the
Council. Accordingly, this Amendment considers a variety of alternatives to improve
monitoring.
The state of knowledge regarding RH/S catch given the current information is contained in
Appendix 2. Given the purpose of Amendment 14, new analyses for Amendment 14 centered on
River Herrings and Shads. The methods, detailed in Appendix 2, utilized ratios of observed
caught RH/S to total observed fish kept (fish to be landed). These ratios were then applied to
landings by year/area/quarter/gear/mesh strata to estimate RH/S catch for each strata. A similar
procedure has become standard to estimate discards, but in that case only discards are used to
establish the ratio. These strata were used to eliminate the ambiguity (e.g. double counting trips
that land multiple species or missing directed effort that failed to catch the intended target) that

results from attempting to sort observer data by “directed trips” and is further discussed in
Appendix 3, which describes the FMAT’s recommendations upon reviewing the analysis. The
detailed results of these analyses are also provided in Appendix 2 and summarized in Section
6.3.
Readers who participated in the process may note that the total catch estimates in Appendix 2
differ from some preliminary calculations discussed in early technical meetings. The differences
are accounted for by three additional stratifications in the final analysis: 1) single and pair trawl
estimates were combined in the early versions and estimated separately in the final analysis; and
2) bottom trawl estimates were combined in the early versions and estimated separately by mesh
size in the final analysis; and 3) gillnet estimates were combined in the early versions and
estimated separately by mesh size in the final analysis. The stratifications are described in detail
in Appendix 2 but the general idea is that activity by like groups of gears should be estimated
together, and there were differential catch rates between the selected stratifications.
4.1.B Purpose B: Reduce RH/S Catch
While acknowledging substantial uncertainty, the figures used by the council to develop
Amendment 14 (see Appendix 2) are based on 2006-2010 data. The resulting estimates indicate
that on average, about 960,000 pounds of river herrings and about 120,000 pounds of shads were
caught in ocean intercept fisheries during each of those years. Ocean-intercept fish often are
juveniles, so, if you assume five fish per pound, these numbers translate into around 5 million
river herrings and 600,000 shads being caught each year on average. The data suggest that the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries account for a portion of this total catch and that the
mackerel fishery may have substantial encounters with river herrings in some years.
Since there are no coast-wide stock assessments for river herrings or shads, it is not possible to
determine if these catch levels are, or are not, detrimental to river herring or shad stocks. There
also are concerns that single large catches of river herrings and shad could severely impact
individual river runs, but very little is known about the mixing of fish runs at sea. Lack of
comprehensive assessments makes it difficult to even ascertain the status of RH/S stocks.
However, a variety of indicators and recent assessments suggest that many river runs have been
in decline, probably for a variety of reasons.
Regardless of the status of RH/S stocks, National Standard 9 of the MSA requires that
conservation and management measures, to the extent practicable, minimize discards, and to the
extent that discards cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such discards. Both NMFS
online guide to the 1996 Amendments to the MSA (available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/) and responses to comments in the National Standard
Guidelines Final Rule published in the Federal Register in 1998 (available at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/1998/May/Day-01/g11471.htm) note that there is
legislative history suggesting that for the sole purpose of discard/discard mortality minimization,
this provision was intended so that Councils make reasonable efforts to reduce discards, but was
neither intended to ban a type of fishing gear nor to ban a type of fishing or impose costs on
fishermen and processors that cannot be reasonably met.

The meaning of “practicable” was also discussed in Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans, 360
F.3d 21, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2004). The court stated:
…the plaintiffs essentially call for an interpretation of the statute that equates
"practicability" with "possibility," requiring NMFS to implement virtually any measure
that addresses EFH and bycatch concerns so long as it is feasible. Although the
distinction between the two may sometimes be fine, there is indeed a distinction. The
closer one gets to the plaintiffs' interpretation, the less weighing and balancing is
permitted. We think by using the term "practicable" Congress intended rather to allow
for the application of agency expertise and discretion in determining how best to
manage fishery resources.
NMFS has provided additional information on “practicable” in relation to discards:
What does "to the extent practicable mean"? From a National perspective, there is too
much bycatch mortality in a fishery if a reduction in bycatch mortality would increase
the overall net benefit of that fishery to the Nation through alternative uses of the
bycatch species. In this case, a reduction in bycatch mortality is practicable and the
excess bycatch mortality is a wasteful use of living marine resources. In many cases, it
may be possible but not practicable to eliminate all bycatch and bycatch mortality
(NMFS 2008).
While neither NMFS nor the Courts appear to have provided perfect clarity on how much discard
reduction should take place, it seems clear that the biological and economic benefits and costs
should be weighed. Unfortunately, it is difficult to precisely quantify many of the biological and
economic benefits and costs of measures proposed in this Amendment with available scientific
information. However, from a qualitative perspective, the reader will find impact information in
Section 7 (also summarized in the Executive Summary).
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act also provides discretionary
authority to “include management measures in the plan to conserve…non-target
species…considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations” (Section
303(b)(12)). This would appear to provide Councils with considerable discretion to address
catch of non-target species regardless of catch disposition (retained or discarded). Given the
ecological forage role of RH/S these discretionary provisions would appear to be well suited for
the present actions under consideration. Presumably similar evaluations of what is “practicable”
would affect decision making given the discretionary nature of these provisions.
Related to the mandate to reduce discards and discretionary authority to conserve non-target
species, this Amendment considers a variety of alternatives to reduce catch of RH/S. This
Amendment is not the first action taken to reduce discards in the MSB fisheries - Amendment
10 implemented measures to reduce discards (especially butterfish) in the longfin squid fishery
and bring the FMP into compliance with MSA requirements. These measures included an
increased mesh size (from 1.875 inches to 2.125 inches) and a cap that closes the longfin squid
fishery if a certain amount of butterfish is caught.

Amendment 14 continues the Council’s required efforts to minimize discards to the extent
practicable and also considers discretionary provisions to reduce catch of RH/S regardless of the
final disposition (discarded or retained) of that catch. After reviewing the DEIS and public
comment the preferred alternatives have been deemed to be practicable measures that can be
implemented.

4.1.C PURPOSE C: Consider adding RH/S as “stocks in the fishery” in the MSB FMP
Purpose C was to consider alternatives that would bring RH/S into the MSB plan as a managed
stock in terms of Council management responsibilities, including annual catch limits and
accountability measures, in order to improve overall RH/S management and conservation. In the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Alternative Set 9 considered whether to add
RH/S as stocks in the fishery. Since the Council chose no action for that entire alternative set,
and also has begun Amendment 15 to more fully consider the issue, the stock in the fishery issue
has been moved into the “considered but rejected” section (2.4) and is summarized there.
Amendment 15 will allow the Council to fully evaluate the merits of potentially adding RH/S as
stocks and fisheries directly managed by the Council.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

4.2

HISTORY OF FMP DEVELOPMENT

Management of the Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and Illex squid, and butterfish fisheries
began through the implementation of three separate FMPs (one each for mackerel, squid, and
butterfish) in 1978. The plans were merged in 1983. Over the years a wide variety of
management issues have been addressed including rebuilding, habitat conservation, discards
minimization, and limited entry. The original plans, amendments and frameworks that affected
management of these fisheries are summarized below.
Table 10. History of FMP Development
History of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish FMP
Year

Document
Original
FMPs (3)
1978and
1980
individual
amendments
Merged
1983
FMP
Amendment
1984
1
1986

1991

1991

1996

1997

Management Action
Established and continued management of Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish fisheries

Consolidated management of Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
fisheries under a single FMP
Implemented squid optimum yield adjustment mechanism
Revised Atlantic mackerel mortality rate
Equated fishing year with calendar year
Amendment Revised squid discards foreign fishing allowances
2
Implemented framework adjustment process
Converted expiration of fishing permits from indefinite to annual
Amendment
Established overfishing definitions for all four species
3
Limited the activity of directed foreign fishing and joint venture
Amendment transfers to foreign vessels
4
Allowed for specification of optimum yield for Atlantic mackerel for up
to three years
Adjusted longfin squid MSY; established 1 7/8" minimum mesh size
Eliminated directed foreign fisheries for longfin squid, Illex, and
butterfish
Instituted a dealer and vessel reporting system; Instituted operator
Amendment
permitting
5
Implemented a limited access system for longfin squid, Illex and
butterfish
Expanded management unit to include all Atlantic mackerel, longfin
squid, Illex, and butterfish under U.S. jurisdiction.
Amendment Established directed fishery closure at 95% of DAH for longfin squid,
6
Illex and butterfish with post-closure trip limits for each species

1997

1998

2001

2002

2003
2004
2008

2009

2010

2011
2011

Established a mechanism for seasonal management of the Illex fishery
to improve the yield-per recruit
Revised the overfishing definitions for longfin squid, Illex and
butterfish
Amendment Established consistency among FMPs in the NE region of the U.S.
7
relative to vessel permitting, replacement and upgrade criteria
Brought the FMP into compliance with new and revised National
Standards and other required provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries
Amendment
Act.
8
Added a framework adjustment procedure.
Framework
1

Framework
2

Established research set-asides (RSAs).
Established that previous year specifications apply when specifications
for the management unit are not published prior to the start of the
fishing year (excluding foreign fishing specifications)
Extended the Illex moratorium for one year; Established Illex seasonal
exemption from longfin squid minimum mesh;
Specified the longfin squid control rule; Allowed longfin squid specs to
be set for up to 3 years
Extended the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional
year
Extended the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional 5
years

Framework
3
Framework
4
Amendment
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
12
Extended the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a
sunset provision
Adopted biological reference points for longfin squid recommended by
the stock assessment review committee (SARC).
Amendment
Designated EFH for longfin squid eggs based on available information
9
Prohibited bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and
Oceanographer Canyons
Authorized specifications to be set for all four MSB species for up to 3
years
Implemented a butterfish rebuilding program.
Amendment Increased the longfin squid minimum mesh in Trimesters 1 and 3.
10
Implemented a 72-hour trip notification requirement for the longfin
squid fishery.
Mackerel limited access
Amendment
EFH Updates
14
Commercial/Recreational Mackerel Allocation
Amendment Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measure Omnibus Amendment

2011

4.3

13
Amendment Limited Access in the Atl mackerel fishery; EHF updates, Rec/Com
11
allocation. Currently being implemented.

FMP GENERAL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES/GOALS

The objectives, as described in the FMP as currently amended, are listed below.
1. Enhance the probability of successful (i.e., the historical average) recruitment to the
fisheries.
2. Promote the growth of the U.S. commercial fishery, including the fishery for export.
3. Provide the greatest degree of freedom and flexibility to all harvesters of these resources
consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of this FMP.
4. Provide marine recreational fishing opportunities, recognizing the contribution of
recreational fishing to the national economy.
5. Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fisheries.
6. Minimize harvesting conflicts among U.S. commercial, U.S. recreational, and foreign
fishermen.
4.4

MANAGEMENT UNIT/SCOPE

The management unit is currently all northwest Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), longfin
squid, Illex illecebrosus, and butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) under U.S. jurisdiction though an
alternative in the amendment could effectively extend the management unit to include RH/Ss.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5.0

MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES

Throughout this document the reader will note that the focus of the alternatives is on the Atlantic
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries (and more on mackerel for preferred alternatives since
several times more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery compared to the longfin
squid fishery). This is intentional because those are the MSB fisheries that appear to have at
least somewhat substantial RH/S interactions. The Illex fishery appears to rarely interact with
RH/S (see table 21) and there has not been a directed butterfish fishery since 2001. All of the
alternatives are geared to RH/S issues, whether in regards to monitoring, catch reduction, or
general management.
A variety of alternatives were considered but rejected by the Council for a variety of reasons. A
summary of those alternatives and an explanation of why they were rejected follows immediately
below:
Considered but Rejected Management Actions
1. The Council decided not to add a provision for annual forage set-asides for mackerel, squids,
and butterfish. Instead, the Council noted that the recent Omnibus Annual Catch Limit
Amendment already allows harvest reductions due to forage concerns and concluded that formal
set-asides would be better considered after the Council develops ecosystem level goals and
objectives that are informed by the ongoing work of the ecosystem subcommittee of the
Scientific and Statistical Committee.
2. The Council considered including consideration of catch shares for the squid fisheries during
the scoping process but concluded that it would be more effective to focus Amendment 14 on
river herring and shad issues. Also, there was strong public comment against including squid
catch shares at the current time.
3. The Council considered requiring a 6 hour pre-landing notification via phone to land more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate quota monitoring. This was removed because
NMFS is trying to phase out phone notifications of this kind.
4. The Council considered requiring a 6 hour pre-landing notification via phone to land more
than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid so as to facilitate quota monitoring. This was removed
because NMFS is trying to phase out phone notifications of this kind.
5. The Council considered requiring daily electronic reporting by MSB-permitted dealers so as
to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. This was removed
because other options seemed equally effective and the infrastructure for 24hr reporting is
burdensome for both NMFS and dealers.
6. The Council considered requiring 48 hour electronic reporting by MSB-permitted dealers so
as to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. This was removed
because other options seemed equally effective and the infrastructure for 48hr reporting is
burdensome for both NMFS and dealers.

7. The Council considered requiring 72 hour electronic reporting by MSB-permitted dealers so
as to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. This was removed
because other options seemed equally effective and the infrastructure for 72hr reporting is
burdensome for both NMFS and dealers.
8. The Council considered requiring trip termination following 3 slipped hauls on an observed
trip so as to minimize slippage events. The goal is to minimize slippage events. This was
removed because other options seemed equally effective (termination after 1 or 2 hauls) and
having 3 slipped hauls on one trip would be a rare event.
9. The Council considered using mesh changes to reduce the catch of river herrings and shads
but concluded such measures were not feasible due to the lack of trawl mesh selectivity for
mackerel, river herrings, and shads. Selectivity information would be necessary to evaluate both
potential benefits to river herrings and shads and potential costs to the relevant directed fisheries.
10. Some measures under consideration address slippage where the contents of a net on an
observed haul on an observed trip are released in the water. In these cases the observer cannot
sample the released catch. Some alternatives considered requiring ¼ of the catch to be pumped
on board but these were rejected because catch may be patchy so sampling from ¼ of the net
may not provide reliable information.
11. To obtain information on fish that may remain in the net, the Council considered alternatives
that would require nets to be periodically brought aboard after pumping for sampling. These
alternatives were rejected because the observer program had already begun such sampling at
higher rates than those considered in the document. An alternative was also added to prohibit
any discarding of un-sampled fish, even operational discards.
12. To consider broader RH/S conservation and management issues, the DEIS considered
adding any or all RH/S species as directly managed “stocks in the fishery” within the MSB FMP.
The Council initially considered adding none, one, or any combination of the RH/S species as
"stocks" in the fishery. However, given the scope and complexity of the issue, the Council chose
instead to develop a separate amendment, Amendment 15 to the MSB FMP, that would fully
analyze the necessity of managing these stocks under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
interjurisdictional issues related to management of these stocks, as well as the required and
discretionary FMP provisions that would apply to those stocks if added to the fishery.
Further details are available in the DEIS, available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/regs/ under the
2012 “past action link,” but generally the DEIS found that direct Council management impacts to
RH/S would be expected to be positive for all relevant RH/S species and in approximately the
same fashion but to an unknown degree given the various sources of RH/S mortality and
limitations on RH/S productivity. Positive RH/S impacts were primarily related to: 1) potential
additional federal support of RH/S management (assessments, FMP and specifications review,
etc.); 2) additional coordination of conservation activities across agencies; 3) Essential Fish

Habitat (EFH) designation and consultations; and 4) implementation of Annual Catch Limits
(ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs).
The two key questions that will have to be answered by the Council in Amendment 15 are: 1) Is
the current management framework is sufficient to conserve RH/S stocks; and 2) Can federal
management by the Council substantially improve management of RH/S. The uncertainty
regarding the current factors causing RH/S populations to remain in depressed states means that
it will be difficult to identify specific causes and link remedies to specific outcomes. Given this,
the extent of benefits from adding RH/S as stocks in the fishery will be difficult to quantify even
though impacts are likely to be positive, but that will be the task of Amendment 15. The
development of Amendment 15 has begun and may be tracked at the Council website:
http://www.mafmc.org/, and then clicking through to the Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish section or
by contacting Jason Didden at [email protected] (302-526-5254).
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS WITHIN AND BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE SETS:
There are about 80 alternatives in this document. This means that there are millions of
different possible combinations. At the beginning of each Alternative Set, it is noted which
alternatives may, and which alternatives may not be, grouped together within the
Alternative Set. Between Alternative Sets, alternatives generally may be combined without
problem. The only broad exception to this rule is that it would appear unlikely that
alternatives from both of the area-based alternatives (Sets 7 and 8) would be chosen
together.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5.1 Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures

5.1.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
Relatively low levels of catch monitoring have resulted in relatively high uncertainty about catch
of RH/S in Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries. The Council is therefore considering
actions to decrease uncertainty so as to improve the management of RH/S catches. Some of
these measures include changes to vessel reporting and these are included in this Alternative Set.
These changes are intended to improve either the quality of data maintained by NMFS, the
timeliness of that data, or both. Since dealer data is the primary monitoring tool for MSB quota
management, the proposed vessel monitoring changes would mostly be useful for purposes of
cross checking for errors that occur when data is entered into the dealer weighout databases.

5.1.2 General Rationale & Background
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates. Some of the focus may appear to be on mackerel and/or longfin squid general
reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries. However, because extrapolations of RH/S
catch are often made based on total landings, accurate monitoring of the target species is
important when determining total catch of RH/S.
Current Reporting Requirements
The current suite of reporting requirements for MSB fisheries is further described under the Noaction alternative below. But a general reporting summary is provided here as an introduction.
The Northeast Region has two main types of reporting requirements for vessels, Vessel Trip
Reporting (VTR) and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS). VTRs include such information as:
Vessel identification; date fished; location fished; gear used, number of crew; total number of
hauls; average tow duration; weight of species caught; and dealer information. All permits
require VTR submissions, but at different time scales. VTRs are required to be submitted on a
monthly basis for MSB permits but most MSB-permitted vessels must already submit VTRs on a
weekly basis because of requirements for other permits (Atlantic herring or NE multispecies).
NMFS has been moving many of the region’s fisheries toward weekly vessel trip reporting
(VTR) to improve monitoring and monitoring timeliness.
VMS is used to collect near-real time vessel location information, and is often required for
permits for fisheries that have area-based management components. Generally electronic VMS
units are installed on vessels and automatically report vessel location to NMFS at least hourly.
Several fisheries also require catch reporting via VMS. The herring fishery requires daily VMS
catch reporting, and the multispecies fishery requires VMS catch reports at the close of each trip.
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization has an informative primer on the use of VMS for
the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance of fishing vessels here:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w9633e/w9633e06.htm#TopOfPage. VMS units are not
currently required for any MSB fisheries, although many MSB permitted vessels have VMS
units due to requirements for other permits.
While landings information submitted weekly by dealers is the primary tool for MSB fishery
quota monitoring, both VTR and VMS data have the potential to be used by managers for cross
checking dealer data when monitoring quotas and making catch extrapolations. Alternatives in
this set may appear to focus on mackerel and/or longfin squid general reporting compared to just
RH/S in those fisheries. However, because extrapolations are often made based on total
landings, accurate monitoring of the target species can be as important as determining the
encounter rates of RH/S. This is because when estimations of non-target catch (including
discards) such as RH/S are made with observer data, they are usually made based on the ratio of
RH/S to total retained catch applied to landings data. For example, if it was found that in
observer data, 1 pound of RH/S was caught for every 100 pounds of fish landed by mackerel
vessels, and those same vessels landed 1,000,000 pounds of fish, one could estimate that 10,000
pounds of RH/S were caught. While small differences in the total landings number will not
affect the estimate substantially, it is still important for both the ratio and the total landings
number to be as accurate as feasibly possible.
The Northeast Fishery Observer Program also collects information on discarded and unusual
catches via on-board monitors (called “observers”) placed by NMFS. Currently in MSB
fisheries, just the longfin squid fishery has a requirement to provide 48-hour pre-trip notifications
so that observers may be more efficiently allocated in that fishery. Additional details on existing
observer-related provisions may be found below in section 5.3.3.
The current way vessel data is collected for MSB fisheries may be insufficient for a variety of
reasons. The action alternatives discuss these reasons below since each addresses particular
potential deficiencies.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternatives from Alternative Set 1 would: require weekly VTR reporting for all
MSB vessel permits (1c); require a 48-hour pre directed mackerel trip notification (1d48);
require VMS and daily VMS catch reporting for mackerel and longfin squid vessels (1eMack,
1eLong, 1fMack, and 1fLong); and require a 6-hour pre-landing notification via VMS for
mackerel landings greater than 20,000 pounds (1gMack).
These preferred alternatives are designed to be integrated with existing monitoring and reporting
requirements and other measures in this document to create an overall complementary system
that provides accurate data on the catch of RH/S in the mackerel and longfin squid fleets. Each
preferred alternative will add incremental information about RH/S catch as described below and
thus provide incremental benefits in terms of better data to perform assessments and guide
management. While not directly impacting RH/S stocks, better catch data should help improve
RH/S assessments and management indirectly.

5.1.3 Management Alternatives
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Most of the Alternative Set 1 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 1c (weekly VTRs for all MSB permits)
would encompass 1bMack and 1bLong so these would not be selected together. The 48-hr
mackerel pre-trip notification (1d48) and 72-hr mackerel pre-trip notification (1d72) would also
be mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. The VMS reporting alternatives
(1f’s and 1g’s) would need the respective 1e’s (that require VMS) for each fishery as a
prerequisite before requiring VMS reporting.
Note: Since some of the alternatives below are very similar, they are grouped together for
purposes of description.
1a. No-action
The current monitoring requirements would remain in effect, and these are described below for
MSB permits.
The owner or operator of any vessel issued a valid permit or eligible to renew a limited access
permit must maintain on board the vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing “Vessel Trip Report”
log for each fishing trip, regardless of species fished for or taken, on forms supplied by or
approved by the Regional Administrator. If no fishing trip is made during a month, a report
stating so must be submitted for each month. If authorized in writing by the Regional
Administrator, a vessel owner or operator may submit reports electronically, for example by
using a VMS or other media. At least the following information and any other information
required by the Regional Administrator must be provided: Vessel name; United States Coast
Guard documentation number (or state registration number, if undocumented); permit number;
date/time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; number of crew; number of anglers (if a charter or
party boat); gear fished; quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring size; chart area fished; average
depth; latitude/longitude (or loran station and bearings); total hauls per area fished; average tow
time duration; hail weight, in pounds (or count of individual fish, if a party or charter vessel), by
species, of all species, or parts of species; dealer permit number; dealer name; date sold, port and
state landed; and vessel operator's name, signature, and the operator's permit number (if
applicable).
VTRs must be filled out with all required information, except for information not yet
ascertainable, prior to entering port. Information that may be considered unascertainable prior to
entering port includes dealer name, dealer permit number, and date sold. Log reports must be
completed as soon as the information becomes available. Upon the request of an authorized
officer or an employee of NMFS designated by the Regional Administrator to make such
inspections, all persons required to submit reports under this part must make immediately
available for inspection copies of reports, and all records upon which those reports are or will be
based, that are required to be submitted or kept under this part. Copies of fishing log reports
must be kept on board the vessel and available for review for at least 1 year, and must be retained
for a total of 3 years after the date the fish were last possessed, landed, and sold.

VTRs for MSB permits are currently required on a monthly basis, and must be postmarked or
received by NMFS within 15 days after the end of the reporting month. If no fishing trip is made
during a particular month for such a vessel, a report stating so must be submitted, as instructed
by the Regional Administrator. Once the mackerel limited access system becomes operational,
Tier 3 Limited Access mackerel permits’ VTRs will be required on a weekly basis, and must be
postmarked or received by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week.
If no fishing trip is made during a reporting week for such a vessel, a report stating so must be
submitted and received by NMFS by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week.
VMS is not required for MSB permits but most MSB permits do have VMS requirements
because of permits in other fisheries. A description of the proposed VMS monitoring, which is
identical to current measures in place for other fisheries is described in the relevant action
alternatives below.
For only longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits, there is currently a 48-hour pre-trip
notification in order to facilitate the placement of observers. Vessels must wait up to 48 hours
from the time of notification for an observer if they are selected to take an observer.
Currently there is no way for the observer program to identify mackerel trips for observer
placement purposes. Observers are carried on board some trips that land mackerel related to
their placement on other vessels, primarily directed herring trips, but there is no systematic way
to place observers on trips targeting mackerel.

1bMack. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for mackerel permits.
AND
1bLong. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for longfin squid/Butterfish permits.
AND
1c. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for all MSB permits (Mackerel, longfin
squid//Butterfish, Illex) so as to facilitate quota monitoring and cross checking with other
data sources. (PREFERRED)
With monthly reporting, data is not collected in a timely-enough manner to be feasibly used for
quota monitoring. Weekly reporting would match the dealer reporting timeframe and increase
the feasibility of using VTR data to cross-check dealer data. These three alternatives differ only
in the permit categories that would be affected, as described in the alternatives themselves.
The basic VTR requirements would remain the same as described in the no-action alternative but
the timing would change. Instead of the current monthly reporting for all but Tier 3 mackerel
permits, the following timing requirement would be implemented:

VTRs must be postmarked or received by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week (each reporting week begins at 12:00am Sunday morning and ends 11:59pm
Saturday night). If no fishing trip is made during a reporting week, a report stating so must be
submitted and received by NMFS by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week. The date when fish are offloaded will establish the reporting week that the VTR
must be submitted to NMFS. Any fishing activity during a particular reporting week ( i.e.,
starting a trip, landing, or offloading catch) will constitute fishing during that reporting week and
will eliminate the need to submit a negative fishing report to NMFS for that reporting week. For
example, if a vessel begins a fishing trip on Wednesday, but returns to port and offloads its catch
on the following Thursday ( i.e., after a trip lasting 8 days), the VTR for the fishing trip would
need to be submitted by midnight Tuesday of the third week, but a negative report ( i.e., a “did
not fish” report) would not be required for either earlier week.

1d48. Require 48 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement. (PREFERRED)
AND

1d72. Require 72 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement.
These notifications would be used to facilitate observer placement in a systematic fashion
contingent upon funding. If vessels did not notify they would not be able to land more than
incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds). These two alternatives differ only in how much lead
time a vessel must provide before intending to depart. Currently the longfin squid fishery has a
48-hour requirement. The requirement was implemented in order to give observers sufficient
time to be deployed to vessels.
Notification Mechanism
Mackerel permit holders would have to notify the Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) at
least 72 or 48 hours, but no more than 10 days, prior to any trip on which you intend to land over
20,000 lb of mackerel. This requirement would be in effect for the entire fishing year. Notification
could be made using any of the following methods:
1) ONLINE via the Pre-Trip Notification System (PTNS - preferred method): The PTNS is
accessible at https://fish.nefsc.noaa.gov/PTNS/.
2) EMAIL: Vessels could also submit a trip notification by email to [email protected].
3) TELEPHONE: Vessels could also call 1-855-FISHES1 (1-855-347-4371).

1eMack. Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels. (PREFERRED)
AND
1eLong. Require VMS for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels (see 1f and 1g
below). (PREFERRED)

There is currently no VMS requirement for mackerel or longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
vessels. If area-based management measures are implemented via this amendment then having
VMS for compliance/enforcement could be useful.
Vessel Monitoring Systems are currently utilized in many New England fisheries. They are
generally used to facilitate compliance and enforcement of area-based management measures as
well as catch monitoring by means of a satellite connection between shore and a fixed electronic
unit installed on vessels. Vessels that do not currently have VMS units would have to purchase
and install electronic VMS units (see section 7 for costs and number of vessels impacted).
Vessels would be required to declare into the fishery for trips targeting mackerel and/or longfin
squid. The VMS would ping NMFS w/ location information at least every hour, 24 hr a day,
throughout the year (herring also does every one hour). Vessels with more stringent
requirements (more frequent communication) would still be bound by those requirements.
Vessels would have to provide documentation to the Regional Administrator at the time of
application or reapplication for a mackerel or longfin squid/butterfish limited access permit that
the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets the minimum performance
criteria. Vessels would have to confirm the VMS unit's operation and communications service to
NMFS by calling the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) to ensure that position reports are
automatically sent to and received by NMFS OLE. NMFS does not regard the fishing vessel as
meeting the VMS requirements until automatic position reports and a manual declaration are
received.

1fMack. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by limited access mackerel vessels so as to
facilitate monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. Requiring VMS (see
1eMack above) and requiring trip declarations (would be a prerequisite for this
alternative. (PREFERRED)
AND
1fLong. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by longfin squid moratorium permits so as
to facilitate monitoring and cross checking with other data sources. Requiring VMS (see
1eLong above) and requiring trip declarations would be a prerequisite for this alternative.
(PREFERRED)

Landings information submitted weekly by dealers is the primary tool for MSB fishery quota
monitoring. Data collected from one Sunday-Saturday period must be reported by the following
Tuesday. So landings on a Saturday must be reported 3 days later and landings on a Sunday
must be reported 9 days later. Due to the high-volume nature of the Atlantic herring fishery,
quota monitoring was difficult with these timeframes so it implemented daily VMS reporting of
catch for Atlantic Herring (by 9am for the previous days catch). Given the overlap between the
Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries, requiring VMS for mackerel vessels would make
reporting requirements consistent for vessels that participate in these fisheries. Daily VMS
reporting would also decrease the probability of future quota overages caused by the time-lag in
reporting, However, there have not been recent quota monitoring problems with the mackerel
and/or longfin squid fisheries. If these alternatives were implemented, the following provisions
would apply:
The owner or operator of a vessel issued a limited access permit to fish for mackerel and/or
longfin squid would have to report catches (retained and discarded) of mackerel and/or longfin
squid daily via VMS when on a declared trip, unless exempted by the Regional Administrator.
The report would have to include at least the following information, and any other information
required by the Regional Administrator: Fishing Vessel Trip Report serial number; month and
day fish was caught; pounds retained; and pounds discarded. Daily VMS catch reports would
have to be submitted in 24-hr intervals for each day and must be submitted by 0900 hr of the
following day. Reports would be required even if fish caught that day has not yet been landed.
This reporting would not exempt the owner or operator from other applicable reporting
requirements. The owner or operator would have to submit a catch report via VMS each day
when on a declared trip, regardless of how much fish is caught (including days when no
mackerel and/or longfin squid are caught), unless exempted from this requirement by the
Regional Administrator.
While there are no alternatives for area-based reporting of catch, which is what VMS is most
useful for, VMS reporting does provide more rapid information about fish soon to be landed.
This makes quota overages due to time-lags in reporting of landings less likely. Since mortality
caps are often extrapolated from landings information, VMS reporting could be useful for either
directed fishery quota monitoring or indirectly for a mortality cap.

1gMack. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 20,000
pounds of mackerel, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside
monitoring. (PREFERRED)
AND
1gLong. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 2,500 pounds
of longfin squid, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside
monitoring. (The Council chose No Action for the longfin fishery for this measure.)
Pre landing notifications would be used to facilitate catch monitoring, enforcement, cross
checking with other data sources, and portside monitoring (if applicable). There are currently no
such notifications. If these alternatives were implemented, the following provisions would
apply:
Vessels with mackerel and/or longfin squid limited access permits would have to report through
VMS their intention to land more than 20,000 pound of mackerel and/or 2,500 pounds of longfin
squid (these are the incidental trips limits for these species). Notification would have to be made
no less than 6 hr prior to crossing the VMS Demarcation Line on the way back to port, and
would have to include the estimated time of arrival in port, the port at which the catch will be
landed, and the dealer(s) where offloads will occur. If the harvest ends less than 6 hr prior to
landing, then the notification must be submitted immediately upon the conclusion of fishing
activities.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5.2 Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures

5.2.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
The way that dealers report landings has contributed to relatively high uncertainty about catch of
RH/S in Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries for two primary reasons. First, RH/S are often
not reported in mixed landings of mackerel and Atlantic herring when the RH/S constitute a
small percentage of the total landings. Second, it is not always clear how the quantities of fish
reported are derived. Since extrapolations of are often based on total landings estimates (see
5.1.2), accurate monitoring of target species can also be important for determining encounter
rates for non-target species.
In addition, general dealer reporting errors can be difficult to locate and correct because vessels
generally do not confirm dealer data entries, though they can request and/or access their landings
records. Fishermen report that when they request their dealer landings history there are
frequently major errors (NMFS will investigate and if appropriate correct such errors).

5.2.2 General Rationale & Background
2b seeks to establish a mechanism where vessels could easily confirm what dealers entered via
an internet connection to address the general dealer reporting error issue described above.
2c-2f would create a system that would at least gather information about how dealers are
establishing landings composition and weights and could require all fish to be actually weighed.
These would address the primary issues described above that contribute to relatively high
uncertainty about catch of RH/S in Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries.
Since there is no current standard for reporting weights, it is difficult to ascertain the prevalence
of current procedures for determining weights. Staff discussions with MSB Advisory Panel
members suggest that the majority of dealers are currently weighing a majority of their MSB
landings, often with state-certified scales. However, there are some instances, especially with
mackerel, where product may de-watered (or partially de-watered) and shipped by truck before it
is weighed. In such instances the receiver may report back a weight, or weights may be
estimated based on the size of the shipping containers or truck volume.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternatives from Alternative Set 2 would: require federal MSB dealers to weigh
all landings of mackerel over 20,000 pounds (2d) and longfin squid over 2,500 pounds (2f) or
document why they cannot weight landings (2g). (If all fish are not weighed separately, dealers
would have to document with each transaction how they estimate the relative composition of
mixed catches.).

These preferred alternatives are designed to be integrated with existing monitoring and reporting
requirements and other measures in this document to create an overall complementary system
that provides accurate data on the catch of RH/S in the mackerel and longfin squid fleets. Each
preferred alternative will add incremental information about RH/S catch as described below and
thus provide incremental benefits in terms of better data to perform assessments and guide
management. While not directly impacting RH/S stocks, better catch data should help improve
RH/S assessments and management indirectly.

5.2.3 Management Alternatives
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Most of the Alternative Set 2 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 2c and 2d (weighing mackerel) would be
mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. Likewise, 2e and 2f (weighing longfin
squid) would be mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. 2g (dealers can use
volume to weight conversions) would modify 2c, 2d, 2e, or 2f so 2g could only be chosen if at
least one of those four alternatives was also chosen.
Note: Since some of the alternatives below are very similar, they are grouped together for
purposes of description.

2a. No-action
The current dealer reporting requirements would remain in place. Dealers, including at-sea
processors, must submit, for each transaction, an electronic dealer report each week. Reports are
due by midnight (Eastern Time) each Tuesday for the week that ended the previous Saturday at
midnight. Reports must include the correct vessel name and Federal permit number of each
vessel that harvested any fish received along with the correct weight units for purchased fish.
Dealers must also report the VTR serial number used by each vessel that harvested fish (VTRs
are currently the only cross check for dealer information on MSB landings). Dealers are required
to submit a report even if there is no activity during a week. As described above, it is believed
that most dealers already weigh most mackerel and longfin squid catches but some may use
volume to weight conversions.

2b. Require federally permitted MSB dealers to obtain vessel representative confirmation
of Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System transaction records for mackerel
landings over 20,000 lb, Illex landings over 10,000 lb, and longfin squid landings over 2,500
lb.
This would be accomplished via Fish Online, an existing internet-based program that currently
allows vessels to voluntarily check their landings records. The purpose would be to catch errors
at the first point of entry in the data system. Alternative 2b would require vessel

owners/operators to review and validate all catch information reported for their vessels in Fishon-Line (FOL) on a weekly basis, including VMS, VTR, and dealer data. If data issues are noted
by the vessel owner/operator they would indicate a data issue and provide comments describing
the issue, this would create an issue report to NMFS in FOL. NMFS would follow up on all
issue reports to resolve discrepancies by working with vessel operators and dealers to correct
data submissions. If no data issues are noted the vessel’s owner/operator would indicate such.
Since dealers have to report the previous week’s landings on Tuesdays, vessel representatives
would need to confirm the reports submitted by one Tuesday by 11:59pm on the following
Friday, providing three business days to make such confirmations. Dealers would have to record
a confirmation from vessel representatives that a vessel representative had used Fish Online to
confirm that their landings had been entered appropriately.
2c. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document in dealer applications how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
AND
2d. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document with each transaction how they estimated the relative composition of a mixed
catch. (PREFERRED)

These alternatives would only apply to mackerel landings over 20,000 lb. Most dealers already
weigh most of their mackerel landings by packing mackerel into boxes in weighed quantities.
These alternatives are geared to apparently infrequent occasions where large quantities of
mackerel are shipped without accurate weighing and would require applicable dealers that do not
already have access to scales to purchase scales or pay for weighing by third parties.
The cost of scales can vary dramatically. The use of an already existing truck scale can cost as
little as $10, but the distance to reach one may make their use impracticable. Installation of a
truck scale in an easily-accessible port can cost more than $100,000, depending on the area in
which the scale will be placed. Not all dealers use trucks in the transport of fish however, and
water weight can impact the accuracy of measurements. Floor scales handling up to 20,000
pounds cost $3,000-$5,000 while floor scales that can weigh up to 100,000 pounds cost $13,000$17,000. Hopper scales can have multiple or single hoppers, and weigh fish as they flow
through the scale. For precise estimates the water needs to be completely separated from the fish
before use. Hopper scale costs can range from $20,000 to $50,000 per scale, and newer models
are now being produced that can be used on vessels at sea. Smaller scales costing several
hundred dollars may be purchased but may mean that additional time is required to process a
product.
In addition, if dealers do not sort by species, these alternatives would require dealers to
document how they estimate the relative composition of a mixed catch in order to report the

amount of each species bought from vessels on either their annual dealer application (2c), or with
each transaction (2d). These alternatives don’t obligate dealers to always sort fish, they just
obligate dealers to describe how they estimate species composition.

2e. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document in dealer applications how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.

AND
2f. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document with each transaction how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
(PREFERRED)

These alternatives would only apply to longfin squid landings over 2,500 lb. Since there is no
current standard for reporting weights, it is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of current
procedures for determining weights. Staff discussions with MSB Advisory Panel members
suggest that the majority of dealers are currently weighing a majority of their MSB landings,
often with state-certified scales. As such, this alternative would require as a legal requirement
the existing general sorting and weighing practices.

2g. Related to preferred requirements to weigh all fish (2d, 2f), allow dealers to use volume
to weight conversions if they cannot weigh landings – they would need to identify their
conversion methods in their dealer application and explain why they cannot weigh all
landings. (PREFERRED)

Under the no-action, dealers can choose to actually weigh their fish, or use some other method,
such as volumetrics, to determine reported weights. Selecting this option would mean that, for
2c-2f, dealers could weigh fish or use volume to weight conversions. So either the weight or
volume would have to be measured. Dealers would also have to document in their annual dealer
application how they estimated the weights with volumetric measurements if the fish were not
actually weighted. This could be as simple as identifying their assumed weight per volume of
fish and how they estimate volume. While this alternative will not necessarily improve the data
on landed fish, it would at least develop complete data on how weights are being estimated so
that the Council could use that information in the future to decide if additional reporting
measures were appropriate.

5.3 Alternative Set 3: At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
5.3.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
In addition to relatively low levels of at-sea catch monitoring, several issues have potentially
resulted in the data that is collected being less than optimal (though still the best available).
5.3.2 General Rationale & Background
NEFOP data is primarily used to estimate discards, but is also used in some cases to estimate
total catch, as with the case of the butterfish mortality cap for the longfin squid fishery. Since
annual catch limits include all catch including discards, it is important to get good information on
discards to minimize the chances of closing fisheries too early or too late.
The alternatives in this set seek to make sure the data coming out of the Northeast Fishery
Observer Program (NEFOP) are as representative and as indicative of fishery activities as
possible, especially addressing and minimizing circumstances where vessels open nets in the
water before observers have a chance to sample the contents of the net. Slippage is an important
concept in this Alternative Set, and within this amendment is defined as: Unobserved catch, i.e.,
catch that is discarded prior to being observed, sorted, sampled, and/or brought on board the
fishing vessel. Slippage can include the release of fish from a codend or seine prior to
completion of pumping or the release of an entire catch or bag while the catch is still in the
water.
• Fish that cannot be pumped and that remain in the net at the end of pumping operations
are considered to be operational discards and not slipped catch. Observer protocols
include documenting fish that remain in the net in a discard log before they are released,
and existing regulations require vessel operators to assist the observer in this process.
Management measures are under consideration in this amendment to address this issue
and improve the observers’ ability to inspect nets after pumping to document operational
discards.
• Discards that occur at-sea after catch brought on board and sorted are also not
considered slipped catch.
From 2006-2010 approximately 9% (383 of 4186 or 77 per year) of hauls on observed longfin
squid trips (trips that caught 50% or more longfin squid or at least 10,000 pounds longfin squid)
and 26% (73 of 277 or 15 per year) of hauls on observed mackerel trips (trips that caught 50% or
more mackerel or at least 100,000 pounds mackerel) had some unobserved catch. Catch may be
unobserved for a variety of reasons, for example transfer to another vessel without an observer,
observer not on station, or haul slipped (dumped) in the water. The above numbers would thus
be an upper bound on slippage events. Since the MSB fisheries, and especially the mackerel
fishery are relatively high-volume fisheries that can catch large quantities of fish in a single tow
(as frequently documented in observer data), even a few slipped hauls could have the potential to
substantially affect any analysis of the data or extrapolations made from the data. Therefore,
alternatives to minimize slippage were included in the amendment. The issue is not so much that

a lot of slippage is occurring, just that if it did occur the overall value of observer data could be
compromised because of the large quantities of fish that can be caught in a single tow.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternatives from Alternative Set 3 would: require for mackerel and longfinbutterfish permits that: reasonable assistance be provided to observers (3b); notice of haul-back
or pumping be provided to observers (3c); one observer is provided for each vessel on pair-trawl
operations whenever possible (3d). Also, unless safety, mechanical, or spiny dogfish issues
make it inappropriate, the same vessels would not be able to release hauls of fish (“slippage”)
prior to observer documentation, and catch affidavits would have to be completed for any preobserved net release (3j). For mackerel limited access vessels, there would also be a fleet-wide
cap of 10 non-emergency (safety, mechanical, spiny dogfish) slippages after which further nonemergency slippages would require a vessel to terminate their trip (3l).
These preferred alternatives are designed to be integrated with existing monitoring and reporting
requirements and other measures in this document to create an overall complementary system
that provides accurate data on the catch of RH/S in the mackerel and longfin squid fleets. Each
preferred alternative will add incremental information about RH/S catch as described below and
thus provide incremental benefits in terms of better data to perform assessments and guide
management. While not directly impacting RH/S stocks, better catch data should help improve
RH/S assessments and management indirectly.
5.3.3 Management Alternatives
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Many of the Alternative Set 3 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 3h (trip termination after 1 slipped haul)
and 3i (trip termination after 2 slipped hauls) would be mutually exclusive – only one would be
chosen if either. Likewise, 3k (fishery-wide slippage cap at 5 mackerel slippage events) and 3l
(fishery-wide slippage cap at 10 mackerel slippage events) would be mutually exclusive – only
one would be chosen if either. 3m (fishery-wide slippage cap at 5 longfin slippage events) and
3n (fishery-wide slippage cap at 10 longfin slippage events) are also mutually exclusive – only
one would be chosen if either. 3p would replace fishery-wide slippage caps with vessel slippage
caps and it would be expected that either 3p could be chosen or 3k-3n could be chosen (if any).
Also, if 3j (slippage prohibition with exceptions) was chosen then 3f or 3g could not be selected
(3f and 3g require all catch to be brought aboard but 3j provides some exceptions).
If alternatives 3f – 3p are selected for mackerel, they would also require the selection of
Alternative 1d48 (48-hr pre-trip notification) or 1d72 (72-hr pre-trip notification). There is
already a pre-trip notification requirement in effect for longfin squid moratorium permit holders.
Note: Since some of the alternatives below are very similar, they are grouped together for
purposes of description.

3a. No-action

The current requirements for vessels related to observers would continue to remain in effect. An
owner or operator of a vessel on which a NMFS-approved sea sampler/observer is embarked
must (§ 648.11(d)):
(1) Provide accommodations and food that are equivalent to those provided to the crew.
(2) Allow the sea sampler/observer access to and use of the vessel's communications equipment
and personnel upon request for the transmission and receipt of messages related to the sea
sampler's/observer's duties.
(3) Provide true vessel locations, by latitude and longitude or loran coordinates, as requested by
the observer/sea sampler, and allow the sea sampler/observer access to and use of the vessel's
navigation equipment and personnel upon request to determine the vessel's position.
(4) Notify the sea sampler/observer in a timely fashion of when fishing operations are to begin
and end.
(5) Allow for the embarking and debarking of the sea sampler/observer, as specified by the
Regional Administrator, ensuring that transfers of observers/sea samplers at sea are
accomplished in a safe manner, via small boat or raft, during daylight hours as weather and sea
conditions allow, and with the agreement of the sea samplers/ observers involved.
(6) Allow the sea sampler/observer free and unobstructed access to the vessel's bridge, working
decks, holding bins, weight scales, holds, and any other space used to hold, process, weigh, or
store fish.
(7) Allow the sea sampler/observer to inspect and copy any the vessel's log, communications log,
and records associated with the catch and distribution of fish for that trip.
When two boats are fishing cooperatively NMFS attempts to place observers on both vessels
rather than just one but this does not always happen.
Slippage events are not currently required to be documented by any MSB permits although the
observer program has had observers collecting more detailed information about slippage events
since 2010. There are currently no requirements or disincentives for MSB-permitted vessels to
avoid slipping hauls.

3b. Require the following reasonable assistance measures: provision of a safe sampling
station; help with measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; help with fish collection;
and help with basket sample collection by crew on vessels with mackerel limited access
and/or longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits. Requirements can be modified via
the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the DEIS
and clarifies that the requirements may be modified through the annual specifications process.
Such assistance could help improve observer data by allowing the observer to focus on technical
aspects of observing such as species identification, weighing, measuring, etc. While the observer
program reports that many vessels provide this kind of assistance when possible already,
codifying this would provide the observer program with additional leverage if cooperation
problems occur on particular vessels. This language mirrors the measures proposed in
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. This alternative could be selected for vessels with
limited access mackerel permits, longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or both.

3c. Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when pumping/haul-back occurs
on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits.
Requirements can be modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the DEIS
and clarifies that the requirements may be modified through the annual specifications process.
Such notification could help improve observer data by making sure the observer is aware of all
sampling opportunities. While the observer program reports that many vessels provide this kind
of assistance when possible already, and vessels must provide information about when fishing
activity begins and ends, clarifying notifications include pumping and haul-back would provide
the observer program with additional leverage if cooperation problems occur on particular
vessels regarding sampling. This alternative could be selected for vessels with limited access
mackerel permits, longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or both.

3d. When observers are deployed on trips involving more than one vessel, observers would
be required on any vessel taking on fish wherever/whenever possible on vessels with
mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits. Requirements can be
modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the DEIS
and clarifies that the requirements may be modified through the annual specifications process.

If vessels are working in pairs conducting pair trawling or other types of fishing (e.g. using purse
seines or carrier vessels) where both vessels are receiving fish, having observers on both vessels
ensures that all catch from the pair trawling trip is observed. The observer program generally
does this already but this would just provide additional policy direction that the Council deems it
less than optimal for only half of a pair-trawl operation to be observed when both vessels are
receiving fish. This alternative could be selected for vessels with limited access mackerel
permits, longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or both.

3e. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require slippage reports - “Released Catch Affidavits” from captains on observed trips if
they slip a haul.
Selected alone, this alternative provides another account of slippage but does not do anything to
deter slippage. This alternative would be used to augment and cross check the data collected by
observers to develop a better understanding of slippage events. If a net is released, the vessel
operator would be required to complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing
information about where, when, and why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of
the total weight of fish caught on the tow and weight of fish released. Released Catch Affidavits
must be submitted within 48 hours of completion of the trip. This alternative could be selected
for vessels with limited access mackerel permits, longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or
both.

3f. Prohibit vessels with Mackerel limited access permits that have notified for a mackerel
trip and are carrying an observer from releasing any discards before they have been
brought aboard for sampling by the observer.
3g. Prohibit vessels with longfin squid moratorium permits that have notified for a longfin
squid trip and are carrying an observer from releasing any discards before they have been
brought aboard for sampling by the observer.
3f and 3g would be used to improve the quality of data collected by observers by requiring all
fish that will be discarded be brought aboard for sampling in order to develop complete
information about all species caught in the mackerel fishery (3f) or longfin squid fishery (3g).

3h. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require trip termination following 1 slipped haul on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip any hauls on an observed trip so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. It would apply to vessels that had notified for a mackerel and/or longfin squid trip
(longfin squid trips most already notify and notification for mackerel trips is considered in
Alternative Set 1).

3i. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require trip termination following 2 slipped hauls on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip 2 hauls on an observed trip so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. It would apply to vessels that had notified for a mackerel and/or longfin squid trip
(longfin squid trips most already notify and notification for mackerel trips is considered in
Alternative Set 1).
3j. With the exceptions noted below, mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid
moratorium permitted vessels that have notified the observer program of their intent to
land over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid or over 20,000 pounds of mackerel and have been
selected to carry an observer would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net
for inspection and sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be
required to bring all fish aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer.
Vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net (slippage), transferring fish to
another vessel (that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer), or otherwise discarding
fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel and made available for
sampling and inspection by the observer.
Exceptions: 1) pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel/crew
2) mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch
aboard the vessel; or
3) spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent
pumping of the rest of the catch.
If a net is released, including the exemptions above, the vessel operator would be
required to complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information
about where, when, and why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of
the total weight of fish caught on the tow and weight of fish released. Released
Catch Affidavits must be submitted within 48 hours of completion of the trip.
Exemptions and provisions of this measure can be modified via the annual
specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the DEIS
and clarifies that the exemptions and provisions of this requirement may be modified through the
annual specifications process.
This alternative would seek to minimize slippage (gaining observer catch data) and also gain
information on any slippage events that do occur by requiring “Released Catch Affidavits. This
alternative is different from 3e in that 3e only requires affidavits but 3j prohibits slippage except
for the exceptions. This alternative is different from 3f and 3g in that 3f and 3g do not provide

for the exceptions specified in 3j. This alternative could be selected for vessels with limited
access mackerel permits, longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or both. While observer
records are the primary mechanism for determining what happened on an observed trip, the
Council determined that the catch affidavits would provide a useful secondary stream of data on
slippage, in the same way that VTR records are useful as a secondary data stream alongside
dealer records when examining overall catch.

3k. Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 5 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage
events on any notified and observed Mackerel trip would result in trip termination fleetwide for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once 5 slippage events have occurred overall in a year by vessels declaring
mackerel trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events and maximize observers'
ability to observe all catch. Once mackerel limited access permits had slipped 5 or more times in
a year on notified mackerel trips, any subsequent slippage during a notified and observed trip by
another mackerel limited access permitted vessel would force a trip termination for that vessel,
even if that particular vessel had never slipped a haul before. 3k could only be selected if 3j was
also selected.

3l. Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage
events on any notified and observed Mackerel trip would result in trip termination fleetwide for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events. The only slippages
that would count against the cap are non-emergency events, so the exceptions 1, 2, and 3 in
3j would not count against the slippage cap. Operational discards (small quantities of fish
that remain in the net) that are made available to the observer for visual access prior to
discarding would also not count against the slippage cap. Requirements and provisions of
the measure can be modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once 10 slippage events have occurred overall in a year by vessels declaring
mackerel trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events and maximize observers'
ability to observe all catch. Once mackerel limited access permits had slipped 5 or more times in
a year on notified mackerel trips, any subsequent slippage during a notified and observed trip by
another mackerel limited access permitted vessel would force a trip termination for that vessel,
even if that particular vessel had never slipped a haul before. 3k could only be selected if 3j was
also selected.

The double underlined section is a slight modification from the original alternative in the DEIS
and clarifies what kind of slippage events would count against the cap and allows the
requirements and provisions of the cap to be modifiable via the annual specifications process.
While any slippage has the potential to compromise the overall value of observer data, the
Council selected 10 non-exempt slippage events as a trigger in order to create a disincentive for
vessels to slip catches, thereby addressing data quality issues while acknowledging that
sometimes exigent circumstances require a certain degree of flexibility during fishery operations.
3m. Related to 3j, for longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 5 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid trips then subsequent
slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip would result in trip
termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events. (The
Council chose No Action for the longfin fishery for this measure.)
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring longfin squid vessels to
terminate a trip if they slip a haul once 5 slippage events have occurred overall in a trimester by
vessels declaring longfin squid trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events and
maximize observers' ability to observe all catch. Once longfin squid limited access permits had
slipped 5 or more times in a trimester on notified longfin squid trips, any subsequent slippage
during a notified and observed trip by another vessel would force a trip termination for that
vessel, even if that particular vessel had never slipped a haul before. 3k could only be selected if
3j was also selected.
3n. Related to 3j, for longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid trips then subsequent
slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip would result in trip
termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events. (The
Council chose No Action for the longfin fishery for this measure.)
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring longfin squid vessels to
terminate a trip if they slip a haul once 10 slippage events have occurred overall in a trimester by
vessels declaring longfin squid trips. The goal is to minimize unnecessary slippage events and
maximize observers' ability to observe all catch. Once longfin squid limited access permits had
slipped 10 or more times in a trimester on notified longfin squid trips, any subsequent slippage
during a notified and observed trip by another vessel would force a trip termination for that
vessel, even if that particular vessel had never slipped a haul before. 3k could only be selected if
3j was also selected.

3o. For mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels, if a trip is terminated within 24
hours because of any of the anti-slippage provisions (3g, 3h, 3k-3n), then the relevant vessel
would have to take an observer on its next trip.
This would reduce a vessel’s incentive to slip a haul early in a trip in order to cause a trip
termination and thereby avoid having an observer on board for an extended trip. Especially if a
vessel has to pay for observers by the day, there could be an incentive to cut a trip short if there
is an observer onboard. This alternative could be selected for vessels with limited access
mackerel permits, longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or both.

3p. Allow mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels to be assigned an annual quota
(set during specifications) of slippage events related to 3j, specified annually. Once their
slippage quota was reached, vessels would have to terminate an observed trip as well as
upon any slippage event on subsequent observed trips for the remainder of the calendar
year.
This alternative would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip
if they slip a haul once a certain number of slippage events have occurred annually by that same
vessel. While this is more intensive to track (by vessel versus by fleet), the advantage over fleetbased slippage caps (see above) is that one vessel is not penalized for another vessel’s slippage
event. This alternative could be selected for vessels with limited access mackerel permits,
longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits, or both.
This alternative would be in place of the fleet-wide caps and the vessel caps would be specified
at a later date. As such, potential benefits would occur in the future (versus 3k-3n which would
be implemented sooner if selected) and be dependent on what level the cap was set at.

5.4 Alternative Set 4 - Port-side, 3rd Party, and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measure
5.4.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
Relatively low levels of catch monitoring have resulted in relatively high uncertainty about catch
of river herrings and shads in Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries.
5.4.2 General Rationale & Background
From a practical standpoint, it is more efficient to subsample the landings of river herring and
other non-target species when a vessel targeting mackerel reaches the dock than when it is at sea.
Discards that occur at sea of non-target species are easier to monitor than are the landed fractions
that go into the hold due to the large volumes that go into the hold. Dockside sampling could
utilize higher sampling rates to better characterize the species in retained catches and an entire
catch could be evaluated in one day or less as opposed to having a person at sea for multiple
days. This option does not mean that at-sea monitors are unnecessary – they are essential to
monitor discarding at sea. However, since most RH/S are retained (esp. for mackerel trips),
portside sampling could increase sampling coverage from current levels at a lower cost than
additional at-sea observers. For longfin squid trips the preceding discussion probably does not
apply because most RH/S are discarded so they are not available dockside.

Several other sampling/monitoring alternatives are also included in the Alternative Set as
described below including alternatives to require volumetric hold certification of Tier 3 mackerel
limited access permits and longfin squid moratorium permit holders. While in Amendment 11
the fish hold certification was primarily for purposes of capacity control (not allowing vessels to
reconfigure to have substantially larger fish holds), in this Amendment the measure is being
considered for purposes of facilitating rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for
portside sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
There is also an ongoing voluntary project by industry to use fleet communication to avoid river
herring hotspots. Since this project uses extensive post-side sampling a related alternative is
included in this Alternative Set – the relevant alternative in this document just commits the
Council to consider the project’s results once completed in order to determine potential
management implications.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternatives from Alternative Set 4 would make implementation of additional
portside monitoring and catch avoidance based on portside monitoring frameworkable (4f).
While other monitoring measures were deemed to be more effective (see above and below), the
Council wanted the option of a streamlined approach to implementing additional portside
monitoring and catch avoidance in the future if appropriate.

5.4.3 Management Alternatives

NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in this Alternative Set could be
implemented singly or in combination with any other alternative(s) in this Alternative Set.
Note: Since some of the alternatives below are very similar, they are grouped together for
purposes of description.

4a. No-action
No-action - Port Sampling
There are no current requirements for port-side sampling of MSB trips to determine landings of
RH/S or other species. NMFS port agents do currently work cooperatively with dealers to obtain
biological samples needed for assessments but this is much smaller scale sampling than would be
necessary to obtain estimates about the relative proportion of different species in a mixed catch.
The states of Maine and Massachusetts have been conducting their own port-side sampling
projects but state resource issues mean that their continued operation is uncertain. These state
programs have been focused on herring but due to the overlap in the herring and mackerel
fisheries also sample trips with mackerel.
While dealers are supposed to report all landings at the species level, to some degree RH/S can
mix into Atl. Mackerel and especially Atlantic herring catches due to the similar body size and
shape and high-volume nature of these fisheries.
No-action – Vessel Hold Requirements
There are no existing vessel hold requirements for Tier 3 mackerel permit holders or longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders. Currently there are certified fish hold requirements
being implemented through Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP for those vessels that qualify for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 mackerel limited access permits. If a vessel is issued a Tier 1 or Tier 2 limited
access mackerel permit, it must submit a fish hold volume certification by December 31, 2012.
If an applicant submits a vessel replacement application prior to that date, he/she must submit a
hold certification with the application. Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP specified that
applicable vessels would be required to obtain a fish hold measurement from an individual
credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association
of Marine Surveyors (NAMS) or from an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine
Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS).
However, recent developments have suggested that this provision will likely be revisited because
it appears likely that other professionals such as marine architects could be qualified in an equal
or superior fashion.
Amendment 11 also implemented rules that any increase in hold size for Tier 1 and/or Tier 2
vessels could only be increased once and may not exceed 10 percent of the vessel’s baseline hold

specification. Vessels with MSB permits do have other vessel baseline restrictions to control
capacity increases based on length, tonnage, and horsepower but the purposes of the vessel hold
measurement requirements in this Amendment are not for capacity control but for facilitating
catch measurements.
No-action – Sustainable Fisheries Coalition Project
Currently vessels may voluntarily participate in the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition project,
which is described in Alternative 4f below. The Sustainable Fisheries Coalition is an
organization of the Atlantic herring and mackerel mid-water trawl and purse seine fleet operating
from Maine through New Jersey. Vessels that are members of the Sustainable Fisheries
Coalition account for the majority of Atlantic herring and mackerel landings in the U.S.
4b. Require industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling program (including
total weight documentation) for mackerel landings over 20,000 pounds. Required coverage
levels would be specified annually during specifications. NEFSC would accredit samplers
and manage the program/data. Vessels would contract directly with providers and pay
providers directly. If selected, vessels would have to wait until their sampler arrived unless
a waiver is obtained from the observer program.
4c. Require industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling program (including total
weight documentation) for longfin squid landings over 2,500 pounds. Required coverage
levels would be specified annually during specifications. NEFSC would accredit samplers
and manage the program/data. Vessels would contract directly with providers and pay
provider directly. If selected, vessels would have to wait until their sampler arrived unless
a waiver is obtained from the observer program.

For either 4b or 4c, implementation details are described below (these provisions are identical to
those currently in effect for Northeast multispecies fishing). Dockside monitors for groundfish
cost $50-$70/hr. Different sized vessels would have different costs for offload monitoring due to
different hold sizes and processor offload speeds, but a 6-14 hour offload would cost $300-$980
for dockside monitoring. Discussions with MSB Advisory Panel members suggested that 6-14
hours would be typical offload time for high volume trips but trips around the thresholds of
20,000 pounds of mackerel or 2,500 pounds of longfin squid would take much shorter and cost
less to monitor.
Vessels would be required to contact the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) at least
6 hours prior to landing (some notification requirement options are detailed in Alternative Set 1 –
but others may be developed during specifications). NEFOP would notify the vessel whether
they are selected to secure a portside monitor. If a vessel is selected, a vessel representative
would be responsible for contacting an approved portside monitoring vendor. If a trip is not
selected for portside monitoring, NEFOP will issue a waiver.

Target coverage levels would be set annually during the specifications process. NEFOP would
randomly select trips for coverage (i.e., no priority would be given to trips to specific areas, trips
with at-sea observers, etc.).
In addition, the Council or Regional Administrator could adjust any aspects of the operation
standards/procedures for the portside monitoring program through specifications.
Standards for Approval/Certification of Portside Monitoring Service Providers
The following standards would be used by NMFS to evaluate service providers employed by
Mackerel and longfin squid vessels to comply with the portside reporting requirements outlined
in this section. NMFS will certify/approve service providers and associated portside 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. NMFS will publish a list of approved service providers consistent with the
Administrative Procedures Act.
The following standards and criteria for approval can be further modified by a future Council
action. Portside monitoring program service providers 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 portside 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
portside monitoring service provider and the arrangements to be used.
Evidence of adequate insurance to cover injury, liability, and accidental death for portside
monitors (including during training). Workers' Compensation and Maritime Employer's
Liability insurance must be provided to cover the portside monitors; vessel owner; and






service provider. Service providers shall provide copies of the insurance policies to
portside 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 portside 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 describing the provider’s response to an emergency with a
portside 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 portside monitors 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 portside monitors to all ports in which
service is required by this section.
o A service provider must report portside monitor deployments to NMFS in a
timely manner to determine whether the predetermined coverage levels are being
achieved.
o A service provider must assign portside monitors in a fair and equitable manner
without regard to any preference by representatives of vessels other than when the
service is needed and the availability of approved/certified monitors.
o A service provider’s portside monitor assignment must be representative of
fishing activities for a given port and must be able to monitor fishing activity
throughout the fishing year.
 The service provider must ensure that portside monitors remain available to NMFS,
including NMFS Office for Law Enforcement, for debriefing for at least 2 weeks
following any monitored offload.
 The service provider must report possible portside monitor harassment; discrimination;
concerns about vessel safety or marine casualty; injury; and any information, allegations,
or reports regarding portside monitor conflict of interest or breach of the standards of
behavior to NMFS, 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.,
participating vessels) and between the service provider and specific portside 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 portside monitor 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 portside monitor prior to a
vessel’s intended date/time of landing.
o If the service provider is not given adequate notice of vessel landing from the
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
portside monitors.
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, Northeast multispecies sectors, 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 Portside monitor 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 portside monitors with sufficient safety and
data-gathering equipment, as specified by NMFS.

Standards for Approval/Certification of Individual Portside Monitors
For an individual to be certified as a portside 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 capacity for carrying out the responsibilities of a portside monitor pursuant to
standards established by NMFS such as being certified by a physician to be physically fit
to work as a portside 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

Note: Due to their similarities 4d and 4e are described together.
4d. Require volumetric vessel-hold certification for Tier 3 limited access mackerel permits
and specify a volume to weight conversion.
4e. Require volumetric vessel-hold certification for longfin squid moratorium permits and
specify a volume to weight conversion.
These alternatives could facilitate rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for
portside sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP specified that applicable vessels would be required to obtain a
fish hold measurement from an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a
fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS) or from an
individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society
of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS). For the time being the same credentials are proposed
for this amendment. However, recent developments have suggested that this provision will
likely be revisited and it is possible that other professionals such as marine architects could be
qualified in an equal or superior fashion. There would be no upgrade restrictions associated with
these measures. This means that, unlike Tier 1 and 2 limited access mackerel permit holders,
there would be no limitation on vessel upgrades related to the vessel hold certification for Tier 3
limited access mackerel permit holders and longfin squid moratorium permit holders. Put
another way, the vessel hold certification for Tier 3 limited access mackerel permit holders and
longfin squid moratorium permit holders would not restrict the transfer of these permits to a
vessel with a larger fish hold volume.

4f. Within 6 months of the completion of the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition RH/S
avoidance project (expected late 2013), the Council will meet to formally review the results
and consider the appropriateness of developing a framework adjustment to implement any
additional catch avoidance strategies that are suggested by the results of the Sustainable
Fisheries Coalition avoidance project. (PREFERRED)
This would commit the Council to consider the findings from this project as they could apply to
reducing the catch of RH/S in pelagic fisheries. Full details on this project are included in
Appendix 7, but generally the project is testing if oceanographic and fishery data can be used to
help industry avoid potential RH/S hotspots. Implementing measures similar to this project (i.e.
making participation mandatory) would be a frameworkable action. Additional analysis will be
competed if and when additional frameworks are initiated.

5.5 Alternative Set 5 - At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
5.5.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
Relatively low levels of catch monitoring have resulted in relatively high uncertainty about catch
of river herrings and shads in Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries. NMFS has strongly
communicated that the at-sea portion of any additional observer coverage would have to be paid
for by industry.

5.5.2 General Rationale & Background
Currently, observer coverage is allocated by methods outlined in the Standardized Bycatch
Reporting Methodology (SBRM). The Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM)
Omnibus Amendment to the fishery management plans of the Northeast region was implemented
in February 2008 to address the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act to include standardized discards reporting methodology in all FMPs of the
New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
SBRM determines priorities in fleet selection for observer coverage, but overall coverage is
dependent on fluctuating Federal budgets so observer coverage varies with each year's budget
and priorities.
On September 15, 2011, upon the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case of Oceana, Inc. v. Locke
(Civil Action No. 08-318), vacated the Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Methodology (SBRM) Omnibus Amendment and remanded the case to NMFS for further
proceedings consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision.
To comply with the ruling, NMFS announced on December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81844) that the
Northeast Region SBRM Omnibus Amendment is vacated and all regulations implemented by
the SBRM Omnibus Amendment final rule (73 FR 4736, January 28, 2008) are removed. This
action removed the SBRM section at § 648.18 and removes SBRM-related items from the lists of
measures that can be changed through the FMP framework adjustment and/or annual
specification process for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish; Atlantic surfclam and
ocean quahog; Northeast multispecies, monkfish; summer flounder; scup; black sea bass;
bluefish; Atlantic herring; spiny dogfish; deep-sea red crab; and tilefish fisheries. This action
also makes changes to the regulations regarding observer service provider approval and
responsibilities and observer certification. The SBRM Omnibus Amendment had authorized the
development of an industry-funded observer program in any fishery, and the final rule modified
regulatory language in these sections to apply broadly to any such program. This action revises
that regulatory language to refer specifically to the industry-funded observer program in the
scallop fishery, which existed prior to the adoption of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment.
Overall, though the SBRM has been vacated by court order, it is still the method that was used to
make current observer allocations. NMFS and the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Councils are developing a new omnibus amendment to bring Northeast fishery
management plans into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for a standardized
discards reporting methodology. A SBRM Fishery Management Action Team has been
constituted to develop the new omnibus amendment and will begin work in 2012.
The SBRM can be viewed as the combination of sampling design, data collection procedures and
analyses used to estimate discards and allocate observer coverage in multiple fisheries. The
SBRM provides a structured approach for evaluating the efficacy of the allocation of observer
coverage (sea days) to multiple fisheries (52 fleets) to monitor a large number of species (15
SBRM species groups) under the 13 different fishery management plans, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The SBRM is not intended to be the definitive
document on the estimation methods nor is it a compendium of discard rates and total discards
(Wigley et al. 2007). Instead, the SBRM is intended to support the application of multiple
discard estimation methods that can be used in specific stock assessments. The SBRM provides a
general structure for defining fisheries into homogeneous groups and allocating observer
coverage based on prior information and the expected improvement in overall performance of
the program. The general structure helps identify gaps in existing coverage, similarities among
groups that allow for realistic imputation, and the tradeoffs associated with coverage levels for
different species. The SBRM allows for continuous improvement in allocation as new
information on the results of the previous year’s data is obtained.
Since RH/S are not federally-managed species, they have not been part of SBRM analyses.
However, recently the science center has shifted funding, where possible, to mid-water trawl
fleets in order to get better data on RH/S catch. Considerable uncertainty in RH/S catch remains,
especially in pair-trawling that targets mackerel and in bottom-trawling primarily because of the
rare-event nature of large RH/S catches.
This Alternative Set proposes higher levels of at-sea monitoring than are currently utilized.
NMFS has indicated that additional observer coverage would have to be funded by industry.
Initially alternatives were developed by fishery but even if management measures must be
implemented by fishery, the analysis is best conducted by fleet (year/area/quarter/gear/mesh)
because that is how the observer program allocates at-sea observer sea days and because of the
mixed nature of MSB fisheries. 5b-5d are based on a fishery-specific approach while 5e
approaches the issue from a SBRM fleet perspective. Because of the SBRM approach in 5e, it is
the only alternative subset for which one can easily calculate what number of sea days would be
required for a given target coefficient of variation (a measure of precision) in an upcoming year.
That said, because of the inter-annual variability in catch and effort, using the prior year’s
information to predict what observer coverage level is necessary (as is the case with SBRM-type
approaches) may not provide consistent results.
Observer program notification (see Alternative Set 1) would be a prerequisite for any of the
alternatives in this set.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternatives from Alternative Set 5 would: recommended 100% observer coverage
of mid-water trawl (MWT) mackerel trips (5b4) as well as tiered coverage levels for small mesh
bottom trawl mackerel trips (100% for Tier 1, 50% for Tier 2, and 25% for Tier 3) (5c4) along
with requiring mackerel vessels to pay $325 when they carry observers to help fund the desired
coverage levels (5f). Coverage levels would be re-evaluated after 2 years (5h).
These preferred alternatives are designed to be integrated with existing monitoring and reporting
requirements and other measures in this document to create an overall complementary system
that provides accurate data on the catch of RH/S in the mackerel and longfin squid fleets.
Specifically they would increase the at-sea monitoring of these fisheries in order to obtain more
complete catch information. Each preferred alternative will add incremental information about
RH/S catch as described below and thus provide incremental benefits in terms of better data to
perform assessments and guide management. While not directly impacting RH/S stocks, better
catch data should help improve RH/S assessments and management indirectly.

5.5.3 Management Alternatives
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Only one of the 5b (observer coverage for mackerel mid-water
trawl) alternatives could be chosen. Likewise, only one of the 5c (observer coverage for
mackerel small mesh bottom trawl) and one of the 5d (observer coverage for longfin squid small
mesh bottom trawl) alternatives could be chosen. One alternative from each of these could be
selected (a total of three). 5e1 and 5e2 (strata-fleet alternatives for mid-water trawl) are mutually
exclusive as are 5e3 and 5e4 (strata-fleet alternatives for small mesh bottom trawl) but one
alternative from the first pair could be chosen with one from the second pair. If any of the 5e
alternatives were chosen, they would not be combinable with any of the 5b, 5c, or 5d alternatives
(coverage could be based on a set percentage of trips or a set target coefficients of variation
(C.V.s) but not both). 5f, 5g, and 5h provide for industry funding and review of the increased
observer coverage levels proposed in 5b-5e so they could be added on to any of the other action
alternatives.
If any measure in this Alternative Set is selected for mackerel, the Council would also need to
select Alternative 1d48 (48-hr pre-trip notification) or 1d72 (72-hr pre-trip notification). There
is already a pre-trip notification requirement in effect for longfin squid moratorium permit
holders.
Note: Since some of the alternatives below are very similar, they are grouped together for
purposes of description.
Alternatives 5b, 5c, and 5d would require various levels of overage of trips for certain trips
types, either mackerel or longfin squid. While this kind of alternative is relatively easy to
implement if a trip notification is required (an option in Alternative Set 1), it does not guarantee
a given level of precision. Precision depends on a variety of factors including the year to very
variability seen in the data. Also, estimates of catch from observer data are made based on

time/area/gear units, not fishery (“mackerel” or “longfin squid”). Since the mackerel and longfin
squid fisheries comprise only a portion of mid-water trawls and small mesh bottom trawl
activity, requiring a portion of mackerel trips or longfin squid trips be observed is not going to
result in that level of coverage for a specified time/area/gear unit due to other fishing activities.
Given the relatively low levels of coverage in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries however,
any of the action alternatives would increase coverage and lead to better precision. One cannot
be sure how much however because of the issues described above. In alternatives 5b, 5c, and 5d
below the C.V. rates are those if the entire time/area/gear unit had that level of coverage. The
sea days associated with the fishery coverage levels are those from recent VTR data in the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, since those are the fisheries under consideration that are
under control of the Council.
Alternative 5e would require NMFS to develop coverage levels based on C.V.s expected for
river herring at the time/area/gear unit that is used in estimating catch for the two fisheries that
account for most river herring catch, mid-water trawl and small mesh bottom trawl. However,
since the Council can only require the fisheries it manages to pay for observer coverage, and
fisheries outside of the Council’s control use the relevant gear types, and NMFS has said that any
increase in observer coverage would have to be industry funded to be approvable, Alternative 5e
would be very difficult to implement, as described below.
5a. No-action
The no action alternative would allocate observer coverage on limited access herring vessels
through the current optimization/allocation process, based on the Omnibus Standardized Bycatch
Reporting Methodology (SBRM) amendment. On September 15, 2011, upon the order of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, in the case of Oceana, Inc. v. Locke (Civil Action No. 08-318), vacated the
Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) Omnibus Amendment
and remanded the case to NMFS for further proceedings consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court’s
decision.
To comply with the ruling, NMFS announced on December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81844) that the
Northeast Region SBRM Omnibus Amendment was vacated and all regulations implemented by
the SBRM Omnibus Amendment final rule (73 FR 4736, January 28, 2008) were removed.
NMFS and the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils are developing a
new omnibus SBRM amendment to bring Northeast fishery management plans into compliance
with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for a SBRM. A SBRM Fishery Management Action
Team has been constituted and is currently developing the new omnibus amendment.
Since the SBRM has been vacated by court order, it is not certain how observer coverage will be
allocated in the immediate future. However, given legislative mandates and funding
requirements of NMFS, it is likely that without additional action, the recent low levels of
coverage for mackerel and longfin squid fishing will continue. From 2006-2010 approximately
6.5% of mackerel and 3.5% of longfin squid catches by weight were observed (see Section 6.3
for more details). Observer coverage sea-days are allocated by area-quarter-gear strata and these

fishery coverage percentages resulted from allocations to small mesh gear trips rather than
allocations to these fisheries (see Appendix 2 for details). For Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (the
primary area and gear for mackerel) and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl (the primary area and gear
for longfin squid) this has resulted in annual coefficients of variation (C.V.s) for individual RH/S
species’ catch estimates usually being above 0.5 and often above 1.0 (see Appendix 2). These
values indicate very high uncertainty in the associated estimates. If you consider the C.V. as a
percentage and double it, this provides approximately the 95% confidence interval for normally
distributed data. So a C.V. of 0.5 (or 50%) means that the 95% confidence interval is
approximately plus or minus 100% of the estimate.
5b. Mackerel Mid-Water Trawl (MWT)
Coverage of this fleet has historically primarily occurred because of the winter mixing of the
herring and mackerel fisheries as opposed to focusing on the mackerel fishery. The subalternatives below would require a range of percentage-based coverage levels to improve
coverage from the very low levels currently occurring and improve catch estimation.
5b1. Require 25% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5b2. Require 50% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5b3. Require 75% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5b4. Recommend 100% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel. (PREFERRED)
Note: Require was also changed to recommend since the Council makes
recommendations to NMFS.

The following figures illustrate the C.V.’s that would have been expected in 2009 and 2010 for
different fleets with different percentages of coverages of trips for mid-water trawls for blueback
herring and alewife. Shad catches are low so C.V.s are very high even at high levels of coverage
and their curves are not shown. As an illustration of how to read the figures, if you start at the
0.5 mark on the horizontal axis of any of the figures (indicates 50% coverage), and draw a
straight line up, the place where it intersects a curve will tell you the expected C.V. for the
relevant species (blueback or alewife) and relevant fleet by looking left from the intersection
point to the C.V.s on the vertical axis. Overall and as would be expected, as the percentage of
covered trips increases, the C.V. falls and precision increases. For example, on figure 10, it is
estimated that if a 50% trip coverage rate had been achieved, it would have resulted in
approximate C.V.s for estimates of catch of blueback herring of 0.3 in Mid-Atlantic paired
midwater trawls, of 0.7 in Mid-Atlantic single midwater trawls, of 0.3 in New England paired
midwater trawls, and of 0.4 in New England single midwater trawls. On the same figure, it is
estimated that if a 75% trip coverage rate had been achieved, it would have resulted in
approximate C.V.s for estimates of catch of blueback herring of 0.2 in Mid-Atlantic paired
midwater trawls, of 0.5 in Mid-Atlantic single midwater trawls, of 0.2 in New England paired
midwater trawls, and of 0.3 in New England single midwater trawls. The reader will note that the
predicted C.V.s from some coverage levels over 100% are still greater than 0 (100% would entail
a census with a C.V. of zero). This is due to the low numbers of trips with mid-water gear and
suggests that to get low C.V.s coverage rates near 100% are necessary.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Figure 10. Blueback MWT 2009

Figure 11. Blueback MWT 2010

Figure 12. Alewife MWT 2009

Figure 13. Alewife MWT 2010

While these CV and trip coverage associations are for mid-water trawls and not mackerel trips
specifically, they represent the standard methodology used to estimate discards and/or catch (and
the associated precision) from observer and landings data. If all other fisheries besides mackerel
using these gears also implemented the same percentage coverage, then the described C.V.s may
be achieved. However, the Mid-Atlantic Council can only regulate its own fisheries so it is not

possible to describe the C.V.s for these gear types that would result from the various percentage
coverage levels for mid-water trawl mackerel trips.
Since coverage in this alternative would be related to 20,000 pound mackerel trips, 2006-2010
VTR data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on midwater
trawl trips that kept 20,000 pounds or more of mackerel. These trips averaged 643 sea days each
year ranging from 272 in 2010 to 926 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average
seadays were observed it would require 161, 322, 482, and 643 days respectivly. Given the low
levels of current coverage and an uncertain funding situation, most if not nearly all of these
would or could have to be industry funded (see 5f below) if mandated.
Key things to notice are 1) the variability from one year to the next and 2) the variability between
fleets (a given percentage coverage results in one C.V. for one fleet and another C.V. for a
different fleet). In other words, obtaining a given level of precision (C.V.) in RH/S catch
estimates for this gear type will probably require markedly different coverage levels from year to
year due to inter-annual variability in the catches. Since the inter-annual variability cannot
totally be predicted, it is not really possible to predict the exact C.V.s that any given level of
coverage will result in, especially for mackerel fishery requirements given it represents only a
portion of mid-water trawl activity.
Waivers would only be granted if an observer could not be obtained because of issues with
NMFS or an observer provider (i.e. through no fault of the vessel).

5c. Mackerel Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT)
A very small percentage of mackerel trips are observed overall. The sub-alternatives below
would require a range of percentage-based coverage levels to improve coverage from the very
low levels currently occurring and improve catch estimation. Analysis in the document relates
these coverage levels to potential ranges of uncertainty that would result from such coverage
levels.
5c1. Require 25% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5c2. Require 50% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
5c3. Require 75% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5c4. Recommend the following observer coverages percentages for mackerel limited
access vessels intending to fish for or retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel when
using small mesh (<3.5 inches) bottom trawl gear: Tier 1: 100%; Tier 2: 50%; Tier
3: 25%. The NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels
would not be able to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had
notified their intent to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
(PREFERRED)

The double underlined section highlights a modification from the original alternative in the
DEIS. 5c4 has been modified to essentially combine 5c1, 5c2, and the original 5c4 by applying
higher coverage levels for the higher tier vessels and lower coverage levels for the lower tier
vessels. Since the original alternatives considered 25%-100% coverage applied to all mackerel
permitted vessels, the modified alternative is within the range and intent of the alternatives
considered in the DEIS. The rationale is that the vessels accounting for most mackerel landings
should have the highest levels of coverage and other vessels would have coverage in proportion
to their potential landings. Require was also changed to recommend since the Council makes
recommendations to NMFS.

The following figures illustrate the C.V.’s that would have been expected in 2009 and 2010 for
different fleets with different percentages of coverages of trips for small mesh bottom trawls for
blueback herring and alewife. Shad catches are low so C.V.s are very high even at high levels of
coverage and their curves are not shown. As an illustration of how to read the figures, if you
start at the 0.5 mark on the horizontal axis of any of the figures (indicates 50% coverage), and
draw a straight line up, the place where it intersects a curve will tell you the expected C.V. for
the relevant species (blueback or alewife) and relevant fleet by looking left from the intersection
point to the C.V.s on the vertical axis. Overall and as would be expected, as the percentage of
covered trips increases, the C.V. falls and precision increases. For example, on figure 14, it is
estimated that if a 50% trip coverage rate had been achieved, it would have resulted in
approximate C.V.s for estimates of catch of blueback herring of 0.1 in Mid-Atlantic small mesh
bottom trawls, and of 0.2 in New England small mesh bottom trawls. On the same figure, it is
estimated that if a 75% trip coverage rate had been achieved, it would have resulted in
approximate C.V.s for estimates of catch of blueback herring of 0.075 in Mid-Atlantic small
mesh bottom trawls, and of 0.15 in New England small mesh bottom trawls.

Figure 14. Blueback SMBT 2009

Figure 15. Blueback SMBT 2010

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Figure 16. Alewife SMBT 2009

Figure 17. Alewife SMBT 2010

While these CV and trip coverage associations are for small mesh bottom trawls and not
mackerel trips specifically, they represent the standard methodology used to estimate discards
and/or catch (and the associated precision) from observer and landings data. If all other fisheries
besides mackerel using these gears also implemented the same percentage coverage, then the
described C.V.s may be achieved. However, the Mid-Atlantic Council can only regulate its own
fisheries so it is not possible to describe the C.V.s for these gear types that would result from the
various percentage coverage levels for small-mesh bottom trawl mackerel trips.

Since coverage in this alternative would be related to 20,000 pound mackerel trips, 2006-2010
VTR data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on small mesh
bottom trawl trips that kept 20,000 pounds or more of mackerel. These trips averaged 172 sea
days each year ranging from 113 in 2009 to 286 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the
average seadays were observed it would require 43, 86, 129, and 172 days respectivly. Given the
low levels of current coverage and an uncertain funding situation, most if not nearly all of these
would have to be industry funded (see 5f below) if mandated.
Key things to notice are 1) the variability from one year to the next and 2) the variability between
fleets (a given percentage coverage results in one C.V. for one fleet and another C.V. for a
different fleet). In other words, obtaining a given level of precision (C.V.) in RH/S catch
estimates for this gear type will probably require markedly different coverage levels from year to
year due to inter-annual variability in the catches. Since the inter-annual variability cannot
totally be predicted, it is not really possible to predict the exact C.V.s that any given level of
coverage will result in, especially for mackerel fishery requirements given it represents only a
small portion of small-mesh bottom-trawl activity.

5d. Longfin Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT) (The Council chose No Action for
the longfin fishery for this measure.)
While coverage has increased in 2011 related to the implementation of the butterfish mortality
cap on the longfin squid fishery, a small percentage of longfin squid trips have been observed
historically. The sub-alternatives below would require a range of percentage-based coverage
levels to improve coverage from the very low levels currently occurring and improve catch
estimation. Analysis in the document relates these coverage levels to potential ranges of
uncertainty that would result from such coverage levels.

5d1. Require 25% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d2. Require 50% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d3. Require 75% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d4. Require 100% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels
intending to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The
NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be
able to retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their
intent to retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

C.V. and percent coverage relationships for small mesh bottom trawl are illustrated in the
previous alternative.
The above figures illustrate the C.V.’s that would have been expected in 2009 and 2010 for
different fleets with different percentages of coverages of trips for small mesh bottom trawls for
blueback herring and alewife. Shad catches are low so C.V.s are very high even at high levels of
coverage and their curves are not shown. As an illustration of how to read the figures, if you

start at the 0.5 mark on the horizontal axis of any of the figures (indicates 50% coverage), and
draw a straight line up, the place where it intersects a curve will tell you the expected C.V. for
the relevant species (blueback or alewife) and relevant fleet by looking left from the intersection
point to the C.V.s on the vertical axis. Overall and as would be expected, as the percentage of
covered trips increases, the C.V. falls and precision increases. For example, on figure 14, it is
estimated that if a 50% trip coverage rate had been achieved, it would have resulted in
approximate C.V.s for estimates of catch of blueback herring of 0.1 in Mid-Atlantic small mesh
bottom trawls, and of 0.2 in New England small mesh bottom trawls. On the same figure, it is
estimated that if a 75% trip coverage rate had been achieved, it would have resulted in
approximate C.V.s for estimates of catch of blueback herring of 0.075 in Mid-Atlantic small
mesh bottom trawls, and of 0.15 in New England small mesh bottom trawls.
While these CV and trip coverage associations are for small mesh bottom trawls and not longfin
squid trips specifically, they represent the standard methodology used to estimate discards and/or
catch (and the associated precision) from observer and landings data. If all other fisheries
besides longfin squid using these gears also implemented the same percentage coverage, then the
described C.V.s may be achieved. However, the Mid-Atlantic Council can only regulate its own
fisheries so it is not possible to describe the C.V.s for these gear types that would result from the
various percentage coverage levels for small-mesh bottom trawl longfin squid trips.
Since coverage in this alternative would be related to 2,500 pound longfin squid trips, 2006-2010
VTR data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on small mesh
bottom trawl trips that kept 2,500 pounds or more of longfin squid. These trips averaged 5,357
sea days each year ranging from 3,932 in 2010 to 6,743 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of
the average seadays were observed it would require 1339, 2678, 4017, and 5,357 sea days
respectivly. Given the low levels of current coverage and an uncertain funding situation, most if
not nearly all of these might have to be industry funded (see 5f below) if mandated. About 10%
of 2,500 pound longfin squid trips were observed in 2011, so up to 10% of these might be funded
but such funding is not guaranteed.
Key things to notice are 1) the variability from one year to the next and 2) the variability between
fleets (a given percentage coverage results in one C.V. for one fleet and another C.V. for a
different fleet). In other words, obtaining a given level of precision (C.V.) in RH/S catch
estimates for this gear type will probably require markedly different coverage levels from year to
year due to inter-annual variability in the catches. Since the inter-annual variability cannot
totally be predicted, it is not really possible to predict the exact C.V.s that any given level of
coverage will result in, especially for mackerel fishery requirements given it represents only a
portion of small-mesh activity.

5e. Strata-Fleet-Based Alternatives
On a fleet level, catch estimates of river herrings are often imprecise. The following subalternatives would require coverage levels that would be expected to result in the specified C.V.
levels for river herrings. Shad were not included because very high coverage levels would be
required to achieve the respective C.V.s.
5e1. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that Mid-Atlantic alewife and
blueback catch C.V.s for MWT would each be expected to be at or below 0.30.
5e2. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that Mid-Atlantic alewife and
blueback catch C.V.s for MWT would each be expected to be at or below 0.20.
5e3. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that alewife and blueback catch C.V.s
for SMBT would each be expected to be at or below 0.30.
5e4. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that alewife and blueback catch C.V.s
for SMBT would each be expected to be at or below 0.20.

These alternatives would require NMFS to allocate sea days to achieve the specified river herring
C.V.s. Based on the same analysis as above (in 5b-5c), the sea days required are described in the
table below. These are the sea days related to the trips in the figures from those alternatives.
Since sea day requirement estimates are based on prior year performance, the requirements for
2009 and 2010 are both provided and they illustrate how different numbers of sea days are
required each year to attain a given C.V. The approximate number of executed sea days for each
grouping in 2010 is also provided. The difference between the executed number and the required
number would be the extra days required. Since the alternatives require C.V.s for both species,
the higher value for either blueback herring or alewife was used.
Table 11. Sea days associated with Alt. 5e C.V. targets.
Mid-Atlantic MWT Mid-Atlantic MWT
(CV = 0.3)
(CV = 0.2)
SMBT (CV = 0.3)
SMBT (CV = 0.2)
Required Sea Days (2009)
541
751
3610
4889
Required Sea Days (2010)
308
409
2542
3982
Approx Days Provided in 2010
76
1132

Since the trip coverage to achieve a given C.V. fluctuates from year-to-year, one can never really
guarantee a given C.V. will be reached. It may be quite difficult to consistently obtain precise
catch estimates via observer data when the coverage levels are determined from prior years’ data
for species that are not encountered that often in large quantities. However, the numbers in the
table above suggest that around 65% coverage could result in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 90%
coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V. goal for Mid-Atlantic MWT and that for small mesh bottom
trawl, around 40% coverage could result in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 60% coverage could result

in a 0.2 C.V. goal. This was determined by averaging the required sea days from 2009-2010, and
then comparing those averages with total average days at sea for relevant trips from VTR data,
2009-2011. However it is emphasized that from year to year it will be very hard to hit a
particular C.V. target due to the inherent variability from year to year in both the directed
fisheries involved and their catch of river herrings. Since one cannot predict which years will
require the highest coverage, some years would likely be over covered and some years would be
under covered if coverage rates are determined by the previous year’s data. The monetary costs
associated with these coverage levels are described in Section 7.
It is important to note that though the percent of coverage needed for small mesh bottom trawl
may be lower than mid-water trawl for a given C.V., because of the much greater size of the
small mesh bottom trawl fishery fleet (vessels and trips), a much higher number of sea days is
required to achieve a given C.V. for small mesh bottom trawl.
A key issue with implementation of this alternative is that while the alternative is based on gear
types which is how discard and catch estimates based on observer coverage are binned to get
total estimates, the MAFMC can really only compel the fisheries it manages to carry and pay for
observers. Since NMFS has indicated that it will only approve additional observer coverage on
fisheries if it is funded by industry, and the MAFMC cannot compel fisheries out of its control to
carry and pay for observers, there is a procedural tension inherent in this alternative.
What could occur if this alternative is selected, is that NMFS would use its observer allocation
procedures to allocate the approximate level of coverage in Mid-Atlantic fisheries that would be
needed as part of achieving the overall C.V. targets. So if this alternative was recommended,
New England fisheries that use the relevant gear types would not be affected so the C.V. targets
would not actually be reached but they would be improved related to increases in Mid-Atlantic
fisheries. If New England approved measures consistent with these C.V. targets (including
industry funding), the tension would be resolved however as all of the major fisheries with
substantial RH catch would be covered.

5f. Vessels would have to pay $325 (modifiable via specifications) for observers when they
carry observers to meet the observer coverage goals adopted by the Council in 5b4 and
5c4. NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay
observers. (PREFERRED)

This alternative represents a modification from the original alternative in the DEIS. In the
original alternative, vessels had to pay the full cost of observer days beyond the standard NMFSestablished coverage. The Council modified this alternative such that vessels selected for
coverage would have to pay $325 per day to fund the overall observer goals. Since the original
alternative considered full industry funding of the required observer days, this is within the range
between no funding and full funding. The original DEIS analyzed industry paying for 100% of
the at-sea cost ($800) of all related observer trips due to the possibility of reduced federal

funding of observers in the future, so having all observed trips pay only $325 lies in between the
no action and the original alternative.
NMFS has repeatedly stated that additional federal funding for observers is not available.
This option would require that observer coverage on limited access mackerel and/or longfin
squid moratorium vessels be funded by Federal resources, whenever they are available. To the
extent that Federal resources are not available to fund observer coverage at levels consistent with
the Amendment 14 provisions, vessels would be responsible for covering costs associated with
contracting service providers for the additional observer coverage.
Non-government service providers could be used for sea sampling in the event that Federal funds
are not sufficient to provide the desired level of coverage.
Vessel owners, operators, and/or representatives would be required to provide notice to NMFS
and request an observer through the pre-trip notification system, consistent with the notification
provisions described in this document.
If observer coverage must be procured through an independent service provider, NMFS would
notify the vessel owner, operator, and/or representative of the requirement within 24 hours of the
vessels’ notification to NMFS of the prospective trip. The vessel would be prohibited from
fishing for, taking, possessing, or landing more than an incidental amount without carrying an
observer for that trip unless the vessel has been issued a waiver. Any requirement to carry an
observer on a particular trip may be waived by NMFS. All waivers for observer coverage will be
issued to the vessel by VMS, fax, or email so as to have on-board verification of the waiver (see
more information about waivers below).
Observer Service Provider Certification, Approval, Responsibilities
Regulations specifying the use of observer service providers are provided in 50 CFR 648.11(h)
and (i) – Observer service provider approval and responsibilities and Observer certification and
would apply to service providers for sea sampling if/when Federally-funded observers cannot be
made available. These provisions are consistent with those for service providers in other Federal
fisheries in the Northeast region (ex., sea scallops). NMFS could also authorize states as service
providers if NMFS and the respective state have a memorandum of agreement regarding the
collection and handling of data.
If this amendment requires the industry to pay for observer sea days that cannot be funded using
Federal resources, the vessel owner/operator/manager would be required to arrange for carrying
an observer from one of the service providers approved by NMFS (50 CFR 648.11(h) and (i)).
The owner/operator/manager of a vessel selected to carry an observer must contact the observer
service provider and must provide at least 48 hours’ notice in advance of the fishing trip for the
provider to arrange for observer deployment for the specified trip. A list of approved service
providers will be published on the NMFS/NEFOP website. If a certified observer cannot be
procured within 48 hours of the advanced notification due to the unavailability of an observer,
the vessel owner/operator/manager may request a waiver from NMFS/NEFOP from the
requirement for observer coverage on that trip, but only if all of the available service providers

have been contacted in an attempt to secure observer coverage, and no observer is available. In
this case, if appropriate, a waiver is to be issued by NMFS within 24 hours.

5g. Phase-in industry funding over 4 years such that to achieve the target coverage selected
in 4b-4e above, NMFS would pay for 100%, 75%, 50%, then 25% of the at-sea portion of
the specified observer coverage (NOTE: NMFS has indicated this is not feasible from a
funding point of view).
This alternative could be selected in addition to 5f to phase-in industry funding over a 4 year
period. NMFS would be likely to reject this alternative because of budget constraints.

5h. Require reevaluation of coverage requirement after 2 years to determine if catch rates
justify continued expense of continued high coverage rates. (PREFERRED)

The Council would conduct an examination of the results of any higher coverage rates
implemented through this action and consider if adjustments to the coverage rates are warranted.
Depending on the results and desired actions, subsequent action could be accomplished via
specifications, a framework adjustment, or an Amendment as appropriate and include
appropriate analysis of impacts.

5.6 Alternative Set 6 - Mortality Caps
5.6.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
Catch of RH/S in the MSB fisheries may be negatively impacting RH/S populations. Estimates
of current RH/S catches are summarized in Section 6.3 and detailed in Appendix 2. Due to the
lack of comprehensive assessments for RH/S it is not possible to determine if current catch levels
are, or are not, negatively impacting RH/S stocks.
5.6.3 General Rationale & Background
A cap on a certain fleet/fishery can keep mortality for the fleet/fishery at a certain level. If
imprecision of catch estimates is high, the real catch may be substantially above or below any
amount attained under a cap. Given the lack of reference points it would be difficult to establish
an appropriate cap amount that is meaningfully tied to some impact on RH/S. One would either
have to independently figure out how much overall RH catch one wanted and then allocate a
portion of that to a cap or one could just look at what various fisheries have caught, and use that
information to come up with an amount for a fishery-specific cap. For the mortality cap
alternatives, the MSB Monitoring Committee would draft a range of caps for consideration
through specifications. They would likely be based on some fraction of total estimated catch of
RH/S as estimated in the appendices of this amendment. If an assessment of RH/S provided
information on sustainable harvest that information could be used as well. Precision would
likely be quite low under the status quo observer/monitoring regime.
A cap would operate much like the butterfish cap currently operates in the longfin squid fishery.
As with the butterfish cap, the exact monitoring and extrapolation methodology would be
developed during implementation and presented to the Council for comments before the cap
became operational. However, the catch ratio would be based on the ratio of RH/S to total
retained catch (i.e. landings), as appropriate depending on which, if any, action alternatives were
chosen. This ratio comes from observer data in the butterfish cap and in the context of this
amendment could come from observer data or potentially also port-side sampling data if
implemented in this amendment. Then for a given fishery (mackerel or squid) as defined by trips
over the incidental landings limit, the ratio is applied to all landings (from dealer data) by that
fishery to extrapolate a total RH/S catch estimate. Technical details may be found in Wigley et
al. (2007), with the modification of using “kept+discards” in the numerator rather than just
discards since the focus is on total catch. Once the estimate reaches a closure threshold
identified by the Council in the specifications process, then landings above an incidental nature
(also specified during specifications) would be prohibited. The mortality cap would operate in
parallel to monitoring for the directed fishery such that reaching either the closure threshold for
the directed fishery or the mortality cap threshold would close the directed fishery.
It would probably make most sense to have a fleet-area cap (e.g., midwater trawls in MidAtlantic) rather than using the regulatory definition of a "Mackerel" or "Herring" trip to define
vessels that are subject to the cap. In other words, the greatest amount of impact on RH/S catch

reduction would come from the implementation of a joint cap on both the herring & mackerel
fleets. If one instituted just a cap on the mackerel fleets, one of two things could happen if the
mackerel fishery was closed due to reaching the cap:
One possibility is that the mackerel fishery closes and the exact same fleet continues fishing in
the exact same place (Mid-Atlantic Q1) and just retains the Atlantic herring catches and discards
mackerel. Since catch per unit effort of the combined species would go down, overall effort
could go up, possibly increasing RH/S catch.
Another possibility is that Q1 catches of mackerel and Atlantic herring in the Mid-Atlantic are so
mixed that closing mackerel would effectively close herring.
Fleet-area caps are not currently feasible because herring is managed by the New England
Fishery Management Council and its Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP does not have
complementary caps for the herring fishery. Amendment 5 does contain provisions for a cap to
be added later and it is possible that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council could work
with the New England Fishery Management Council to implement a joint cap at a later date.
For all of the mortality caps, once the cap or some fraction of the cap is reached (set in
specifications) then the fishery would be closed (i.e., all possession would be prohibited) or an
incidental trip limit would go into effect (also set in specifications).
It is possible that a single cap for RH/S combined may be used to implement the preferred
alternatives 6b and 6c if the Council chooses to do so via the annual specifications.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Since RH/S catch is greatest in the mackerel fishery, and current analysis suggested that areabased management could not be determined to be an effective measure, the Council
recommended mortality caps for RH/S on the mackerel fishery (6b and 6c). The impact of 6b
and 6c will depend on what the cap is ultimately set at, and the cap will be set and analyzed
through the annual specifications process. These preferred alternatives are designed to directly
control RH/S mortality in the MSB fisheries. Additional future mortality caps were also made
frameworkable actions (6f).

5.6.4 Management Alternatives
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in this Alternative Set could be
implemented singly or in combination with any other alternative(s) in this Alternative Set.
Note: Since some of the alternatives below are very similar, they are grouped together for
purposes of description.

6a. No-action
Under the no-action alternative, there would be no mortality caps for RH/S in the mackerel
and/or longfin squid fisheries. State management of RH/S would continue (see 5.9.2) for state
catches. The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s would continue to
consider ways to reduce RH/S catch in their at-sea fisheries (and may implement other
conservation measures in this amendment or Amendment 5 to the Atl Herring FMP) but there
would be no hard caps on RH/S catch in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries. The longfin
squid fishery is currently subject to a mortality cap for butterfish, further described in section
6.7.4 and documents linked to from that section.

6b. Implement a mortality cap for river herrings for the mackerel fishery whereby the
mackerel fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of river
herring mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification
process unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be
involved in ABC setting for RH/S). (PREFERRED)

Annual cap amounts would be evaluated and set during the specifications process (though
without comprehensive RH/S assessments it is not possible to determine if any particular
quantity of RH/S catch is sustainable). The specifications process would also set the percentage
that a cap closed at to avoid overages (probably 80% to 90%) as well as any incidental trips
limits after a closure (probably 0 - 20,000 pounds – 20,000 pounds is the current post-closure
incidental trip limit).
One way to assign mortality caps for river herring (and one which illustrates the potential effects
or a range of cap levels) would be to base it on the range of estimated river herring mortality
conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (MWT)
fishing in Quarter 1, which is largely but not completely mackerel fishing, accounted for 35% of
total river herring mortality 2005-2010. MWT fishing in Quarter 1 is mixed, with mackerel
comprising over 50% of the landings, but herring making up a large amount of landings in
January (see Figure 21A of Appendix 2). The table below describes total ocean and
Quarter 1 mid-water trawl mortalities.

Table 12. Example River Herring Caps for Mackerel

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

245
664
672
361
244

Mid-Water Trawl
Quarter 1 mortality
(mt) (35% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
86
232
235
126
85

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.86%
9,975
27,029
27,333
14,679
9,911

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.45%
19,063
51,656
52,237
28,053
18,940

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.02%
428,908
1,162,263
1,175,335
631,190
426,160

Using the ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 50% or at least 100,000 pounds of mackerel
(encompasses almost all landings) results in annual river herring mortality ratios from 0.02% in
2007 to .86% in 2009 with a mean of 0.45. The 50%/100,000 filter was used because it has been
the way directed mackerel trips have been identified in recent specifications analyses and
because this definition encompasses almost all landings. The exact definition of a mackerel trip
would be developed in the implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap
for the longfin squid fishery.
If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the
ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as defined above before the
mackerel fishery was shut down by the river herring mortality cap is illustrated on the three
rightmost columns in the above table (these can be compared to recent mackerel landings
detailed in Section 6.7.1). A high ratio means that more river herring were caught and a low
ratio means that less river herring were caught. The examples in the above table come for
observed data 2006-2010. The main point is that whether mackerel would close because of a cap
would depend on how much the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of
river herring was, and what the mackerel availability was. Since the realized ratio can vary
substantially from year to year, it is not possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge
that in some years a closure could come very early and in some years a closure could not happen
at all. If the ratio is very low, the fishery would be allowed to continue operating, as a closure
would occur at a landings level much higher than recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a
closure could occur early in the season.
For example in the above table, in 2010 it was estimated that Quarter 1 MWT river herring
mortality was 85mt. If an 85mt cap was used, and the fishery experienced a high river herring
catch ratio of 0.86%, the cap would be used up when mackerel trips had caught about 9,911 mt
of fish. If lower ratios were observed, then more fish could be caught by the mackerel fishery
before it was closed by a cap. Likewise, if the cap was set higher, then more fish could be
caught by the mackerel fishery before it was closed by a cap.

6c. Implement a mortality cap for shads for the mackerel fishery whereby the mackerel
fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of shad mortality
(that level would be determined annually by Council in specification process unless RH/S
were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be involved in ABC setting for
RH/S). (PREFERRED)

Annual cap amounts would be evaluated and set during the specifications process. The
specifications process would also set the percentage that a cap closed at to avoid overages
(probably 80% to 90%) as well as any incidental trips limits after a closure (probably 0 - 20,000
pounds – 20,000 pounds is the current post-closure incidental trip limit).
One way to assign mortality caps for shad (and one which illustrates the potential effects or a
range of cap levels) would be to base it on the range of estimated shad mortality conducted by
the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishing in Quarter 1,
which is largely but not completely mackerel fishing, accounted for 12% of total shad mortality
2005-2010. The table below describes total ocean and quarter 1 mid-water trawl mortalities in
the leftmost columns (2006 omitted because of lack of shad records).
Table 13. Example Shad Caps for Mackerel

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2007
2008
2009
2010

60
60
70
47

Mid-Water Trawl
Quarter 1 mortality
(mt) (12% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
7
7
8
6

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.05%
14,364
14,450
16,903
11,338

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.03%
23,940
24,084
28,172
18,896

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.004%
179,550
180,630
211,290
141,720

Using the ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 50% or at least 100,000 pounds of mackerel
(encompasses almost all landings) results in annual shad mortality ratios from 0.004% in 2009 to
0.05% in 2007 with a mean of 0.03. The 50%/100,000 filter was used because it has been the
way directed mackerel trips have been identified in recent specifications analyses and because
this definition encompasses almost all landings. The exact definition of a mackerel trip would be
developed in the implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap for the
longfin squid fishery.
If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the
ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as defined above before the
mackerel fishery was shut down by the shad mortality cap is illustrated on the rightmost three

columns in the above table (these can be compared to recent mackerel landings detailed in
Section 6.7.1). A high ratio means that more shad were caught and a low ratio means that less
shad were caught. The examples in the above table come for observed data 2006-2010. The
main point is that whether mackerel would close because of a cap would depend on how much
the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of shad was, and what the
mackerel availability was. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it is
not possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could
come very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all. If the ratio is very low, the
fishery would be allowed to continue operating, as a closure would occur at a landings level
much higher than recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a closure could occur early in the
season.
For example in the above table, in 2010 it was estimated that quarter 1 MWT shad mortality was
6mt. If an 6mt cap was used, and the fishery experienced a high shad catch ratio of 0.05%, the
cap would be used up when mackerel trips had caught about 11,338 mt of fish. If lower ratios
were observed, then more fish could be caught by the mackerel fishery before it was closed by a
cap. Likewise, if the cap was set higher, then more fish could be caught by the mackerel fishery
before it was closed by a cap.

6d. Implement a mortality cap for river herrings for the longfin squid fishery whereby the
longfin squid fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of river
herring mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification
process unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be
involved in ABC setting for RH/S). (The Council chose No Action for the longfin fishery
for this measure.)
Annual cap amounts would be evaluated and set during the specifications process. The
specifications process would also set the percentage that a cap closed at to avoid overages
(probably 80% to 90%) as well as any incidental trips limits after a closure (probably 2,500
pounds, the current incidental trip limit). Since the longfin squid fishery operates by four-month
trimesters, the Council could choose to allocate a cap by trimesters as well, and this would be
evaluated during specifications.
One way to assign mortality caps for river herring (and one which illustrates the potential effects
or a range of cap levels) would be to base it on the range of estimated river herring mortality
conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawl
accounted for 5% of total river herring mortality. While Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawl
encompasses a variety of fisheries besides longfin squid (including Atlantic herring), some of the
New England small mesh bottom trawl mortality is probably related to longfin squid fishing so
using the full Mid-Atlantic value is probably reasonable. The table below describes total ocean
and 5% of total mortalities in the leftmost columns.

Table 14. Example River Herring Caps for Longfin

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

245
664
672
361
244

Mid-Atlantic Small
Mesh Bottom Trawl
mortality (mt) (5%
of total) = Mortality
Cap Possibility
12
33
34
18
12

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.17%
7,233
19,534
19,754
10,608
7,162

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.06%
20,424
55,346
55,968
30,057
20,293

Using the ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid results in annual river
herring mortality ratios from almost zero in 2007 to .17% in 2009 with a mean of 0.06%. The
2,500 pound filter was used because it has been the way directed longfin squid trips have been
identified in the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery and because is encompasses almost
all longfin squid landings. The exact definition of a longfin squid trip would be developed in the
implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery.

If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the
ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as defined above before the
longfin squid fishery was shut down by the river herring mortality cap is illustrated on the
rightmost columns in the above table (these can be compared to recent longfin squid landings
detailed in Section 6.7.4). A high ratio means that more river herring were caught and a low
ratio means that less river herring were caught. The examples in the above table come for
observed data 2006-2010. The main point is that whether longfin squid would close because of a
cap would depend on how much the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized
catch of river herring was, and what the longfin squid availability was. Since the realized ratio
can vary substantially from year to year, it is not possible to predict impacts other than to
acknowledge that in some years a closure could come very early and in some years a closure
could not happen at all. If the ratio is very low, the fishery would be allowed to continue
operating, as a closure would occur at a landings level much higher than recent quotas. If the
ratio is very high, a closure could occur early in the season.
For example in the above table, in 2010 it was estimated that Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom
trawl river herring mortality was 12mt. If a 12mt cap was used, and the fishery experienced a
high river herring catch ratio of 0.17%, the cap would be used up when longfin squid trips had
caught about 7,162 mt of fish. If lower ratios were observed, then more fish could be caught by
the longfin squid fishery before it was closed by a cap. Likewise, if the cap was set higher, then
more fish could be caught by the longfin squid fishery before it was closed by a cap.

6e. Implement a mortality cap for shads for the longfin squid fishery whereby the longfin
squid fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of shad
mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification process
unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be involved in
ABC setting for RH/S). (The Council chose No Action for the longfin fishery for this
measure.)
Annual cap amounts would be evaluated and set during the specifications process. The
specifications process would also set the percentage that a cap closed at to avoid overages
(probably 80% to 90%) as well as any incidental trips limits after a closure (probably 2,500
pounds, the current incidental trip limit). Since the longfin squid fishery operates by four-month
trimesters, the Council could choose to allocate a cap by trimesters as well, and this would be
evaluated during specifications.
One way to assign mortality caps for shad (and one which illustrates the potential effects or a
range of cap levels) would be to base it on the range of estimated shad mortality conducted by
the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawl accounted
for 11.5% of total shad mortality. While Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawl encompasses a
variety of fisheries besides longfin squid (including Atlantic herring), some of the New England
small mesh bottom trawl mortality is probably related to longfin squid fishing so using the full
Mid-Atlantic value is probably reasonable. The table below describes total ocean and 11.5% of
total mortalities in the leftmost columns.
Table 15. Example Shad Caps for Longfin

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

47
60
60
70
47

Mid-Atlantic Small
Mesh Bottom Trawl
mortality (mt)
(11.5% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
5
7
7
8
5

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.21%
2,587
3,278
3,297
3,857
2,587

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.10%
5,433
6,883
6,924
8,099
5,433

Longfin squid would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.03%
18,109
22,943
23,081
26,998
18,109

Using the ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid results in annual shad
mortality ratios from almost 0.03% in 2009 to 0.21% in 2010 with a mean of 0.10%. The 2,500
pound filter was used because it has been the way directed longfin squid trips have been
identified in the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery and because is encompasses almost
all longfin squid landings. The exact definition of a longfin squid trip would be developed in the
implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery.

If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the
ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as defined above before the
longfin squid fishery was shut down by the shad mortality cap is illustrated on the rightmost
columns in the above table (these can be compared to recent longfin squid landings detailed in
Section 6.7.4). A high ratio means that more shad were caught and a low ratio means that less
shad were caught. The examples in the above table come for observed data 2006-2010. The
main point is that whether longfin squid would close because of a cap would depend on how
much the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of shad was, and what the
longfin squid availability was. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it
is not possible to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could
come very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all. If the ratio is very low, the
fishery would be allowed to continue operating, as a closure would occur at a landings level
much higher than recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a closure could occur early in the
season.
For example in the above table, in 2010 it was estimated that Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom
trawl shad mortality was 5mt. If a 5mt cap was used, and the fishery experienced a high shad
catch ratio of 0.21%, the cap would be used up when longfin squid trips had caught about 2,587
mt of fish. If lower ratios were observed, then more fish could be caught by the longfin squid
fishery before it was closed by a cap. Likewise, if the cap was set higher, then more fish could
be caught by the longfin squid fishery before it was closed by a cap.

6f. Add mortality caps to list of measures that can be frameworked. (PREFERRED)

This alternative would allow the kinds of mortality caps considered in this document to be reconsidered and implemented at a future time via a streamlined framework amendment process.
Such an action would be justifiable because it would be part of an existing overall strategy to
reduce RH/S catches. Additional analysis will be competed if and when additional frameworks
are initiated.

5.7 Alternative Set 7 – Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
5.7.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
Catch of RH/S in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries may be negatively impacting RH/S
populations. There are state possession limits and landings requirements but there are currently
no limits on catch of RH/S in Federal fisheries. National Standard 9 mandates that the Council
reduce discards to the extent practicable and MSA provides discretionary authority for the
Council to reduce non-target RH/S catch in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries (see Section
4). Area-based restrictions could be a way of reducing RH/S catch in these fisheries.

5.7.2 General Rationale & Background
The Council originally hoped to include some alternatives that would restrict fishing in relatively
small areas that appeared to be “hotspots” for RH/S catch. Based on NMFS NEFSC analysis the
Amendment’s Fishery Management Action Team’s found that because of the wide and variable
distribution of RH/S, small-area management is unlikely to be successful (Appendices 1-2 and
summary of RH/S catch analysis in Section 6.3). Because the Council instructed the FMAT to
generate area-based alternatives that would be likely to provide protection to RH/S, the FMAT
generated several area alternatives that cover very large areas, but acknowledged that such largescale area restrictions could, in some alternatives, effectively close the fisheries for many
participants. Council staff attempted to perform additional smaller-scale examinations of the
data (for example around Hudson Canyon) but at such small scales there are too few
observations to draw meaningful conclusions about the potential of small-scale area restrictions
for reducing RH/S encounters.
Staff also investigated if small areas in federal waters but near major river mouths might be an
appropriate strategy. However, little is known about fine scale migration patterns once RH/S are
in the ocean and there is no evidence that there are staging aggregations (schools of RH/S near
river mouths) in federal waters that would lend themselves to such approaches (pers com K.
Taylor, ASMFC, W. Laney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
The FMAT analysis suggests that because of the spatial and temporal variability of observed
(Northeast Fishery Observer Program or “NEFOP”) RH/S catch, the same kind of variability in
mackerel and longfin squid effort and catch, and the same kind of variability in RH/S NEFSC
trawl survey catches, that very large areas would be required to ensure that management was not
just redistributing effort, possibly in a way that even increased RH/S catch. For this reason
Council staff used the FMAT GIS analysis (Appendix 2) to construct areas for mackerel and
longfin squid based on the mid-water and small-mesh bottom trawl fleet effort data and RH/S
catch data. The table below is designed to help illustrate how even if you reduce catch rates of
one species, for example blueback, but reduce catch rates of the directed species (for example
mackerel) even more, it can be possible to do more harm than good if the fleet increases effort to
maintain the same amount of harvest. For example if blueback catches were “a little lower” but
mackerel catches were “a lot lower” and the fleet increased effort in response, a large increase in

effort could result in higher total blueback catches even if the rate of blueback catches declined
somewhat. Since the relative changes in catch rates are not possible to predict currently, one
cannot predict the impact on RH/S catches of small area closures for directed mackerel and/or
longfin squid fisheries. To clarify, in the table below "good" means a net reduction of blueback
catch, "negligible" means no appreciable change, and "bad" means a net increase in blueback
catch. The general point is that if RH/S catch rates are reduced but targeted species catch rates
are reduced more, the net effect (because of more overall effort) may be bad for RH/S.
Table 16. Direct/Non-Target Impact Schematic
Effects on RH catch of moving effort assuming effort changes to
maintain constant mackerel catch if CPUE changes
Mackerel
CPUE Changes
neutral
Blueback

neutral
negligible

a little lower

good

a lot lower

good

a little lower a lot lower
bad

bad

negligible

bad

good

negligible

So the question then becomes can one quantify what would happen to the target and non-target
catch if effort is shifted because of a closed area. The results of analyses to-date (spatial-temporal
effort variability, spatial-temporal directed catch variability, spatial-temporal RH/S catch
variability (observer data), and spatial-temporal catch variability of RH/S in the NEFSC spring
and fall bottom trawl surveys) all suggest that it is not currently possible to determine whether
any small closed area would lead to LESS, the SAME, OR MORE RH/S catch. To implement
area-based management, a very large area would need to be used, and it would need to also
encompass different areas seasonally to incorporate the herring fishery to be effective, to know
that positive impacts resulted for RH/S (probably not practicable if also trying to maintain some
portion of a directed fishery).
At one point in amendment development council technical staff considered recommending to the
Council that these area-based measures be removed from the document. However, this
recommendation was ultimately not made analyzing these measures does help illustrate the
difficulties of dealing with RH/S encounters with an area-based approach.
To create easy to understand and reasonably enforceable areas, simple rectangles were used. In
application, the closures would only apply in federal waters within those rectangles.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Since area-based management could not be determined to be an effective measure, the Council
recommended no action for all alternatives in this alternative set.

5.7.3 Management Alternatives
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: 7bMack and 7cMack are mutually exclusive – the Council could
close the area to directed fishing (7bMack) or require observers (7cMack) but not both.
Likewise 7bLong and 7cLong are mutually exclusive – the Council could close the area to
directed fishing (7bLong) or require observers (7cLong) but not both. One of the mackerel
alternatives (either 7bMack or 7cMack) could be combined with one of the longfin squid
alternatives (either 7bLong or 7cLong) however. 7d could be added to any 7b or 7c alternative
to make those provisions only applicable after a cap-based trigger was reached. The Council
would have to specify in this case that the Alternative Set 6 cap trigger was only a trigger for
Alternative Set 7 rather than a stand-alone cap measure. 7e could be chosen in addition to any
other alternative in this Alternative Set.
Given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that alternatives
would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could select an
alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from another
set, but not from both sets for one fishery.
The enforceability of area-based management alternatives could be facilitated by the selection of
the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement in Alternative Set 1 (alternatives 1eMack or
1eLong).
The selection of alternatives that include observer coverage requirements (7cMack and 7cLong)
would require the selection of observer program notification alternatives for limited access
mackerel permits in Alternative Set 1(1d48 and 1d72).

7a. No-action regarding large closed areas (PREFERRED)

Under the no-action alternative, there would be no area-based restrictions on the mackerel and/or
longfin squid fisheries that are designed to reduce catch of RH/S. State management of RH/S
would continue (see 5.9.2) for state catches. The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s would continue to consider ways to reduce RH/S catch in their at-sea
fisheries (and may implement other conservation measures in this amendment or Amendment 5
to the Atl Herring FMP) but there would be no area-based restrictions on the mackerel and/or
longfin squid fisheries that are designed to reduce catch of RH/S. There are other area-based
closures for bottom trawling already in effect (e.g. black and yellow dashed areas on figures 1820) related to catch of other fish, habitat, or other issues and these restrictions would remain in
effect. Details and charts for existing area-based restrictions may be found at:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/fishermen/charts.html. Some alternatives in the set would

require additional observer coverage but under the no-action alternative the current observer
coverage levels would continue (see 5.5.2 and 5.5.3).
7bMack. Closed Area - Prohibit retention of more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel in RH/S
Mackerel Management Area (applies in quarter 1 only – see map below) for vessels with
federal mackerel permits.
The RH/S Mackerel Management Area (see figure below) encompasses most quarter-one midwater trawl effort as well as most quarter-one observer data observations of RH/S catch, which
are estimated to account for 35% of total RH/S catch (See Appendix 2). This alternative would
close this area to directed mackerel fishing.
7bLong. Closed Area - Prohibit retention of more than 2,500 pounds longfin squid in RH/S
Longfin Squid Management Area (applies year-round – see maps below) for vessels with
federal longfin squid moratorium permits.
The RH/S Longfin Squid Management Area encompasses most small mesh bottom trawl effort,
which is responsible for 24% of RH/S catch (see Appendix 2). This alternative would close this
area to directed longfin squid fishing.

7cMack. Require observers in RH/S Mackerel Management Area (applies in quarter 1 only
– see map below) for vessels with federal mackerel permits to retain more than 20,000
pounds of mackerel. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).
NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay observers.
The RH/S Mackerel Management Area (see figure below) encompasses most quarter-one midwater trawl effort as well as most quarter-one observer data observations of RH/S catch, which
are estimated to account for 35% of total RH/S catch. This alternative would close this area to
directed mackerel fishing unless vessels paid to take an observer along if federal funding for an
observer was not available. See alternative 5f for funding/operational details.
If an overall observer coverage requirement in Alternative Set 5 was selected but did not result in
a trip covered by an alternative in this Alternative Set having an observer, this Alternative Set
would effectively require additional coverage.

7cLong. Require observers in RH/S longfin squid Management Area (applies year round)
for vessels with federal longfin squid permits to possess more than 2,500 pounds of longfin
squid. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer coverage goals
adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations assigned through
the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries). NEFSC would
accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay observers.

The RH/S Longfin Squid Management Area encompasses most small mesh bottom trawl effort,
which is responsible for 24% of RH/S catch. This alternative would close this area to directed
longfin squid fishing unless vessels paid to take an observer along if federal funding for an
observer was not available. See alternative 5f for funding/operational details.
If an overall observer coverage requirement in Alternative Set 5 was selected but did not result in
a trip covered by an alternative in this Alternative Set having an observer, this Alternative Set
would effectively require additional coverage.

7d. Make above requirement(s) in effect only when a mortality cap "trigger" is reached.
Operation of a “trigger” would be identical to the operation of a mortality cap (see
Alternative Set 6 above) but the consequence of hitting the cap would be implementing
7b and/or 7c above if this alternative is selected in conjunction with 7b and/or 7c above.
Trigger levels would be specified annually via specifications.
This option would use a mortality cap but instead of shutting down the fishery either the closed
area or 100% observer coverage requirements in this Alternative Set would go into force. This
alternative could only be selected in conjunction with 7b and/or 7c above. Alternative Set 6
above describes how a mortality cap would work.

7e. Stipulate that any areas designated in Amendment 14 would be considered for updating
every other year in specifications considering the most recent data available when
specifications are developed.

This alternative would commit the Council to re-evaluate the designated areas every other year
during the specifications process. The impacts of any potential revised areas will be evaluated in
the NEPA documentation for the annual specifications that considered the changes

Figure 18. RH/S Mackerel Management Area

Figure 19. RH/S longfin squid Management Area over small mesh bottom effort and RH/S Catch
(Quarters 1 and 2)

Figure 20. RH/S Longfin Squid Management Area over small mesh bottom effort and RH/S Catch
(Quarters 3 and 4)

5.8 Alternative Set 8 – Hotspot Restrictions
5.8.1 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
There are currently no limits on catch of RH/S in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries other than
state landing requirements

5.8.2 General Rationale & Background
The New England Fishery Management Council developed a variety of “Hotspot” alternatives in
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Plan. All of the areas contemplated are relatively small and
consider different restrictions within the hotspots. Since Atlantic herring and mackerel are often targeted
by the same vessels and are sometimes targeted together at the same time, it makes sense to consider these
alternatives even though they were based on observer data from “herring trips” as defined below. This
would help ensure consistency among vessels targeting mackerel and Atl. herring.
The smallest areas are termed “River Herring Protection Areas.” These Protection Areas were identified
bimonthly as the quarter degree squares with at least one observed tow of river herring catch greater than
1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than
2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic herring during the respective 2-month period. The protection areas include
just the portion of the monitoring/avoidance areas (described below) that have the highest river herring
catches on Atlantic herring trips as defined above. Since the raw observer data were pooled across years,
the threshold was only one tow, and the results are only from Herring Trips, they do not reflect how much
total river herring was caught in the Protection Area versus other areas in a given year.
Slightly larger areas are termed “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas.” These
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas were identified bimonthly as the quarter degree squares with at least one
observed tow of river herring catch greater than 40 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic herring during the
respective 2-month period. They include all of the area identified in the protection areas as well is areas
where a more modest amount of river herring was caught. Since the raw observer data were pooled
across years, the threshold was only one tow, and the results are only from Herring Trips, they do not
reflect how much total river herring was caught in the Monitoring/Avoidance Areas versus other areas in
a given year.
These protection and monitoring/avoidance areas are mapped below by their respective bi-monthly
periods. Since seeing them on the same page clarifies the differences among the areas, they are illustrated
together below (where applicable). Management measures that could apply to these areas follow the
maps.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Since area-based management could not be determined to be an effective measure, the Council only
recommended that hotspot measures as contemplated in this alternative set be made frameworkable so
that expedited actions could be taken in the future if appropriate.

5.8.3 Management Alternatives
Figure 21.January – February Herring Area

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 22.March – April Herring Area

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 23.May – June Herring Area

Protection Area
None proposed – there were no qualifying observer records (quarter degree squares with at least one
observed tow of river herring catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic herring).

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 24.July – August Herring Area

Protection Area
None proposed – there were no qualifying observer records (quarter degree squares with at least one
observed tow of river herring catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic herring).

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 25.September – October Herring Area

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 26.November – December Herring Area

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Management Measures
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in the set could be adopted individually or
together. 8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable
when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would only be chosen if at least
one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong was also chosen.
Given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that alternatives would be
chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could select an alternative for the longfin
squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from another set, but not from both sets for one
fishery.
The enforceability of area-based management alternatives could be facilitated by the selection of the
vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement in Alternative Set 1 (alternatives 1eMack or 1eLong).
The selection of alternatives that include observer coverage requirements (8cMack and 8cLong) would
require the selection of observer program notification alternatives for limited access mackerel permits in
Alternative Set 1(1d48 and 1d72).
If an overall observer coverage requirement in Alternative Set 5 was selected but did not result in a trip
covered by an alternative in this Alternative Set having an observer, this Alternative Set would effectively
require additional coverage.
8a. No-action
Under the no-action alternative, there would be no area-based restrictions on the mackerel and/or longfin
squid fisheries that are designed to reduce catch of RH/S. State management of RH/S would continue
(see 5.9.2) for state catches. The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s would
continue to consider ways to reduce RH/S catch in their at-sea fisheries (and may implement other
conservation measures in this amendment or Amendment 5 to the Atl Herring FMP) but there would be
no area-based restrictions on the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries that are designed to reduce catch
of RH/S. There are other area-based closures for bottom trawling already in effect (e.g. black and yellow
dashed areas on figures 18-20) related to catch of other fish, habitat, or other issues and these restrictions
would remain in effect. Details and charts for existing area-based restrictions may be found at:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/fishermen/charts.html. Some alternatives in the set would require
additional observer coverage but under the no-action alternative the current observer coverage levels
would continue (see 5.5.2 and 5.5.3).

8b. Make implementing area-based "hotspot closures" to reduce catches (similar to those
considered in NEFMC’s Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Plan) frameworkable.
(PREFERRED)

The wording of this alternative has been modified from the DEIS to clarify the Council's intent but the
substance of the alternative has not changed.
The Council chose No Action regarding the hotspot measures but via 8b the Council would make the
hotspot requirements considered below frameworkable under a subsequent action. A framework would
have to be initiated to consider hotspot measures in the future and additional analysis will be competed if
and when additional frameworks are initiated.

8cMack. For Atlantic mackerel permitted vessels, more than an incidental level of fish (20,000
pounds mackerel) may not be retained/transferred/ possessed if any fishing occurs in a River
Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area without a NMFS-approved observer at any point during the
trip. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer coverage goals adopted by the
Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations assigned through the sea day allocation
process (already implemented in other fisheries).
8cMack would prohibit directed mackerel fishing in a River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area without
a NMFS-approved and possibly industry funded (if necessary) observer at any point during the trip. See
alternative 5f for funding/operational details.

8cLong. For longfin squid permitted vessels, more than an incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds
longfin squid) may not be retained/transferred/ possessed if any fishing occurs in a River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Area without a NMFS-approved observer at any point during the trip.
Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer coverage goals adopted by the
Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations assigned through the sea day allocation
process (already implemented in other fisheries).
8cLong would prohibit directed longfin squid fishing in a River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area
without a NMFS-approved and possibly industry funded (if necessary) observer at any point during the
trip. See alternative 5f for funding/operational details.

8dMack. If a mackerel-permitted vessel is fishing in any River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance
Areas identified in this alternative with an observer onboard, vessels would be required to
pump/haul aboard all fish from the net for inspection and sampling by the observer. Vessels that do
not pump fish would be required to bring all fish aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by
the observer. Unless specific conditions are met (see below), vessels would be prohibited from
releasing fish from the net, transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-

approved observer, or otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought
aboard the vessel and made available for sampling and inspection by the NMFS-approved observer.
• Vessels may make short test tows in the area to check the abundance of target and non-target catch
without pumping the fish on board if the net is reset without releasing the contents of the test tow. In this
circumstance, catch from the test tow would remain in the net and would be available to the observer to
sample when the subsequent tow is pumped out.
• Fish that have not been pumped aboard may be released if the vessel operator finds that:
1. pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel;
2. mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch aboard the vessel; or
3. spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent pumping of the rest of the catch.
• If the net is released for any of the reasons stated above, the vessel operator would be required to
complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information about where, when, and why the net
was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of the total weight of fish caught on the tow and weight of
fish released. The Released Catch Affidavit must be submitted within 48 hours of completion of the
fishing trip.
• Following the release of the net for one of the three exemptions specified above, the vessel would be
required to exit the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area. The vessel may continue to fish but may
not fish in the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas for the remainder of the trip.
8dLong. If a longfin squid-permitted vessel is fishing in a River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance
Areas identified in this alternative with an observer onboard, vessels would be required to
pump/haul aboard all fish from the net for inspection and sampling by the observer. Vessels that do
not pump fish would be required to bring all fish aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by
the observer. Unless specific conditions are met (see below), vessels would be prohibited from
releasing fish from the net, transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFSapproved observer, or otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought
aboard the vessel and made available for sampling and inspection by the NMFS-approved observer.
• Vessels may make short test tows in the area to check the abundance of target and non-target catch
without pumping the fish on board if the net is reset without releasing the contents of the test tow. In this
circumstance, catch from the test tow would remain in the net and would be available to the observer to
sample when the subsequent tow is pumped out.
• Fish that have not been pumped aboard may be released if the vessel operator finds that:
1. pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel;
2. mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch aboard the vessel; or
3. spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent pumping of the rest of the catch.
• If the net is released for any of the reasons stated above, the vessel operator would be required to
complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information about where, when, and why the net
was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of the total weight of fish caught on the tow and weight of
fish released. The Released Catch Affidavit must be submitted within 48 hours of completion of the
fishing trip.

• Following the release of the net for one of the three exemptions specified above, the vessel would be
required to exit the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area. The vessel may continue to fish but may
not fish in the River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas for the remainder of the trip.
8eMack. Vessels possessing a federal mackerel permit would not be able to retain, possess or
transfer more than an incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds mackerel) while in a River Herring
Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.
8eMack would prohibit directed mackerel fishing in a River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh
smaller than 5.5 inches was onboard the vessel. 5.5 inches was chosen because based on the analysis in
this document (see Appendix 2), substantial catch of RH/S appears unlikely at mesh sizes of 5.5 inches or
greater.
8eLong. Vessels possessing a federal moratorium longfin squid permit would not be able to retain,
possess or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds longfin squid) while in a
River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.
8eLong would prohibit directed longfin squid fishing in a River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh
smaller than 5.5 inches was onboard the vessel. 5.5 inches was chosen because based on the analysis in
this document (see Appendix 2), substantial catch of RH/S appears unlikely at mesh sizes of 5.5 inches or
greater.

8f. Make the above measures 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong only effective
if/when they are effective for Atlantic Herring vessels, including if they become effective in the
middle of a season because a catch-cap based trigger is reached by the Atlantic Herring fleet under
a trigger established by Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP.
These same measures are being considered in Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring fishery management
plan for the Atlantic herring fishery. Given the overlap in the Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic herring
fisheries, and given the hotspots in this Alternative Set are focused on RH catch on herring trips, it
primarily makes sense for the hotspot provisions to apply if they also apply to Atlantic herring fishing.
8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable when the
same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would thus only be chosen if at least one
alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong was also chosen.

6.0

Description of the Affected Environment

This section identifies and describes the valued ecosystem components (VECs) (Beanlands and Duinker
1984) likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this document. The VECs comprise the affected
environment within which the proposed actions will take place. The VECs are identified and described
here as a means of establishing a baseline for the impact analysis that will be presented in section 7’s
"Analysis of Impacts." The significance of the various impacts of the proposed actions on the VECs will
also be assessed from a cumulative effects perspective. The range of VECs is described in this section is
limited to those for which a reasonable likelihood of meaningful impacts could potentially be expected
(CEQ 1997). These VECs are listed below.
1. Managed resources (Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and Illex squid and butterfish)
2. Non-target species (a NEPA-inspired term that includes both discards and incidental catch under
MSA)
3. Habitat including EFH for the managed resources and non-target species
4. Endangered and other protected resources
5. Human communities
The physical environment is described next, to establish the context for the VECs, and will be followed
by the description of the actual VECs. Appendix D of the 2012 Specifications Environmental Assessment
(http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbSpecs2012.htm) also contains a variety of ecosystem factors
considered by the Council.
6.1 Physical Environment
Climate, physiographic, and hydrographic differences separate the Atlantic ocean from Maine to Florida
into two distinct areas, the New England-Middle Atlantic Area and the South Atlantic Area, with the
natural division occurring at Cape Hatteras, though the division is probably better thought of as a mixing
zone rather than as a definitive boundary. The MSB fisheries are prosecuted in the New England-Middle
Atlantic Area. The New England-Middle Atlantic area is fairly uniform physically and is influenced by
many large coastal rivers and estuarine areas (Freeman and Walford 1974 a-d, 1976 a and b). In the New
England-Middle Atlantic area, the continental shelf (characterized by water less than 650 ft in depth)
extends seaward approximately 120 miles off Cape Cod, narrows gradually to 70 miles off New Jersey,
and is 20 miles wide at Cape Hatteras. Surface circulation is generally southwesterly on the continental
shelf during all seasons of the year, although this may be interrupted by coastal indrafting and some
reversal of flow at the northern and southern extremities of the area. Water temperatures range from less
than 33 oF in the New York Bight in February to over 80 oF off Cape Hatteras in August.
Within the New England-Middle Atlantic Area, the principal area within which the MSB fisheries are
prosecuted is the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem which includes 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 (Figure 27). A number of distinct subsystems comprise the region. 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 fast-moving currents. The Mid-Atlantic Bight

is comprised of the sandy, relatively flat, gently sloping continental shelf from southern New England to
Cape Hatteras, NC.

Figure 27. Geographic scope of the mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries.
Figures 1 describes the geographic scope of the MSB fisheries. Almost all of the MSB catch and related
effort occurs within the solid shaded “core geographic scope.” Previous public comment has requested
that the Council include mention that numerous old dump sites for municipal, industrial, and military
waste exist in the management area, specifically the "106-Mile Dump Site" formerly utilized east of
Delaware's ocean coastline, beyond the Continental Shelf. Detailed information on the 106-Mile Dump
Site can be found in the 1995 EPA report to Congress on the 106-Mile Dump Site available by searching
for “106 Mile Dump Site at http://www.epa.gov/history/. The available research generally concluded that
sewage sludge did not reach important areas for commercial fisheries and that the 106-Mile Dump Site
was not the prime source of the generally low chemical contamination in tilefish, the primary
commercially important finfish species resident in the shelf/slope areas adjacent to the 106-Mile Dump
Site (EPA 1995).

6.2 Biology of the Managed Resources
6.2.1

Atlantic mackerel (mackerel)

Atlantic mackerel is a pelagic, schooling species distributed between Labrador (Newfoundland, Canada)
(Parsons 1970) and North Carolina (Anderson 1976a). Sette (1943; 1950) identified two distinct groups
consisting of a northern contingent and a southern contingent. The two contingents overwinter primarily
along the continental shelf between the Middle Atlantic and Nova Scotia, although it has been suggested
that overwintering occurs as far north as Newfoundland. With the advent of warming shelf water in the
spring, the two contingents begin migration, with the northern contingent moving along the coast of
Newfoundland and historically into the Gulf of St. Lawrence for spawning from the end of May to MidAugust (Berrien 1982). The southern contingent spawns in the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf of Maine from midApril to June (Berrien 1982) then moves north to the Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia. In late fall,
migration turns south and fish return to the over-wintering grounds. Some of the Council's advisers who
mackerel fish have questioned if the historical patterns described above are being maintained currently.
Biochemical studies (Mackay 1967) have not established that genetic differences exist between the two
groups and precise estimates of the relative contributions of the two groups cannot be made (ICNAF
1975). Atlantic mackerel in the northwest Atlantic are assessed as a unit stock and are considered one
stock for fishery management purposes.
Mackerel are 0.1" long at hatching, grow to about 2" in two months, and reach a length of 8" in
December, near the end of their first year of growth (Anderson and Paciorkowski 1978). During their
second year of growth they reach about 10" in December, and by the end of their fifth year they grow to
an average length of 13" FL. Fish that are 10-13 years old reach a length of 15-16" (Grosslein and
Azarovitz 1982). MacKay (1973) and Dery and Anderson (1983) have found an inverse relationship
between growth and year class size. All Atlantic mackerel are sexually mature by age 3, while about 50%
of the age 2 fish are mature. Average size at maturity is about 10.5-11" FL (Grosslein and Azarovitz
1982). The maximum age observed is 17 years (Pentilla and Anderson 1976).
Atlantic mackerel are opportunistic feeders that can ingest prey either by individual selection of
organisms or by passive filter feeding (Pepin et al. 1988). Larvae feed primarily on zooplankton.
Juveniles eat mostly small crustaceans such as copepods, amphipods, mysid shrimp and decapod larvae.
They also feed on small pelagic molluscs (Spiratella and Clione) when available. Adults feed on the same
food as juveniles but diets also include a wider assortment of organisms and larger prey items. For
example, euphausiid, pandalid and crangonid shrimp are common prey; chaetognaths, larvaceans, pelagic
polychaetes and larvae of many marine species have been identified in mackerel stomachs. Immature
mackerel begin feeding in the spring; older fish feed until gonadal development begins, stop feeding until
spent and then resume prey consumption (Berrien 1982).
Atlantic mackerel are an important prey species and are known to be preyed upon by many pelagic and
demersal fish species, as well as by marine mammals and seabirds (Smith and Gaskin 1974; Payne and
Selzer 1983; Overholtz and Waring 1991; Montevecchi and Myers 1995; Scott and Tibbo 1968; Maurer
and Bowman 1975; Stillwell and Kohler 1982, 1985; Bowman and Michaels 1984). The recent TRAC
estimated mortality for a subset of key finfish predators (www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/trac/tsr.html)
but estimates for marine mammals and seabirds are not available.

Stock Status
The mackerel stock was most recently assessed via a Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee in
2010 (TRAC 2010), which analyzed data though 2008 (www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/trac/tsr.html). A
number of different models and model formulations were evaluated. Given the uncertainty in the
assessment results, the TRAC agreed that short term projections and characterization of stock status
relative to estimated reference points would not be an appropriate basis for management advice at this
time. Given current indications of reduced productivity and lack of older fish in the survey and catch, the
TRAC recommended that annual total catches not exceed the average total landings (80,000 mt) over the
last three years (2006-2008) until such time that new information suggests that a different amount is
appropriate. Spawning Stock Biomass outputs from the final TRAC model are included below in Figure
28 but were considered useful only for the purposes of indicating likely trends.
While NMFS’ official “status of stocks” document technically list mackerel as “not overfished” and “not
experiencing overfishing” the results of the 2010 TRAC suggest their true status is unknown with respect
to being overfished or not and with respect to experiencing overfishing or not, especially since the 2010
TRAC identified technical issues with the preceding assessment. Efforts are ongoing to determine if a
switch to “unknown status” would be more appropriate.

Figure 28. 2010 Mackerel TRAC Spawning Stock Biomass final model output.
NEFSC Spring Survey indices (Geometric Mean) through 2011 (a special request was made for Spring
2011 mackerel data due to concerns about low 2011 catch) for mackerel are included below. Taking the
Geometric mean of a given year's values for individual hauls dampens the impact of individual large
hauls and was the way the survey data was used in the 2010 TRAC assessment. It is important to note
that the 2009-2011 values are adjusted from the raw data of the new Bigelow survey ship based on the
calibration study between the Bigelow and its predecessor the Albatross. The calibration factor for this
species is one factor for all sizes, and the next assessment may investigate whether size-specific
calibration factors are more appropriate. Additional calibration information may be found at:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1005/index.html (Miller et al 2010).

Figure 29. Spring NEFSC Survey Mackerel Indices 1968-2011. Geometric Mean, Numbers per
Tow

Figure 30. Spring Survey Mackerel Indices 1968-2011. Geometric Mean, kg per Tow

6.2.2

Illex illecebrosus

Illex is not a primary concern of this Amendment so only stock status information is provided for
reference. Additional details may be found in the specifications environmental assessment which can be
downloaded here: http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbSpecs2012.htm.

Stock Status
The Illex stock was most recently assessed at SARC 42 (2006). SARC 42 was publically available in
2006 and included data through 2004. It was not possible to evaluate current stock status because there
are no reliable current estimates of stock biomass or fishing mortality rate. The short lifespan of Illex
greatly complicates assessing the stock with the available survey and assessment resources. In-season
assessment and management would be the optimal way to manage any short-lived squid fishery but
sufficient resources are not currently available.
NEFSC indices for fall surveys (when Illex are available) are included below. It is important to note that
the 2009 and 2010 values are adjusted from the raw data of the new Bigelow survey ship based on the
calibration study between the Bigelow and its predecessor the Albatross. The calibration factor for this
species is one factor for all sizes, and the next assessment may investigate whether size-specific
calibration factors are more appropriate.
30.0

Illex # per tow
Median

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

Figure 31. Fall NEFSC Trawl Survey - Illex Mean #/tow.

2009

2006

2003

2000

1997

1994

1991

1988

1985

1982

1979

1976

1973

1970

1967

0.0

10.0

Illex kg per tow
Median

9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0

Figure 32. Fall NEFSC Trawl Survey - Illex Mean kg/tow.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2009

2006

2003

2000

1997

1994

1991

1988

1985

1982

1979

1976

1973

1970

1967

0.0

6.2.3

Butterfish

Butterfish is not a primary concern of this Amendment so only stock status information is provided for
reference. Additional details may be found in the specifications environmental assessment which can be
downloaded here: http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbSpecs2012.htm.
Stock Status
The butterfish stock was most recently assessed at SARC 49 (2010) using data through 2008. The SARC
review panel did not accept the adequacy of the redefined Biological reference points or the Biological
reference points used for stock status determination in the 2004 butterfish assessment. The review panel
questioned the application of MSY theory to a short-lived recruitment-dominated population, particularly
the use of equilibrium methods when trends in the data suggest the stock is declining even with low
fishing mortality. It was agreed that overfishing was not likely occurring. The review panel concluded that
the decline in the butterfish stock appears to be driven by environmental processes and low recruitment.
Determination of an overfished versus not overfished condition was not resolved at the meeting, which
left the overfished status of butterfish unknown. Final model outputs for biomass, recruitment, and
fishing mortality were only accepted in terms of reflecting the appropriate trend (downward).
While NMFS’ official “status of stocks” document technically lists butterfish as “overfished” and “not
experiencing overfishing” the results of the 2010 assessment suggest their true status is unknown with
respect to being overfished or not and unknown with respect to experiencing overfishing or not because of
butterfish’s short lifespan and because of the concerns raised by the review panel regarding the 2004
assessment’s conclusions. Efforts are ongoing to determine if a switch to “unknown status” would be
more appropriate.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6.2.4

Longfin Squid

Longfin squid are distributed primarily in continental shelf waters located between Newfoundland and the
Gulf of Venezuela (Cohen 1976; Dawe et al. 1990). In the northwest Atlantic Ocean, longfin squid are
most abundant in the waters between Georges Bank and Cape Hatteras, NC where the species is
commercially exploited. The stock area extends from the Gulf of Maine to southern Florida. However,
the southern limit of the species’ distribution in U.S. waters is unknown due to an overlap in geographic
distribution with the congener, Loligo pleii, which cannot be visually distinguished from longfin squid
using gross morphology (Cohen 1976). A recent genetics study indicates that the population inhabiting
the waters between Cape Cod Bay, MA and Cape Hatteras, NC is likely a single stock (Shaw et al. 2010).
Distribution varies seasonally. North of Cape Hatteras, squid migrate offshore during late autumn to
overwinter in warmer waters along the shelf edge and slope, and then return inshore during the spring
where they remain until late autumn (Jacobson 2005).
Natural mortality rates are very high, especially after spawning. The species is migrates long distances
during its short lifespan; inshore during spring and offshore during late fall. Recruitment occurs
throughout the year with seasonal peaks in overlapping “micro-cohorts” which have rapid and different
growth rates (Brodziak and Macy 1996; Macy and Brodziak 2001). As a result, seasonally stable biomass
estimates may mask substantial population turnover (Guerra et al. 2010). Recruitment of longfin squid is
largely driven by environmental factors (Dawe et al. 2007). For most squid species, temperature plays a
large role in migrations and distribution, growth, and spawning (Boyle and Rodhouse 2005). For longfin
squid, individuals hatched in warmer waters during the summer grow more rapidly than those
hatched in winter and males grow faster and attain larger sizes than females (Brodziak and Macy
1996).
Statolith ageing studies of longfin squid have indicated a life span of less than one year (Macy 1992,
Brodziak and Macy 1996). Consequently, all recent stock assessments for longfin squid have been
conducted under the assumption that the species has a semelparous (i.e., annual) life-cycle and has the
capacity to spawn throughout the year (NMFS 1994), as now appears typical of pelagic squid species
studied throughout the world (Jereb et al. 1991).
Longfin squid eggs are usually attached to a preexisting cluster of newly spawned eggs (clusters are
initiated on rocks, sand, and seaweeds). The female lays between 20 and 30 of these capsules, each
containing 150 to 200 large (about 0.05"), oval eggs, for a total of 3,000 to 6,000 eggs. These clusters of
demersal eggs, with as many as 175 capsules per cluster, are found in shallow waters (10-100') and may
often be found washed ashore on beaches (Jacobson 2005, Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982).
The diet of longfin squid changes with increasing size; small immature individuals feed on small
invertebrates and planktonic organisms (Vovk 1972a, Tibbetts 1977) while larger individuals feed on
crustaceans and small fish (Vinogradov and Noskov 1979). Cannibalism is observed in individuals larger
than 2 in (5 cm) (Whitacker 1978). Maurer and Bowman (1985) demonstrated seasonal and
inshore/offshore differences in diet: in the spring in offshore waters, the diet was composed of crustaceans
(mainly euphausiids) and fish; in the fall in inshore waters, the diet was composed almost exclusively of
fish; and in the fall in offshore waters, the diet was composed of fish and squid.

Longfin squid are an important prey species and are known to be preyed upon by many pelagic and
demersal fish species, as well as by marine mammals, seabirds, and Illex squid (Lange and Sissenwine
1980, Vovk and Khvichiya 1980, Summers 1983, Waring et al. 1990, Overholtz and Waring 1991,
Gannon et al. 1997, Maurer 1975, Langton and Bowman 1977, Gosner 1978, Lange 1980, Vinogradov
1984).
Stock Status
Based on a new proposed biomass reference point from the 2010 assessment (NEFSC 2011), the longfin
inshore squid stock was not overfished in 2009, but overfishing status was not determined because no
overfishing threshold was recommended. The 2010 longfin squid assessment (NEFSC 2010) essentially
found that the longfin squid stock appears to have successfully supported the range of observed catches
(9,600 mt - 26,100 mt) during 1976-2009, as well as relatively high levels of finfish predation during
1977-1984 and 1999-2009. Finfish predation appeared relatively low 1978-1998. Catch divided by
biomass was used to evaluate exploitation and the highest exploitation index occurred related to a catch of
23,400mt which was the basis for this year’s ABC. This was an important finding for management
purposes given all of the squid in a squid as0sessment are dead before the assessment is completed, nevermind when management might actually seek to use the results. In-season assessment and management
would be the optimal way to manage any short-lived squid fishery but sufficient resources are not
currently available.
A new target Biomass Associated with MSY of 50% of K (0.50*(76,329/0.90) = 42,405 mt) was
recommended. The biomass threshold is 50% of the Biomass Associated with MSY (= 21,203 mt). The
biomass estimate, which is based on the two-year average of catchability-adjusted spring and fall survey
biomass during 2008-2009, was 54,442 mt (80% Confidence Interval = 38,452-71,783 mt). This is greater
than the Biomass Threshold and the target Biomass Associated with MSY. The stock exhibits very large
fluctuations in abundance from variation in reproductive success and recruitment, expressed as large interannual changes (2-3 fold) in survey biomass.
A new threshold reference point for fishing mortality was not recommended in the 2010
assessment because there was no clear statistical relationship between longfin squid catch and annual
biomass estimates during 1975-2009. Furthermore, annual catches were low relative to annual estimates
of minimum consumption by a subset of fish predators. The 2009 exploitation index of 0.176 (catch
divided by the average 2008-2009 spring and fall survey biomasses) was slightly below the 1987-2008
median of 0.237 (80% Confidence Interval = 0.124-0.232). Relevant NEFSC trawl indices are provided
in figure 38 though figure 43. 2009 and 2010 values have been calibrated “back” to Albatross units to
facilitate comparison with a length-specific calibration factor developed in the recent assessment.

Figure 33. 2010 Assessment Figure B6 - Annual Biomass in Relation to the Proposed Biomass
Threshold (which is ½ of the target) - Shown Here as a Relative Value

Figure 34. Fall NEFSC Trawl Survey – Longfin Squid Mean kg/tow All Sizes.

Fall NEFSC Index - Pre - Recruits
2500
Pre-Recruits (#)
Median

#s of squid per tow

2000

1500

1000

500

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

0

Figure 35. Fall NEFSC Trawl Survey – Longfin Squid Mean #/tow Pre-recruits.
Fall NEFSC Index - Recruits
400
Recruits (#)
350

Median

#s of squid per tow

300
250
200
150
100
50

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

0

Figure 36. Fall NEFSC Trawl Survey – Longfin Squid Mean #/tow Recruits.

Figure 37. Spring NEFSC Trawl Survey – Longfin Squid Mean kg/tow All Sizes.

Spring NEFSC Index - Pre - Recruits
400
Pre-Recruits (#)
350

Median

#s of squid per tow

300
250
200
150
100
50

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

0

Figure 38. Spring NEFSC Trawl Survey – Longfin Squid Mean #/tow Pre-recruits.
Spring NEFSC Index - Recruits
60
Recruits (#)
Median

#s of squid per tow

50

40

30

20

10

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

0

Figure 39. Spring NEFSC Trawl Survey – Longfin Squid mean #/tow Recruits.

6.2.5

Atlantic Herring

Given the mixed nature of the MSB fleets and their co-catch of Atlantic Herring as described elsewhere in
this document (see Appendix 2), a brief summary of the status of the Atlantic Herring resource and
fishery is provided below. This summary is adapted from the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan’s Amendment 5 DEIS, which is available in its entirety at: http://www.nefmc.org/herring/index.html.
The NEFMC manages herring under the Atlantic Herring FMP. Currently, the Atlantic Herring resource
is managed as a single coastal stock complex, although three spawning stock components occupy three
fairly distinct locations in the Gulf of Maine region in the Gulf of Maine region: the southwest Nova
Scotia-Bay of Fundy, the coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine, and Georges Bank. In general, Gulf of
Maine herring migrate from summer feeding grounds along the Maine coast and on Georges Bank to
southern New England and Mid-Atlantic areas during winter, with larger individuals tending to migrate
farther distances. Tagging experiments provide evidence of intermixing of Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank,
and Scotian Shelf herring during different phases of the annual migration.
During at least some part of the year, Atlantic herring are widely distributed in continental shelf waters of
the Northeast Atlantic, from Labrador to Cape Hatteras. Herring can be found in every major estuary from
the northern Gulf of Maine to the Chesapeake Bay. They are most abundant north of Cape Cod and
become increasingly scarce south of New Jersey (Kelly and Moring 1986) with the largest and oldest fish
found in the southern most portion of the range (Munro 2002). Adult Atlantic herring are found in
shallow inshore waters, 20 meters deep, to offshore waters up to 200 meters deep (NEFMC 1999; Munro
2002), but seldom migrate to depths more than 50 fathoms (300 ft or 91.4 meters) (Kelly and Moring
1986). They prefer water temperatures of 5 – 9 degrees C (Munro 2002; Zinkevich 1967), but may
overwinter at temperatures as low as 0o C (Reid et al. 1999).
Stock Status
Currently, the stock complex is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. MSY reference points for
the herring complex were re-estimated during the most recent assessment (TRAC 2009). Results from a
Fox surplus production model were a dishing mortality associated with MSY = 0.27 and the Biomass
Associated with MSY = 670,600 mt. The Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank herring complex began to recover
during the late 1980s and current total biomass (age 2+) is now comparable to the mid-1970s, just before
the collapse. Biomass increased from a low of about 112,000 mt in 1982 to about 854,000 mt in 2000, and
declined slightly to about 652,000 mt in 2008, which was just below the Biomass Associated with MSY
(670,600 mt). Fishing mortality has remained relatively low since the early 1990s and averaged 0.17
during 1998-2008, which is below the fishing mortality associated with MSY (0.27).

6.3 Non-Target Species (Fish)
6.3.1

Past Analyses

Discarding has been addressed generally in a number of previous actions, most recently Amendment 10 to
the MSB FMP. Discarding across the MSB fisheries is described in the annual specifications from a
“directed trip” point of view. The trip definitions used are described below (there is no identifiable
directed butterfish fishery):
Mackerel: Directed mackerel trips are defined as all trips that had at least 50% mackerel by weight and all
trips over 100,000 pounds of mackerel regardless of the ratio of other species. This definition results in
capturing 97.4% of all mackerel landings in the dealer weighout database 2006-2010. The other trips with
lower mackerel landings landed a variety of species, mostly Atlantic herring, silver hake, longfin squid,
and scup. The set of trips in the observer database with the same mackerel criteria included 12 on average
for each year 2006- 2010 (61 total with 73 at least partially unobserved hauls and 204 observed hauls).
The observed mackerel caught on these trips accounted for approximately 6.5% of the total mackerel
caught.
Illex: Directed Illex trips are defined All trips that had at least 50% Illex by weight. This definition results
in capturing 99.6% of all Illex landings in the dealer weighout database 2006-2010 and was applied to the
observer database to examine discards in the Illex fishery. The resulting set of trips in the observer
database included 18 on average for each year 2006-2010 (91 total – 2010 had a relatively high number of
observed trips). These 91 trips made 962 hauls of which 94% were fully observed. Hauls may be
unobserved for a variety of reasons, for example transfer to another vessel without an observer, observer
not on station, haul slipped (dumped) in the water, etc. Readers will note the high FISH, NK numbers in
the associated table. This was caused by one haul in 2009 that was too big to bring aboard a vessel and
some had to be dumped (installed net sensors failed). While it had to be recorded as FISH, NK, the
observer's log suggests that it was mostly squid ("Unknown as to how much was released, but observer
saw a swordfish come out along with the squid."). Also, of the 75,042 pounds that did come aboard from
this haul, the observer recorded only 42 pounds of Illex discarded and no other species observed. The
observed Illex caught on these trips accounted for approximately 11.0 % of the total Illex caught.
Longfin Squid: All trips that had at least 50% longfin squid by weight and all trips that had at least 10,000
pounds of longfin squid regardless of the ratio to other species. This definition results in capturing almost
91% of all longfin squid landings in the dealer weighout database. This definition was applied to the
observer database to examine discards in the longfin squid fishery. The resulting set of trips in the
observer database included 83 on average for each year 2006-2010 (413 total – 2009 and 2010 had
relatively high numbers of observed trips). These 413 trips made 4186 hauls of which 91% were fully
observed. Hauls may be unobserved for a variety of reasons, for example transfer to another vessel
without an observer, observer not on station, haul slipped (dumped) in the water, etc. The observed
longfin squid caught on these trips accounted for approximately 3.5% of the total longfin squid caught.

Using the ratios of caught other species to retained directed species, and average landings of the target
species, one can make a rough calculation of the annual catch of the relevant non-target species, described
in the tables below.
This document includes a technically superior catch estimation methodology for RH/S described below.
However, since the tables generated for the specifications list the major other species caught, they are
provided below for reference. Also, the lack of substantial RH/S catch in the Illex fishery is a primary
reason why this Amendment focused on the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. This finding was
reinforced by the new analysis, as described below.
Table 17. Key Species Observed Taken and Discarded in Directed Trips for Mackerel, Based on
Unpublished NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Data and Unpublished Dealer Weighout Data
from 2006-2010. (see text for criteria). There Are 2204.6 Pounds in One Metric Ton.

NE Fisheries Science Center
Common Name

Pounds
Observed
Caught

For every
For every
Rough Annual
metric ton
Of all
metric ton
Catch (pounds)
of
D:K Ratio
discards
Percent of
of mackerel
based on 5Pounds
mackerel
(Ratio of
observed,
given
caught,
year (2006Observed
caught,
species
percent species that
pounds of
2010) average
Discarded
pounds of
discarded to that comes
was
given
of mackerel
given
Mackerel Kept) from given discarded
species
catch (29,200
species
species
caught.
mt)
discarded.

Directed Mackerel Trip Bycatch and Discards
DOGFISH SPINY
HERRING, ATLANTIC
SCUP
FISH, NK
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
HERRING (NK)

153,250
7,300,067
41,899
18,800
21,037,906
2,859

143,036
71,601
41,848
18,800
18,575
2,859

16.1
765.0
4.4
2.0
2,204.6
0.3

15.0
7.5
4.4
2.0
1.9
0.3

0.0068
0.0034
0.0020
0.0009
0.0009
0.0001

47%
23%
14%
6%
6%
1%

93%
468,934
1%
22,337,625
100%
128,206
100%
57,527
0% NA
100%
8,748

BUTTERFISH
BASS, STRIPED
SQUID (ILLEX)
HAKE, SILVER
SHAD, AMERICAN
HERRING, BLUE BACK
DOGFISH (NK)
SEA BASS, BLACK

13,151
1,605
2,709
16,433
3,502
97,416
500
638

2,821
1,605
1,148
1,032
702
644
500
469

1.4
0.2
0.3
1.7
0.4
10.2
0.1
0.1

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

21%
100%
42%
6%
20%
1%
100%
74%

40,240
4,911
8,290
50,284
10,717
298,084
1,530
1,952

SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN
ALEWIFE

330
22,152

312
305

0.0
2.3

0.0
0.0

0.0000
0.0000

0%
0%

95%
1%

1,010
67,783

Table 18. Key Species Observed Taken and Discarded in Directed Trips for Illex, Based on Unpublished
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Data and Unpublished Dealer Weighout Data from 20062010. (see text for criteria). There Are 2204.6 Pounds in One Metric Ton.

NE Fisheries Science
Center Common Name

Pounds
Observed
Caught

Pounds
Observed
Discarded

For every
metric ton
of Illex
caught,
pounds of
given
species
caught.

For every
metric ton
of Illex
caught,
pounds of
given
species
discarded.

D:K Ratio
(Ratio of
species
discarded
to Illex
Kept)

Rough
Of all
Annual
discards Percent of
Catch
observed,
given
(pounds)
percent
species
based on 5that comes that was year average
from given discarded
of Illex
species
landings
(15,314 mt)

Directed Illex Trip Bycatch and Discards
SQUID (ILLEX)
BUTTERFISH
FISH, NK
HAKE, SPOTTED
DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN)
HERRING (NK)
DOGFISH SPINY
MACKEREL, CHUB
SQUID (LOLIGO)
HAKE, SILVER
SQUID, NK
BEARDFISH
HAKE, RED
DOGFISH SMOOTH
FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT
WHITING, BLACK
ANGLER
SHAD, AMERICAN
HADDOCK
ROSEFISH,BLACK BELLY
REDFISH

18,560,449
51,629
25,994
14,161
15,346
10,852
9,343
10,226
75,449
3,875
3,612
3,257
2,825
1,257
1,150
1,036
1,131
779
582
504
454

263,257
37,497
25,994
14,010
10,986
10,852
9,341
8,243
6,648
3,848
3,612
3,242
2,825
1,257
1,150
1,036
820
636
582
490
454

2,204.6
6.1
3.1
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.1
1.2
9.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

31
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0144
0.0020
0.0014
0.0008
0.0006
0.0006
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

64.1%
9.1%
6.3%
3.4%
2.7%
2.6%
2.3%
2.0%
1.6%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%

1%
73%
100%
99%
72%
100%
100%
81%
9%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
72%
82%
100%
97%
100%

NA
93,913
47,282
25,759
27,915
19,739
16,994
18,602
137,241
7,049
6,570
5,924
5,139
2,287
2,092
1,884
2,057
1,417
1,058
917
826

Table 19. Key Species Observed Taken and Discarded in Directed Trips for Longfin Squid, Based on
Unpublished NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Data and Unpublished Dealer Weighout Data
from 2006-2010. (see text for criteria). There Are 2204.6 Pounds in One Metric Ton.

NE Fisheries Science Center
Pounds Observed Caught
Common Name

Pounds
Observed
Discarded

For every
For every
Of all
metric ton metric ton of
D:K Ratio
discards
of Loligo
Loligo
(Ratio of
observed,
caught,
caught,
species
percent that
pounds of
pounds of
discarded to comes from
given
given
Loligo Kept)
given
species
species
species
caught.
discarded.

Rough Annual
Percent of
Catch (pounds)
given
based on 5species
year average of
that was
Loligo catch
discarded
(11634 mt)

Directed Loligo Trip Bycatch and Discards
524,478
327,240
651,634
310,387
227,516
225,359
151,091
129,078
90,270
4,442,800
301,008

490,523
326,342
254,007
240,680
221,705
147,507
141,791
128,741
90,101
86,808
75,364

260.3
162.4
323.4
154.0
112.9
111.8
75.0
64.1
44.8
2204.6
149.4

243.4
161.9
126.0
119.4
110.0
73.2
70.4
63.9
44.7
43.1
37.4

0.11
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.17
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.94
3,027,814
1.00
1,889,160
0.39
3,761,885
0.78
1,791,865
0.97
1,313,452
0.65
1,301,001
0.94
872,248
1.00
745,167
1.00
521,128
0.02 NA
0.25
1,737,723

DOGFISH SMOOTH

99,681
55,802
48,695

50,938
47,427
44,503

49.5
27.7
24.2

25.3
23.5
22.1

0.01
0.01
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.02

0.51
0.85
0.91

575,461
322,145
281,118

SEA WEEDS

37,692

37,692

18.7

18.7

0.01

0.01

1.00

217,594

CRAB, LADY

36,931
32,826
30,188
27,459
25,968
23,383

36,931
31,097
30,188
27,057
25,873
23,059

18.3
16.3
15.0
13.6
12.9
11.6

18.3
15.4
15.0
13.4
12.8
11.4

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99

213,200
189,504
174,274
158,519
149,915
134,993

20,892
44,126
43,050
33,895
12,720
18,185
13,360
15,560
6,076
6,047
5,501
3,897
2,911
2,244
2,356
1,007

20,882
18,540
18,402
14,465
12,660
12,433
12,255
12,093
6,033
5,617
5,431
3,883
2,911
1,506
1,276
915

10.4
21.9
21.4
16.8
6.3
9.0
6.6
7.7
3.0
3.0
2.7
1.9
1.4
1.1
1.2
0.5

10.4
9.2
9.1
7.2
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
3.0
2.8
2.7
1.9
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1.00
0.42
0.43
0.43
1.00
0.68
0.92
0.78
0.99
0.93
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.54
0.91

120,610
254,740
248,530
195,678
73,434
104,984
77,125
89,830
35,078
34,910
31,758
22,495
16,806
12,952
13,600
5,811

BUTTERFISH
DOGFISH SPINY
SQUID (ILLEX)
HAKE, SILVER
HAKE, SPOTTED
SCUP
HAKE, RED
SKATE, LITTLE
FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT
SQUID (LOLIGO)
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
SCALLOP, SEA

BASS, STRIPED
HERRING, ATLANTIC
SKATE, BIG
SKATE, NK
FLOUNDER, WINTER
HERRING (NK)
ANGLER
BLUEFISH
DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN)
SKATE, BARNDOOR
SEA BASS, BLACK
HAKE, WHITE
LOBSTER
FISH, NK
TAUTOG
SHAD, AMERICAN
HADDOCK
HERRING, BLUE BACK
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
ALEWIFE
SHAD, HICKORY

6.3.2

River Herrings (blueback herring and alewife)

Life history and stock status are summarized below. Additional details may be found in the ASMFC’s
2009 Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (IFMP) for Shad and River Herring (River
Herring Management) available at http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm (the text below is adapted
from that document).
Alewife and blueback herring (collectively known as river herring) are anadromous fishes, spending most
of their lives in ocean waters, migrating to their natal freshwater areas in the spring months to spawn.
Alewife are most abundant in the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern states.
Blueback herring are found from Nova Scotia to northern Florida and are most abundant in waters from
the Chesapeake Bay south (Scott and Scott 1988). Alewife generally spawn earlier than blueback herring
in areas where both species occur. Alewife spawn in rivers, creeks, lakes and ponds, over rocks, detritus,
submerged aquatic vegetation and sand. Blueback herring generally prefer to spawn over sand or gravel
in swift-flowing areas of rivers and tributaries. In more southerly areas where both species exist, blueback
herring utilize flooded back swamps, oxbows and stream edges for spawning. For both species, adults
return to the ocean after spawning. Juveniles use the rivers and estuaries as nursery areas and migrate to
the ocean as water temperatures decline in the fall. River herring reach sexual maturity at 3-6 years of age.
Post-spawning mortality is highest in the states south of North Carolina as most populations are
considered to be semelparous (i.e., spawn once and die). Little information is available on the life history
of river herring once the juveniles emigrate to the ocean and until they return as mature adults to the
freshwater areas to spawn, though Appendix 1 describes the distribution of river herring catch in the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) bottom trawl survey data, which takes place in ocean waters.
Migration patterns are charted in tables 17 and 18.

Stock Status
In the most recent ASMFC river herring stock assessment, of the 24 river herring stocks for which
sufficient data is available to make a conclusion, 23 were depleted relative to historic levels and one was
increasing. The status of 28 additional stocks could not be determined because the time-series of available
data was too short. Estimates of abundance and fishing mortality could not be developed because of the
lack of adequate data. The “depleted” determination was used instead of “overfished” and “overfishing”
because of the many factors that have contributed to the declining abundance of river herring, which
include not just directed and non-target fishing, but likely also habitat issues (including dam passage),
predation, and climate change. It is hard to decipher which factors may be driving river herring abundance
trends but the assessment concluded that management actions to reduce total mortality are needed. There
are no coast-wide reference points. However, recent Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) bottom
trawl survey data do suggest possible recent improvement from a coast-wide perspective for both species
(see Appendix 1). Both blueback herring and alewife are currently candidate species for ESA listing, with
a decision due by NMFS on August 5, 2012 (see Section 6.5.6).

Table 20. Blueback Herring Migration Patterns (SA = Some activity; PA = Peak Activity)

Table 21. Alewife Migration Patterns (SA = Some activity; PA = Peak Activity)

6.3.3

Shads (American and hickory)

Life history and stock status are summarized below. Additional details may be found in the ASMFC’s
2010 Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring (American
Shad Management) available at http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm (the text below is adopted
from that document).
The American shad is the largest North American member of the shad and herring family, and historically
occurred in all major rivers from Maine through the east coast of Florida. The management units for
American shad under this Fishery Management Plan Amendment include all migratory American shad
stocks of the Atlantic coast of the United States.
American shad are a migratory anadromous fish that spend most of their life at sea along the Atlantic
coast and enter freshwater as adults in the spring to spawn. Most young emigrate from their natal rivers
during their first year of life. American shad stocks are river-specific; that is, each major tributary along
the Atlantic coast appears to have a discrete spawning stock. In addition to ocean waters, habitats used by
American shad include adult spawning sites in coastal tributaries and larval and juvenile nursery areas in
the freshwater portions of the rivers and their associated bays and estuaries. American shad migration
patterns are charted in table 19.

Less information is available specifically for hickory shad. Although the distribution and movements of
hickory shad are essentially unknown after they return to the ocean, due to harvest along the southern
New England coast in the summer and fall it is assumed that they also follow a migratory pattern similar
to American shad (ASMFC 2010).

Stock Status
No assessments are available for Hickory Shad but many runs are likely below historical levels for
reasons similar to those discussed below for Atlantic Shad. The most recent shad stock assessment report
identified that shad stocks are highly depressed from historical levels. Of the 24 stocks of American and
hickory shad for which sufficient information was available, 11 were depleted relative to historic levels, 2
were increasing, and 11 were stable (but still below historic levels). The status of 8 additional stocks
could not be determined because the time-series of data was too short or analyses indicated conflicting
trends. Taken in total, American shad stocks do not appear to be recovering. The assessment concluded
that current restoration actions need to be reviewed and new ones need to be identified and applied. These
include fishing rates, dam passage, stocking, and habitat restoration. There are no coast-wide reference
points.

Table 22. Shad Migration Patterns (SA = Some activity; PA = Peak Activity)

6.3.4

Current Analyses

Given the purposes of Amendment 14, new analyses for Amendment 14 centered on River Herrings and
Shads. The methods, detailed in Appendix 2, estimated total incidental catch of river herring (alewife and
blueback herring) and hickory and American shad (RHS) by fleet. Fleets included in the analyses were
those sampled by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and were stratified by region fished
(Mid-Atlantic versus New England), time (year and quarter), gear group, and mesh size. Appendix 3,
describes the FMAT’s recommendations upon reviewing the analysis. The detailed results of these
analyses are provided in Appendix 2, but as a summary table A1 from that Appendix is reproduced here
for convenience:
Table 23. RH/S Catch Estimates and C.V.s. Midwater trawl starts in 2005.

As would hopefully be the case, the past and current analyses appear generally consistent to the degree
that they can be compared. For example, in the new analyses the total catch of river herrings from 20052010 was 2,753 mt, with 32% or 881 mt caught in the Mid-Atlantic in quarter 1 by mid-water trawl
vessels, which should be the mackerel fleet/fishery. 881 mt over 6 years is an average of 147 mt per year.
This is pretty close to the 166 mt annual average estimated in specifications. The new analysis is
substantially superior however in that like vessels are grouped together and then landings from those

similar vessels are used to generate estimates using the RH/S catch rates from those same kinds of
grouped vessels.
When discards are subtracted from the catch estimates, the amount of “kept catch” of Atlantic Herring, for
2005-2010, closely matches the landings values in the dealer database, generally validating the catch
estimation method. Comparisons for river herring and shad do not match in a similar fashion - this is not
surprising given the reported discrepancies in reporting of landings of the four species.
Appendices 1 and 2 contain substantial discussion of estimated RH/S catch and will be referred to when
discussing impacts of alternatives. For purposes of additional summary, key strata in terms of RH/S
landings are listed below from Appendix 2:
Table 4 of Working Paper II summarizes estimated shad catch, by stratum, as a proportion of the
total catch during 2005-2010.
The overall shad catches by gear type are as follows: Midwater Trawl (MWT): 42%; Large Mesh (5.5-8.0
in.) Gillnet: 27%; Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT): 26%.
The overall shad catches by area are as follows: Mid-Atlantic (M-A): 31%; New England (NE) 69%.
The overall shad catches by key quarter, area, and gear strata are as follows: Quarter 4 NE MWT: 13%;
Q1 M-A MWT: 12%; Q3 NE MWT: 8%; Q3 NE Gillnet: (8%)Q4 NE Gillnet: (8%) (50% of total catch
came from these 6 strata).
Table 5 of Working Paper II summarizes estimated river herring catch, by stratum, as
a proportion of the total catch during 2005-2010.
The overall river herring catches by gear group are as follows: Midwater Trawl (MWT): 76%; Small
Mesh (<= 3.5 in.) Bottom Trawl (SMBT): 24%.
The overall river herring catches by area are as follows: Mid-Atlantic (M-A): 44%; New England (NE)
56%.
The overall river herring catches by key quarter, area, and gear strata are as follows: Quarter 1 (Q1) M-A
MWT: 35%; Q4 NE MWT: 16%; Q2 NE MWT: 11%; Q1 NE SMBT: 7%; Q3 NE MWT: 6%; Q3 NE
SMBT: 5% (80% of total catch came from these 6 strata).
The key summary findings the FMAT concluded from these analyses are included in Appendix 3 and
included the following points:
Lack of status information: Catch of river herring appears higher than shad but given the lack
of coast-wide productivity and biological reference points for these stocks, it is not possible to
quantify the impacts of these catches on stock status. This makes the impact analysis
of alternatives extremely uncertain.
Overlap in managed/directed fisheries: Analysis of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel
landings suggests strong overlap between the two in terms of gear/mesh/area, especially in Q1 in
the Mid-Atlantic.

Spatial-Temporal RH/S catch variability (observer data): GIS analyses of effort and
catch rates of river herring and shad combined, by gear group, suggest that while there
are some areas that appear to have high catch rates of RH/S and low effort, catch rates
were generally highest in the areas where fishing effort was highest. The GIS analyses also
indicated that areas with high catch rates during one time period may not show the
same pattern in another time period.
Spatial-Temporal Effort and Directed Catch Variability: Analysis of the spatial distribution
of effort by paired midwater trawls showed substantial variation among years. Analysis of the
spatial distribution of mackerel catches also showed substantial variation when looking at one
month to the next or the same month across years.
Spatial-Temporal catch variability in the Northeast Science Center Bottom Trawl RH/S:
The results of earlier analyses showing substantial year-to-year variability in trawl survey
catches of RH/S were noted. The sizes and locations of standard deviational ellipses that defined
the core distributions of each species indicated a high degree of inter-annual variability during
both spring and fall.

Comparison of catch estimates with landings
For 2005-2010, the ocean-intercept fisheries caught, on average, 63 mt of shad accordingly to the analysis
described above. Shad landings provided by ASMFC over the same time period averaged 581 mt so
ocean-intercept fisheries would appear to have represented a relatively low part of overall fishing
mortality. The numbers in the analysis described above are best conceptualized as catch in oceanintercept fisheries, which is why landings (much of which is riverine) can be so much higher.
For 2005-2010, the ocean-intercept fisheries caught, on average, 459 mt of river herring according to the
analysis described above. River herring landings provided by ASMFC over the same time period
averaged 601 mt so ocean-intercept fisheries would appear to have more relevance to river herring fishing
mortality than shad fishing mortality. However, given the lack of reference points for any of the RH/S
species, it is not possible to determine what effect, if any, these catch and/or landings quantities may be
having on RH/S stocks.
For a historical perspective, the following figures provide river herring and shad landings over time per
information provided by the ASMFC.

Figure 40. River Herring Landings

Figure 41. Shad Landings
RH/S Catch in the Illex and Longfin Squid Fisheries
The current analyses (Appendix 2) found that small mesh bottom otter trawling in the Mid-Atlantic in
quarter 3 appears to account for a very small portion of river herring and shad catch (2.0 % and 4.5%,
respectively), confirming preliminary findings that the Illex fishery does not appear to substantially catch
RH/S. The Illex fishery operates almost exclusively with small mesh bottom otter trawling in the MidAtlantic during June-Oct (mainly quarter 3). This is also consistent with the small mesh bottom trawl GIS
analysis which shows that catch rates of all four species are very low offshore during quarter 3 (Figure 34
in Appendix 2).

The story for longfin squid is more complex. The longfin squid fishery occurs in New England and MidAtlantic waters; inshore during May-Oct and offshore during Nov-April (see Amendment 10 to the MSB
FMP). In addition to the longfin squid fishery, other bottom trawl fisheries included in the "small-mesh"
bottom trawl catch category include Atlantic herring, whiting, and Atlantic mackerel. Across regions,
small mesh bottom trawls accounted for about 25% of either river herring or shad catches. Working paper
II (Appendix II) found that during 2005-2010, Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawls accounted for 6%
of river herring and 12% of shad catches. Working paper II also found that during 2005-2010, NewEngland small mesh bottom trawl accounted for 18% of river herring and 14% of shad catches.
However, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion of small
mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with herring accounting
for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not extrapolated catches, and target
species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a relative basis the information suggests that the
longfin squid fishery may not actually be accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with
the directed-trip based analysis conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment
(provided above in section 6.3).
Most shad catch for observed bottom small mesh (codend or liner less than 3.5 inches) was not associated
with a targeted species so a similar analysis is not feasible but shad catches appear low as described
above.
Conclusion
River herring and shad are caught in the MSB fisheries. The mackerel fishery appears to catch the most
river herring in the MSB fisheries, which is not surprising given that mid-water trawl gear appears
responsible for most river herring catch overall. The mackerel fishery also appears to catch low levels of
shad. The longfin squid fishery appears to catch low levels of RH/S, and the Illex fishery appears to catch
very low levels of shad and little if any river herring. Based on the analysis from Tables 17 and 19, the
mackerel fishery likely catches several times more RH/S than the longfin squid fishery, which was
primarily why the Council selected more management measures for the mackerel fishery compared to the
longfin squid fishery. The gear/region/season-focused analysis conducted for this Amendment (see
Appendix 2, especially table 3 of that Appendix) also suggests that small-mesh fishing for longfin squid
likely accounts for a relatively small amount of overall RH/S catch.
6.4 Habitat (Including Essential Fish Habitat (EFH))
Pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Act / EFH Provisions (50 CFR Part 600.815 (a)(1)), an FMP must
describe EFH by life history stage for each of the managed species in the plan. This information was
previously described in Amendment 8 to the MSB FMP and was updated via Amendment 11 to the MSB
FMP. EFH for the managed resource is described using fundamental information on habitat requirements
by life history stage that is summarized in a series of documents produced by NMFS and available at:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/. This series of documents, as well as additional reports and
publications, are used to provide the best available information on life history characteristics, habitat
requirements, as well as ecological relationships. Matrices of habitat parameters (i.e. temperature,
salinity, light, etc.) for eggs/larvae and juveniles/adults were developed in the mackerel, longfin squid and
Illex squid and butterfish EFH background documents described above. Amendment 8 to the MSB FMP
identified and described essential fish habitat for mackerel, longfin squid (except for eggs), Illex, and

butterfish, summarized below. Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP identified and described essential fish
habitat for longfin squid eggs. Amendment 11 updated all of the EFH designations for MSB species and
the associated textual descriptions and maps may be viewed here: http://mafmc.org/fmp/history/smbhist.htm.
In general, the EFH for the MSB species is the water column itself, and the species have temperature and
prey preferences/needs that drive the suitability of any particular area/depth, thus fishing activity has
minimal impacts. Longfin squid also use hard bottom, submerged vegetation, other natural or artificial
structure, and sand or mud to attach/anchor eggs, but there are no known preferences for different types of
substrates or indications that fishing activity may negatively impact longfin squid egg EFH.
The source documents cited above for RH/S and Atlantic herring may be consulted for additional habitat
information for those species.
There are other lifestages of federally-managed species that have designated EFH that may be susceptible
to adverse impacts from bottom-tending mobile gear as described below:

Table 23b. EFH descriptions for federally-managed species/life stages in the U.S. Northeast Shelf Ecosystem that
are vulnerable to bottom tending fishing gear.

Species

Life
Stage

Geographic Area of EFH

Bottom Type

(meters)

American juvenile GOM, including estuaries from Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay,
ME and from Massachusetts Bay to Cape Cod Bay
plaice
GOM, including estuaries from Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay,
American adult
ME and from Massachusetts Bay to Cape Cod Bay
plaice
Atlantic
juvenile GOM, GB, eastern portion of continental shelf off SNE, these
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay, Massachusetts Bay,
cod
Boston Harbor, Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards Bay
GOM, GB, eastern portion of continental shelf off SNE, these
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay, Massachusetts Bay,
Boston Harbor, Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards Bay
Atl halibut juvenile GOM and GB
GOM and GB
Atl halibut adult
Barndoor juvenile/ Eastern GOM, GB, SNE, Mid-Atlantic Bight to Hudson Canyon

Atlantic
cod

Depth

adult

skate
adult
Black sea juvenile GOM to Cape Hatteras, NC, including estuaries from Buzzards
Bay to Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, Barnegat Bay to
bass

45 - 150

25 - 75

Fine grained sediments,
sand, or gravel
Fine grained sediments,
sand, or gravel
Cobble or gravel

10 - 150

Rocks, pebbles, or gravel

45 - 175

20 - 60
100 - 700
l0-750, most
< 150
1 - 38

Sand, gravel, or clay
Sand, gravel, or clay
Mud, gravel, and sand

Rough bottom, shellfish/
eelgrass beds, manmade
Chesapeake Bay, Tangier/ Pocomoke Sound, and James River
structures, offshore clam
beds, and shell patches
GOM to Cape Hatteras, NC, including Buzzards Bay, Narragansett
20 - 50
Black sea adult
Structured habitats
Bay, Gardiners Bay, Great South Bay, Barnegat Bay to Chesapeake
bass
(natural and manmade),
Bay, and James River
sand and shell substrates
preferred
Clearnose juvenile/ GOM, along continental shelf to Cape Hatteras, NC, including the 0 – 500, most Soft bottom and rocky or
estuaries from Hudson River/Raritan Bay south to the Chesapeake
< 111
skate
adult
gravelly bottom
Bay mainstem

Haddock
Haddock

juvenile GB, GOM, and Mid-Atlantic south to Delaware Bay
GB, eastern side of Nantucket Shoals, and throughout GOM
adult

Little skate juvenile/ GB through Mid-Atlantic Bight to Cape Hatteras, NC; includes
estuaries from Buzzards Bay south to mainstem Chesapeake Bay
adult

35 - 100
40 - 150

Pebble and gravel
Broken ground, pebbles,
smooth hard sand, and
smooth areas between
rocky patches
0-137, most Sandy or gravelly
73 - 91
substrate or mud

Species

Life
Stage

Geographic Area of EFH
GOM, GB, SNE, and Mid-Atlantic south to Delaware Bay,
including the following estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco
Bay, Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay

eggs

Ocean
pout

juvenile GOM, GB, SNE, Mid-Atlantic south to Delaware Bay and the

Pollock
Red hake

Red hake

Redfish
Redfish
Rosette
skate
Scup

Summer
Flounder

Hatteras and the following estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Casco
Bay, ME, MA Bay to Cape Cod Bay
juvenile/ GOM to Florida – estuarine and over continental shelf to shelf
break
adult

Smooth
skate

juvenile/ Offshore banks of GOM
adult

Thorny
skate

juvenile/ GOM and GB
adult

Tilefish

juvenile/ Outer continental shelf and slope from the U.S./Canadian boundary
to the Virginia/North Carolina boundary
adult

White
hake

juvenile GOM, southern edge of GB, SNE to Mid-Atlantic and the

Winter
skate
Witch
flounder
Witch
flounder

<50

< 50
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay,
Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay
GOM, GB, SNE, Mid-Atlantic south to Delaware Bay and the
< 80
adult
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay, MA Bay,
Boston Harbor, and Cape Cod Bay
GOME, GB, SNE, and Mid-Atlantic south to New Jersey and the
15 – 365
adult
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay, Damariscotta R., MA
Bay, Cape Cod Bay, Long Island Sound
< 100
juvenile GOM, GB, continental shelf off SNE, and Mid-Atlantic south to
Cape Hatteras, including the following estuaries: Passamaquoddy
Bay to Saco Bay, Great Bay, MA Bay to Cape Cod Bay; Buzzards
Bay to CT River, Hudson River, Raritan Bay, and Chesapeake Bay
GOM, GB, continental shelf off SNE, Mid-Atlantic south to Cape
10 - 130
adult
Hatteras, these estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay, Great
Bay, MA Bay to Cape Cod Bay; Buzzards Bay to CT River,
Hudson River, Raritan Bay, Delaware Bay, and Chesapeake Bay
25 - 400
juvenile GOM, southern edge of GB
GOM, southern edge of GB
50 - 350
adult
33-530, most
juvenile/ Nantucket shoals and southern edge of GB to Cape Hatteras, NC
74-274
adult
juvenile/ GOM to Cape Hatteras, NC, including the following estuaries: MA 0-38 for juv
Bay, Cape Cod Bay to Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay to
adult
Delaware inland bays, and Chesapeake Bay
2-185 for
adult

Silver hake juvenile GOM, GB, continental shelf off SNE, Mid-Atlantic south to Cape

Winter
flounder

following estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay, ME to Great Bay, NH,
Massachusetts Bay to Cape Cod Bay
GB, inshore areas of GOM, SNE, Mid- Atlantic south to Delaware
adult
Bay and the estuaries from Passamaquoddy Bay, ME to
Chincoteague Bay, VA
juvenile/ Cape Cod Bay, GB, SNE shelf through Mid-Atlantic Bight to
North Carolina; includes the estuaries from Buzzards Bay south to
adult
the Chesapeake Bay mainstem
juvenile GOM, outer continental shelf from GB south to Cape Hatteras

adult

Bottom Type

(meters)

Ocean
pout

Ocean
pout

Depth

GOME, outer continental shelf from GB south to Chesapeake Bay

20 – 270

Generally sheltered nests
in hard bottom in holes or
crevices
Close proximity to hard
bottom nesting areas
Smooth bottom near rocks
or algae
Hard bottom habitats
including artificial reefs
Shell fragments, including
areas with an abundance
of live scallops
In sand and mud, in
depressions
Silt, mud, or hard bottom
Silt, mud, or hard bottom
Soft substrate, including
sand/mud bottoms
Demersal waters north of
Cape Hatteras and inshore
estuaries (various
substrate types)
All substrate types

0-250

Demersal/estuarine waters,
varied substrates. Mostly
inshore in summer and
offshore in winter.
31–874, most Soft mud (silt and clay),
110-457
sand, broken shells, gravel
and pebbles
18-2000, Sand, gravel, broken shell,
most 111-366 pebbles, and soft mud
100 - 300

5 - 225

1 - 100

Burrows in clay (some
may be semi-hardened
into rock)
Seagrass beds, mud, or
fine grained sand
Mud, sand, and gravel

0 - 371, most Sand and gravel or mud
< 111
50 - 450 to Fine grained substrate
1500
25 - 300
Fine grained substrate

Species

Life
Stage

Yellowtail adult
flounder

Geographic Area of EFH

Depth

Bottom Type

(meters)

GB, GOM, SNE and Mid-Atlantic south to Delaware Bay and these
estuaries: Sheepscot River and Casco Bay, ME, MA Bay to Cape
Cod Bay

20 - 50

Sand or sand and mud

For reference purposes, there are two primary gear types in use in the mackerel and longfin squid
fisheries, mid-water trawl and bottom-otter trawl. Mid water trawling, as the name suggests, would not
be expected to have substantial contact with the bottom. Bottom-otter trawls on the other hand are fished
on the bottom. Habitat disturbance depends on how heavily or lightly the gear is fished on the bottom and
can occur from the metal doors that spread the net along the bottom or from the net itself or attachments
to the net (for example chaff guards) that make contact with the bottom.
The source documents cited above for RH/S and Atlantic herring may be consulted for additional habitat
information for those species.
6.5 Endangered and Protected Species
There are numerous species which inhabit the environment within the management unit of this FMP that
are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (i.e., for those designated as
threatened or endangered) and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). 18 are classified
as endangered or threatened under the ESA, while the rest are protected by the provisions of the MMPA.
The subset of these species that are known to have interacted with the MSB fisheries is provided in this
document section. The Council has determined that the following list of species protected either by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), or the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 may be found in the environment utilized by Atlantic mackerel, squid
and butterfish fisheries:
This list also includes three candidate fish species and one proposed fish species (species being
considered for listing as an endangered or threatened species), as identified under the ESA.
Candidate species are those petitioned species that are actively being considered for listing as endangered
or threatened under the ESA, as well as those species for which NMFS has initiated an ESA status review
that it has announced in the Federal Register. Cusk, alewife, and blueback herring are candidate species
known to occur within the action area of the MSB fisheries and have documented interactions with types
of gear used in MSB fisheries.
Candidate species receive no substantive or procedural protection under the ESA; however, NMFS
recommends that project proponents consider implementing conservation actions to limit the potential for
adverse effects on candidate species from any proposed project. The Protected Resources Division of the
NMFS Northeast Regional Office has initiated review of recent stock assessments, discards information,
and other information for these candidate species which will be incorporated in the status review reports
for both candidate species. The results of those efforts are needed to accurately characterize recent
interactions between fisheries and the candidate species in the context of stock sizes. Any conservation
measures deemed appropriate for these species will follow the information from these reviews. Please
note that the conference provisions apply only if a candidate species is proposed for listing (and thus,
becomes a proposed species) (see 50 CFR 402.10).”
* = Known to have interacted with MSB fisheries or gear types

Cetaceans
Species
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus
Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
Beaked whales (Ziphius and Mesoplodon spp.)
*Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus)
*Pilot whale (Globicephala spp.)
*White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)
*Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)
Spotted and striped dolphins (Stenella spp.)
*Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected

Pinnipeds
Species
*Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina concolor)
*Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus grypus)
*Harp Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus)

Protected
Protected
Protected

Sea Turtles
Species
*Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
*Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened (Northwest Atlantic DPS)

Fish
Species
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
*Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)
Gulf of Maine DPS
New York Bight DPS
Chesapeake Bay DPS
Carolina DPS
South Atlantic DPS
Cusk (Brosme brosme)
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

Status
Endangered
Endangered (Gulf of Maine DPS)
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Candidate
Candidate

Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)

Candidate

Birds
Species
*Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus)

Status
Protected

Protected Species Interactions with the Managed Resources – Includes Fishery Classification under
Section 118 of Marine Mammal Protection Act
Species

Status

Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)
White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)
Pilot whale (Globicephala spp.)
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus)
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Harbor, Grey, and Harp Seals

Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Endangered
Threatened
Protected

Under section 118 of the MMPA, the NMFS must publish and annually update the List of Fisheries,
which places all U.S. commercial fisheries in one of three categories based on the level of serious injury
and mortality of marine mammals in each fishery (arranging them according to a two tiered classification
system). The categorization of a fishery in the List of Fisheries determines whether participants in that
fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, NEFOP
observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. The classification criteria consists of a two
tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal
stock (Tier 1) and then addresses the impact of the individual fisheries on each stock (Tier 2). If the total
annual mortality and serious injury of all fisheries that interact with a stock is less than 10% of the
Potential Biological Removal for the stock then the stock is designated as Tier 1 and all fisheries
interacting with this stock would be placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to
categorization under Tier 2. Potential Biological Removal is the product of minimum population size,
one-half the maximum productivity rate, and a “recovery” factor (MMPA Sec. 3. 16 U.S.C. 1362; Wade
and Angliss 1997). The current (2011) list of fisheries is available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/.

Under Tier 2, individual fisheries are subject to the following categorization:
Category I. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to
50% of the Potential Biological Removal level;
Category II. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than one percent
and less than 50% of the Potential Biological Removal level; or

Category III. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than one percent of
the Potential Biological Removal level.
Note: unlike the rest of this document, incidental take of marine mammals or endangered species does not
mean that they were retained or landed.
In Category I, there is documented information indicating a "frequent" mortality and injury of marine
mammals in the fishery. In Category II, there is documented information indicating an "occasional"
mortality and injury of marine mammals in the fishery. In Category III, there is information indicating no
more than a "remote likelihood" of an incidental taking of a marine mammal in the fishery or, in the
absence of information indicating the frequency of incidental taking of marine mammals, other factors
such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and
areas fished, and species and distribution of marine mammals in the area suggest there is no more than a
remote likelihood of an incidental take in the fishery. "Remote likelihood" means that annual mortality
and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 10% of the Potential Biological
Removal level or, which it is highly unlikely that any marine mammal will be incidentally taken by a
randomly selected vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period or, in the absence of reliable information it
is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries to determine whether the injury or
mortality qualifies (or not) for a specific category.
Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports:
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has incorporated earlier public
comments into revisions of marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). These reports contain
information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, the
stock's Potential Biological Removal level, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury
from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock.
The MMPA requires these assessments to be reviewed at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for
which significant new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks.
The most recent SARs are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.
NMFS elevated the (mid-water) MSB fishery to Category I in the 2001 List of Fisheries but it was
reduced to a Category II fishery in 2007 (see discussion below describing the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take
Reduction Plan). The reduction in interactions documented between the MSB fisheries and several
species/stocks of marine mammals compared to previous years led to the re-classification. No
classification changes have occurred since 2007
6.5.1

Description of species that are known to interact with MSB fisheries

The following is a description of species that are protected under the MMPA and, as discussed above,
have had documented interactions with fishing gears used to harvest species managed under this FMP (i.e.
may interact with the Atlantic Mackerel Squid and Butterfish fisheries):
Common dolphin (PBR = 1000, all fisheries annual take 2005-2009 = 164)
The common dolphin may be one of the most widely distributed species of cetaceans, as it is found
worldwide in temperate, tropical, and subtropical seas. They are widespread from Cape Hatteras

northeast to Georges Bank (35 to 42 North latitude) in outer continental shelf waters from mid-January to
May. Exact total numbers of common dolphins off the US or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown,
although the most recent Stock Assessment Report considers the best abundance estimate for common
dolphins to be 120,743 animals (Coefficient of Variation (CV) =0.23). This is the sum of the estimates
from two 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys, where the estimate for the northern U.S. Atlantic is 90,547
(CV=0.24) and 30,196 (CV=0.54) for the southern U.S. Atlantic. PBR for the western North Atlantic
common dolphin is 1000. See Waring et al. 2011 (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/)
for more life history information.
Fishery Interactions - The following fishery interaction information was taken from the latest stock
assessment for common dolphin contained in Waring et al. (2011) which summarizes incidental mortality
of this species. Annual averages are presented below – details on encounters may be reviewed in Waring
et al (2011).
Illex/Longfin squid/butterfish - These fisheries are included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl fisheries. The 2005-2009 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl
was 23 animals (CV=0.13). The 2005-2009 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl was 110 animals (CV=0.13). The portion attributable to the directed Illex/longfin squid
fisheries is unknown.
Atlantic Mackerel - This fishery is primarily prosecuted with mid-water trawl in the Mid-Atlantic but also
with bottom trawl as well. As noted above, the mean estimated annual mortality of common dolphin
during the five year period 2005-2009 in the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery was 110 animals
(CV=0.13). For the Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery the mean estimated annual mortality of common
dolphin was 1 (CV=0.7) during the five year period 2005-2009. The portion attributable to the directed
Atlantic mackerel fishery is unknown.

Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) (PBR = 190, all fisheries annual take 20052009 = 245)
Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) are found in temperate and sub-polar waters of
the North Atlantic, primarily in continental shelf waters to the 100m depth contour. The exact total
number of white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) along the eastern US and Canadian Atlantic
coast is unknown, although the best available current abundance estimate for white-sided dolphins in the
western North Atlantic stock is 23,390 (CV=0.23), the sum of the 2006 and 2007 surveys. PBR for the
western North Atlantic stock of white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) is 190. See Waring et al.
2011 (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/)for more life history information.
Fishery Interactions - The following information was taken from the latest stock assessment for whitesided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) contained in Waring et al (2011) which summarized incidental
mortality of this species. Annual averages are presented below – details on encounters may be reviewed
in Waring et al (2011).
Illex/Longfin squid/butterfish - These fisheries are included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl fisheries. The 2005-2009 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl
was 160 animals (CV=0.14). The 2005-2009 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic

bottom trawl was 23 animals (CV=0.12). The portion attributable to the directed Illex/longfin squid
fisheries is unknown.
Atlantic Mackerel - This fishery is primarily prosecuted with mid-water trawl in the Mid-Atlantic but also
with bottom trawl as well. As noted above, the mean estimated annual mortality during the five year
period 2005-2009 in the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery was 23 animals (CV=0.12). For the MidAtlantic mid-water trawl fishery the mean estimated annual mortality of common dolphin was 24
(CV=0.55) during the five year period 2005-2009. The portion attributable to the directed Atlantic
mackerel fishery is unknown.

Long-finned (Globicephala melas) and short-finned (Globicephala macrorhynchus) pilot whales
(PBR = 265, all fisheries annual take 2005-2009 = 162)
There are two species of pilot whales in the Western Atlantic - the Atlantic (or long-finned) pilot whale,
Globicephala melas, and the short-finned pilot whale, G. macrorhynchus. These species (sp.) are difficult
to identify to the species level at sea. Preliminary analysis suggests the following distribution of the two
species: sightings south of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay are likely short-finned pilot whales, as are
offshore (near the 4,000m depth contour) sightings from off the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay through off
New Jersey. Sightings from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to the Southern Edge of Georges Bank
along the 100/1,000 m depth contours are likely mixed. Sightings in the Gulf of Maine and east and north
of Cape Cod are likely long-finned pilot whales, as are sightings in shelf waters immediately southeast of
Nantucket. The minimum population size for short-finned pilot whales is estimated to be 17,190 and the
minimum population size for long-finned pilot whales is estimated to be 9,333. PBR for short-finned
pilot whales is estimated to be 172 and PBR for long-finned pilot whales is estimated to be 93 (total is
265). See Waring et al. 2011 (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/) for more life history
information.
Fishery Interactions - The following information was taken from the latest stock assessment for pilot
whales (Globicephala sp.) contained in Waring et al (2011) which summarized incidental mortality of this
species. Annual averages are presented below – details on encounters may be reviewed in Waring et al
(2011).
Illex/Longfin squid/butterfish - These fisheries are included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl fisheries. The 2005-2009 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl
was 12 animals (CV=0.14). The 2005-2009 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl was 30 animals (CV=0.16). The portion attributable to the directed Illex/longfin squid
fisheries is unknown.
Atlantic Mackerel - This fishery is primarily prosecuted with mid-water trawl in the Mid-Atlantic but also
with bottom trawl as well. As noted above, the mean estimated annual mortality during the five year
period 2005-2009 in the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery was 30 animals (CV=0.16). For the MidAtlantic mid-water trawl fishery the mean estimated annual mortality of common dolphin was 2.4
(CV=0.99) during the five year period 2005-2009. The portion attributable to the directed Atlantic
mackerel fishery is unknown.

Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) (PBR = 124, all fisheries annual take 2005-2009 = 18)
Risso's dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate seas, and in the Northwest Atlantic
occur from Florida to eastern Newfoundland. Off the northeast U.S. coast, Risso's dolphins are distributed
along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras northward to Georges Bank during spring, summer,
and autumn. In winter, the range is in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and extends outward into oceanic waters.
The minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic Risso’s dolphin is 12,920. See Waring
et al. 2011 (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/) for more life history information.
Fishery Interactions - NMFS foreign-fishery observers reported four deaths of Risso's dolphins incidental
to squid and mackerel fishing activities in the continental shelf and continental slope waters between
March 1977 and December 1991. In the pelagic pair trawl fishery, one mortality was observed in 1992.
Mid-Atlantic Mid-water Trawl
One Risso’s dolphin mortality was observed in this fishery for the first time in 2008. No discards
estimate has been generated.

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Offshore Form. (PBR = 566, all fisheries take is unknown)
There are two morphologically and genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin morphotypes described as the
coastal and offshore forms. Both inhabit waters in the western North Atlantic Ocean along the U.S.
Atlantic coast. See Waring et al. 2011 (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/) for more life
history information.
Fisheries Information
During 2007-2011, five offshore bottlenose dolphins were observed in the Northeast bottom trawl fishery:
4 in 2007 and 1 in 2010. In this same 5-year period, eight animals were observed in the mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl fishery: 1 in 2009, 5 in 2010, and 2 in 2011. The offshore bottlenose dolphin stock
assessment is presently under revision and will be published in the 2013 stock assessment report.
Earlier Interactions
Thirty-two bottlenose dolphin mortalities were observed in the pelagic pair trawl fishery between 1991
and 1995. Estimated annual fishery-related mortality (CV in parentheses) was 13 dolphins in 1991 (0.52),
73 in 1992 (0.49), 85 in 1993 (0.41), 4 in 1994 (0.40) and 17 in 1995 (0.26).
Although there were reports of bottlenose dolphin mortalities in the foreign squid mackerel butterfish
fishery during 1977-1988, there were no fishery-related mortalities of bottlenose dolphins reported in the
self-reported fisheries information from the mackerel trawl fishery during 1990-1992.
One bottlenose dolphin mortality was documented in the North Atlantic bottom trawl in 1991 and the
total estimated mortality in this fishery in 1991 was 91 (CV=0.97).

Harbor Seals
The harbor seal is found in all nearshore waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans and
adjoining seas above about 30ºN. In the western North Atlantic, they are distributed from the eastern
Canadian Arctic and Greenland south to southern New England and New York, and occasionally to the
Carolinas. Present data are insufficient to calculate a minimum population estimate for this stock.
There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for this stock.
In Northeast Bottom Trawl fisheries, seven harbor seal mortalities were observed between 2001 and 2007,
1 in 2002, 1 in 2005, 3 in 2007, 0 in 2008, and 1 in 2009. The estimated annual fishery-related mortality
and serious injury attributable to this fishery has not been generated. See Waring et al. 2011
(http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/) for more information.

Grey Seals
The gray seal is found on both sides of the North Atlantic, with three major populations: eastern Canada,
northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea. The western North Atlantic stock is equivalent to the eastern
Canada population, and ranges from New York to Labrador. Current estimates of the total western
Atlantic gray seal population are not available. Gray seal abundance is likely increasing in the U.S.
Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but the rate of increase is unknown.
Vessels in the North Atlantic bottom trawl fishery, a Category III fishery under MMPA, were observed in
order to meet fishery management, rather than marine mammal management needs. No mortalities were
observed prior to 2005, when four mortalities were attributed to this fishery. No mortalities were observed
in 2006. The estimated annual fishery-related mortality and serious injury attributable to this fishery was
0 between 2001 and 2004, and for 2006. Nine gray seal mortalities were attributed to this fishery in 2007,
4 in 2008 and 8 in 2009. Total estimates have not been generated. See Waring et al. 2011
(http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/) for more information.

Harp Seals
The harp seal occurs throughout much of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. Since the early 1990s,
numbers of sightings and strandings have been increasing off the east coast of the United States from
Maine to New Jersey. These usually occur in January-May when the western North Atlantic stock of harp
seals is at its most southern point of migration. The best estimate of abundance for western North
Atlantic harp seals is 6.9 million. The minimum population estimate based on the 2008 pup survey results
is 6.5 million seals. Data are insufficient to calculate the minimum population estimate for U.S. waters.
Four mortalities were observed in the Northeast bottom trawl fishery between 2002 and 2009. The
estimated annual fishery-related mortality and serious injury attributable to this fishery (CV in
parentheses) was 0 between 1991 and 2000, 49 (CV=1.10) in 2001, and 0 in 2002-2004, and 0 in 2006–
2008. Estimates have not been generated for 2005 or 2009.

6.5.2

Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Plan

In September 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) convened the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team (ATGTRT) under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The ATGTRT was convened to address incidental mortality
and serious injury of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas), short-finned pilot whales
(Globicephala macrorhynchus), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), and Atlantic white-sided dolphins
(Lagenorhynchus acutus) in several trawl gear fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. These marine
mammal species are known to interact with the Mid-Atlantic Mid-Water Trawl, the Mid-Atlantic Bottom
Trawl, Northeast Mid-Water Trawl and the Northeast Bottom Trawl fisheries.
Section 118 of the MMPA establishes a method for managing incidental interactions between marine
mammals and commercial fisheries. Under section 118, Take Reduction Plans (Take Reduction Plans) are
developed to identify actions necessary to conserve and protect strategic marine mammal stocks 1 that
interact with Category I and II fisheries.2 The immediate goal of a Take Reduction Plan is to reduce,
within six months of implementation, the incidental serious injury or mortality of marine mammals from
commercial fishing to levels less than Potential Biological Removal. The long-term goal is to reduce,
within five years of its implementation, the incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals
from commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero serious injury and mortality
rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing
state or regional fishery management plans.
Take Reduction Teams (TRTs) consisting of representatives from the fishing industry, fishery
management councils, state and federal resource management agencies, the scientific community and
conservation organizations develops the Take Reduction Plan while NMFS is responsible for its
implementation. After a Take Reduction Plan is finalized, the Take Reduction Team and NMFS meet
periodically to monitor implementation of the plan and update as necessary. Take reduction plans must
recommend regulatory or voluntary measures for the reduction of incidental mortality and serious injury;
and recommend dates for achieving the specific objectives of the plan.
Presently, none of these marine mammal stocks under consideration by the ATGTRT are classified as a
strategic stock nor do they currently interact with a Category I fishery.
At its first meeting the ATGTRT raised several issues critical to the take reduction planning process and
the development of an Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Plan. The ATGTRT requested clarification of
the requirements under the MMPA for development of a take reduction plan for marine mammal stocks
that are non-strategic and that do not interact with Category I fisheries. Specifically, the ATGTRT wanted
to know if the 11 month timeline specified in the MMPA for the development of a Take Reduction Plan
and the 5 year timeline for reaching Zero Mortality Rate Goal apply under the specific circumstances of
1

The MMPA defines the term “strategic stock” to mean a marine mammal stock (A) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds the potential biological removal level; (B) …..is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 within the foreseeable future; or (C) ….is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA or is
designated as a depleted stock under this Act. The term “potential biological removal level” means 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.
2
NMFS must publish, at least annually, a List of Fisheries that classifies U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories, based on the
relative frequency of incidental serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals in each fishery:
• Category I designates fisheries with frequent serious injuries and mortalities incidental to commercial fishing;
• Category II designates fisheries with occasional serious injuries and mortalities;
• Category III designates fisheries with a remote likelihood or no known serious injuries or mortalities.

the ATGTRT. The ATGTRT also requested that NMFS conduct a Tier Analysis for the 2007 annual List
of Fisheries to verify whether the Squid, Mackerel Butterfish Fishery (Mid-Atlantic Midwater Trawl
Fishery) should remain as a Category I fishery or be reclassified as a Category II fishery.
NOAA General Counsel provided detailed legal guidance regarding the Take Reduction Plan timeline and
requirements for development of a Take Reduction Plan for marine mammal stocks that are non-strategic
in response to questions raised by the ATGTRT. In short, NOAA’s General Counsel legal guidance stated
that neither the 11 month timeline for the development of a Take Reduction Plan nor the 5 year goal for
reaching a Zero Mortality Rate Goal apply to non-strategic stocks that do not interact with Category I
fisheries.
The ATGTRT agreed that while a Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Plan may not be required at this
time3, efforts should be made to identify and conduct research necessary to identify measures to reduce
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals in Atlantic trawl fisheries and, ultimately, to achieve the
MMPA’s Zero Mortality Rate Goal through a trawl take reduction research plan. This information is
captured in the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy (ATGTRS).4
In addition, the ATGTRT recommended that certain voluntary measures be implemented immediately for
the Atlantic trawl fisheries in defined areas. NMFS funded outreach placards highlighting these voluntary
measures. The placards were designed in collaboration with Garden State Seafood Association, who is
also a member of the ATGTRT.
The ATGTRT recommended that two plans be developed to achieve the overall goal of the Take
Reduction Strategy to reduce the incidental take of marine mammals in Atlantic trawl fisheries. These
include an Education and Outreach Plan and a Research Plan as part of an overall take reduction strategy.
The ATGTRT established two sub-groups to develop the Education and Outreach and Research Plans.
The Education and Outreach Plan identifies activities that promote the exchange of information necessary
to reduce the catch of marine mammals in Atlantic trawl fisheries. The Research Plan identifies
information and research needs necessary to improve our understanding of the factors resulting in catch in
Atlantic trawl fisheries. The results of the identified research will be used to direct additional research
and/or identify measures to reduce the serious injury and mortality of short- and long-finned pilot whales,
Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and common dolphins in trawl fisheries to levels approaching the Zero
Mortality Rate Goal . The Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy is available at:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/atgtrp/.

3

At the April 2007 meeting, the ATGTRT tabled the discussion of the NOAA General Counsel legal guidance without
reaching consensus, with some members questioning the conclusions reached by NOAA General Counsel. The ATGTRT
agreed to focus on areas of consensus; specifically the need to identify and implement research and education and outreach
initiatives to reduce serious injury and mortality of marine mammals in Atlantic trawl fisheries and ultimately to achieve the
MMPA goal of reducing marine takes to Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG).
4
The Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy (ATGTRS) identifies informational and research tasks as well as education
and outreach needs the ATGTRT believes are necessary to provide the basis for achieving the ultimate MMPA goal of
achieving ZMRG. The ATGTRS has identified several potential voluntary measures that can be adopted by certain trawl
fishing sectors to potentially reduce the incidental capture of marine mammals. The tasks identified by this ATGTRS are
necessary to make reasoned management decisions that could provide the basis for any future take reduction plan should it be
determined that a Take Reduction Plan is needed.

6.5.3

Description of Turtle Species with Documented Interactions with the MSB Fisheries

The October 2010 Biological Opinion for the MSB (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/section7/NMFSsignedBOs/MSB%20BIOP%202010.pdf) fisheries contains detailed information on sea-turtle interactions with
trawl gear in the MSB fisheries, and updated information is provided in Warden (2011a, 2011b). Summary
information is provided below.

The primary species likely to be adversely affected by the MSB fishery would be loggerhead sea turtles,
as they are the most abundant species occurring in U.S. Atlantic waters. Sea sampling and observer data
indicate that fewer interactions occur between fisheries that capture MSB and leatherback, Kemp's ridley,
and green sea turtles. The primary area of impact of the directed commercial fishery for MSB on sea
turtles is likely bottom otter trawls in waters of the Mid-Atlantic from Virginia through New York, from
late spring through fall (peak longfin squid abundance July-October). In New England, interactions with
trawl gear may occur in summer through early fall (peak squid abundance August -September), although
given the level of effort, the probability of interactions is much lower than in the Mid-Atlantic.
There were 9 observed sea turtle takes in the MSB fishery during 2001-2011 (using top species landed).
All sea turtle takes have occurred in bottom otter trawl gear participating in the squid fishery. Based on
data collected by observers for the reported sea turtle captures in or retention in MSB trawl gear, the
NEFSC estimated loggerhead catch in the MSB trawl fishery between 2000-2004 (Murray 2008) was 62
animals annually. NMFS estimates 2 leatherback, 2 green, and 2 Kemp’s ridley turtles are taken each
year based on the very low encounter rates for these species and/or unidentified turtles.
On July 12, 2007, NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Services) received a petition from Center
for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network to list the ‘‘North Pacific populations of
loggerhead sea turtle’’ as an endangered species under the ESA. In addition, on November 15, 2007, the
Services received a petition from Center for Biological Diversity and Oceana to list the ‘‘Western North
Atlantic populations of loggerhead sea turtle’’ as an endangered species under the ESA. NMFS published
notices in the Federal Register, concluding that the petitions presented substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted (72 FR 64585, November 16, 2007; 73 FR 11849;
March 5, 2008). In 2008, a Biological Review Team (BRT) was established to assess the global
population structure to determine whether DPSs exist and, if so, the status of each DPS. The BRT
identified nine loggerhead DPSs, distributed globally (Conant et al. 2009). On March 16, 2010, the
Services announced 12-month findings on the petitions to list the North Pacific populations and the
Northwest Atlantic populations of the loggerhead sea turtle as DPSs with endangered status and published
a proposed rule to designate nine loggerhead DPSs worldwide, seven as endangered (North Pacific Ocean
DPS, South Pacific Ocean DPS, Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS,
Mediterranean Sea DPS, North Indian Ocean DPS, and Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS) and two as
threatened (Southwest Indian Ocean DPS and South Atlantic Ocean DPS).
On September 22, 2011, NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule (76 FR 58868),
determining that the loggerhead sea turtle is composed of nine DPSs (as defined in Conant et al., 2009)
that constitute species that may be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Five DPSs were
listed as endangered (North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, Northeast Atlantic
Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea), and four DPSs were listed as threatened (Northwest Atlantic Ocean,
South Atlantic Ocean, Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, and Southwest Indian Ocean). Note that the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA) DPS and the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS were original
proposed as endangered. The NWA DPS was determined to be threatened based on review of nesting data

available after the proposed rule was published, information provided in public comments on the
proposed rule, and further discussions within the agencies. The two primary factors considered were
population abundance and population trend. NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that an
endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted given the large size of the nesting population, the
overall nesting population remains widespread, the trend for the nesting population appears to be
stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts are underway to address threats.
The September 2011 final rule also noted that critical habitat for the two DPSs occurring within the U.S.
(NWA DPS and North Pacific DPS) will be designated in a future rulemaking. Information from the
public related to the identification of critical habitat, essential physical or biological features for this
species, and other relevant impacts of a critical habitat designation was solicited.
This proposed action only occurs in the Atlantic Ocean. As noted in Conant et al. (2009), the range of the
four DPSs occurring in the Atlantic Ocean are as follows: NWA DPS – north of the equator, south of 60°
N latitude, and west of 40° W longitude; Northeast Atlantic Ocean (NEA) DPS – north of the equator,
south of 60° N latitude, east of 40° W longitude, and west of 5° 36’ W longitude; South Atlantic DPS –
south of the equator, north of 60° S latitude, west of 20° E longitude, and east of 60° W longitude;
Mediterranean DPS – the Mediterranean Sea east of 5° 36’ W longitude. These boundaries were
determined based on oceanographic features, loggerhead sightings, thermal tolerance, fishery data, and
information on loggerhead distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. Sea turtles
from the NEA DPS are not expected to be present over the North American continental shelf in U.S.
coastal waters, where the proposed action occurs (P. Dutton, NMFS, personal communication, 2011).
Previous literature (Bowen et al. 2004) has suggested that there is the potential, albeit small, for some
juveniles from the Mediterranean DPS to be present in U.S. Atlantic coastal foraging grounds.
These data should be interpreted with caution however, as they may be representing a shared common
haplotype and lack of representative sampling at Eastern Atlantic rookeries. Given that updated, more
refined analyses are ongoing and the occurrence of Mediterranean DPS juveniles in U.S. coastal waters is
rare and uncertain, if even occurring at all, for the purposes of this assessment we are making the
determination that the Mediterranean DPS is not likely to be present in the action area. Sea turtles of the
South Atlantic DPS do not inhabit the action area of this subject fishery (Conant et al. 2009). As such, the
remainder of this assessment will only focus on the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, listed as
threatened.

6.5.4

Birds

Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus)
The Northern gannet is a migratory seabird federally protected in the U.S. and Canada. Gannets spend the
boreal summer along coastal Canada and the winter along the U.S. East Coast continental shelf waters.
North American breeding colonies exist at 6 main sites in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Atlantic
coast of Newfoundland. During the nesting season, March – November, birds forage throughout the
North Atlantic from the Bay of Fundy, off the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador and Greenland and
throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Dispersal from breeding sites begins in September, where gannets
migrate south along the Northeast Atlantic coast and are considered common winter residents off most

Northeast coastal states. Primary prey of the Northern gannet include herring, mackerel and squids.
North American breeding population has been increasing since the early 1970’s and in 2000 the
population was estimated at 144,596 individuals. Northern gannets were not listed as a species of
conservation concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2008.
Northern gannet Fishery Interactions:
Illex squid: No interactions observed for 2004 – 2008.
Longfin squid: For 2004 to 2008, one Northern Gannet take was observed in March of 2004.
Atlantic mackerel: For 2004 to 2008 a total of 62 Northern Gannets have been observed (2004, n = 17;
2005, n = 1; 2006, n = 2; 2007, n = 30; 2008, n = 12).
Butterfish: Given recent restrictions on butterfish landings it is difficult to even define a directed
butterfish fishery – landings are generally incidental to other fishing.

6.5.5

Atlantic Sturgeon

In 2012 NOAA’s Fisheries Service announced a final decision to list five distinct population segments
(DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act. The Chesapeake Bay, New York Bight,
Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon were listed as endangered, while the Gulf of
Maine DPS was listed as threatened. Atlantic sturgeon from any of the five DPSs could occur in areas
where MSB fisheries operate, and the species has been captured in gear targeting longfin squid (Stein et
al. 2004a, ASMFC 2007). Therefore, this Environmental Assessment includes background information
on Atlantic sturgeon in this section and considers the anticipated effects of the action on Atlantic sturgeon
in Section 7 of this Environmental Assessment.
Atlantic sturgeon is an anadromous species that spawns in relatively low salinity, river environments, but
spends most of its life in the marine and estuarine environments from Labrador, Canada to the Saint Johns
River, Florida. There are no total population size estimates for any of the 5 Atlantic sturgeon DPSs at this
time. However, there are two estimates of spawning adults per year for two river systems (e.g., 863
spawning adults for the Hudson River, and 343 spawning adults per year for the Altamaha River). The
Altamaha estimate represent only a fraction of the total population size of this subpopulation as Atlantic
sturgeon do not spawn every year. Additionally, neither of these estimates include subadults or early life
stages. Detailed life history information may be found in the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review,
available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/Sturgeon/Atl%20Sturgeon/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf.
Atlantic sturgeon are known to be captured in sink gillnet, drift gillnet, and otter trawl gear (Stein et al.
2004a, ASMFC TC 2007). Of these gear types, sink gillnet gear poses the greatest known risk of
mortality for bycaught sturgeon (ASMFC TC 2007). Sturgeon deaths are rarely reported in the otter trawl
observer dataset (ASMFC TC 2007). However, the level of mortality after release from the gear is
unknown. For the years 2006 through 2010, an average of 775 Atlantic sturgeon encounters with small
mesh otter trawl gear occurred in all areas (759 in the 600 series of statistical areas).
In an updated analysis, NEFSC was able to use data from the Northeast Fishery Observer Program
database to provide updated estimates for the 2006 to 2010 timeframe. For reference, estimated total

annual takes for all gear types (otter trawl and sink gillnet) ranged from 1536 to 3221 (average 2,215).
For small-mesh otter trawls, total annual takes from 2006 to 2010 ranged from 394 to 1546 (average 775).
Estimated annual mortalities for all gear types ranged from 37 to 376 sturgeon.
It should be noted that other fisheries, such as the small-mesh multispecies (whiting) fishery, utilize the
small-mesh otter trawl gear and fish in the same area where MSB species occur. Accordingly, it is likely
that actual encounters with Atlantic sturgeon by the MSB fisheries are lower than the totals for the gear
type. However, because the Northeast Fishery Observer Program data available for this analysis did not
identify the species targeted, a more precise evaluation of encounters in only the MSB fisheries cannot be
specified at this time.
A comparison of the location of the MSB fisheries (see Section 6.1) and with the known-preferred habitat
of Atlantic sturgeon (shallow inshore areas, primarily less than 50 m), suggests that the portion of 20062010 small-mesh otter trawl interactions attributable to MSB fisheries could likely have occurred in the
summer/fall inshore longfin squid fishery, which occurs nearshore in waters less than 40 fathoms. The
longfin squid quota is allocated in trimesters (43% for Trimester 1; 17% for Trimester 2; 40% for
Trimester 3), so roughly half of the quota is available during the summer and fall period. The nearshore
effort in the summer and fall longfin squid fishery overlaps with the water depths in which most observed
sturgeon encounters occur. This is supported by the Stein et al. (2004a) analysis, which showed sturgeon
encounters with the longfin squid and butterfish fisheries during the period from 1989-2000, but showed
no encounters with Illex squid and mackerel fisheries.
Atlantic sturgeon interactions with small-mesh otter trawl are distributed throughout the year. On
average, the most estimated small-mesh otter trawl encounters with Atlantic sturgeon in the 600 series of
statistical areas occur during Quarter 2 (April through June), and the fewest occur during Quarter 3 (July –
September). However, the contribution of each quarter to total estimated encounters differs from year to
year.
Compared to gillnet gear, small-mesh otter trawl gear accounts for relatively few sturgeon mortalities.
The number of small-mesh otter trawl takes resulting in mortality remained at less than 5% of total
estimated encounters for the entire period, with estimated annual mortalities ranging from 4 to 90 (total
mortalities for all gear types ranged from 37 to 376). Between 2006 and 2010, there were no estimated
Atlantic sturgeon mortalities in small-mesh otter trawl gear during Quarters 2 and 3, and an average of 11
estimated mortalities in Quarters 1. Estimated Quarter 4 mortalities in small-mesh otter trawl gear only
occurred 2006 (61 total estimated mortalities). All mortalities in small-mesh otter trawl gear occurred in
the 600 series of statistical areas. It is important to note that the information provided on mortality rates
may be an underestimate as the rate of post-release mortality for those reportedly released alive is
unknown. An analysis of observer data has suggested that the proportions of these mortalities by DPS are
approximately: 11% Gulf of Maine, 49% New York Bight, 14% Chesapeake Bay, 4% Carolina, 20%
South Atlantic, and 2% Canada (which are not listed). NMFS is undertaking a biological opinion to
determine what fishery restrictions might be necessary for Council fisheries. The Council has established
a Sturgeon Advisory Panel to help guide its efforts and will consider appropriate measures once the
biological opinion is finalized.
NMFS has reinitiated formal consultation regarding Atlantic sturgeon and the MSB fisheries but also
found that the continued operation of these fisheries during the reinitiation period is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any Atlantic sturgeon DPS. This is based on the NMFS
determination that the number of interactions with Atlantic sturgeon that may occur during this period is

low and will only occur for a short period of time. Thus, this is not expected to increase the risk that the
fisheries and associated research are jeopardizing any Atlantic sturgeon DPS.

6.5.6

Description of Candidate Species for Listing Under the ESA

Cusk
Cusk are not expected to be impacted by actions in this amendment, but more information may be found
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/cusk.htm.

Alewife and Blueback Herring

On August 5, the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a petition to NOAA requesting that the
agency consider river herrings, alewife and blueback herring, for listing. Within 12 months of receipt of
this petition, NOAA is required to make a determination of whether alewife and blueback herring should
be listed as endangered or threatened, or not at all.
Both alewife and blueback herring are found in coastal waters and rivers from Canada to North Carolina,
although blueback herring’s range extends farther south to Florida. Both species are managed by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Blueback herring and alewife are both now considered candidate species under the Endangered Species
Act. NOAA has determined that a petition to list alewife and blueback herring, collectively referred to as
river herring, under the Endangered Species Act presents enough scientific and commercial information to
merit further review. As a result, the agency will conduct a formal review of river herring population
status and trends. A decision regarding whether listing is warranted is due on August 5, 2012.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has been conducting a stock assessment for river
herring since 2008, covering over 50 river specific stocks throughout the species U.S. range. This
represents a significant effort on behalf of the ASMFC and the coastal states from Maine to Florida.
NOAA recognizes this extensive effort to compile the most current information on the status of these
stocks throughout their range in the United States and intends to work cooperatively with the ASMFC to
utilize this information in the ongoing review of the status of these two keystone species.
NOAA will also consider information contained in the petition, published literature, and other information
about the historic and current range of river herring, their physical and biological habitat requirements,
population status and trends, and threats. If NOAA determines that a listing is appropriate, the agency
will publish a proposed rule and take public comment before publishing a final decision. However, if
NOAA determines that that listing these species is not appropriate, the process ends.

6.6 Fishery, Port, and Community Description (Human Communities)

Detailed information about landings, revenues, gear, permits, area fished, recreational catch, etc. for
mackerel, Illex, butterfish, and longfin squid is described in section 6.6. Detailed information on the
Atlantic herring fishery is available in Amendment 5’s DEIS, available here:
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/index.html. Basic community profiles for all Mid-Atlantic and NewEngland Ports are available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/community_profiles/. These
profiles generally contain landings information through 2006. The table below provides an update for the
importance of mackerel, longfin squid, and Atlantic herring (species most impacted by this Amendment)
for all ports where cumulative ex-vessel revenues 2007-2010 totaled more than $50,000 and the
proportion of revenues from mackerel, longfin squid, and Atlantic herring combined accounted for at least
5% of all revenues. New Bedford is also included because even though the percentage is small, the value
of Atl Herring, Atl Mackerel, and longfin squid is still relatively large (the value of scallops dominates in
New Bedford). This identifies the ports most dependent on the fisheries that may be impacted by the
actions considered in this document.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table 24. MSB Ports

PORTNAME

PROSPECT, MAINE
NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND
ROCKLAND, MAINE
POINT JUDITH, RHODE ISLAND
HAMPTON BAYS, NEW YORK
OTHER BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
SHINNECOCK, NEW YORK
FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS
MONTAUK, NEW YORK
PROSPECT HARBOR, MAINE
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
GREENPORT, NEW YORK
GLOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
NIANTIC, CONNECTICUT
PORTLAND, MAINE
WOODS HOLE, MASSACHUSETTS
POINT LOOKOUT, NEW YORK
EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
FREEPORT, NEW YORK
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND
BELFORD, NEW JERSEY
CAPE MAY, NEW JERSEY
OTHER NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND
HYANNISPORT, MASSACHUSETTS
NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS

Total Ex-Vessel
Value of All
Landings in Port
(2007-2010)

$330,577
$42,493,380
$35,664,669
$137,980,732
$20,374,542
$6,490,882
$2,591,042
$13,294,843
$64,864,533
$9,405,037
$971,180
$1,538,865
$207,497,454
$1,006,529
$84,423,991
$2,756,724
$10,002,397
$2,562,075
$1,637,244
$33,081,171
$10,984,338
$266,247,723
$794,742
$8,718,830
$1,057,316,970

Percent of
Value from
Atl Herring

92%
4%
36%
1%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
18%
0%
0%
12%
0%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%

Percent of
Value from
Mackerel

0%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
0%
1%
0%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%

Percent of
Value from
Loligo

0%
27%
0%
22%
22%
22%
21%
0%
19%
0%
17%
15%
0%
13%
0%
12%
11%
8%
7%
5%
5%
3%
5%
5%
0%

Percent of Value
from Atl Herring,
Mackerel, Loligo
Combined

92%
45%
36%
24%
22%
22%
21%
19%
19%
18%
17%
15%
15%
14%
14%
12%
11%
8%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
2%

Source: NMFS Dealer Weighout Database Unpublished Data

The Council employed a new procedure for gathering information from its Squid-Mackerel-Butterfish
Advisory Panel during the 2012 specifications setting process. The Advisory Panel created a “Fishery
Performance Report” for each species based on the advisors’ personal and professional industry
experiences as well as reactions to an “informational document” for each species created by Council staff.
The Fishery Performance Reports, while not reviewed by NMFS technical staff in the same fashion as this
environmental assessment, may be of additional interest to the reader and may be found here:
http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2011-05/SSC_2011-05.htm. The staff informational
document, while also not reviewed and containing some preliminary information, was constructed using
the same basic analytical techniques as this document and also may be of interest to readers looking for
additional descriptive fishery information (available via same link as above).

6.7 Fishery and Socioeconomic Description

6.7.1

Atlantic mackerel (mackerel)

Historical Commercial Fishery
The modern northwest mackerel fishery began with the arrival of the European distant-water fleets in the
early 1960's. Total international commercial landings (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Subareas 2-6,) peaked at 437,000 mt in 1973 and then declined sharply to 77,000 by 1977 (Overholtz
1989). The MSA established control of the portion of the mackerel fishery occurring in U.S. waters
(Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Subareas 5-6) under the auspices of the Council. Reported
foreign landings in U.S. waters declined from an unregulated level of 385,000 mt in 1972 to less than 400
mt from 1978-1980 under the MSFCMA (the foreign mackerel fishery was restricted by NOAA Foreign
Fishing regulations to certain areas or "windows." Under the MSB FMP foreign mackerel catches were
permitted to increase gradually to 15,000 mt in 1984 and then to a peak of almost 43,000 mt in 1988
before being phased out again (Figure 42).

Figure 42. Historical Alt. Mackerel Landings in the U.S. EEZ.
U.S. commercial landings of mackerel increased steadily from roughly 3000 mt in the early 1980s to
greater than 31,000 mt by 1990. U.S. mackerel landings declined to relatively low levels 1992-2000
before increasing in the early 2000's. The most recent years have seen a significant drop-off in harvest.
Price (nominal) has fluctuated without trend since 1982 and averaged $323/mt in 2010.
Analysis of NMFS weighout data is used to chart annual estimates for U.S. mackerel landings (mt), exvessel value ($), and nominal (not inflation adjusted) prices 1982-2010 ($/mt) in the figures below.

Figure 43. U.S. Mackerel Landings.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 44. U.S. Mackerel Ex-vessel Revenues.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 45. U.S. Mackerel Ex-Vessel Prices.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Specification Performance
The principle measure used to manage mackerel is monitoring via dealer weighout data that is submitted
weekly. The dealer data triggers in-season management actions that institute relatively low trip limits
when 90% of the DAH is landed. Mandatory reporting for mackerel was fully instituted in 1997 so
specification performance since 1997 is most relevant. Table 25 lists the performance of the mackerel
fishery (commercial and recreational together) compared to its DAH. There have been no quota overages.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table 25. Mackerel DAH Performance. (mt)

Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Harvest (mt)
Percent of
(Commercial and Quota (mt)
Quota
Recreational)
Landed
17,140
90,000
19%
15,215
80,000
19%
13,366
75,000
18%
7,097
75,000
9%
13,876
85,000
16%
27,824
85,000
33%
35,068
175,000
20%
55,520
170,000
33%
43,220
115,000
38%
58,493
115,000
51%
26,431
115,000
23%
22,439
115,000
20%
23,382
115,000
20%
10,669
115,000
9%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Commercial Fishery and Community Analysis
The following tables describe, for mackerel in 2010, the total landings, value, numbers of vessels making
landings, numbers of trips landing mackerel, price per metric ton (Table 26), landings by state (Table 27),
landings by month (Table 28), landings by gear (Table 29), numbers of permitted and active vessels by
state (Table 30), numbers of uncanceled permits over time (Figure 46), numbers of permitted and active
dealers by state (Table 31), and landings by NMFS federal permit category (Table 32). Previous
Specification EA's have included port information but because of confidentiality concerns such tables are
not able to include much relevant information and have been deleted.

Table 26. 2010 Total Mackerel Landings, Value, Active Vessels, Trips, and Price.
(Based on unpublished NMFS dealer reports. For Vessels and Trips, only landing records with recorded
NERO Permits or Hull Numbers landing over 1,000 pounds annually for “Vessels” and 100 pounds on a
trip for “Trips” are considered. Since some state records do not include permit/hull information, the
vessel and trip numbers are somewhat underestimated but account for the vast majority of landings.)
Landings
(mt)

Value ($)

Mackerel
9,891
3,195,962
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Vessels
74

Trips

$/mt

588

$323

Table 27. Mackerel Landings (mt) by State in 2010.
State

Landings

Pct_of_To

(mt)

tal

Massachusetts

5,514

56%

New Jersey
Rhode Island
Maine
New York
Connecticut
North Carolina
Virginia
Maryland
New Hampshire

2,128
1,976
161
51
31
21
9
0
0

22%
20%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Total

9,891

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 28. Mackerel Landings (mt) by Month in 2010.
MONTH

Landings

Pct of

(mt)

Total

January

5,635

57%

February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total

2,655
1,188
165
105
57
10
4
6
54
2
10
9,891

27%
12%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 29. Mackerel Landings (mt) by Gear Category in 2010.
GEAR_NAME

Landings

Pct of

(mt)

Total

TRAWL,OTTER,MIDWATER

4,149

42%

PAIRED
TRAWL,OTTER,BOTTOM,FISH
TRAWL,OTTER,MIDWATER
Other

2,744
1,992
1,006

28%
20%
10%

Total

9,891

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 30. Mackerel Vessel Permit Holders and Active Permit Holders in 2010 by Homeport State
(HPST).
HPST

Permitted

Active

Vessels

Vessels

MA

891

52

NJ
ME
NY
RI
NH
VA
NC
CT
MD
Other

294
253
230
142
95
94
91
37
30
44

37
5
34
41
11
6
10
6
2
2

Total

2201

206

Source: unpublished NMFS permit and dealer data.

Figure 46. Uncanceled Mackerel Permits Per Year

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 31. Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Dealer Permit Holders and Those that Made Mackerel
Purchases in 2010 by State.
State
MA

Permitted

Active

Dealers

Dealers

109

27

NY
RI
NC
ME
VA
NJ
NH
CT
MD
Other

87
39
24
19
17
39
8
6
8
10

17
12
9
7
5
4
3
2
2
0

Total

366

88

Source: unpublished NMFS permit and dealer reports.

Table 32. Mackerel Landings by Permit Category for the Period 2001-2010.
Year

Atlantic Mackerel Permit
mt

%

Party/Charter
mt

No Permit/ Unknown

%

mt

%

Total
mt

Quota

2%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
3%

12,340
26,530
34,298
56,439
42,270
56,860
25,546

85,000
85,000
175,000
170,000
115,000
115,000
115,000

422

2%

21,734

115,000

0%

127

1%

22,635

115,000

0%

122

1%

9,891

115,000

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

12,063
25,887
33,969
56,100
42,122
56,705
24,898

98%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
97%

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

277
643
329
339
148
155
649

2008

21,312

98%

0

0%

2009

22,508

99%

0

2010

9,769

99%

0

Source: unpublished NMFS permit and dealer reports.

Description of Areas Fished in VTR Reports
Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) represent captains' estimates of kept weight of fish/squid. VTR reports,
which are a subset of the landings data, provide the approximate location of kept fish/squid. VTR reports
for mackerel in 2010 by NMFS three digit statistical area (see Figure 47) are given in
Table 33.

Table 33. Statistical Areas from Which 1% or More of Mackerel Were Kept in 2010 According to
VTR Reports.
Stat Area

Landings

Percentage

(mt)

from Area

612

5759.73

59%

622
621
615
616
613
625

1260.21
1130.75
399.21
383.22
292.74
118.25

13%
12%
4%
4%
3%
1%

Source: Unpublished NMFS VTR reports.

Figure 47. NMFS Statistical Areas

Current Market Overview for Mackerel
The Management Plan for mackerel, squid, and butterfish Fisheries requires that specific evaluations be
made in the specification setting process before harvest rights are granted to foreign interests in the form
of foreign fishing or joint venture allocations. The Council has concluded in recent years that conditions
in the world market for mackerel have changed only slightly from year to year.

World Production and Prices
According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, world landings of mackerel dramatically
increased in the 1960s, peaked at 1,092,759 mt in 1975, and have been between 550,000 mt and 850,000
mt since 1977. (Figure 48) (http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/). Prices for imported and exported U.S.
mackerel, likely good indications of prices on the world market, averaged $1,118 per mt in 2010 for
exports and 3,204 per mt in 2010 for imports (NMFS 2010;
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/documents/TRADE2010.pdf).

Figure 48. World production of Mackerel, 1950-2008 based on U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization (2010).

Future Supplies of and Demand for Mackerel
Mackerel produced in the U.S. is a substitute for European produced mackerel. The quantity of European
mackerel supplied to the market declined in 2006 and 2007 [Chetrick 2006:
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/fasworldwide/2006/10-2006/EUMackerel.pdf]. As a result, the quantity of
U.S. mackerel demanded increased. In addition to the price of European mackerel, there are many factors
which affect the worldwide demand for mackerel, including income, tastes, and the price of substitute
goods. There has also been controversy in 2011 regarding high levels of mackerel fishing by Iceland and
the Faroe Islands in areas that have not recently produced mackerel.

U.S. Exports of Mackerel
In 2010, U.S. exports of all mackerel products (fresh, frozen, and prepared/preserved) totaled 10,340 mt,
valued at $11.6 million.

Recreational Fishery
Mackerel are seasonally important to the recreational fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic and New England
regions. They may be available to recreational anglers in the Mid-Atlantic primarily during the spring
migration although this fishery has not been as robust in recent years. Historically, mackerel first appear
off Virginia in March and gradually move northward. Christensen et al. 1979 found mackerel to be
available to the recreational fishery from Delaware to New York for about three weeks (generally from
early April to early May). As a result, the annual recreational catch of mackerel appears to be sensitive to
changes in their migration and subsequent distribution pattern (Overholtz et al. 1989).
Recreational landings of mackerel for the last 10 years (since 2001), as estimated from the NMFS Marine
Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, are given in Table 34 and Table 35. In recent years, recreational
mackerel harvest has varied from roughly 1,633 mt in 1997 to 530 in 2004. The highest landings occur
from Massachusetts to Maine. Most mackerel are taken from boats. Also, over the same time period
approximately 10% of all mackerel caught (by number) were released.
Estimates for mackerel recreational harvest are relatively uncertain due to low encounter rates. From
2001-2010 annual estimates had an average Proportional Standard Error (PSE) of 16%. Based on how
PSEs are calculated, this means that on average we were approximately 95% sure that the real number for
weight of mackerel harvest was within 32% (+ or -) of our estimate (best was ± 20%, worst was ± 47%).
Breakouts by state or mode would have greater uncertainty. In addition, the uncertainty is even higher in
reality because of sampling problems with Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey. The Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP) is trying to figure out by just how much and to implement
improved procedures – see countmyfish.noaa.gov. MRIP will be generating new less-biased estimates
soon but they were not available at the time this document was developed.

Table 34. Recreational Harvest (rounded to nearest metric ton) of Mackerel by State, 2001-2010.
Year

ME
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

287
387
123
207
181
109
280
148
320
250

MD

MA

22
885
2
728
0
510
0
291
0
768
0 1,488
0
561
0
413
0
155
0
465

NH

NJ

224
65
79
27
74
31
43
129
272
62

78
60
29
2
10
0
0
0
0
0

NY
18
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

NC

RI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

7
47
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

VA

DE
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

13
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0

CT

Annual Total
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0

1,536
1,294
770
530
1,033
1,633
884
691
747
778

Source: Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics
Division.

Table 35. Recreational Harvest (rounded to nearest metric ton) of Mackerel by Mode and
Total, 2000-2010.
Year

PARTY-

PRIVATE or

CHARTER

RENTAL

SHORE

Annual
Total

2001

164

1,290

82

1,536

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

23
53
21
25
11
20
9

1,172
594
395
994
1,560
801
646

98
123
115
14
62
63
35

1,294
770
530
1,033
1,633
884
691

2009

171
26

141
142

747

2010

435
610

778

Source: Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries
Statistics Division.

6.7.2

Illex illecebrosus

Historical Commercial Fishery
Foreign fishing fleets became interested in exploitation of the neritic squid stocks of the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics first reported squid
catches in the mid-1960's. By 1972, foreign fishing fleets reported landing 17,200 thousand mt
of Illex from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine (Figure 49). During the period 1973-1982,
foreign landings of Illex in U.S. waters averaged about 18,000 mt, while U.S. fisherman
averaged only slightly more than 1,100 mt per year. Foreign landings from 1983-1986 were part
of the U.S. joint venture fishery which ended in 1987 (NMFS 1994a). The domestic fishery for
Illex increased fitfully during the 1980's as foreign fishing was eliminated in the U.S. EEZ. Illex
landings are heavily influenced by year-to-year availability and world-market activity. Price
(nominal) has increased fitfully since 1982 and averaged $525/mt in 2010.

Figure 49. Historical Illex Landings in the U.S. EEZ.

Analysis of NMFS dealer weighout data 1982-2010 is used to chart annual averages for U.S.
landings (mt), ex-vessel value ($), and nominal prices ($/mt) in the figures below.

Figure 50. U.S. Illex Landings.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 51. U.S. Illex Ex-vessel Revenues.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 52. U.S. Illex Ex-vessel Prices.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Specification Performance
The principle measure used to manage Illex is monitoring via dealer weighout data that is
submitted weekly. The dealer data triggers in-season management actions that institute
relatively low trip limits when 95% of the DAH is landed. Mandatory reporting for Illex was
fully instituted in 1997 so specification performance since 1997 is most relevant. Table 36 lists
the performance of the Illex fishery compared to its DAH. There was an overage in 1 of the last
10 years (a 9% overage in 2004) and 2 of the last 12 years (the 9% overage and a 24% overage in
1998). NMFS is continually augmenting its projecting procedures so presumably future
overages would be even less likely.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table 36. Illex DAH Performance. (mt)
Year

Landings

Quota

Percent of
Quota Landed

1997

13,629

19,000

72%

1998

23,597

19,000

124%

1999

7,388

19,000

39%

2000

9,011

24,000

38%

2001

4,009

24,000

17%

2002

2,750

24,000

11%

2003

6,389

24,000

27%

2004

26,097

24,000

109%

2005

12,011

24,000

50%

2006

13,944

24,000

58%

2007

9,022

24,000

38%

2008

15,900

24,000

66%

2009

18,418

24,000

77%

2010

15,825

24,000

66%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Commercial Fishery and Community Analysis
The following tables describe, for Illex in 2010, the total landings, value, numbers of vessels
making landings, numbers of trips landing Illex (Table 37), landings by state (Table 38), landings
by month (Table 39), landings by gear (Table 40), numbers of permitted and active vessels by
state (Table 41), numbers of permitted and active dealers by state (Table 42), and landings by
NMFS federal permit category (Table 43). Previous Specification EA's have included port
information but because of confidentiality concerns such tables are not able to include much
relevant information and have been deleted.

Table 37. Total Landings and Value of Illex During 2010.
(Based on unpublished NMFS dealer reports. For Vessels and Trips, only landing records with
recorded NERO Permits or Hull Numbers landing over 1,000 pounds annually for “Vessels” and
100 pounds on a trip for “Trips” are considered. Since some state records do not include
permit/hull information, the vessel and trip numbers are somewhat underestimated but account
for the vast majority of landings.)
Landings
Value ($)
Vessels
Trips
$/mt
(mt)
Illex
15,825
10,758,235
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 38.

24

Illex Landings (mt) by State in 2010.
State

Landings_mt Pct_of_To
tal

New Jersey

9,224

58%

Rhode Island
North Carolina
Virginia
Other

5,639
521
435
5

36%
3%
3%
0%

15,825

100%

Total

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 39. Illex Squid Landings (mt) by Month in 2010.

248

$680

MONTH

Landings

Pct of

(mt)

Total

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total

1

0%

0
0
0
264
4,841
6,164
3,597
620
275
22
40
15,825

0%
0%
0%
2%
31%
39%
23%
4%
2%
0%
0%
100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports
Table 40. Illex Landings (mt) by Gear Category in 2010.
GEAR_NAME
TRAWL,OTTER,BOTTOM,FISH
TRAWL,OTTER,MIDWATER
TRAWL,OTTER,BOTTOM,OTHER
Other
Total

Landings

Pct of

(mt)

Total

11,066

70%

4,232
520
7

27%
3%
0%

15,825

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS vessel trip reports

Table 41. Illex Moratorium Vessel Permit Holders and Active Vessels in 2010 by
Homeport State (HPST).
HPST

Permitted

Active

Vessels

Vessels

NJ

28

11

MA
RI
NC
NY
Other

12
11
7
6
12

3
6
5
1
0

Total

76

26

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports.

Table 42. Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Dealer Permit Holders and Permitted Dealers Who
Bought Illex in 2010 by State.
Permitted
Dealers
41
109

State
NC+VA
MA

RI
NY+NJ
Others

Active
Dealers
12
6

39

5

126
51

6
0

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 43. Illex Landings by Permit Category for the Period 2000-2010.
Year

Illex Moratorium

Party/

Permit

Charter

mt

%

mt

Incidental

%

mt

%

No Permit/

Total

Unknown
mt

%

2001

3,922

98%

0

0%

0

0%

86

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2,743
6,389
25,046
11,146
13,778
9,019
15,863
18,409
15,818

100%
100%
99%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

2
0
140
23
52
1
1
9
1

0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

5
2
237
548
7
2
36
0
6

2%
0%
0%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

mt
4,009
2,750
6,391
25,422
11,717
13,837
9,022
15,900
18,419
15,825

Quota
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Description of the Areas Fished in VTR Reports
Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) represent captains' estimates of kept weight of fish/squid. VTR
reports, which are a subset of the landings data, provide the approximate location of kept
fish/squid. VTR reports for Illex in 2010 by NMFS three digit statistical area (see Figure 47) are
given in Table 44.

Table 44. Statistical Areas from Which 1% or More of Illex Were Kept in 2010 According
to VTR Reports.
Stat Landings Percentage
Area
(mt)
from Area
622
632
626
628
537
616
615

10444.06
1748.89
1187.52
752.52
393.77
325.39
171.91

68%
11%
8%
5%
3%
2%
1%

Source: Unpublished NMFS VTR reports.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6.7.3 Atlantic butterfish
Historical Commercial Fishery
Atlantic butterfish were landed exclusively by U.S. fishermen from the late 1800's (when formal
record keeping began) until 1962 (Murawski and Waring 1979). Reported landings averaged
about 3,000 mt from 1920-1962 (Waring 1975). Beginning in 1963, vessels from Japan, Poland
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics began to exploit butterfish along the edge of the
continental shelf during the late-autumn through early spring. Reported foreign catches of
butterfish increased from 750 mt in 1965 to 15,000 mt in 1969, and then to about 32,000 mt in
1973. With the advent of extended jurisdiction in U.S. waters, reported foreign catches declined
sharply from 14,000 mt in 1976 to 2,000 mt in 1978 (Figure 53). Foreign landings were
completely phased out by 1987.

Figure 53. Historical Butterfish Landings in the U.S. EEZ.

During the period 1965-1976, U.S. Atlantic butterfish landings averaged 2,051 mt. From 19771987, average U.S. landings doubled to 5,252 mt, with a historical peak of slightly less than
12,000 mt landed in 1984. Since then U.S. landings have declined sharply. Low abundance and
reductions in Japanese demand for butterfish has probably had a negative effect on butterfish
landings. Price (nominal) has increased fitfully since 1982 and averaged $1,404/mt in 2010.

Analysis of NMFS weighout data 1982-2010 is used to chart annual averages for U.S. landings
(mt), ex-vessel value ($), and prices ($/mt) in the figures below.

Figure 54. U.S. Butterfish Landings.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 55. U.S. Butterfish Ex-vessel Revenues.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 56. U.S. Butterfish Ex-vessel Prices.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Specification Performance
The principle measure used to manage butterfish landings is monitoring via dealer weighout data
that is submitted weekly. The dealer data triggers in-season management actions that institute
relatively low trip limits when 80% of the DAH is landed. Mandatory reporting for butterfish
was fully instituted in 1997 so performance since 1997 is most relevant. Table 45 lists the
performance of the butterfish fishery compared to its DAH. There had been no overages before
2010. There were closures in 2008 and 2009 but the closure threshold and the trip limits
performed as designed and prevented an overage. It is unclear why there was an overage in 2010
but prospects for 2012 are discussed in the impacts section.
Table 45. Butterfish DAH Performance (mt)

Year

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Harvest (only
commercial)
2,795
1,966
2,110
1,449
4,404
872
536
537
428
554
678
451
435
603

Quota

5,900
5,900
5,900
5,900
5,897
5,900
5,900
5,900
1,681
1,681
1,681
500
500
500

Percent of
Quota
Landed
47%
33%
36%
25%
75%
15%
9%
9%
25%
33%
40%
90%
87%
121%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports
Commercial Fishery and Community Analysis
The following tables describe, for butterfish in 2010, the total landings, value, numbers of
vessels making landings, numbers of trips landing butterfish (Table 46), landings by state (Table
47), landings by month (Table 48), landings by gear (Table 49), landings by port (Table 50),
numbers of permitted vessels by state (Table 51), numbers of permitted dealers by state (Table
52), and landings by NMFS federal permit category (Table 53). Previous Specification EA's
have included additional port information (dependence) but because of confidentiality concerns
such tables are not able to include much relevant information and have been deleted.
Table 46. Total Landings and Value of Butterfish During 2010.
(Based on unpublished NMFS dealer reports. For Vessels and Trips, only landing records with
recorded NERO Permits or Hull Numbers landing over 1,000 pounds annually for “Vessels” and
100 pounds on a trip for “Trips” are considered. Since some state records do not include
permit/hull information, the vessel and trip numbers are somewhat underestimated but account
for the vast majority of landings.)
Landings
Value ($)
Vessels
Trips
$/mt
(mt)
Butterfish
603
865,703
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

131

Table 47. Butterfish Landings (mt) by State in 2010.
State

Landings_mt Pct_of_To
tal

Rhode Island
New York
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New Jersey
Virginia

254
184
79
31
20
5

42%
30%
13%
10%
3%
1%

New Hampshire

2

0%

Maryland

1

0%

Delaware
Maine

0
0

0%
0%

576

100%

Total

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports.

2,567

$1,435

Table 48. Butterfish Landings (mt) by Month in 2010.
MONTH

Landings Pct of Total
mt

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total

34

6%

19
25
49
84
94
66
74
44
58
39
19
603

3%
4%
8%
14%
16%
11%
12%
7%
10%
6%
3%
100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 49. Butterfish Landings (mt) by Gear Category in 2010.
GEAR_NAME

Landings

Pct of

(mt)

Total

TRAWL,OTTER,BOTTOM,FISH

408

68%

UNKNOWN

119

20%

Other

76

13%

Total

603

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer data.

Table 50. Butterfish Landings by Port in 2010.
name

ST_Name

Landings_mt

Pct_of_Total

POINT JUDITH

RHODE ISLAND

190

31%

MONTAUK

NEW YORK

131

22%

NEW BEDFORD

MASSACHUSETTS

54

9%

STONINGTON

CONNECTICUT

23

7%

NEWPORT

RHODE ISLAND

32

5%

LITTLE COMPTON

RHODE ISLAND

28

5%

HAMPTON BAYS

NEW YORK

24

4%

AMAGANSETT

NEW YORK

11

2%

Other

Various

90

15%

Total

Total

583

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table 51. Longfin Squid/Butterfish Moratorium Vessel Permit Holders in 2010 by
Homeport State (HPST) and How Many of Those Vessels Were Active.
HPST

Permitted

Active

Vessels

Vessels

MA

96

16

NJ
NY
RI
NC
ME
VA
CT
MD
NH
PA
WV

84
54
51
22
17
13
7
2
2
2
1

31
39
44
4

Total

351

.
.
5
2
.
.
1
142

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports and NMFS permit database data

Table 52. Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Dealer Permit Holders and How Many Were Active
(bought butterfish) in 2010 by State.
State

Permitted

Active

Dealers

Dealers

NY

87

32

RI
MA
VA
NJ

39
109
17
39

17
12
7
6

75

5

Others

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports and NMFS permit database data

Table 53. Butterfish Landings by Permit Category for the Period 2001-2010.
Year

Loligo/Butterfish
Moratorium Permit
mt

%

Party/Charter
mt

%

Incidental
mt

%

No Permit/

Total

Unknown
mt

%

mt

Quota

2001

3,991

91%

0

0%

52

1%

360

8%

4,403

5,900

2002

653

75%

0

0%

39

4%

180

21%

872

5,897

2003

367

69%

0

0%

17

3%

151

28%

536

5,900

2004

329

61%

0

0%

22

4%

186

35%

537

5,900

2005

265

62%

0

0%

13

3%

150

35%

428

5,900

2006

386

70%

0

0%

36

7%

131

24%

554

1,681

2007

535

79%

0

0%

43

6%

99

15%

678

1,681

2008

350

78%

0

0%

32

7%

69

15%

451

500

2009

345

79%

0

0%

41

9%

49

11%

435

500

2010

454

75%

0

0%

67

11%

82

14%

602

500

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports and NMFS permit database data
Description of the Areas Fished in VTR Reports
Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) represent captains' estimates of kept weight of fish/squid. VTR
reports, which are a subset of the landings data, provide the approximate location of kept
fish/squid. VTR reports for butterfish in 2010 by NMFS three digit statistical area (see Figure 47
except as noted in table below) are given in Table 54.
Table 54. Statistical Areas from Which 1% or More of Butterfish were Kept in 2010
According to VTR Reports.
Stat Area

Landings

Percentage

(mt)

from Area

537

126.917

26%

539
611
616
613
562
525
522
148
612
514
538
622
166
121

65.393
54.078
36.06
28.928
27.249
25.546
20.464
16.927
12.249
11.496
10.073
6.35
5.659
5.302

13%
11%
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%

Source: Unpublished NMFS VTR reports
6.7.4 Longfin Squid
Historical Commercial Fishery
United States fishermen have been landing squid along the Northeastern coast of the U.S. since
the 1880's (Kolator and Long 1978). The early domestic fishery utilized fish traps and otter
trawls but was of relatively minor importance to the U.S. fishery due to low market demand.
The squid taken were used primarily for bait (Lux et al. 1974). However, squid have long been a
popular food fish in various foreign markets and therefore a target of the foreign fishing fleets
throughout the world, including both coasts of North America (Okutani 1977). Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics vessels first reported catches of squid off the Northeastern coast of the
United States in 1964. Fishing effort directed at the squids began in 1968 by the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and Japanese vessels. By 1972, Spain, Portugal and Poland had also entered
the fishery. Reported foreign landings of longfin squid increased from 2000 mt in 1964 to a peak
of 36,500 mt in 1973. Foreign longfin squid landings averaged 29,000 mt for the period 19721975 (Figure 57).
Loligo Landings in U.S. Waters
50,000
45,000

Total U.S. EEZ Landings
(Includes Foreign)

40,000

US Quotas

Metric Tons

35,000

U.S. Domestic Landings

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

1973

1971

1969

1967

1965

1963

0

Figure 57. Historical Longfin Squid Landings in the U.S. EEZ.
Foreign fishing for longfin squid began to be regulated with the advent of extended fishery
jurisdiction in the U.S. in 1977. Initially, U.S. regulations restricted foreign vessels fishing for
squid (and other species) to certain areas and times (the so-called foreign fishing "windows"),
primarily to reduce spatial conflicts with domestic fixed gear fishermen and minimize discards of
non-target species. The result of these restrictions was an immediate reduction in the foreign
catch of longfin squid from 21,000 mt in 1976 to 9,355 mt in 1978.
By 1982, foreign longfin squid landings had again risen above 20,000 mt. At this time, U.S.
management of the squid resources focused on the Americanization of these fisheries. This
process began with the development of joint ventures between U.S. fishermen and foreign

concerns. Domestic annual harvest (DAH) was increased from 7,000 mt in the 1982-83 fishing
year to 22,000 mt for 1983-84. Foreign allocations were reduced from 20,350 mt during 198283 to 5,550 mt during 1983-84 (Lange 1985). The foreign catch of longfin squid fell below
5,000 mt by 1986, to 2 mt in 1987 and finally to zero in 1990. Price (nominal) has increased
fitfully since 1982 and averaged $1,968/mt in 2010.

The development and expansion of the U.S. squid fishery was slow to occur for several reasons.
First, the domestic market demand for squid in the U.S. had traditionally been limited to the bait
market. Secondly, the U.S. fishing industry lacked both the catching and processing technology
necessary to exploit squid in offshore waters. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, squid
were taken primarily by pound nets. Even though bottom otter trawls eventually replaced pound
nets as the primary gear used to capture squid during this century, the U.S. industry did not
develop the appropriate technology to catch and process squid in offshore waters until the 1980's.
Analysis of NMFS weighout data 1982-2010 is used to chart annual averages for U.S. landings
(mt), ex-vessel value ($), and prices ($/mt) in the figures below.

Figure 58. U.S. Longfin Squid Landings.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 59. U.S. Longfin Squid Ex-vessel Revenues.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Figure 60. U.S. Longfin Squid Ex-vessel Prices.
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Specification Performance
The principle measure used to manage longfin squid is Trimester quota monitoring via dealer
weighout data that is submitted weekly. The dealer data triggers in-season management actions
that institute relatively low trip limits when 90% of the Trimester quotas are reached in
Trimesters 1 and 2 and when 95% of the annual DAH is reached in Trimester 3. Mandatory
reporting for longfin squid was fully instituted in 1997 so performance since 1997 is most
relevant. Table 55 lists the performance of the longfin squid fishery compared to its DAH.
There has been one overage in the last 12 years, a 17% overage in 2000. NMFS is continually
augmenting its quota projecting procedures so presumably future overages would be even less

likely. There are occasional overages of the trimester quotas, but these are typically minor and
should have negligible effects since Trimester 1 and 2 overages are applied to Trimester 3.

As described in the alternatives, the longfin squid DAH is currently divided up into trimesters
and has been since 2007. 2000 also had Trimester management while 2001-2006 had quarterly
management. Each seasonal time period closes at a threshold of the seasonal allocation, which
can result in seasonal closures. The seasonal closures that have occurred are 2000: March 25Apr 30; Jul 1-Aug 31; Sep 7-Dec 31; 2001: May 29-Jun 30; 2002: May 28-Jun30, Aug 16-Sep
30, Nov 2 -Dec 11, Dec 24-Dec31; 2003: Mar 25-Mar 31; 2004: Mar 5- Mar 31; 2005: Feb 20Mar 31, April 25-Jun 30, Dec 18-Dec 31; 2006: Feb 13-Mar 31, April 21-April 26, May 23-June
30, Sept 2-Sept 30; 2007: April 13-April 30; 2008: July 17 - Aug 31; 2009: Aug 6 - Aug 31;
2010: No closures.

Table 55. Longfin Squid DAH Performance (mt)
Year

Harvest
(Commercial
and
Recreational)

Quota

Percent of
Quota
Landed

1997

16,113

21,000

77%

1998

19,123

21,000

91%

1999

19,109

21,000

91%

2000

17,475

15,000

117%

2001

14,238

17,000

84%

2002

16,703

17,000

98%

2003

11,935

17,000

70%

2004

15,628

17,000

92%

2005

16,716

17,000

98%

2006

15,907

17,000

94%

2007

12,343

17,000

73%

2008

11,385

17,000

67%

2009

9,307

19,000

49%

2010

6,855

18,667

37%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Commercial Fishery and Community Analysis
The following tables describe, for longfin squid in 2010, the total landings, value, numbers of
vessels making landings, numbers of trips landing longfin squid (Table 56), landings by state
(Table 57), landings by month (Table 58), landings by gear (Table 59), landings by port (Table
60), numbers of permitted and active vessels by state (Table 61), numbers of permitted and
active dealers by state (Table 62), and landings by NMFS federal permit category (Table 63).
Previous Specification EA's have included additional port information (dependence) but because
of confidentiality concerns such tables are not able to include much relevant information and
have been deleted.

Table 56. Total Landings and Value Longfin Squid During 2010.
(Based on unpublished NMFS dealer reports. For Vessels and Trips, only landing records with
recorded NERO Permits or Hull Numbers landing over 1,000 pounds annually for “Vessels” and
100 pounds on a trip for “Trips” are considered. Since some state records do not include
permit/hull information, the vessel and trip numbers are somewhat underestimated but account
for the vast majority of landings.)
Landings
(mt)

Value ($)

Longfin squid
6,855
15,675,661
Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Vessels

Trips

$/mt

197

4,479

$2,287

Table 57. Longfin Squid Landings (mt) by State in 2010.
State

Landings_ Pct_of_To
mt

tal

Rhode Island

3,342

49%

New York
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Virginia
Maryland
Maine

1,769
713
701
303
25
1
0

26%
10%
10%
4%
0%
0%
0%

Total

6,855

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 58. Longfin Squid Landings (mt) by Month in 2010.
MONTH

Landings_mt

January

Pct_of_Total

544

8%

February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

345
296
278
790
543
644
280
730
1,075
738
590

5%
4%
4%
12%
8%
9%
4%
11%
16%
11%
9%

Totals

6,855

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports
Table 59. Longfin squid Landings (mt) by Gear Category in 2010.
GEAR_NAME

Landings (mt)

Pct of Total

TRAWL,OTTER,BOTTOM,FISH

5,359

78%

UNKNOWN
TRAWL,OTTER,MIDWATER
Other

1,043
215
237

15%
3%
3%

Totals

6,855

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports
Table 60. Longfin Squid Landings by Port in 2010.
Port

State

Landings

Pct of

mt

Total

POINT JUDITH

RHODE ISLAND

2,713

40%

MONTAUK
NORTH KINGSTOWN
CAPE MAY
NEW BEDFORD
HAMPTON BAYS
OTHER BARNSTABLE
STONINGTON
POINT LOOKOUT
POINT PLEASANT
BELFORD
Others

NEW YORK
RHODE ISLAND
NEW JERSEY
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NA

1,109
591
530
373
351
200
177
174
109
74
455

16%
9%
8%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
7%

Total

NA

6,855

100%

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 61. Longfin Squid-Butterfish Moratorium Vessel Permit Holders in 2010 by
Homeport State (HPST) and How Many of Those Vessels Were Active (landed longfin
squid)
HPST

Permitted

Active

Vessels

Vessels

MA

96

22

NJ
NY
RI
NC
ME
VA
CT
MD
NH
PA
WV

84
54
51
22
17
13
7
2
2
2
1

46
43
44
8
0
1
6
2
0
0
1

351

173

Total

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 62. Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Dealer Permit Holders by State and How Many
Were Active (bought longfin squid) in 2010 by State.
State
NY

Permitted

Active

Dealers

Dealers
87

36

RI
MA
NJ
VA
CT
MD
ME
NC
Others

39
109
39
17
6
8
19
24
18

19
15
9
5
2
2
2

Total

366

90

0
0

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 63. Longfin Squid Landings by Permit Category for the Period 2000-2010.
Year

Loligo/Butterfish
Moratorium Permit
mt

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Party/Charter

13,423
15,275
10,988
14,183
15,068
14,318
11,360
10,833
8,719
6,392

%

mt

94%
91%
92%
91%
90%
90%
92%
95%
94%
93%

%
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Incidental
mt
170
408
98
163
73
294
230
319
266
253

%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%

No Permit/

Total

Unknown
mt
640
1,016
850
1,281
1,562
1,295
753
233
322
207

%
4%
6%
7%
8%
9%
8%
6%
2%
3%
3%

mt
14,232
16,703
11,935
15,628
16,703
15,907
12,343
11,385
9,307
6,853

Quota
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
19,000
18,667

Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports and Permit database
Description of Areas Fished in VTR Reports
Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) represent captains' estimates of kept weight of fish/squid. VTR
reports, which are a subset of the landings data, provide the approximate location of kept
fish/squid. VTR reports for longfin squid in 2010 by NMFS three digit statistical area (see
Figure 47 except as noted in table below) are given in Table 64.
Table 64. Statistical Areas From Which 1% or More of Longfin Squid Were Kept in 2010
According to VTR Reports.
Stat Area

Landings

Percentage

(mt)

from Area

616

2,470

33%

622
537
613
612
525
539
632
611
562
538
626
121

1,040
595
466
465
339
333
275
226
209
197
173
86

14%
8%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%

Source: Unpublished NMFS VTR reports

Butterfish Catch/Mortality Cap
Beginning in 2011 the longfin squid fishery was subject to closure if it caught too much
butterfish (amounts are set annually - 1,436 mt in 2011), with the cap divided up such that
closures could occur in Trimesters 1 (Jan-Apr) and 3 (Sept-Dec). The cap is important for the
longfin squid fishery because changes in the butterfish specifications, and the resulting cap
amount, can have effects related to the “shadow value” of butterfish for the longfin squid fishery
(longfin Squid and butterfish are often caught together). Because of the butterfish cap, a
constraint on total butterfish catch may limit production in the squid fishery, so butterfish takes
on a “shadow value” in terms of the indirect impact on the longfin squid fishery. While the exact
relationship between butterfish and longfin squid catches is unknown ahead of time for any given
year, the “shadow value” of butterfish could be quite large; that is, the longfin squid fishery may
recognize large increases in landings/revenues/profits from relatively small increases in the
butterfish specifications (and vice-versa with decreases).
There was not a closure in Trimester 1 of 2011. As of December 1, 2011 the cap had not yet
caused any closures of the longfin squid fishery and had utilized 56% of the total annual cap.
The longfin squid fishery will close if 90% of the annual cap is utilized. Given the average 2011
rates of squid and butterfish catch, a cap closure probably will not occur in 2011 but the final
result will depend on the observed catch rates in the final months of 2011. The cap operates in
near real-time so operation in 2012 will depend on the total and relative amounts of longfin squid
and butterfish caught in 2012. Additional details on the cap may be found here:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/11/11SMB2011ButterfishSpecsRevisedCAP.pdf.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7.0

Analysis of the Impacts of the Alternatives

For all Alternative Sets (1-8) and all valued ecosystem components (VECs), the first alternative
("a") equals no-action, which is what is predicted to happen with the status quo management
measures. Subsequent alternatives are the action alternatives and diverge from the status quo
management measures as described in Section 5. The impact analysis focuses on the valued
ecosystem components (VECs) that were identified for Amendment 14 and described in detail in
Section 6.0 of this document. These VECs include:
Atlantic mackerel stock
Illex stock
Longfin squid stock
Atlantic butterfish stock

1.

Managed Resources

2.

Non-target species
-Non-Target species include river herrings (blueback and alewife) and shads
(American and hickory), collectively referred to as RH/S. Given the lack of
information on how these species travel and mix in the ocean, different impacts
are generally not discernible between these species but are noted where
appropriate (for example in caps that are placed on particular species)

3.

Habitat including EFH for the managed resources and non-target species

4.

Endangered and other protected resources

5.

Human Communities

While in previous MSB FMP EISs the impacts from all alternatives are grouped together for
each VEC, with the large number of alternatives in this amendment (about 80), the result would
that one would start with managed resources, have ~80 associated impacts, then have ~80
impacts for non-target species, and so on with the other VECs. This format seemed to lead to a
disconnect in evaluating each alternative in terms of its overall positive and negative impacts
across different VECs. As a result, the impact analysis in this EIS proceeds alternative by
alternative with impacts for each VEC described for a given alternative before moving on to the
next alternative’s impacts (Sections 7.1-7.8). Section 7.9 summarizes combined effects of the
Council’s preferred alternatives by VEC.
In this section, a variety of terms (e.g. positive or negative) have specific meanings for each VEC
and are described below.

Managed Species, Non-Target Species, Protected Species:
Note: Often impacts are indirect in that an action may change overall effort, which would
decrease impacts if effort goes down or increase impacts if effort goes up.
Neutral/negligible: actions that are expected to have no discernible impact on stock/population
size.
Positive: actions that increase stock/population size
Negative: actions that decrease stock/population size

Habitat:
Note: Often impacts are indirect in that an action may change overall effort, which would
decrease impacts if effort goes down or increase impacts if effort goes up.
Neutral/negligible: actions that are expected to have no discernible impact on habitat
Positive: actions that improve the quality or reduce disturbance of habitat
Negative: actions that degrade the quality or increase disturbance of habitat

Human Communities:
Neutral/negligible: actions that are expected to have no discernible impact on human
communities
Positive: actions that increase revenue and well-being of fishermen, associated businesses, or
other interested parties.
Negative: actions that decrease revenue and well-being of fishermen, associated businesses, or
other interested parties.
Mixed: The action would create benefits for some and costs for others. Generally in such cases
there are costs to MSB fishery participants but potential benefits to other fishermen (commercial
or recreational) or other interested parties who value MSB or RH/S resources.

Impact Qualifiers:
The following qualifiers are also used in the impact analysis:
Low (as in low positive or low negative): to a lesser or small degree
High (as in high positive or high negative) to a greater or large degree
Potentially: A relatively higher degree of uncertainty is associated with the impact. Often this
qualifier is used when an action may lead to better data, but future actions would have to actually
use that data in decision making in order for there to be a concrete benefit.
If impacts are expected to be isolated to a particular species, usually either mackerel, longfin
squid, Illex squid, butterfish, or river herrings and shads (RH/S) then this fact will be noted as
well.
All comparisons are in reference to changes from the no-action alternative or relative to other
alternatives in the document. To some extent, the operation of the MSB fisheries is currently
negatively affecting the target stocks, RH/S stocks, other non-target species, habitat, and
protected resources compared to if there was no fishery. Thus, the theoretical “lost
opportunities” of not taking action compared to taking action are also described under impacts
for the “no-action” alternative within each Alternative Set.

Note on the Difficulties in Linking Impacts from Amendment 14 and Benefits Related to
RH/S Conservation:
To the extent that alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other species, then choosing such alternatives might result in long
term benefits to society related to future commercial revenues (profit information is unavailable),
recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market
existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are
being conserved successfully). The benefits of rebuilding fisheries for even just commercial
utilization are generally well documented and accepted, for example as in Costello et al 2012.
While recreational anglers can usually substitute species when one is unavailable (thereby
minimizing welfare losses) there are still likely some benefits for every additional species that is
available (Haab et al 2000) and there are potentially many anglers (there were about 7 million
total coast-wide (Atlantic) participating in-state anglers from Atlantic Coast states in 2010) who
could realize such benefits. RH/S also support many predator populations that may provide
related recreational benefits (from additional angling opportunities to bird and whale watching).
Coupled with the positive benefits related to various cultural events (river herring and shad
festivals), and existence values, the benefits of rebuilt RH/S populations are likely quite large.
One would expect that higher related benefits would result from actions that were more likely to
restore RH/S populations. However, due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of RH/S is
impacted by current catch levels overall and in the MSB fisheries in particular, it is difficult to
quantity how such benefits may relate to measures considered in this document. The amount of
benefit to RH/S stocks from any action affecting the MSB fisheries is unknown, so even though
one might contemplate what the value of rebuilt RH/S fisheries might be, it is not possible to

know if an action in this document might actually lead or even substantially contribute to rebuilt
RH/S fisheries because of the range of issues likely affecting RH/S stocks (ASMFC 2012,
ASMFC 2007). This theme is repeated as appropriate in the Impacts Sections below.

7.1 Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
Relatively low levels of catch monitoring have resulted in relatively high uncertainty about catch
of RH/S in Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries, especially mid-water trawl (MWT) and
small mesh bottom trawl (SMBT), both of which are used in the MSB fisheries. The Council is
therefore considering actions to decrease uncertainty so as to improve the management of RH/S
catches.
Background:
The measures in Alternative Set 1 would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates. While some of the focus may appear to be on mackerel and/or longfin squid
general reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries, because extrapolations are often
made based on total landings, accurate monitoring of the target species can be as important as
determining the encounter rates of RH/S. This is because when estimations of non-target catch
(including discards) such as RH/S are made with observer data, they are made based on the ratio
of RH/S to total retained catch applied to landings data. For example, if it was found that in
observer data, 1 pound of RH/S was caught for every 100 pounds of fish landed by mackerel
vessels, and those same vessels landed 1,000,000 pounds of fish, one could estimate that 10,000
pounds of RH/S were caught. While small differences in the total landings number will not
affect the estimate substantially, it is still important for both the ratio and the total landings
number to be as accurate as feasibly possible.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Most of the Alternative Set 1 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 1c (weekly VTRs for all MSB permits)
would encompass 1bMack and 1bLong so these would not be selected together. The 48-hr
mackerel pre-trip notification (1d48) and 72-hr mackerel pre-trip notification (1d72) would also
be mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. The VMS reporting alternatives
(1f’s and 1g’s) would need the respective 1e’s (that require VMS) for each fishery as a
prerequisite before requiring VMS reporting.
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.

1a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 1 would be implemented and
the existing reporting measures (as described in section 5.1) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives
in Alternative Set 1 would somewhat improve reporting timeliness and accuracy, provide for
better observer placement on directed mackerel trips, and potentially facilitate dockside
monitoring and/or enforcement, there would be some foregone benefits if the no-action
alternative is chosen. However, since the current reporting requirements are anticipated to be
sufficient for quota monitoring of the managed species (there are no reported problems with
current quota monitoring), it is not anticipated there would be any impacts on the managed
resources. Dealer data is currently used to monitor MSB quotas, but due to the timeliness of
dealer data (weekly) and VTR data (monthly), cross-checking data can take quite a long time.
Implementing the no-action alternative compared to the other alternatives would forgo the
benefit of being able to cross-check and reconcile data on a more real-time basis if weekly VTR
reporting was implemented.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Observer data is the
primary source of data for discards, which are often non-target species. Since alternatives in
Alternative Set 1 would provide for better observer placement there would be some foregone
benefits to non-target species if the no-action alternative is chosen since better non-target catch
information could lead to better management decisions. Alternatives in Alternative Set 1 could
also potentially facilitate dockside monitoring (via VMS landings notifications), which could
improve knowledge about retained non-target catch. Also, while monitoring of the managed
species has not been a problem, to the degree that managed species catch is used in
extrapolations for non-target species catch (see background above), more timely and accurate
reporting of managed resources can also have an indirect benefit for non-target species and these
indirect benefits would be forgone by selection of the no-action alternative.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. The action
alternatives in Alternative Set 1 would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota
monitoring compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close
fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing

fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and
projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes
could slightly either lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to
only minimal changes in effort, and thus negligible changes in gear interactions with habitat,
over time.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. The action
alternatives in Alternative Set 1 would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota
monitoring compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close
fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing
fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and
projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes
could slightly either lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to
only minimal changes in effort, and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with protected
species, over time.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery
participants of the additional reporting requirements would be avoided, which is a positive
impact. These costs include additional VTR mailings, departure delays related to waiting for
observers following pre-trip notifications, VMS costs, and the time taken to complete these
requirements.
On the other hand, to the extent that Alternative Set 1 alternatives lead to better data, and to the
extent that better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal
yields) of the managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing the no-action alternative in
comparison to the other alternatives might result in foregone benefits.
These could include lost commercial revenues, lost recreational opportunities, lost cultural
values for RH/S, and/or other lost non-market existence values (i.e. value related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully) resulting from diminished stocks
compared to optimally productive stocks. Due to the uncertainty about how the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries are impacting either the managed species or RH/S, these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct
impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets
that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

1bMack. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for mackerel permits.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate mackerel quota
monitoring compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close
fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing
fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and
projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes in the precision of
quota monitoring if this alternative is selected. In situations where NMFS might have otherwise
over-projected landings and issued a premature fishery closure, more frequent VTR reporting
could allow additional landings, but not more than should be sustainable for each target fishery
because overall landings are limited by a hard quota. In situations where NMFS might have
otherwise under-projected landings and issued a closure for the fishery after the closure threshold
had truly been reached, more frequent VTR reporting would avoid exceeding catch limits (by
closing fisheries earlier). Since there is overlap in permits (some vessels have permits for all
MSB species), there could also be some similar benefits to the other managed species because
any mackerel-permitted vessel would have to report weekly even if targeting and catching other
species.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
(directed or non-target catch) compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in
order to close fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about
closing fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking
and projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes in the precision
of quota monitoring if this alternative is selected. Any changes could slightly either lengthen a
season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal changes in effort,
and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with non-target species, over time.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes could slightly either
lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal
changes in effort, and thus negligible changes in gear interactions with habitat, over time.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes could slightly either
lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal
changes in effort, and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with protected species, over
time.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. The number of
total mackerel permits can vary from month to month. Of the 1,974 vessels that had mackerel
permits in November 2011, 67 did not also have a weekly VTR reporting requirement from
another permit (herring or NE multispecies). Thus, about 67 vessels would ultimately be subject
to additional reporting requirements because of this measure. Those 67 vessels must currently
submit VTR reports monthly. This alternative would result in 40 (52 (weeks) -12 (months) = 40)
additional VTR submissions per year for permit holders that don’t currently submit weekly
VTRs. This would result in additional mailing costs of $19.36 per year (40 x $ 0.44 postage) per
permitted vessel. Since VTRs must be filled out currently, the only additional time cost is the
time cost of making a separate mailing which is negligible. Also, in situations where NMFS
might have otherwise under-projected landings and issued a closure for the fishery after the
closure threshold had truly been reached, more frequent VTR reporting would avoid exceeding
catch limits (by closing fisheries), which could lower short-term revenues.
On the other hand, in situations where NMFS might have otherwise over-projected landings and
issued a premature fishery closure, more frequent reporting could allow additional landings and
revenues but not more than should be sustainable for each target fishery because overall landings
are limited by a hard quota.
Also, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that better data leads
to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the managed
resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action alternative
might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, increased recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable,
but since benefits to other VECs are low or negligible, the associated human community benefits
should also be low or negligible as well.

1bLong. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for longfin squid/Butterfish permits.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate longfin squid quota
monitoring compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close
fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing
fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and
projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes in the precision of
quota monitoring if this alternative is selected. In situations where NMFS might have otherwise
over-projected landings and issues a premature fishery closure, more frequent VTR reporting
could allow additional landings, but not more than should be sustainable for each target fishery
because overall landings are limited by a hard quota. In situations where NMFS might have
otherwise under-projected landings and issue a closure for the fishery after the closure threshold
had truly been reached, more frequent VTR reporting would avoid exceeding catch limits (by
closing fisheries earlier). Since there is overlap in permits (some vessels have permits for all
MSB species), there could also be some similar benefits to the other managed species because
any longfin squid/Butterfish -permitted vessel would have to report weekly even if targeting and
catching other species.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
(direct or non-targeted catch) compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in
order to close fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about
closing fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking
and projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes in the precision
of quota monitoring if this alternative is selected. Any changes could slightly either lengthen a
season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal changes in effort,
and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with non-target species, over time.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes could slightly either
lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal
changes in effort, and thus negligible changes in gear interactions with habitat, over time.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes could slightly either
lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal
changes in effort, and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with protected species, over
time.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. The number of
incidental squid/butterfish permits can vary from month to month. Of the 1,891 vessels that had
longfin squid /Butterfish Moratorium permits or squid/butterfish incidental permits in November
2011, 74 did not also have a weekly VTR reporting requirement from another permit (herring or
NE multispecies). Thus, about 74 vessels would ultimately be subject to additional reporting
requirements because of this measure. Those 74 vessels must currently submit VTR reports
monthly. This alternative would result in 40 (52 (weeks) -12 (months) = 40) additional VTR
submissions per year for permit holders that don’t currently submit weekly VTRs, resulting in
additional mailing costs of $19.36 per year (40 x $ 0.44 postage) per permitted vessel. Since
VTRs must be filled out currently, the only additional time cost is the time cost of making a
separate mailing which is negligible. For informational purposes, about 9 of the 351 longfin
squid /Butterfish moratorium permits do not currently have a weekly VTR reporting requirement
from another permit (herring or NE multispecies). Also, in situations where NMFS might have
otherwise under-projected landings, better reporting would avoid exceeding catch limits (by
closing fisheries), lowering short-term revenues.
On the other hand, in situations where NMFS might have otherwise over-projected landings,
better reporting could allow additional landings but not more than should be sustainable for the
fishery. Also, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable,
but since benefits to other VECs are low or negligible, the associated human community benefits
should also be low or negligible as well.

1c. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for all MSB permits (Mackerel, longfin
squid//Butterfish, Illex) so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed landings and/or
mortality cap if applicable) and cross checking with other data sources. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate MSB quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes in the precision of quota monitoring if
this alternative is selected. In situations where NMFS might have otherwise over-projected
landings and issued a premature fishery closure, more frequent VTR reporting could allow
additional landings, but not more than should be sustainable for each target fishery because
overall landings are limited by a hard quota. In situations where NMFS might have otherwise
under-projected landings and issued a closure for the fishery after the closure threshold had truly
been reached, more frequent VTR reporting would avoid exceeding catch limits (by closing
fisheries earlier).
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
(direct or non-targeted catch) compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in
order to close fisheries so having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about
closing fisheries at the appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking
and projecting MSB quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes in the precision
of quota monitoring if this alternative is selected. Any changes could slightly either lengthen a
season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal changes in effort,
and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with non-target species, over time.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes could slightly either
lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal
changes in effort, and thus negligible changes in gear interactions with habitat, over time.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
action alternative would somewhat provide for more timely and accurate quota monitoring
compared to the no-action alternative. NMFS makes projections in order to close fisheries so
having the timeliest and most accurate data reduces uncertainty about closing fisheries at the
appropriate time. However, NMFS has not had major problems tracking and projecting MSB
quotas in recent years so there should not be large changes, and any changes could slightly either
lengthen a season or shorten a season in any given year, probably leading to only minimal
changes in effort, and thus negligible changes rates of encounters with protected species, over
time.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. Of the 2,622
vessels that have MSB permits in November 2011, 121 did not also have a weekly VTR
reporting requirement from another permit (herring or NE multispecies). Thus about 121 vessels
would ultimately be subject to additional reporting requirements because of this measure. This
alternative would result in 40 (52 (weeks) -12 (months) = 40) additional VTR submissions per
year for permit holders that don’t currently submit weekly VTRs, resulting in additional mailing
costs of $19.36 per year (40 x $ 0.44 postage) per permit holder. The 121 vessels encompass the
same affected vessels from 1bMack and 1bLong above (there is some overlap between 1bMack
and 1bLong). Since VTRs must be filled out currently, the only additional time cost is the time
cost of making a separate mailing which is negligible. Also, in situations where NMFS might
have otherwise under-projected landings, better reporting would avoid exceeding catch limits (by
closing fisheries), lowering short-term revenues.
On the other hand, in situations where NMFS might have otherwise over-projected landings,
better reporting could allow additional landings but not more than should be sustainable for the
fishery. Also, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable,
but since benefits to other VECs are low or negligible, the associated human community benefits
should also be low or negligible as well.
This alternative, which would institute weekly VTR reporting for all MSB permits rather than
just one or two categories of permits (see 1bMack or 1bLong above), also has a benefit of
simplifying reporting requirements because reporting would be more consistent across fisheries
within the MSB FMP as well as across other FMPs (e.g. herring and Northeast multispecies) in
the region.

1d48. Require 48 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative of no
notification requirements. Pre-trip notifications can lead to more systematic placement of
observers, leading to better observer data that more accurately represents a particular fleet’s
catches. To the degree that better observer data leads to more effective monitoring of discards of
the managed species there may be some positive impacts to the managed species compared to the
no-action alternative. Since both discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted
for during specifications setting, impacts should be low. It is not expected that there would be
any biological differences between 48 and 72 hour notifications.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Pre-trip notifications
can lead to more systematic placement of observers, leading to better observer data that more
accurately represents a particular fleet’s catches. To the degree that better observer data leads to
more effective management/reduction of non-target catch (including RH/S), this alternative
could lead to positive impacts for non-target species compared to the no-action alternative. If a
mortality cap on RH/S is implemented, obtaining a complete list of trips to sample becomes very
important to ensure that NMFS is able to generate unbiased catch estimates.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. More
accurately targeting directed mackerel trips for observer coverage should not lead to any changes
in fishing effort.
4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Pre-trip
notifications can lead to more systematic placement of observers, leading to better observer data
that more accurately represents a particular fleet’s catches. To the degree that better observer
data leads to more effective management/reduction of protected resource interactions in the
future, this alternative could lead to positive impacts for protected resources compared to the noaction alternative.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. This is similar
to a 48-hour trip notification requirement in the longfin squid fishery that became effective in
2013. Fishermen have reported that the 48-hour notification sometimes means they are unable to
target fleeting aggregations of longfin squid because they are not able to put to sea on short
notice, especially if they are selected to take an observer. Fishermen have reported to MidAtlantic Council staff that a 24-hour notice would be best and that a 48 hour notice, while better
than 72 hours, would still make it difficult for them to react to rapidly changing environmental
and weather conditions. Therefore, compared to Alternative 1d72, this alternative may have a
slightly less negative impact on human communities. It is estimated that notifying the observer
program would take about 5 minutes per notification.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1d72. Require 72 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more than
20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative of no
notification requirements. Pre-trip notifications can lead to more systematic placement of
observers, leading to better observer data that more accurately represents a particular fleet’s
catches. To the degree that better observer data leads to more effective monitoring of discards of
the managed species there may be some positive impacts to the managed species compared to the
no-action alternative. Since both discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted
for during specifications setting, impacts should be low. It is not expected that there would be
any biological differences between 48 and 72 hour notifications.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Pre-trip
notifications can lead to more systematic placement of observers, leading to better observer data
that more accurately represents a particular fleet’s catches. To the degree that better observer
data leads to more effective management/reduction of non-target catch (including RH/S), this
alternative could lead to positive impacts for non-target species compared to the no-action
alternative. If a mortality cap on RH/S is implemented, obtaining a complete list of trips to
sample becomes very important to ensure that NMFS is able to generate unbiased catch
estimates.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. More
accurately targeting directed mackerel trips for observer coverage should not lead to any changes
in fishing effort.
4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Pre-trip
notifications can lead to more systematic placement of observers, leading to better observer data
that more accurately represents a particular fleet’s catches. To the degree that better observer
data leads to more effective management/reduction of protected resource interactions in the
future, this alternative could lead to positive impacts for protected resources compared to the noaction alternative.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. This is similar
to a 48-hour trip notification requirement in the longfin squid fishery that became effective in
2013. Fishermen have reported that the 48-hour notification sometimes means they are unable to

target fleeting aggregations of longfin squid because they are not able to put to sea on short
notice, especially if they are selected to take an observer. Fishermen have reported to MidAtlantic Council staff that a 24-hour notice would be best and that a 48 hour notice, while better
than 72 hours, would still make it difficult for them to react to rapidly changing environmental
and weather conditions. Therefore, compared to alternative 1d48, this alternative may have
slightly more negative impacts on human communities. It is estimated that notifying the
observer program would take about 5 minutes per notification.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

1eMack. Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. VMS
is particularly useful to monitor area-based management measures but area-based measures are
not currently or proposed to be used for management of the managed species. Requiring a VMS
unit is helpful for enforcement purposes, but if implemented without any of the other alternatives
proposed in this action, would not be likely to have any substantial impacts to the managed
resources compared to the no-action alternative. Alternative Sets 7 and 8 involve area-based
management measures related to RH/S catch, which could reduce effort and catch of mackerel,
so to some degree VMS could indirectly facilitate a positive impact for the managed species.
However, there is no information to suggest that current mackerel catches are causing
sustainability problems. Alternative 1fMack involves catch reporting through VMS and
additional impacts are discussed below for that alternative related to improved catch monitoring.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. No direct
impacts compared to the no-action alternative would be expected (including for RH/S) just by
having VMS operating on a vessel. However, if area based management is selected in this
amendment (Alternative Sets 7 and 8), VMS could be useful as a complementary
compliance/enforcement tool, and area-based closures could reduce mackerel catch and effort
and thus reduce non-target impacts. VMS also can be used as a tool for fleet communication to
voluntarily avoid localized RH/S aggregations. In addition, alternative 1fMack involves catch
reporting through VMS and additional impacts are discussed below for that alternative related to
improved catch monitoring.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Selected
alone, requiring a VMS unit for all limited access mackerel vessels is unlikely to change fishing
effort. Therefore, no impacts are expected compared to the no-action alternative. Even if VMS
is used in conjunction with area-based closures that reduce overall effort, since the majority of
mackerel landings are made with mid-water gear that should have minimal impact on the bottom,
negligible habitat impacts would be expected.
4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. No direct
protected resources impacts compared to the no-action alternative would be expected just by
having VMS operating on a vessel. However, if area based management is selected in this
amendment (Alternative Sets 7 and 8), VMS could be useful as a complementary
compliance/enforcement tool, and area-based closures could reduce mackerel catch and effort
and thus reduce protected resource impacts. VMS also can be used as a tool for fleet
communication to voluntarily avoid localized protected resource aggregations.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. Of the
approximately 2,200 vessels that had open access mackerel permits at some point in 2011, 684
were not also required to have VMS related to permit requirements for other northeast region
fisheries. While not all of these vessels will qualify for mackerel limited access (being
implemented currently), 684 is a reasonable estimate for the upper bound on how many vessels
could have to buy new VMS units. Amendment 11 estimated that around 400 vessels might
qualify for limited access. If one maintains the ratio of open access boats (684/2,200 = 31%) that
would need VMS for the 400 likely qualifiers for mackerel limited access, 31% of 400 equals
124 vessels that would actually need new VMS units. Since limited access qualifiers, being

more active participants, may be more likely to have other permits that require VMS, the likely
number may be somewhat lower than 124. Until the final number of qualifiers is determined it is
not possible to further quantify the number of vessels that may require VMS units under this
provision. The costs to equip a vessel with a VMS are approximately $1,700-$3,300, with
operating costs for the unit of approximately $40-$100 per month. In addition, the vessel would
need a constant power source such as a generator, or access to dockside energy, which would add
to the costs. In summary, requiring a VMS for mackerel limited access vessels will likely have a
negative impact on human communities compared to the no-action alternative.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1eLong. Require VMS for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels (see 1f and 1g
below). (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. VMS
is particularly useful to monitor area-based management measures but area-based measures are
not currently or proposed to be used for management of the managed species. Requiring a VMS
unit is helpful for enforcement purposes, but if implemented without any of the other alternatives
proposed in this action, would not be likely to have any impacts to the managed resources
compared to the no-action alternative. Alternative Sets 7 and 8 involve area-based management
measures related to RH/S catch, and could reduce effort and catch of longfin squid (and
butterfish indirectly), so to some degree VMS could indirectly facilitate a positive impact for
longfin squid and butterfish. However, there is no information to suggest that current longfin
squid or butterfish catches are causing sustainability problems. Alternative 1fLong involves
catch reporting through VMS and additional impacts are discussed below for that alternative
related to improved catch monitoring.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. No
direct impacts compared to the no-action alternative would be expected (including for RH/S) just
by having VMS operating on a vessel. However, if area based management is selected in this
amendment (Alternative Sets 7 and 8), VMS could be useful as a complementary
compliance/enforcement tool, and area-based closures could reduce longfin squid and/or
butterfish catch and effort. VMS also can be used as a tool for fleet communication to
voluntarily avoid localized RH/S aggregations. In addition, alternative 1fLong involves catch
reporting through VMS and additional impacts are discussed below for that alternative related to
improved catch monitoring.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Selected
alone, requiring a VMS unit for all limited access longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels is
unlikely to change fishing effort. However, if area based management is selected in this
amendment (Alternative Sets 7 and 8), VMS could be useful as a complementary
compliance/enforcement tool, and area-based closures could reduce longfin squid effort which
would lead to positive habitat impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. No direct
protected resources impacts compared to the no-action alternative would be expected just by
having VMS operating on a vessel. However, if area based management is selected in this

amendment (Alternative Sets 7 and 8), VMS could be useful as a complementary
compliance/enforcement tool, and area-based closures could reduce longfin squid catch and
effort and thus reduce protected resource impacts. VMS also can be used as a tool for fleet
communication to voluntarily avoid localized protected resource aggregations.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. Of the 351
vessels that had longfin squid /butterfish moratorium permits in 2011, only 7 were not also
required to have VMS related to permit requirements for other northeast region fisheries and
would have to equip their vessel with VMS under this provision. The costs to equip a vessel
with a VMS are approximately $1,700-$3,300, with operating costs for the unit of approximately
$40-$100 per month. In addition, the vessel would need a constant power source such as a
generator, or access to dockside energy, which would add to the costs. In summary, requiring a
VMS for limited access longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels will likely have a negative
impact on human communities compared to the no-action alternative.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

1fMack. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by limited access mackerel vessels so as to
facilitate monitoring (directed and/or unintended catch) and cross checking with other data
sources. Requiring VMS (see 1eMack above) and requiring trip declarations (would be a
prerequisite for this alternative. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To
the degree that more rapid reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure that
fishery closures (managed species) occur appropriately, there could be positive benefits to
mackerel compared to the no-action alternative but such benefits are likely low because dealer
data is the primary data source for landings tracking and there is no history of overages.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To
the degree that more rapid reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure that
fishery closures (due to catch of non-target species (including for RH/S)) occur appropriately,
there could be positive benefits compared to the no-action alternative but such benefits are likely
low because dealer data is the primary data source for landings tracking and there is no history of
overages.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring VMS catch reporting for all limited access mackerel vessels is unlikely to change
fishing effort. Therefore, no impacts are expected compared to the no-action alternative,
especially since the majority of mackerel landings are made with mid-water gear which should
have negligible impact on the bottom.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternatives.
Requiring VMS catch reporting for all limited access mackerel vessels is unlikely to change
fishing effort. Therefore, no impacts are expected compared to the no-action alternative.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. The cost of
transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per transmission. There is a wide range of fishing
activity toward mackerel so multiplying average days fished by $0.60 per day would not be
illustrative for many vessels. Most vessels impacted by this provision would know how many
days they fished for mackerel in a year so they can just multiply $0.60 by days they would be
likely to declare into mackerel fishing to determine an annual impact on their business. For
example, if a vessel were to declare into the mackerel fishery for 100 days in a year, then they
would have $60 in annual costs associated with this provision. Also, each VMS report is
estimated to take 5 minutes to complete.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.

Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

1fLong. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by longfin squid moratorium permits so as
to facilitate monitoring (directed and/or unintended catch) and cross checking with other
data sources. Requiring VMS (see 1eLong above) and requiring trip declarations would be
a prerequisite for this alternative. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To
the degree that more rapid reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure that
fishery closures (managed species) occur appropriately, there could be positive benefits to
longfin squid compared to the no-action alternative but such benefits are likely low because
dealer data is the primary data source for landings tracking and there is no history of recent
annual overages in this fishery (the annual quota is divided into 3 seasonal trimesters and there
have been some relatively small seasonal overages).
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To
the degree that more rapid reporting could be used to cross check dealer data to ensure that
fishery closures (due to catch of non-target species(including for RH/S)) occur appropriately,
there could be positive benefits compared to the no-action alternative but such benefits are likely
low because dealer data is the primary data source for landings tracking and there is no history of
overages. Area based monitoring for RH/S is proposed in other alternatives in this action
(Alternative Set 7), and VMS is useful for enforcement of area-based management.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring VMS catch reporting for all limited access longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels
is unlikely to change fishing effort.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring VMS catch reporting for all limited access longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels
is unlikely to change fishing effort. Therefore, no impacts are expected compared to the noaction alternative.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. The cost of
transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per transmission. There is a wide range of fishing
activity toward longfin squid so multiplying average days fished by $0.60 per day would not be
illustrative for many vessels. Most vessels impacted by this provision would know how many
days they fished for mackerel in a year so they can just multiply $0.60 by days they would be
likely to declare into mackerel fishing to determine an annual impact on their business. For
example, if a vessel were to declare into the longfin squid fishery for 100 days in a year, then
they would have $60 in annual costs associated with this provision. Also, each VMS report is
estimated to take 5 minutes to complete.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

1gMack. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 20,000
pounds of mackerel, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside
monitoring. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative
(where none is required because there is no VMS). VMS pre-landing notifications could
facilitate enforcement of landings limits and landings reporting. Impacts are low compared to
the no-action alternative because there are no known issues with mackerel landing limits or
mackerel reporting requirements being violated.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Prelandings notifications could facilitate port-side sampling (see Alternative Set 4). Port side
sampling could lead to better information on non-target interactions (including for RH/S) which
could lead to better management of non-target species compared to the no-action alternative.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring a 6 hour pre-landing notification would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Compared to the no-action alternative, requiring a 6 hour pre-landing notification would not be
expected to change effort so negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action
alternative.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. The cost of
transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per transmission. There is a wide range of fishing
activity toward mackerel so multiplying average trips fished by $0.60 per trip would not be
illustrative for many vessels. Most vessels impacted by this provision would know how many
trips they fished for mackerel in a year so they can just multiply $0.60 by trips they would be
likely to land mackerel to estimate an annual impact on their business. For example, if a vessel
were to land over 20,000 pounds of mackerel for 50 trips in a year, then they would have $30 in
annual costs associated with this provision. Also, each VMS report is estimated to take 5
minutes to complete.

On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1gLong. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 2,500 pounds
of longfin squid, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside
monitoring.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. VMS
pre-landing notifications could facilitate enforcement of landings limits and landings reporting.
Impacts are low compared to the no-action alternative because there are no known issues with
longfin squid landing limits or longfin squid reporting requirements being violated.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Prelandings notifications could facilitate port-side sampling (see Alternative Set 4). Port side
sampling could lead to better information on non-target interactions (including for RH/S) which
could lead to better management of non-target species compared to the no-action alternative.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring a 6 hour pre-landing notification would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Compared to the no-action alternative, requiring a 6 hour pre-landing notification would not be
expected to change effort so negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action
alternative.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the
no-action alternative. On one hand costs to fishery participants would increase. The cost of
transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per transmission. There is a wide range of fishing
activity toward longfin squid so multiplying average trips fished by $0.60 per trip would not be
illustrative for many vessels. Most vessels impacted by this provision would know how many
trips they fished for longfin squid in a year so they can just multiply $0.60 by trips they would be
likely to land longfin squid to estimate an annual impact on their business. For example, if a
vessel were to land over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid for 50 trips in a year, then they would
have $30 in annual costs associated with this provision. Also, each VMS report is estimated to
take 5 minutes to complete.
On the other hand to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the

managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative compared to the no-action
alternative might result in benefits related to higher future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

Alternative Set 1 Summary - Additional Vessel Reporting Measures

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

All of the action alternatives are expected to have some low incremental managed-resource
benefits related to better monitoring and observer placement.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

All of the action alternatives are expected to have some low incremental non-target benefits
related to better monitoring and observer placement. Requiring pre-departure notice for
mackerel trips (1d48 and 1d72) may be relatively more important in order to generally facilitate
effective observer deployment and data collection.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

None of the action alternatives are expected to impact habitat.
4.

Protected Resources

Most of the alternatives are not expected to impact protected resources. Requiring pre-departure
notice for mackerel trips (1d48 and 1d72) may be relatively more important in order to generally
facilitate effective observer deployment and data collection.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered.
Commercial fishing interests would incur relatively low costs related to most of the alternatives
being considered. For vessels that do not have VMS units (a minority of the fleet) those costs
are moderate related to alternatives that would require VMS (1eMack and 1eLong). The
interested public would benefit to a modest degree primarily to the extent that better monitoring
could lead to better RH/S management.

7.2 Alternative Set 2 – Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements may be insufficient to precisely
estimate RH/S catch. Also, practices on how landing weights are determined are not
standardized.
Background:
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates. While some of the focus may appear to be on mackerel and/or longfin squid
general reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries, because extrapolations are often
made based on total landings, accurate monitoring of the target species can be as important as
determining the encounter rates of RH/S.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Most of the Alternative Set 2 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 2c and 2d (weighing mackerel) would be
mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. Likewise, 2e and 2f (weighing longfin
squid) would be mutually exclusive – only one would be chosen if either. 2g (dealers can use
volume to weight conversions) would modify 2c, 2d, 2e, or 2f so 2g could only be chosen if at
least one of those four alternatives was also chosen.
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.

2a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 2 would be implemented and
the existing reporting measures (as described in section 5.2) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives
in Alternative Set 2 would somewhat improve monitoring of the managed resources there would
be some foregone benefits if the no-action alternative is chosen. Given there are no major
reported issues with current landings monitoring of the managed species, impacts would be
expected to be low.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives in
Alternative Set 2 would improve monitoring of landed species, there would be some foregone
benefits to non-target species (including for RH/S) if the no-action alternative is chosen because
less information of the landings of those species would be available for future management
decisions.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Dealer
reporting is not expected to impact habitat.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Dealer
reporting is not expected to impact protected resources.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery
participants of the additional reporting requirements would be avoided, which is a positive
impact. These costs include the time for vessels to confirm landings, and scales for those dealers
that do not currently have scales to weigh mackerel or squid.
On the other hand, to the extent that Alternative Set 2 alternatives lead to better data, and to the
extent that better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal
yields) of the managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing the no-action alternative in
comparison to the other alternatives might result in foregone benefits.
These could include lost commercial revenues, lost recreational opportunities, lost cultural
values for RH/S, and/or other lost non-market existence values (i.e. value related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully) resulting from diminished stocks
compared to optimally productive stocks. Due to the uncertainty about how the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries are impacting either the managed species or RH/S, these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct
impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets
that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

2b. Require federally permitted MSB dealers to obtain vessel representative confirmation
of Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System transaction records for mackerel
landings over 20,000 lb, Illex landings over 10,000 lb, and longfin squid landings over 2,500
lb.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded and errors do exist in the dealer
database. Given there are no major reported issues with current monitoring of the managed
species, impacts would be expected to be low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded and errors do exist in the dealer
database. To the extent that landings data informs mortality caps, accurate landings data can also
be important for managing catch of non-target species (including for RH/S).
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring landings data confirmations would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring landings data confirmations would not be expected to change effort.
5.

Human Communities

Potentially low positive impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Since internet access is pervasive in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, either vessel owners or
their representative should be able to make an internet-based confirmation of dealer transactions
records without substantial cost. Ensuring dealer records are accurate could help vessels if
dealer records are used in the future for access controls/requalification. It is estimated that the
online checking process would take about 5-10 minutes for each vessel per week and about 15
minutes per week for dealers to confirm and report that vessels had checked their landings.
Some industry members have voiced concern that this puts vessels in a potentially awkward
position of checking up on their customers, which could make business relationships more
difficult to build and maintain.

2c. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document in dealer applications how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded but there is no indication that
any quota overages have occurred recently. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods
should provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative
compositions of mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction
documentation of their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting
good information of these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for
managed or non-target species).
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. To the extent that landings
data informs mortality caps, accurate landings data can also be important for managing catch of
non-target species (including for RH/S. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of mixed
catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods should
provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction documentation of
their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting good information of
these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for managed or non-target
species).
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.
5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all

landings in some manner and impacts for them would be negligible. While a complete survey of
all dealers is not available, discussions with NMFS port agents and MSB Advisory Panel
members suggest that around half of the 107 dealers who purchased at least 10,000 pounds of
mackerel or longfin squid 2006-2010 currently weigh their purchases, including many of the
highest volume dealers. So around 54 dealers with substantial purchases would need to alter
their practices, including potentially purchasing scales. Smaller dealers also are mixed in terms
of weighing MSB purchases, but at smaller quantities relatively inexpensive scales should
suffice.
The cost of scales can vary dramatically. The use of an already existing truck scale can cost as
little as $10, but the distance to reach one may make their use impracticable. Installation of a
truck scale in an easily-accessible port can cost more than $100,000, depending on the area in
which the scale will be placed. Not all dealers use trucks in the transport of fish however, and
water weight can impact the accuracy of measurements. Floor scales handling up to 20,000
pounds cost $3,000-$5,000 while floor scales that can weigh up to 100,000 pounds cost $13,000$17,000. Hopper scales can have multiple or single hoppers, and weigh fish as they flow
through the scale. For precise estimates the water needs to be completely separated from the fish
before use. Hopper scale costs can range from $20,000 to $50,000 per scale, and newer models
are now being produced that can be used on vessels at sea. Smaller scales costing several
hundred dollars may be purchased but may mean that additional time is required to batch-weigh
a product.
Requiring dealers to documents how they estimate the relative compositions of a mixed catch in
the annual dealer application should have negligible impacts.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

2d. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document with each transaction how they estimated the relative composition of a mixed
catch. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded but there is no indication that
any quota overages have occurred recently. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods
should provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative
compositions of mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction
documentation of their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting
good information of these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for
managed or non-target species).
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. To the extent that landings
data informs mortality caps, accurate landings data can also be important for managing catch of
non-target species (including for RH/S). If dealers estimate the relative compositions of mixed
catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods should
provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction documentation of
their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting good information of
these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for managed or non-target
species).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be negligible. While a complete survey of
all dealers is not available, discussions with NMFS port agents and MSB Advisory Panel
members suggest that around half of the 107 dealers who purchased at least 10,000 pound of
mackerel or longfin squid 2006-2010 currently weigh their purchases, including many of the
highest volume dealers. So around 54 dealers with substantial purchases would need to alter
their practices, including potentially purchasing scales. Smaller dealers also are mixed in terms
of weighing MSB purchases, but at smaller quantities relatively inexpensive scales should
suffice.
The cost of scales can vary dramatically. The use of an already existing truck scale can cost as
little as $10, but the distance to reach one may make their use impracticable. Installation of a
truck scale in an easily-accessible port can cost more than $100,000, depending on the area in
which the scale will be placed. Not all dealers use trucks in the transport of fish however, and
water weight can impact the accuracy of measurements. Floor scales handling up to 20,000
pounds cost $3,000-$5,000 while floor scales that can weigh up to 100,000 pounds cost $13,000$17,000. Hopper scales can have multiple or single hoppers, and weigh fish as they flow
through the scale. For precise estimates the water needs to be completely separated from the fish
before use. Hopper scale costs can range from $20,000 to $50,000 per scale, and newer models
are now being produced that can be used on vessels at sea. Smaller scales costing several
hundred dollars may be purchased but may mean that additional time is required to batch-weigh
a product.
This alternative would also require documenting how the relative composition of a mixed catch
is determined for each transaction, which could require 2-3 minutes for each transaction. From
2006-2010, 25 dealers averaged 14 mackerel transactions a year over 20,000 pounds, though
some made only a few and others made much more than the average.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

2e. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document in dealer applications how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded but there is no indication that
any quota overages have occurred recently. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods
should provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative
compositions of mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction
documentation of their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting
good information of these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for
managed or non-target species).

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. To the extent that landings
data informs mortality caps, accurate landings data can also be important for managing catch of
non-target species (including for RH/S). If dealers estimate the relative compositions of mixed
catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods should
provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction documentation of
their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting good information of
these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for managed or non-target
species).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be negligible. While a complete survey of
all dealers is not available, discussions with NMFS port agents and MSB Advisory Panel
members suggest that around half of the 107 dealers who purchased at least 10,000 pound of
mackerel or longfin squid 2006-2010 currently weigh their purchases, including many of the
highest volume dealers. So around 54 dealers with substantial purchases would need to alter
their practices, including potentially purchasing scales. Smaller dealers also are mixed in terms
of weighing MSB purchases, but at smaller quantities relatively inexpensive scales should
suffice.
The cost of scales can vary dramatically. The use of an already existing truck scale can cost as
little as $10, but the distance to reach one may make their use impracticable. Installation of a
truck scale in an easily-accessible port can cost more than $100,000, depending on the area in
which the scale will be placed. Not all dealers use trucks in the transport of fish however, and
water weight can impact the accuracy of measurements. Floor scales handling up to 20,000
pounds cost $3,000-$5,000 while floor scales that can weigh up to 100,000 pounds cost $13,000$17,000. Hopper scales can have multiple or single hoppers, and weigh fish as they flow
through the scale. For precise estimates the water needs to be completely separated from the fish
before use. Hopper scale costs can range from $20,000 to $50,000 per scale, and newer models
are now being produced that can be used on vessels at sea. Smaller scales costing several
hundred dollars may be purchased but may mean that additional time is required to batch-weigh
a product.
Requiring dealers to documents how they estimate the relative compositions of a mixed catch in
the annual dealer application should have negligible impacts.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

2f. Require that federally permitted MSB dealers weigh all landings related to longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to
document with each transaction how they estimate relative compositions of a mixed catch.
(PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded but there is no indication that
any quota overages have occurred recently. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods
should provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative
compositions of mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction
documentation of their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting
good information of these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for
managed or non-target species).

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Accurate
landings data is important to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. To the extent that landings
data informs mortality caps, accurate landings data can also be important for managing catch of
non-target species (including for RH/S). If dealers estimate the relative compositions of mixed
catches consistently throughout the year then annual documentation of their methods should
provide good information on their procedures. If dealers estimate the relative compositions of
mixed catches differently throughout the year then transaction by transaction documentation of
their methods would provide good information on their procedures. Getting good information of
these procedures would help evaluate the accuracy of landings data (for managed or non-target
species).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring dealers to weigh all catches would not be expected to change effort.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Economic impacts would likely be varied among dealers. Some dealers currently weigh all
landings in some manner and impacts for them would be negligible. While a complete survey of
all dealers is not available, discussions with NMFS port agents and MSB Advisory Panel
members suggest that around half of the 107 dealers who purchased at least 10,000 pound of
mackerel or longfin squid 2006-2010 currently weigh their purchases, including many of the
highest volume dealers. So around 54 dealers with substantial purchases would need to alter
their practices, including potentially purchasing scales. Smaller dealers also are mixed in terms
of weighing MSB purchases, but at smaller quantities relatively inexpensive scales should
suffice.
The cost of scales can vary dramatically. The use of an already existing truck scale can cost as
little as $10, but the distance to reach one may make their use impracticable. Installation of a
truck scale in an easily-accessible port can cost more than $100,000, depending on the area in
which the scale will be placed. Not all dealers use trucks in the transport of fish however, and
water weight can impact the accuracy of measurements. Floor scales handling up to 20,000
pounds cost $3,000-$5,000 while floor scales that can weigh up to 100,000 pounds cost $13,000$17,000. Hopper scales can have multiple or single hoppers, and weigh fish as they flow
through the scale. For precise estimates the water needs to be completely separated from the fish
before use. Hopper scale costs can range from $20,000 to $50,000 per scale, and newer models
are now being produced that can be used on vessels at sea. Smaller scales costing several
hundred dollars may be purchased but may mean that additional time is required to batch-weigh
a product.
This alternative would also require documenting how the relative composition of a mixed catch
is determined for each transaction, which could require 2-3 minutes for each transaction. From
2006-2010, 68 dealers averaged 25 longfin squid transactions over 2,500 pounds a year, though
some made only a few and others made much more than the average.

On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

2g. Related to preferred requirements to weigh all fish (2d, 2f), allow dealers to use volume
to weight conversions if they cannot weigh landings – they would need to identify their
conversion methods in their dealer application and explain why they cannot weigh all
landings. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Accurate monitoring is important to ensure quotas are not exceeded (directed or unintended) and
avoid overfishing. Volume to weight conversions can be very accurate but are probably less
accurate then weighing all fish. This alternative would only be selected if at least one alternative
from 2c-2f were also chosen. Selecting this alternative in addition to 2c-2f likely renders each of
those alternatives equivalent to the status quo, since dealers are probably unlikely to change the
way they operate without a requirement to do so. The only required change would be the
requirements to describe/document how dealers determine compositions of mixed landings. The
impacts of documenting how dealers describe/document mixed landings compositions are
discussed under each alternative 2c-2f above.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Accurate monitoring is important to ensure quotas are not exceeded (directed or unintended
(including for RH/S)) and avoid overfishing. Volume to weight conversions can be very
accurate but are probably less accurate then weighing all fish. This alternative would only be
selected if at least one alternative from 2c-2f were also chosen. Selecting this alternative in
addition to 2c-2f likely renders each of those alternatives equivalent to the status quo, since
dealers are probably unlikely to change the way they operate without a requirement to do so.
The only required change would be the requirements to describe/document how dealers
determine compositions of mixed landings. The impacts of documenting how dealers
describe/document mixed landings compositions are discussed under each alternative 2c-2f
above.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Selecting this alternative in addition to 2c-2f likely renders each of those alternatives equivalent
to the status quo, since dealers are probably unlikely to change the way they operate without a
requirement to do so. The only required change would be the requirements to describe/document
how dealers determine compositions of mixed landings. The impacts of documenting how
dealers describe/document mixed landings compositions are discussed under each alternative 2c2f above.
4.

Protected Resources

Selecting this alternative in addition to 2c-2f likely renders each of those alternatives equivalent
to the status quo, since dealers are probably unlikely to change the way they operate without a

requirement to do so. The only required change would be the requirements to describe/document
how dealers determine compositions of mixed landings. The impacts of documenting how
dealers describe/document mixed landings compositions are discussed under each alternative 2c2f above.
5.

Human Communities

Selecting this alternative in addition to 2c-2f likely renders each of those alternatives equivalent
to the status quo, since dealers are probably unlikely to change the way they operate without a
requirement to do so. The only required change would be the requirements to describe/document
how dealers determine compositions of mixed landings. The impacts of documenting how
dealers describe/document mixed landings compositions are discussed under each alternative 2c2f above.

Alternative Set 2 Summary - Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

All of the action alternatives are expected to have some low incremental managed-resource
benefits related to better monitoring with the exception of 2g. 2g would essentially provide a
loophole for weighing all catch, which is what is primarily considered in this Alternative Set.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

All of the action alternatives are expected to have some low incremental non-target benefits
related to better monitoring with the exception of 2g. 2g would essentially provide a loophole
for weighing all catch, which is what is primarily considered in this Alternative Set.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

None of the action alternatives are expected to impact habitat.
4.

Protected Resources

None of the action alternatives are expected to impact protected resources.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered.
Commercial dealers could incur moderate-to-higher additional costs if they needed to buy high
volume scales to meet the "weigh all fish" requirements considered in this alternative set. Many
dealers already weigh all of their catch however. The interested public would benefit to a
modest degree primarily to the extent that better monitoring could lead to better RH/S
management.

7.3 Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of observer monitoring requirements may be insufficient to precisely estimate
RH/S catch.
Background:
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
facilitate more accurate monitoring by observers with the overall goal of improving the precision
of RH/S catch estimates. Each alternative addresses an aspect of observer coverage that
potentially could be improved to ultimately lead to better RH/S estimates. Many of the
alternatives deal with slippage, which is defined and described in Section 5.3.2.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Many of the Alternative Set 3 action alternatives could be
implemented individually or collectively. However, 3h (trip termination after 1 slipped haul)
and 3i (trip termination after 2 slipped hauls) would be mutually exclusive – only one would be
chosen if either. Likewise, 3k (fishery-wide slippage cap at 5 mackerel slippage events) and 3l
(fishery-wide slippage cap at 10 mackerel slippage events) would be mutually exclusive – only
one would be chosen if either. 3m (fishery-wide slippage cap at 5 longfin slippage events) and
3n (fishery-wide slippage cap at 10 longfin slippage events) are also mutually exclusive – only
one would be chosen if either. 3p would replace fishery-wide slippage caps with vessel slippage
caps and it would be expected that either 3p could be chosen or 3k-3n could be chosen (if any).
Also, if 3j (slippage prohibition with exceptions) was chosen then 3f or 3g could not be selected
(3f and 3g require all catch to be brought aboard but 3j provides some exceptions).
If alternatives 3f – 3p are selected for mackerel, they would also require the selection of
Alternative 1d48 (48-hr pre-trip notification) or 1d72 (72-hr pre-trip notification). There is
already a pre-trip notification requirement in effect for longfin squid moratorium permit holders.
Several alternatives in this Alternative set deal with slippage. As described in Section 5.3, even
infrequent slippage has the potential to bias observer data in that the observed data would
represent a subset of actual fishing behavior that does not include the discards related to slippage.
From 2006-2010 approximately 9% (383 of 4186 or 77 per year) of hauls on observed longfin
squid trips (trips that caught 50% or more longfin squid or at least 10,000 pounds longfin squid)
and 26% (73 of 277 or 15 per year) of hauls on observed mackerel trips (trips that caught 50% or
more mackerel or at least 100,000 pounds mackerel) had some unobserved catch. Catch may be
unobserved for a variety of reasons, for example transfer to another vessel without an observer,
observer not on station, or haul slipped (dumped) in the water. The above numbers would thus
be an upper bound on slippage events.
If the ratios described above hold and higher observer coverages rates are implemented for any
of these fisheries, the number of unobserved hauls could be much higher. Recent observer rates
have been around 5%-10%.

When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.
3a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 3 would be implemented and
the existing monitoring measures (as described in section 5.3) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives
in Alternative Set 3 (assisting observers, haul-back notice, dual coverage on pair trawl
operations, and minimizing slippage) could improve monitoring of discards of the managed
resources there would be some foregone benefits if the no-action alternative is chosen, especially
for butterfish since discards account for a large portion of butterfish mortality. Quality observer
data is critical for evaluating and implementing potential measures to minimize discards. Since
to some degree observer assistance, haul-back notice, and dual coverage on pair trawl operations
already occur, and discards are not substantial for mackerel, Illex, or longfin squid, the
potentially forgone benefits (better observer data) are likely low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives in
Alternative Set 3 (assisting observers, dual coverage on pair trawl operations, and minimizing
slippage) would improve at-sea monitoring, there would be foregone benefits to non-target
species including RH/S if the no-action alternative is chosen because less information on the
catch and discards of those species would be available for future management decisions. Quality
observer data is critical for evaluating and implementing potential measures to minimize
discards. To some degree observer assistance, haul-back notice, and dual coverage on pair trawl
operations already occur so the forgone benefits (better observer data) related to any one of those
may be small but collectively such measures could provide higher benefits. If the no-action is
selected, those benefits would be forgone. Regarding the issue of slippage (dumping net
contents prior to observation), while a small percentage of hauls are currently slipped under the
status quo, if the hauls that are slipped contain relevant non-target species, the understanding of
interactions with non-target species will be biased.
While information on slippage is hard to come by, there is information on unobserved catch
based on analysis described in section 6.3. The analyzed observed mackerel trips included 12 on
average for each year 2006- 2010 and 26% (about 15/year) had hauls with unobserved catch.
The analyzed observed longfin trips included 83 on average for each year 2006-2010 and 9%
(about 75/year) had hauls with unobserved catch. Hauls may be unobserved for a variety of

reasons, for example transfer to another vessel without an observer, observer not on station, haul
slipped (dumped) in the water, etc. While the number of true slippages on observed vessels is
likely low, the concern is that a relatively low number of events could bias the observer data.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. At-sea
observing is not expected to impact habitat.
4.

Protected Resources

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. While at-sea
observing is important for determining protected resources interactions, the action alternatives
being considered are mostly specific to improving data collection on RH/S and should not
substantively impact protected resources. Some benefits from generally assisting observers
(observers could focus on technical aspects of documenting protected resource interactions)
might be foregone but to some degree observer assistance, haul-back notice, and dual coverage
on pair trawl operations already occur so the forgone benefits (better observer data) would be
low, especially since the measures are not geared toward protected resources.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery
participants of the additional monitoring requirements would be avoided, which is a positive
impact. These avoided costs include the time required for vessel representatives to assist
observers (3b, 3c), time required to complete slippage/released catch affidavits and possible
postage cost for submitting the affidavits to NMFS (3e, 3j), revenue loss associated with trip
termination due to slippage events (3h, 3i, 3k-3p), and the potential safety issues that may occur
if vessels haul catch aboard in unsafe conditions rather than slip a catch related to safety
concerns (3f-3p). Since to some degree observer assistance, haul-back notice, and dual coverage
on pair trawl operations already occur, costs related to these measures should be low.
On the other hand, to the extent that Alternative Set 3 alternatives lead to better data, and to the
extent that better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal
yields) of the managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing the no-action alternative in
comparison to the other alternatives might result in foregone benefits.
These could include lost commercial revenues, lost recreational opportunities, lost cultural
values for RH/S, and/or other lost non-market existence values (i.e. value related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully) resulting from diminished stocks
compared to optimally productive stocks. Due to the uncertainty about how the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries are impacting either the managed species or RH/S, these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct
impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets
that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3b. Require the following reasonable assistance measures: provision of a safe sampling
station; help with measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; help with fish collection;
and help with basket sample collection by crew on vessels with mackerel limited access
and/or longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits. Requirements can be modified via
the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

Note: Vessel crews often assist with these tasks already.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Such assistance
could help improve observer data by allowing the observer to focus on technical aspects of
observing such as species identification, weighing, measuring, etc. To the degree that such data
is used to better minimize and/or account for discards (good accounting for discards can help
avoid overfishing), there could be positive impacts to the managed species. Impacts are low
because many vessels already provide this kind of assistance, but codifying this requirement will
help observers with vessels that are not as cooperative.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Such assistance
could help improve observer data by allowing the observer to focus on technical aspects of
observing such as species identification, weighing, measuring, etc. To the degree that such data
is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target
species, including RH/S. Impacts are low because many vessels already provide this kind of
assistance, but codifying this requirement will help observers with vessels that are not as
cooperative.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring vessels to provide the specified assistance would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Such assistance
could help improve observer data by allowing the observer to focus on technical aspects of
observing such as species identification, weighing, measuring, etc. Impacts are low because
many vessels already provide this kind of assistance, but codifying this requirement will help
observers with vessels that are not as cooperative.

5.

Human Communities

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Many
vessels provide this kind of assistance already and it would not be expected to be a major impact
for those that do not. It is expected negligible crew time would be involved.

3c. Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when pumping/haul-back occurs
on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits.
Requirements can be modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

Note: Vessel crews often assist with these tasks already.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Such assistance
in not missing hauls ensures that all catch from an observed trip is observed and sampled to
determine discards. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize and/or account for
discards (good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing), there could be positive
impacts to the managed species. Impacts are low because many vessels already provide this kind
of assistance, but codifying this requirement will help observers with vessels that are not as
cooperative.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Such assistance
in not missing hauls ensures that all catch from an observed trip is observed and sampled to
determine non-target interactions. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize nontarget interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S.
Impacts are low because many vessels already provide this kind of assistance, but codifying this
requirement will help observers with vessels that are not as cooperative.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Ensuring
that observers do not miss hauls is unlikely to change effort levels.

4.

Protected Resources

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Such assistance
in not missing hauls ensures that all catch from an observed trip is observed and sampled to
determine protected resource interactions. To the degree that such data is used to better
minimize protected resource interactions, there could be positive impacts. Impacts are low
because many vessels already provide this kind of assistance, but codifying this requirement will
help observers with vessels that are not as cooperative.

5.

Human Communities

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Many
vessels provide this kind of assistance already and it would not be expected to be a major impact
for those that do not. It is expected negligible crew time would be involved.

3d. When observers are deployed on trips involving more than one vessel, observers would
be required on any vessel taking on fish wherever/whenever possible on vessels with
mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits. Requirements can be
modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

Note: The observer program usually does this already.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Not missing
hauls ensures that all catch from an observed trip is observed and sampled to determine discards.
To the degree that such data is used to better minimize and/or account for discards (good
accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing), there could be positive impacts to the
managed species. Impacts are low because the observer program usually does this already.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If both vessels
are receiving fish, having observers on both vessels ensures that all catch from the pair trawling
trip is observed and sampled to determine non-target interactions. To the degree that such data is
used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target
species, including RH/S. While the observer program typically assigns two observers to pair
trawling operations (pers Com Amy VanAtten), this alternative provides the observer program
with an additional incentive to do so. Impacts are low because the observer program usually
does this already.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring the observer program to deploy observes on both vessels during pair trawl operations
whenever possible would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If both vessels
are receiving fish, having observers on both vessels ensures that all catch from the pair trawling
trip is observed and sampled to determine protected resource interactions. To the degree that
such data is used to better minimize interactions, there could be positive impacts. Impacts are
low because the observer program usually does this already.

5.

Human Communities

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Many
paired vessels take observers out on both vessels already and this alternative does not have any
observer funding requirements.

3e. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require slippage reports - “Released Catch Affidavits” from captains on observed trips if
they slip a haul.
Selected alone, this alternative provides another account of slippage but does not do anything to
deter slippage. This alternative would be used to augment and cross check the data collected by
observers to develop a better understanding of slippage events.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would be used to improve the quality of data collected by observers by developing a better
understanding of slippage events. To the degree that such data is used in the future to reduce
slippage and gain better information on discards, there could be positive impacts to the managed
species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for (good accounting for discards can
help avoid overfishing) based on that information.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would be used to improve the quality of data collected by observers by developing a better

understanding of slippage events. To the degree that such data is used in the future to reduce
slippage and gain better information on non-target interactions (including for RH/S), there could
be positive impacts to the non-target species if interactions are later reduced based on that
information.
If a “trip termination because of slippage” alternative was selected (see below), the slippage
reports could also be used by enforcement to determine if vessels had terminated appropriately
after reaching the trigger number of slippage events. Minimizing slippage should result in better
data for non-target species.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Ensuring
that observers do not miss hauls is unlikely to change effort levels.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. There is
no indication that protected resource interactions are being missed because of discards that are
not brought aboard a vessel but theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the
chance of observers missing protected species interactions.

5.

Human Communities

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessel
captains would have to fill out a form explaining the reason for any slipped hauls, which appear
to be relatively infrequent compared to the total number of observed hauls. The slipped haul
form should take around 5 minutes to complete for each slippage event.

3f. Prohibit vessels with Mackerel limited access permits that have notified for a mackerel
trip and are carrying an observer from releasing any discards before they have been
brought aboard for sampling by the observer.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree
that such data is used in the future to gain better information on discards, there could be positive
impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for (good
accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since discards of
managed species on mackerel trips is not a major issue, impacts should be low. While many
vessels already do this, codifying this requirement will help observers with vessels that are not as
cooperative.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would be used to improve the quality of data collected by observers by requiring all fish that will
be discarded be brought aboard for sampling first to develop complete information about all
species in the mackerel fishery. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize nontarget interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. While
many vessels already do this, codifying this requirement will help observers with vessels that are
not as cooperative. Given that many non-target species interaction events are rare and large,
even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without observing all hauls.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Prohibiting discarding before observation would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Prohibiting discarding before observation would not be expected to change effort and there is no
indication that protected resource interactions are being missed because of discards that are not
brought aboard a vessel but theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the
chance of observers missing protected species interactions.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Some
fishing time may be lost because nets have to be fully brought aboard after each haul. Also, this
alternative could create safety problems if a vessel attempts to bring aboard a catch and/or net in
dangerous conditions. The observer program reports that most vessels are already bringing all
hauls aboard for sampling a majority of the time on a voluntary basis however.

On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3g. Prohibit vessels with longfin squid moratorium permits that have notified for a longfin
squid trip and are carrying an observer from releasing any discards before they have been
brought aboard for sampling by the observer.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
such data is used in the future to gain better information on discards, there could be positive
impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for (good
accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards are a major portion of butterfish
mortality better discard information has a strong potential to improve data and management.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would be used to improve the quality of data collected by observers by requiring all fish that will
be discarded be brought aboard for sampling first to develop complete information about all
species in the longfin squid fishery. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize nontarget interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. While
many vessels already do this, codifying this requirement will help observers with vessels that are
not as cooperative. Given that many non-target species interaction events are rare and large, even
infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without observing all hauls.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Prohibiting discarding before observation would not be expected to change effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Prohibiting discarding before observation would not be expected to change effort and there is no
indication that protected resource interactions are currently being missed because of discards that
are not brought aboard a vessel but theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen
the chance of observers missing protected species interactions.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Some
fishing time may be lost because nets have to be fully brought aboard after each haul. Also, this
alternative could create safety problems if a vessel attempts to bring aboard a catch and/or net in
dangerous conditions. The observer program reports that most vessels are already bringing all
hauls aboard for sampling a majority of the time on a voluntary basis however.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3h. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require trip termination following 1 slipped haul on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could be
positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards are a major portion of butterfish
mortality, better discard information has a strong potential to improve data and management.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip if they slip any
hauls on an observed trip so that data can be obtained on the composition of all catches. To the
degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive
impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are released when slipped
may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be some additional mortality
on a haul by haul basis. Given that many non-target species interaction events are rare and large,

even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without observing all hauls.
While absolute numbers of slippage events are likely low, partly that could be just because of
low observer coverage rates and the key point is that individual hauls on MSB trips can be quite
large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for mackerel and more than 20,000 per haul for
longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few slipped hauls to potentially have a strong impact
on overall catch estimates.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Even if
some trip terminations occur, it is not expected that these would substantially change overall
fishery effort especially since fishery participants may compensate by scheduling additional trips
later. It would not matter if trips were terminated because of 1 or 2 slipped hauls because effort
would not be expected to substantially change in either case so there are no habitat impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Even if
some trip terminations occur, it is not expected that these would substantially change overall
fishery effort especially since fishery participants may compensate by scheduling additional trips
later. It would not matter if trips were terminated because of 1 or 2 slipped hauls because effort
would not be expected to substantially change in either case so there are no protected resources
impacts. Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the chance of observers
missing protected species interactions though this is not known to be a problem.
5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is
difficult to quantify the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is time for extra sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of
safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety
could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they
might have made on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually,
the cost is the forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination
occurs near what would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If
termination occurs near the beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable
since the trip is terminated. However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed
$30,000 per trip and mackerel landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative. However, analysis described above

concluded that the mackerel fishery averages 15 hauls a year with unobserved catch, which could
theoretically trigger trip terminations. The same analysis found that the longfin squid fishery
averaged 77 hauls per year with unobserved catch, which could trigger trip terminations. Due to
the nature of the analysis these numbers would be upper bounds. Compared to 3i, this alternative
would be expected to be more negative since 1 slipped haul would result in trip termination
rather than 2 slipped hauls.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3i. On vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits,
require trip termination following 2 slipped hauls on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could be
positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards are a major portion of butterfish
mortality, better discard information has a strong potential to improve data and management.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events by requiring a vessel to terminate a trip if they slip any
hauls on an observed trip so that data can be obtained on the composition of all catches. To the
degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive
impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are released when slipped
may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be some additional mortality
on a haul by haul basis. Given that many non-target species interaction events are rare and large,
even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without observing all hauls.
While absolute numbers of slippage events are likely low, partly that could be just because of
low observer coverage rates and the key point is that individual hauls on MSB trips can be quite

large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for mackerel and more than 20,000 per haul for
longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few slipped hauls to potentially have a strong impact
on overall catch estimates.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Even if
some trip terminations occur, it is not expected that these would substantially change overall
fishery effort especially since fishery participants may compensate by scheduling additional trips
later. It would not matter if trips were terminated because of 1 or 2 slipped hauls because effort
would not be expected to substantially change in either case so there are no habitat impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Even if
some trip terminations occur, it is not expected that these would substantially change overall
fishery effort especially since fishery participants may compensate by scheduling additional trips
later. It would not matter if trips were terminated because of 1 or 2 slipped hauls because effort
would not be expected to substantially change in either case so there are no protected resource
impacts. Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the chance of observers
missing protected species interactions though this is not known to be a problem.
5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is
difficult to quantify the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is time for extra sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of
safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety
could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they
might have made on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually,
the cost is the forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination
occurs near what would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If
termination occurs near the beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable
since the trip is terminated. However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed
$30,000 per trip and mackerel landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative. However, analysis described above
concluded that the mackerel fishery averages 15 hauls a year with unobserved catch, which could
theoretically trigger trip terminations. The same analysis found that the longfin squid fishery
averaged 77 hauls per year with unobserved catch, which could trigger trip terminations. Due to

the nature of the analysis these numbers would be upper bounds. Compared to 3h, this
alternative would be expected to be less negative since 2 slipped hauls would result in trip
termination rather than 1 slipped haul.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3j. With the exceptions noted below, mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid
moratorium permitted vessels that have notified the observer program of their intent to
land over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid or over 20,000 pounds of mackerel and have been
selected to carry an observer would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net
for inspection and sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be
required to bring all fish aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer.
Vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net (slippage), transferring fish to
another vessel (that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer), or otherwise discarding
fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel and made available for
sampling and inspection by the observer.
Exceptions: 1) pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel/crew
2) mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch
aboard the vessel; or
3) spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent
pumping of the rest of the catch.
If a net is released, including the exemptions above, the vessel operator would be
required to complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit providing information
about where, when, and why the net was released, as well as a good-faith estimate of
the total weight of fish caught on the tow and weight of fish released. Released
Catch Affidavits must be submitted within 48 hours of completion of the trip.
Exemptions and provisions of this measure can be modified via the annual
specifications process.
(PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could be
positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards are a major portion of butterfish
mortality better discard information has a strong potential to improve data and management.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there
could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are
released when slipped may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be

some additional mortality on a haul by haul basis. Given that many non-target species
interaction events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates
made without observing all hauls. While absolute numbers of slippage events are likely low,
partly that could be just because of low observer coverage rates and the key point is that
individual hauls on MSB trips can be quite large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for
mackerel and more than 20,000 per haul for longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few
slipped hauls to potentially have a strong impact on overall catch estimates.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Prohibiting discarding before observation or requiring released catch affidavits would not be
expected to change effort.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Prohibiting discarding before observation would not be expected to change effort and there is no
indication that protected resource interactions are currently being missed because of discards that
are not brought aboard a vessel. Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the
chance of observers missing protected species interactions though this is not known to be a
problem.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a low negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Vessel captains would have to fill out a form explaining the reason for any slipped hauls, which
should take less than 5 minutes. Also, if slipping has been occurring frequently on observed trips
for reasons other than the exceptions above then fishing time could be lost while net contents are
brought aboard. Analysis described above concluded that the mackerel fishery averages 15 hauls
a year with unobserved catch, which could theoretically trigger trip terminations. The same
analysis found that the longfin squid fishery averaged 77 hauls per year with unobserved catch,
which could trigger trip terminations. Due to the nature of the analysis these numbers would be
upper bounds.
If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they might have made
on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually, the cost is the
forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination occurs near what
would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If termination occurs near the
beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable since the trip is terminated.

However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed $30,000 per trip and mackerel
landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3k. Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 5 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage
events on any notified and observed Mackerel trip would result in trip termination fleetwide for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree
that this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could
be positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there
could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are
released when slipped may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be
some additional mortality on a haul by haul basis. Impacts would be greater than 3l which has a
higher cap before terminations are triggered. Given that many non-target species interaction
events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without
observing all hauls. While absolute numbers of slippage events are likely low, partly that could
be just because of low observer coverage rates and the key point is that individual hauls on MSB
trips can be quite large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for mackerel and more than 20,000
per haul for longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few slipped hauls to potentially have a
strong impact on overall catch estimates.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the chance of observers missing
protected species interactions though this is not known to be a problem.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is
difficult to quantify the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is time for extra sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of
safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety
could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they
might have made on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually,
the cost is the forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination
occurs near what would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If
termination occurs near the beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable
since the trip is terminated. However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed
$30,000 per trip and mackerel landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative. Analysis described above concluded
that the mackerel fishery averages 15 hauls a year with unobserved catch, which could
theoretically trigger trip terminations. Due to the nature of the analysis this number would be an
upper bounds.
Compared to 3l, this alternative would be expected to be more negative since fewer slipped hauls
could occur before additional slippages would result in future trip terminations. Note: once the
slippage cap was achieved, any vessel with an additional slippage would have to terminate even
if it had never slipped before in that year.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3l. Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage
events on any notified and observed Mackerel trip would result in trip termination fleetwide for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events. The only slippages
that would count against the cap are non-emergency events, so the exceptions 1, 2, and 3 in
3j would not count against the slippage cap. Operational discards (small quantities of fish
that remain in the net) that are made available to the observer for visual access prior to
discarding would also not count against the slippage cap. Requirements and provisions of
the measure can be modified via the annual specifications process.
(PREFERRED)
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree
that this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could
be positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low. Since this alternative would be less restrictive than 3k, benefits would be
less as well.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there
could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are
released when slipped may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be
some additional mortality on a haul by haul basis. Impacts would be less than 3k which has a
lower cap before terminations are triggered. Given that many non-target species interaction
events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without
observing all hauls. Since this alternative would be less restrictive than 3k, benefits would be
less as well. The modification to not count operational discards that have been made visible to
the observer should not change the effect of the measure since such operational discards are
small and the observer could confirm they are small. While absolute numbers of slippage events
are likely low, partly that could be just because of low observer coverage rates and the key point
is that individual hauls on MSB trips can be quite large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for
mackerel and more than 20,000 per haul for longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few
slipped hauls to potentially have a strong impact on overall catch estimates.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the chance of observers missing
protected species interactions though this is not known to be a problem.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is
difficult to quantify the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is time for extra sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of
safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety
could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they
might have made on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually,
the cost is the forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination
occurs near what would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If
termination occurs near the beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable
since the trip is terminated. However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed
$30,000 per trip and mackerel landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative. Analysis described above concluded
that the mackerel fishery averages 15 hauls a year with unobserved catch, which could
theoretically trigger trip terminations. Due to the nature of the analysis this number would be an
upper bounds.
Compared to 3k, this alternative would be expected to be less negative since more slipped hauls
could occur before additional slippages would result in future trip terminations. Note: once the
slippage cap was achieved, any vessel with an additional slippage would have to terminate even
if it had never slipped before in that year.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3m. Related to 3j, for longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 5 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid trips then subsequent
slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip would result in trip
termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could be
positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards in the longfin squid fishery are a
major portion of butterfish mortality better discard information has a strong potential to improve
data and management.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there
could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are
released when slipped may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be
some additional mortality on a haul by haul basis. Impacts would be greater than 3n which has a
higher cap before terminations are triggered. Given that many non-target species interaction
events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without
observing all hauls. While absolute numbers of slippage events are likely low, partly that could
be just because of low observer coverage rates and the key point is that individual hauls on MSB
trips can be quite large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for mackerel and more than 20,000
per haul for longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few slipped hauls to potentially have a
strong impact on overall catch estimates.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in

terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the chance of observers missing
protected species interactions though this is not known to be a problem.
5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is
difficult to quantify the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is time for extra sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of
safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety
could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they
might have made on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually,
the cost is the forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination
occurs near what would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If
termination occurs near the beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable
since the trip is terminated. However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed
$30,000 per trip and mackerel landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative. Analysis described above concluded
that the longfin squid fishery averaged 77 hauls per year with unobserved catch, which could
trigger trip terminations. Due to the nature of the analysis these numbers would be upper
bounds.

Compared to 3n, this alternative would be expected to be more negative since fewer slipped
hauls could occur before additional slippages would result in future trip terminations. Note: once
the slippage cap was achieved, any vessel with an additional slippage would have to terminate
even if it had never slipped before in that trimester.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3n. Related to 3j, for longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via specifications)
occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid trips then subsequent
slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip would result in trip
termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
this alternative minimizes slippage and increases the quality of data on discards, there could be
positive impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for
(good accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards in the longfin squid fishery are a
major portion of butterfish mortality better discard information has a strong potential to improve
data and management. Since this alternative would be less restrictive than 3m, benefits would be
less as well.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage slippage events so that data can be obtained on the composition of all
catches. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there
could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some fish that are
released when slipped may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there may be
some additional mortality on a haul by haul basis. Impacts would be less than 3m which has a
lower cap before terminations are triggered. Given that many non-target species interaction
events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates made without
observing all hauls. Since this alternative would be less restrictive than 3m, benefits would be
less as well. While absolute numbers of slippage events are likely low, partly that could be just
because of low observer coverage rates and the key point is that individual hauls on MSB trips
can be quite large (more than 100,000 pounds per haul for mackerel and more than 20,000 per
haul for longfin squid) so it doesn't take more than a few slipped hauls to potentially have a
strong impact on overall catch estimates.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in

terminations of some observed trips. This would apply if the trigger was either 5 or 10 trips.
Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could lessen the chance of observers missing
protected species interactions though this is not known to be a problem.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is
difficult to quantify the socio-economic impacts because participants are likely to have a wide
variety of responses. Some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the
only extra cost is time for extra sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of
safety issues and vessels now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety
could be reduced. If vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they
might have made on the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually,
the cost is the forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination
occurs near what would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If
termination occurs near the beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable
since the trip is terminated. However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed
$30,000 per trip and mackerel landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative. Analysis described above concluded
that the longfin squid fishery averaged 77 hauls per year with unobserved catch, which could
trigger trip terminations. Due to the nature of the analysis these numbers would be upper
bounds.
Compared to 3m, this alternative would be expected to be less negative since more slipped hauls
could occur before additional slippages would result in future trip terminations. Note: once the
slippage cap was achieved, any vessel with an additional slippage would have to terminate even
if it had never slipped before in that trimester.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

3o. For mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels, if a trip is terminated within 24
hours because of any of the anti-slippage provisions (3g, 3h, 3k-3n), then the relevant vessel
would have to take an observer on its next trip.
The idea behind this alternative is that vessels may seek to have trips terminated at the start of a
trip to avoid having to take observers for extended trips. If such strategic behavior became
widespread, it would likely bias the data compared to typical fleet behavior.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree
that this alternative improves data on discards, there could be positive impacts to the managed
species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for (good accounting for discards can
help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both discards and uncertainty about
discards are already accounted for during specifications setting, impacts should be low except for
butterfish. Since discards in the longfin squid fishery are a major portion of butterfish mortality
better discard information has a strong potential to improve data and management. The impact is
low because this may be a rare circumstance.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This alternative
would seek to discourage observer avoidance strategies so that data can be obtained on the
composition of typical trips. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Given that
many non-target species interaction events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could
confound catch estimates made without observing all hauls. The impact is low because this may
be a rare circumstance.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would affect overall fishery effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would affect overall fishery effort.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. .
Vessels may experience reduced revenue and/or higher costs due to waiting for another observer
or due to paying for another observer (proposed to be $325/day) if an industry-funded observer
program is in place.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in positive long-term benefits
related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values
for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about
how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels
these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to
monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts
for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3p. Allow mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels to be assigned an annual quota
(set during specifications) of slippage events related to 3j, specified annually. Once their
slippage quota was reached, vessels would have to terminate an observed trip as well as
upon any slippage event on subsequent observed trips for the remainder of the calendar
year.
This alternative would be in place of the fleet-wide caps and the vessel caps would be
specified at a later date. As such, potential benefits would occur in the future (versus 3k-3n
which would be implemented sooner if selected) and be dependent on what level the cap
was set at.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potential positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the
degree that this alternative increases the quality of data on discards, there could be positive
impacts to the managed species if discards are later reduced or better accounted for (good
accounting for discards can help avoid overfishing) based on that information. Since both
discards and uncertainty about discards are already accounted for during specifications setting,
impacts should be low except for butterfish. Since discards in the longfin squid fishery are a
major portion of butterfish mortality better discard information has a strong potential to improve
data and management.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potential positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
alternative would seek to discourage slippage events so that data can be obtained on the
composition of all catches. To the degree that such data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since some
fish that are released when slipped may survive but are unlikely to survive if hauled aboard there
may be some additional mortality on a haul by haul basis. Given that many non-target species
interaction events are rare and large, even infrequent slippage could confound catch estimates
made without observing all hauls.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
expected that this alternative would substantially affect overall fishery effort even if it resulted in
terminations of some observed trips. Theoretically, making sure all catch is observed could

lessen the chance of observers missing protected species interactions though this is not known to
be a problem.

5.

Human Communities

Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand a negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If less
than the specified slippage events occur the impacts may be negligible. Once terminations are
triggered, some vessels may just not slip where they would have previously, and the only extra
cost is sorting fish on deck. If slippage occurred previously because of safety issues and vessels
now took higher risks to avoid trip termination then vessel/crew safety could be reduced. If
vessels are forced to terminate then they would lose the value of catch they might have made on
the rest of the trip. Since the vessel would have to return to port eventually, the cost is the
forgone revenue on what would have been the rest of the trip. If termination occurs near what
would have been the natural end of a trip the costs would be low. If termination occurs near the
beginning on a trip then the costs could be high, but not knowable since the trip is terminated.
However, when fishing is good, longfin landings can often exceed $30,000 per trip and mackerel
landings can exceed $150,000 per trip.
Because of the impossibility of predicting fishery participant responses, the variety of trip types,
and the impossibility of predicting when a slipped haul might occur, it is not possible to further
quantify socio-economic impacts related to this alternative.
A low positive impact would be expected compared to 3k-m. The advantage of having the
slippage quota be vessel based is that vessels have a direct incentive to minimize unnecessary
slippage events to save their slippage quota for when they really need it (e.g. due to safety issues)
and thereby avoid situations where subsequent slippage events result in forced trip terminations.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative led to better data, and to the extent that better
data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then this alternative might result in potentially positive longterm benefits related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services,
cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the
public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully). Due to the
uncertainty about how the productivity of either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by
current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative
set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small but the reader should review
similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with management measures that may utilize
better data.

Alternative Set 3 Summary - Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Many of the action alternatives are expected to have some low incremental managed-resource
benefits related to better observer data. Since the general operation of the observers is not
known to be a major problem for most of the managed species, impacts are generally low.
However, since discarding of butterfish in the longfin squid fishery is a major component of
fishing mortality, measures to track, eliminate, or reduce slippage in the longfin squid fishery
would be expected to result in relatively greater positive impacts (3g, 3h, 3i, 3j, 3m, 3n, and 3p).
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

The alternatives that generally result in assistance for observers to get their work done effectively
(3b-3d) would likely result in low incremental benefits. Since slippage has the potential to bias
observer data, the alternatives that track, eliminate, or reduce slippage would be expected to have
relatively greater benefits related to data quality, and the ones that most reduce slippage would
be expected to have the greatest positive impacts (3f, 3g, and 3h).
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

None of the action alternatives are expected to impact habitat.
4.

Protected Resources

The alternatives that generally result in assistance for observers to get their work done effectively
(3b-3d) would likely result in low incremental benefits. Regarding the alternatives that deal with
slippage, there is no indication that protected resource interactions are currently being missed
because of discards that are not brought aboard a vessel but theoretically, making sure all catch is
observed could lessen the chance of observers missing protected species interactions.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered. For
commercial fishing, the alternatives involving generally assisting observers should have
negligible impacts since most do it already. Slippage restrictions could cause trip terminations
resulting in lost revenue or potential safety issues if vessels bring catch aboard in dangerous
conditions. The stricter the restriction on slippage the greater the potential costs. The interested
public would benefit to the extent that better monitoring could lead to better RH/S management.

7.4 Alternative Set 4 - Port-side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements are insufficient to precisely estimate
RH/S catch.
Background:
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates.
From a practical standpoint, it is more efficient to subsample the landings of river herring and
other non-target species when a herring/mackerel MWT vessel reaches the dock than when it is
at sea. Discards that occur at sea of non-target species are easier to monitor than are the landed
fractions that go into the hold due to the large volumes involved. Dockside sampling could have
higher sampling rates to better characterize the species retained and an entire catch could be
evaluated in one day or less as opposed to having a person at sea for multiple days. This option
does not mean that at sea monitors are unnecessary – they are necessary to monitor discards.
However, since most RH/S are retained (esp. for mackerel trips), portside sampling could
increase sampling coverage with lower costs than at-sea observers.
The observer program has indicated that they would provide staff (1 person half to full time
depending on level of sampling) to manage the selection of vessels and organization of data for
port-side sampling.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in this Alternative Set could be
implemented singly or in combination with any other alternative(s) in this Alternative Set.
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.

4a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 4 would be implemented and
the existing monitoring measures (as described in section 5.4) would remain in place. Thus there
would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative impacts
compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Portside
monitoring of landings is designed to better estimate low concentrations of incidentally landed
catch such as RH/S, and there is no indication that there are major monitoring issues with
landings of any of the managed resources.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives in
Alternative Set 4 would improve landings monitoring through portside sampling, and RH/S are
sometimes mixed into directed species’ landings, there would be foregone benefits to non-target
species including RH/S if the no-action alternative is chosen because less information on the
landings of those species would be available for future management decisions.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Portside
monitoring of landings is not expected to impact habitat.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Portside
monitoring of landings is not expected to impact protected resources.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery
participants of paying for the additional monitoring requirements would be avoided, which is a
positive impact.
On the other hand, to the extent that these alternatives lead to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the

managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing the no-action alternative in comparison to the
other alternatives might result in foregone benefits.
These could include lost commercial revenues, lost recreational opportunities, lost cultural
values for RH/S, and/or other lost non-market existence values (i.e. value related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully) resulting from diminished stocks
compared to optimally productive stocks. Due to the uncertainty about how the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries are impacting either the managed species or RH/S, these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct
impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets
that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

4b. Require industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling program (including
total weight documentation) for mackerel landings over 20,000 pounds. Required coverage
levels would be specified annually during specifications. NEFSC would accredit samplers
and manage the program/data. Vessels would contract directly with providers and pay
providers directly. If selected, vessels would have to wait until their sampler arrived unless
a waiver is obtained from the observer program.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Portside
monitoring of landings is designed to better estimate low concentrations of incidentally landed
catch such as RH/S, and there is no indication that there are major monitoring issues with
landings of any of the managed resources.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Positive impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
better incidental landings data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be
positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. While
requiring industry to pay for portside monitoring may discourage effort, mackerel fishing
primarily takes place with mid-water gear that should not substantially impact habitat.

4.

Protected Resources

Potentially positive impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Requiring
industry to pay for portside monitoring may discourage overall effort, leading to less protected
resource interactions.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative
appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand there are negative impacts related to costs of paying for monitoring. Dockside
monitors for groundfish cost $50-$70/hr. Different sized vessels would have different costs for
offload monitoring due to different hold sizes and processor offload speeds, but a 6-14 hour
offload from a 3-5 day trip would costs $300-$980 for dockside monitoring. Discussions with
MSB Advisory Panel members suggested that 6-14 hours would be typical offload time for high
volume trips but trips around the thresholds of 20,000 pounds of mackerel or 2,500 pounds of
longfin squid would take much shorter and cost less to monitor.
This cost is low compared to at-sea sampling costs of $800/day (plus $400 in administrative
costs) or $3,600-$6,000 for observer costs for a 3-5 day trip. If the Council required 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% of trips to be monitored then participants could have to pay for approximately that
percentage of their trips to be monitored unless additional funds are available. Some dockside
monitoring is already being funded though academic grants but it is not certain that such funding
is permanent.
Revenue information for different mackerel vessels/trips is available related to Alternative Set 5
(see Section 7.5) to compare against these costs. Unless vessels have to wait for a portside
monitor, it is expected that sampling could occur while offloading is occurring and as such
would not substantially change offload times.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative in comparison to the no-action
alternative might result in positive benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

4c. Require industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling program (including total
weight documentation) for longfin squid landings over 2,500 pounds. Required coverage
levels would be specified annually during specifications. NEFSC would accredit samplers
and manage the program/data. Vessels would contract directly with providers and pay
provider directly. If selected, vessels would have to wait until their sampler arrived unless
a waiver is obtained from the observer program.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Portside
monitoring of landings is designed to better estimate low concentrations of incidentally landed
catch such as RH/S, and there is no indication that there are major monitoring issues with
landings of any of the managed resources.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since on
longfin squid trips much non-target catch and most RH/S caught on longfin squid trips are
discarded rather than retained (see table 22), portside sampling is probably would not be an
effective way to obtain RH/S catch information.
Also, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion of
small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring industry to pay for portside monitoring may discourage effort, leading to less habitat
impacts from bottom trawling.

4.

Protected Resources

Potentially positive impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Requiring
industry to pay for portside monitoring may discourage overall effort, leading to less protected
resource interactions.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative
appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
On one hand there are negative impacts related to costs of paying for monitoring. Dockside
monitors for groundfish cost $50-$70/hr. Different sized vessels would have different costs for
offload monitoring due to different hold sizes and processor offload speeds, but a 6-14 hour
offload from a 3-5 day trip would costs $300-$980 for dockside monitoring. Discussions with
MSB Advisory Panel members suggested that 6-14 hours would be typical offload time for high
volume trips but trips around the thresholds of 20,000 pounds of mackerel or 2,500 pounds of
longfin squid would take much shorter and cost less to monitor.
This cost is low compared to at-sea sampling costs of $800/day (plus $400 in administrative
costs) or $3,600-$6,000 for observer costs for a 3-5 day trip. If the Council required 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% of trips to be monitored then participants would have to pay for approximately
that percentage of their trips to be monitored unless additional funds are available. Some
dockside monitoring is already being funded though academic grants but it is not certain that
such funding is permanent.
Revenue information for different mackerel vessels/trips is available related to Alternative Set 5
(see section 7.5) to compare against these costs. Unless vessels have to wait for a sampler, it is
expected that sampling could occur while offloading is occurring and as such would not
substantially change offload times.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative in comparison to the no-action
alternative might result in positive benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

4d. Require volumetric vessel-hold certification for Tier 3 limited access mackerel permits
and specify a volume to weight conversion.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Tier 3
mackerel permits are not expected to catch a major portion of the mackerel quota and there are
no major problems reported with monitoring of the managed species for these vessels.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Potentially low positive impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
alternative could facilitate rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for portside
sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
To the degree that better non-target catch data is used to better minimize non-target interactions,
there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Impacts are low because
Tier 3 vessels are expected to catch only a small portion of the mackerel quota.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring hold certifications would not be expected to change effort and mackerel fishing
primarily takes place with mid-water gear that should not substantially impact habitat.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring hold certifications would not be expected to change effort.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative
appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
Potentially negative impacts would be expected for the vessels expected to qualify for a Tier 3
mackerel permit (around 300). Informal contacts by council staff with several marine surveyors
revealed that a fish hold measurements could run approximately $13.30-$40 per foot of vessel
length, which could range from as low as $1,000 for a 75 foot vessel to as high as $6,000 for a
150 foot vessel, not including travel expenses. To the extent that surveys are already required for
insurance purposes these costs may be already part of a vessels operating costs. Costs may be
higher if a marine architect or naval engineer is used. Industry members have communicated to
Council staff that, while some smaller vessels are configured in a way that could facilitate hold
certifications (the refrigerated seawater or “tank” boats), many vessels that participate in a
“fresh” product fishery are not configured in a way that facilitates a certification of a fixed hold
capacity.

On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative in comparison to the no-action
alternative might result in positive benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

4e. Require volumetric vessel-hold certification for longfin squid moratorium permits and
specify a volume to weight conversion.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. It is not
believed that major problems exist with current monitoring of the managed species’ landings.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Potentially positive impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. This
alternative could facilitate rapid catch weight estimates based on vessel volume for portside
sampling, observer data hail weight estimates, and vessels’ VTR kept-weight estimates.
To the degree that better non-target catch data is used to better minimize non-target interactions,
there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring hold certifications would not be expected to change effort and mackerel fishing
primarily takes place with mid-water gear that should not substantially impact habitat.

4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Requiring hold certifications would not be expected to change effort.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts for human communities of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative
appear mixed with uncertain net impacts.
Potentially negative impacts would be expected for the vessels with longfin squid moratorium
permits (around 380, though some of these may have to get hold certifications related to
mackerel regulations currently being implemented). Informal contacts by council staff with
several marine surveyors revealed that a fish hold measurements could run approximately
$13.30-$40 per foot of vessel length, which could range from as low as $1,000 for a 75 foot
vessel to as high as $6,000 for a 150 foot vessel, not including travel expenses. Costs may be
higher if a marine architect or naval engineer is used. To the extent that surveys are already
required for insurance purposes these costs may be already part of a vessels operating costs.
Industry members have communicated to Council staff that, while some longfin squid vessels are
configured in a way that could facilitate hold certifications (the refrigerated seawater or “tank”
boats), many vessels that participate in a “fresh” product fishery are not configured in a way that
facilitates a meaningful certification of a fixed hold capacity.
On the other hand, to the extent that this alternative leads to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of the
managed resources and/or RH/S, then choosing this alternative in comparison to the no-action
alternative might result in positive benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational
opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence
values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being
conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the
managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable.
Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

4f. Within 6 months of the completion of the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition RH/S
avoidance project (expected late 2013), the Council will meet to formally review the results
and consider the appropriateness of developing a framework adjustment to implement any
additional catch avoidance strategies that are suggested by the results of the Sustainable
Fisheries Coalition avoidance project. (PREFERRED)
This would commit the Council to consider the findings from this project as they could apply to
reducing the catch of RH/S in pelagic fisheries. Full details on this project are included in
Appendix 7, but generally the project is testing if oceanographic and fishery data can be used to
help industry avoid potential RH/S hotspots. Implementing measures similar to this project (i.e.
making participation mandatory) would be a frameworkable action. No immediate impacts
would be expected for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently
analyzed and considered separately.

Alternative Set 4 Summary - Port-side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

All of the action alternatives are expected to have negligible impacts for managed species since it
is believed that their landings are already generally well monitored.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Monitoring landings from mackerel trips (4b) would be expected to have the most benefit
especially for RH/S since RH/S appear to often be retained by the mackerel fishery. Benefits are
not as high with longfin squid trips (4c) since they discard more of their non-target catch. Hold
certifications may help with some aspects of monitoring but may not be feasible for freshproduct boats that often reconfigure their holds.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

None of the action alternatives are expected to directly impact habitat but if vessels had to pay
for their monitoring that could reduce effort which would generally lower habitat impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

None of the action alternatives are expected to directly impact protected resources but if vessels
had to pay for their monitoring that could reduce effort which would generally lower protected
resource interactions.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered.
Commercial participants could incur moderate to higher additional costs if they have to pay for
dockside monitoring (but this is much less expensive than at-sea coverage). Hold certifications
would involve low to moderate costs and would generally be a one-time or infrequent cost. The
interested public would benefit to a modest degree primarily to the extent that better monitoring
could lead to better RH/S management.

7.5 Alternative Set 5 – At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements is insufficient to precisely estimate
RH/S catch.
Background:
The measures in this Alternative Set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
catch estimates. The focus of these alternatives is on increasing the observer coverage rates of
mackerel and longfin squid trips.
The average trip cost values cited in this analysis include variable costs such as fuel, oil, ice,
food, fishing supplies, vessel/gear damages, and water but does not include crew shares/wages,
dockage fees, or boat mortgage payments. Trip costs were estimated based on 2010 observer
data. Observers ask for information on these costs and vessels were binned by gear, vessel size,
and day versus multi-day vessels.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: Only one of the 5b (observer coverage for mackerel mid-water
trawl) alternatives could be chosen. Likewise, only one of the 5c (observer coverage for
mackerel small mesh bottom trawl) and one of the 5d (observer coverage for longfin squid small
mesh bottom trawl) alternatives could be chosen. One alternative from each of these could be
selected (a total of three). 5e1 and 5e2 (strata-fleet alternatives for mid-water trawl) are mutually
exclusive as are 5e3 and 5e4 (strata-fleet alternatives for small mesh bottom trawl) but one
alternative from the first pair could be chosen with one from the second pair. If any of the 5e
alternatives were chosen, they would not be combinable with any of the 5b, 5c, or 5d alternatives
(coverage could be based on a set percentage of trips or a set target coefficients of variation
(C.V.s) but not both). 5f, 5g, and 5h provide for industry funding and review of the increased
observer coverage levels proposed in 5b-5e so they could be added on to any of the other action
alternatives.
If any measure in this Alternative Set is selected for mackerel, the Council would also need to
select Alternative 1d48 (48-hr pre-trip notification) or 1d72 (72-hr pre-trip notification). There
is already a pre-trip notification requirement in effect for longfin squid moratorium permit
holders.
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.

5a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 5 would be implemented and
the existing observer coverage procedures (as described in section 5.5) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since the alternatives
in Alternative Set 5 would improve monitoring of discards of the managed resources there would
be some foregone benefits if the no-action alternative is chosen. Since discarding of butterfish in
the longfin squid fishery is the only major concern about discarding of the managed species, the
forgone benefits would be primarily limited to butterfish and the longfin squid fishery.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since the alternatives
in Alternative Set 5 would improve at-sea catch monitoring, and RH/S are sometimes mixed into
directed species’ catch, there would be foregone benefits to non-target species including RH/S if
the no-action alternative is chosen because less information on the catch of those species would
be available for future management decisions.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the action alternatives. At-sea
monitoring of catch is not expected to impact habitat.

4.

Protected Resources

A negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since alternatives in
Alternative Set 5 would improve at-sea catch monitoring, and protected resources are sometimes
encountered in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, there would be foregone benefits to
protected resources including RH/S if the no-action alternative is chosen because less
information on the catch of those species would be available for future management decisions.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery
participants of paying for the additional monitoring requirements would be avoided, which is a
positive impact.

On the other hand, to the extent that these alternatives lead to better data, and to the extent that
better data leads to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of
RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing the no-action alternative in comparison to the
other alternatives might result in foregone benefits.
These could include lost commercial revenues, lost recreational opportunities, lost cultural
values for RH/S, and/or other lost non-market existence values (i.e. value related to the
knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully) resulting from diminished stocks
compared to optimally productive stocks. Due to the uncertainty about how the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries are impacting either the managed species or RH/S, these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since the alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct
impacts are probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets
that deal with management measures that may utilize better data.

5b. Mackerel MWT
Coverage of this fleet has historically primarily occurred because of the winter mixing of the
herring and mackerel fisheries as opposed to focusing on the mackerel fishery. The subalternatives below would require a range of percentage-based coverage levels to improve
coverage from the very low levels currently occurring and improve catch estimation.
5b1. Require 25% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5b2. Require 50% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5b3. Require 75% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5b4. Recommend 100% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel. (PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Since alternatives in Alternative Set 5 would somewhat improve monitoring of discards of the
managed resources there could be some benefits but given there are no major reported issues
with discarding of the managed species in the mackerel fishery, impacts would be expected to be
low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. All of the proposed
coverage rates are higher than current coverage rates (about 6.5 percent of mackerel catch was
observed 2006-2010) and to the degree that additional data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since
mackerel fishing only accounts for a portion of MWT activity, it is not possible to exactly
specify how MWT catch estimate precision would change for these alternatives (which are
specific to mackerel not all MWT) but it would improve. See section 5.5 for additional details
on how RH estimate precision levels change based on coverage levels in the MWT fisheries.
Also, at a constant trip coverage level as proposed in this alternative, incremental improvements
to C.V.s would fluctuate from year to year (potentially substantially) due to changes in catch
characteristics and effort rates. However since this alternative would implement higher coverage
rates than are used currently, precision of non-target species catch estimates would be improved
compared to the no-action alternative.
Based on the C.V. analysis in section 5.5 (which is for all MWT fishing), there are diminishing
returns (better precision) for additional observer coverage. Thus gains (better precision) per
dollar spent are greatest for going to 25% observer coverage and least going from 75% to 100%.
However, as shown in figures 10-13 in Section 5.5, there are continued gains in precision (C.V.s
get lower) throughout the range of trip coverages so there are still substantial gains in precision
from moving from 75% to 100% even though it is a smaller gain compared to 25% to 50% or
50% to 75%. Thus moving to 25% or 50% or 75% from the status quo results in substantial
precision improvements but the marginal benefit of going to 100% is less. These continued
gains are related to the patchy nature of RH catch and the relatively small overall number of
MWT trips. It is important to remember that the C.V. gains described in 5.5 would only be
achieved if all MWT trips were subject to these coverage requirements and the gains in a given
year from one coverage level to another vary by year due to the different RH catch rates from
one year to another (compare figures 10 and 11 for example). Figures 10-13 also suggest that
around a 65% coverage level may be necessary to achieve a C.V. of 0.3 for MWT for RH.

Precision gains to overall RH/S catch estimates in MWT fisheries may be limited if only the
mackerel fishery is required to have higher observer coverage levels.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if vessels
do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In this case
overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then effort
could be discouraged but impacts would still be neutral or negligible because most mackerel are
caught with mid-water gear that generally does not contact the bottom.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible direct impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if
vessels do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In
this case overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then
overall effort could be discouraged which could lead to positive impacts compared to the noaction alternative. Higher coverage would generate better data on protected resource
interactions.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative appear mixed with
uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery participants of paying for the additional
monitoring requirements would be a negative impact. The cost to vessels of at-sea observers
would be $325 per day at sea. Since different vessels have different average trip lengths and trip
length varies by trip it is not possible to describe the impact on any given vessel. However, the
following table allows comparisons of an $325/day observer cost with 2010 trip revenue (from
dealer data) and cost information (from observer data) from observed mackerel trips defined as
50% mackerel or over 100,000 pounds mackerel regardless of percentage. This trip definition
accounts for nearly all mackerel landings in a given year. These trips are generally large volume
trips. Smaller trips, with lower daily revenues, would likely be more impacted by observer costs.
2010 MWT observer information from these trips was binned into three categories based on
vessel performance from 2006-2010: a) single MWT that had at least 3 million pounds of
mackerel in any one year 2006-2010; b) paired MWT that had at least 3 million pounds of
mackerel in any one year 2006-2010; and c) paired MWT that had less than 3 million pounds of
mackerel in any one year 2006-2010 but more than 500,000 pounds of mackerel in one year. All
pair trawl data was combined which is why the costs are the same for higher and lower volume
pair trawl vessels. While it appears strange that the lower-volume paired MWT had higher
revenues than the higher volume paired MWT, this is just a chance outcome related to the
groupings of vessels coming from VTR data 2006-2010 and the distribution of 2010 observer
coverage of those same vessels in 2010. All together these vessels account for most mackerel
landings.

Table 65. Mackerel Mid-Water Trawl Costs and Revenues

Mid-Water Trawl (MWT)
(more than 3 mil pounds/
year)
Average Days
Avg Revneue/Day
Ave Cost/Day

2
8,059
3,494

Paired MWT (more
than 3 mil
Paired MWT (less than 3
pounds/year)
mil pounds/year)
4
14,486
2,602

2
16,075
2,602

Based on this data, adding $325/day would increase trip costs by 9% for single MWT, and 12%
for paired MWT trips.
Depending on which alternative one is considering, the observer costs would apply to 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% of vessels trips. While over time one would expect roughly even distribution
among vessels if a coverage level of less than 100% is selected, within a year some vessels may
be randomly selected more often than others and bear a disproportionate share of the increased
observer costs. Also, among these vessels both costs and revenue vary so some vessels may be
disproportionately affected compared to other vessels.
The approximate cost for an observer is $800/day. In addition to these at-sea costs, NMFS has
estimated that it incurs approximately $400/day in administrative costs related to each additional
day at sea.
While the per trip costs are most relevant to vessels, total costs can also be considered. Since
coverage in this alternative would be related to 20,000 pound mackerel trips, 2006-2010 VTR
data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on midwater trawl
trips that kept 20,000 pounds or more of mackerel. These trips averaged 643 sea days each year
ranging from 272 in 2010 to 926 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average seadays
(643) were observed it would require 161, 322, 482, and 643 days respectivly. Multiplying these
days by $325/day results in at-sea costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage of the average
seadays of approximatley $0.05 million, $0.10 million, $0.16 million, and $0.21 million per year
respectivly. Multiplying these days by $400/day results in administrative costs for 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of approximatley $0.06 million, $0.13 million,
$0.19 million, and $0.26 million per year respectivly.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better data, and to the extent that better data leads to better
management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target
species, then choosing this action alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative might
result in additional benefits related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e.
value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved
successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the managed species
or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the
alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small
but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with management
measures that may utilize better data.

5c. Mackerel SMBT
A very small percentage of mackerel trips are observed overall. The sub-alternatives below
would require a range of percentage-based coverage levels to improve coverage from the very
low levels currently occurring and improve catch estimation. Analysis in the document relates
these coverage levels to potential ranges of uncertainty that would result from such coverage
levels.

5c1. Require 25% of SMBT (3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5c2. Require 50% of SMBT (3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5c3. Require 75% of SMBT (3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to
retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain
more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.

5c4. Recommend the following observer coverages percentages for mackerel limited
access vessels intending to fish for or retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel when
using small mesh (<3.5 inches) bottom trawl gear: Tier 1: 100%; Tier 2: 50%; Tier
3: 25%. The NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels
would not be able to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had
notified their intent to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel.
(PREFERRED)

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative.
Since alternatives in Alternative Set 5 would somewhat improve monitoring of discards of the
managed resources there could be some benefits but given there are no major reported issues
with discarding of the managed species in the mackerel fishery, impacts would be expected to be
low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. All of the proposed
coverage rates are higher than current coverage rates (about 6.5 percent of mackerel catch was
observed 2006-2010) and to the degree that additional data is used to better minimize non-target
interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since
mackerel fishing only accounts for a small portion of SMBT activity, it is not possible to exactly
specify how SMBT catch estimate precision would change for these alternatives. Precision
would improve but likely only by a small degree since mackerel trips only account for a small
portion of all SMBT activity. See section 5.5 for additional details on how RH estimate
precision levels change based on coverage levels in the SMBT fisheries. Also, at a constant trip
coverage level as proposed in this alternative, incremental improvements to C.V.s would
fluctuate from year to year (potentially substantially) due to changes in catch characteristics and
effort rates. However since this alternative would implement higher coverage rates than are used
currently, precision of non-target species catch estimates would be improved compared to the noaction alternative.
Based on the C.V. analysis in section 5.5 (which is for all SMBT fishing), there are diminishing
returns (better precision) for additional observer coverage. Thus gains (better precision) per
dollar spent are greatest for going to 25% observer coverage and least going from 75% to 100%.
As shown in figures 14-17 in Section 5.5, there are continued gains in precision (C.V.s get
lower) throughout the range of trip coverages so there are still some gains in precision from
moving from 75% to 100%. The gains from 50% to 75% are minimal in some years while
substantial in others while the gains going from 75% to 100% are generally quite small. Thus
moving to 25% or 50% from the status quo results in substantial precision improvements but the
marginal benefit of going to 75% or 100% is much less. It is important to remember that the
C.V. gains described in 5.5 would only be achieved if all SMBT trips were subject to these
coverage requirements and the gains in a given year from one coverage level to another vary by
year due to the different RH catch rates from one year to another (compare figures 16 and 17 for
example). Figures 14-17 also suggest that around a 40% coverage level may be necessary to
achieve a C.V. of 0.3 for SMBT for river herring. Precision gains to overall RH/S catch
estimates in SMBT fisheries may be limited if only the mackerel fishery is required to have
higher observer coverage levels.
Since as discussed in Amendment 11, 90% or more of mackerel landings typically are made by
Tier 1 vessels, the preferred alternative combined with 5b4 (100% observer coverage for all midwater trawl fishing of mackerel) would likely result in about 90% or more of total mackerel catch
being observed. Having some moderate coverage on the other vessels could be important
because otherwise there could be an incentive to focus on using non Tier-1 vessels to avoid
observer coverage requirements.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if vessels
do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In this case
overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then effort
could be discouraged but impacts would still be neutral or negligible because most mackerel are
caught with mid-water gear that generally does not contact the bottom.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible direct impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if
vessels do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In
this case overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then
overall effort could be discouraged which could lead to positive impacts compared to the noaction alternative. Higher coverage would generate better data on protected resource
interactions.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative appear mixed with
uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery participants of paying for the additional
monitoring requirements would be a negative impact. The cost to vessels of at-sea observers
would be $325 per day at sea. Since different vessels have different average trip lengths and trip
length varies by trip it is not possible to describe the impact on any given vessel. However, the
following table allows comparisons of an $325/day observer cost with 2010 trip revenue (from
dealer data) and cost information (from observer data) from mackerel trips (50% mackerel or
over 100,000 pounds mackerel regardless of percentage) by bottom trawlers based on 2010
observer data. These trips are generally large volume trips and smaller trips, with lower
revenues, would be more impacted by observer costs. The vessels that were examined were
those that either had at least one year 2006-2010 with 3 million pounds of mackerel or those with
at least 500,000 pounds in any one year.
Table 66. Mackerel SMBT Costs and Revenues

Bottom Trawl (more than 3
million pounds per year)
Average Days
Avg Revneue/Day
Ave Cost/Day

8
12,945
1,639

Based on this data, adding $325/day would increase trip costs by 20% for bottom trawlers.
Depending on which alternative one is considering, the observer costs would apply to 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% of vessels trips. While over time one would expect roughly even distribution
among vessels (if 100% coverage is not selected), within a year some vessels may be randomly

selected more often than others and bear a disproportionate share of the increased observer costs.
Also, among these vessels both costs and revenue vary so some vessels may be
disproportionately affected compared to other vessels.
The approximate cost for an observer is $800/day. In addition to these at-sea costs, NMFS has
estimated that it incurs approximately $400/day in administrative costs related to each additional
day at sea.
While the per trip costs are most relevant to vessels, total costs can also be considered. Since
coverage in this alternative would be related to 20,000 pound mackerel trips, 2006-2010 VTR
data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on SMBT trips that
kept 20,000 pounds or more of mackerel. These trips averaged 172 sea days each year ranging
from 113 in 2009 to 286 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average seadays (172) were
observed it would require 43, 86, 129, and 172 days respectivly. Multiplying these days by
$325/day results in at-sea costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of
approximatley $0.01 million ($14,000), $0.03 million, $0.04 million, and $0.06 million per year
respectivly. Multiplying these days by $400/day results in administrative costs for 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of approximatley $0.02 million, $0.03 million,
$0.05 million, and $0.07 million per year respectivly.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better data, and to the extent that better data leads to better
management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target
species, then choosing this action alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative might
result in additional benefits related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e.
value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved
successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the managed species
or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the
alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small
but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with management
measures that may utilize better data.

5d. Longfin Squid SMBT
While coverage has increased in 2011 related to the implementation of the butterfish mortality
cap on the longfin squid fishery, a small percentage of longfin squid trips have been observed
historically. The sub-alternatives below would require a range of percentage-based coverage
levels to improve coverage from the very low levels currently occurring and improve catch
estimation. Analysis in the document relates these coverage levels to potential ranges of
uncertainty that would result from such coverage levels.

5d1. Require 25% of SMBT (3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d2. Require 50% of SMBT (3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d3. Require 75% of SMBT (3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

5d4. Require 100% of SMBT (3.5 in) longfin squid trips by federal vessels intending
to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would
assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain
more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to
retain more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since alternatives in
Alternative Set 5 would improve monitoring of discards in the longfin squid fishery, and
butterfish are a major discard concern in the longfin squid fishery, there would likely be benefits
for butterfish related to increased observer coverage and related improvements in information
regarding butterfish discarding.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. All of the proposed
coverage rates are higher than current coverage rates (about 3.5 percent of longfin squid catch
was observed 2006-2010) and to the degree that additional data is used to better minimize nontarget interactions, there could be positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. Since
longfin squid fishing only accounts for a portion (though substantial) of SMBT activity, it is not
possible to exactly specify how SMBT catch estimate precision would change for these
alternatives but it would improve. See section 5.5 for additional details on how RH estimate
precision levels change based on coverage levels in the SMBT fisheries. Also, at a constant trip
coverage level as proposed in this alternative, incremental improvements to C.V.s would
fluctuate from year to year (potentially substantially) due to changes in catch characteristics and
effort rates. However since this alternative would implement higher coverage rates than are used
currently, precision of non-target species catch estimates would be improved compared to the noaction alternative.
Based on the C.V. analysis in section 5.5 (which is for all SMBT fishing), there are diminishing
returns (better precision) for additional observer coverage. Thus gains (better precision) per
dollar spent are greatest for going to 25% observer coverage and least going from 75% to 100%.
As shown in figures 14-17 in Section 5.5, there are continued gains in precision (C.V.s get
lower) throughout the range of trip coverages so there are still some gains in precision from
moving from 75% to 100%. The gains from 50% to 75% are minimal in some years while
substantial in others while the gains going from 75% to 100% are generally quite small. Thus
moving to 25% or 50% from the status quo results in substantial precision improvements but the
marginal benefit of going to 75% or 100% is much less. It is important to remember that the
C.V. gains described in 5.5 would only be achieved if all SMBT trips were subject to these
coverage requirements and the gains in a given year from one coverage level to another vary by
year due to the different RH catch rates from one year to another (compare figures 16 and 17 for
example). Figures 14-17 also suggest that around a 40% coverage level may be necessary to
achieve a C.V. of 0.3 for SMBT for river herring.
Targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion of small
mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with herring
accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not extrapolated
catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a relative basis the
information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be accounting for that much
RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis conducted annually for the
specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section 6.3). Precision gains to
overall RH/S catch estimates in SMBT fisheries may be limited if only the longfin squid fishery
is required to have higher observer coverage levels.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if vessels
do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In this case
overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then a
potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative because
having to pay for observers could discourage effort.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible direct impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if
vessels do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In
this case overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then
overall effort could be discouraged which could lead to positive impacts compared to the noaction alternative. Higher coverage would generate better data on protected resource
interactions.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5.

Human Communities

The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative appear mixed with
uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery participants of paying for the additional
monitoring requirements would be a negative impact. The cost to vessels of at-sea observers
would be $325 per day at sea. Since different vessels have different average trip lengths and trip
length varies by trip it is not possible to describe the impact on any given vessel. However, the
following table allows comparisons of an $325/day observer cost with 2010 trip revenue (from
dealer data) and cost information (from observer data) from 2010 observer data of longfin squid
trips by vessels that had at least 100,000 pounds of longfin squid landings in at least one year
from 2007-2010 (87% of total 2007-2010 landings) or those that had at least 20,000 pounds of
longfin squid landings in at least one year 2007-2010 (9% of total landings). Since trips with
50% longfin squid also account for over 90% of longfin squid landings, these criteria was also
used to identify the primary squid vessels’ squid trips. Almost all of the longfin squid landings
are associated with bottom trawl gear. 2007 was selected as a start year because in that year the
fishery switched from quarterly quotas to trimester quotas.

Table 67. Longfin squid Trawl Costs and Revenues

Primary Vessels

100,000 + in one
year 2007 - 2010
Bottom Trawl

Average Days
Avg Revenue/Day
Avg cost/Day

Secondary Vessels

2
5,249
939

20,000 + in one
year 2007-2010
Bottom Trawl

Average Days
Avg Revenue/Day
Avg cost/Day

1
1,700
424

Based on this data, adding $325/day would increase trip costs by 35% for the primary bottom
trawlers (about 98 vessels). For the secondary vessels however, adding $325/day would increase
their costs by 77%.
Depending on which alternative one is considering, the observer costs would apply to 25%, 50%,
75%, or 100% of vessels trips. While over time one would expect roughly even distribution
among vessels (assuming 100% coverage is not attained), within a year some vessels may be
randomly selected more often than others and bear a disproportionate share of the increased

observer costs. Also, among these vessels both costs and revenue vary so some vessels may be
disproportionately affected compared to other vessels.
The approximate cost for an observer is $800/day. In addition to at-sea costs, NMFS has
estimated that it incurs approximately $400/day in administrative costs related to each additional
day at sea.
While the per trip costs are most relevant to vessels, total costs can also be considered. Since
coverage in this alternative would be related to 2,500 pound longfin squid trips, 2006-2010 VTR
data was analyzed to determine the approximate number of seadays fished on SMBT trips that
kept 2,500 pounds of more of longfin squid. These trips averaged 5,357 sea days each year
ranging from 3,932 in 2010 to 6,743 in 2006. If 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the average
seadays (5,357) were observed it would require 1339, 2678, 4017, and 5,357 sea days
respectivly. Multiplying these days by $325/day results in at-sea costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or
100% coverage of the average seadays of approximatley $0.4 million, $0.9 million, $1.3 million,
and $1.7 million per year respectivly. Multiplying these days by $400/day results in
administrative costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage of the average seadays of
approximatley $0.5 million, $1.1 million, $1.6 million, and $2.1 million per year respectivly.
However, there may be returns to scale in the sense that at higher coverage levels NMFS
marginal costs may become less than $400/day.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better data, and to the extent that better data leads to better
management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target
species, then choosing this action alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative might
result in additional benefits related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e.
value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved
successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the managed species
or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the
alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small
but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with management
measures that may utilize better data.

5e. Strata-Fleet-Based Alternatives
On a fleet level, catch estimates of river herrings are often imprecise. The following subalternatives would require coverage levels that would be expected to result in the specified C.V.
levels for river herrings. Shad were not included because very high coverage levels would be
required to achieve the respective C.V.s due to even less frequent encounters with shads.
5e1. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that Mid-Atlantic alewife and
blueback catch C.V.s for MWT would each be expected to be at or below 0.30.
5e2. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that Mid-Atlantic alewife and
blueback catch C.V.s for MWT would each be expected to be at or below 0.20.
5e3. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that alewife and blueback catch C.V.s
for SMBT would each be expected to be at or below 0.30.
5e4. Require NMFS to allocate sea days such that alewife and blueback catch C.V.s
for SMBT would each be expected to be at or below 0.20.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative for
the MWT C.V. targets related to improved monitoring of discards of the managed resources, but
given there are no major reported issues with discarding of the managed species by MWT gear,
impacts would be expected to be low. A positive impact would be expected compared to the noaction alternative for the SMBT C.V. targets related to improved monitoring of butterfish
discards since butterfish discards are a major concern in SMBT gear, especially when that gear is
used to target longfin squid.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the degree that
better (more precise) data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be
positive impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. A C.V. of 0.30 means that the true value
has approximately a 95% probability of being within ± 60% of the estimate. A C.V. of 0.20
means that the true value has approximately a 95% probability of being within ± 40% of the
estimate (both assuming a normal distribution of data). Also, since some sources of uncertainty
are not integrated into the C.V. calculations, the C.V.s generated by the science center are lower
(look better) than they really are. As described above, since obtaining a given C.V. can require
very different coverage levels from year to year, and the inter-annual variability in the data
drives the precision, it may be quite difficult to consistently obtain precise catch estimates via
observer data when the coverage levels are determined from prior years’ data. Since 5b, 5c, and
5d require coverage based on directed trip definitions and not all activity in MWT and SMBT
fishing is associated with the MSB trip definitions considered in 5b, 5c, and 5d, the two

alternatives are not directly comparable. One could require coverage levels in 5b, 5c, and 5d but
still be very unsure of what the gear-based C.V. will be because of other fisheries that use the
same gear (e.g. Atl herring for MWT and whiting for SMBT). However, this alternative (5e)
may be thought of as more comprehensive since it encompasses all fishing activity to achieve a
C.V. for a particular gear type. This raises implementation problems though, which are
described below in the human community section.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Neutral or negligible impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if vessels
do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In this case
overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then a
potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative because
having to pay for observers could discourage effort. These impacts would be focused on SMBT
effort since MWT gear does not generally contact the bottom.
4.

Protected Resources

Neutral or negligible direct impacts would be expected compared to the no-action alternative if
vessels do not have to pay for observer coverage (which is considered in other alternatives). In
this case overall effort should not be impacted. If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then
overall effort could be discouraged which could lead to positive impacts compared to the noaction alternative. Higher coverage would generate better data on protected resource
interactions.
5.

Human Communities

The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative appear mixed with
uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery participants of paying for the additional
monitoring requirements would be a negative impact. NMFS has stated that to be approved any
increased observer coverage must be funded by industry. Table 11, reproduced from Section 5.5,
details the sea days required for C.V. targets under consideration.
Table 67b. Sea days associated with Alt. 5e C.V. targets.
Required Sea Days (2009)
Required Sea Days (2010)
Approx Days Provided in 2010

Mid-Atlantic MWT Mid-Atlantic MWT
(CV = 0.3)
(CV = 0.2)
SMBT (CV = 0.3)
SMBT (CV = 0.2)
541
751
3610
4889
308
409
2542
3982
65
1132

As with the figures above for the fishery-trip-based coverage levels, the number can fluctuate
from year so one can never really guarantee a given C.V. will be reached. It may be quite
difficult to consistently obtain precise catch estimates via observer data when the coverage levels
are determined from prior years’ data for species that are not encountered that often in consistent
quantities. However, the numbers in the table above suggest that around 65% coverage could

result in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 90% coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V. goal for Mid-Atlantic
MWT and that for small mesh bottom trawl, around 40% coverage could result in a 0.3 C.V. goal
and about 60% coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V. goal. This was determined by averaging the
required sea days from 2009-2010, and then comparing those averages with total average days at
sea for relevant trips from VTR data, 2009-2010. However it is emphasized that from year to
year it will be very hard to hit a particular C.V. target due to the inherent variability from year to
year in both the directed fisheries involved and their catch of river herrings. Since one cannot
predict which years will require the highest coverage, some years would likely be over covered
and some years would be under covered if coverage rates are determined by the previous year’s
data.
Compared to the approximate sea days provided in 2010, achieving a 0.3 C.V. for both blueback
herring and alewife in the Mid-Atlantic for MWT would require 232-476 extra sea days (costing
about $0.2-$0.4 million) and achieving a 0.2 C.V. for both blueback herring and alewife in the
Mid-Atlantic for MWT would require 686-344 extra sea days (costing about $0.3-$0.5 million),
with at sea costs being $800/day. Administrative costs to NMFS would equal an additional 50%
of the at-sea costs ($400/day). The range is related to the fact that C.V.s vary from year to year
related to variation in the underlying data.
Compared to the approximate sea days provided in 2010, achieving a 0.3 C.V. for both blueback
herring and alewife in the SMBT (Mid-Atlantic and New England) would require 1,410-2,478
extra sea days (costing about $1.1-$2.0 million) and achieving a 0.2 C.V. for both blueback
herring and alewife in the Mid-Atlantic for MWT would require 2,850-3,757 extra sea days
(costing about $2.3-$3.0 million), with at sea costs being $800/day. Administrative costs to
NMFS would equal an additional 50% of the at-sea costs ($400/day). The range is related to the
fact that C.V.s vary from year to year related to variation in the underlying data.
A key issue with implementation of this alternative is that while the alternative is based on gear
types which is how discard and catch estimates based on observer coverage are binned to get
total estimates, the MAFMC can really only compel the fisheries it manages to carry and pay for
observers. Since NMFS has indicated that it will only approve additional observer coverage on
fisheries if it is funded by industry, and the MAFMC cannot compel fisheries out of its control to
carry and pay for observers, there is a procedural tension inherent in this alternative.
What could occur if this alternative is selected, is that NMFS would use its observer allocation
procedures to allocate the approximate level of coverage in the MSB fisheries (mackerel and
longfin squid) that would be needed as part of achieving the overall C.V. targets. So if this
alternative was recommended, New England fisheries that use the relevant gear types would not
be affected so the C.V. targets would not actually be reached (but they would be improved
related to increases in MSB fisheries). If New England approved measures consistent with these
C.V. targets (including industry funding), the tension would be resolved however as all of the
major fisheries with substantial RH catch would be covered.
The impact of adding observer costs on mackerel and longfin squid trips has already been
described in alternatives 5b-5d. As discussed above, analysis suggests that around 65%
coverage could result in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 90% coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V. goal

for Mid-Atlantic MWT and that for small mesh bottom trawl, around 40% coverage could result
in a 0.3 C.V. goal and about 60% coverage could result in a 0.2 C.V. goal. Analyses for
alternatives 5b-5d above describe the total costs for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% coverage levels in
MAFMC fisheries so approximate total costs for 65% and 90% of MWT mackerel trips and
40% and 60% of SMBT mackerel and longfin squid trips can be interpolated from the impact
analysis above for 5b-5d.
As also detailed in 5b-5d and perhaps more important for understainding the impact of paying
for observer cost, on a per day basis adding $325/day to the cost of a trip adds the following to
the daily costs of mackerel and longfin squid trips based on 2010 observer data (which collects
cost information):
-9% for single MWT mackerel trips (from $3,494 per day to $4,294)
-12% for paired MWT mackerel trips (from $2,602 per day to $3,402)
-20% for higher volume SMBT mackerel trips (from $1,639 per day to $2,439)
-35% for higher volume SMBT longfin squid trips (from $939 per day to $1,739)
-77% for lower volume SMBT longfin squid trips (from $424 per day to $1,224)
The average trip cost values cited in this analysis include variable costs such as fuel, oil, ice,
food, fishing supplies, vessel/gear damages, and water but does not include crew shares/wages,
dockage fees, or boat mortgage payments. Trip costs were estimated based on 2010 observer
data. Observers ask for information on these costs and vessels were binned by gear, vessel size,
and day/multi-day vessels.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better data, and to the extent that better data leads to better
management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target
species, then choosing this action alternative in comparison to the no-action alternative might
result in additional benefits related to commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e.
value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved
successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of either the managed species
or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not quantifiable. Since the
alternatives in this alternative set are related to monitoring, the direct impacts are probably small
but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternative sets that deal with management
measures that may utilize better data.

5f. Vessels would have to pay $325 (modifiable via specifications) for observers when they
carry observers to meet the observer coverage goals adopted by the Council in 5b4 and
5c4. NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay
observers. (PREFERRED)

Since NMFS has indicated that industry funding of additional observer coverage would be a
prerequisite to increasing observer coverage, the impacts of industry paying for observer
coverage have been described in each of the action alternatives 5b-5e above. The DEIS
described costs assuming vessels contributed $800/day but the analysis has been updated to
reflect that the Council specified that at least to start, vessels would have to pay $325/day.

5g. Phase-in industry funding over 4 years such that to achieve the target coverage selected
in 5b-5e above, NMFS would pay for 100%, 75%, 50%, then 25% of the at-sea portion of
the specified observer coverage
NMFS has indicated this is not feasible from a funding point of view. The impacts of this
alternative would be the same as the accompanying observer coverage level described in 5b-5e
except that costs to the fishery would be less.
If vessels have to pay for observer coverage then a negative impact would be expected compared
to the no-action alternative. Alternatives 5b-5d above compare the cost of observer coverage to
the revenues from different types of vessels that participate in the mackerel and longfin squid
fisheries. Economic costs are discussed within those alternatives assuming that industry funding
would be paying for most of the increased observer coverage. In the short term cost-sharing with
NMFS would make the economic impacts less negative but would not have an impact on the
long term. For this alternative, if NMFS paid 100% of the observer coverage there would be
negligible socio-economic impacts in the first year. For the phase in years, the impacts per trip
would be the same as described above, but the number of trips for which industry would have to
pay for observers would be less initially and increase in years 2, 3,and 4 at which point NMFS
would cover 25% of the costs and the fishery would have to cover 75% of the costs.

5h. Require reevaluation of coverage requirement after 2 years to determine if catch rates
justify continued expense of continued high coverage rates. (PREFERRED)

The Council would conduct an examination of the results of any higher coverage rates
implemented through this action and consider if adjustments to the coverage rates are warranted.
Depending on the results and desired actions, subsequent action could be accomplished via
specifications, a framework adjustment, or an Amendment as appropriate and would include a
separate environmental analysis. No immediate impacts would be expected for any VEC. Any
potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered separately.

Alternative Set 5 Summary - At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

All of the action alternatives that increase observer coverage (5b-5e) are expected to have
positive impacts for butterfish due to discarding concerns that would be alleviated by higher
coverage rates, especially in the longfin squid fishery. Low positive impacts would be expected
for the other managed resources since discarding is not considered to be a major problem for
those resources. 5f-5h are more administrative in function.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

All of the action alternatives that increase observer coverage (5b-5e) are expected to have
positive impacts for non-target species due to catch and discarding concerns that would be
alleviated by higher coverage rates. Higher coverage rates will yield more certainty about the
nature of catch in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries and so greater benefits. Positive
impacts would appear higher related to mackerel observers since that fishery appears to interact
with RH/S more than the longfin squid fishery. 5f-5h are more administrative in function.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

None of the action alternatives are expected to directly impact habitat but if vessels had to pay
for their observer coverage (which would be necessary for implementation), that could reduce
effort which would generally lower habitat impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

None of the action alternatives are expected to directly impact protected resources but if vessels
had to pay for their observer coverage (which would be necessary for implementation), that
could reduce effort which would generally lower protected resource interactions. Higher
coverage would generate better data on protected resource interactions.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered.
Commercial participants would incur relatively high costs related to paying for observer
coverage (and higher coverage results in higher costs). The interested public would benefit
primarily to the extent that better monitoring could lead to better RH/S management.

7.6 Alternative Set 6 - Mortality Caps
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
There are currently no limits on catch of RH/S in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries
other than state landing requirements.
Background:
The alternatives would seek to directly limit the mortality of the relevant RH/S species in the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. While the actual mortality cap quantities would be
determined during the specifications process just as annual ACLs/AMs are set, this document
explores a range of options so that likely impacts may be evaluated. The range of mortality cap
quantities would be evaluated in an environmental assessment during the specifications process.
The following values are primarily provided to give the reader a sense of impacts from a range of
mortality caps that will be investigated in greater depth during the specifications process.
A cap on a certain fleet/fishery can keep mortality for the fleet/fishery at a certain level. Given
the lack of reference points it would be difficult to establish an appropriate cap amount that is
meaningfully tied to some impact on RH/S. One would either have to independently figure out
how much overall RH catch one wanted and then allocate a portion of that to a cap or one could
just look at what various strata have caught historically, and use that information to come up
with an amount for a fishery-specific cap. For the mortality cap alternatives, the MSB
Monitoring Committee would draft a range of caps for consideration through specifications via
an accompanying Environmental Assessment. Precision would likely be quite low under the
current observer/monitoring regime levels of coverage.
A cap on RH/S catch in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fishery would operate much like the
butterfish cap currently operates in the longfin squid fishery. A catch ratio would be determined
using the best available scientific data. As with the butterfish cap, the exact monitoring and
extrapolation methodology would be developed during implementation and presented to the
Council for comments before the cap became operational. However, the catch ratio would be
based on the ratio of RH/S to total retained catch, as appropriate depending on which, if any,
action alternatives were chosen. This ratio comes from observer data in the butterfish cap and in
the context of this amendment could come from observer data or potentially also port-side
sampling data if implemented in this amendment. Then for a given fishery (mackerel or squid)
as defined by trips over the incidental landings limit, the ratio is applied to all landings (from
dealer data) by that fishery to extrapolate a total RH/S catch estimate. Technical details may be
found in Wigley et al. (2007), with the modification of using “kept+discards” in the numerator
rather than just discards. Once the estimate reaches a closure threshold identified by the Council
in the specifications process, then landings above an incidental nature (also specified during
specifications) would be prohibited. The mortality cap would operate in parallel to monitoring
for the directed fishery such that reaching either the closure threshold for the directed fishery or
the mortality cap threshold would close the directed fishery.

It would probably make more sense to have a fleet-area cap (e.g., midwater trawls in MidAtlantic) rather than using the regulatory definition of a "Mackerel" or "Herring" trip to define
vessels that are subject to the cap. In other words, the greatest amount of impact on RH/S catch
reduction would come from the implementation of a joint cap on both the herring & mackerel
fleets. If one instituted just a cap on the mackerel fleets, one of two things could happen if the
mackerel fishery was closed due to reaching the cap:
One possibility: the mackerel fishery closes and the exact same fleet continues fishing in the
exact same place (Mid-Atlantic Q1) and just retains the Atlantic herring catches and discards
mackerel (mackerel discards are addressed with a set-aside in the specifications process). Since
retained catch per unit effort of the combined species would go down, overall effort could go up,
possibly increasing RH/S catch.
Other possibility: Q1 catches of mackerel and Atlantic herring in the Mid-Atlantic are so mixed
that closing mackerel would effectively close herring.
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP proposes allowing caps to be implemented via a
framework or specifications and it is possible that in the future a gear/based cap could be
coordinated through the NEFMC and MAFMC.
For all of the mortality caps, once the cap or some fraction of the cap is reached (set in
specifications) then the fishery would be closed or an incidental trip limit would go into effect
(also set in specifications).
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in this Alternative Set could be
implemented singly or in combination with any other alternative(s) in this Alternative Set.
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.
6a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 6 would be implemented and
the existing state management measures (as described in section 5.9) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 6 could result in early closures of the fisheries for mackerel and

longfin squid, such closures would lead to less mortality of those species. However, catching the
full quota of the managed species is not expected to cause sustainability problems for the
managed species so impacts are low. If the longfin squid fishery is closed early, there would
likely be benefits to butterfish given the relatively high catch rates of butterfish in the longfin
squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 6 could result in early closures of the fisheries for mackerel and
longfin squid, such closures would lead to less mortality of non-target species including RH/S.
However, the current impacts on RH/S of the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries are not known
so impacts are not quantifiable.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 6 could result in early closures of the fisheries for mackerel and
longfin squid, such closures could lead to less negative habitat impacts, especially related to the
longfin squid fishery which primarily uses bottom otter trawl gear. Participants could redirect
toward other species in the same or other areas since most participants have multiple permits, but
it is not possible to predict such shifts and/or any associated habitat impacts.

4.

Protected Resources

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 6 could result in early closures of the fisheries for mackerel and
longfin squid, such closures could lead to less protected resource interactions (see Section 6 for
details on such interactions). Participants could redirect toward other species in the same or other
areas since most participants have multiple permits, but it is not possible to predict such shifts
and/or any associated protected resource impacts.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand, fishery participants would
not experience revenue loss as a result of fishery closures based on the RH/S cap, which is a
positive impact.
On the other hand, to the extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable
fisheries producing optimal yields) of RH/S, then choosing the no-action alternative in

comparison to the other alternatives might result in foregone benefits related to lost commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

6b. Implement a mortality cap for river herrings for the mackerel fishery whereby the
mackerel fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of river
herring mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification
process unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be
involved in ABC setting for RH/S). (PREFERRED)

One way to assign mortality caps for river herring would be to base it on the range of estimated
river herring mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic
mid-water trawl fishing in Quarter 1, which is largely but not completely mackerel fishing,
accounted for 35% of total river herring mortality 2005-2010. The table below describes total
ocean and quarter 1 mid-water trawl mortalities in the leftmost columns.
Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 50% or at least 100,000 pounds of mackerel
(encompasses almost all landings) results in annual river herring mortality ratios from 0.02% in
2007 to .86% in 2009 with a mean of 0.45 (% of total catch). The 50%/100,000 filter was used
because it has been the way directed mackerel trips have been identified in recent specifications
analyses and because this definition encompasses almost all landings. The exact definition of a
mackerel trip would be developed in the implementation process, as has been the case with the
butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery.
In the right hand columns are the landings at which point the mackerel fishery would close
depending on the above range of ratios and if the cap was the quarter 1 value. For example, if a
cap of 86 mt was used, the mackerel fishery would close when it landed 9,975 mt with a high
ratio, 19,063 mt with the mean ratio, or 428,908 mt of fish with a low ratio. Without an

assessment providing advice on overall acceptable fishing mortality, the Council would have to
make a policy decision about how much catch to allow in this fishery and would evaluate a range
of caps, probably based on recent catch estimates as done in the table below.
Table 68. Example River Herring Caps for Mackerel

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
245
664
672
361
244

Mid-Water Trawl
Quarter 1
mortality (mt)
(35% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility
86
232
235
126
85

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.86%
9,975
27,029
27,333
14,679
9,911

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.45%
19,063
51,656
52,237
28,053
18,940

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.02%
428,908
1,162,263
1,175,335
631,190
426,160

Source: Unpublished observer data and Appendix 2.
A high ratio means that more river herring were caught and a low ratio means that less river
herring were caught. The examples in the above table come from observed data 2006-2010. The
main point is that whether mackerel would close because of a cap would depend on how much
the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of river herring was, and what
the mackerel availability was. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it
is difficult to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could come
very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all. If the ratio is very low, the
fishery would be allowed to continue operating, as a closure would occur at a landings level
much higher than recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a closure could occur early in the
season. Additional impact analysis would be carried out by the specifications that implemented
these caps.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If
the directed fishery is closed because of an mortality cap the managed species may also benefit
because of reduced fishing mortality. However, given the uncertainty about MSB stock
dynamics and the uncertainty about when a closure might occur it is not possible to quantify such
impacts. In general, if the cap is set higher, or the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is lower, the
directed fishery will stay open longer, which will result in less positive impacts for the managed
species. Conversely, if the cap is set lower, or the ratio is higher, the directed fishery will close
sooner, which will result in more positive impacts for the managed species. If the cap does not
result in a closure then there will be no impacts on managed resources compared to the no-action
alternative. Since taking the full quota of the directed species should not impact the
sustainability of the managed resource, impacts to the managed resource should be low
compared to the no action alternative.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If a low
cap is chosen, for example 86 mt, and a high ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for example
0.86%, then the fishery would be closed at 9,975 mt total landings (of which a portion is
mackerel). In some years this value may be negligibly constraining but in years where mackerel
were available (e.g. 2004/2006) it could be quite constraining. If mackerel closed earlier than it
otherwise would there would likely be less catch of river herrings (and other non-target species)
but it is not possible to quantify the effect (if any) on river herring stocks of catching only 86 mt
of river herring versus some other amount due to the paucity of assessment information. Given
the uncertainty of cap amounts and/or encounter rates it is not possible to quantify the impacts
but the lower the cap is set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay
open and more potentially positive impacts will occur to non-target species, including RH/S,
because non-target species mortality in the directed fishery may be reduced. If there was no
closure then the impacts on non-target species including RH/S would be the same as described in
the no-action alternative. It should be noted that the connection between catch in the mackerel
fishery (or other ocean fisheries) and RH/S populations is unknown.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since
the majority of mackerel landings are made with mid-water gear, which generally does not
contact the bottom, reductions in mackerel effort due to a cap closure would not be expected to
have any impacts on habitat. There is some directed bottom trawling for mackerel but not enough
for there to be more than negligible impacts. Depending on the final regulations, closure of the
mackerel fishery due to the mortality cap would likely result in a reduction of the mackerel
possession limit to the incidental level (20,000 lb), rather than a full prohibition on mackerel
possession. Accordingly, any habitat benefits related to reduced effort during a closure may be
offset by some smaller-scale bottom trawlers who decide to pursue mackerel under the incidental
trip limits (to take advantage of the cut-off supply and possibly higher prices). Thus, overall
effort that contacts the bottom may be level, suggesting a neutral and/or negligible impact to
habitat compared to the no action alternative.
4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If the
directed fishery is closed earlier than would otherwise occur because of a mortality cap,
protected species benefit due to the reduction in effort. In general, the higher the cap is set, or
the lower the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is, the longer the directed fishery will stay open and less
positive impacts occur for protected resources because of continued potential interactions. The
lower the cap is set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay open and
more positive impacts for protected species will occur. If there was no closure then the impacts
on protected resources would be the same as described in the no-action alternative.

5.

Human Communities

A potentially high negative impact would be expected for mackerel fishery participants
compared to the no-action alternative if a low cap is chosen, for example 85 mt, and a high ratio
(catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for example 0.86%. In such a case then the fishery would be
closed at 9,911 mt total catch. In recent years this value may be negligibly constraining but in
years where mackerel were available (e.g. 2004/2006) it could be quite constraining. If mackerel
closed earlier than it otherwise would there would be associated forgone revenues, with the
amount depending on the cap amount, the ratio of river herring observed caught (catch rate of
RH), and the availability of mackerel. If the cap is set high enough or the ratio is low enough
there would be no losses because the cap would not result in a closure of the directed fishery, and
would thus not constrain fishing activity. However, relative to the 2012 proposed landings quota
of 33,821 mt, if the mackerel fishery faced the relatively low cap and relatively high catch ratio
described above, and was limited to 9,911 mt of catch, 23,910 mt of catch could potentially be
forgone. At 2010 ex-vessel prices, 23,910 mt of mackerel would be worth $7.7 million. While
the mackerel fishery has not been catching these levels in recent years (see section 6.7.1), these
would be an example of potentially forgone revenues in a relatively low cap and relatively high
catch ratio situation. If a cap was set lower than 85 mt, or the actual observed ratio was higher,
forgone revenue could be higher as well. While a multiplier has not been calculated for
mackerel to determine impacts to shore-side businesses, Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP
estimated that for longfin squid, dealers lost an amount equal to 73% of the revenue lost by
vessels and all shoreside business combined lost an amount equal to 3 times the amount lost by
vessels.
Under recent sampling intensities, C.V.s for annual river herring estimates have been improving
but at the fine scale necessary to close the directed mackerel fishery C.V.s related to a mortality
cap are likely to be over 1.0 (see table A2 in Appendix 2). Given C.V.s over 0.5 translate into
the value of zero being within the 95% confidence interval, it may be difficult to justify closing a
fishery given the science tells us our estimates are likely very inaccurate in any given year. The
estimates’ uncertainty also makes it difficult for business planning purposes if highly uncertain
estimates may be causing fishery closures.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to

rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

6c. Implement a mortality cap for shads for the mackerel fishery whereby the mackerel
fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of shad mortality
(that level would be determined annually by Council in specification process unless RH/S
were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be involved in ABC setting for
RH/S). (PREFERRED)

One way to assign mortality caps for shad would be to base it on the range of estimated river
herring mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic midwater trawl fishing in Quarter 1, which is largely but not completely mackerel fishing, accounted
for 12% of total shad mortality 2005-2010. The table below describes total ocean and quarter 1
mid-water trawl mortalities in the leftmost columns (2006 omitted because of lack of shad
records).
Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 50% or at least 100,000 pounds of mackerel
(encompasses almost all landings) results in annual shad mortality ratios from 0.004% in 2009 to
0.05% in 2007 with a mean of 0.03. The 50%/100,000 filter was used because it has been the
way directed mackerel trips have been identified in recent specifications analyses and because
this definition encompasses almost all landings. The exact definition of a mackerel trip would be
developed in the implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap for the
longfin squid fishery.
In the right hand columns are the landings at which point the mackerel fishery would close
depending on the above range of ratios and if the cap was the quarter 1 value. For example, if a
cap of 7mt was used, the mackerel fishery would close when it landed 14,364 mt with a high
ratio, 23,940mt with the mean ratio, or 179,550 mt of fish with a low ratio. The differences in
the two 7mt caps are due to rounding. Without an assessment providing advice on overall
acceptable fishing mortality, the Council would have to make a policy decision about how much
catch to allow in this fishery and would evaluate a range of caps, probably based on recent catch
estimates as done in the table below.

Table 69. Example Shad Caps for Mackerel
Mid-Water Trawl
Quarter 1
mortality (mt)
(12% of total) =
Mortality Cap
Possibility

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2007
2008
2009
2010

60
60
70
47

7
7
8
6

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
high ratio, 0.05%
14,364
14,450
16,903
11,338

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
mean ratio, 0.03%
23,940
24,084
28,172
18,896

Mackerel would
close at these
landings (mt) with
low ratio, 0.004%
179,550
180,630
211,290
141,720

Source: Unpublished observer data and Appendix 2.
A high ratio means that more shad were caught and a low ratio means that less shad were caught.
The examples in the above table come from observed data 2006-2010. The main point is that
whether mackerel would close because of a cap would depend on how much the Council set the
cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of shad was, and what the mackerel availability
was. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it is difficult to predict
impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could come very early and in
some years a closure could not happen at all. If the ratio is very low, the fishery would be
allowed to continue operating, as a closure would occur at a landings level much higher than
recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a closure could occur early in the season. Additional
impact analysis would be carried out by the specifications that implemented these caps.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If
the directed fishery is closed because of a mortality cap the managed species may also benefit
because of reduced fishing mortality. However, given the uncertainty about MSB stock
dynamics and the uncertainty about when a closure might occur it is not possible to quantify such
impacts. In general, if the cap is set higher, or the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is lower, the
directed fishery will stay open longer, which will result in less positive impacts for the managed
species. Conversely, if the cap is set lower, or the ratio is higher, the directed fishery will close
sooner, which will result in more positive impacts for the managed species. If the cap does not
result in a closure then there will be no impacts on managed resources compared to the no-action
alternative. Since taking the full quota of the directed species should not impact the
sustainability of the managed resource, impacts to the managed resource should be low
compared to the no action alternative.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If a low
cap is chosen, for example 6mt, and a high ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for example
0.05%, then the fishery would be closed at 11,338 mt total landings (of which a portion is
mackerel). In some years this value may be negligibly constraining but in years where mackerel

were available (e.g. 2004/2006) it could be quite constraining. If mackerel closed earlier than it
otherwise would there would likely be less catch of shads (and other non-target species) but it is
not possible to quantify the effect (if any) on shad stocks of catching only 6mt of shad versus
some other amount due to the paucity of assessment information. Given the uncertainty of cap
amounts and/or encounter rates it is not possible to quantify the impacts but the lower the cap is
set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay open and more potentially
positive impacts will occur to non-target species, including RH/S, because non-target species
mortality in the directed fishery may be reduced. If there was no closure then the impacts on
non-target species including RH/S would be the same as described in the no-action alternative. It
should be noted that the connection between catch in the mackerel fishery (or other ocean
fisheries) and RH/S populations is unknown.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since
the majority of mackerel landings are made with mid-water gear, which generally does not
contact the bottom, reductions in mackerel effort due to a cap closure would not be expected to
have any impacts on habitat. There is some directed bottom trawling for mackerel but not enough
for there to be more than negligible impacts. Depending on the final regulations, closure of the
mackerel fishery due to the mortality cap would likely result in a reduction of the mackerel
possession limit to the incidental level (20,000 lb), rather than a full prohibition on mackerel
possession. Accordingly, any habitat benefits related to reduced effort during a closure may be
offset by some smaller-scale bottom trawlers who decide to pursue mackerel under the incidental
trip limits (to take advantage of the cut-off supply and possibly higher prices). Thus, overall
effort that contacts the bottom may be level, suggesting a neutral and/or negligible impact to
habitat compared to the no action alternative.
4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If the
directed fishery is closed earlier than would otherwise occur because of a mortality cap,
protected species benefit due to the reduction in effort. In general, the higher the cap is set, or
the lower the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is, the longer the directed fishery will stay open and less
positive impacts occur for protected resources because of continued potential interactions. The
lower the cap is set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay open and
more positive impacts for protected species will occur. If there was no closure then the impacts
on protected resources would be the same as described in the no-action alternative.
5.

Human Communities

A potentially high negative impact for mackerel fishery participants would be expected
compared to the no-action alternative. If a low cap is chosen, for example 6mt, and a high ratio
(catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for example 0.05%, then the fishery would be closed at 11,338
mt total catch. In recent years this value may be negligibly constraining but in years where
mackerel were available (e.g. 2004/2006) it could be quite constraining. If mackerel closed
earlier than it otherwise would there would be associated forgone revenues, with the amount
depending on the cap amount, the ratio of shad observed caught (catch rate of shad), and the

availability of mackerel. If the cap is set high enough or the ratio is low enough there would be
no losses because the cap would not result in a closure of the directed fishery, and would thus not
constrain fishing activity. However, relative to the 2012 proposed landings quota of 33,821 mt,
if the mackerel fishery faced the relatively low cap and relatively high catch ratio described
above, and was limited to 11,338 mt of catch, 22,483 mt of catch could potentially be forgone.
At 2010 ex-vessel prices, 22,483 mt of mackerel would be worth $7.3 million. While the
mackerel fishery has not been catching these levels in recent years (see section 6.7.1), these
would be an example of potentially forgone revenues in a relatively low cap and relatively high
catch ratio situation. If a cap was set lower than 6 mt or the actual observed ratio was higher,
forgone revenue could be higher as well. While a multiplier has not been calculated for
mackerel to determine impacts to shore-side businesses, Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP
estimated that for longfin squid, dealers lost an amount equal to 73% of the revenue lost by
vessels and all shoreside business combined lost an amount equal to 3 times the amount lost by
vessels.
Under recent sampling intensities, C.V.s for annual shad estimates have been improving but at
the fine scale necessary to close “the mackerel fishery” C.V.s related to a mortality cap are likely
to be over 1.0 (see table A2 in Appendix 2). Given C.V.s over 0.5 translate into the value of zero
being within the 95% confidence interval, it may be difficult to justify closing a fishery given the
science tells us our estimates are likely very inaccurate in any given year. The low overall catch
of shad and therefore low amount of a cap based on recent catch would likely greatly complicate
mortality-cap based management for shad given the imprecision of catch data.
The estimates’ uncertainty also makes it difficult for business planning purposes if highly
uncertain estimates may be causing fishery closures.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

6d. Implement a mortality cap for river herrings for the longfin squid fishery whereby the
longfin squid fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of river
herring mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification
process unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be
involved in ABC setting for RH/S).
One way to assign mortality caps for river herring would be to base it on the range of estimated
river herring mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic
small mesh bottom trawl accounted for 5% of total river herring mortality. While Mid-Atlantic
small mesh bottom trawl encompasses a variety of fisheries besides longfin squid (including
Atlantic herring), some of the New England small mesh bottom trawl mortality is probably
related to longfin squid fishing so using the full Mid-Atlantic value is probably reasonable. The
table below describes total ocean and 5% of total mortalities in the leftmost columns.
Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid results in annual river
herring mortality ratios from almost zero in 2007 to .17% in 2009 with a mean of 0.06%. The
2,500 pound filter was used because it has been the way directed longfin squid trips have been
identified in the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery and because is encompasses almost
all longfin squid landings. The exact definition of a longfin squid trip would be developed in the
implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery.
In the right hand columns are the landings at which point the longfin squid fishery would close
depending on the above range of ratios and if the cap was the Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom
trawl portion of total ocean fishing mortality. For example, if a cap of 12mt was used, the
longfin squid fishery would close when it landed 7,233 mt with a high ratio, and 20,424mt with
the mean ratio (the low ratio was nearly zero so it would not lead to a constraint). Without an
assessment providing advice on overall acceptable fishing mortality, the Council would have to
make a policy decision about how much catch to allow in this fishery and would evaluate a range
of caps, probably based on recent catch estimates as done in the table below.

Table 70. Example River Herring Caps for longfin squid.

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
245
664
672
361
244

Mid-Atlantic Small
Mesh Bottom
Trawl mortality
(mt) (5% of total)
= Mortality Cap
Possibility
12
33
34
18
12

Longfin squid
would close at
these landings
(mt) with high
ratio, 0.17%
7,233
19,534
19,754
10,608
7,162

Longfin squid
would close at
these landings
(mt) with mean
ratio, 0.06%
20,424
55,346
55,968
30,057
20,293

Source: Unpublished observer data and Appendix 2.

If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the
ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as defined above before the
longfin squid fishery was shut down by the river herring mortality cap is illustrated on the
rightmost columns in the above table (these can be compared to recent landings detailed in
Section 6.6). A high ratio means that more river herring were caught and a low ratio means that
less river herring were caught. The examples in the above table come from observed data 20062010. The main point is that whether longfin squid would close because of a cap would depend
on how much the Council set the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of river herring
was, and what the longfin squid availability was. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially
from year to year, it is difficult to predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a
closure could come very early and in some years a closure could not happen at all. If the ratio is
very low, the fishery would be allowed to continue operating, as a closure would occur at a
landings level much higher than recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a closure could occur
early in the season. Additional impact analysis would be carried out by the specifications that
implemented these caps.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If
the directed fishery is closed because of a mortality cap the managed species may also benefit
because of reduced fishing mortality. However, given the uncertainty about MSB stock
dynamics and the uncertainty about when a closure might occur it is not possible to quantify such
impacts. In general, if the cap is set higher, or the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is lower, the
directed fishery will stay open longer, which will result in less positive impacts for the managed
species. Conversely, if the cap is set lower, or the ratio is higher, the directed fishery will close
sooner, which will result in more positive impacts for the managed species. If the cap does not
result in a closure then there will be no impacts on managed resources compared to the no-action
alternative. Since taking the full quota of the directed species should not impact the
sustainability of the managed resource, impacts to the managed resource should be low

compared to the no action alternative. If the longfin squid fishery is closed early, there would
likely be positive impacts to butterfish given the relatively high catch rates of butterfish in the
longfin squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If a low
cap is chosen, for example 12mt, and a high ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for example
0.17%, then the fishery would be closed at 7,233 mt total landings (of which a portion is longfin
squid), which would be constraining in most years. If longfin squid closed earlier than it
otherwise would there would likely be less catch of river herrings (and other non-target species)
but it is not possible to quantify the effect (if any) on river herring stocks of catching only 12mt
of river herring versus some other amount due to the paucity of assessment information. Given
the uncertainty of cap amounts and/or encounter rates it is not possible to quantify the impacts
but the lower the cap is set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay
open and more potentially positive impacts will occur to non-target species, including RH/S,
because non-target species mortality in the directed fishery may be reduced. If there was no
closure then the impacts on non-target species including RH/S would be the same as described in
the no-action alternative. It should be noted that the connection between catch in the longfin
squid fishery (or other ocean fisheries) and RH/S populations is unknown.

However, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion
of small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since
the longfin squid fishery primarily uses bottom otter trawl, if a mortality cap closed the longfin
squid fishery early there should be less adverse habitat impacts, especially in the winter/spring
offshore fishery that occurs in deeper water (the summer fishery mostly takes place in sandy
areas that are subject to a high level of natural disturbance). If there was no closure then there
would be no impacts compared to the no-action alternative.

4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If the
directed fishery is closed earlier than would otherwise occur because of a mortality cap,
protected species benefit due to the reduction in effort. In general, the higher the cap is set, or
the lower the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is, the longer the directed fishery will stay open and less
positive impacts occur for protected resources because of continued potential interactions. The
lower the cap is set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay open and
more positive impacts for protected species will occur. If there was no closure then the impacts
on protected resources would be the same as described in the no-action alternative.
5.

Human Communities

A potentially high negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If a
low cap is chosen, for example 12 mt, and a high ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for
example 0.17%, then the fishery would be closed at 7,233 mt total catch. In years where longfin
squid were available (e.g. 2004/2005) this could be quite constraining. If longfin squid closed
earlier than it otherwise would there would be associated forgone revenues, with the amount
depending on the cap amount, the ratio of river herring observed caught (catch rate of RH), and
the availability of longfin squid. If the cap is set high enough or the ratio is low enough there
would be no losses because the cap would not result in a closure of the directed fishery, and
would thus not constrain fishing activity. However, relative to the 2012 proposed landings quota
of 22,445 mt, if the longfin squid fishery faced the relatively low cap and relatively high catch
ratio described above, and was limited to 7,233 mt of catch, 15,212 mt of catch could potentially
be forgone. At 2010 ex-vessel prices, 15,212 mt of longfin squid would be worth $34.8 million.
While the longfin squid fishery has not been catching these levels in recent years (see section
6.7.4), these would be an example of potentially forgone revenues in a relatively low cap and
relatively high catch ratio situation. If a cap was set lower than 12 mt or the actual observed
ratio was higher, forgone revenue could be higher as well. Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP
estimated that for longfin squid, dealers lost an amount equal to 73% of the revenue lost by
vessels and all shoreside business combined lost an amount equal to 3 times the amount lost by
vessels.

Under recent sampling intensities, C.V.s for annual river herring estimates have been improving
but at the fine scale necessary to close “the longfin squid fishery” C.V.s related to a mortality cap
are likely to be over 1.0 (see table A2 in Appendix 2). Given C.V.s over 0.5 translate into the
value of zero being within the 95% confidence interval, it may be difficult to justify closing a
fishery given the science tells us our estimates are likely very inaccurate in any given year.
The estimates’ uncertainty also makes it difficult for business planning purposes if highly
uncertain estimates may be causing fishery closures.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in

comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

6e. Implement a mortality cap for shads for the longfin squid fishery whereby the longfin
squid fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of shad
mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification process
unless RH/S were added as stocks in the fishery in which case SSC would be involved in
ABC setting for RH/S).
One way to assign mortality caps for shad would be to base it on the range of estimated shad
mortality conducted by the science center/FMAT to support Am14. Mid-Atlantic small mesh
bottom trawl accounted for 11.5% of total shad mortality. While Mid-Atlantic small mesh
bottom trawl encompasses a variety of fisheries besides longfin squid (including Atlantic
herring), some of the New England small mesh bottom trawl mortality is probably related to
longfin squid fishing so using the full Mid-Atlantic value is probably reasonable. The table
below describes total ocean and 11.5% of total mortalities in the leftmost columns.
Using the separate ratio method described in Wigley et al., 2007 (modified by adding kept in the
numerator in addition to discards) developed for the butterfish cap and applying it to observer
trips and regular trips that landed at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid results in annual shad
mortality ratios from almost 0.03% in 2009 to 0.21% in 2010 with a mean of 0.10%. The 2,500
pound filter was used because it has been the way directed longfin squid trips have been
identified in the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery and because is encompasses almost
all longfin squid landings. The exact definition of a longfin squid trip would be developed in the
implementation process, as has been the case with the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery.
In the right hand columns are the landings at which point the longfin squid fishery would close
depending on the above range of ratios and if the cap the Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawl
portion of total ocean fishing mortality. For example, if a cap of 5mt was used, the longfin squid
fishery would close when it landed 2,587 mt with a high ratio, 5,433mt with the mean ratio, or
18,109 mt of fish with a low ratio. The differences in the two 7mt caps are due to rounding.

Without an assessment providing advice on overall acceptable fishing mortality, the Council
would have to make a policy decision about how much catch to allow in this fishery and would
evaluate a range of caps, probably based on recent catch estimates as done in the table below.

Table 71. Example Shad Caps for Longfin squid.

Total Estimated
Ocean Fishing
Mortality (mt)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

47
60
60
70
47

Mid-Atlantic Small
Mesh Bottom
Trawl mortality
(mt) (11.5% of
total) = Mortality
Cap Possibility
5
7
7
8
5

Longfin squid
would close at
these landings
(mt) with high
ratio, 0.21%
2,587
3,278
3,297
3,857
2,587

Longfin squid
would close at
these landings
(mt) with mean
ratio, 0.10%
5,433
6,883
6,924
8,099
5,433

Longfin squid
would close at
these landings
(mt) with low
ratio, 0.03%
18,109
22,943
23,081
26,998
18,109

Source: Unpublished observer data and Appendix 2.

If these values were used with the above range of mortality caps, the amount of total fish (the
ratio is based on all fish retained) that could be harvested by trips as defined above before the
longfin squid fishery was shut down by the shad mortality cap is illustrated on the rightmost
columns in the above table (these can be compared to recent landings detailed in Section 6.6). A
high ratio means that more shad were caught and a low ratio means that less shad were caught.
The examples in the above table come for observed data 2006-2010. The main point is that
whether longfin squid would close because of a cap would depend on how much the Council set
the cap at in a given year, what the realized catch of shad was, and what the longfin squid
availability was. Since the realized ratio can vary substantially from year to year, it is difficult to
predict impacts other than to acknowledge that in some years a closure could come very early
and in some years a closure could not happen at all. If the ratio is very low, the fishery would be
allowed to continue operating, as a closure would occur at a landings level much higher than
recent quotas. If the ratio is very high, a closure could occur early in the season. Additional
impact analysis would be carried out by the specifications that implemented these caps.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If
the directed fishery is closed because of a mortality cap the managed species may also benefit
because of reduced fishing mortality. However, given the uncertainty about MSB stock
dynamics and the uncertainty about when a closure might occur it is not possible to quantify such
impacts. In general, if the cap is set higher, or the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is lower, the
directed fishery will stay open longer, which will result in less positive impacts for the managed
species. Conversely, if the cap is set lower, or the ratio is higher, the directed fishery will close
sooner, which will result in more positive impacts for the managed species. If the cap does not
result in a closure then there will be no impacts on managed resources compared to the no-action

alternative. Since taking the full quota of the directed species should not impact the
sustainability of the managed resource, impacts to the managed resource should be low
compared to the no action alternative. If the longfin squid fishery is closed early, there would
likely be positive impacts to butterfish given the relatively high catch rates of butterfish in the
longfin squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If a low
cap is chosen, for example 5mt, and a high ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for example
0.21%, then the fishery would be closed at 2,587 mt total landings (of which a portion is longfin
squid), which would be very constraining in every year. If longfin squid closed earlier than it
otherwise would there would likely be less catch of shads (and other non-target species) but it is
not possible to quantify the effect (if any) on shad stocks of catching only 5mt of shad versus
some other amount due to the paucity of assessment information. Given the uncertainty of cap
amounts and/or encounter rates it is not possible to quantify the impacts but the lower the cap is
set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay open and more potentially
positive impacts will occur to non-target species, including RH/S, because non-target species
mortality in the directed fishery may be reduced. If there was no closure then the impacts on
non-target species including RH/S would be the same as described in the no-action alternative. It
should be noted that the connection between catch in the longfin squid fishery (or other ocean
fisheries) and RH/S populations is unknown.

However, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion
of small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since
the longfin squid fishery primarily uses bottom otter trawl, if a mortality cap closed the longfin
squid fishery early there should be less adverse habitat impacts, especially in the winter/spring
offshore fishery that occurs in deeper water (the summer fishery mostly takes place in sandy
areas that are subject to a high level of natural disturbance). If there was no closure then there
would be no impacts compared to the no-action alternative.

4.

Protected Resources

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If the
directed fishery is closed earlier than would otherwise occur because of a mortality cap,
protected species benefit due to the reduction in effort. In general, the higher the cap is set, or
the lower the ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is, the longer the directed fishery will stay open and less
positive impacts occur for protected resources because of continued potential interactions. The
lower the cap is set, or the higher the ratio is, the shorter the directed fishery will stay open and
more positive impacts for protected species will occur. If there was no closure then the impacts
on protected resources would be the same as described in the no-action alternative.
5.

Human Communities

A potentially high negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If a
low cap is chosen, for example 5mt, and a high ratio (catch rate of RH/S) is observed, for
example 0.21%, then the fishery would be closed at 2,587 mt total catch, which would be very
constraining in every year. If longfin squid closed earlier than it otherwise would there would be
associated forgone revenues, with the amount depending on the cap amount, the ratio of shad
observed caught (catch rate of shad), and the availability of longfin squid. If the cap is set high
enough or the ratio is low enough there would be no losses because the cap would not result in a
closure of the directed fishery, and would thus not constrain fishing activity. However, relative
to the 2012 proposed landings quota of 22,445 mt, if the longfin squid fishery faced the relatively
low cap and relatively high catch ratio described above, and was limited to 2,587mt of catch,
19,858mt of catch could potentially be forgone. At 2010 ex-vessel prices, 19,858mt of longfin
squid would be worth $45.4 million. While the longfin squid fishery has not been catching these
levels in recent years (see section 6.7.4), these would be an example of potentially forgone
revenues in a relatively low cap and relatively high catch ratio situation. If a cap was set lower
than 5 mt or the actual observed ratio was higher, forgone revenue could be higher as well.
Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP estimated that for longfin squid, dealers lost an amount equal
to 73% of the revenue lost by vessels and all shoreside business combined lost an amount equal
to 3 times the amount lost by vessels.
Under recent sampling intensities, C.V.s for annual shad estimates have been improving but at
the fine scale necessary to close “the longfin squid fishery” C.V.s related to a mortality cap are
likely to be over 1.0 (see table A2 in Appendix 2). Given C.V.s over 0.5 translate into the value
of zero being within the 95% confidence interval, it may be difficult to justify closing a fishery
given the science tells us our estimates are likely very inaccurate in any given year. The low
overall catch of shad and therefore low amount of a cap based on recent catch would likely
greatly complicate mortality-cap based management for shad given the imprecision of catch data.
The estimates’ uncertainty also makes it difficult for business planning purposes if highly
uncertain estimates may be causing fishery closures.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing

optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

6f. Add mortality caps to list of measures that can be frameworked. (PREFERRED)

Allowing a cap to be considered via a framework should not have any impacts other than
allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be analyzed at the time of
framework consideration. No immediate impacts would be expected for any VEC. Any
potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered separately.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Alternative Set 6 Summary - Mortality Caps
In this amendment, the Council chose to add a cap for RH/S on the mackerel fishery in the 2014
MSB specifications. Additional analysis will be available for the impacts of the cap in the
analysis that supports the particular cap level that is implemented via the specifications.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

All of the RH/S mortality cap action alternatives (except 6f which is administrative) could
potentially lead to directed fishery closures that could benefit the managed species but impacts
should be low since even achieving their full quota should be sustainable. Closures of the
longfin squid fishery would be particularly beneficial to butterfish given the relatively high catch
of butterfish in the longfin squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

Depending on how high the RH/S mortality caps were set, there could be less non-target
interactions if closures occur under any of the action alternatives.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Depending on how high the RH/S mortality caps were set, there could be less effort and so less
habitat disturbances if closures occur under any of the action alternatives, especially longfin
squid closures since that fishery predominantly uses bottom trawl gear.
4.

Protected Resources

Depending on how high the RH/S mortality caps were set, there could be less effort and so less
protected resource interactions if closures occur under any of the action alternatives.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered.
Commercial participants could incur low to high costs in the form of reduced revenues
depending on how high any RH/S caps were set and depending on fishery performance. The
interested public would benefit to the extent that lower catch helped rebuild RH/S stocks (which
is highly uncertain).

7.7 Alternative Set 7 – Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:
There are currently no limits on catch of RH/S in the mackerel and/or longfin squid fisheries
other than state landing requirements
Background:
The Council originally hoped to include some alternatives that would restrict fishing in relatively
small areas that appeared to be “hotspots” for RH/S catch. The Amendment’s Fishery
Management Action Team’s found that small-area management is unlikely to be successful (see
Appendices) because of the wide and variable distribution of RH/S and of the mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries. Thus small area management may just reshuffle effort with
unpredictable impacts. The table below is designed to help illustrate how even if you reduce
catch rates of one species, for example blueback herring, but reduce catch rates of the directed
species even more, it can be possible to do more harm than good if the fleet increases effort to
maintain the same amount of harvest. For example, if catch rates of blueback herring are
lowered a little and mackerel catch rates and effort are neutral, then this is “good” in that less
blueback herring would probably be caught. On the other hand if blueback herring catch rates
are lowered a little but mackerel catch rates a lowered a lot and effort increases a lot to make up
the difference, then this could be “bad” in that even though catch rates of blueback herring may
have gone down, total catch may have gone up. Thus the catch rates of both the target and nontarget species are important when considering area-based management. The main point is just
that with the wide and varied distribution of RH/S, and the wide and varied distribution of the
target species, it appears very difficult to predict whether impacts from small area-based
measures may be neutral, positive, or negative for RH/S.
Table 72. Direct/Non-Target Impact Schematic

Effects on non-target catch of moving effort assuming effort changes
to maintain constant mackerel catch if CPUE changes
"good" = lower overall non-taget catches; "bad" = higher overall nontarget catches
Mackerel
CPUE Changes

a little lower a lot lower

0

bad

bad

a little lower

good

0

bad

a lot lower

good

good

0

neutral
Blueback

neutral

Because the Council instructed the FMAT to generate area-based alternatives that would be
likely to provide protection to RH/S, the FMAT generated several alternatives that are area based
but the FMAT also acknowledged that such large-scale closures would effectively close the
fisheries for many participants. Council staff attempted to perform additional smaller-scale
examinations of the data (for example around Hudson canyon) but at such small scales there are
too few observations to draw strong conclusions.
The FMAT analysis suggests that because of the spatial and temporal variability of observed
(Northeast Fishery Observer Program or “NEFOP”) RH/S catch, the same kind of variability in
mackerel and longfin squid effort and catch, and the same kind of variability in RH/S NEFSC
trawl survey catches, that very large areas would be required to ensure that management was not
just redistributing effort, possibly in a way that could increase RH/S catch. For this reason
Council staff used the FMAT GIS analysis to construct areas for mackerel and longfin squid
based on the mid-water and small-mesh bottom trawl fleet effort data and RH/S catch data.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: 7bMack and 7cMack are mutually exclusive – the Council could
close the area to directed fishing (7bMack) or require observers (7cMack) but not both.
Likewise 7bLong and 7cLong are mutually exclusive – the Council could close the area to
directed fishing (7bLong) or require observers (7cLong) but not both. One of the mackerel
alternatives (either 7bMack or 7cMack) could be combined with one of the longfin squid
alternatives (either 7bLong or 7cLong) however. 7d could be added to any 7b or 7c alternative
to make those provisions only applicable after a cap-based trigger was reached. The Council
would have to specify in this case that the Alternative Set 6 cap trigger was only a trigger for
Alternative Set 7 rather than a stand-alone cap measure. 7e could be chosen in addition to any
other alternative in this Alternative Set.
Given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that alternatives
would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could select an
alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from another
set, but not from both sets for one fishery.
The enforceability of area-based management alternatives could be facilitated by the selection of
the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement in Alternative Set 1 (alternatives 1eMack or
1eLong).
The selection of alternatives that include observer coverage requirements (7cMack and 7cLong)
would require the selection of observer program notification alternatives for limited access
mackerel permits in Alternative Set 1(1d48 and 1d72).
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.

7a. No-action regarding large closed areas (PREFERRED)

If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 7 would be implemented and
the existing state management measures (as described in section 5.7) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 7 would likely reduce effort and catch of the managed species
(mackerel and longfin squid), such alternatives would lead to less mortality of those species.
However, catching the full quota of the managed species is not expected to cause sustainability
problems for the managed species so impacts are low. If the longfin squid fishery is reduced,
there would likely be benefits to butterfish given the relatively high catch rates of butterfish in
the longfin squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 7 would likely reduce effort for the managed species (mackerel
and longfin squid), such alternatives would also likely lead to less mortality of non-target species
including RH/S. However, the current impacts on RH/S of the mackerel and longfin squid
fisheries are not known so impacts are not quantifiable.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Since
alternatives in Alternative Set 7 would likely reduce effort for the managed species (mackerel
and longfin squid), such alternatives could also likely lead to less habitat impacts, especially
related to longfin squid fishing since it uses bottom otter trawl gear. Participants could redirect
toward other species in the same or other areas since most participants have multiple permits, but
it is not possible to predict such shifts and/or any associated habitat impacts.

4.

Protected Resources

A potentially negative impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives since
alternatives in Alternative Set 7 would likely reduce effort for the managed species (mackerel
and longfin squid), such alternatives could also likely lead to less protected resource interactions
(see Section 6 for details on such interactions). Participants could redirect toward other species
in the same or other areas since most participants have multiple permits, but it is not possible to
predict such shifts and/or any associated protected resource impacts.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts of the no-action alternative in comparison to the other alternatives for human
communities appear mixed with uncertain net impacts. On one hand the costs to fishery
participants in terms of lost fishing opportunities due to time/area closures or having to carry and
pay for observers to enter the restricted areas would be avoided, which is a positive impact.
On the other hand, to the extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable
fisheries producing optimal yields) of RH/S, then choosing the no-action alternative in
comparison to the other alternatives might result in foregone benefits related to lost commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

7bMack. Closed Area - Prohibit retention of more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel in RH/S
Mackerel Management Area (applies in Quarter 1 only – see map below) for vessels with
federal mackerel permits.
Note: While the scope of this time-area closure would curtail mackerel fishing, some effort could
occur/shift to areas outside the closure area and some effort could occur/shift to other time
periods.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected for mackerel compared to the no-action
alternative since effort and catch would likely be reduced. Since taking the full quota of the
directed species should not impact the sustainability of the managed resource, impacts should be
low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A positive impact would be expected for non-target species including RH/S compared to the noaction alternative since effort and catch would likely be reduced. Given the RH/S Mackerel
Management Area encompasses most Quarter 1 mid-water trawl effort as well as most Quarter 1
observer data observations of RH/S catch, which are estimated to account for 35% of total RH/S
catch, it is likely that effectively closing this area to mackerel fishing would create some positive
impacts for RH/S and other non-target species, but it is not possible to quantify the effect (if any)
on RH/S stocks of catching one amount of RH/S versus some other amount due to the paucity of
assessment information. In addition, effort redistribution (including shifts of effort to other
fisheries in the same area) could lead to unexpected potentially negative impacts if they
ultimately increase non-target species interactions. Due to the expected overall lower effort
these would not be expected to change the overall positive impact.
From an information point of view, if vessels just avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Since
the proposed RH/S area is very large and encompasses nearly the entire “footprint” of the winterspring directed mackerel fishery, a trip limit of 20,000 lbs in Quarter 1 would essentially shut
down the mackerel fishery because vessels would have to travel outside of the area to target
mackerel at levels above 20,000 lb. So there would be a reduction in mackerel fishing, but since
mid-water trawl gear, which accounts for most mackerel effort, and this gear type does not
generally contact the bottom, there would be no benefits to benthic habitats. There is some
directed bottom trawling for mackerel but not enough for there to be more than negligible
impacts. Also, depending on the final regulations, closure of the mackerel fishery due to the
mortality cap would likely result in a reduction of the mackerel possession limit to the incidental
level (20,000 lb), rather than a full prohibition on mackerel possession. Accordingly, any habitat

benefits related to reduced effort during a closure may be offset by some smaller-scale bottom
trawlers who decide to pursue mackerel under the incidental trip limits (to take advantage of the
cut-off supply and possibly higher prices). Thus, overall effort that contacts the bottom may be
level, suggesting a neutral and/or negligible impact to habitat compared to the no action
alternative.
4.

Protected Resources

A positive impact would be expected for protected resources compared to the no-action
alternative since effort would likely be reduced given the scope of the closed area. Reduced
effort could potentially result in a reduced number of protected species interactions in the
mackerel fishery.
From an information point of view, if vessels just avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the no-action alternative. On
one hand, as described in the table below, about 85% of mackerel revenues with an assigned area
(2/3 to ¾ of total landings) from 2006-2010 came from within the RH/S Mackerel Management
Area. While vessels would compensate as best they could so impacts are difficult to further
quantify, vessels that typically rely on mackerel would likely experience negative economic
impacts due to lost fishing revenue or costs to transit the area to a non-closed area.

Table 73. Mackerel Revenues In and Out of RH/S Area

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
%

Outside Mackerel
Value ($)

Inside Mackerel
Value ($)

3,149,111
946,926
553,705
681,665
471,663
5,803,070
15%

17,323,851
2,666,001
3,200,344
6,655,122
2,920,919
32,766,237
85%

Source: Unpublished VTR Data
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other

non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.
7bLong. Closed Area - Prohibit retention of more than 2,500 pounds longfin squid in RH/S
Longfin Squid Management Area (applies year-round – see maps below) for vessels with
federal longfin squid moratorium permits.
Note: While the scope of this time-area closure would curtail longfin squid fishing, some effort
could occur/shift to areas outside the closure area.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected for longfin squid compared to the no-action
alternative since effort and catch would likely be reduced. Since taking the full quota of the
directed species should not impact the sustainability of the managed resource, impacts should be
low. If the longfin squid fishery is reduced, there would likely be benefits to butterfish given the
relatively high catch rates of butterfish in the longfin squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A low positive impact would be expected for non-target species including RH/S compared to the
no-action alternative since effort and catch would likely be reduced. Given the RH/S Longfin
Squid Management Area encompasses most of the area where small mesh bottom trawl effort
overlaps with RH/S catches, it is likely that effectively closing this area to longfin squid fishing
would create some positive impacts for non-target species including RH/S, but it is not possible
to quantify the effect (if any) on RH/S stocks of catching one amount of RH/S versus some other
amount due to the paucity of assessment information.
From an information point of view, if vessels just avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.

However, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion
of small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3). This suggests impacts to non-target species may be low.
In addition, effort redistribution (including shifts of effort to other fisheries in the same area)
could lead to unexpected potentially negative impacts if they ultimately increase non-target
species interactions. Due to the expected overall lower effort these would not be expected to
change the overall positive impact.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. The proposed
closure areas for longfin squid are large enough that some overall effort reduction would occur,
reducing habitat impacts, especially within the closed area. While not expected to totally offset
the positive impacts, this alternative might displace some effort to the southern edge of Georges
Bank. Because the directed fishery is a bottom trawl fishery, and because the bottom habitats on
the outer shelf are deeper and more vulnerable to bottom contact (less natural disturbance), this
alternative could potentially have negative habitat impacts outside the RH/S areas related to
increases in redistributed fishing effort.

4.

Protected Resources

A positive impact would be expected for protected resources compared to the no-action
alternative since effort would likely be reduced given the scope of the closed area. Reduced
effort would be likely to result in less protected species interaction in the longfin squid fishery.
From an information point of view, if vessels just avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the no-action alternative. On
one hand, as described in the table below, about 71% of longfin squid kept catch (VTR data)
from 2006-2010 came from within the RH/S longfin squid Management Area. While vessels
would compensate as best they could so impacts are difficult to further quantify, vessels that
typically rely on longfin squid would likely experience negative economic impacts due to lost
fishing revenue or costs to transit the area to a non-closed area.
Table 74. Longfin squid kept VTR catch in and out of RH/S Area

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
%

Outside Loligo
Pounds

Inside Loligo
Pounds

7,139,722
16,516,551
6,692,942
4,352,451
4,050,619
38,752,285
29%

30,323,237
12,991,085
20,772,623
17,991,543
12,510,747
94,589,235
71%

Source: Unpublished VTR Data
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. However, the actual rebuilding of RH/S runs to optimally productive levels would
be expected to lead to substantial positive benefits. These fisheries have supported thriving (if
seasonal) commercial and recreational fisheries in the past. Public interest in this amendment
demonstrates that that the general public holds a certain value for the knowledge that these
fisheries are being sustainably managed, and even if each individual's value is small the total
public value may be quite large. If limiting RH/S catch through this alternative set led to
rebuilding then the benefits of the action alternatives would be large. If limiting RH/S catch
through this alternative set did not substantially lead to rebuilding (i.e. other factors are primarily
to cause for RH/S declines - see sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6) then the benefits of the action
alternatives would be minor. Future research may provide information on what factors are
primarily responsible to RH/S declines but currently that information is not available.

7cMack. Require observers in RH/S Mackerel Management Area (applies in Quarter 1
only – see map below) for vessels with federal mackerel permits to retain more than 20,000
pounds of mackerel. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).
NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay observers.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected for mackerel compared to the no-action
alternative since overall effort and catch would likely be reduced given the scope of the closed
area and the high costs of observer coverage. Since taking the full quota of the directed species
should not impact the sustainability of the managed resource, impacts should be low.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the
degree that better data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive
impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. To the degree that fishermen did not fish because
of the cost of the requirement, there could be benefits to non-target species because of reduced
fisheries interactions. In addition, effort redistribution (including shifts of effort to other
fisheries in the same area) could lead to unexpected potentially negative impacts if they
ultimately increase non-target species interactions. Due to the expected overall lower effort
these would not be expected to change the overall positive impact.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. There
may be a reduction in mackerel fishing, but since mid-water trawl gear, which accounts for most
mackerel effort, does not generally contact the bottom, there would be no benefits to benthic
habitats. There is some directed bottom trawling for mackerel but not enough for there to be
more than negligible impacts. These benefits may be offset by some bottom trawlers who decide
to pursue mackerel under the incidental trip limits (to take advantage of the cut-off supply and
possibly higher prices), but both shifts should be small and offsetting, suggesting a neutral and/or
negligible impact.

4.

Protected Resources

A positive impact would be expected for protected resources compared to the no-action
alternative since effort would likely be reduced given the scope of the observer coverage area
and the costs of observer coverage. Less effort should result in less protected species
interactions.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the no-action alternative. On
one hand there are costs of carrying observers relative to vessel revenues and existing costs.
These are described in Section 7.5. Given the scope of the area involved, this alternative is
roughly similar to requiring 100% observer coverage. If the cost of observers is too high vessels
would likely shift effort to other fisheries if possible but some revenue loss is still likely if they
would have preferred to mackerel fish.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since this alternative is primarily related to monitoring, the direct impacts are
probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternatives that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

7cLong. Require observers in RH/S longfin squid Management Area (applies year round)
for vessels with federal longfin squid permits to possess more than 2,500 pounds of longfin
squid. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer coverage goals
adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations assigned through
the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries). NEFSC would
accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay observers.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A potentially low positive impact would be expected for longfin squid compared to the no-action
alternative since overall effort and catch would likely be reduced given the scope of the closed
area and the high costs of observer coverage. Since taking the full quota of the directed species
should not impact the sustainability of the managed resource, impacts should be low. If the
longfin squid fishery is better monitored or reduced, there would likely be benefits to butterfish
given the relatively high catch rates of butterfish in the longfin squid fishery.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A potentially positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To the
degree that better data is used to better minimize non-target interactions, there could be positive
impacts to non-target species, including RH/S. To the degree that fishermen did not fish because
of the cost of the requirement, there could be benefits to non-target species because of reduced
fisheries interaction related to the lower effort. In addition, effort redistribution (including
shifts of effort to other fisheries in the same area) could lead to unexpected potentially negative
impacts if they ultimately increase non-target species interactions. Due to the expected overall
lower effort these would not be expected to change the overall positive impact.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.
However, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion
of small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A potentially low positive impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. To
the degree that fishermen did not fish because of the requirement to carry costly observers, effort
would be reduced thus reducing habitat impacts. The proposed observer coverage areas for
longfin squid are large enough that some overall effort reduction would likely occur, reducing
habitat impacts, especially within the observer coverage area. While not expected to totally
offset the positive impacts, this alternative might displace some effort to the southern edge of
Georges Bank. Because the directed fishery is a bottom trawl fishery, and because the bottom
habitats on the outer shelf are deeper and more vulnerable to bottom contact (less natural
disturbance), this alternative could potentially have negative habitat impacts outside the RH/S
areas related to increases in redistributed fishing effort.

4.

Protected Resources

A positive impact would be expected for protected resources compared to the no-action
alternative since effort would likely be reduced given the scope of the observer coverage area
and the costs of observer coverage. Less effort should result in less protected species
interactions.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.

5.

Human Communities

The impacts appear mixed with uncertain net impacts compared to the no-action alternative. On
one hand there are costs of carrying observers relative to vessel revenues and existing costs.
These are described in Section 7.5. Given the scope of the area involved, this alternative is
roughly similar to requiring 100% observer coverage. If the cost of observers is too high vessels
would likely shift effort to other fisheries if possible but some revenue loss is still likely if they
would have preferred to fish for longfin squid.
While there are human community costs there also could be human community benefits. To the
extent that these alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries producing
optimal yields) of RH/S or other non-target species, then choosing this action alternative in
comparison to the no-action alternative might result in additional benefits related to commercial
revenues, recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other
non-market existence values (i.e. value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these
species are being conserved successfully). Due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of
either the managed species or RH/S is impacted by current catch levels these impacts are not
quantifiable. Since this alternative is primarily related to monitoring, the direct impacts are

probably small but the reader should review similar impacts for the alternatives that deal with
management measures that may utilize better data.

7d. Make above requirement(s) in effect only when a mortality cap "trigger" is reached.
Operation of a “trigger” would be identical to the operation of a mortality cap (see
Alternative Set 6 above) but the consequence of hitting the cap would be implementing
7b and/or 7c above if this alternative is selected in conjunction with 7b and/or 7c above.
Trigger levels would be specified annually via specifications.

7d would only be selected if 7bMack, 7bLong, 7cMack, or 7cLong were selected. Because
under 7d those measures would only be in place for the part of the year after the cap had been
achieved, 7d would reduce the biological and human community impacts described in 7bMack,
7bLong, 7cMack, or 7cLong, depending on how quickly the trigger for the fishery is attained.
Those impacts are not repeated here but are described in the analysis of RH/S mortality cap in
Alternative Set 6 (see Section 7.6).

7e. Stipulate that any areas designated in Amendment 14 would be considered for updating
every other year in specifications considering the most recent data available when
specifications are developed.
This alternative would commit the Council to re-evaluate the designated areas every other year
during the specifications process. The impacts of any potential revised areas will be evaluated in
the NEPA documentation for the annual specifications that considered the changes
Biological Impacts
Impacts would be uncertain depending on the outcome of the analysis.
Human Community Impacts
Impacts would be uncertain depending on the outcome of the analysis.

Figure 61. RH/S Mackerel Management Area (would apply in Quarter 1 only) over
Quarter 1 MWT effort and RH/S Catch

Figure 62. RH/S Longfin squid Management Area over small mesh bottom effort and RH/S Catch (Quarters 1 and 2)

Figure 63. RH/S Longfin squid Management Area over small mesh bottom effort and RH/S Catch (Quarters 3 and 4)

Alternative Set 7 Summary - Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

The action alternatives that implement large-scale area closures (7bMack and 7bLong) would
have low benefits to managed species because it is likely the areas would lead to reduced total
catch of the managed species because of the areas' large size and likelihood of discouraging
effort. However, even achieving the full quota of the managed species should not cause
sustainability concerns so impacts would be low. The alternatives that require industry-funded
observer coverage in these areas (7cMack and 7cLong) would do the same (the cost of observers
would discourage effort) but to a lesser degree since vessels could still fish in the area with an
observer.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

The action alternatives that implement large-scale area closures (7bMack and 7bLong) would
have benefits to non-target species because it is likely the areas would lead to reduced total nontarget catch because of the areas' large size and likelihood of discouraging effort. The
alternatives that require industry-funded observer coverage in these areas (7cMack and 7cLong)
would do the same (the cost of observers would discourage effort) but to a lesser degree since
vessels could still fish in the area with an observer. RH/S impacts would be higher (more
positive) with the mackerel measures since the mackerel fishery appears to catch more RH/S
than the longfin squid fishery.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

To the degree effort was reduced, habitat impacts would also be reduced, with longfin squid
effort reductions being more important since they predominantly use bottom otter trawls. The
closures would probably reduce effort more than the observer coverage requirements as
discussed above.
4.

Protected Resources

To the degree effort was reduced, protected resource impacts would also be reduced. The
closures would probably reduce effort more than the observer coverage requirements as
discussed above.
5.

Human Communities

Human community impacts are mixed depending on which interest group is considered.
Commercial participants could incur high costs for all alternatives related to forgone revenues
due to large area closures and/or high observer costs. The interested public would benefit to the
extent that lower catch helped rebuild RH/S stocks (which is highly uncertain).

Comparison of Alternative Sets 7 and 8
As stated above, given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that
alternatives would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could
select an alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from
another set, but not from both sets for one fishery. There are some hotspot areas north of Cape
Cod that are not covered by Alternative Set 7’s larger areas but there is relatively low mackerel
and/or longfin squid activity in those areas at the relevant times of the year. Because of
Alternative Set 8’s small areas (hotspots) the difference in terms of impacts are not expected to
be proportionally less for Set 8 compared to Set 7. Rather, Set 8 would be expected to have
negligible impacts across resource types due to fishery participants’ abilities to redistribute
effort, which could not occur to the same degree with Set 7 given how large the areas are in Set
7.
7.8 Alternative Set 8 – Hotspot Restrictions
The New England Fishery Management Council developed a variety of “Hotspot” alternatives in
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Plan. All of the areas contemplated are relatively small
and consider different restrictions within the hotspots. Since Atlantic herring and mackerel are
often targeted by the same vessels and are sometimes targeted together at the same time, it makes
sense to consider these alternatives even though they were based on observer data from “herring
trips” as defined below.
The smallest areas are termed “River Herring Protection Areas.” These Protection Areas were
identified bimonthly as the quarter degree squares with at least one observed tow of river herring
catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast Fisheries Observer Program data
from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic herring during the respective 2-month
period. The protection areas include just the portion of the monitoring/avoidance areas
(described below) that have the highest river herring catches on Atlantic herring trips as defined
above. Since the raw observer data were pooled across years, the threshold was only one tow,
and the results are only from Herring Trips, they do not reflect how much total river herring was
caught in the Protection Area versus other areas in a given year.
Slightly larger areas are termed “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas.” These
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas were identified bimonthly as the quarter degree squares with at
least one observed tow of river herring catch greater than 40 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic
herring during the respective 2-month period. They include all of the area identified in the
protection areas as well is areas where a more modest amount of river herring was caught. Since
the raw observer data were pooled across years, the threshold was only one tow, and the results
are only from Herring Trips, they do not reflect how much total river herring was caught in the
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas versus other areas in a given year.
These protection and monitoring/avoidance areas are mapped below by their respective bimonthly periods. Since seeing them on the same page clarifies the differences among the areas,

they are illustrated together below (where applicable). Management measures that could apply
to these areas follow the maps.
NOTE ON COMBINATIONS: All of the action alternatives in the set could be adopted
individually or together. 8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this
Alternative Set only applicable when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring
fishery, would only be chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack,
8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong was also chosen.
Given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that alternatives
would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could select an
alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from another
set, but not from both sets for one fishery.
The enforceability of area-based management alternatives could be facilitated by the selection of
the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement in Alternative Set 1 (alternatives 1eMack or
1eLong).
The selection of alternatives that include observer coverage requirements (8cMack and 8cLong)
would require the selection of observer program notification alternatives for limited access
mackerel permits in Alternative Set 1(1d48 and 1d72).
If an overall observer coverage requirement in Alternative Set 5 was selected but did not result in
a trip covered by an alternative in this Alternative Set having an observer, this Alternative Set
would effectively require additional coverage.
When comparing alternatives relative to the mackerel fishery or the longfin squid fishery, the
mackerel alternatives are likely to have a greater positive impact on RH/S because substantially
more RH/S appear to be caught in the mackerel fishery, but it is not possible to quantify the
differential in potential benefits.

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Figure 64.January – February Herring Area
Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 65.March – April Herring Area

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 66.May – June Herring Area

Protection Area
None proposed – there were no qualifying observer records (quarter degree squares with at least
one observed tow of river herring catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic
herring).

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 67. July – August Herring Area

Protection Area
None proposed – there were no qualifying observer records (quarter degree squares with at least
one observed tow of river herring catch greater than 1,233 pounds, using 2005-2009 Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program data from trips with greater than 2,000 pounds of kept Atlantic
herring).

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 68.September – October Herring Area
Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Figure 69.November – December Herring Area

Protection Area (highest catch records from Monitoring/Avoidance Area)

Monitoring/Avoidance Area

Management Measures

8a. No-action
If this alternative is selected, then no measures from Alternative Set 8 would be implemented and
the existing state management measures (as described in section 5.9) would remain in place.
Thus there would be no incremental impacts compared to the status quo, but there are relative
impacts compared to the action alternatives, as described below. While this section focuses on
incremental impacts, cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 8.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Vessels
will continue to target the managed resource across all current fishing areas. While the action
alternatives may cause vessels to redirect fishing effort to other locations or managed fisheries,
the proposed areas are relatively small for each bimonthly area so it is not expected that catches
of the managed resources would change substantially with the proposed areas in place due to the
highly migratory nature of the managed species. Because the proposed areas are not likely to
impact the managed resource, the impacts of maintaining the status quo will also be neutral or
negligible. For options that require observer coverage in hotspots, if vessels still fish in those
areas, more information would be gained so not obtaining that information would be a forgone
benefit. If overall observer coverage levels are steady, closing areas results in more information
outside of the areas and less information inside the areas, so the no-action results in more
information inside the areas and less information outside the areas.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Vessels
will continue to target the managed resource across all current fishing areas. While the action
alternatives may cause vessels to redirect fishing effort to other locations or managed fisheries,
the proposed areas are relatively small and the distributions of most of the non-target species that
interact with the managed resources are wide and variable. Because of this, small scope seasonal
closures are not expected to reduce the rate of non-targets species interactions in the proposed
areas beyond the level of non-target species interactions across current fishing areas. Because
the proposed areas are not likely to impact the frequency of non-target resource interactions, the
impacts of maintaining the status quo will also be neutral or negligible. If the areas happened to
have higher RH/S catch rates then the no action would not redirect effort away from those areas
and would be a negative impact for RH/S. If the areas happened to have lower RH/S catch rates
then the no action would not redirect effort away from those areas and there would be a positive
impact for RH/S, but the year to year variability in RH/S movement means that there may be
negligible impacts over time.

For options that require observer coverage in hotspots, if vessels still fish in those areas, more
information would be gained so not obtaining that information would be a forgone benefit. If
overall observer coverage levels are steady, closing areas results in more information outside of
the areas and less information inside the areas, so the no-action results in more information
inside the areas and less information outside the areas.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact overall impact would be expected compared to the action
alternatives. With mackerel most effort is with mid-water gear so moving effort from one
location to another should not impact habitat. For longfin squid, the no-action alternative would
result in no change in fishing effort across areas. The action alternatives would decrease effort
inside the hotspots (a positive for habitat there) but increase effort outside the hotspots (a
negative for habitat there). So the no-action alternative would result in positive impacts for
habitat outside the hotspots (by not redirecting effort there) and would result in negative impacts
for habitat inside the hotspots (by not redirecting effort away from there). Overall however,
there is no information to suggest that there would be a net change in effort and habitat impacts,
just a redistribution. And since the areas are relatively small, the redistribution of effort should
be relatively small, with negligible impacts between the no action and action alternatives.
4.

Protected Resources

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the action alternatives. Vessels
may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small, while
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that the new areas would be substantially different than the old areas in terms of
protected resources or protected resource interactions.
If additional information on protected resources interactions could be gained through options that
increase observer coverage and sampling (CA I provisions) on trips to RH/S areas, then selecting
the no action results in less available information. If overall observer coverage levels are steady,
closing areas results in more information outside of the areas and less information inside the
areas, so the no-action results in more information inside the areas and less information outside
the areas.
Since overall effort is not expected to change given the small size of the areas, closing areas
would result in a redistribution of effort, so not closing the areas (no action) means there would
be more interactions inside the areas and less interactions outside the areas but probably
negligible overall impacts.
5.

Human Communities

There are low negative socio-economic impacts for the action alternatives that would be avoided
by choosing the no-action alternative compared to the status quo. These avoided impacts include
costs of observers (8c), additional operational costs to leave an area after a slippage event (8d),

and additional operational costs if a vessel decided to travel to more distant areas rather than fish
in one of the proposed hotspots (8c, 8d, 8e).

8b. Make implementing area-based "hotspot closures" to reduce catches (similar to those
considered in NEFMC’s Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Plan) frameworkable.
(PREFERRED)

The Council would make the hotspot requirements considered below frameworkable under a
subsequent action. Biological and Socioeconomic considerations would be reevaluated when
any framework was developed and would depend on the exact measures considered. Impacts
would be analyzed at the time of framework consideration. No immediate impacts would be
expected for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and
considered separately.

8cMack. For Atlantic mackerel permitted vessels, more than an incidental level of fish
(20,000 pounds mackerel) may not be retained/transferred/ possessed if any fishing occurs
in a River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area without a NMFS-approved observer at any
point during the trip. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere than the Monitoring/Avoidance Area with the action alternative but since the
areas are relatively small, while there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort
due to this alternative, it would not be expected that catches of the managed resources would be
substantially impacted overall, especially given the wide distribution and migratory nature of the
managed species, leading to high inter-annual variability in availability. There might be lower
catches inside the area if this alternative was implemented, but higher catches outside due to
effort displacement for a negligible net change because the areas are relatively small, affording
vessels the opportunity to shift fishing effort and maintain level catches of the managed species.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small, while
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas would
be substantially different than the old areas in terms of non-target impacts (including RH/S)
given the wide distribution and high inter-annual variability of most non-target species'
availability, including RH/S (see appendices 1 and 2). If effort is displaced from a small area,
there might be lower catches inside the area but higher catches outside for a zero net change,
especially since the areas are relatively small.

From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact overall impact would be expected compared to the no-action
alternatives. With mackerel most effort is with mid-water gear so moving effort from one
location to another should not impact habitat. Even for the bottom-trawl effort for mackerel, the
action alternative would probably result in no change in net fishing effort across areas. The
action alternatives would decrease effort inside the hotspots (a positive for habitat there) but
increase effort outside the hotspots (a negative for habitat there). Overall however, there is no
information to suggest that there would be a net change in effort and habitat impacts, just a
redistribution. And since the areas are relatively small, the redistribution of effort should be
relatively small, with negligible impacts between the no action and action alternatives.

4.

Protected Resources

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small, while
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas would
be substantially different than the old areas in terms of protected resource impacts given the wide
distribution and high inter-annual variability of most protected resources. If effort is displaced
from a small area, there might be lower interactions inside the area but higher interactions
outside for a zero net change, especially since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected

outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.

5.

Human Communities

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Participants
would either have to pay to take an observer aboard ($800/day), raising mackerel trip costs by
23%-49% (see section 7.5 for analysis of observer cost compared to average mackerel revenues),
or avoid fishing in the proposed areas. Conservation benefits are unlikely to be large based on
the biological impact sections above. Given the small size of the areas, vessels are more likely to
avoid the areas altogether rather than pay for costly observer coverage. Thus, because vessels
are likely to decide not to fish in these areas, they have the potential to not incur costs for
observer coverage, so impacts would likely be low. However, near-shore fishermen near the
closed areas may be disproportionately impacted by closures around their home port, having to
incur costs by traveling away from these areas.

8cLong. For longfin squid permitted vessels, more than an incidental level of fish (2,500
pounds longfin squid) may not be retained/transferred/ possessed if any fishing occurs in a
River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Area without a NMFS-approved observer at any
point during the trip. Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer
coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations
assigned through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries).
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere than the Monitoring/Avoidance Area with the action alternative but since the
areas are relatively small, while there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort
due to this alternative, it would not be expected that catches of the managed resources would be
substantially impacted overall, especially given the wide distribution and migratory nature of the
managed species, leading to high inter-annual variability in availability. There might be lower
catches inside the area if this alternative was implemented, but higher catches outside due to
effort displacement for a negligible net change because the areas are relatively small, affording
vessels the opportunity to shift fishing effort and maintain level catches of the managed species.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small, while
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas would
be substantially different than the old areas in terms of non-target impacts (including RH/S)
given the wide distribution and high inter-annual variability of most non-target species'
availability, including RH/S (see appendices 1 and 2). If effort is displaced from a small area,
there might be lower catches inside the area but higher catches outside for a zero net change,
especially since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then more information is
gained related to the observer requirement which is a potentially positive impact. If vessels just
avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected
outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net
change in the value of information gathered.
Also, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion of
small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact overall impact would be expected compared to the no-action
alternatives. Even for the bottom-trawl effort, the action alternative would probably result in no
change in net fishing effort across areas. The action alternatives would decrease effort inside the
hotspots (a positive for habitat there) but increase effort outside the hotspots (a negative for
habitat there). Overall however, there is no information to suggest that there would be a net
change in effort and habitat impacts, just a redistribution. And since the areas are relatively
small, the redistribution of effort should be relatively small, with negligible impacts between the
no action and action alternatives.

4.

Protected Resources

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small, while
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would

not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas would
be substantially different than the old areas in terms of protected resource impacts given the wide
distribution and high inter-annual variability of most protected resources. If effort is displaced
from a small area, there might be lower interactions inside the area but higher interactions
outside for a zero net change, especially since the areas are relatively small.
5.

Human Communities

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Participants
would either have to pay to take an observer aboard ($800/day), raising longfin squid trip costs
by 85%-189% (see section 7.5 for analysis of observer cost compared to average longfin squid
trip revenues), or avoid fishing in the proposed areas. Conservation benefits are unlikely to be
large based on the biological impact sections above. Given the small size of the areas, vessels
are more likely to avoid the areas altogether rather than pay for costly observer coverage. Thus,
because vessels are likely to decide not to fish in these areas, they have the potential to not incur
costs for observer coverage, so impacts would likely be low. However, near-shore fishermen
near the closed areas may be disproportionately impacted by closures around their home port,
having to incur costs by traveling away from these areas.
8dMack. If a mackerel-permitted vessel is fishing in any River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas identified in this alternative with an observer onboard,
vessels would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net for inspection and
sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be required to bring all fish
aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer. Unless specific conditions
are met (see section 5.8), vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net,
transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or
otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel
and made available for sampling and inspection by the NMFS-approved observer.
As described in 5.8, if vessels do slip hauls in a monitoring/avoidance area they would be
required to leave the monitoring/avoidance area for the duration of their trip.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection when observers are onboard in these areas
would not be expected to impact the managed resources compared to the no-action alternative
since total catch of the managed resources is not likely to be substantially impacted. Even if
fishing activity is displaced from these areas, since the managed species are widely distributed
and the areas are relatively small, substantial changes in overall catch would not be expected.
From an information point of view, most of the managed species are already brought on board
for sampling/inspection so related impacts would be negligible if vessels still fish in these areas.
If vessels just avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be
collected outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably
no net change in the value of information gathered. Also, most fish are already brought on
board for inspection.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

If vessels continue to fish in these areas, a requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection
when observers are onboard in these areas would not be expected to impact non-target species
(including RH/S) compared to the no-action alternative since the fishing activity would continue.
Vessels may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small,
while there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it
would not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas
would be substantially different than the old areas in terms of non-target impacts (including
RH/S) given the wide distribution and high inter-annual variability of most non-target species'
availability, including RH/S (see appendices 1 and 2). If effort is displaced from a small area,
there might be lower catches inside the area but higher catches outside for a zero net change,
especially since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then better data would be
collected because all caught fish would be inspected. If vessels just avoid these areas and
observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less
information would be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of
information gathered.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere rather than be subject to these requirements in these areas but since the
majority of mackerel landings are made with mid-water gear, which generally does not contact
the bottom, any redirection or displacement of mackerel effort due to this alternative would not
be expected to have any impacts on habitat. There is some directed bottom trawling for mackerel
but not enough for there to be more than negligible impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

If vessels continue to fish in these areas, a requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection
when observers are onboard in these areas would not be expected to impact protected resources
compared to the no-action alternative since the fishing activity would continue. If vessels just
fish elsewhere, there would be lower interactions inside the areas but higher interactions outside
the areas. Since the areas are relatively small it would not be expected that overall effort would
change, and while there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this
alternative, it would not be expected that the new areas would be substantially different than the
old areas in terms of protected resources or protected resource interactions, especially since the
areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then better data would be
collected because all caught fish would be inspected for protected resources. If vessels just avoid
these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected outside

the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net change in
the value of information gathered.

5.

Human Communities

A requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection when observers are onboard in these areas
would not be expected to substantially impact human communities compared to the no-action
alternative since most fish are brought on board already and because the areas are relatively
small relative to the wide distribution of fishing activity for the managed resources. Some loss
of revenue and/or additional costs may accrue if a vessel has to leave an area after a slippage
event but given the relatively small areas involved it is likely that fishermen will be able to react
to keep any economic losses relatively low.

8dLong. If a longfin squid-permitted vessel is fishing in a River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas identified in this alternative with an observer onboard,
vessels would be required to pump/haul aboard all fish from the net for inspection and
sampling by the observer. Vessels that do not pump fish would be required to bring all fish
aboard the vessel for inspection and sampling by the observer. Unless specific conditions
are met (see section 5.8), vessels would be prohibited from releasing fish from the net,
transferring fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or
otherwise discarding fish at sea, unless the fish have first been brought aboard the vessel
and made available for sampling and inspection by the NMFS-approved observer.
As described in 5.8, if vessels do slip hauls in a monitoring/avoidance area they would be
required to leave the monitoring/avoidance area for the duration of their trip.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection when observers are onboard in these areas
would not be expected to impact the managed resources compared to the no-action alternative
since total catch of the managed resources is not likely to be substantially impacted. Even if
fishing activity is displaced from these areas, since the managed species are widely distributed
and the areas are relatively small, changes in overall catch would not be expected.
From an information point of view, most of the managed species are already brought on board
for sampling/inspection so related impacts would be negligible if vessels still fish in these areas.
If vessels just avoid these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be
collected outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably
no net change in the value of information gathered.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

If vessels continue to fish in these areas, a requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection
when observers are onboard in these areas would not be expected to impact non-target species
(including RH/S) compared to the no-action alternative since the fishing activity would continue.
Vessels may fish elsewhere with the action alternatives but since the areas are relatively small,
while there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it
would not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas
would be substantially different than the old areas in terms of non-target impacts (including
RH/S) given the wide distribution and high inter-annual variability of most non-target species'
availability, including RH/S (see appendices 1 and 2). If effort is displaced from a small area,
there might be lower catches inside the area but higher catches outside for a zero net change,
especially since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then better data would be
collected because all caught fish would be inspected. If vessels just avoid these areas and
observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less
information would be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of
information gathered.
Also, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion of
small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not
extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact overall impact would be expected compared to the no-action
alternatives. Even for the bottom-trawl effort, the action alternative would probably result in no
change in net fishing effort across areas. The action alternatives might decrease effort inside the
hotspots (a positive for habitat there) but increase effort outside the hotspots (a negative for
habitat there). Overall however, there is no information to suggest that there would be a net
change in effort and habitat impacts, just a redistribution. And since the areas are relatively
small, the redistribution of effort should be relatively small, with negligible impacts between the
no action and action alternatives.
4.

Protected Resources

If vessels continue to fish in these areas, a requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection
when observers are onboard in these areas would not be expected to impact protected resources
compared to the no-action alternative since the fishing activity would continue. If vessels just

fish elsewhere, there would be lower interactions inside the areas but higher interactions outside
the areas. Since the areas are relatively small it would not be expected that overall effort would
change, and while there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this
alternative, it would not be expected that the new areas would be substantially different than the
old areas in terms of protected resources or protected resource interactions, especially since the
areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, if vessels still fish in these areas then better data would be
collected because all caught fish would be inspected for protected resources. If vessels just avoid
these areas and observer coverage is steady, then more information would be collected outside
the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for probably no net change in
the value of information gathered.
5.

Human Communities

A requirement to bring all fish on board for inspection when observers are onboard in these areas
would not be expected to substantially impact human communities compared to the no-action
alternative since most fish are brought on board already and because the areas are relatively
small relative to the wide distribution of fishing activity for the managed resources. Some loss
of revenue and/or additional costs may accrue if a vessel has to leave an area after a slippage
event but given the relatively small areas involved it is likely that fishermen will be able to react
to keep any economic losses relatively low.

8eMack. Vessels possessing a federal mackerel permit would not be able to retain, possess
or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds mackerel) while in a River
Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. While
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that catches of the managed resources would be substantially impacted overall,
especially given the wide distribution and migratory nature of the managed species, leading to
high inter-annual variability in availability. There might be lower catches inside the area if this
alternative was implemented, but higher catches outside due to effort displacement for a
negligible net change because the areas are relatively small, affording vessels the opportunity to
shift fishing effort and maintain level catches of the managed species.
From an information point of view, if overall observer coverage is level, more information would
be collected outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for
probably no net change in the value of information gathered, especially since the areas are
relatively small.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. While
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas would
be substantially different than the old areas in terms of non-target impacts (including RH/S)
given the wide distribution and high inter-annual variability of most non-target species'
availability, including RH/S (see appendices 1 and 2). If effort is displaced from a small area,
there might be lower catches inside the area but higher catches outside for a zero net change,
especially since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, assuming vessels avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere rather than in these areas but since the majority of mackerel landings are
made with mid-water gear, which generally does not contact the bottom, any redirection or
displacement of mackerel effort due to this alternative would not be expected to have any
impacts on habitat. There is some directed bottom trawling for mackerel but not enough for there
to be more than negligible impacts.
4.

Protected Resources

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere but since the areas are relatively small, while there may be some redirection
or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would not be expected that total effort
would change or that the new areas would be substantially different than the old areas in terms of
protected resources or rates of protected resource interactions. Thus while there may be fewer
interactions inside the areas, there may be more interactions outside the areas, probably with
negligible net impacts since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, assuming vessels avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.
5.

Human Communities

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If the
protection areas overlap with productive fishing areas in a given year, revenues may be
decreased or fishermen may incur higher costs traveling to other fishing areas. Given the
complexity of fishermen’s responses to regulations and given the protection areas are relatively
small, the effects may not be substantial for most fishermen in most years compared to the no-

action alternative. However, near-shore fishermen near the closed areas may be
disproportionately impacted by closures around their home port. Given where and when the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries are conducted, mackerel participants are more likely to be
impacted than longfin squid participants, who tend to fish offshore in the winter months.

8eLong. Vessels possessing a federal moratorium longfin squid permit would not be able to
retain, possess or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds longfin squid)
while in a River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard
the vessel.
1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. While
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that catches of the managed resources would be substantially impacted overall,
especially given the wide distribution and migratory nature of the managed species, leading to
high inter-annual variability in availability. There might be lower catches inside the area if this
alternative was implemented, but higher catches outside due to effort displacement for a
negligible net change because the areas are relatively small, affording vessels the opportunity to
shift fishing effort and maintain level catches of the managed species.
From an information point of view, if overall observer coverage is level, more information would
be collected outside the areas and less information would be collected inside the area for
probably no net change in the value of information gathered, especially since the areas are
relatively small.
2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. While
there may be some redirection or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would
not be expected that total effort would change nor would it be expected that the new areas would
be substantially different than the old areas in terms of non-target impacts (including RH/S)
given the wide distribution and high inter-annual variability of most non-target species'
availability, including RH/S (see appendices 1 and 2). If effort is displaced from a small area,
there might be lower catches inside the area but higher catches outside for a zero net change,
especially since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, assuming vessels avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.
Also, targeting information collected by NEFOP observers suggests that only a small portion of
small mesh bottom trawl catches of RH/S are actually from longfin squid-targeted tows with
herring accounting for most followed by mackerel and silver hake. While these are not

extrapolated catches, and target species is self-reported to observers prior to each tow, on a
relative basis the information suggests that the longfin squid fishery may not actually be
accounting for that much RH/S catch, which is consistent with the directed-trip based analysis
conducted annually for the specifications’ environmental assessment (provided above in section
6.3).

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere rather than in these areas but since the areas are relatively small, while there
may be some redirection or displacement of longfin squid fishing effort due to this alternative, it
would not be expected that the new areas would be substantially different than the old areas in
terms of habitat and/or habitat impacts.

4.

Protected Resources

A neutral or negligible impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. Vessels
may fish elsewhere but since the areas are relatively small, while there may be some redirection
or displacement of fishing effort due to this alternative, it would not be expected that total effort
would change or that the new areas would be substantially different than the old areas in terms of
protected resources or rates of protected resource interactions. Thus while there may be fewer
interactions inside the areas, there may be more interactions outside the areas, probably with
negligible net impacts since the areas are relatively small.
From an information point of view, assuming vessels avoid these areas and observer coverage is
steady, then more information would be collected outside the areas and less information would
be collected inside the area for probably no net change in the value of information gathered.
5.

Human Communities

A low negative impact would be expected compared to the no-action alternative. If the
protection areas overlap with productive fishing areas in a given year, revenues may be
decreased or fishermen may incur higher costs traveling to other fishing areas. Given the
complexity of fishermen’s responses to regulations and given the protection areas are relatively
small, the effects may not be substantial for most fishermen in most years compared to the noaction alternative. However, near-shore fishermen near the closed areas may be
disproportionately impacted by closures around their home port. Given where and when the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries are conducted, mackerel participants are more likely to be
impacted than longfin squid participants, who tend to fish offshore in the winter months.

8f. Make the above measures 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong only
effective if/when they are effective for Atlantic Herring vessels, including if they become
effective in the middle of a season because a catch-cap based trigger is reached by the

Atlantic Herring fleet under a trigger established by Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring
FMP.

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable
when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would thus only be
chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong
was also chosen. The effect of 8f is essentially that the Hotspot alternatives would only be
implemented if they are also implemented for Atlantic herring in a kind of light-switch on-off
fashion. Thus the impact of 8f is the same as the action alternatives described above if the
measures also apply to Atlantic herring and it is the same as the no-action alternative if no
hotspot measures are implemented for Atlantic herring.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable
when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would thus only be
chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong
was also chosen. The effect of 8f is essentially that the Hotspot alternatives would only be
implemented if they are also implemented for Atlantic herring in a kind of light-switch on-off
fashion. Thus the impact of 8f is the same as the action alternatives described above if the
measures also apply to Atlantic herring and it is the same as the no-action alternative if no
hotspot measures are implemented for Atlantic herring.
3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable
when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would thus only be
chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong
was also chosen. The effect of 8f is essentially that the Hotspot alternatives would only be
implemented if they are also implemented for Atlantic herring in a kind of light-switch on-off
fashion. Thus the impact of 8f is the same as the action alternatives described above if the
measures also apply to Atlantic herring and it is the same as the no-action alternative if no
hotspot measures are implemented for Atlantic herring.
4.
Protected Resources
8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable
when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would thus only be
chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong
was also chosen. The effect of 8f is essentially that the Hotspot alternatives would only be
implemented if they are also implemented for Atlantic herring in a kind of light-switch on-off
fashion. Thus the impact of 8f is the same as the action alternatives described above if the

measures also apply to Atlantic herring and it is the same as the no-action alternative if no
hotspot measures are implemented for Atlantic herring.

5.

Human Communities

8f, which would make any of the requirements selected in this Alternative Set only applicable
when the same measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery, would thus only be
chosen if at least one alternative among 8cMack, 8cLong, 8dMack, 8dLong, 8eMack, or 8eLong
was also chosen. The effect of 8f is essentially that the Hotspot alternatives would only be
implemented if they are also implemented for Atlantic herring in a kind of light-switch on-off
fashion. Thus the impact of 8f is the same as the action alternatives described above if the
measures also apply to Atlantic herring and it is the same as the no-action alternative if no
hotspot measures are implemented for Atlantic herring.

Alternative Set 8 Summary - Hotspot Restrictions

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

The alternatives in this section, for either mackerel or longfin squid, and inside the so called
“hotspots”, would either require observers for catches greater than incidental levels (“8c”
alternatives), prohibit slippage (“8d” alternatives), or require the use of mesh greater than 5.5
inches for catches greater than incidental levels (“8e” alternatives). 8b would make such
alternatives frameworkable and 8f would make such alternatives effective only when similar
measures were in effect for the Atlantic Herring fishery. None of these alternatives are expected
to substantially affect the managed resources because the hotspot areas are small while the
managed resources are widely distributed and migrate throughout the coastal and shelf waters of
the Mid-Atlantic and northeast U.S. coast. While there may be less fish caught within a hotspot,
total catch is not expected to be substantially impacted – fishing effort and catch may be
redistributed slightly but not reduced overall. Also, while more or less information may be
collected within a hotspot because of these alternatives depending on fishery participant
behavior, overall information quantity and quality is not likely to change because of the small
areas impacted.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

As with the managed resources, while fishing effort may be redistributed slightly it is not
expected to be reduced overall, which means that no substantial impacts are expected on nontarget species including RH/S. While the so-called hotspots do contain areas of relatively higher
RH/S catch, they are also generally the areas of higher effort and redistributing effort may just
result in new hotspots. The nature of within-year and inter-annual variability of RH/S
distributions (see appendices 1 and 2) does not support a conclusion that limiting fishing access
to the hotspots is likely to reduce overall RH/S catches, though it would likely reduce catch

within the hotspot. Also, while more or less information may be collected within a hotspot
because of these alternatives depending on fishery participant behavior, overall information
quantity and quality is generally not likely to change because of the small areas impacted. The
alternatives to reduce slippage (8d) could improve observer data if vessels keep fishing in the
hotspot areas.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

Since the action alternatives are likely to involve only relatively minor re-distributions of effort
related to the small area-based observer requirements, area-based slippage prohibitions, or areabased gear requirements, negligible impacts are expected.
4.

Protected Resources

Since the action alternatives are likely to involve only relatively minor re-distributions of effort
related to the small area-based observer requirements, area-based slippage prohibitions, or areabased gear requirements, negligible impacts are expected.
5.

Human Communities

Commercial participants would have to re-distribute their effort to some degree but could
probably adjust with relatively low costs. However, smaller operations located near the closed
areas could be disproportionately impacted in that they could have to travel beyond the relevant
restricted areas. Minimal benefits related to conservation gains would be expected due to the
lack of expected overall conservation improvements.
Comparison of Alternative Sets 7 and 8
As stated above, given the overlapping nature of Alternative Sets 7 and 8, it is not expected that
alternatives would be chosen from both Alternative Sets 7 and 8 for one fishery. One could
select an alternative for the longfin squid fishery from one set and for the mackerel fishery from
another set, but not from both sets for one fishery. There are some hotspot areas north of Cape
Cod that are not covered by Alternative Set 7’s larger areas but there is relatively low mackerel
and/or longfin squid activity in those areas at the relevant times of the year. Because of
Alternative Set 8’s small areas (hotspots) the difference in terms of impacts are not expected to
be proportionally less for Set 8 compared to Set 7. Rather, Set 8 would be expected to have
negligible impacts across resource types due to fishery participants’ abilities to redistribute
effort, which could not occur to the same degree with Set 7 given how large the areas are in Set
7.

7.9 Summary by VEC of preferred alternatives' impacts
Impacts by VEC have been summarized for each alternative set but not yet overall for the
combined set of preferred alternatives. Before the impacts are summarized by VEC for the
preferred alternatives, below follows a summary of all the preferred alternatives:
The preferred alternatives would: require weekly VTR reporting for all MSB vessel permits (1c);
require a 48-hour pre directed mackerel trip notification (1d48); require VMS and daily VMS
catch reporting for mackerel and longfin squid vessels (1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack, and 1fLong);
and require a 6-hour pre-landing notification via VMS for mackerel landings greater than 20,000
pounds (1gMack). The preferred alternatives would also require federal MSB dealers to weigh
all landings of mackerel over 20,000 pounds (2d) and longfin squid over 2,500 pounds (2f) or
document why they cannot weight landings (2g). (If all fish are not weighed separately, dealers
would have to document with each transaction how they estimate the relative composition of
mixed catches.). The preferred alternatives would also require for mackerel and longfinbutterfish permits that: reasonable assistance be provided to observers (3b); notice of haul-back
or pumping be provided to observers (3c); one observer is provided for each vessel on pair-trawl
operations whenever possible (3d). Unless safety, mechanical, or spiny dogfish issues make it
inappropriate, the same vessels would not be able to release hauls of fish (“slippage”) prior to
observer documentation, and catch affidavits would have to be completed for any pre-observed
net release (3j). For mackerel limited access vessels, there would also be a fleet-wide cap of 10
non-emergency (safety, mechanical, spiny dogfish) slippages after which further non-emergency
slippages would require a vessel to terminate their trip (3l). The Council also made
implementation of additional portside monitoring and catch avoidance based on portside
monitoring frameworkable (4f). The Council recommended 100% observer coverage of midwater trawl (MWT) mackerel trips (5b4) as well as tiered coverage levels for small mesh bottom
trawl mackerel trips (100% for Tier 1, 50% for Tier 2, and 25% for Tier 3) (5c4) along with
requiring mackerel vessels to pay $325 when they carry observers to help fund the desired
coverage levels (5f). Coverage levels would be re-evaluated after 2 years (5h). Since RH/S
catch is greatest in the mackerel fishery, and current analysis suggested that area-based could not
be determined to be an effective measure, the Council recommended mortality caps for RH/S on
the mackerel fishery (6b and 6c) and added future mortality caps and hotspot closures as
frameworkable actions (6f and 8b respectively).

1.

Managed Resources Impacts (mackerel, Illex, butterfish, longfin squid)

None of the preferred alternatives are likely to substantially impact the mackerel, Illex,
butterfish, or longfin squid stocks. These fisheries are already managed with hard quotas and
weekly dealer monitoring designed to ensure sustainability. In addition, a variety of mechanisms
(closure thresholds, trip limits, closure projection exercises by NMFS), buffer against overages.
The preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack,
1fLong, 1gMack, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5b4, 5c4, 5f, 5h) will result in improved
reporting and monitoring which could marginally improve NMFS' ability to effectively close the
MSB fisheries when needed, which increases sustainability and so would have small positive
impacts for the managed resources. The improved reporting and monitoring could also lead to
better discard estimation (of managed species) which could lead to improved management. The
preferred alternatives that could directly limit effort in the mackerel fishery (6b, 6c), could lead
to larger MSB stocks, but impacts should be minimal since management already strives for
sustainability.
Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not
have any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be
analyzed at the time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected
for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.

2.

Non-target Species Impacts (Including RH/S and species managed in other plans)

The preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack,
1fLong, 1gMack, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5b4, 5c4, 5f, 5h) will result in improved
reporting and monitoring which should indirectly lead to positive benefits for non-target species
because non-target interactions should be better documented and/or estimated, which in turn
should assist effective management/minimization of non-target interactions. If industry has to
pay for the observer coverage recommended in 5b4 and 5c4, overall mackerel effort could be
reduced which would lead to benefits for non-target species. The preferred alternatives that
could directly limit effort in the mackerel fishery once a certain amount of RH/S is caught (6b,
6c), could reduce negative impacts on non-target species, especially RH/S, though how much
any reduced RH/S catches in the mackerel fishery affect overall RH/S abundance is unknown.
Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not
have any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be
analyzed at the time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected
for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.

3.

Habitat Impacts Including EFH

The preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack,
1fLong, 1gMack, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5b4, 5c4, 5f, 5h) should have negligible
impacts on habitat. If industry has to pay for the observer coverage recommended in 5b4 and
5c4, overall mackerel effort could be reduced which would lead to benefits for habitat (but
probably negligible since most mackerel have been caught with mid-water gear recently). The
preferred alternatives that could directly limit effort in the mackerel fishery once a certain
amount of RH/S is caught (6b, 6c), could reduce negative impacts on habitat (but probably
negligibly since most mackerel have been caught with mid-water gear recently).
Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not
have any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be
analyzed at the time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected
for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.
4.

Protected Resources

The preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack,
1fLong, 1gMack, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5b4, 5c4, 5f, 5h) will result in improved
reporting and monitoring which should indirectly lead to positive benefits for protected resources
because interactions should be better documented and/or estimated, which in turn should assist
effective management/minimization of interactions. If industry has to pay for the observer
coverage recommended in 5b4 and 5c4, overall mackerel effort could be reduced which would
lead to benefits for protected resources. The preferred alternatives that could directly limit effort
in the mackerel fishery once a certain amount of RH/S is caught (6b, 6c), could reduce
interactions as well.
Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not
have any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be
analyzed at the time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected
for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.
5.

Human Communities

The overall human community impacts are best described as mixed with unknown overall
impacts. Most of the preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives should have negligible or
minimal impacts on how the fisheries operate (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack, 1fLong,
1gMack, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5h). Provisions for mandatory industry funding of
observer coverage (5b4, 5c4, 5f) would substantially raise fishing costs, and measures that could
directly limit effort in the mackerel fishery once a certain amount of RH/S is caught (6b, 6c),
could reduce future fishing revenues as well, though the amount depends on what is set in
specifications, which will be analyzed in specifications at a later date.

Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not
have any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be
analyzed at the time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected
for any VEC. Any potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered
separately.
To the extent that the preferred alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries
producing optimal yields) of RH/S or other species, then the preferred alternatives should result
in long term additional benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e.
value gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved
successfully). However, due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of RH/S is impacted
by current catch levels in the MSB fisheries, it is difficult to quantity such benefits. The amount
of benefit to RH/S stocks from any action affecting the MSB fisheries is unknown, so even
though one might contemplate what the value of rebuilt RH/S fisheries might be, it is not
possible to know if an action in this document might lead to rebuilt RH/S fisheries because of the
range of issues likely affecting RH/S stocks.

8.0

Cumulative Effects Assessment

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 14 together with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the MSB environment. It may be noted that the
predictions of potential synergistic effects from multiple actions, past, present and/or future will
generally be qualitative in comparison to the analysis of the effects of individual actions given in
Section 7.0.
The assessment presented here is explicitly structured upon the CEQ’s 11-step CEA process that
is described in their 1997 report, “Considering Cumulative Effects under the National
Environmental Policy Act” (CEQ 1997). These eleven steps are itemized below:
The CEQ’s eleven step CEA process. Taken from Table 1-5 in CEQ (1997).

1. Identify the significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action and
define the assessment goals.

2. Establish the geographic scope for the analysis.
3. Establish the timeframe for the analysis.
4. Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of
concern.
5. Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and human communities identified in scoping in
terms of their response to change and capacity to withstand stresses.
6. Characterize the stresses affecting these resources, ecosystems, and human communities
and their relation to regulatory thresholds.
7. Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human communities.
8. Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human activities and
resources, ecosystems, and human communities.
9. Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects.
10. Modify and add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant cumulative
effects.
11. Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative(s) and adapt management.

To a great extent, the descriptions and analyses presented in previous sections of this document
have contributed to the completion of most of the CEQ's eleven steps, however; the purpose of
this section of the document is to point out to the reader how these steps have been accomplished
within the development of Amendment 14 and its accompanying environmental impact analyses.

8.1

Cumulative Effects from Proposed Action and Assessment Goals

In Section 6.0 (Description of the Affected Environment) the valued ecosystem components
(VECs) that exist within the MSB fishery environment are identified and the basis for their
selection is established. This is associated with the completion of Step 1 in the CEQ’s 11-Step
process. The VECs are listed below.

1. Managed Resources

2. Non-target species

Atlantic mackerel stock
Illex stock
Longfin squid stock
Atlantic butterfish stock

3. Habitat including EFH for the managed resources and non-target species
4. Endangered and other protected resources
5. Human Communities

8.2

Geographic Boundaries

The analysis of impacts focuses primarily on actions related to the harvest of the managed
resources. Therefore, the geographic area used to define the core geographic scope for managed
resources, non-target species, habitat, and endangered and protected species was the area within
which the majority of harvest effort for the managed resources occurs (See Figure 22 ). For
human communities, the core geographic boundaries are defined as those U.S. fishing
communities directly involved in the harvest of the managed resources. These communities
were found to occur in coastal states from Maine to North Carolina.
8.3

Temporal Boundaries

The temporal scope of past and present actions for managed resources, non-target species,
habitat and human communities is primarily focused on actions that have occurred after FMP
implementation (1979). For endangered and other protected species, the scope of past and
present actions is on a species-by-species basis (Section 6.4) and is largely focused on the 1980s
and 1990s through the present, when NMFS began generating stock assessments for marine
mammals and turtles that inhabit waters of the U.S. EEZ. The temporal scope of future actions
for all five VECs, which includes the measures proposed by this amendment, extends five years
into the future following the expected implementation in 2014 (i.e., ~2019). This period was
chosen because the dynamic nature of resource management and lack of information on projects
that may occur in the future makes it difficult to predict impacts beyond this timeframe with any
certainty.

8.4
Identify Other Action Affecting the Resources, Ecosystems, and Human Communities of
Concern.
Table 75 accomplishes Step 4 of the CEQ process which calls for the identification of other
actions that affect the VECs, i.e., actions other than those being developed in this document.
These actions 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.
Note that most of these other actions 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
MSA, as amended in 1996 and 2007. 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 effective fishing effort (e.g.,
minimum mesh size for longfin squid in Amendment 5) may result in negative short-term socioeconomic impacts for fishery participants (added cost of modifying gear). However, these
impacts are usually necessary to bring about long-term sustainability of a given resource (in this
case, increasing butterfish escapement, albeit marginally), 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 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 nearshore 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 co-occur, they are likely to work
additively or synergistically to decrease habitat quality and, as such, may indirectly lower the
maximum sustainable yield of the managed resources, and negatively affect 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.
The overall impacts of these other (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) actions are
summarized in Table 75 and discussed below. These impacts, in addition to the impacts of the
management actions being developed in this document (Section 7.0), comprise the total
cumulative effects that will contribute to the significance determination for each of the VECs
exhibited later in Table 76.

Table 75. Impacts of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on the five VECs. These actions do not include those
under consideration in this Amendment.
Action

Description

Prosecution of
the MSB fisheries
by foreign fleets
in the area that
would become the
U.S. EEZ (prior to
implementation of
the MSA)

Foreign fishing
pressure peaked in
the 1960s and
slowly declined
until passage of the
MSA and
implementation of
the FMPs
Established
management of the
MSB fisheries

Impacts on
Managed
Resources

Impacts on Nontarget
Species

Impacts on
Habitat and
EFH

Impacts on
Protected
Species

Impacts on
Human
Communities

FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS
P

P

Original FMPs
(3) implemented
(1978 and 1979)
P, Pr

Original
FMPs merged
(1983)
P, Pr

Amendment
2 to the MSB
FMP (1986)
P

Amendment 3 to
the MSB FMP
(1991)
P

Amendment 4 to
the MSB FMP
(1991)

Consolidated
management of the
MSB fisheries
under one FMP
Revised squid
discard foreign
fishing allowances
Established
overfishing
definitions for all
four species
Limited activity of
directed foreign
fishing and JV
transfers to foreign
vessels

Direct High
Negative
Foreign fishing
depleted Atl.
Mackerel stock
below biomass
threshold

Potentially Direct
High Negative
Limited information
on discarding, but
fishing effort was
very high

Potentially Direct
High Negative
Limited
information on
discarding, but
fishing effort was
very high

Potentially Direct
High Negative
Limited
information on
protected resource
encounters, but
fishing effort was
very high

Potentially
Indirect Negative
Revenue from
fishing benefited
foreign businesses

Indirect Positive
Regulatory tool
available to rebuild
and manage stocks

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Benefited domestic
businesses

No Impact
Administrative
procedure

No Impact
Administrative
procedure

No Impact
Administrative
procedure

No Impact
Administrative
procedure

No Impact
Administrative
procedure

Indirect Positive
Reduced squid
mortality
Indirect Positive
Provided basis for
sustainable
management

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort
Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort
Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort
Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Benefited domestic
businesses
Indirect Positive
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability

Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Benefited domestic
businesses

Table 75 (continued)
Action

P, Pr

Amendment 5
to the MSB FMP
(1996)

P, Pr

Amendment 8
to the MSB FMP
(1998)

Description
Eliminated foreign
fisheries for squids
and butterfish
Implemented
limited access for
squid/butterfish
Expanded mg. unit
to all four species
Establish longfin
squid minimum
mesh size (included
exemption for Illex
fishery)
Brought FMP into
compliance with
new and revised
National Standards

P, Pr

Summer
Flounder, Scup and
Black Sea Bass
Specifications
(2000)
P, Pr

Framework 2 to
the MSB FMP
(2002)
P

Framework 3 to
the MSB FMP
(2003)
P, Pr

Framework 4 to
the MSB FMP
(2004)

Established scup
small mesh gear
restricted areas
Extended
moratorium on entry
into limited access
Illex fishery
Extended by one
year moratorium on
entry into limited
access Illex fishery
Extended by five
years moratorium
on entry into limited
access Illex fishery

Impacts on
Managed
Resources
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced effort
Indirect Positive
Constrained fishing
effort

Impacts on Nontarget
Species
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced effort
Indirect Positive
Constrained fishing
effort

Impacts on Habitat
and
EFH
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced effort
Indirect Positive
Constrained fishing
effort

Impacts on
Protected
Species
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced effort
Indirect Positive
Constrained fishing
effort

No Impact
Administrative
Low Positive
Marginal increase in
butterfish
escapement

No Impact
Administrative
Direct Positive
Increased finfish
escapement

No Impact
Administrative
Unknown
Changes in fishing
effort unknown

No Impact
Administrative
Unknown
Changes in fishing
effort unknown

Indirect Positive
Improved regulatory
tool for ensuring
sustainability
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort locally

Indirect Positive
Strengthened
mandate to reduce
discards
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort locally

Indirect Positive
Strengthened
mandate to protect
habitat
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort locally

Indirect Positive
Constrain harvest
capacity

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain harvest
capacity

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain harvest
capacity

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort locally

Impacts on Human
Communities
Indirect Positive
Benefited domestic
businesses
Indirect Positive
Reduced
overcapacity
No Impact
Administrative
Indirect Negative
(short term)
Cost of modifying
gear

Indirect Positive
(long term)
Indirect Negative
(short term) Cost
associated with
shifting effort for
some participants
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Prevented increases
in capacity
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Prevented increases
in capacity
Potentially Indirect
Positive
Prevented increases
in capacity

Table 75 (continued)
Action
P, Pr

Amendment 9 to
the MSB FMP
(2008)

RFFA

Amendment 5
to Atlantic Herring
FMP – See
Appendix 4

Impacts on
Managed
Resources
No Impact
Administrative
Positive
Would decrease the
likelihood that the
fishing quota would
be exceeded

Impacts on Nontarget
Species
No Impact
Administrative
Positive
Constrains effort

Impacts on Habitat
and
EFH
No Impact
Administrative
No Impact
If current trawling
effort is maintained,
would not increase
habitat disturbances.

Impacts on
Protected
Species
No Impact
Administrative
Positive
Constrains effort

Revise biological
reference points for
longfin squid

Potentially Positive
Increase chance of
achieving long term
sustainable yield for
longfin squid.

Potential low
negative
May increase effort
slightly if it results
in a higher quota.

Potential low
negative
May increase effort
slightly if it results
in a higher quota.

Potential low
negative
May increase effort
slightly if it results
in a higher quota.

Designate EFH for
longfin squid eggs
based on
documented
observations of egg
mops

Potentially positive
if used as basis for
future management.

Potentially positive
if used as basis for
future management.

Potentially positive
if used as basis for
future management.

Potentially positive
if used as basis for
future management.

Area closures to
reduce gear impacts
on EFH

Low positive
Small area with low
effort impacted

Low positive
Small area with low
effort impacted

Low positive
Protects deep-sea
corals in small area.

Low positive
Small area with low
effort impacted

Addresses reporting,
monitoring, and RH
catch in the Atl.
herring fishery

Indirect Positive
May improve data
quality for
monitoring total
removals

Positive May
increase information
about RH/S catch
and/or reduce that
catch

Probably Minimal

Probably Minimal

Description
Multiple year specs
Extend Illex
moratorium

Impacts on Human
Communities
No Impact
Administrative
Potentially Positive
Maintains net
benefits to fleet and
dependent
communities by
limiting
overcapitalization.
Potential low
positive
May increase
benefits slightly if it
results in a higher
quota.
Potentially positive
long term if used as
basis for future
management to
improve long-term
sustainability of
resource.
No impact
Small area with low
effort impacted

Negative if effort is
restricted.
Potentially positive
long term if used to
improve long-term
sustainability of
resources.

Table 75 (continued)
Action

Pr

Amendment 10 to
the MSB FMP
(2010-2011)

Pr

Atlantic Trawl
Gear Take
Reduction Team

P

Standardized
Bycatch Reporting
Methodology (2008)

P,Pr

Omnibus
ACL/AM
Amendment (2011)
P,Pr,

Amendment 11
to the MSB FMP
(2010-2011)
RFFA

Strategy for
Sea Turtle
Conservation for the
Atlantic Ocean and
the Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries

Description

Rebuild Butterfish
with butterfish
mortality cap.
Reduce discards to
the extent
practicable.
Recommend
measures to reduce
mortality and injury
to the common
dolphin and long fin
pilot whale
Recommend
measures to monitor
discards at an
acceptable level of
precision and
accuracy
Implemented
ACLs/AMs in all
FMPs as necessary
Updated EFH,
established RecCom allocation, will
implement mackerel
limited access
May recommend
strategies to prevent
the catch of sea
turtles in
commercial
fisheries operations

Impacts on
Managed
Resources

Impacts on
Non-target
Species

Impacts on
Habitat and
EFH

Impacts on
Protected
Species

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Positive
Stock Rebuilding

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Positive
Majority of
butterfish caught are
discarded.
Indirect Positive
Will improve data
quality for
monitoring total
removals

Low Positive
Minor mesh
increase included.

Likely neutral.

Likely neutral.

Indirect Positive
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce
discards

Indirect Positive
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce gear
impacts

Indirect Positive
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce
encounters

Indirect Positive
Will improve data
quality for
monitoring total
removals of
managed resources
Neutral to Positive
Managed species
already managed
with quotas
Positive – limited
access should limit
race to fish

Indirect Positive
Will improve data
quality for
monitoring
removals of nontarget species
Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Neutral
Will not affect
distribution of effort

Indirect Positive
Will increase and/or
optimize observer
coverage

Potentially Indirect
Negative
May impose an
inconvenience on
vessel operations

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Potentially positive
if used as basis for
future management.

Indirect Positive
Constrain fishing
effort

Positive
Sustainability of
resources
maintained.
Positive
Sustainability of
resources
maintained.

Indirect Positive
Will improve data
quality for
monitoring total
removals

Indirect Positive
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce
discards

Indirect Positive
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce gear
impacts

Indirect Positive
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce
encounters

Variable
Significant losses
possible if longfin
squid fishery cannot
avoid butterfish.
Potentially
negative if
efficiency
decreases.
Indirect Negative
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce
revenues

Indirect Negative
Reducing
availability of gear
could reduce
revenues

Table 75 (continued)
Action
Pr

Standardized
Bycatch Reporting
Methodology
Revision

Description

Impacts on
Managed
Resources

Recommend
measures to monitor
discards at an
acceptable level of
precision and
accuracy
Considering adding
RH/S as Councilmanaged species

Indirect Positive
Will improve data
quality for
monitoring total
removals of
managed resources
Neutral

Pr,

Amendment 16 to
the MSB FMP

Considering adding
deep-sea coral
protections

Neutral

Pr,

Considering
modifications to
recreational
accountability
measures

Neutral - Overall
MSB effort
unlikely to be
impacted.

Pr,

Amendment 15 to
the MSB FMP

Amendment 17 to
the MSB FMP

Impacts on
Non-target
Species

Impacts on
Habitat and
EFH

Impacts on
Protected
Species

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Positive
Will improve data
quality for
monitoring
removals of nontarget species
Positive
Would increase
RH/S conservation
efforts
Positive
Could decrease
impacts on deep-sea
corals from MSB
fishing
Neutral - Overall
MSB effort
unlikely to be
impacted.

Neutral
Will not affect
distribution of effort

Indirect Positive
Will increase and/or
optimize observer
coverage

Potentially Indirect
Negative
May impose an
inconvenience on
vessel operations

Potentially positive
MSB effort may be
reduced

Potentially positive
MSB effort may be
reduced

Uncertain overall

Potentially positive
MSB effort may be
reduced

Potentially positive
MSB effort may be
reduced

Uncertain overall

Neutral - Overall
MSB effort
unlikely to be
impacted.ement.

Neutral - Overall
MSB effort
unlikely to be
impacted.

Neutral

Non-Fishery Related Actions Follow on Next Page

Table 75 (continued)
Action

P, Pr, RFFA

Agriculture

runoff

P, Pr, RFFA

Port
maintenance

Description

Nutrients applied to
agriculture land are
introduced into
aquatic systems

Dredging of
wetlands, coastal,
port and harbor
areas for port
maintenance

P, Pr, RFFA

Offshore
disposal of dredged
materials

Disposal of dredged
materials

Offshore mining of
sand for beaches
P, Pr, RFFA

Beach
nourishment

P, Pr, RFFA

Marine
transportation

Placement of sand
to nourish beach
shorelines

Expansion of port
facilities, vessel
operations and
recreational marinas

NON –FISHERY RELATED ACTIONS
Impacts on
Impacts on NonImpacts on Habitat
Managed
target
and
Resources
Species
EFH
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
Protected
Species
Indirect Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality

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

Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

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

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

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

Direct Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area
Direct Negative
Reduced 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
Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality in
the immediate
project area
Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

Impacts on Human
Communities
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
Indirect Negative
Reduced habitat
quality negatively
affects resource
viability in the
immediate project
area
Mixed
Positive for mining
companies, possibly
negative for
fisheries
Positive
Beachgoers
generally like sand

Mixed
Positive for some
interests, potential
displacement for
others

Table 75 (continued)
Action

P, Pr, RFFA

Installation
of pipelines, utility
lines and cables
RFFA

Liquefied
Natural Gas
terminals (w/in 5
years)

RFFA

Offshore Wind
Energy Facilities
(medium probability
w/in 5 years)

Description
Transportation of
oil, gas and energy
through pipelines,
utility lines and
cables
Transportation of
natural gas via
tanker to terminals
located offshore and
onshore (Several
Liquefied Natural
Gas terminals are
proposed, including
MA, RI, NY, NJ
and DE)
Construction of
wind turbines to
harness electrical
power (Several
facilities proposed
from ME through
NC, including off
the coast of MA,
NY/NJ and VA)

Impacts on
Managed
Resources
Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Impacts on Nontarget
Species
Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Impacts on Habitat
and
EFH
Potentially Direct
Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area
Potentially Direct
Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality
possible in the
immediate project
area

Impacts on
Protected
Species
Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Impacts on Human
Communities
Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Potentially Direct
Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality
possible in the
immediate project
area

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Unknown
Dependent on
mitigation effects

Summary of Non-Fishing Effects Though largely unquantifiable, it is likely that the non-fishing
activities noted above would have negative impacts on habitat quality from disturbance and
construction activities in the area immediately around the affected area. This would be a direct impact
on habitat and an indirect effect to planktonic, juvenile, and adult life stages of fish and protected
species in the project areas due to habitat degradation. Given the wide distribution of the affected
species, minor overall negative effects to habitat are anticipated since the affected areas are localized
to the project sites, which involve a small percentage of the fish populations and their habitat.
Summary Effects of Past and Present Actions The present conditions of the VECs are empirical
indicators of the summary effects of past actions since, independent of natural processes, and these
present conditions are largely the product of these past actions. The combined effects of these actions
are described in the VEC-by-VEC discussion below and are summarized in Table 76.
Managed species: The status of mackerel, butterfish, Illex, and longfin squid are unknown as of
November 2011. Longfin squid biomass in 2009 was established to be above an accepted target but
given the short lifespan of longfin squid it’s true status, like that of the other MSB stocks, is unknown.
While the negative effects of past and present actions associated with non-fishing activities (Table 75)
may have increased negative effects, it is likely that those actions were minor due to the limited scale
of the habitat impact compared with the populations at large.
Non-target species: The summary effects of past and present actions are less clear than for the
managed resources. This is because the information needed to quantitatively measure the impacts on
these species of MSB fishery activities and non-fishing activities is generally lacking. The
implementation of a revised omnibus SBRM Amendment is expected to provide more data to allow
management to better manage discards.
This Amendment: The preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong,
1fMack, 1fLong, 1gMack, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5b4, 5c4, 5f, 5h) will result in improved
reporting and monitoring which should indirectly lead to positive benefits for non-target species
because non-target interactions should be better documented and/or estimated, which in turn should
assist effective management/minimization of non-target interactions. If industry has to pay for the
observer coverage recommended in 5b4 and 5c4, overall mackerel effort could be reduced which
would lead to benefits for non-target species. The preferred alternatives that could directly limit effort
in the mackerel fishery once a certain amount of RH/S is caught (6b, 6c), could reduce negative
impacts on non-target species, especially RH/S, though how much any reduced RH/S catches in the
mackerel fishery affect overall RH/S abundance is unknown. Actual cap amounts will be considered
and analyzed via the specifications process.
Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not have
any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be analyzed at the
time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected for any VEC. Any
potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered separately.
The summary effects of past and present actions on non-target species are considered to be a mixed set
of partially offsetting positive effects through fishery effort reduction and negative effects through
discard mortality and non-fishing activities. The prosecution of fishing activities in general will

necessarily reduce the abundance of various non-target species. As such, effort reduction or gear
modifications will, in effect, reduce the magnitude of the negative impact of fishing in general. Again,
although the negative effects of past and present actions associated with non-fishing activities (Table
75) may have increased negative effects, it is likely that those actions were minor due to the limited
scale of the habitat impact compared with the populations at large for most species, although impacts
could be large for anadromous species such as RH/S. Altogether, the resultant impact of past and
present actions on non-target species is a likely net negative sum effect. Again this would likely
improve with future actions to reduce discards.
Habitat and Protected Species: For the habitat and protected resource VECs, the summary effects of
past and present actions are also considered to be negative. This follows the same logic presented
under the discussion of impacts on non-target species: effort reduction or gear modifications will, in
effect, reduce the magnitude of the negative impact on these VECs that results from fishing activities.
Again, although the negative effects of past and present actions associated with non-fishing activities
(Table 75) may have increased negative effects, it is likely that those actions were minor due to the
limited scale of the habitat impact compared with the populations at large for most species, although
impacts could be large for anadromous species such as RH/S or sturgeon. Thus, the resultant impact
of past and present actions on non-target species is a net negative sum effect on these VECs.
As discussed in section 6.5.5, estimated encounters with Atlantic sturgeon and small-mesh otter trawl
gear in the 600 series of statistical areas average 759 sturgeon annually. Of these small-mesh otter
trawl encounters, less than 5 percent are expected to result in serious injury or mortality. For
reference, estimated total annual takes for all gear types (otter trawl and sink gillnet) from 2006-2010
ranged from 1536 to 3221 (average 2,215); estimated annual mortalities for all gear types ranged from
37 to 376 sturgeon. Overall, the contribution of small-mesh otter trawl gear to sturgeon mortalities is
low compared to the contribution of gillnet gear to sturgeon mortalities.
DPS-specific population levels for Atlantic sturgeon are difficult to quantify at this time, and further
work needs to be done to develop accurate population estimates for each DPS. Current estimates
indicate that the Hudson River DPS likely consists of approximately 870 spawning individuals in any
one year. However, adult Atlantic sturgeon are not believed to spawn annually, but rather every other
year for males and every two to five years for females. Although NMFS does not have information
necessary to determine the sex or spawning condition of Atlantic sturgeon encountered by the MSB
fisheries, these encounters may include both males and females and fish that may or may not spawn
during that year. Therefore, encounters of Atlantic sturgeon by the MSB fisheries may be a subset of
the entire population, as opposed to being comprised exclusively of the smaller annual spawning
population.
Despite limited information that can be used to accurately estimate the number of Atlantic sturgeon in
each DPS and because estimated encounters and expected mortalities are lower in recent years than
has been estimated in the past, it is unlikely that the implementation of Amendment 14 would result in
significant impacts under NEPA to any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon and the proposed improved
monitoring could assist effective management of sturgeon. The proposed RH/S mortality caps could
also reduce mackerel fishing effort. As such, the proposed action is expected to have little to no
impact on total fishing effort associated with small-mesh otter trawl gear as it might impact sturgeon.

Therefore, the preferred alternatives in Amendment 14 are not likely to result in a significant impact
under NEPA on Atlantic sturgeon.

Human communities:
This Amendment: The overall human community impacts are best described as mixed with unknown
overall impacts. Most of the preferred reporting and monitoring alternatives should have negligible or
minimal impacts on how the fisheries operate (1c, 1d48, 1eMack, 1eLong, 1fMack, 1fLong, 1gMack,
2d, 2f, 2g, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3j, 3l, 4f, 5h). Provisions for mandatory industry funding of observer coverage
(5b4, 5c4, 5f) would substantially raise fishing costs, and measures that could directly limit effort in
the mackerel fishery once a certain amount of RH/S is caught (6b, 6c), could reduce future fishing
revenues as well, though the amount depends on what is set in specifications, which will be analyzed
in specifications at a later date.
Allowing mortality caps and area-based closures to be frameworkable actions (6f, 8b) should not have
any impacts other than allowing more rapid management responses. Impacts would be analyzed at the
time of framework consideration and no immediate impacts would be expected for any VEC. Any
potential follow-up actions would be subsequently analyzed and considered separately.
To the extent that the preferred alternatives lead to better management (i.e. sustainable fisheries
producing optimal yields) of RH/S or other species, then the preferred alternatives should result in
long term additional benefits related to future commercial revenues, recreational opportunities,
ecosystem services, cultural values for RH/S, and/or other non-market existence values (i.e. value
gained by the public related to the knowledge that these species are being conserved successfully).
However, due to the uncertainty about how the productivity of RH/S is impacted by current catch
levels in the MSB fisheries, it is difficult to quantity such benefits. The amount of benefit to RH/S
stocks from any action affecting the MSB fisheries is unknown, so even though one might contemplate
what the value of rebuilt RH/S fisheries might be, it is not possible to know if an action in this
document might lead to rebuilt RH/S fisheries because of the range of issues likely affecting RH/S
stocks.
The summary effect of past and present actions is complex since the effects have varied among fishery
participants, consumers, and communities. Nevertheless, the net effect is considered to be positive in
that the fisheries managed under the MSB FMP currently support viable domestic fisheries. While
some short-term economic costs have been associated with effort reductions and gear modifications
(see Table 75), economic returns have generally been positive and as such, have tended to make a
positive contribution to the communities associated with harvest of these species.
Summary Effects of Future Actions As with past and present actions, the list of reasonably
foreseeable future actions is provided in Table 75. Additionally, the same general trends will be noted
with regard to the expected outcomes of fishery-related actions and non-fishing actions; the summary
effects of fishery related actions tend to be positive with respect to natural resources although shortterm negative or mixed effects are expected for human communities. Conversely, for the non-fishing
actions listed in Table 75, the general outcome remains negative, but minor for all VECs, again due to
the difference in scale of exposure of the habitat perturbation and the population except for

anadromous species which may be more impacted by non-fishing activities that compromise habitat
and water quality.
The directionality of the impacts of future actions on the VECs will necessarily be a function of the
offsetting negative vs. positive impacts of each of the actions. Since the magnitude and significance of
the impacts of these future actions, especially non-fishing impacts, is poorly understood, conclusions
as to the summary effects will essentially consist of an educated guess.
Recall that the future temporal boundary for this CEA is five years after implementation of the
amendment (~2019; Section 8.3). Within that timeframe, the summary effects of future actions on
managed resources, non-target species, habitat, and protected resources are all expected to be positive,
notwithstanding the localized nearshore negative effects of non-fishing actions. The optimization of
the conditions of the resources is the primary objective of the management of these natural resources.
Additionally, it is unknown, but expected that technology to allow for mitigation of the negative
impacts of non-fishing activities will improve.
For human communities, short-term (i.e., within the temporal scope of this CEA) costs may occur.
This negative impact is expected to be the byproduct of an adjustment to the improved management of
the natural resources. In the longer term, positive impacts on human communities should come about
as sustainability of natural resources is attained.

Table 76. Summary effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on the VECs
identified for Amendment 14 (based on actions listed in Table 75).

VEC

Past Actions (P)

Managed
Resources

Uncertain since status
of all species is
currently unknown but
likely positive given
continued fisheries.

Non-Target
Species

negative
combined effects of
discard mortality and
non-fishing actions
that reduce habitat
quality

Habitat

negative
combined effects of
disturbance by fishing
gear and non-fishing
actions have reduced
habitat quality

Protected
Resources

negative
combined effects of
gear encounters and
non-fishing actions
that reduce habitat
quality

Reasonably
Combined Effects of
Foreseeable Future
Past, Present, Future
Present Actions (Pr)
Actions (RFFA)
Actions
Uncertain since status Uncertain since status
Uncertain since
of all species is
of all species is
status of all species
currently unknown
currently unknown
is currently unknown
but likely positive
but likely positive
but likely positive
given continued
given continued
given continued
fisheries.
fisheries.
fisheries.
Negative in short
term
discards will
continue until
negative or
reduction measures
somewhat less
are implemented
negative than past
positive
combined effects of
reductions in discard Long term positive
reduced discard
incidence, improved
Amendment 10, 14
mortality and nondiscards estimation,
measures would
fishing actions that
benefit other species,
reduce habitat quality
improved discards
accounting,
improved habitat
quality
negative or
somewhat less
negative than past
positive
positive
continued combined reduction in effects of
reduced habitat
effects of disturbance
disturbance by
disturbance by
by fishing gear and
fishing gear are
fishing gear
non-fishing actions
expected
have reduced habitat
quality
Negative or
somewhat less
negative than past
combined effects of
gear encounters and
non-fishing actions
that reduce habitat
quality

positive
reduced gear
encounters through
effort reduction, and
Sea Turtle Strategy;
improved habitat
quality is expected

Negative short term
until trawl take reduction
research plan is
implemented;
Positive long term
reduced encounters
through effort reduction
and Trawl take reduction
research plan /Sea Turtle
Strategy; improved
habitat quality is
expected

Human
Communities

8.5

positive
fisheries have
supported profitable
industries and viable
fishing communities

positive
fisheries continue to
support profitable
industries and viable
fishing communities

short-term negative
some revenue loss
may occur if
management results
reduction of revenue
per unit of effort

short-term negative
Uncertain since
status of all species
is currently unknown
long-term positive
sustainable resources
should support
viable communities
and economies

RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED IN SCOPING IN TERMS OF

THEIR RESPONSE TO CHANGE AND CAPACITY TO WITHSTAND STRESSES

See 8.6, below.
8.6

STRESSES AFFECTING THE RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR
RELATION TO REGULATORY THRESHOLDS
CEQ Steps 5 and 6 were accomplished either explicitly or implicitly in this document for each VEC in
Section 6.0. It is suggested that the reader refer to the appropriate subsections to obtain details
regarding this information.
In terms of stresses affecting fishing businesses, the Council has been conducting a visioning exercise
and receiving much input from stakeholders. For MSB participants, 3 common themes were 1) The
price of fuel has made profitable fishing difficult and 2) a sequential limiting of fishermen’s ability to
switch from a less abundant to a more abundant species has bade profitable fishing difficult and
exacerbated stock size swings, and 3) It is not so much any one regulation that puts fishermen out of
business so much as the every growing compendium of regulations.

Table 77. Summary of information related to CEQ steps 5 and 6 that were addressed in Section 6.0.
.

VEC

Managed
Resource

CEQ Step 5 (Response to
change and ability to
withstand stress – i.e.,
significance criteria)
 Biomass drops below
threshold (e.g., ½ of the
biomass associated with
MSY)
 Fishing mortality exceeds
threshold
(these thresholds are defined
for each managed resource in
Section 6.1)

Non-target
species

 Largely unquantifiable, but
implementation of
development of omnibus
SBRM FMP should
improve.

Habitat

See EFH overlap analysis of
Amendment 9, Section
6.3.4.1

Protected
Resources

Human
Communities

CEQ Step 6
(Stresses affecting the
resources)

 Directed harvest
 Discarding
 Non-fishing activities

 Encounters with fishing gear
 Non-fishing activities
 Encounters with fishing gear
 Non-fishing activities

 Marine mammals mortalities exceed potential
biological removal which is
defined for each species in  Encounters with fishing gear
Section 6.4.
 Sea Turtles – nest counts,
 Non-fishing activities
or estimated number of
nesting females below
target levels
 Short term: revenue losses
In general, the significance of
from changes in current
impacts is measured by the
fishing practices (e.g., gear
potential for revenue loss.
modifications, area
The standards established
closures).
under E.O. 12866 or the

Short term and long term:
Regulatory Flexibility Act
revenue losses from resource
may be candidates.
depletion

For the purposes of providing a conceptual context for this discussion of the affect the human
environment, some general categories of the environmental influences on the VECs are provided in
Figure 70. Most of the time, influences of actions on the population size of a managed resource can,
by and large, be extended to populations of non-target species or protected species, and vice versa,
especially with regard to increases and decreases in fishing effort. The effects of actions on habitat
quality can come from a wide variety of fishing and non-fishing activities. In turn, habitat quality
factors into the condition of the managed resource, non-target species, and protected resource VECs.
The condition of the human communities VEC is generally associated with increases and decreases in
revenue from fishing operations. Operating costs tend to increase when availability of the managed
resource decreases either through scarcity or through regulatory restrictions on harvest. The
availability of the managed resource also affects competition among fishing entities for resources and
consumer demand. These factors influence product price which feeds back to the economic and social
well-being of the human communities.
Optimizing the future condition of a given VEC can have offsetting impacts on other VECs. For
example, if updating EFH designations led to future gear restricted areas, closing areas to bottom otter
trawling would directly improve habitat quality, and be expected to indirectly improve the conditions
of managed resources, non-target species, and protected resources. This action, however, would
negatively impact human communities dependent on revenue from otter trawling in that area, at least
in the short term. Additionally, the indirect benefits to managed resources, non-target species, and
protected resources may be localized, and increased bottom trawl effort in other areas may offset these
benefits to some degree.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Increased
operating
costs
Resource
Scarcity

Decreased
operating
costs

Condition of
Human
Communities

Resource
Availability

Overcapacity

Effective Gear
Configuration

Decreased
Market
Demand

Increased
Market
Demand

Fishing
Mortality
Natural
Mortality
Habitat
Degradation

Fishing
Effort
Gear Types

Condition of Nontarget Species

Pollution, Other
Non-Fishery
Induced
Damage

Modified
or
Alternative
Gears
Area
Closures

Environmentally.
Friendly
Non-Fishing

Habitat Quality

Fishery
Induced
Damage

Carrying Capacity
(upper limit on
population biomass)

Practices
Modified
or
Alternative
Gears

Natural
Disturbances

Area
Closures

biomass target

Biomass of
Managed
Resource X

Growth,
Recruitment
Forage
availability
Habitat
Preservation

biomass
threshold

Fishing
Effort
Gear Types

Condition of
Protected
Resources

Modified
or
Alternative
Gears
Area
Closures

Figure 70. Examples of environmental sources of positive impacts (up arrows) and negative impacts (down arrows) for the five
VECs.

8.7

BASELINE CONDITION FOR THE RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES

The CEQ’s step 7 calls for a characterization of the baseline conditions for the VECs. For the
purposes of this CEA, the baseline condition is considered as the present condition of the VECs plus
the combined effects of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Table 78
summarizes the added effects of the condition of the VECs (i.e., status/trends/stresses from Section 6
and Table 77) and the sum effect of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (from
Table 78). The resulting CEA baseline for each VEC is exhibited in the last column (shaded). In
general, only qualitative metrics are available for the VECs. For managed species, the baseline
condition is uncertain since the status of all managed species is currently unknown but it is likely
positive given the continued fisheries that target and catch the managed species. For non-target
species, the constraints of data quality preclude a quantitative baseline. 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 6.3 and 6.5, respectively. For protected resources the baseline is
negative in the short run given continued interaction but should be positive in the long run as
additional mitigations are implemented. As mentioned above, this CEA Baseline is then used to
assess cumulative effects of the proposed management actions.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table 78. CEA baseline conditions of the VECs.

VEC

Atl.
Mackerel
Illex
Managed
Resource

longfin
squid
Butterfish

Non-target Species
(principle species listed in
section 6. 2)

Habitat

Status/Trends/Stresses

Unknown; landings
variable
Unknown; landings
variable
Unknown; landings
variable
Unknown; landings
constrained by regulations
Quantitative
characterization of
discards in MSB fisheries
is poor to unknown;
longfin squid fishery
continues to account for
large proportion of
discards observed in
NEFOP for several
species including
butterfish

Complex and variable See Section 6.3.4.1of
Amendment 9; Nonfishing activities had
historically negative but
site-specific effects on
habitat quality; Mouth of
Hudson Canyon/Tilefish
Habitat Area of Particular
Concern among the areas
most ecologically
sensitive

Combined Effects
of Past, Present
Reasonably
Foreseeable
Future Actions (
Table 76)
Uncertain since
status of all species
is currently
unknown but likely
positive given
continued fisheries.
Negative in short
term
discards will
continue until
reduction measures
are implemented;
Long term
positive
Amendment 10
measures would
benefit other
species, improved
discards
accounting,
improved habitat
quality
Positive
reduced habitat
disturbance by
fishing gear

Combined CEA
Baseline Conditions

Uncertain since the
status of all species is
currently unknown but
likely positive given
continued fisheries exist.

Negative in short term
Increased discard rates
will continue until
reduction measures are
implemented
Positive in long term
continued discards
minimization should
improve discards
accounting and/or
reduce discards

Positive - reduced
habitat disturbance by
fishing gear and nonfishing actions

Common
dolphin

Protected
Resources

Unknown status, but takes
are below Potential
Biological Removal;
taken by longfin squid,
mackerel and other
fisheries;

Unknown status, but takes
are below Potential
White-sided
Biological Removal;
dolphin
historically taken by
foreign mackerel vessels;
Unknown status, but takes
are below Potential
Pilot whales Biological Removal;
taken by Illex and longfin
squid
ESA classification:
Endangered, number of
Leatherback
nesting females below
sea turtle
sustainable level; taken by
longfin squid trawl
ESA classification:
Threatened, nest counts
Loggerhead (~6,200 in 1998) below
sea turtle
goal (12,800); taken by
Illex and longfin squid
trawl
Complex and variable See Section 6.5

Human Communities

Negative or
somewhat less
negative than past
in short term
until Trawl take
reduction research
plan is
implemented,
improved habitat
quality
Long term
positive
reduced gear
encounters through
effort reduction
and Trawl take
reduction research
plan /Sea Turtle
Strategy; improved
habitat quality are
expected

Positive - Longterm sustainable
resources should
support viable
communities and
economies

Negative or low
negative in short term
-- Until Trawl take
reduction research plan
is implemented
Positive – reduced gear
encounters through
effort reduction and
Trawl take reduction
research plan, Sea Turtle
Strategy; improved
habitat quality

Short-term is uncertain given
uncertainty about stock status.
Long-term positive as sustainable
resources should support viable
communities and economies

The following sections elaborate on each CEA Baseline:
Managed Resource Impacts CEA Baseline: Since the current status of the managed resources is
unknown, the CEA Baseline is uncertain but probably positive given the stocks continue to
support fisheries although landings can be highly variable. Bottom Line: Uncertain but
probably positive.

Non-target Species Impacts CEA Baseline: Fishery encounters with non-target species (6.2), and
the subsequent discards mortality remains a substantial fishery management problem. At
present, the nature and extent of non-target species discarding by the MSB fisheries, as well as
many others operating in the U.S. Atlantic remains difficult to characterize. Given impending
catch reduction management measures, the CEA baseline is negative in the short run as high
catch rates and discards (especially in the longfin squid fishery) are likely still occurring but
positive in the long run as management measures are implemented to reduce non-target catch.
As mentioned above, non-fishing effects, although potentially negative to all fish species, are
likely not exerting much negative effects on non-target species, due to the small scale of the
habitat perturbation relative to the populations at large. Bottom Line: Still negative in short
run but expected positive in long run.
Habitat Impacts CEA Baseline: For habitat, the summary effects of past and present actions
assessed above in Section 8.4 were considered to be positive. Effort reductions and/or gear
modifications have reduced the negative impacts on this VEC that results from fishing activities.
Again, although the negative effects of past and present actions associated with non-fishing
activities (Table 75) may have increased negative effects, it is likely that those actions were
minor due to the limited scale of the habitat impact compared with the populations at large.
Considering fishing effort over the next 5 years will likely be reduced, a resultant positive impact
on habitat of “other” actions is anticipated. Bottom Line: Positive due to reduced effort and
resulting reduction in habitat impacts.
Protected Resource Impacts CEA Baseline: For the protected species affected by this
Amendment (listed in Section 6.4), the summary effects of the “other” past and present actions
assessed above were considered to be negative in the short term but positive in the long term due
to future effort reduction or gear modifications (gear modifications lessen the negative impact of
a given level of effort). Future actions that would directly reduce the mortality of protected
resources from encounters with MSB fisheries include the implementation of the Atlantic Trawl
Gear Take Reduction Plan and the Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation for the Atlantic Ocean
and the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries. These actions and the current protection under MMPA and
ESA are expected to result in positive cumulative impacts for these protected resources. Bottom
Line: Negative in short term but positive due to effort reduction and other efforts to reduce
gear interactions.
Human Communities Impacts CEA Baseline: The net effect of past and present “other” actions is
considered to be positive in that the fisheries managed under the MSB FMP currently support
viable domestic and international market demand. While some short-term economic costs have
been associated with effort reductions and gear modifications (see Table 75), economic returns
have generally been positive and as such, have tended to make a positive contribution to the
communities associated with harvest of these species. In the short-term future (i.e., within the
temporal scope of this CEA), costs may occur. This negative impact is expected to be the
byproduct of an adjustment to the improved management of the natural resources. In the longer
term, positive impacts on human communities should come about as sustainability of natural
resources is attained. Bottom Line: Uncertain but probably positive in short run and should
be positive in the long run.

8.8

CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES,
ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES
CEQ’s step 8 has been accomplished through the analyses of impacts presented in Section 7.0, as
well as the summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions presented in
Table 75, and the relationships between the VECs illustrated in Figure 70 and its accompanying
text.

8.9

MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

According to CEQ guidance, determining the magnitude of the cumulative effects consists of
determining the separate effects of past actions, present actions, the proposed action (and
reasonable alternatives), and other future actions. Once that is done, cumulative effects can be
described. The significance of the effects is related to the magnitude, but also takes into account
context and distribution. Table 75 in Section 8.4 lists the effects of individual past, present, and
future actions and is organized in chronological order so that review of that table will assist the
reader in understanding the conclusions presented below regarding the summary effects of these
separate actions. Note that fishery-related activities consist almost entirely of positive effects
(with the exception of some short term negative effects on human communities) while nonfishing activities are generally associated with negative effects. 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. The basis for
this general outcome is explained in the text provided in Section 8.4. Table 78 and associated
text describes the summary effects of the past, present and future actions on the VECs.
Summary Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Actions
The impacts of the proposed actions are described in Section 7 and summarized in the executive
summary (see also table 8). Since the impact of every alternative on every VEC is described in
those sections, they are not repeated here. The incremental impacts of the preferred alternatives
is summarized in Section 7.9.
Summary Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Actions
It is expected that the overall long-term cumulative effects should be positive for all VECs. This
is because, barring some unexpected natural or human-induced catastrophe, 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 MSA requires that management actions be taken only
after consideration of impacts to the biological, physical, economic, and social dimensions of the
human environment. This document functions to identify the likely outcomes of various
management alternatives. Identification of alternatives that would compromise resource
sustainability should make implementation of those alternatives unlikely. With this in mind, the

expected likely cumulative impacts for the VECs are described below. As described above, the
preferred alternatives are focused on better monitoring of directed and non-tageted catch, as well
as control of catch of river herrings and shads.

Cumulative Managed Resources
The CEA baseline for managed resources is uncertain but probably positive (Table 78).
Information about these stocks is likely to remain highly uncertain given their difficult-to-assess
life history and the limited resources of NMFS to assess their stock status in near real time.
However, the provisions recommended in this amendment should maintain or improve upon the
baseline by improving monitoring and reducing effort. The past and present impacts, combined
with the preferred alternatives and future actions are expected to continue rebuilding as
necessary and strive to maintain sustainable stocks, should continue to yield positive impacts to
the managed resources in the long term.
Cumulative Non-target Species Impacts:
The CEA baseline for non-target species resources is negative in the short run but expected to be
positive in the long run (Table 78). The provisions recommended in this amendment, by
improving monitoring and reducing effort, should contribute to positive effects on this VEC’s
cumulative impacts in the future. However, there are still other non-target species interactions to
potentially address so cumulative impacts will still probably be negative in the short term. The
past and present impacts, combined with the preferred alternatives and future actions which are
expected to continue attempts to minimize impacts to non-target species, should continue to
eliminate negative impacts to non-target species and produce a neutral to low positive
cumulative impact in the future.
Cumulative Habitat Impacts:
The CEA baseline for habitat is positive (Table 78). Nothing in the amendment is expected to
increase effort (and therefore habitat impacts), so cumulative impacts for habitat would be
expected to continue to be positive. The past and present impacts, combined with the preferred
alternatives and future actions should continue to have a positive cumulative impact on habitat.
Cumulative Protected Resource Impacts:
The CEA baseline for protected resources is negative in the short term but positive due to effort
reduction and other efforts to reduce gear interactions (Table 78). While some effort reduction
could occur as a result of the alternatives in this document, since the alternatives are not designed
specifically to reduce protected species impacts, cumulative protected resource impacts are likely
the same as the baseline, negative in the short run but positive in the long run. The past and
present impacts, combined with the preferred alternatives will continue to produce a low
negative impact until further reduced gear encounters are realized.

Cumulative Human Communities Impacts:
The CEA baseline for human communities is probably positive in short run and should be
positive in the long run (Table78). The monitoring, at-sea observing, and discards reduction
alternatives preferred in this document should reinforce effective conservation of the managed
and non-target species leading to improved management of these natural resources which would
continue to support positive long term cumulative impacts and continue to support viable
domestic fisheries and revenues related to these fisheries. The past and present impacts,
combined with the preferred alternatives and future actions should produce a positive cumulative
impact to human communities in the future

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

9.0
CONSISTENCY WITH THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
9.1

NATIONAL STANDARDS

Section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that fishery
management plans (FMPs) contain conservation and management measures that are consistent with the
ten National Standards:
In General. – Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation promulgated to implement any
such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the…national standards for fishery conservation
and management.
(1) 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 management measures proposed in Amendment 14 were developed by the Council to achieve the
goals and objectives of the MSB fishery management plan, the primary goal of which is to manage the
fishery at long-term sustainable levels by enhancing the probability of successful recruitment to the
fishery. Consistent with the MSA requirements for ACLs and AMs , the mackerel and butterfish fisheries
are managed through an overall ACL (that accounts for scientific and management uncertainties) and
squid specifications are set based on the recommendations from the Council's SSC (squid, being subannual stocks are not subject to ACL/AM requirements). While much uncertainty exists regarding the
productivity of the MSB stocks, the Council's risk policy and ABC control rules are designed to obtain
optimum yield in the long run. None of the measures proposed in this amendment are expected to affect
this determination. Amendment 14 was developed primarily to enhance catch monitoring for the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. As discussed throughout the analysis in this document, improving
catch monitoring may lead to better data for the MSB fisheries. The measures proposed should therefore
advance the goals and objectives of the FMP and improve the Council’s ability to manage the resource
consistent with National Standard 1.
(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information
available.
The data sources considered and evaluated during the development of this Amendment include, but are
not limited to: permit data, landings data from vessel trip reports, information from resource trawl
surveys, sea sampling (observer) data, data from the dealer weighout purchase reports, peer-reviewed
assessments and original literature, and descriptive information provided by fishery participants and the
public. To the best of the Council's knowledge these data sources constitute the best scientific
information available. All analyses based on these data have been reviewed at multiple steps by NMFS
and the public.

(3) 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 MSB FMP addresses management of the MSB stocks throughout the range of the species in U.S.
waters, in accordance with the jurisdiction of U.S. law. The development of Amendment 14 was also
closely coordinated with the New England Fishery Management Council and the ASMFC, due to the
overlap and interaction between the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries, as well as interactions with
RH/S, which are managed by the ASMFC.
(4) 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 manner that no particular individual, corporation, or
other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.
The community level impacts of the MSB fisheries are described in Section 6 of this document and
human community impacts of the proposed measures are described in Section 7. The measures in
Amendment 14 are intended to be applied regardless of location, and fishing for MSB species often takes
place far from a vessel's homeport. While the measures do not discriminate between permit holders from
different States, they may result in variable impacts across permit holders/fishery participants given the
variability of the MSB resources. The proposed management measures are not expected to otherwise
discriminate between residents of different States. This action does not allocate or assign fishing
privileges among various fishermen.

(5) 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.
This amendment focuses on improving catch monitoring and controlling RH/S catch in the MSB
fisheries. While these goals may impose certain costs on fishery participants (see Section 7), the
proposed measures should enhance efficient long-term management of fishery resources. No measures
are proposed regarding economic allocation.
(6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
Changes in fisheries occur continuously, both as the result of human activity (for example, new
technologies or shifting market demand) and natural variation (for example, oceanographic
perturbations). Recent stock assessments have suggested that the MSB stocks are all likely particularly
sensitive to environmental variables. In order to provide the greatest flexibility possible for future
management decisions, the FMP includes a framework adjustment mechanism with an extensive list of
possible framework adjustment measures that can be used to quickly adjust the plan as conditions in the
fishery change. This amendment builds on that process by adding items to the list of measures that can be
implemented through a framework adjustment (mortality caps and hotspot area restrictions to address
non-target catches).

(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication.
As always, the Council considered the costs and benefits associated with the management measures
proposed in this amendment when developing this action. Any costs incurred as a result of the measures
proposed in this amendment are considered to be necessary in order to achieve the stated purposes (which
are consistent with the MSA), and are viewed to be outweighed by the benefits of taking the management
action. The management measures proposed in this amendment are not duplicative and were developed in
close coordination with NMFS, the New England Fishery Management Council, the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), U.S. F & W Service, and other interested entities and agencies
to minimize duplicity. Public comments regarding the costs of potential measures were also carefully
considered prior to taking action.

(8) 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 economic impacts
on such communities.
The community level impacts of the MSB fisheries are described in Section 6 of this document and
human community impacts of the proposed measures are described in Section 7. Any costs incurred by
fishery participants as a result of the measures proposed in this amendment are considered to be necessary
in order to achieve the stated purposes (which are consistent with the MSA), and are viewed to be
outweighed by the benefits of taking the management action. Overall, the proposed action is not expected
to jeopardize the sustained participation of fishing communities that have depended on the MSB
resources. The Council carefully considered the importance of the MSB resources to affected fisheryrelated businesses and communities when developing the management measures proposed in Amendment
14. The long-term impacts of improving catch monitoring should also be positive for fishery-related
businesses and communities. During final decision-making, the long-term positive impacts of improving
catch monitoring were weighed against the negative impacts of implementing the catch monitoring
program (and other measures proposed in Amendment 14) on fishery-related businesses and
communities. Some of the measures proposed in Amendment 14 are likely to impose a cost on the
industry, and the impacts on fishery-related businesses and communities are therefore likely to be
negative, at least in the short term. The measures that are most likely to result in negative impacts on
fishery-related businesses and communities are the proposed requirements for industry funded observer
coverage and potential closures related to RH/S mortality caps, but they may also result in the greatest
benefits for RH/S conservation.

(9) 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.
The MSA defines “bycatch” as fish that are harvested in a fishery, but are not retained (sold, transferred,
or kept for personal use), including economic discards and regulatory discards. Incidentally landed catch
are fish, other than the target species, that are harvested while fishing for a target species and retained
and/or sold. The proposed measures should improve catch monitoring, which could help implement
effective bycatch reduction measures. The RH/S mortality caps also create incentives for fishermen to
avoid these non-target species.
(10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of
human life at sea.
Fishing is a dangerous occupation; participants must constantly balance the risks imposed by weather
against the economic benefits. According to the National Standard guidelines, the safety of the fishing
vessel and the protection from injury of persons aboard the vessel are considered the same as “safety of
human life at sea. The safety of a vessel and the people aboard is ultimately the responsibility of the
master of that vessel. Each master makes many decisions about vessel maintenance and loading and about
the capabilities of the vessel and crew to operate safely in a variety of weather and sea conditions. This
national standard does not replace the judgment or relieve the responsibility of the vessel master related to
vessel safety. The Council, through consultation with the USCG, NMFS, and fishery participants,
carefully weighed potential safety at sea considerations before making recommendations.
Anti-slippage measures, which potentially require trip termination due to slippage events, could
potentially cause vessel masters to take fish aboard in dangerous conditions when they would otherwise
not have done so. However, the final management measures proposed to address net slippage specifically
authorize exceptions for slippage events in instances when vessel safety is a concern (as well as instances
when gear is damaged or dogfish have overloaded a net).

9.2

OTHER REQUIRED PROVISIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT

Section 303 of the MSA contains 15 additional required provisions for FMPs, which are listed
below. Nothing in this action is expected to contravene any of these required provisions.
(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 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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

Section 6.3 of this document describes and identifies EFH in order to satisfy this provision.
(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;
The preparation of this amendment included a review of the scientific data that were available to
assess the impacts of all alternatives in this amendment.
(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;
Section 7.5 of this document provides an extensive assessment of the likely effects of the actions
proposed in this amendment on fishery participants and communities.
(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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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.

(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.

9.3

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT

The MSA / EFH Provisions (50 CFR 600.920(e)(3)) require that any Federal action which may
adversely affect EFH must include a written assessment of the effects of that action on EFH. As
describes in Section 7, there are not expected to be adverse impacts on EFH.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

10.0

Relationship to Other Applicable Law

10.1

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

10.1.1 Introduction
In order to consider a full range of alternatives related to this Amendment, the Council
determined that the development of an EIS would be necessary to fulfill the requirements of
NEPA. NEPA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major
Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the environment. The Council published a
Notice of Intent to prepare this Amendment and the EIS in the Federal Register on June 9, 2010
The primary purposes of Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB)
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are to:
Purpose A: "Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring" – Purpose A is to consider
alternatives that would implement monitoring programs for the Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish (MSB) fisheries that are sensitive enough and robust enough to the spatial and
temporal variability of RH/S distributions so that good RH/S catch estimates can be
generated. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
requires Councils “to specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary
with respect to…fishing…in the fishery” (Section 303(a)(5)) and Section 8 under
discretionary fishery management plan provisions allows implementation of observer
requirements.
Purpose B: "Reduce RH/S Catch" – Purpose B is to consider alternatives to reduce catch
of RH/S in the MSB fisheries. The MSA requires Councils to minimize discards to the
extent practicable (Section 301 – National Standard 9) and provides discretionary authority
to “include management measures in the plan to conserve…non-target
species…considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations”
(Section 303(b)(12)). Because information on how much RH/S catch might be sustainable
is lacking, it is not currently possible to quantify the impact on RH/S stocks of any catch
reductions that may occur but such catch reductions would be likely to have a positive
impact to some degree.
Purpose C: "Consider RH/S NS1 Stock Issues" – Purpose C was to consider alternatives
that would bring RH/S into the MSB plan as a managed stock in terms of Council
management responsibilities, including annual catch limits and accountability measures, in
order to improve overall RH/S management and conservation. In the DEIS, Alternative Set
9 considered whether to add RH/S as stocks in the fishery. Since the Council chose no
action for that entire alternative set, and also has begun Amendment 15 to more fully
consider the issue, the stock in the fishery issue has been moved into the “considered but
rejected” section, 2.4 and is summarized there.
Potential measures being considered are detailed in Section 5 and summarized below:

Alternatives Related to Purpose A: Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring






Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures
Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
Alternative Set 4: Port-side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements

Alternatives Related to Purpose B: Reduce RH/S Catch




Alternative Set 6 : Mortality Caps
Alternative Set 7 : Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
Alternative Set 8 : Hotspot Restrictions

10.1.2 Development of EIS
The Council began the formal development of Amendment 14's EIS in 2010 following the
publication of the supplemental Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. The Council held a number
of meetings of its Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish (MSB) Committee, and Amendment 14's
Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT). All of these meetings, as well as several related
Council meetings, were open to the public.
10.1.3 List of Preparers and EIS Distribution List
This document was prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council staff and other
members of the Amendment 14 Fishery Management Action Team. Copies of this document
and other associated documents are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, 114
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State
Street, Dover, DE 19901 or online at www.mafmc.org, in the section for MSB fisheries.
MSB Amendment 14 Fishery Management Action Team:
Jason Didden (MAFMC)
Aja Szumylo (NMFS)
Katherine Richardson (NMFS)
Dan Marone (NMFS)
Kiersten Curti (NMFS)
Lisa Hendrickson (NMFS)
Joel MacDonald & Denise Desautels (NOAA General Counsel)
David Stevenson (NMFS)
Andrew Kitts (NMFS)
Kate Taylor (ASMFC)

MAFMC MSB Committee (Past and Present):
Howard King, Chairman
Erling Berg, Vice-Chairman
Lee Anderson
Bob Beal (ASMFC)
Peter deFur
Tony DiLernia
Jim Gilmore
Pete Himchak
Stephen Linhard
Mike Luisi
John McMurray
Dave Miko
Laurie Nolan
Preston Pate
Steven Schafer
Vince O'Shea
Leroy Young
Christopher Zeman
Mary Beth Tooley (NEFMC)
David Pierce (NEFMC)
EIS Distribution List
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 1
Betsy Higgins
U.S. EPA New England
Five Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
U.S.EPA, Region 2
Grace Musumeci
290 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10007
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Bill Arguto
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215.814.3367
[email protected]
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Chris Hoberg

61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
District Commander
First Coast Guard District
408 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
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
NOAA Fisheries Service
Protected Species Division - [email protected]
Office of Law Enforcement - [email protected]
Sustainable Fisheries Division - [email protected]

10.2

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT (MMPA)

The MAFMC has reviewed the impacts of Amendment 14 on marine mammals and has
concluded that the proposed management actions are consistent with the provisions of the
MMPA, and will not alter existing measures to protect the species likely to inhabit the
management unit. For further information on the potential impacts of the fishery and the
proposed management action on marine mammals, see Section 7.4 of this document.
10.3

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)

Section 7 of the ESA 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. Formal consultation on the MSB fishery was last
completed on October 29, 2010. The October 29, 2010, Biological Opinion concluded that the
operation of the MSB fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
Since the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs have been listed as endangered and threatened under the ESA,
the ESA Section 7 consultation for the MSB fisheries has been reinitiated, and additional
evaluation will be included in the resulting Biological Opinion to describe any impacts of the
fisheries on Atlantic sturgeon and define any measures needed to mitigate those impacts, if
necessary. It is anticipated that any measures, terms and conditions included in an updated
Biological Opinion will further reduce already low impacts to the species. NMFS found that the
continued operation of these fisheries during the reinitiation period is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any Atlantic sturgeon DPS. This is based on the NMFS determination that
the number of interactions with Atlantic sturgeon that may occur during this period is low and
will only occur for a short period of time. Thus, this is not expected to increase the risk that the
fisheries and associated research are jeopardizing any Atlantic sturgeon DPS.
10.4

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 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 Coastal Zone
Management Act 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. Accordingly, NMFS has
determined that this action would have no effect on any coastal use or resources of any state.
Letters documenting the NMFS negative determination, along with this document, will be sent to
the coastal zone management program offices of the states of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. A list of the specific
state contacts and a copy of the letters will be made available upon request.

10.5

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

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.

10.6

INFORMATION QUALITY ACT

Utility of Information Product
The proposed document includes: A description of the management issues, a description of the
alternatives considered, and the reasons for selecting the management measures, to the extent
that this has been done. These actions propose modifications to the existing FMP. These
proposed modifications implement the FMP's conservation and management goals consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act) as well as all other existing applicable laws.
This proposed amendment was developed as part of a multi-stage process that involves review of
the amendment document by affected members of the public. The public had the opportunity to
review and comment on management measures at public hearings after the Council approved the
public hearing document/DEIS. There will also be a comment period for the FEIS. The Federal
Register notice that announces the proposed rule and the implementing regulations will be made
available in printed publication and on the website for the Northeast Regional Office. The notice
provides metric conversions for all measurements.
Integrity of Information Product
The information product meets the standards for integrity under the following types of
documents:
Other/Discussion (e.g., Confidentiality of Statistics of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act; NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Protection of
Confidential Fisheries Statistics; 50 CFR 229.11, Confidentiality of information collected under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act.)

Objectivity of Information Product
The category of information product that applies for this product is “Natural Resource Plans.”
In preparing documents which amend the FMP, the Council must comply with the requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Data
Quality Act, and Executive Orders 12630 (Property Rights), 12866 (Regulatory Planning), 13132
(Federalism), and 13158 (Marine Protected Areas).
This amendment was developed to comply with all applicable National Standards, including
National Standard 2. National Standard 2 states that the FMP's conservation and management
measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. Despite current data
limitations, the conservation and management measures proposed to be implemented under this
amendment are based upon the best scientific information available. This information includes
NMFS dealer weighout data for 2007, which was used to characterize the economic impacts of
the management proposals. These data, as well as the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer
Program (NEFOP) database, were used to characterize historic landings, species co-occurrence
in the MSB catch, and discarding. The specialists who worked with these data are familiar with
the most recent analytical techniques and with the available data and information relevant to the
MSB fisheries. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey data were used to characterize
the recreational fishery for Atlantic mackerel (the only species managed under this FMP with a
significant recreational component).
The policy choices (i.e., management measures) proposed to be implemented by this amendment
document are supported by the available scientific information and, in cases where information
was unavailable, proxy reference points are based on observed trends in survey data. The
management measures considered via this document are being designed to meet the conservation
goals and objectives of the FMP, and prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished resources, while
maintaining sustainable levels of fishing effort to ensure a minimal impact on fishing
communities.
The supporting materials and analyses used to develop the measures in the amendment are
contained in the amendment document and to some degree in previous amendments and/or FMPs
as specified in this document.
The review process for this amendment involves the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Northeast Regional Office, and NOAA Fisheries
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 the 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 amendment document and clearance of the rule is conducted by staff at NOAA
Fisheries Headquarters, the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget.
10.7

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

The Paperwork Reduction Act concerns the collection of information. The intent of the
Paperwork Reduction Act is to minimize the Federal paperwork burden for individuals, small
businesses, state and local governments, and other persons as well as to maximize the usefulness
of information collected by the Federal government. With significant changes to the catch
monitoring program proposed for the MSB fisheries, Amendment 14 may contain new collection
of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, including changes to vessel
and dealer reporting requirements, notification requirements, and affidavit requirements, among
other things (see Section 10.10.2). The Paperwork Reduction Act package prepared in support of
this action and the information collection required by the proposed action, including forms and
supporting statements, will be submitted when implementation action is taken on Amendment
14.
10.8

IMPACTS RELATIVE TO FEDERALISM/E.O. 13132

This amendment does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

10.9

Regulatory Flexibility Act/E.O. 12866

10.9.1 Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section provides the analysis and conclusions to address the requirements of Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since many of the requirements of these
mandates duplicate those required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA, this section
contains references to other sections of this document. The following sections provide the basis
for concluding that the proposed actions are not significant under E.O. 12866 and will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
10.9.2 Description of Management Objectives
The goals and objectives of the management plan for the MSB resources are stated in Section 4.3
of this document. The proposed actions are consistent with, and do not modify those goals and
objectives.
10.9.3 Description of the Fisheries
Section 6.1 of this document contains a detailed description of the fisheries managed under this
FMP.

10.9.4 Statement of Problem/Need for Action
The purpose and need for this action were summarized in the Executive Summary, 10.1, and
further described in Section 4.1 of this document.

10.9.5 Description of the Alternatives
The potential measures being considered were summarized in the Executive Summary, 10.1, and
further described in Section 5 of this document.
10.9.6 Economic Analysis
The economic impacts of the alternatives in this amendment are discussed in Section 7.0 of this
document.
10.9.7 Determination of Significance under E.O. 12866
NMFS Guidelines provide criteria to be used to evaluate whether a proposed action is
significant. A significant regulatory action means any regulatory action that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
1.
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely effect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
The proposed actions are not expected to have an effect on the economy in excess of $100
million because the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, the two fisheries that are impacted by
the proposed actions, have a combined value of about $20-$33 million dollars 2008-2010. It is
expected that the group of alternatives that has been selected as preferred will achieve the desired
RH/S monitoring and catch reduction goals in a practicable manner. In addition, costs incurred
by the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries could be offset by gains made relative to RH/S
conservation.
2.
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency.
The proposed actions will not create a serious inconsistency with or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency. No other agency has indicated that it plans an action
that will interfere with the MSB fisheries in the EEZ.
3.
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.

The proposed action will not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their participants.
4.
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
The considered actions do not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. The considered actions have
generally been considered in other fisheries managed by NMFS.

10.9.8 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The following sections contain analyses of the effect of the proposed action on small entities.
Under Section 603(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, each initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is required to address:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Reasons why the agency is considering the action,
The objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule,
The kind and number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply,
The projected reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, and
All Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.

10.9.9 Reasons for Considering the Action
The needs and purposes for action are described in Section 5 of this document.
10.9.10 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Action
Amendment 14 was developed in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
former being the primary domestic legislation governing fisheries management in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act
(MSA), which amended and reauthorized the MSFCMA and included a new emphasis on
precautionary fisheries management. New provisions mandated by the MSA require managers
to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks within specified time frames, minimize discards
and discard mortality to the extent practicable, and identify and protect essential fish habitat
(EFH). This document presents and evaluates management alternatives and measures to achieve
specific goals and objectives for the Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries (Section
4.0). The associated document was prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(Council) in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, NOAA Fisheries).

10.9.11 Description and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Applies
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Federal rulemaker to examine the impacts of
proposed and existing rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. In reviewing the potential impacts of proposed regulations, the agency must either
certify that the rule Awill not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities or prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis. The Small
Business Administration defines a small business in the commercial fishing sector as a firm with
receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 million. Party/charter small businesses are included in
NAICS code 487210 and are defined as a firm with gross receipts of up to $7 million.
The measures in this amendment could affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit for
Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex or butterfish, as well as vessels that fish for any one of
these species in state waters. According to NMFS permit file data, in 2010, 2,201 commercial
vessels possessed Atlantic mackerel permits, 351 vessels possessed longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permits, 76 vessels possessed Illex permits, 1904 vessels possessed incidental catch
permits and 831 vessels possessed squid/mackerel/butterfish party/charter permits. In 2010 all of
the relevant commercial vessels had revenues less than $4.0 million. While gross revenue data is
not available for the party/charter sector, it is a reasonably safe presumption that almost all if not
all of the party/charter vessels would qualify as a small business. Many vessels participate in
more than one of these fisheries; therefore, permit numbers are not additive. The distribution of
permitted and active vessels by state may be found in Section 6.
Since all permit holders may not actually land any of the four species, the more immediate
impact of the considered measures may be felt by the commercial vessels that are actively
participating in these fisheries (see active vessel tables in Section 6 above). An active participant
was defined as being any vessel that reported having landed one or more pounds of any one of
the four species in the Northeast dealer data during calendar year 2010, and there were 488 such
vessels. Tables 30, 41, 51, and 61 provide the numbers of permitted and substantially active
(greater than 1,000 pounds of a species) for mackerel, Illex, butterfish, and longfin respectively.
NMFS weighout databases cover activity by unique vessels that hold a Federal permit of any
kind and provides summary data for vessels that fish exclusively in state waters. This means that
an active vessel may be a vessel that holds a valid Federal Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish
permit, a vessel that holds a valid Federal permit but no Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish
permit; a vessel that holds a Federal permit other than Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish
permit and fishes for those species exclusively in state waters; or may be a vessel that holds no
Federal permit of any kind. Of the four possibilities the number of vessels in the latter two
categories cannot be estimated because the dealer data provides only summary information for
state waters vessels and because the vessels in the last category do not have to report landings.
Not all landings and revenues reported through the Federal dealer data can be attributed to a
specific vessel. Vessels with no Federal permits are not subject to any Federal reporting
requirements with which to corroborate the dealer reports. Thus, it is possible that some vessel
activity cannot be tracked with the landings and revenue data that are available. Thus, these
vessels cannot be included in the threshold analysis, unless each state were to report individual
vessel activity through some additional reporting system - which currently does not exist. This

problem has two consequences for performing threshold analyses. First, the stated number of
entities subject to the regulation is a lower bound estimate, since vessels that operate strictly
within state waters and sell exclusively to non-Federally permitted dealers cannot be counted.
Second, the portion of activity by these uncounted vessels may cause the estimated economic
impacts to be over- or underestimated.
The effects of actions were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches to the extent
possible. In the current analysis, effects on profitability associated with the management
measures should be evaluated by looking at the impact the measures on individual vessel costs
and revenues. However, in the absence of cost data for individual vessels engaged in these
fisheries, changes in gross revenues are used a proxy for profitability.

10.9.12 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The following measures could entail additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements and
will be evaluated per the Paperwork Reduction Act as appropriate.
1b (weekly VTRs)
1c (weekly VTRs)
1d (pre-trip notifications)
1e, f, g (VMS reporting requirements)
2b (Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System confirmations)
2c, 2d, 2e, 2f (requirement for weighing fish)
3e, 3j, 8d (released catch affidavits)
4b, 4c (dockside monitoring)
4d, 4e (hold certifications)
5 (all) Require communication with observer providers and NMFS

10.9.13 Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Other Federal Rules
The proposed action does not duplicate or conflict with any other Federal rules. There is some
natural overlap between the Atlantic Mackerel and Atlantic Herring fisheries and this overlap
and the regulations for the Atlantic herring fishery were taken into consideration during the
development of this amendment.
10.9.14 Economic Impacts on Small Entities
All of the small entities described in 10.10.11 could be impacted by this action to some degree.
Economic impacts for each alternative are detailed in Section 7 of this document (starts on page
274).

11.0

Literature Cited

Amaral, E. and Carr, A. 1980. Experimental Fishing for Squid With Lights in Nantucket Sound. Mar.
Fish. Rev., 42(7-8), 60-66. Available at: http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr427-8/mfr427-8.htm.
Amaratunga T., S. Kawahara and H. Kono. 1979. Mesh selection of the short-finned squid, Illex
illecebrosus, on the Scotian shelf using a bottom trawl: a joint Canada-Japan 1978 research
program. ICNAF Res. Doc. 79/II/35, Ser. No. 5361. 29 p.
Anderson, Lee. 1991. Efficient Policies to Maintain Total Allowable Catches in ITQ Fisheries with AtSea Processing. Land Economics, Vol. 67, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 141-157.
Arnold, J.M., W.C. Summers, D.L. Gilbert, R.S. Manalis, N.W. Daw, and R.J. Lasek. 1974. A guide to
laboratory use of the squid, Loligo pealeii. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.,
Woods Hole, Mar. Biol. Lab. Rep., 74 p.
Arntz, W., E. Rachor, and S. Kuhne. 1994. Mid- and long-term effects of bottom trawling on the
benthic fauna of the German Bight. p. 59-74. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Rapport 1994-11, Netherlands Institute of Fisheries Research, Texel.
Aschman, S.G., D. Anderson, and R.J. Croft. 1997. Challenges for Sustainable Nutrient Cycling in
Watersheds. Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, October 2630, 1997, Anaheim, CA.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1992. Reef Material Criteria Handbook.
Artificial Reef Advisory Committee. Washington, D.C.
__________. 1993. Resolution II: In opposition to the use of combustion/incineration ash for artificial
reef construction. In: Resolutions Adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:
52nd Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C. 1 p.
__________. 1997. Atlantic Coastal Wetlands Losses and the Economic Value of Fisheries: A State
by State Review. Washington, D.C.
__________. 2007. Terms of Reference & Advisory Report to the American Shad Stock Assessment
Peer Review. Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm.
__________. 2007. Estimation of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch in coastal Atlantic commercial fisheries of
New England and the Mid-Atlantic. Special Report to the ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Management
Board. 95pp.

__________. 2011. REVIEW OF THE ASMFC FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
SHAD AND RIVER HERRING (Alosa spp.). Washington, D.C. Available at:
http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm.

__________. 2012. River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02
of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Washington, D.C. Available at:
http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm.

Augustyn et al., 1992 C.J. Augustyn, M.R. Lipinski and W.H.H. Sauer, Can the Loligo squid fishery be
managed effectively? A synthesis of research on Loligo vulgaris reynaudii, S Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 12
(1992), pp. 903–91.
Augustyn, C.J., Roel, B.A., Cochrane, K.L. 1993. Stock assessment in the chokka squid Loligo vulgaris
reynaudii fishery off the coast of South Africa. In: Okutani, T., O’Dor, R.K., Kubodera, T.
(Eds.), Recent Advances in Fisheries Biology. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp. 3–14.
Auster, P.J. and R.W. Langton. 1998. The Indirect Effects of Fishing.
Auster, P.J., C.A. Griswold, M.J. Youngbluth, and T.G. Bailey. 1992. Aggregations of myctophid fishes
with other pelagic fauna. Env. Biol. Fish. 35:133-139.
Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, R.W. Langton, L. Watling, P.C. Valentine, C.L.S. Donaldson, E.W.
Langton, A.N. Shepard and I.G. Babb. 1996. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor
habitats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish
populations. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4(2):185-202.
Azarovitz, T.R., C.J. Byrne, E.S. Bevacqua, L.I. Despres, and H.A. Foster. 1980. Distribution and
abundance trends of 22 selected species in the Middle Atlantic Bight from bottom trawl surveys
during 1967-1979. Final report to the U.S. Minerals Management Service. 568 p.
Barans, C.A. and V.G. Burrell, Jr. 1976. Preliminary findings of trawling on the continental shelf off the
southeastern United States during four seasons (1973-1975). Tech. Rep. No. 13. South Carolina
Marine Resources Center, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., Charleston. 16
p.
Bergman, M.J.N. and M. Hup. 1992. Direct effects of beamtrawling on macrofauna in a sandy
sediment in the southern North Sea. ICES J. mar. Sci. 49:5-11.
Berrien, P.L. 1975. A description of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, eggs and early larvae. Fish.
Bull. 73(1): 186-192.
Berrien, P.L. 1978. Eggs and larvae of Scomber scombrus and Scomber japonicus in continental shelf
waters between Massachusetts and Florida. Fish. Bull. 76(1): 95-115.
Berrien, P.L. 1982. Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus. In: M. D. Grosslein and T. R. Azarovitz, eds.,
Fish Distribution, MESA New York Bight Atlas Monogr. 15: 99-102.
Berry WJ, Hinchey EK, Rubinstein NI, Klein-MacPhee G. 2004. Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes
americanus, hatching success as a function of burial depth in the laboratory. Ninth Flatfish

Biology Conference - Poster presentation. Westbrook, CT. Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Reference Document 04-13.
Beukema, J.J. 1995. Long-term effects of mechanical harvesting of lugworms, Arenicola marina, on
the zoobenthic community of a tidal flat in the Wadden Sea. Netherlands J. Sea Res. 33:219227.
Bigelow, H.B. 1924. Plankton of the offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine, part II. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish.
40: 1-509
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish. Wildl Ser. Fish. Bull.
53: 577 p.
Bigford, T.E. 1991. Sea-level rise, nearshore fisheries, and the fishing industry. Coastal Management
19:417-437
Black, G. A. P., T. W. Rowell, and E. G. Dawe. 1987. Atlas of the biology and distribution of the
squids Illex illecebrosus and Loligo pealei in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 100, 62 p.
Boesch, D.F. D.A. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, and T.E. Whitledge. 1997.
Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control, and Mitigation.
NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 10. Special Joint Report with the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, February 1997.
Bourne, D.W., and J.J. Govoni. 1988. Distribution of fish eggs and larvae and patterns of water
circulation in Narragansett Bay, 1972-1973. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp., 3:132-148.
Bowman, R. E., R. Eppi, and M. C. Grosslein. 1984. Diet and consumption of spring dogfish in the
northwest Atlantic. ICES Demersal Fish. Comm., ICES CM 1984/G:27. 16 p.
Bowman, R. E. and W. L. Michaels. 1984. Food of seventeen species of northwest Atlantic fish. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-28, Northeast Fish. Sci. Ctr., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Woods
Hole, MA. 193 p.
Bradstock, M. and D. Gordon. 1983. Coral-like bryozoan growths in Tasman Bay, and their protection
to conserve commercial fish stocks. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
17:159-163.
Bridger, J.P. 1970. Some effects of the passage of a trawl over the seabed. ICES C.M. 1970/B:10 Gear
and Behavior Committee. 8p.
Bridger, J.P. 1972. Some observations on the penetration into the sea bed of tickler chains on a beam
trawl. ICES C.M. 1972/B:7. 9 p.
Briggs, J.C. 1960. Fishes of world-wide (circumtropical) distribution. Copeia 3:171-180.

Brodeur, R.D. In press. In situ observations of the association between juvenile fishes and
scyphomedusae in the Bering Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
Brodeur JC, Sherwood G, Rasmussen JB, Hontela A. 1997. Impaired cortisol secretion in yellow perch
(Perca flavescens) from lakes contaminated by heavy metals: in vivo and in vitro assessment.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54 (12):2752-8.
Brodziak, J.K.T 1995a. Atlantic butterfish. Pp. 102-103, In: Status of the Fishery Resources off the
Northeast U.S. for 1994. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-108.
Brodziak, J.K.T 1995b. Long-finned squid, p. 112-113. In: Status of the fishery resources off the
northeast U.S. for 1994, U.S. Nat. Oceanic Atmos. Adm. NMFS Northeast Fish. Cent. Tech.
Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-108.
Brodziak, J.K.T 1995c. Short-finned squid, p. 110-111. In: Status of the Fishery Resources off the
Northeast U.S. for 1994, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-108.
Brodziak, J.K.T. and W.K. Macy. 1994. Revised estimates of growth of long-finned squid, Loligo
pealei, in the Northwest Atlantic based on statolith ageing: implications for stock assessment and
fishery management. ICES C.M. 1994/K:13. 46 p.
Brodziak, J.K.T. and W.K. Macy. 1996. Growth of long-finned squid, Loligo pealeii, in the Northwest
Atlantic. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 94: 212-236.
Brodziak, J.K.T and L.C. Hendrickson. 1997. An analysis of some factors affecting survey catches of
squid Loligo pealeii and Illex illecebrosus in the Northwest Atlantic. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv.
Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 97-03.
Brodziak, J. K. T., and L. C. Hendrickson. 1999. An analysis of environmental effects on survey catches
of squids, Loligo pealeii and Illex illecebrosus in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 97:9-24.
Brouha, P. 1994. Population growth: the real problem. Fisheries 19(9):4.
Brown, R.A. 1989. Bottom trawling on Strangford Lough: problems and policies. Proceedings reprints,
Distress Signals, signals from the environment in policy and decision making, May 31-June 2,
1989 Rotterdam, Netherlands. 11p.
Brown, R. G. B., S. P. Barker, D. E. Gaskin, and M. R. Sandeman. 1981. The foods of Great and Sooty
Shearwaters, Puffinus gravis and P. griseus, in eastern Canadian waters. Ibis 123: 19-30.
Brylinsky, M., J. Gibson, and D.C. Gordon Jr. 1994. Impacts of flounder trawls on the intertidal habitat
and community of the Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51:650-661.
Buchsbaum RN. 2005. The role of overfishing, pollution, and habitat degradation on marine fish and
shellfish populations of New England: Summary and conclusions. In: Buchsbaum R, Pederson J,
Robinson WE, eds. The decline of fisheries resources in New England: Evaluating the impact of

overfishing, contamination, and habitat degradation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant College
Program, Publication No. MITSG 05-5. 175 p.
Butler, M. 1971. Biological investigation of aspects of the life history of bluefin tuna, 1970-71. Nfld.
Lab. Tour. Develop. Off., St. John's, Nfld. 169 p.
Caddy, J.F. 1973. Underwater observations on tracks of dredges and trawls and some effects of
dredging n a scallop ground. J. Fish. Bd. Can. 30:173-180.
Cadrin, S.X. and E.M.C. Hatfield. 1999. Stock Assessment of Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii.
NEFSC Center Ref. Doc. 99-12. 107 p.
Cahoon, L.B., and J.E. Cooke. 1992. Benthic microalgal production in Onslow Bay, North Carolina.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 84:185-196.
Cahoon, L.B., R.L. Redman, and C.R. Tronzo. 1990. Benthic microalgal biomass in sediments of
Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Est. Coast. and Shelf Sci. 31:805-816.
Cahoon, L.B., and C.R. Tronzo. 1992. Quantitative estimates of demersal zooplankton abundance in
Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 87:197-200.
Cairns, J. Coping with point source discharges. Fisheries 5(6):3.
Caldwell, D.K. 1961. Populations of butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, with systematic comments. Bull.
S. Calif. Acad. Sci., 60:19-31.
Cargnelli, L., S. Griesbach, and K. McBride. 1998a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: LongFinned Squid, Loligo pealei, Life History and Habitat Requirements. Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Marine Sciences
Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 07732.
Cargnelli, L., S. Griesbach, and K. McBride. 1998b. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:
Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics (Draft).
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Marine
Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 07732.
Carlton JT. 2001. Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: Environmental impacts and management
priorities. Arlington, Virginia: Pew Ocean Commission.
Castonguay, M., G.A. Rose, and W.C. Leggett. 1992. Onshore movements of Atlantic mackerel
(Scomber scombrus) in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence: associations with wind-forced
advections of warmed surface waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 2232-241.
Castonguay, M., P. Simard, and P. Gagnon. 1991. Usefulness of Fourier analysis of otolith shape for
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) stock discrimination. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 296302.

Chang, S. 1993. Analysis of fishery resources: potential risk from sewage sludge dumping at the
deepwater dumpsite off New Jersey. Fishery Bulletin 91:594-610.
Chopin, F.S. and T. Arimoto. 1995. The condition of fish escaping from fishing gears - a review. Fish.
Res. 21:315-327.
Churchill, J.H., 1989. The effect of commercial trawling on sediment resuspension and transport over
the Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research 9(9):841-864.
Chytalo, K. 1996. Summary of Long Island sound dredging windows strategy workshop. In:
Management of Atlantic Coastal Marine Fish Habitat: Proceedings of a Workshop for Habitat
Managers. ASMFC Habitat Management Series #2.
Coelho, M.L. and R.K. O’Dor. 1993. Maturation, spawning patterns, and mean size at maturity in the
short-finned squid Illex illecebrosus. In: T. Okutani, R.K. O’Dor, and T. Kubodera (eds.). Recent
advances in cephalopod fisheries biology, p. 81-91. Tokai Univ. Press, Tokyo.
Cohen, A.C. 1976. The systematics and distribution of Loligo (Cephalopoda, Myopsida) in the western
North Atlantic, with descriptions of two new species. Malacologia 15: 299-367.
Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero and L. Hunke and P.C. Valentine. 1996. Scallop dredging on Georges
Bank: photographic evaluation of effects on benthic fauna. ICES C.M. 1996/Mini:9. 14 p.
Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero and P.C. Valentine, 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic
megafauna of Georges bank. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 155:159-172.
Colton, J.B., Jr. 1972. Temperature trends and distribution in continental shelf waters, Nova Scotia to
Long Island. Fish. Bull., 70:637-658.
Colton, J.B., Jr. and K.A. Honey. 1963. The eggs and larval stages of the butterfish, Peprilus
triacanthus. Copeia, 2:447-450.
Colton, J.B., Jr., and R.R. Marak. 1969. Guide for identifying the common planktonic fish eggs and
larvae of continental shelf waters, Cape Sable to Block Island. Bur. Comm. Fish., Woods Hole,
MA, Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 69-9. 43 p.
Cooley, N.R. 1978. An inventory of the estuarine fauna in the vicinity of Pensacola, Florida. Florida
Dept. Natural Resources, Florida Mar. Res. Publ. No. 31. 119 p.
Costello, C. et al. (2012), “The Economic Value of Rebuilding Fisheries”, OECD Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries Papers, No. 55, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9bfqnmptd2-en
Croker, R.A. 1965. Planktonic fish eggs and larvae of Sandy Hook estuary. Chesapeake Sci., 6:92-95.
Cross, J. 1998. Personal communication. NMFS, NEFSC, Sandy Hook, NJ.

Currie, D.R. and G.D. Parry. 1994. The impact of scallop dredging on a soft sediment community
using multivariate techniques. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 36:316-326.
Currie, D.R. and G.D. Parry. 1996. Effects of scallop dredging on a soft sediment community: a largescale experimental study. Mar. Ecol. Prog, Ser. 134:131-150.
D’Amours, D. and M. Castonguay. 1992. Spring migration of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in
relation to water temperature through Cabot Strait (Gulf of St. Lawrence). Environ. Biol. Fish.
34: 393-399.
D’Amours, D., J.G. Landry, and T.C. Lambert. 1990. Growth of juvenile (0-group) Atlantic mackerel
(Scomber scombrus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 47: 2112-2218.
Dahl, T.E., R.D. Young, and M.C. Caldwell. 1997. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous
United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Draft.
Dahl TE. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service. 112 p.
Dawe, E. G. and P. C. Beck. 1985. Population structure, growth and sexual maturation of short-finned
squid (Illex illecebrosus) larvae in the Northwest Atlantic from winter surveys in 1969, 1981,
and 1982. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 6(1): 43-55.
Dawe, E.G. and P.C. Beck. 1997 Population structure, growth, and sexual maturation of short-finned
squid (Illex illecebrosus) at Newfoundland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 137-146.
Dawe, E. G., P. C. Beck, H. J. Drew, and G. H. Winters. 1981. Long-distance migration of a shortfinned squid, Illex illecebrosus. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 2: 75-76.
Dawe, E.G., R.K. O'Dor, P.H. Odense, and G.V. Hurley. 1985. Validation and application of an ageing
technique for short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus). J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 6:107-116.
Dawe, E.G., J.C. Shears, N.E. Balch, and R.K. O’Dor. 1990. Occurrence, size, and sexual maturity of
long-finned squid, Loligo pealei, at Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Canada. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 47: 1830-1835.
Dawe, E. G., E. L. Dalley, and W. W. Lidster. 1997. Fish prey spectrum of short-finned squid (Illex
illecebrosus) at Newfoundland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 200-208.
DeAlteris, J.T. and D.M. Riefsteck. 1993. Escapement and survival of fish from the codend of a
demersal trawl. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196:128-131.
DeAlteris, J. 1998. Training manual: fisheries science and technology. Unpubl. rep. Kingstown, RI:
Univ. Rhode Island, Dep. Fish.; 34 p.

Deegan LA, Buchsbaum RN. 2005. The effect of habitat loss and degradation on fisheries. In:
Buchsbaum RN, Robinson WE, Pederson J, eds. The decline on fisheries resources in New
England: Evaluating the impact of overfishing, contamination, and habitat degradation. MIT Sea
Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA, MITSG 05-5: p 67-96.
DeGroot, S.J. 1984. The impact of bottom trawling on benthic fauna of the North Sea. Ocean
Management 9:177-190.
Dery, L.M. 1988. Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus. Pp. 85-98, In: J. Penttila and L.M. Dery (eds.), Age
determination methods for northwest Atlantic species. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 72.
Dery, L.M. and E.D. Anderson. 1983. Recent problems with the aging of northwest Atlantic mackerel,
concerning the 1977 and 1978 year classes. NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 83-02.30
p.
Ditty, J.G., and F.M. Truesdale. 1983. Comparative larval development of Peprilus burti, P. triacanthus
and P.paru (Pisces: Stromateidae) from the Western North Atlantic. Copeia, 2:397-406.
Driscoll, C. 1998. Personal Communication - April 1998. NMFS, Oxford, MD.
DuPaul, W.D., and J.D. McEachran. 1973. Age and growth of butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus in the
lower York River. Chesapeake Sci., 14:205-207.
Durward, R. D., E. Vessey, R. K. O'Dor, and T. Amaratunga. 1980. Reproduction in the squid, Illex
illecebrosus: first observations in captivity and implications for the life cycle. ICNAF Sel. Pap.
6: 7-13.
Durward, R. D., T. Amaratunga, and R. K. O'Dor. 1978. Maturation index and fecundity for female
squid, Illex illecebrosus (LeSueur, 1821). In: N. Balch, T. Amaratunga, and R. K. O'Dor (eds.),
Proceedings of a workshop on the squid Illex illecebrosus. ICNAF Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep.
833, 24.1-24.6.
Eleftheriou, A. and M.R. Robertson. 1992. The effects of experimental scallop dredging on the fauna
and physical environment of a shallow sandy community. Netherlands J. Sea Res. 30:289-299.
Elliott, E.M., and D. Jimenez. 1981. Laboratory manual for the identification of ichthyoplankton from
Beverly-Salem Harbor area. Mass. Dep. Fish., Div. Mar. Fish. 230 p.
Engel, J. and R. Kvitek. MS1997. Bottom trawling: impact interpretation a matter of perspective.
Submitted to Conservation Biology.
Eno, N.C., D.S. MacDonald and S.C. Amos. 1996. A study on the effects of fish (crustacea/mollusc)
traps on benthic habitats and species. Final Report to the European Commission.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Butterfish Team. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document Atlantic
Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, Life History and Habitat Requirements. Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Laboratory, Highlands, NJ.

Fahay, M.P. 1975. An annotated list of larval and juvenile fishes captured with surface-towed meter net
in the South Atlantic Bight during four RV Dolphin cruises between May 1967 and February
1968. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS-SSRF-685. 39 p.
Fedulov, P. P. and Yu. M. Froerman. 1980. Effect of abiotic factors on distribution of young shortfin
squids, Illex illecebrosus (LeSueur, 1821). Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization SCR Doc.
80/VI/98.
Felley and Vecchione. 1995. Assessing habitat use by nekton on the continental slope using archived
videotape from submersibles. Fish Bull. 93: 262-273.
Fehring, W.K. 1983. Ports, industry, and fisheries-can they coexist? In: Improving Multiple Use of
Coastal and Marine Resources. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 8 p.
Ferraro, S.P. 1980. Daily time of spawning of 12 fishes in the Peconic Bays, New York. Fish. Bull.,
78:455-464.
Fertl, D and Leatherwood, S. 1997. Cetacean Interactions with Trawls: A Preliminary Review. J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 22: 219–248.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1998. Pfiesteria Summary. Prepared by Karen
Steidinger and Jan Landsberg.
Foerster. 1998. Personal communication - April 1998. Department of Naval Research.
Fogarty, M.J. and S.A. Murawski. 1998. Large-scale disturbance and the structure of marine systems:
Fishery impacts on Georges Bank. Ecol. Appl. 8(1) Supplement:S6-S22.
Fonds, M. 1994. Mortality of fish and invertebrates in beam trawl catches and the survival chances of
discards. p. 131-146. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research Rapport 1994-11,
Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, Texel.
Fonseca, P., A. Campos and A. Garcia. 2002. Bottom trawl codend selectivity for cephalopods in
Portuguese continental waters. Fish. Res. Vol. 59, (1-2): 263-271.
Fonseca, M.S., G.W. Tanyer, A.J. Chester and C. Foltz, 1984. Impact of scallop harvesting on eelgrass
(Zostera marina) meadows: implications for management. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 4:286-293.
Fortier, L. and A. Villeneuve. 1996. Cannibalism and predation on fish larvae by larvae of Atlantic
mackerel, Scomber scombrus: trophodynamics, and potential impact on recruitment. Fish. Bull.
94: 268-281.
Freese, L., J. Hiefetz, B. Wing, and P. Auster. In prep. The impacts of trawling on seafloor habitat in
the Gulf of Alaska: I. Changes in habitat structure and associated invertebrate taxa.

Fritz, R.L. 1965. Autumn distribution of groundfish species in the Gulf of Maine and adjacent waters,
1955-1961. Am. Geol. Soc. Ser. Atlas Mar. Environ., Folio 10. 48 p.
Fritzsche, R.A. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An Atlas of Egg, Larval, and
Juvenile Stages. Vol. V: Chaetodontidae through Ophidiidae. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies. Univ of Maryland, Solomons, Md. Fish and
Wildlife Service/OBS-78/12. 340 p.
Froerman, Y. M. 1979. Biomass estimates of the short-finned squid, Illex illecebrosus, in ICNAF
Division 4W, 1978. ICNAF Res. Doc. 79/II/28, Serial No. 5354, 9 p.
Gannon, D.P., A.J. Read, J.E. Craddock, K.M. Fristrup, and J.R. Nicolas. 1997. Feeding ecology of
long-finned pilot whales, Glopicephala melas, in the western North Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 148: 1-10.
Gaspar, M.B., C.A. Richardson and C.C. Monteiro. 1994. The effects of dredging on shell formation in
the razor clam Ensis siliqua from Barrinha, Southern Portugal. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 74:927938.
Geer, P.J. and H.M Austin. 1997 Estimation of relative abundance of recreationally important finfish in
the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay. Ann. Prog. Rep., Virginia Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester
Point. 153 p. + appendices.
Gibbs, P.J., A.J. Collins and L.C. Collett. 1980. Effect of otter prawn trawling on the macrobenthos of a
sandy substratum in a New South Wales estuary. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 31:509-516.
Gislason, H. 1994. Ecosystem effects of fishing activities in the North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin
29(6-12):520-527.
Goldsborough, W.J. 1997. Human impacts on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - a Chesapeake Bay case
study. In: Aquatic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. ASMFC Management Series #1.
Washington, DC.
Goodger, T. 1998. Personal Communication - April 1998. NMFS, Oxford, MD.
Gosner, K.L. 1978. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Ma., p. 162-163.
Gregoire, F. And M. Castonguay. 1989. Etude de dimensions au premier anulus d’otoliths de maquereau
bleu (Scomber scombrus) du nord-ouest de l’Atlantique. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1680:
vi + 15 p.
Griswold, C.A. and J. Prezioso. 1981. In-situ observations on reproductive behavior of the long-finned
squid, Loligo pealei. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 78: 945-947.

Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph
15. 182 p.
Guillén, J.E., A.A. Ramos, L.Martínez and J. Sánchez Lizaso. 1994. Antitrawling reefs and the
protection of Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile Meadows in the western Mediterranean Sea:
Demand and aims. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2-3):645-650.
Haab et al. 2000. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States.
Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/RecEcon/Publications/SE_vol2.pdf.
Haedrich, R.L. 1967. The stromateiod fishes: systematics and a classification. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.
135:35-129.
Haefner, P.A., Jr. 1959. Morphometry and biology of Loligo pealei (Leseur, 1921), and Lolliguncula
brevis (Blainville, 1823) in Delaware Bay. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Delaware. 61 p.
Hall, S.J. 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments.
Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual review 32:179-239.
Hanson J, Helvey M, Strach R. eds. 2003. Non-fishing impacts to essential fish habitat and
recommended conservation measures. Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA: National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), version 1. Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 75 p.
Hanson CH, White JR, Li HW. 1977. Entrapment and impingement of fishes by power plant cooling
water intakes: an overview. Marine Fisheries Review 39:7-17.
Hastie, L.C. 1996. Estimation of trawl codend selectivity for squid (Loligo forbesi),
based on Scottish research vessel survey data. Short Communication. ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 53: 741–744.
Hatanaka, H. 1986. Body size of short-finned squid, Illex illecebrosus, larvae in the Northwest
Atlantic. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. Nissuishi. 52(1):19-22.
Hatanaka, H., A. M. T. Lange, and T. Amaratunga. 1985. Geographical and vertical distribution of
short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) larvae in the Northwest Atlantic. Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization Sci. Counc. Studies 9: 93-99.
Hatanaka, H. and T. Sato. 1980. Outline of the Japanese squid fishery in Subareas 3 and 4 in 1979. SCR
Doc. 80/II/8. Ser. No. N040. 11 p.
Hatfield, E. M. C. and S. X. Cadrin. 2002. Geographic and temporal patterns in size and maturity of the
longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) off the northeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 100 (2): 200213.
Hendrickson, L.C., J. Brodziak, M. Basson, and P. Rago. 1996. Stock assessment of northern shortfin
squid in the northwest Atlantic during 1993. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 96-05. 63 p.

Hendrickson, L. 1998. Northern shortfin squid. In: S.H. Clark (ed.). Status of the fishery resources off
the northeastern United States, 1998. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE.
Hendrickson, L., D.A. Hiltz, H.M. McBride, B.M. North, and J.E. Palmer. 2003. Implementation of
Electronic Logbook Reporting in a Squid Bottom Trawl Study Fleet during 2002. Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 03-07.
Hendrickson, L. 2004. Population biology of northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean and initial documentation of a spawning area. ICES Journal of
Marine Science Volume 61, Issue 2 , April 2004, Pages 252-266
Hendrickson L. C. and E. M. Holmes. 2004. Essential fish habitat source document: northern shortfin
squid, Illex illecebrosus, life history and habitat characteristics (2nd edition) NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS NE-191. 36 p.
Hendrickson, L. 2005. Effectiveness of a Square-Mesh Escape Panel in Reducing Finfish Bycatch in a
Small- Mesh Bottom Trawl Used in the Longfin Inshore Squid (Loligo pealeii) Fishery.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 05-05.
Hendrickson, L. 2005. Personal communication. NMFS, NEFSC, Woods Hole, MA.
Herman, S.S. 1963. Planktonic fish eggs and larvae of Narragansett Bay, RI. Limnol. Oceanogr., 8:103109.
Herman P, Heip C. 1999. Biogeochemistry of the MAximum TURbidity zone of Estuaries (MATURE):
some conclusions. Journal of Marine Systems 22:89-104.
High, W.L. MS1992. A scientist/diver’s marine science and technology observations. Alaska Fisheries
Science Center, NMFS, Seattle.
Hildebrand, S.F., and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., 43(1):
366 p.
Hill, J. 1996. Environmental considerations in licensing hydropower projects: policies and practices at
the federal energy regulatory commission. American Fisheries Society Symposium 16:190-199.
Hilterman & Goverse 2004 Annual report of the 2003 leatherback turtle research and monitoring
project in Surname. World Wildlife Fund Tech report of the Netherlands committee for
International Union for Conservation of Nature Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 21 p.
Holme, N.A. 1983. Fluctuations in the benthos of the western English Channel. Oceanol. Acta,
Proceedings 17th European Maine Biology Symposium, Brest, France, 27 Set.-1 Oct., 1982,
pp.121-124.

Horn, M.H. 1970a. Systematics and biology of the stromateiod fishes of the genus Peprilus. Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool., Harv. Univ., 140:165-262.
Horn, M.H. 1970b. The swim bladder as a juvenile organ in stromateoid fishes. Breviora, 359:1-9.
Horn, M.H. 1975. Swim-bladder state and structure in relation to behavior and mode of life in
stromateoid fishes. U.S. Fish. Bull., 73:95-109.
Howarth, R.W. 1991. Assessing the ecological effects of oil pollution from outer continental shelf oil
development. In: Fisheries and Oil Development on the Continental Shelf. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 11:1-8.
Howell, P. and D. Simpson. 1994. Abundance of marine resources in relation to dissolved oxygen in
Long Island Sound. Estuaries 17: 394-402.
Hughes Commission Report. 1997. Blue Ribbon Citizens Pfiesteria Action Commission. Final Report.
Governor Harry R. Hughes Commission Chairman.
Hurley, G. V. 1980. Recent developments in the squid, Illex illecebrosus, fishery of Newfoundland,
Canada. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(1-2): 15-22.
ICNAF (International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries). 1975. Report of Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics, May-June, 1975. App. 1. Report of Assessments
Subcommittee. ICNAF, Redbook 1975: 23-63.
ICNAF (International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries). 1978. Report of Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics. Special meeting on squid, February, 1978. ICNAF
Redbook 1978, p. 29-30.
ICNAF (International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries). 1979. Special meeting of
Standing Committee on Research and Statistics – February 1979, Japanese catches and fishing
effort by week in fisheries where Illex were caught, 1977 and 1978. ICNAF Working Paper
79/II/1. 16 p.
International Convention for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES). 1993. Report of the Working Group
on Methods of Fish Stock Assessment, Copenhagen, 3-10 February 1993. ICES CM
1993/Assess:12, 86 p.
Industrial Science Division. 1990. The impact of commercial trawling on the benthos of Strangford
Lough. Interim Report No. TI/3160/90. Industrial Science Division, 17 Antrim Rd., Lisburn, Co.,
Antrim B128 3AL.
Isakov, V. I. 1973. Growth and total mortality of mackerel from the New England area. Int. Comm.
Northwest Atl. Fish. Res. Doc. 73/23 Ser. No. 2956.

Isakov, V. I. 1976. On some results of biological studies on mackerel from Northwest Atlantic. Int.
Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish. Res. Doc. 76/52: 14 p.

Jackson G.D. and J.H. Choat. 1992. Growth in tropical cephalopods: an analysis based on statolith
microstructure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:218-228.
Jamieson, G.S. and Campbell. 1985. Sea scallop fishing impact on American lobsters in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Fish. Bull., U.S. 83:575-586.
Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Adv. Mar. Biol. 34:In
press.
Jereb, P., S. Ragonese, S. von Boletzky [Eds.]. 1991. Squid age determination using statoliths.
Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Institutio di Technilogica della Pesce e del
Pescato (ITPP-CNR), Mazara del Vallo, Italy, 9-14 October 1989. N.T.R. - I.T.P.P. Special
Publication,, Vol. 1, 127 p.
Johnson, M.R., C. Boelke, L.A. Chiarella, P.D. Colosi, K. Greene, K. Lellis-Dibble, H. Ludemann, M.
Ludwig, S. McDermott, J. Ortiz, D. Rusanowsky, M. Scott, J. Smith 2008. Impacts to marine
fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NE-209, 328 p.
Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and abundance of
fishes and invertebrates in North Atlantic estuaries. Estuarine Living Marine Resources Rep. No.
13. NOAA/ National Ocean Service Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver
Spring, MD. 221 p.
Kaiser, M. 1996. Starfish damage as an indicator of trawling intensity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 134:303307.
Kaiser, M.J. and B.E. Spencer. 1994. Fish scavenging behavior in recently trawled areas. Mar. Eol.
Prog. Ser. 112:41-49.
Kaiser, M.J. and B.E. Spencer. 1995. Survival of by-catch from a beam trawl. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
126:31-38.
Kaiser, M.J. and B.E. Spencer. 1996a. The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities
in different habitats. J. Animal Ecol. 65:348-358.
Kaiser, M.J., D.B. Edwards and B.E. Spencer. 1996a. Infaunal community changes as a result of
commercial clam cultivation and harvesting. Aquat. Living Resour. 9:57-63.

Kaiser, M.J., K. Cheney, F.E. Spencer, D.B. Edwards, K. Radford. 1997b. Implications of bottom
trawling for biogenic structures and their importance in seabed assemblages. Fisheries Research
(submitted).
Kawahara, S. 1977a. Age and growth of butterfish, Poronotus triacanthus (Peck), in ICNAF Subarea 5
and Statistical Area 6. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sel. Pap. 3:73-78.
Keiser, R.K., Jr. 1976. Species composition, magnitude and utilization of the incidental catch of the
South Carolina shrimp fishery. Tech. Rep. No. 16, South Carolina Marine Resources Center,
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., Charleston. 55 p. + appendices.
Kendall, A. W. and D. Gordon. 1981. Growth rate of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) larvae in
the Middle Atlantic Bight. Rapp. P-V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 178: 337-341.
Kendall, A.W., and N.A. Naplin. 1981. Diel-depth distribution of summer ichthyoplankton in the
Middle Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull., 79:705-726.
Kier, W.M. 1982. The functional morphology of the musculature of squid (Loliginidae). Arms and
tentacles. J. Morph. 172: 179-192.
Klein-MacPhee, G., In review. Suborder Stromateoidei. In: Collette, B.B., and Klein-MacPhee, G.
(eds.), Bigelow and Schroeder=s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Smithsonian Institute Press,
Washington.
Klein-MacPhee G, Macy WK, Berry W. 2004. In situ effects of suspended particulate loads produced by
dredging on eggs of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus). Ninth Flatfish Biology
Conference. Water's Edge Resort, Westbrook, CT. Oral presentation: Northeast Fisheries
Science Center Reference Document 04-13.
Kohler, C.C. and W.R. Courtenay, Jr. 1986. Introduction of aquatic species. Fisheries 11(2):39-42.
Kroger, R.L. and J.F. Guthrie. 1972. Effect of predators on juvenile menhaden in clear and turbid
estuaries. Mar. Fish. Rev. 34:78-80.
Lanctot, M. 1980. The development and early growth of embryos and larvae of the Atlantic mackerel,
Scomber scombrus, at different temperatures. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 927: 77p.
Lange, A.M.T. 1980. The biology and population dynamics of the squids, Loligo pealei (LeSueur) and
Illex illecebrosus (LeSueur), from the Northwest Atlantic. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Washington, 178 p.
Lange, A.M.T. 1982. Long-finned squid, Loligo pealei, p.133-135. In: Grosslein, M. D. and Azarovitz,
T. R. (eds.), Fish Distribution. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. New York Sea
Grant Institute, Albany, New York, NY.

Lange, A.M.T. 1984. Status of the short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) off the northeastern U.S.
November 1984. NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 84-38. 18 p.
Lange, A. M. T. and M. P. Disentwine. 1980. Biological considerations relevant to the management of
squid (Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus) of the Northwest Atlantic. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42: 23-38.
Lange, A.M. and G. T. Waring. 1992. Fishery interactions between long-finned squid (Loligo pealeii)
and butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) off the Northeast U.S.. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 12: 49-62.
Langton, R. W. and R. E. Bowman. 1977. An abridged account of predator-prey interactions for some
Northwest Atlantic species of fish and squid. NEFSC Lab. Ref. Doc. No 77-17.
Lei, A.H., and W.B. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic coast of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada,
155, 485 p.
Lilly, G. R. and D. R. Osborne. 1984. Predation by Atlantic Cod (Gauds morgue) on short-finned squid
(Illex illecebrosus) off Eastern Newfoundland and in the Northeastern Gulf of St Lawrence.
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization SCR Doc. 84/108, Serial No. N905, 16 p.
Lind Holm, J., M. Ruth, L. Kaufman, and P. Auster. 1998. A modeling approach to the design of
marine refugee for fishery management. In: Linking Protected Areas With Working
Landscapes. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolf Ville, Nova Scotia.
In press.
Lipson, A.J., and R.L. Lipson. 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bay. Johns Hopkins University Press Ltd.,
London, 219 p.
Lipson, A.J., and R.L. Moran. 1974. Manual for Identification of Early Developmental Stages of Fishes
of the Potomac River Estuary. Environmental Technology Center, Martin Marietta Corp.,
Baltimore, MD. pp. 10-11, 252, 255-257.
Lockwood, S. J., J. H. Nichols, and S. H. Coombs. 1977. The development rates of mackerel (Scomber
scombrus L.) eggs over a range of temperatures. ICES CM 1977/J:13. 8 p.
Long, D. & Rathjen, W.F. 1980. Experimental jigging for squid off the northeast United States. Mar.
Fish. Rev., Vol 42(7-8) 60–66.
Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX,
Peterson CH, Jackson JBC. 2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal
seas. Science 312:1806-9.
Lox, F.E., W.D. Handwork, and W.F. Rathjen. 1974. The potential for an offshore squid fishery in New
England. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36: 24-27.
Lox, F.E., and C.L. Wheeler. 1992. Larval and juvenile fishes caught in a neutron survey of Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts in 1979. NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC Ref. Doc. 92-09, 12 p.

Ludwig, M. and E. Gould. 1988. Contaminant input, fate, and biological effects. In: Characterization
of the Middle Atlantic Water Management Unit of the Northeast Regional Action Plan. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-56.
MacKay, K.T. 1967. An ecological study of mackerel Scomber scombrus (Linnaeus) in the coastal
waters of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., Tech. Rep. 31. 127p.
MacKay, K. T. 1973. Aspects of the biology of Atlantic mackerel in ICNAF Subarea 4. Int. Comm.
Northwest Atl. Fish. Res. Doc. 73/70 Serv. No. 3019.
MacKay, K. T. 1979. Synopsis of biological data of the northern population of Atlantic mackerel
(Scomber scombrus). Can. Tech. Rep. 885. 26 pp.
MacKay, K. T. And E. T. Garside. 1969. Eristic analyses of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, from
the North American coastal populations. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 26(9): 2537-2540.
Mackenzie, C.L., Jr., 1982. Compatibility of invertebrate populations and commercial fishing for ocean
quahogs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:270-275.
Macy, W.K., III. 1980. The ecology of the common squid, Loligo pealei LeSueur 1821, in Rhode Island
waters. Ph.D. Thesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Macy, W.K. Ill. 1992. Preliminary age determination of the squid, Loligo pealei, using digital imaging.
ICES CM 1992/K:, 9 p.
Majorcan, B.H. 1995. The impact of commercial trawling on the benthos of Strangford Lough. Ph.D.
dissertation. The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Maguire, J.-J., Y. C. Chignon, M. Castonguay, and B. Mercille. 1987. A review of mackerel
management areas in the Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory
Committee Res. Doc. 87/71: 31 p.
Major, P. F. 1986. Notes on a predator-prey interaction between common dolphins (Delphinus delphis)
and short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) in Lydonia Submarine Canyon, Western North
Atlantic Ocean. J. Mamm. 67(4): 769-770.
Mansueti, R.J. 1963. Symbiotic behavior between small fishes and jellyfishes, with new data on that
between the stromateoid, Peprilus alepidotus, and the scyphomedusa, Chrysaora quinquecirrha.
Copeia 1:40-80.
Markle, D.F., and L.A. Frost. 1985. Comparative morphology, seasonality, and a key to planktonic fish
eggs from the Nova Scotian Shelf. Can. J. Zool. 63:246-257.
Martin, F.D., and G.E. Drewry. 1978. Development of Fishes of Mid Atlantic Bight. An Atlas of Egg,
Larval, and Juvenile Stages. Vol. 6: Stromateidae through Ogcocephalidae. Chesapeake

Biological Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland. Prepared
for U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Biol. Serv. Prog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /OBS-78/12. 416 p.
Maurer, R. 1975. A preliminary description of some important feeding relationships. ICNAF, Res.
Doc. No. 76/IX/130. Ser. No. 3681.
Maurer, R. O., Jr. and R. E. Bowman. 1975. Food habits of marine fishes of the northwest Atlantic Data Report. NEFSC, NOAA, Woods Hole Lab., Ref. Doc. 75-3. 90 p.
Maurer, R. O. and R. E. Bowman. 1985. Food consumption of squids (Illex illecebrosus and Loligo
pealei) off the northeastern United States. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Sci.
Counc. Studies 9: 117-124.
Mayer, L.M., D.F. Schick, R.H. Findlay and D.L. Rice, 1991. Effects of commercial dragging on
sedimentary organic matter. Mar. Environ. Res 31:249-261.
McConathy, D.A., R.T. Hanlon, and R.F. Hixon. 1980. Chromatophore arrangements of hatchling
loliginid squids (Cephalopoda, Myopsida). Malacologia 19: 279-288.
McMahon, J.J. and W.C. Summers. 1971. Temperature effects on the developmental rate of squid
(Loligo pealei) embryos. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 141: 561-567.
Medcof, J.C. and J.F. Caddy. 1971. Underwater observations on the performance of clam dredges of
three types. ICES C.M. 1971/B:10
Mercer, M.C. 1969. A.T. Cameron Cruise 150, Otter-trawl survey of the Mid-Atlantic Bight, AugustSeptember 1968. Can. Fish. Res. Bd. Tech. Rep., 122 p.
Mesnil, B. 1977. Growth and life cycle of squid, Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus, from the
northwest Atlantic. ICNAF Selected Papers 2: 55-69.
Meyer, H. L. and J. V. Merriner. 1976. Retention and Escapement Characteristics of Pound Nets as a
Function of Pound-Head Mesh Size. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105 (3): 370-379.
Meyer, T L., R.A. Cooper and K.J. Pecci, 1981. The performance and environmental effects of a
hydraulic clam dredge. Mar. Fish. Rev. 43(9):14-22.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1990. Ocean Disposal Policy. Dover, DE.
__________. 1990b. Amendment to the fishery management plan for the bluefish fishery (Draft).
Dover, DE.
__________. 1994. Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and
Butterfish Fisheries. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, November 1994.

__________. 1995. Amendment 5 to the fishery management plan and the final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries. Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 168 p. + Appendices.
__________. 1998. Amendment 8 to the fishery management plan and the final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries. Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 351 p. + Appendices.
__________. 2006. 2007 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications, environmental
assessment, regulatory impact specifications, initial regulatory flexibility analysis, EFH
assessment. 171 p. + Appendices.
Mid-Atlantic Regional Marine Research Program (MARMRP). 1994. Mid-Atlantic Research Plan.
University of MD. College Park, MD. 163 p.
Milstein, C.B. and D.P. Hamer. 1976. Fishes taken in the vicinity of the site, the Great Bay-Mullica
River Estuary, and offshore with 25 ft trawl. Pp. 21-42. In: C.B. Milstein (ed.). Ecological
studies in the bays and other waterways near Little Egg Inlet and in the ocean in the vicinity of
the proposed Atlantic Generating Station, NJ. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Co.
by Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 709 p.
Montevecchi, W.A. and R.A. Myers. 1995. Prey harvests of seabirds reflect pelagic fish and squid
abundance on multiple spatial and temporal scales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 117: 1-9.
Moores, J.A., G.H. Winters, and L.S. Parsons. 1975. Migrations and biological characteristics of
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) occurring in Newfoundland waters. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
32: 1347-1357.
Morse, W.W. 1980. The fecundity of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the Middle Atlantic
Bight. Fish. Bull., 78: 103-108.
Moser, M.L., P.J. Auster and J.B. Bichy. 1998. Effects of mat morphology on large Sargassumassociated fishes: observations from a remotely operated vehicle and free-floating video
camcorders. Env. Biol. Fish. 51:391-398.
Moyle, P.B. 1991. American Fisheries Society Position Statement - Ballast Water Introductions.
Fisheries 16(1):4-6.
Murawski S.A. and F.M. Serchuk, 1989. Environmental effects of offshore dredge fisheries for
bivalves. ICES 1989 Statutory Meeting The Hague Netherlands. 12p. 7 figs.
Murawski, S.A. and G.T. Waring. 1979. A population assessment of butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, in
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 108:427-439.
Murawski, S.A., D.G. Frank, and S. Chang. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on butterfish, Peprilus
triacanthus (Peck). NOAA, NMFS, NEFC Tech. Ser. Rep. No. 6, 39 p.

Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian
Institution Press. Washington, DC. 324 p.
Murray, T. 1984. Unpublished Ms. Predicting the timing and duration of Atlantic mackerel migrations in
the Middle Atlantic Bight using sea surface temperature. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Woods Hole, MA.
Murray, T., S. LeDuc, and M. Ingham. 1983. Impact of climatic factors on early life stages of Atlantic
mackerel, Scomber scombrus L.; an application of meteorological data to a fishery problem. J.
Climat. Appl. Meteorol. 22: 57-68.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. What is Bycatch. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_whatis.htm (accessed 2/26/08).
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Fish Stocks Sustainability Index - Third Quarter Report.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/MSA/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Report of the Twelfth Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop (12th SAW), Spring 1991. Woods Hole, MA: NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC.
NEFSC. Ref. Doc. 91-03. 187 p.
__________. 1994. Report of the 17th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (17th SAW).
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC), Consensus Summary of Assessments. Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole Laboratory Reference Document 94-06. 124 p.
__________. 1996a. Report of the 21st Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (21st SAW):
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 96-05; 200 p.
__________. 1996b. Report of the 20th Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (20th SAW):
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 96-05; 200 p.
__________. 2000. Report of the 30th Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (30th SAW):
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 00-03; 477 p.
__________. 2002. Report of the 34th Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (34th SAW):
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 02-06; 346 p.
__________. 2003. Report of the 37th Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (37th SAW):
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 03-16; 603 p.

__________. 2004. Report of the 38th Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (38th SAW):
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 04-03; 236 p.
__________. 2006a. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW)
42nd SAW Assessment Summary Report. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 06-01; 61 p.
__________. 2006b. Report of the 42nd Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW)
Stock Assessment Report Part A: Silver Hake, Atlantic Mackerel, & Northern Shortfin Squid
Part B: Expanded MultispeciesVirtual Population Analysis
(MSVPA-X) Stock Assessment Model . NEFSC Ref. Doc. 06-09a; 284 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication
Survey, Volume 1: South Atlantic Region. Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
__________. 1997a. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey, Volume 2: Mid-Atlantic Region.
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
__________. 1997b. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey, Volume 3: North Atlantic Region.
NOAA, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,
Silver Spring, MD.
__________. 2006c. Fish Stocks Sustainability Index - Third Quarter Report.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/MSA/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2001. NEFSC Fisheries Observer Program manual. 217
p. plus appendices.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2004. Report of the 38th Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop (38th SAW): Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus
summary of assessments. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 04-03; 246 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2010. 49th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (49th SAW) Assessment Summary Report. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci
Cent Ref Doc. 10-01; 41 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street,
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/
[NEFMC 1998] New England Fishery Management Council. 1998. Final Amendment #11 to the
Northeast multispecies fishery management plan, Amendment #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. Newburyport (MA): NEFMC Vol 1.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2011. Salmon FMP analysis. Available at:
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fishery-management-plans/salmon.html.
Nelson, D.M. and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in
Southeast estuaries. Estuarine Living Marine Resources Rep. No. 9. NOAA/ National Ocean
Service Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 167 p.
Niimi AJ. 2004. Role of container vessels in the introduction of exotic species. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 49(9-10):778-82.
O’Brien, L., J. Burnett, and R.K. Mayo. 1993. Maturation of nineteen species of finfish off the northeast
coast of the United States, 1985-1990. NOAA, NMFS, Tech. Rep. 113. 66 p.
O'Dor, R. K. 1983. Illex illecebrosus, p. 175-199. In: Boyle, P. R. (ed.), Cephalopod life cycles, Vol. I,
Species Accounts. Academic Press Inc., London, LTD.
O'Dor, R. K. and N. Balch. 1985. Properties of Illex illecebrosus egg masses potentially influencing
larval oceanographic distribution. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Sci. Counc.
Studies, 9: 69-76.
O’Dor, R.K. and E.G. Dawe. 1998. Illex illecebrosus. In: P.G. Rodhouse, E.G. Dawe, and R.K.
O’Dor (eds.). Squid recruitment dynamics: the genus Illex as a model, the commercial Illex
species and influences on variability, p. 77-104. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization
Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 376. 273 p.
O'Dor, R. K., R. D. Durward, E. Vessey, and T. Amaratunga. 1980. Feeding and growth in captive
squid, Illex illecebrosus, and the influence of food availability on growth in the natural
population. ICNAF Sel. Pap. No. 6: 15-21.
Olla, B. L., A. L. Studholme, A. J. Bejda, C. Samet, and A. D. Martin. 1975. The effect of temperature
on the behaviour of marine fishes: a comparison among Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus,
bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, and tautog, Tautoga onitis. Pp. 299-308: In Combined effects of
radioactive, chemical and thermal releases to the environment. International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency /SM/197/4.
Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda, and A.L. Studholme. 1976. Swimming speeds of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber
scombrus, under laboratory conditions: relation to capture by trawling. ICNAF Res. Doc.
76/XII/143. 6p.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments. Office of Technology
Assessment Pub. Office of Technology Assessment -O-335.
Overholtz, W.J. 1989. Density-dependent growth in the Northwest Atlantic stock of Atlantic mackerel
(Scomber scombrus). J. Northw. Atl. Fish Sci. 9: 115-121.

Overholtz, W. 2000. Butterfish In Status of fisheries resources off the northeastern United States.
www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/butter/butterfish.pdf. 4 p.
Overholtz, W.J. and E.D. Anderson. 1976. Relationship between mackerel catches, water temperature,
and vessel velocity during U.S. spring bottom trawl surveys in stock areas 5-6. ICNAF Res. Doc.
76/XIII/170. 7p.
Overholtz, W.J. R.S. Armstrong, D.G. Mountain, and M. Terceiro. 1991a. Factors influencing spring
distribution, availability and recreational catch of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the
middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-85:
13p.
Overholtz, W. J., S. A. Murawski, and W. L. Michaels. 1991b. Impact of compensatory responses on
assessment advice for the Northwest Atlantic mackerel stock. Fish. Bull. 89: 117-128.
Overholtz, W.J. and G.T. Waring. 1991. Diet composition of pilot whales Globicephala sp. and common
dolphins Delphinus delphis in the Mid-Atlantic Bight during Spring 1989. Fish. Bull. 89: 723728.
Parsons, L.S. 1970. Northern range extension of the Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, to Black
Island, Labrador. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 27: 610-613.
Parsons, L.S. and J.A. Moores. 1974. Long-distance migration of an Atlantic mackerel (Scomber
scombrus). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 31: 1521-1522.
Payne, P. M. and L. A. Selzer. 1983. Population distribution, abundance and prey requirements of the
harbor seal in southern new England. NMFS contract Rep. NA-82-FA 00007 by Manomet Bird
Observatory, Manomet, MA. Northeast Fish. Ctr., Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Woods Hole,
MA. 51 p.
Pearson, J.C. 1941. The young of some marine fishes taken in lower Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, with
special reference to the gray sea trout, Cynoscion regalis. Fish. Bull., 50:79-102.
Pearson, T.H., A.B. Josefson and R. Rosenberg. 1985. Petersen’s benthic stations revisited. 1. Is the
Kattagatt becoming eutrophic? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 92:157-206.
Penkal, R.F. and G.R. Phillips. 1984. Construction and operation of oil and gas pipelines. Fisheries
9(3):6-8
Pepin, P., J.A. Koslow, and S. Pearre, Jr. 1988. A laboratory study of foraging by Atlantic mackerel,
Scomber scombrus, on natural zooplankton assemblages. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 879-887
Pepin, P., S. Pearre, Jr., and J.A. Koslow. 1987. Predation on larval fish by Atlantic mackerel, Scomber
scombrus, with a comparison of predation by zooplankton. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 20122018.

Perez, J. A. A. 1994. The early life history of the short-finned squid, Illex illecebrosus (Cephalopoda:
Ommastrephidae), as reconstructed from the gladius structure. Ph.D. Thesis. Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 150 p.
Perlmutter, A. 1939. An ecological survey of young fish and eggs identified from tow net collections.
Pp. 9-70, In: A biological survey of the salt waters of Long Island, 1938. Part II. NY State
Conservation Dept.
Peterson, W.T. and S.J. Ausubel. 1984. Diets and selective feeding by larvae of Atlantic mackerel
Scomber scombrus on zooplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 17: 65-75.
Peters, D.S. and F.A. Cross. 1992. What is coastal fish habitat? p. 17-22. In: R.H. Stroud (ed.),
Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. Marine Recreational Fisheries Vol. 14.
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Savannah, Georgia.
Peterson, C.H., H.C. Summerson and S.R. Fegley. 1983. Relative efficiency of two clam rakes and
their contrasting impacts on seagrass biomass. Fish. Bull., U.S. 81: 429-434.
Peterson, C.H., H.C. Summerson and S.R. Fegley, 1987. Ecological consequences of mechanical
harvesting of clams. Fish. Bull. 85(2):281-298.
Pickett, S. T .A. and P. S. White, editors. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch
Dynamics. Academic Press, New York.
Powell, D., L.M. Dwinell, and S.E. Dwinell. 1972. An annotated listing of the fish reference collection
at the Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory. Spec. Sci. Rep.
No. 36. Florida Marine Research Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg.
179 p.
Powles, H. and B.W. Stender. 1976. Observations on composition, seasonality and distribution of
ichthyoplankton from MARMAP cruises in the South Atlantic Bight in 1973. Tech. Rep. No. 11.
Marine Resources Research Inst., South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept.,
Charleston. 47 p.
Prena, J., T.W. Rowell,, P. Schwinghamer, K. Gilkinson, and D.C. Gordon Jr. 1996. Grand banks otter
trawling impact experiment: 1.Site selection process, with a description of macrofaunal
communities. Can.Tech. Rep. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 2094:38pp.
Rader, D. 1998. Personal communication - April 1998.
Rago, P. E., S. E. Wigley, and M. J. Fogarty. 2005. NEFSC bycatch estimation methodology:
allocation, precision, and accuracy. NEFSC CRD 05-09
Ramsay, K., M.J. Kaiser and R.N. Hughes. 1996. Changes in hermit crab feeding patterns in response
to trawling disturbance. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 144: 63-72.

Ramsay, K., M.J. Kaiser and R.N. Hughes. 1997a. Responses of benthic scavengers to fishing
disturbance by towed gear in different habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
Ramsay, K. M.J. Kaiser, P.G. Moore and R.N. Hughes. 1997b. Consumption of fisheries discards by
benthic scavengers: utilization of energy subsidies in different marine habitats. J. Animal Ecol.
(in press)
Reid, R., F. Almeida, and C. Zetlin. 1998. Methods used in Federal, State and Other Surveys (Draft).
NMFS, NEFSC, Highlands, NJ.
Reise, K. 1982. Long-term changes in the macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the Wadden Sea: are
polychaetes about to take over? Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 16:29-36.
Reiswig, H.M. 1973. Population dynamics of three Jamaican Demspongiae. Bull. Mar. Sci. 23:191226.
Richkus WA, McLean R. 2000. Historical overview of the efficacy of two decades of power plant
fisheries impact assessment activities in Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Science and Policy
3(Supplement 1):283-93.
Riesen W. and K. Reise. 1982. Macrobenthos of the subtidal Wadden Sea: revisited after 55 years.
Helgoländer Meersunters. 35:409-423.
Robinette, H.R., J. Hynes, N.C. Parker, R. Putz, R.E. Stevens, and R. Stickney. 1991. Commercial
aquaculture. Fisheries 16(1):18-22.
Robinson WE, Pederson J. 2005. Contamination, habitat degradation, overfishing - An "either-or"
debate? In: Buchsbaum R, Pederson J, Robinson WE, editors. The decline of fisheries resources
in New England: evaluating the impact of overfishing, contamination, and habitat degradation.
Cambridge (MA): MIT Sea Grant College Program; Publication No. MITSG 05-5. p 1-10.
Roper, C.F.E. and K. Mangold. 1998. Systematic and distributional relationships of Illex coindetii to the
genus Illex (Cephalopoda; Ommastrephidae). In: P.G. Rodhouse, E.G. Dawe and R.K. O’Dor
(eds.). Squid recruitment dynamics: the genus Illex as a model, the commercial Illex species, and
influences on variability, p. 13-26. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Fish. Tech. Pap. No.
376. 273 p.
Roper, C.F.E. and C.C. Lu/ 1979. Rhynchoteuthion larvae of omnastrephid squids of the western North
Atlantic with the first description of larvae and juveniles of Illex illecebrosus Proc. Biol. Soc.
Wash. 91(4):1039-1059.
Roper, C.F.E., C.C. Lu, and M. Vecchione. 1998. Systematics and distribution of Illex species; a
revision (Cephalopoda, Ommastrephidae). Smithson. Contrib. to Zool. No. 586. 599 p.
Rotunno, T.K. 1992. Species identification and temporal spawning patterns of butterfish, Peprilus spp.
in the South and Mid-Atlantic Bights. M.S. thesis, State University New York at Stony Brook.
77 p.

Rotunno, T., and R.K. Cowen. 1997. Temporal and spatial spawning patterns of the Atlantic butterfish,
Peprilus triacanthus, in the South and Middle Atlantic Bights. Fish. Bull., 95:785-799.
Rowell, T. W., R. W. Trites, and E. G. Dawe. 1985a. Distribution of short-finned squid (Illex
illecebrosus) larvae and juveniles in relation to the Gulf Stream frontal zone between Florida and
Cape Hatteras. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Sci. Counc. Studies 9: 77-92.
Rulifson, R.A., M.J. Dadswell, and G.K. Mahoney. 1986. Tidal power development and estuarine and
marine environments. Fisheries 11(4):36-39
Rumhor, H. and P. Krost. 1991. Experimental evidence of damage to benthos by bottom trawling with
special reference to Artica islandica. Meeresforsch 33:340-345.
Rumhor, H., H. Schomann, and T. Kujawski. 1994. Environmental impact of bottom gears on benthic
fauna in the German Bight. p. 75-86. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research Rapport
1994-11, Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, Texel.
Runge, J.A., P. Pepin, and W. Silvert. 1987. Feeding behavior of the Atlantic mackerel, Scomber
scombrus, on the hydromedusa, Aglantha digitale. Mar. Biol. 94: 329-333.
Sainsbury, K.J. 1987. Assessment and management of the demersal fishery on the continental
shelf of northwestern Australia. pp. 465-503. In: Tropical Snappers and Groupers: Biology and
Fisheries Management (J.J. Polovina and S. Ralston, Eds.). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Sainsbury, K.J. 1988. The ecological basis of multispecies fisheries and management of a
demersal fishery in tropical Australia. pp. 349-382. In: Fish Population Dynamics, 2nd edition. (J.A.
Gulland, Ed.). London: John Wiley and Sons.
Sainsbury, K.J. 1991. Application of an experimental approach to management of a demersal fishery
with highly uncertain dynamics. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 193:301-320.
Sainsbury, K.J., R.A. Campbell, R. Lindholm, and A.W. Whitelaw. In press. Experimental
management of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining the possibility of trawl-induced
habitat modification. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 20: 107-112.
Santbrink, J.W. van and M.J.N. Bergman. 1994. Direct effects of beam trawling on macrofauna in a
soft bottom area in the southern North Sea. p. 147-178. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea
Research Rapport 1994-11, Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, Texel.
Schaefer, R.H. 1967. Species composition, size and seasonal abundance of fish in the surf waters of
Long Island. NY Fish Game J., 14:1-46.
Schaefer, R.H. 1995. Memorandum on NMFS Policy of Risk Aversion in Face of Uncertainty.

Schreiber, R.A. 1973. The fishes of Great South Bay. M.S. thesis, State University of New York, Stony
Brook. 199 p.
Scott, J.S. 1982. Depth, temperature, and salinity preferences of common fishes of the Scotian Shelf. J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 3: 29-39.
Scott, W. B. and M. G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219: 1731.
Scott, W.B., and S.N. Tibbo. 1968. Food and feeding habits of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, in the
western North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 25:174-179.
Serchuk, F.M. and W.J. Rathjen. 1974. Aspects of the distribution and abundance of the long-finned
squid, Loligo pealei, between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Mar.
Fish. Rev. 36: 10-17.
Sette, O.E. 1943. Biology of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) of North America. Part 1: Early life
history including growth, drift, and mortality of the egg and larval populations. Fish. Bull. 50:
149-237.
Sette, O.E. 1950. Biology of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) of North America. Part 2.
Migrations and habitats. Fish. Bull. 51: 251-358
Sharp, J.H. 1976. Anoxia on the middle Atlantic shelf during the summer of 1976. Report on a
workshop held in Washington, D.C., 15-16 October 1976. National Science Foundation
Contract No. OCE 7700465.
Sherman, K, Jaworski NA, Smayda TJ, editors. 1996. The Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: assessment,
sustainability, and management. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell Science. 564 p.
Simard, P., M. Castonguay, D. D’Amours, and P. Magnan. 1992. Growth comparison between juvenile
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) from the two spawning groups of the Northwest Atlantic.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 2242-2248.
Sindermann, C.J. 1992. Disease risks associated with importation of non-indigenous marine animals.
Marine Fisheries Review 54(3):1-9.
Sissenwine, M.P., and A.M. Tibbetts. 1977. Simulating the effect of fishing on squid (Loligo and Illex)
populations off the northeastern United States. ICNAF Sel. Pap. 2: 71-84.
Smith, E.M., M.A. Alexander, M.M. Blake, L. Gunn, P.T. Howell, M.W. Johnson, R.E. MacLeod, R.F.
Sampson, Jr., D.G. Simpson, W.H. Webb, L.L. Stewart, P.J. Auster, N.K. Bender, K. Buchholz,
J. Crawford, and T.J. Visel. 1985. A study of lobster fisheries in the Connecticut waters of Long
Island Sound with special reference to the effects of trawling on lobsters. Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries Program, Hartford, Connecticut.

Smith, G. J. D. and D. E. Gaskin. 1974. The diet of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)) in
coastal waters of Eastern Canada, with special reference to the Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Zool. 52:
777-782.
Smith, W.G., A.W. Kendall, Jr., P.L. Berrien, and M.P. Fahay. 1979. Principal spawning areas and time
of marine fishes, Cape Sable to Cape Hatteras. Fish. Bull., 76:911-915.
Smith, W.G., D.G. McMillan, C. Obenchain, P. Rosenberg, A. Wells, and M. Silverman. 1980.
Spawning cycles of marine fishes of northeastern United States based on broad scale surveys of
eggs and larvae, 1977-79. Int. Coun. Explor. Sea ICES CM 1980/L:66, 22 p.
Sosebee, K.A. and P. Rago. 2000. Abundance and distribution of elasmobranchs from the NMFS
Northeast Fisheries Science Center research vessel bottom trawl surveys. Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization SCR Doc. 00/19.
Sosebee, K. A. and S. X. Cadrin. 2006. A historical perspective on the abundance and biomass of
Northeast complex stocks from NMFS and Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys, 19632002. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-05, 200 p.
South-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1991. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Amendment 4 (Gear Restrictions and Size Limits), Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Management Plan, for the
Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region.
__________. 1998. Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements
for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Public
Hearing Draft). Charleston, SC.
Squires, H. J. 1957. Squid, Illex illecebrosus, in the Newfoundland fishing area. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada 14: 693-728.
Squires, H. J. 1966. Feeding habits of the squid Illex illecebrosus. Nature (London) 211: 1321.
Squires, H. J. 1967. Growth and hypothetical age of the Newfoundland bait squid, Illex illecebrosus
illecebrosus. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 24: 1209-1217.
Stedman, S. and J. Hanson. 1997. Wetlands fisheries and economics in the Mid-Atlantic coastal states.
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Habitat Conservation. Habitat Connections 1(5):1-4.
Steele, J.H. 1996. Regime shifts in fisheries management. Fish. Res. 25:19-23.
Steimle, F. 1976. A summary of the fish kill-anoxia phenomenon off New Jersey and its impact on
resources species. In: Sharp (ed.). Anoxia on the middle Atlantic shelf during the summer of
1976. pp.5-11. Report on a workshop held in Washington D.C., 15-16 October 1976. National
Science Foundation Contract OCE 7700465, University of Delaware.

Steimle, F. Personal communication. NMFS, Sandy Hook, N.J.
Stein, A.B., K.D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004a. Atlantic sturgeon marine bycatch
and mortality on the continental shelf of the Northeast United States. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:171-183.
Stein, A.B., K.D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004b. Atlantic sturgeon marine
distribution and habitat use along the northeastern coast of the United States. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 133:527-537.
Stephan, C.D. and K. Beidler. 1997. Management of Atlantic Coastal Marine Habitat: Proceedings of
a Workshop for Habitat Managers. ASMFC Management Series #2.
Stephan, C.D., R.L. Peuser, and M.S. Fonseca. 2000. Evaluating fishing gear impacts to submerged
aquatic vegetation and determining mitigation strategies. ASMFC Habitat Management Series
#5. 38 p.
Stevenson, J.A. 1934. On the behavior of the long-finned squid Loligo pealei (LeSueur). Can. Field Nat.
48: 4-7.
Stevenson D, Chiarella L, Stephan D, Reid R, Wilhelm K, McCarthy J, Pentony M. 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. Woods Hole
(MA): National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NE-181. 179 p.
Stillwell, C. E. and N. E. Kohler. 1982. Food, feeding habits, and estimates of daily ration of the shortfin
mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39: 407-414.
Stillwell, C. E. and N. E. Kohler. 1985. Food and feeding ecology of the swordfish Xiphias gladius in
the western North Atlantic with estimates of daily ration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 22: 239-247.
Stobo, W. T. and J. J. Hunt. 1974. Mackerel biology and history of the fishery in Subarea 4. Int. Comm.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Res. Doc. 74/9, Ser. No. 3155.
Stolpe, N. 1997. New Jersey Fishnet. November 2, 1997 Issue.
Stone, S.L., T.A. Lowery, J.D. Field, C.D. Williams, D.M. Nelson, S.H. Jury, M.E. Monaco, and L.
Andreasen. 1994. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Mid-Atlantic
estuaries. Estuarine Living Marine Resources Rep. No. 12. NOAA/ National Ocean Service
Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 280 p.
Studholme, A., D. Packer, K. McBride. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic
Mackerel, Scomber scombrus L., Life History and Habitat Requirements. Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Laboratory, Highlands, NJ.

Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1998. Brown Tide Fact Sheet. Office of Ecology.
Summers, W.C. 1968. Winter distribution of Loligo pealei determined by exploratory trawling. Biol.
Bull. 133: 489.
Summers, W.C. 1968. The growth and size distribution of current year class Loligo pealei. Biol. Bull.
135: 366-377.
Summers, W.C. 1969. Winter population of Loligo pealei in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Biol. Bull. 137:
202-216.
Summers, W.C. 1971. Age and growth of Loligo pealei, a population study of the common Atlantic
coast squid. Biol. Bull. 141: 189-201.
Summers, W.C. 1983. Loligo pealei, p. 115-142. In: Boyle, P.R. (ed.), Cephalopod Life Cycles, Vol. I:
Species Accounts. Academic Press, London, England.
Templeman, W. 1944. The life history of the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and the vitamin A
values of dogfish liver oil. Nfld. Dept. Nat. Res. Bull. No. 15: 1-102.
Terry et al 2008. National Assessment of Excess Harvesting Capacity in Federally Managed
Commercial Fisheries. NMFS Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-93 available at:
http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/index.htm.
Thomas, C.J., and L.B. Cahoon. 1993. Stable isotope analyses differentiate between different trophic
pathways supporting rocky-reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 95:19-24
Thomas, D.L. and C.B. Milstein. 1973. Ecological studies in the bays and other waterways near Little
Egg Inlet and in the ocean in the vicinity of the proposed site for the Atlantic Generating Station,
New Jersey. Progress report for the period January-December 1972. Ithaca, NY. Ichthyological
Associates, Inc. 1065 p.
Thorne-Miller, B. and J. Catena. 1991. The Living Ocean. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Thrush, S.F., J.E. Hewitt, V.J. Cummings, and P.K. Dayton. 1995. The impact of habitat disturbance by
scallop dredging on marine benthic communities: what can be predicted from the results of
experiments?. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 129:141-150.
Thrush, S.F., V.J. Cummings, J.E. Hewitt, P.K. Dayton, S.J. Turner, G. Funnell, R. Budd, C. Milburn,
and M.R. Wilkinson. In press. Disturbance of the marine benthic habitat by commercial fishing:
impacts at the scale of the fishery. Ecol. Appl.
Thurberg FP, Gould E. 2005. Chapter IV: Pollutant effects upon cod, haddock, pollock, and flounder of
the inshore fisheries of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. In: Buchsbaum R, Pederson J,
Robinson WE, eds. The decline of fisheries resources in New England: Evaluating the impact of
overfishing, contamination, and habitat degradation. Cambridge,

Tibbetts, A.M. 1977. Squid fisheries (Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus) off the northeastern coast of
the United States of America, 1963-1974. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl .Fish., Sel. Pap., 2:85-109.
Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) Status Report 2010/01. Available at:
http://www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/trac/tsr.html.
Travnichek VH, Zale AV, Fisher WL. 1993. Entrainment of ichthyoplankton by a warmwater
hydroelectric facility. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122(5):709-16.
Trites, R.W. 1983. Physical oceanographic features and processes relevant to Illex illecebrosus
spawning in the western North Atlantic and subsequent larval distribution. Northwest Atl. Fish.
Organ. Sci. Counc. Stud. 6: 39-55.
Turek, J.G., T.E. Goodger, T.E. Bigford, and J.S. Nichols. 1987. Influence of freshwater inflows on
estuarine productivity. NOAA. Tech. memo. NMFS-F/NEC-46. 26 p.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (U.S.COP) 2004. "An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century." Final
report of Commission available at: http://oceancommission.gov/.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984. Status of the fishery resources off the northeastern United States
for 1983. NOAA, NMFS-F/NEC-29. 132 p.
__________. 1985a. Regional action plan: northeast regional office and northeast fisheries center. In:
NOAA. NMFS. Tech. memo. F/NEC-37. 20 p.
__________. 1985b. National Artificial Reef Plan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OF-6.
Washington, D.C.
__________. 1990. Estuaries of the United States. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessment
Division, Strategic Assessment Branch. Washington, D.C.
__________. 1993a. Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and
Coastal New Jersey Area. National Status and Trends Program. Silver Spring, MD.
__________. 1996. NMFS Habitat Conservation Program. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.
__________. 1997a. Technical guidance manual for implementation of essential fish habitat.
__________. 1997b. National shellfish register nothing to clam up about. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD.
2 p.
__________. 1997c. Four hundred years of Arctic data provide insight into climate change. 2 p.

__________. 1998. Draft Technical Guidance Manual to NMFS Implementing the Essential Fish
Habitat Requirements for the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NOAA, NMFS, Office of Habitat
Conservation, Silver Spring, MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). 1993. Guidance for specifying management
measures for sources of non-point pollution in coastal waters. Office of Water. 840-B-92-002.
500+ p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). 1999. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in
the environment: An emerging concern? [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/1999/html/g8-14.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). 2004. National coastal condition report II.
Washington, D.C.: U.S.EPA Office of Research and Development/ Office of Water. EPA-620/R03/002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. News Release - What we know so far...Nutrients, Ground Water, and
the Chesapeake Bay - A Link with Pfiesteria? Office of outreach, Reston, VA.
University of Rhode Island. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid and
North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf . Final Report. Prepared for U.S.
Department of the Interior under contract #AA551-CT8-48.
Valentine, P.C. and E.A. Schmuck. 1995. Geological mapping of biological habitats on Georges Bank
and Stellwagen Bank, Gulf of Maine region. p. 31-40. In: Applications of side-scan sonar and
laser-line systems in fisheries research. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special
Publication No. 9.
Van Dolah, R. F., P.H. Wendt and N. Nicholson. 1987. Effects of a research trawl on a hard bottom
assemblage of sponges and corals. Fish. Res. 5:39-54.
Van Dolah, R. F., P.H. Wendt and M.V. Levisen. 1991. A study of the effects of shrimp trawling on
benthic communities in two South Carolina sounds. Fish Res., 12:139-156.
Vecchione, M. 1979. Larval development of Illex Steenstrup, 1880, in the northwestern Atlantic, with
comments on Illex larval distribution. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 91(4): 1060-1075.
Vecchione, M. 1981. Aspects of the early life history of Loligo pealei (Cephalopoda: Myopsida). J.
Shellf. Res. 1: 171-180.
Vecchione, M. 2001. Cephalopods of the continental slope east of the United States. Am. Fish. Soc.
Symp. 25:153-160.
Vecchione, M. and C.F.E. Roper. 1986. Occurrence of larval Illex illecebrosus and other young
cephalopods in the Slope Water/Gulf Stream interface. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 99(4): 703-708.

Vecchione, M., C.F.E. Roper, and M.J. Sweeney. 1989. Loligo pealei. In: Marine Flora and Fauna of the
Eastern United States Mollusca: Cephalopoda. U.S. Nat. Oceanic Atmos. Adm. Tech. Rep.
NMFS 73.
Vinogradov, V. I. 1972. Studies of the food habits of silver and red hake in the Northwest Atlantic.
ICNAF Res. Bull. No. 9: 41-50.
Vinogradov, V.E. and A.S. Noskov. 1979. Feeding of short-finned squid, Illex illecebrosus, and longfinned squid, Loligo pealei, off Nova Scotia and New England, 1974-1975. Int. Comm.
Northwest Atl. Fish., Sel. Pap. 5: 31-36.
Vovk, A.N. 1972. Method of determining maturing stages in gonads of the squid Loligo pealei. Zool.
ZH 51: 127-132. Can. Fish. Res. Transl. Ser. 2337.
Vovk, A.N. 1985. Feeding spectrum of longfin squid (Loligo pealei) in the Northwest Atlantic and its
position in the ecosystem. Northwest Atl. Fish. Org. Sci. Counc. Stud. 8: 33-38.
Vovk, A.N. and L.A. Khvichiya. 1980. On feeding of long-finned squid (Loligo pealei) juveniles in
Subareas 5 and 6. Northwest Atl. Fish. Org. Sci. Counc. Sci. Counc. Res. Doc. 80/VI/50.
Wang, J.C.S., and R.J. Kernehan. 1979. Pp. 289-292, In: Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries. Ecological
Analysts, Inc., Towson, MD.
Ware, D.M. and T.C. Lambert. 1985. Early life history of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the
Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 577-592.
Waring, G.T. 1975. A preliminary analysis of status of butterfish in ICNAF Subarea 5 and Statistical
Area 6. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish. Res. Doc., 75/74, Serial No. 3558, 27 p.
Waring, G.T. and S. Murawski. 1982. Butterfish. In: Fish distribution. (M.D. Grosslein and T.R.
Azarovitz, eds.), p. 105-107. MESA New York Bight Monograph 15. New York Sea Grant Inst.
Albany, NY.
Waring, G.T., P. Gerrior, P.M. Payne, B.L. Parry, and J.R. Nicolas. 1990. Incidental take of marine
mammals in foreign fishery activities off the Northeast United States, 1977-1988. U.S. Nat. Mar.
Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 88: 347-30.
Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1997. Physical disturbance of the sea bottom by mobile fishing gear: a
comparison with forest clear-cutting. (Submitted to Conservation Biology).
Watling L., R.H. Findlay, L.M. Mayer, and D.F. Schick. 1997. Impact of scallop dragging on a shallow
subtidal marine benthic community.
Wheatland, S.B. 1956. Pelagic fish eggs and larvae. In: Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 19521954. Bull. Bingham Oceanog. Coll. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. Yale Univ. 15: 234-314.

Wigley, R. L. 1982. Short-finned squid, Illex illecebosus, p. 135-138. In: M. D. Grosslein and T. R.
Azarovitz (eds.). Fish distribution. MESA NY Bight Monograph 15. NY Sea Grant Institute,
Albany, NY.
Wigley et al. 2007. The analytic component to the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
Omnibus Amendment: sampling design and estimation of precision and accuracy ( edition). U.S.
department of commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07-09; 156p.
Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/.
Wilber D, Brostoff W, Clarke D, Ray G. 2005. Sedimentation: Potential biological effects of dredging
operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical Notes Collection. Vicksburg,
MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC TN-DOER-E20. Located
at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/pdf/doere20.pdf. 14 p.
Wilk, S.J., W.W. Morse, and L.L. Stehlik. 1990. Annual cycles of gonad-somatic indices as indicators of
spawning activity for selected species of finfish collected from the New York Bight. Fish. Bull.,
88:775-786.
Witbaard, R. and R. Klein. 1994. Long-term trends on the effects of the southern North Sea beamtrawl
fishery on the bivalve mollusk Arctic islandica L. (Mollusca, bivalvia). ICES J. mar. Sci. 51: 99105.
Witman, J.D. and K.P. Sebens. 1985. Distribution and ecology of sponges at a subtidal rock ledge in
the central Gulf of Maine. p. 391-396 In: K. Rutzler (ed.) New Perspectives in Sponge Biology.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Whitaker, J.D. 1978. A contribution to the biology of Loligo pealei and Loligo plei (Cephalopoda,
Myopsida) off the southeastern coast of the United States. M.Sc. Thesis, College of Charleston,
164 p.
Worley, L. G. 1933. Development of the egg of mackerel at different constant temperatures. J. Gen.
Physiol. 16: 841-857.
Young, R.E., and R.F. Harman. 1988. “Larva,” “paralarva,” and “subadult” in cephalopod terminology.
Malacologia 29: 201-207.
Zurila. J C, Herrera, A Arenas, M E. Torres, C. Calderon, L Gomez, J C Awarado & R Villavicencio
2003 Nesting loggerhead & green turtles in Quinlama Roo, Mexico. PP 125-127 Proceedings
of the 22nd. annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology & Conservation NOAA Tech memo
NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center 503, 308 p

12.0

Index

Amendment 10 .............................. 444, 445, 459, 465, 488
Amendment 11 ......... 13, 101, 444, 445, 459, 478, 479, 482
Amendment 8 ........................................................ 449, 509
Amendment 9 ................................................ 450, 461, 465
annual specification ........................................................ 477
ASMFC................................................... 491, 496, 500, 519
assessment ..... 223, 224, 225, 444, 476, 477, 482, 484, 485,
492, 494, 501, 509, 513
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ........ 102, 491
biomass .................................................. 448, 495, 514, 518
bottom trawl ............ 462, 491, 492, 498, 505, 513, 516, 518
Butterfish .......... 13, 223, 451, 465, 478, 498, 508, 513, 523
bycatch 104, 105, 449, 450, 451, 452, 455, 459, 465, 467,
476, 488, 510, 514
codend............................................................. 497, 499, 501
Common dolphin .................................... 221, 222, 223, 466
cumulative effect .................................... 444, 445, 447, 464
cumulative effects ................................... 444, 445, 447, 464
cumulative impact ................................................... 447, 467
cumulative impacts ................................................. 447, 467
discarding....................................................... 448, 467, 484
discards ................................................... 104, 465, 499, 515
dogfish .................................................................... 493, 520
economic impact ..................................... 447, 484, 486, 487
economic impacts ........................................... 447, 484, 487
escapement............................................................. 447, 449
essential fish habitat ........................................ 475, 488, 521
Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................... 218
flounder........................................................................... 494
FMAT ............................................................................. 479
gear restricted area ......................................................... 449
gear restricted areas ....................................................... 449
habitat ...89, 275, 446, 447, 449, 450, 453, 454, 455, 456,
457, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 467, 475, 484, 494,
499, 502, 514, 516, 520, 521
hake ................................................................................ 523
Illex107, 109, 224, 225, 449, 450, 465, 466, 491, 493, 494,
495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506,
507, 508, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 521, 522, 523,
524
Incidental ........................................................................ 523
Leatherback .................................................... 221, 222, 466

Loggerhead..................................................... 221, 222, 466
Loligo ... 107, 109, 224, 225, 447, 449, 450, 451, 465, 466,
494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502, 505, 506, 507, 508,
517, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524
Mackerel... 13, 102, 223, 224, 225, 448, 465, 478, 508, 511,
519
MAFMC ......................................................... 480, 482, 508
marine mammal ....................... 222, 223, 446, 482, 522, 523
mesh size ................................................................ 447, 449
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council .... 13, 479, 484,
488, 508, 509
mortality cap ..................................................................451
National Environmental Policy Act .101, 444, 478, 484, 488
NEFSC ............ 495, 496, 502, 506, 508, 510, 511, 514, 515
NEPA ......................................................101, 478, 486, 488
NMFS ..... 101, 104, 105, 222, 223, 446, 482, 484, 487, 488,
493, 494, 496, 498, 499, 500, 502, 506, 507, 509, 510,
512, 513, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524
NOAA 1, 483, 484, 488, 493, 494, 498, 499, 502, 504, 506,
507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 519, 521, 522, 524
observer ......................................................... 222, 451, 452
Ocean pout ..................................................................... 219
overfished ........................................ 459, 474, 476, 484, 488
overfishing ............................. 448, 474, 476, 477, 484, 488
overfishing definition .....................................................448
pilot whale .............................................. 225, 451, 500, 513
pilot whales .................................................... 225, 500, 513
Plaice, American ............................................................ 218
Pollock ........................................................................... 219
practicable .............. 104, 105, 451, 475, 476, 477, 482, 488
rebuilding plan ............................................................... 477
recruitment ..............................................109, 499, 512, 515
Redfish ........................................................................... 219
revenue .............................................. 89, 275, 460, 461, 462
SARC ..................................................................... 510, 511
SAW ....................................................................... 510, 511
scoping ................................................................... 445, 460
selectivity ............................................................... 499, 501
White hake ..................................................................... 219
White-sided dolphin ................................221, 222, 224, 466
Witch flounder ............................................................... 219

13.0

Appendices

List of Appendices that follow this page:
Appendix 1: FMAT Working Paper 1 – RH/S Abundance and Distribution
Appendix 2: FMAT Working Paper 2 – RH/S Catch Estimates
Appendix 3: FMAT Summary Recommendations
Appendix 4: Overlap Between Amendment 14 to the Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish FMP
(MAFMC) and Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP (NEFMC)
Appendix 5: Northeast Fishery Science Center Report on Slippage and FISH, NK usage.
Appendix 6: Northeast Fishery Science Center Trawl Survey Data for RH/S
Appendix 7: Summary of SMAST Cooperative River Herring Avoidance Program
Appendix 8: Comments received on the DEIS before the June 2012 Council Briefing Book
was created.
Appendix 9: Comments received on the DEIS before the June 2012 Council Meeting but
after the June 2012 Council Briefing Book was created (includes links to several large
documents that were submitted as supporting materials).
Appendix 10: Amendment 14 Hearing Summaries
Appendix 11: Supplemental reference documents and communications, including letters
from NMFS to the MAFMC and NEFMC on Amendments 14 and 5.
Appendix 12: Responses to Public Comments on Amendment 14.

Appendix 1 - RH/S Abundance and Distribution

FMAT Working Paper (DO NOT CITE)

9/15/2011

Part I. Analyses for Amendment 14 to the Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish Fishery
Management Plan
1.0

Survey relative abundance and biomass indices
1.1

Background

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is currently conducting a
river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus, alewife, and Alosa aestivalis, blueback herring)
stock assessment, but the results are not yet available. The most recent stock assessment
of American shad (Alosa sappidissima) was conducted using data through 2005 (ASMFC
2007), but hickory shad Alosa mediocris has not been assessed. Therefore, in order to
evaluate trends in oceanic population sizes, relative abundance and biomass indices were
derived for these species using catch data from research bottom trawl surveys conducted
by the NEFSC on the eastern US continental shelf. These anadromous species spend most
of their lives in oceanic waters but migrate into freshwater to spawn.
The oceanic ranges of all four species extend beyond the northern and southern
latitudinal range of the NEFSC spring and fall surveys, which occur from the Gulf of
Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC (35⁰ 30’ to 44⁰ 30’ N). The geographic range of blueback
herring in the northwest Atlantic extends from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, to the St. Johns
River in FL and the range of American shad extends from the Sand Hill River in
Labrador to the St. John’s River in FL (Page and Burr 1991). The geographic range of
alewife extends from Red Bay, Labrador, to SC. Hickory shad have a narrower
geographic range than these three species and is most abundant between Cape Cod, MA
and the St. John’s River in FL, but is also infrequently found in the Gulf of Maine
(Munroe 2002).
1.2

Methods

The NEFSC conducts annual bottom trawl surveys, between the Gulf of Maine and Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina, using a stratified random design. Standardized tows were
conducted for 30 minutes at 3.5 knots until 2009 when a new research vessel replaced the
SRV Albatross IV and the towing protocol changed to a duration of 20 minutes at 3.0
knots. Details regarding the survey design and sampling protocols are described in
Azarovitz (1981). Inshore strata (8-27 m) and offshore strata (27-366 m) have been most
consistently sampled by the SRVs Albatross IV and Delaware II since the fall of 1975
and spring of 1976. Prior to these time periods, either only a portion of the survey area
was sampled or a different vessel and gear were used to sample the inshore strata
(Azarovitz 1981). Although winter surveys (February) were conducted during 19922007, the sampling area only covered a subset of offshore strata (e.g., no sampling in the
Gulf of Maine) and employed sampling gear different from that used during the spring
and fall surveys.
1 

Indices of relative abundance (stratified mean number per tow) and biomass (stratified
mean kg per tow) were derived, for alewife, blueback herring, and American shad, using
data from NEFSC spring (1976-2011) and fall (1975-2010) bottom trawl surveys.
Indices were not computed for hickory shad because the species was caught in low
numbers at only a few stations during a few years (i.e., at 18 stations during 9 years and
at 16 stations during 10 years for the spring and fall surveys, respectively). For the time
series utilized, sampling during the fall and spring surveys generally occurred during
September-November and March-April, respectively, in a south to north direction (Figure
1).
Catches from all inshore and offshore survey strata located between Cape Hatteras, NC
and the northern Gulf of Maine (Figure 1) were used to compute the survey indices for
each of three species because preliminary evaluations of the spatial distribution of each
species indicated high degrees of interannual variability. In addition, both tagging data
(Boreman 1981) and correlation analyses (ASMFC 2008) suggest riverine stocks become
mixed within their oceanic habitat. For most of the blueback and alewife time series
analyzed, correlation coefficients were not significant for comparisons between time
series of New England run sizes and spring survey relative abundance indices for nearby
coastal areas, the latter which included indices derived from two subsets of NEFSC
survey strata.
Beginning in 2009, the SRV H. B. Bigelow replaced the SRV Albatross IV as the primary
survey vessel. As a result, the two shallowest series of inshore strata (8-18 m depths) are
no longer sampled due to the deeper draft of the Bigelow. These inshore strata constitute
important habitat during both the fall and spring survey periods for all of the species
analyzed herein. Since the fall of 2007, inshore areas of 6.1 to 18.3 m have been sampled
during a separate bottom trawl survey, the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program (NEAMAP) survey, conducted between Long Island and Cape Hatteras, NC.
The NEAMAP survey is conducted during the fall (late Sept.-mid-Oct., which is similar to the
timing of the NEFSC fall survey) and during spring (late April-mid-May, which is later than the
NEFSC spring survey. Approximately 150 stations are sampled with fourteen of the stations
located in Block Island Sound and Rhode Island Sound at slightly deeper depths of 18.3 m to 36.6
m (Bonzek et al. 2009). The cruise track is from south to north during spring surveys and from
north to south during fall surveys. The NEAMAP surveys are conducted between sunrise

and sunset and use the same towing protocol (20 minutes at 3.0 knots) that has been used
since 2009 to conduct the NEFSC surveys. Although a different vessel is used during the
NEAMAP surveys, the gear is the same as that used by the Bigelow, with the exception
of a 3-inch cookie sweep rather than the rockhopper sweep used by the Bigelow. There
are no calibration factors available with which to convert the NEAMAP survey catches to
Bigelow catches. However, swept-area biomass estimates from the spring and fall
NEAMAP surveys were available and are presented herein along with the length
compositions of the catches (C. Bonzek, pers. comm.).

2 

1.2.1 Catch conversion factors
Vessel, door and net changes have occurred during the NEFSC bottom trawl
surveys, resulting in the need for conversion factors to adjust the survey catches
for some species. A Yankee #36 net was used to conduct the spring and fall
surveys, with the exception of spring surveys conducted during 1973-1981 for
which a Yankee #41 net was used. A trawl door change occurred in 1985.
However, there are no net or door conversion factors available to adjust the
survey indices for the three species being evaluated herein. During some years,
both the SRV Albatross IV and the SRV Delaware II were used to conduct the
surveys. However, a vessel conversion factor is only available for alewife. A
vessel conversion factor of 0.58 was applied to the alewife weight per tow
indices. Alewife number per tow indices did not require a conversion factor
because there was no significant difference between the numbers of alewife
caught by each vessel (Byrne and Forrester 1991).
Beginning in 2009, the NEFSC SRV Albatross IV was replaced with the SRV
Henry B. Bigelow. The new vessel is quieter and the increased headrope height of
the Bigelow’s net has improved the catchability of pelagic species like those
being evaluated herein. In order to extend the NEFSC spring and fall survey time
series beyond 2008, vessel calibration factors were applied to the Bigelow catches
of each of the three species to convert them to Albatross equivalents. Bottom
trawl catches of the subject alosid species tend to be higher during the daytime
because of diel migration patterns (Neves and Despres 1979; Loesch et al. 1982;
Stone and Jessop 1992). Additional variance is associated with time-of-day
conversion factors used to adjust nighttime catches to daytime equivalents. In
addition, the time-of-day used to separate “day” tows from “night” tows is most
often arbitrarily selected. In order to avoid these pitfalls, only daytime tows were
used to compute the relative abundance and biomass indices. Daytime tows (i.e.,
tows between sunrise and sunset) were defined based on solar zenith angle.
Sunrise and sunset were determined for each survey station based on sampling
date, location, and solar zenith angle using the method of Jacobson et al. 2011.
Although there is a clear general relationship between solar zenith and time of
day, tows carried out at the same time but at different geographic locations may
have substantially different irradiance levels that might affect survey catchability
to different extents (NEFSC 2011). Daytime catch number and weight calibration
factors (Table 1) were computed for alewife and blueback herring using the
method of Miller et al. (2010) and were applied to survey indices from 2009
onward to convert SRV Bigelow catches to SRV Albatross equivalents. The
calibration factors were combined across seasons due to the low within-season
sample sizes from the 2008 calibration studies (i.e., < 30 tows with positive
catches by one or both vessels). American shad were caught in fewer than 30 tows
during each of the 2008 calibration studies, so estimates of daytime-based
conversion factors were not possible. Instead, American shad indices for 2009

3 

onward were converted to Albatross equivalents using conversion factors based
on all tows regardless of when they occurred.
The NEFSC survey database contained some records with catches of a small
number of individuals for which the catch weight data are missing. For such
records, which occurred primarily during the spring surveys, the spring numbersat-length were converted to catch weight values using species-specific spring
survey length-weight equations (Table 2).
1.3

Results and Discussion

1.3.1

Survey indices

NEFSC spring surveys occur during March and April when mature individuals, for the
subject anadromous species, are migrating shoreward and into rivers and streams to
spawn. The timing of spring spawning migrations into freshwater occurs earliest in the
southern portion of each species’ geographic range then progress northward and
blueback herring generally spawn later in the spring than alewives (Boreman 1981).
Latitudinal trends in fall emigration patterns also occur. Juvenile American shad emigrate
seaward during the fall from northern rivers first and those from southern areas emigrate
progressively later (Leggett 1977). A similar north-to-south emigration trend exists for
river herring, but alewives emigrate before blueback herring (Boreman 1981). The
NEFSC survey cruise track follows a general south to north direction during both the
spring and fall surveys. The distribution of each species during the spring and fall surveys
depends on the timing of the survey in relation to the timing of seasonal and annual
migration patterns of each of the four subject species. The timing of the NEFSC spring
and fall surveys has been variable and this may have affected availability of the subject
species to the survey gear. During most years, the mean Julian dates of the fall surveys
ranged between 270 and 290 and ranged between 84 and 102 for the spring surveys. The
spring and fall spatial distributions of each species are described below in Section 2.0.
Relative abundance and biomass indices could not be computed for hickory shad because
catch rates for both surveys were very low during the few years for which the species was
caught (Figure 2). For the other three species, spring and fall survey indices exhibited
considerable inter-annual variability, and in general, were more informative for the spring
surveys because each of the species was caught at more stations (Figures 3-5).
Consequently, the precision of the spring survey indices was higher than for the fall
survey indices (Tables 3-8). Fall relative abundance of blueback herring has been above
the median since 2002 and the 2009 and 2010 indices were the highest of the time series
(Figure 3). Spring relative abundance has been above the median since 2006. Alewives
were caught at more stations and in higher numbers than blueback herring and an obvious
increase in fall relative abundance was evident for 2008-2010; the highest three years of
the time series (Figure 4). Spring relative abundance of alewives was above the median
during 2008-2011 and was the highest of the time series in 2011. Interannual variability
in the fall relative abundance of American shad was extremely high, but has been above
the median during most years since 1992 (Figure 5). Spring relative abundance of
4 

American shad has fluctuated above and below the median for multi-year periods and
was highest during 1990-1997, but then declined through 2005 but has generally been
above the median since 2006 (Figure 5).
Swept area abundance (log number per 25,000 m2) and biomass (log kg per 25,000 m2)
estimates of blueback herring, alewife and American shad were available for spring
NEAMAP surveys during 2008-2011, but were only available for alewives during the fall
(2007-2010) surveys because fall catch rates of blueback herring and American shad
were too low (Figures 6-8). Only the fall 2010 abundance estimate for alewife was
significantly different from the rest of the values in its respective time series (Figure 7).
The NEAMAP time series is short, and because it only covers a small portion of the
entire survey area, it is not clear whether the indices are measuring relative abundance
within the NEAMAP survey area or migrations between the NEAMAP and NEFSC
survey areas or between the NEAMAP strata and estuarine habitat of the subject species.
For example, distribution maps from a seasonal, stratified random bottom trawl survey
conducted in the Hudson-Raritan estuary, during 1992-1997, indicate that river herring
utilize this estuarine habitat during the time that the spring and fall NEAMAP and
NEFSC surveys are conducted and were not present in the estuary during the summer
(NEFSC 1998).
1.3.2 Survey length compositions
Length compositions of the survey catches during the 1976-2008 spring and fall surveys
are shown as stratified mean numbers per tow for each of the three species. Fall survey
length distributions of blueback herring (modes at 15 and 24 cm FL) and alewife (modes
at 18 and 23 cm FL) were bimodal. Similar size modes were present during the spring
surveys, but a third mode of smaller individuals (at 9 cm for blueback and 11 cm for
alewife) was also present (Figure 9). Limited data from age-length keys for NEFSC
spring surveys indicate that the 9 and 11 cm modal groups consist of age 1 fish. Spring
NEAMAP survey catches of blueback herring are dominated by age 1 fish which were
caught in very large numbers during the 2011 spring survey (Figure 10). Age 0 fish were
not present in either the NEAMAP or NEFSC surveys. Age data for blueback herring
caught in NEFSC fall surveys is lacking.
American shad length distributions were unimodal during the fall surveys (mode at 22 cm
FL) and bimodal during the spring surveys, with modes at 16 and 25 cm FL (Figure 9).
There are no age data from NEFSC surveys for either of the shad species. The spring
NEAMAP survey catches of American shad were dominated by small fish within the 13
cm modal size group and also consisted of a second modal size group of 20 cm (Figure
10).

5 

2.0

Species-specific seasonal and interannual spatial distributions
2.1 Background
Limited tagging studies indicate that extensive coastwide migrations are undertaken by
river herring (Boreman 1981). For example, a blueback herring tagged off South Carolina
was recovered as far north as Cape Cod (Curtis 1971). American shad also undergo
lengthy migrations. Shad tagged in the Gulf of Maine, where they spend the summer and
fall, were recovered in areas located between Quebec and Georgia (Cheek 1968).
2.2 Methods
Several methods were used to characterize the seasonal and annual spatial distribution
patterns of American shad, hickory shad, alewife and blueback herring on the Northeast
continental shelf using data collected during NEFSC and NEAMAP surveys. Catch rate
data included in the spatial analyses include numbers per tow from the 1976-2010 spring
surveys and the 1975-2010 fall surveys for the same set of strata used to compute relative
abundance and biomass indices. As explained above in Section 1.2, data from surveys
conducted prior to these time periods were excluded from the analyses because important
habitat of the subject species was either not sampled or sampled by a vessel for which
conversion factors are not available.
Maps of density data, including tows with zero catch, collected during NEFSC and
NEAMAP (2009 onward) surveys were generated for each year of the spring and fall
time series, as well as for the spring and fall time series, using ArcGIS v. 10 © ESRI. A
spatial statistical tool, the standard deviational ellipse, was used to characterize the
interannual variability in the spatial distributions of each species as well as to define the
geographical extents of the distribution time series for each species. The method involves
computation of the standard deviation of the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates from
the mean center of the density distribution to define the axes of the ellipse and thereby
define the orientation of the distribution. Each ellipse encompasses one standard
deviation, or 68% of all density values, from the centroid of the distribution.
A second method was used to define offshore habitat areas with the highest cumulative
densities of each species for the spring and fall survey time series. The same method,
which involves post-stratification of the NEFSC and NEAMAP survey data, was
previously used to generate Essential Fish Habitat maps for Amendment 11 to the MSB
FMP (MAFMC 2011). NEFSC and NEAMAP catch rate data were mapped by tenminute square (TNMS) as cumulative percentages (75, 90, 95, and 100%) of the backtransformed mean catch densities (representing a pseudo-geometric mean). The mean
catch density per TNMS ( d j ) was computed as:
nj

(ln(di ) + 1) j

i =1

nj

dj =∑

6 

where (ln(d i ) + 1) j is the log-transformed density plus 1 at station i for TNMS j and n j is
the number of stations sampled within each TNMS. Although this method introduces a
slight bias, the back-transformed mean of the log(X+1) observations has some resistance
to the effects of outliers and reduces potential distortions introduced when large values
occur. Skewed catch density distributions, attributable to infrequent, large-magnitude
catches, are common for pelagic schooling species such as those being analyzed herein.
Mean densities were not computed for TNMS where fewer than four tows were
conducted during the time series.
2.3

Results and Discussion

Inter-annual variability in the sizes and locations of the habitat areas occupied by of each
of the four species are important considerations for determining whether closed areas
would be beneficial in reducing the incidental catches of these species. Maps showing the
one standard deviational ellipses for all years combined (red ellipses) suggest that
bluebacks, alewives and American shad are distributed across smaller geographic areas
during the fall (Figures 11-13), primarily in the western and northern Gulf of Maine and
to a lesser extent in southern New England, than during the spring (Figures 14-16). The
same maps also show that the “envelopes” of all of the annual standard deviational
ellipses for each species (dashed lines) are much larger for the spring time series than for
the fall time series, indicating greater inter-annual variability in the sizes and locations of
the three species spatial distributions during the spring than during the fall. Catches of
hickory shad were very low for both the fall and spring survey time series, and
consequently, distributions of the species are only presented as density-per tow maps for
each of the two time series (Figures 17 and 18, respectively).
Examples of annual standard deviational ellipse maps, during three consecutive years,
show the high degree of interannual variability in the spatial distributions of the subject
species, particularly during spring surveys. Figure 19 indicates that alewives are less
abundant in the fall NEFSC surveys than during the spring surveys (Figure 20) and that
the species is much more broadly distributed during the spring, extending along most of
the shelf between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC. Stations with the highest
densities during the spring surveys were broadly dispersed, rather than clustered within
small localized areas, and their locations changed annually (e.g., in southern New
England during 1996 and 1997 but in also in the Gulf of Maine during 1998). Similarly
high levels of interannual variability occurred in the fall and spring spatial distributions
of blueback herring (Figures 21 and 22) and American shad (Figures 23 and 24).
Maps showing cumulative percentages (75, 90, 95 and 100%) of the geometric mean
densities of Alosa pseudoharengus, A. aestivalis, and A. sapidissima during the 19752010 NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys indicate that the highest mean densities (75%) of
all three species occurred in the western Gulf of Maine and in southern New England
south of Cape Cod and east of Long Island (Figure 25). During the spring surveys, the
highest mean densities of each species occurred across much broader areas than during
the spring surveys, within both the Gulf of Maine and from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras,
NC (Figure 26).
7 

Maps of the spatial distributions of Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic herring indicate that
during NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys, the densities of both species were highest in the
Gulf of Maine, but during the spring surveys both species were much more broadly
distributed across the continental shelf, between Cape Hatteras and the Gulf of Maine,
similar to the spring and fall distributions of the subject bycatch species (Figures 27). The
high degree of interannual variability in the spring and fall spatial distributions of all
three species is an important consideration with respect to implementation of closed area
management measures to reduce the bycatch of these species.
3.0 Literature cited
ASMFC [Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission]. 2007. American shad stock assessment
report for peer review, Vol. I. Stock Assessment Report No. 01-01 (Supplement). 224 p.
ASMFC [Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission]. 2008. 2008 river herring stock status
report.662 p.
Azarovitz, T.R. 1981. A brief historical review of the Woods Hole Laboratory trawl survey time
series. In W. G. Doubleday and D. Rivard, Ed. Bottom trawl surveys. Canadian Special
Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58.
Bonzek, C. 2011. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Pers. comm.
Bonzek, C.F., J. Gartland, J.D. Lange, Jr., and R.J. Latour. 2009. Data collection and analysis in
support of single and multispecies stock assessments in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New
England. Submitted to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC.
Boreman, J. 1981. River herring stocks along the Atlantic coast. Northeast Fisheries Center Lab.
Ref. Doc. 81-35. 22 p.
Cheek, R. P. 1968. The American Shad. USFWS. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Fishery
Leaflet 614, 13 p.
Fuller, P. and G. Jacobs. 2011. Alosa aestivalis. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Database, Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=488
RevisionDate: 9/22/2009.
Fuller, P., Maynard, E., and D. Raikow. 2011. Alosa pseudoharengus. USGS Nonindigenous
Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=490
Jacobson, L.D., A. Seaver and J. Tang. 2011. AstroCalc4R: software to calculate solar zenith
angle; time at sunrise, local noon and sunset; and photosynthetically available radiation based on
time, date and location. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Lab. Ref. Doc. 11-14, 10 p.
8 

Leggett, W. C. 1977. Ocean migration of American shad (Alosa sapidissima). J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can. 34: 1422-1426.
Loesch, J. G., W. H. Kriete and E. J. Foell. 1982. Effects of light intensity on the catchability of
juvenile anadromous Alosa species. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111: 41-44.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). May 2011. Amendment 11 to the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Available at:
http://www.mafmc.org/.
Munroe, T. 2002. Herrings. Family Clupeidae. Pages x-x in B. B. Collette and G. KleinMacPhee, Ed. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, 3rd Edition. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Neves, R. J. 1981. Offshore distribution of alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and blueback
herring, A. aestivalis, along the Atlantic coast. Fish. Bull. 79(3): 473-485.
Neves, R. J. and L. Depres. 1979. The oceanic migration of American shad, Alosa sapidissima,
along the Atlantic coast. Fish. Bull. 77(1): 199-212.
NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2011. 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (51st SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc.
11-02; 856 p.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of
Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Vol. 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Stone, H. H. and B. M. Jessop. 1992. Seasonal distribution of river herring Alosa
pseudoharengus and A. aestivalis off the Atlantic coast of nova Scotia. Fish Bull. 90(2): 90:376389.
Weaver, C. R. 1965. Observations on the swimming ability of adult American shad (Alosa
sapidissima). Trans. Am. Fisheries Society 94(4):382-385.
Wilk, S. J., R. A. Pikanowski, D. G. McMillan and E. M. MacHaffie. 1998. Seasonal distribution
and abundance of 26 species of fish and megainvertebrates collected in the Hudson-Raritan
estuary, January 1992 - December 1997. NEFSC Lab. Ref. Doc. 98-10, 145 p.

9 

Table 1. Calibration factors used to convert daytime (between sunrise and sunset)
SRV Albatross IV catches to SRV Henry B. Bigelow equivalents for NEFSC spring
and fall bottom trawl survey catches for 2009 onward.

Alewife
Blueback herring

Number per tow
1.0532
0.8706

SE
0.1569
0.1710

Kg per tow
0.7165
1.5943

SE
0.1127
0.4456

Table 2. Sample sizes and parameter estimates for NEFSC spring survey length-weight
relationships for Alosa aestivalis, Alosa pseudoharengus, and Alosa sapidissima.

Species
Alosa aestivalis
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa sapidissima

ln(a)
b
-12.943 3.4827
-12.898 3.5023
-12.508 3.3323

r2
0.97
0.94
0.99

10 

N
fish
1,532
132
780

Table 3.  Stratified mean number per tow and mean weight (kg) per tow 
indices for blueback herring caught during daytime tows (between 
sunrise and sunset) in NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys, 1975‐2010. CVs 
for indices from 2009 onward do not account for the additional variance 
associated with SRV H. B. Bigelow conversion factors. 
YEAR 

Mean number 
per tow 

1975 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 

0.05 
0.07 
0.64 
0.28 
0.03 
1.00 
0.02 
0.00 
0.05 
0.05 
0.08 
0.03 
0.02 
0.00 
0.02 
0.00 
0.09 
0.00 
0.05 
0.52 
0.25 
0.04 
0.16 
0.00 
0.01 
0.20 
0.05 
0.59 
0.31 
0.65 
0.48 
0.08 
0.10 

Mean kg 
per tow 

CV
100.0
14.4
97.1
42.6
45.5
99.9
49.7
100.0
71.0
18.5
75.4
46.7
56.8

0.010 
0.002 
0.144 
0.049 
0.007 
0.042 
0.006 
0.000 
0.014 
0.006 
0.012 
0.005 
0.004 
0.000 
0.004 
0.000 
0.011 
0.000 
0.003 
0.027 
0.029 
0.001 
0.019 
0.000 
0.002 
0.028 
0.004 
0.090 
0.046 
0.031 
0.028 
0.011 
0.008 

70.7
70.7
75.3
4.6
2.6
0.0
54.4
25.4
35.1
9.7
58.5
25.7
5.8
2.5
58.6
28.4
11 

CV 
100.0 
88.1 
96.6 
48.1 
50.1 
99.7 
39.7 
100.0 
71.0 
34.0 
86.1 
54.4 
52.7 
70.7 
88.7 
56.0 
8.9 
2.3 
0.0 
56.9 
31.1 
29.9 
12.7 
61.5 
22.9 
16.1 
3.5 
69.4 
33.9 

2008 
2009 
2010 

0.36 
2.30 
1.59 

10.6
58.5
18.0

0.040 
0.066 
0.081 

12 

12.8 
61.4 
20.7 

Table 4.  Stratified mean number per tow and mean weight (kg) per tow 
indices for blueback herring caught during daytime tows (between 
sunrise and sunset) in NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys, 1976‐2010. 
CVs for indices from 2009 onward do not account for the additional 
variance associated with SRV H. B. Bigelow conversion factors.  
YEAR 

Mean number per 
tow 

1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 

2.64 
1.03 
2.76 
11.79 
4.64 
5.69 
1.25 
1.60 
9.47 
2.22 
2.53 
2.25 
1.12 
0.96 
0.79 
0.58 
2.99 
5.37 
2.20 
4.19 
2.41 
1.85 
0.91 
2.19 
1.35 
0.77 
0.71 
2.55 
2.80 
0.76 
7.11 
6.07 
2.24 
13.95 
3.26 
2.83 

Mean kg per 
tow 

CV
31.1
27.6
19.6
23.3
48.8
34.6
19.8
21.2
52.6
29.6
12.2
11.8
21.6
26.7
22.2
18.5
49.1
15.1
23.1
16.8
16.2
16.2
28.6
21.6
34.0
23.7
14.8
17.6
23.9
18.9
25.2
29.2
28.9
64.5
30.3
22.6

0.141 
0.111 
0.297 
1.522 
0.266 
0.377 
0.087 
0.153 
0.946 
0.282 
0.075 
0.230 
0.060 
0.060 
0.052 
0.032 
0.310 
0.195 
0.127 
0.285 
0.155 
0.151 
0.026 
0.162 
0.142 
0.055 
0.070 
0.133 
0.133 
0.029 
0.178 
0.390 
0.100 
0.656 
0.129 
0.109 
13 

CV 
26.6 
29.5 
31.5 
43.4 
30.1 
46.4 
33.7 
26.9 
55.4 
42.2 
28.6 
10.1 
24.7 
30.4 
28.3 
45.2 
73.6 
21.0 
36.0 
5.5 
24.5 
18.0 
31.7 
23.7 
52.0 
22.3 
19.8 
12.8 
38.8 
22.0 
36.8 
28.0 
36.8 
76.5 
40.5 
29.8 

Table 5.  Stratified mean number per tow and mean weight (kg) per tow 
indices for alewife caught during daytime tows (between sunrise and 
sunset) in NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys, 1975‐2010. CVs for indices 
from 2009 onward do not account for the additional variance associated 
with SRV H. B. Bigelow conversion factors.  
Mean number 
Mean kg 
YEAR 
CV 
CV 
per tow 
per tow 
1975 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 

1.00 
2.38 
0.75 
0.85 
0.80 
6.41 
2.32 
0.72 
0.38 
0.87 
2.36 
0.98 
1.43 
1.59 
1.77 
1.11 
1.65 
1.08 
1.19 
3.45 
4.30 
0.64 
0.93 
4.81 
1.20 
4.55 
0.47 
5.71 
2.04 
2.76 
5.04 
5.36 
2.50 
7.32 
6.37 
10.85 

33.6 
5.6 
39.2 
24.0 
43.4 
67.5 
44.4 
6.2 
29.3 
70.3 
67.4 
18.9 
27.3 
18.3 
37.5 
26.0 
5.2 
22.3 
23.0 
41.0 
10.4 
32.2 
18.8 
32.9 
33.4 
19.5 
20.6 
37.8 
21.4 
34.9 
15.6 
42.4 
14.8 
18.0 
14.6 
24.4 
14 

0.20 
0.31 
0.09 
0.10 
0.14 
0.45 
0.25 
0.08 
0.07 
0.07 
0.36 
0.19 
0.30 
0.18 
0.13 
0.09 
0.09 
0.13 
0.06 
0.43 
0.58 
0.08 
0.10 
0.41 
0.14 
0.56 
0.06 
0.96 
0.33 
0.25 
0.46 
0.63 
0.35 
1.04 
0.72 
1.82 

29.2 
6.3 
36.4 
20.3 
38.2 
60.1 
14.9 
15.3 
33.8 
50.9 
78.9 
20.1 
24.3 
11.6 
21.8 
40.1 
11.5 
33.4 
13.7 
35.9 
14.1 
43.0 
22.6 
30.7 
34.2 
15.9 
14.2 
48.2 
12.3 
23.1 
23.3 
37.4 
12.9 
23.3 
14.9 
20.6 

Table 6.  Stratified mean number per tow and mean weight (kg) per tow 
indices for alewife caught during daytime tows (between sunrise and 
sunset) in NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys, 1976‐2010. CVs for indices 
from 2009 onward do not account for the additional variance associated 
with SRV H. B. Bigelow conversion factors.  
Mean number 
Mean kg per 
YEAR 
CV
CV 
per tow 
tow 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 

6.72 
5.44 
8.30 
12.64 
15.18 
8.99 
7.05 
3.28 
5.03 
2.52 
4.04 
7.93 
2.96 
4.08 
5.00 
6.24 
13.86 
10.33 
6.96 
6.95 
14.87 
11.85 
11.93 
14.65 
12.45 
5.99 
7.35 
8.57 
10.95 
4.72 
16.88 
5.87 
8.51 
15.94 
14.61 
37.72 

34.6
30.1
14.8
41.9
29.9
28.3
22.7
30.8
36.8
20.1
26.8
9.7
14.6
18.8
14.3
34.9
6.8
18.3
24.4
26.9
33.8
25.4
17.8
24.3
51.3
24.8
10.2
22.9
23.7
15.8
21.7
17.9
24.4
14.6
11.5
16.2

0.91 
0.96 
0.95 
1.44 
1.19 
1.00 
0.69 
0.64 
0.89 
0.39 
0.60 
1.30 
0.40 
0.35 
0.33 
0.48 
2.10 
0.76 
0.32 
0.99 
1.55 
1.60 
1.22 
1.51 
0.83 
0.71 
0.97 
0.59 
0.85 
0.27 
0.66 
0.56 
0.61 
1.57 
1.41 
2.51 
15 

40.7 
31.9 
10.7 
43.5 
30.0 
27.4 
23.4 
44.1 
45.7 
24.2 
21.9 
9.1 
16.0 
21.1 
16.2 
51.5 
5.5 
16.8 
20.5 
29.4 
33.7 
29.3 
19.9 
26.5 
18.3 
33.4 
13.8 
25.7 
35.8 
24.7 
21.9 
17.4 
22.2 
12.4 
11.8 
21.3 

Table 7.  Stratified mean number per tow and mean weight (kg) per tow 
indices for American shad caught during daytime tows (between sunrise 
and sunset) in NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys, 1975‐2010. CVs for 
indices from 2009 onward do not account for the additional variance 
associated with SRV H. B. Bigelow conversion factors.  
Mean number 
Mean kg 
YEAR 
CV 
CV 
per tow 
per tow 
1975 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 

0.01 
0.24 
0.03 
0.31 
0.08 
0.15 
0.59 
1.14 
0.66 
0.04 
0.11 
0.05 
1.17 
0.07 
0.11 
0.12 
0.05 
4.21 
0.08 
0.96 
0.65 
0.28 
0.19 
0.22 
0.16 
0.27 
0.07 
0.20 
0.21 
0.16 
0.16 
0.23 
0.17 
0.59 
0.10 
0.28 

49.2 
26.0 
79.9 
56.9 
38.9 
70.6 
40.6 
4.6 
94.8 
44.8 
30.8 
31.9 
8.4 
44.8 
25.7 
27.6 
46.9 
86.8 
47.8 
51.8 
51.7 
51.4 
40.9 
23.1 
57.9 
30.6 
18.9 
33.9 
38.0 
28.7 
54.6 
27.1 
25.5 
51.6 
32.5 
20.2 
16 

0.01 
0.06 
0.02 
0.08 
0.04 
0.03 
0.12 
0.26 
0.13 
0.01 
0.02 
0.02 
0.37 
0.01 
0.03 
0.07 
0.02 
0.57 
0.02 
0.15 
0.60 
0.08 
0.09 
0.10 
0.03 
0.07 
0.03 
0.13 
0.08 
0.06 
0.07 
0.04 
0.04 
0.28 
0.03 
0.11 

61.6 
21.2 
66.9 
40.3 
32.4 
53.0 
30.6 
17.3 
91.0 
39.7 
32.5 
44.1 
20.9 
33.8 
35.5 
83.3 
60.8 
73.9 
43.5 
51.1 
67.3 
38.3 
49.1 
32.1 
59.8 
33.9 
21.7 
42.0 
14.9 
30.7 
81.7 
25.5 
28.1 
78.1 
35.2 
34.8 

Table 8.  Stratified mean number per tow and mean weight (kg) per tow 
indices for American shad caught during daytime tows (between sunrise 
and sunset) in NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys, 1976‐2010. CVs for 
indices from 2009 onward do not account for the additional variance 
associated with SRV H. B. Bigelow conversion factors.  
Mean number 
Mean kg 
YEAR 
CV
CV 
per tow 
per tow 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 

0.22 
0.04 
0.15 
0.52 
0.25 
0.40 
0.25 
0.18 
0.34 
0.35 
0.33 
0.15 
0.16 
0.32 
0.37 
0.58 
0.49 
0.57 
1.16 
0.32 
0.43 
0.56 
0.28 
0.36 
0.37 
0.36 
0.33 
0.28 
0.24 
0.13 
0.61 
0.59 
0.38 
0.47 
0.28 
0.59 

38.2
58.3
20.8
32.2
15.8
37.6
30.2
25.4
27.1
18.8
48.4
27.6
28.0
21.2
39.0
28.1
17.8
10.6
69.6
13.2
14.3
15.9
26.0
14.2
18.7
34.6
19.6
22.5
33.6
32.8
12.7
28.7
25.1
18.1
25.6
32.9
17 

0.05 
0.00 
0.07 
0.12 
0.07 
0.09 
0.05 
0.07 
0.09 
0.18 
0.24 
0.07 
0.09 
0.09 
0.11 
0.16 
0.10 
0.13 
0.49 
0.09 
0.07 
0.23 
0.10 
0.17 
0.13 
0.16 
0.11 
0.05 
0.06 
0.06 
0.03 
0.11 
0.10 
0.13 
0.07 
0.13 

45.2 
55.0 
16.1 
33.7 
26.6 
32.1 
30.3 
59.1 
30.8 
40.0 
64.5 
34.3 
23.4 
32.3 
51.9 
27.6 
15.4 
22.6 
82.1 
37.9 
17.7 
18.0 
22.9 
29.5 
26.9 
35.7 
23.9 
24.9 
40.5 
74.1 
15.0 
36.5 
33.3 
25.7 
24.2 
27.1 

Figure 1. Median month during which the inshore and offshore depth strata were sampled during Northeast Fisheries Science Center spring and fall
bottom trawl surveys, 1976-2010.

18 

ys.
Figure 2. Distrib
bution of hickorry shad during NEFSC spring (1
1976-2008, left panel) and fall (1985-2008, rigght panel) bottom
m trawls survey

19 

Figure 3. Blueback herring relative abundance (mean number per tow) and biomass (mean kg per tow)
indices and percent positive tows for NEFSC fall (1975-2010) and spring (1976-2011) bottom trawl
surveys.
20 

Figure 4. Alewife relative abundance (mean number per tow) and biomass (mean kg per tow) indices
and percent positive tows for NEFSC fall (1975-2010) and spring (1976-2011) bottom trawl surveys.
21 

Figure 5. American shad relative abundance (mean number per tow) and biomass (mean kg per tow)
indices and percent positive tows for NEFSC fall (1975-2010) and spring (1976-2011) bottom trawl
surveys.
22 

Numerical Index (log num/25,000 sq.m.)

1.50
1.40

Alosa aestivalis
1.30

Index values by Count

1.20

Fall: Mean CV = N/A
Spring: Mean CV = 12.1

1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50

Spring - All Ages

2005

2006

2007

2008
2009
Survey Year

2010

2008
2009
Survey Year

2010

2011

2012

Biomass Index (log kg/25,000 sq.m.)

0.40
0.38
0.36

Alosa aestivalis

0.34

Index values by Biomass

0.32

Fall: Mean CV = N/A
Spring: Mean CV = 18.5

0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10

Spring - All Ages

2005

2006

2007

2011

2012

Figure 6. Swept area abundance (log number per 25,000 m2) and biomass (log kg per 25,000 m2)
estimates of blueback herring derived from the spring (2008-2011) NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys.

23 

Numerical Index (log num/25,000 sq.m.)

3.00

Alosa pseudoharengus
Index values by Count

2.00

Fall: Mean CV = 64.8
Spring: Mean CV = 10.5
1.00

0.00

-1.00

Fall - All Ages
Spring - All Ages

2005

2006

2007

2008
2009
Survey Year

2010

2008
2009
Survey Year

2010

2011

2012

Biomass Index (log kg/25,000 sq.m.)

0.80
0.70

Alosa pseudoharengus

0.60

Index values by Biomass

0.50

Fall: Mean CV = 74.5
Spring: Mean CV = 17.2

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10

Fall - All Ages
Spring - All Ages

2005

2006

2007

2011

2012

Figure 7. Swept area abundance (log number per 25,000 m2) and biomass (log kg per 25,000 m2)
estimates of alewife derived from the fall (2007-2010) and spring (2008-2011) NEAMAP bottom trawl
surveys.

24 

Numerical Index (log num/25,000 sq.m.)

1.40
1.30

Alosa sapidissima
Index values by Count

1.20

Fall: Mean CV = N/A
Spring: Mean CV = 9.1

1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

Spring - All Ages

Biomass Index (log kg/25,000 sq.m.)

2005

0.26
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08

2006

2007

2008
2009
Survey Year

2010

2008
2009
Survey Year

2010

2011

2012

Alosa sapidissima
Index values by Biomass
Fall: Mean CV = N/A
Spring: Mean CV = 14.6

Spring - All Ages

2005

2006

2007

2011

2012

Figure 8. Swept area abundance (log number per 25,000 m2) and biomass (log kg per 25,000 m2)
estimates of American shad derived from the spring (2008-2011) NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys.

25 

Spring surveys

0.9

12

Fall surveys

0.8
0.7

10

0.6

8

0.5

6

0.4
0.3

4

0.2

2

0.1

0

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fall mean number per tow

Spring mean number per tow

Blueback herring
14

40

Fork length (cm)

Alewife
9

Spring surveys

8

Fall surveys

20

7
6

15

5
4

10

3
2

5

1
0

Fall mean number per tow

Spring mean number per tow

25

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fork length (cm)

Spring surveys

3.0

1.0

Fall surveys

2.5

0.8

2.0

0.6

1.5

0.4

1.0

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0
0

5

Fall mean number per tow

Spring mean number per tow

American shad
1.2

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Fork length (cm)

Figure 9. Length compositions (stratified mean numbers per tow) of blueback herring, alewife, and
American shad caught during NEFSC spring and fall bottom trawl surveys, 1976-2008.
26 

Blueback herring

25
Spring

35

20

Fall

30
25

15

20
10

15
10

Fall catch  numbers

Spring catch numbers (000s)

40

5

5
0

0
0

5

10

15
20
25
30
Fork length (cm midpoint)

35

40

Alewife

2,500

250

2,000

200

Fall

1,500

150

1,000

100

Fall catch  numbers

Spring catch numbers

Spring

50

500

0

0
0

5

10

15
20
25
30
Fork length (cm midpoint)

35

40

American shad

2,500

25

2,000

Fall

20

1,500

15

1,000

10

500

5

0

0
0

5

Fall catch  numbers

Spring catch numbers

Spring

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Fork length (cm midpoint)

Figure 10. Length compositions (stratified mean numbers per tow) of blueback herring, alewife, and
American shad caught during NEAMAP spring (2008-2011) and fall (2007-2010) bottom trawl surveys
27 

Figure 11. The standard deviational ellipse (one standard deviation) for Alosa pseudoharengus catches
(numbers per tow) in fall NEFSC and NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys, for all years combined during 19752010 (red ellipse), and the “envelope” which encompasses all of the annual standard deviational ellipses for the
same time period.

28 

Figure 12. The standard deviational ellipse (one standard deviation) for Alosa aestivalis catches (numbers per
tow) in fall NEFSC and NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys, for all years combined during 1975-2010 (red ellipse),
and the “envelope” which encompasses all of the annual standard deviational ellipses for the same time period.

29 

Figure 13. The standard deviational ellipse (one standard deviation) for Alosa sapidissima catches (numbers per
tow) in fall NEFSC and NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys, for all years combined during 1975-2010 (red ellipse),
and the “envelope” which encompasses all of the annual standard deviational ellipses for the same time period.

30 

Figure 14. The standard deviational ellipse (one standard deviation) for Alosa pseudoharengus catches
(numbers per tow) in spring NEFSC and NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys, for all years combined during 19762010 (red ellipse), and the “envelope” which encompasses all of the annual standard deviational ellipses for the
same time period.

31 

Figure 15. The standard deviational ellipse (one standard deviation) for Alosa aestivalis catches (numbers per
tow) in spring NEFSC and NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys, for all years combined during 1976-2010 (red
ellipse), and the “envelope” which encompasses all of the annual standard deviational ellipses for the same time
period.

32 

Figure 16. The standard deviational ellipse (one standard deviation) for Alosa sapidissima catches (numbers per
tow) in spring NEFSC and NEAMAP bottom trawl surveys, for all years combined during 1976-2010 (red
ellipse), and the “envelope” which encompasses all of the annual ellipses for the same time period.

33 

Figuure 17. Distrribution of Alosa medioccris (numberrs per tow) d uring NEFS
SC and NEA
AMAP fall suurveys, 197520100.

34 

Figuure 18. Distrribution of Alosa medioccris (numberrs per tow) d uring NEFS
SC and NEA
AMAP springg surveys,
19766-2010.

35 

Figure 19. Annual standard deviational ellipses (one standard deviation) for Alosa pseudoharengus catches (numbers per tow) during the 1996-1998
NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys.

36 

Figure 20. Annual standard deviational ellipses (one standard deviation) for Alosa pseudoharengus catches (numbers per tow) during the 1996-1998
NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys.

37 

Figure 21. Annual standard deviational ellipses (one standard deviation) for Alosa aestivalis catches (numbers per tow) during the 1996-1998
NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys.

38 

Figure 22. Annual standard deviational ellipses (one standard deviation) for Alosa aestivalis catches (numbers per tow) during the 1996-1998
NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys.

39 

Figure 23. Annual standard deviational ellipses (one standard deviation) for Alosa sapidissima catches (numbers per tow) during the 1996-1998
NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys.

40 

Figure 24. Annual standard deviational ellipses (one standard deviation) for Alosa sapidissima catches (numbers per tow) during the 1996-1998
NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys.

41 

Figure 25. Distribution maps showing cumulative percentages (75, 90, 95 and 100%) of the geometric mean densities of Alosa pseudoharengus, A.
aestivalis, and A. sapidissima during the 1975-2010 NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys.

42 

Figure 26. Distribution maps showing cumulative percentages (75, 90, 95 and 100%) of the geometric mean densities of Alosa pseudoharengus, A.
aestivalis, and A. sapidissima during the 1976-2010 NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys.

43 

Figure 27. Distribution maps of Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic herring during NEFSC fall (left) and spring (right) bottom trawl surveys, 1976-2010.

44 

Appendix 2 - R/H Catch Estimates

FMAT Working Paper (DO NOT CITE)

9/15/2011

Part II. Analyses for Amendment 14 to the Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish Fishery
Management Plan
1.0

Estimates of incidental catch
1.1 Methods
Total incidental catch of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) and hickory and
American shad (RHS) was quantified by fleet. Fleets included in the analyses were those
sampled by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and were stratified by
region fished (Mid-Atlantic versus New England), time (year and quarter), gear group, and
mesh size. Estimates that are restricted to a subset of trips identified as “targeted” trips for
specific species were not used. These estimates are considered to be incomplete because
the catches that occur on trips outside the trip subset are excluded. Furthermore, multiple
species, such as Atlantic herring and mackerel, are often caught in a mixed fishery on the
same trips during portions of the year. As such, defining targeted trips using a catch weight
limit may lead to double counting of RHS incidental catch.
Region fished was defined using Statistical Areas for reporting commercial fishery data
(Figure 1). The Mid-Atlantic region included Statistical Areas greater than 600, and New
England included Statistical Areas 464 through 599. Gear groups included in the analyses
were: bottom trawls, paired midwater trawls, single midwater trawls, gillnets, dredges,
handlines, haul seines, longlines, pots/traps, purse seines, scallop trawl/dredge, seines and
shrimp trawls. Bottom trawls and gillnets were further stratified into mesh groups. The
estimated levels of precision when gillnet and bottom trawl incidental catches were
quantified across all mesh sizes were very similar, and not consistently lower, than the
precision estimates for these gears when estimated by mesh category. Since there was no
gain in precision when we did not stratify by mesh, we split bottom trawl and gillnets into
the following mesh categories:
Mesh category

Bottom Trawl

Gillnet

small
medium
large
x-large

mesh ≤ 3.5
3.5 < mesh < 5.5
mesh ≥ 5.5
---

mesh < 5.5
--5.5 ≤ mesh < 8
mesh ≥ 8

Single and paired midwater trawls were split into separate fleets because the majority of
both mackerel and herring landings during 2005-2010 were from paired midwater trawls,
and the total catch-to-kept ratios varied between midwater trawl types.
The combined ratio method (Wigley et al 2007) is the standard discard estimation method
implemented in NEFSC stock assessments. We used this method to quantify and estimate
the precision (CV) of RHS total incidental catch for 1989 – 2010 across all fleets.
Incidental catch estimates for the midwater trawl fleet are only provided for 2005-2010
1

because the estimates are most accurate as a result of improved sampling methodologies
described below. Estimates of the precision are necessary in order to evaluate significant
differences between incidental catch estimates by fleet and year.
Marked improvements to NEFOP sampling methodologies occurred in the high-volume
midwater trawl (MWT) fisheries beginning in 2005, limiting the interpretability of
estimates from these fleets in prior years. The NEFOP currently deploys specially-certified
observers on paired and single midwater trawl vessels and purse seine vessels. NEFOP
coverage of these high-volume fisheries that pump catch began in 2003 but the sampling
focused on marine mammal interactions. In 2005, the focus of the sampling changed and
the priorities became quantification of groundfish bycatch. At this time, the NEFOP
implemented the catch composition log and observers began sampling the catches using a
basket subsampling methodology in order to more accurately estimate catch weights over
the course of pumping operations. At the same time, NEFOP protocols also required a
more accurate quantification of the catches culled by the crew. Therefore, incidental catch
estimates are provided beginning in 2005 because they are considered more accurate.
The NEFOP data used in this analysis were aggregated at the trip level. The sampling unit
for the NEFOP database is a trip (Wigley et al. 2007) and observer sea days are allocated at
the trip and fleet level, in contrast to the haul level. In addition, hauls within a trip are not
independent of one another and are considered to be pseudo-replicates. The numbers of
trips included in the analyses, for the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions, are presented
in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
For each trip, NEFOP data were used to calculate a total catch to kept (t/k) ratio, where t
represents the total (retained+discarded) catch of an individual species (e.g., alewife,
American shad) and k is the kept weight of all species. Annual estimates of total incidental
catch were derived by quarter. Imputations were used for quarters with one or less
observed trips.
The t/k ratios were expanded using a raising factor to quantify total incidental catch. With
the exception of the midwater trawl fleets, total landed weight of all species (from the
dealer database) was used as the raising factor. Total landings from the dealer database are
considered to be more accurate than those of the VTR database because VTR landings
represent a captain’s hail estimate. However, for the MWT fleets, we were unable to use
the dealer data to estimate the kept weight of all species when stratifying by fishing area.
When the area allocation (AA) tables were developed, MWT was not included in effort
calculations because of difficulties determining effort for paired MWTs. Only those gears
with effort information could be assigned to a Statistical Area. Given these limitations,
VTR data were used as the expansion factor for the MWT fleet.
When quantifying incidental catch across multiple fleets, total kept weight of all species is
an appropriate surrogate for effective fishing power because it is likely that all trips will not
exhibit the same attributes (Wigley et al 2007). The use of effort without standardization
makes the implicit assumption that effort is constant across all vessels, thereby resulting in
a biased effort metric.

2

1.2 Results
1.2.1 Temporal distribution of incidental catches
The temporal distribution of incidental catches was summarized by quarter and fishing
region (i.e., New England versus Mid-Atlantic), for the most recent six-year period (20052010), to take into account any effects that the most recent management changes may have
had on the fleets included in the analyses. The gear types which exhibited the highest
incidental catches of the combined four species consisted of bottom trawls, midwater trawls
and gillnets. These gears comprised 92% of the total incidental catches in the Mid-Atlantic
from all gear types and 97% in New England.
Incidental catches of the four species combined varied by region and quarter for each gear
type. For the three predominant gear types, most of the catch of the four species combined
was taken in midwater trawls (72%, of which 53% was from paired midwater trawls and
the rest from single midwater trawls), followed by 24% in small mesh bottom trawls and
3% in large mesh gillnets (Table 3). Most of the catch (58%) occurred in the New England
region where catches were higher for all three gear types; 36% taken in midwater trawls,
followed by 18% in small mesh bottom trawls and 3% in large mesh gillnets. The highest
quarterly catch (34%) occurred during Quarter 1 (Q1) in the Mid-Atlantic, of which the
majority (32%) was taken in midwater trawls. The second and third highest quarterly
catches of all four species occurred during Q4 (21%) and Q2 (14%) in New England.
About 16% and 11% of the catches in New England during Q4 and Q2, respectively, were
taken in midwater trawls.
Catches of all four species taken in midwater trawls during Q1 in the Mid-Atlantic and
during all four quarters in New England comprised 69% of the total incidental catch during
2005-2010 (Table3). Small mesh bottom trawl catches in New England comprised an
additional 19% of the total incidental catch and were highest during Q1 (7%) followed by
Q3 (5%), Q4 (4%) and Q2 (3%). Catches in large mesh gillnets were highest in New
England, comprising 3% of the total incidental catch, and were highest during Q3 and Q4
(both totaling 1%).
Given the similar migration patterns between the two shad species and between alewife and
blueback herring, incidental catches were also summarized separately for river herring and
shads. Shad catches occurred primarily in midwater trawls (42% of which 32% were from
paired midwater trawls and the rest from single midwater trawls), followed by large mesh
gillnets (27%) and small mesh bottom trawls (26%, Table 4). Shad catches were highest in
the New England region (69%) and ranked from high to low were 29%, 23% and 13% for
midwater trawls, large mesh gillnets and small mesh bottom trawls, respectively. Quarterly
trends in shad catches were highly variable. The highest quarterly catches of shad occurred
in midwater trawls during Q4 in New England (13%) and during Q1 in the Mid-Atlantic
(12%), followed by catches taken during Q3 (9%) and Q4 (9%) in large mesh gillnets in
New England.
River herring catches also occurred primarily in midwater trawls (76%, of which 56% were
from paired midwater trawls and the rest from single midwater trawls), followed by small
mesh bottom trawls (24%, Table 5). Catches of river herring in gillnets were negligible.
Across gear types, catches of river herring were greater in New England (56%) than in the
3

Mid-Atlantic (44%). The percentages of midwater trawl catches of river herring were
similar between New England (37%) and the Mid-Atlantic (38%). However, catches in
New England small mesh bottom trawls were three times higher (18%) than those from the
Mid-Atlantic (6%). Overall, the highest quarterly catches of river herring occurred in
midwater trawls during Q1 in the Mid-Atlantic (35%), followed by catches in New
England during Q4 (16%) and Q3 (11%). Quarterly catches in small mesh bottom trawls
were highest in New England during Q1 (7%) and totaled 3-4% during each of the other
three quarters.
1.2.2 Species-specific incidental catch estimates for 2005-2010
From 2005-2010, the total annual incidental catch of alewife ranged from 19.0-473.3
metric tons (mt) in New England and 8.9-256.2 mt in the mid-Atlantic. The dominant gear
varied across years between paired midwater trawls and bottom trawls (Figure 2).
Corresponding estimates of precision exhibited substantial interannual variation and ranged
from 0.28-3.12 across gears and regions. In all years and regions, the small mesh category
dominated alewife bottom trawl catches (Figure 3). With the exception of 2007, alewife
catches in the mid-Atlantic were greatest in the first quarter and dominated by paired and
single midwater trawls (Figure 4). In quarters 2-4, mid-Atlantic alewife catches were
primarily from small mesh bottom trawls. In contrast, New England catches of Alewife
generally increased with quarter, and with the exception of 2007, were consistently greatest
in the fourth quarter. New England alewife catches represented a mixture of single
midwater trawls, paired midwater trawls and small mesh bottom trawls.
Total annual blueback herring incidental catch from 2005-2010 ranged from 13.9–176.5 mt
in New England and 1.2-382.6 mt in the mid-Atlantic. Across years paired and single
midwater trawls exhibited the greatest blueback herring catches, with the exception of 2010
in the mid-Atlantic where bottom trawl was the most dominant gear (Figure 5).
Corresponding precision estimates ranged from 0.27 – 3.65. The small mesh category
dominated blueback herring bottom trawl catches (Figure 6). Similar to alewife, blueback
herring catches were greatest in the 1st quarter in the Mid-Atlantic and, with the exception
of 2007, in the fourth quarter in New England. In the mid-Atlantic, blueback herring
catches were predominantly from midwater trawls. While small and medium mesh bottom
trawls comprised approximately 60% of the total annual mid-Atlantic catch in 2007, the
magnitude of this 2007 catch was small compared to other years. In New England, catches
were largely from midwater trawls and to a lesser extent small mesh bottom trawls.
Total annual American shad incidental catches from 2005-2010 were generally less than
that of the river herring species and ranged from 12.7–53.2 mt in New England and 5.936.6 mt in the mid-Atlantic. In contrast to both river herring species, the greatest annual
American shad catches were due to gillnets as well as single MWTs, paired MWTs, and
bottom trawls. Corresponding coefficients of variation ranged from 0.19 – 10.7. Within
the bottom trawl fleet, the small mesh category generally exhibited the greatest catches;
however, American shad were also caught in medium and large mesh bottom trawl fleets
(Figure 9). Across regions and years, the large-mesh category generally dominated gillnet
catches. Similar to the river herring species, American shad catches were greatest during
the first quarter in the mid-Atlantic and the fourth quarter in New England. However, in
contrast to the river herring species, the primary gears were more evenly distributed
between midwater trawls, bottom trawls and large-mesh gillnets.
4

Total annual 2005-2010 hickory shad incidental catch was the smallest of all RHS species
and ranged from 0.1–11.8 mt in New England and 1.0-8.7 mt in the mid-Atlantic. Across
years, the dominant gear varied between bottom trawls, paired midwater trawls and gillnets
(Figure 11). Precision estimates varied annually and ranged from 0.19–2.9 across gears
and regions. Bottom trawl catches of hickory shad were predominantly comprised of the
small mesh category, where gillnet catches were from both small and large mesh categories
(Figure 12). Mid-Atlantic catches were more evenly distributed over quarter than for other
RHS species, and were primarily comprised of small mesh bottom trawl and small and
large mesh gillnets (Figure 13). The majority of New England quarterly catches was from
midwater trawls, small-mesh bottom trawls and to a lesser extent large-mesh bottom trawls
and gillnets.
Total annual incidental catch of unknown herring from 2005-2010 ranged from 5.2–228.2
mt in New England and 0.1 – 163.4 mt in the mid-Atlantic. The dominant gear by year and
region varied between gillnet, paired MWT, single MWT, bottom trawl and the ‘other’
category (Figure 14). Corresponding coefficients of variation range from 0.2-0.8. Smalland large-mesh categories dominated unknown herring bottom trawl and gillnet catches,
respectively (Figure 15). Mid-Atlantic catches were generally greatest in the first quarter
and were from paired MWT, single MWT, small-mesh bottom trawl and large-mesh
gillnets. New-England catches were approximately evenly distributed across quarter and
largely from small-mesh bottom trawls and single MWTs (Figure 16).
Species-specific annual incidental catch estimates and the associated coefficients of
variation are presented in Appendix 1.
1.2.2.1 Validation of incidental catch estimates
Species-specific total catch and discard estimates can be used to quantify the amount
kept by calculating the difference between the two estimates. These kept estimates
can then be compared to species-specific landings obtained from the dealer or VTR
databases to serve as validation. For both the river herring and shad species groups,
kept estimates did not track the landings well (Figure 17). For Atlantic herring,
however, landings and kept estimates were quite similar during the last 4-5 years of
the time series. This consistency between kept and landed Atlantic herring estimates
indicates that the employed methodology can be used to reconstruct landings. The
discrepancy between landings and kept estimates of the RHS species suggests an
inconsistency in the identification of these species at the ports of landing.
1.2.2.2 Fisheries conducted by the fleets used in the incidental catch estimates
The incidental catch estimates are based on fleets (ex: gear, region, mesh) rather than
fishery directivity. In order to identify the directivity of each of the fleets used in the
incidental catch analysis, we analyzed trends in mackerel, herring, Illex, Loligo, and
silver hake landings by month, area and mesh size. The analysis clearly indicated
substantial fishery directivity overlap within fleets. For example, trends in mackerel
and herring landings by gear indicate that both species are caught predominantly by
paired midwater trawls (Figure 18).
Graphs of catch by codend mesh size recorded in the NEFOP database for observed
hauls indicated an overlap in mesh sizes used on midwater trawl tows when the
5

target species (i.e., targspec1 field in the NEFOP database) is either mackerel or
Atlantic herring (Figure 19a). About 85% of mackerel midwater trawl catches and
96% of herring midwater trawl catches occurred with mesh sizes between 24 and 50
mm. Similar overlap in mesh size was apparent in bottom trawl tows targeting either
mackerel or silver hake. Bottom trawl mesh sizes between 48 and 76 mm
represented 99% of mackerel catches and 77% of silver hake catches (Figure 19b).
Some segregation in mackerel and herring 2005-2010 landings by Statistical Area
was apparent (Figure 20a). The greatest proportions of herring midwater trawl
landings occurred in New England (specifically Statistical Areas 512 through 522),
whereas the greatest proportions of mackerel landings occurred in the Mid-Atlantic
(Statistical Areas 612-622). However, there was some overlap in regional trends
between the two species. For example, 20% of the total mackerel landings were from
New England (Statistical Areas 525-537) and 19% of the total Atlantic herring
landings were from the Mid-Atlantic. Similarly for bottom trawl landings, the
greatest proportions of mackerel landings occurred in Mid-Atlantic statistical areas
612-622 and the greatest proportions of silver hake landings occurred in New
England statistical areas 513-538 (Figure 20b). However, overlap was still apparent;
15% of total mackerel landings were caught in New England and 25% of total silver
hake landings were from the Mid-Atlantic. Accordingly, Statistical Area alone does
not appear to permit separation of fleets into fisheries.
Analysis of mackerel and herring landings by month and region indicated a mixed
midwater trawl fishery from January-April in both the Mid-Atlantic and New
England (Figure 21a). In the Mid-Atlantic, landings during January-April
represented the vast majority (98%) of regional midwater trawl landings. Of the
total January-April combined mackerel and herring landings from the Mid-Atlantic,
between 24-39% were herring and 61–76% were mackerel. In New England,
January-April landings only represented 21.7% of regional midwater trawl landings.
Of the combined mackerel and herring landings, 32-41% were herring and 55-68%
were mackerel. Analysis of mackerel, Loligo and silver hake bottom trawl landings
by both region and month indicated a mixed fishery throughout the year (Figure
21b). While most mackerel landings occurred in January-April and most Illex
landings occurred from June-October, silver hake and Loligo landings largely
occurred throughout all months in both regions. Further examination of the
distribution of January-April landings by Statistical Area indicated substantial
overlap in both regions within both bottom trawl and midwater trawl fleets (Figure
22).
Based on trends in landings over time, region, gear and mesh category, and the
strong evidence for mixed fisheries, it is not possible to clearly identify fishery
directivity for each of the fleets used in the incidental catch analysis.
1.2.3 Spatial distribution of incidental catches
ArcGIS software (v. 10, ©ESRI) was used to produce maps of nominal fishing effort (days
fished, from the Vessel Trip Reports), by ten-minute square (TNMS), for the gear types
with the highest levels of incidental catch of each the four subject species during 20052010 (refer to Section 1.2.1). As previously noted, 2005-2010 was considered as the
6

reference time period because it takes into account any effects that the most recent
management changes may have had on the temporal and spatial distributions of the fleets
included in the analyses. Gear types that were mapped included small mesh bottom trawls,
single midwater trawls, paired midwater trawls and large mesh gillnets. Each TNMS was
shaded according to the cumulative percentage of the total effort for the mapped time
period. For each gear type, CPUE (kept+discarded weight of each of the four species / days
fished) was computed from NEFOP data using observed tows. It should be noted that the
days fished data from the Vessel Trip Reports (VTR) differ from the days fished data used
to compute CPUE. The latter type of data is more accurate because it represents the sum of
the actual tow durations within each TNMS, whereas days fished data from the VTRs
represent the product of the average tow duration and the number of tows conducted during
a subtrip as reported by each captain. Likewise, the data resolution of the geographic
location data used to map VTR effort data differs from that used to map the NEFOP CPUE
data. Mapping of the VTR data by TNMS represents a post-stratification of the effort data
because captains are only asked to report a single fishing location (as a Statistical Area and
a single latitude/longitude location within the Statistical Area) within each Statistical Area
that is fished during a trip. The assignment of NEFOP CPUE data to each TNMS is more
accurate because catch and effort data are recorded for each tow location.
For each map, CPUE data were mapped as the center point of a TNMS and overlain on the
fishing effort layer to determine: 1.) where CPUE levels were highest; 2.) whether high
incidental catch rates coincided with high levels of fishing effort; and 3.) to characterize the
variability in temporal and spatial trends in effort and CPUE with respect to the potential
for establishing closed areas or gear restriction areas to reduce bycatch of the four alosid
species. Maps from the 2005-2010 reference period were compared to the 1999-2004
period to determine the degree of spatial consistency in broad-scale patterns of fishing
effort for each gear type and incidental catch rates of each species. For comparative
purposes, CPUE data classes used in the map legends for each of the two time periods were
the same within each gear type. For midwater trawls, nominal effort and CPUE were not
mapped for 1999-2004 because VTRs were not mandatory for the midwater trawl herring
fleet until 2001 and, as previously explained in Section 1.1, the methods used by NEFOP
fishery observers to quantify large-volume catches in the midwater trawl fleets were most
accurate beginning in 2005 and the number of midwater trawl trips sampled by NEFOP
was much higher.
1.2.3.1 Maps of CPUE and effort, by fleet, for each species
As concluded in Section 1.2.1, most of the total incidental catch of river herring during
2005-2010, as well as the two shad species, occurred in midwater trawls (mainly in
paired midwater trawls). Incidental catch rates of both alewife and blueback herring in
paired midwater trawls during 2005-2010 were similar and were highest across broad
areas in the western Gulf of Maine (SA 521 and 514 along and shoreward of the 100 m
isobath), off the coast of central NJ (SA 612, 615 and 616), and scattered throughout
southern New England (particularly off Rhode Island in Block Island Sound and along
the southeast shore of Long Island, Figure 23). The highest catch rates of both species
did not always coincide with the highest fleet effort. Catch rates of hickory shad in
7

paired midwater trawls were much lower than those of American shad and occurred
primarily in the western Gulf of Maine (Figure 24). American shad catch rates were
highest in the same general areas as river herring, with the exception that American
shad catch rates were lower in southern New England.
The second highest levels of incidental catches of each of the four alosid species
occurred in small mesh bottom trawls. Fishing effort in the small mesh bottom trawl
fleet varied between 2005-2010 and 1999-2004. During 1999-2004, effort occurred
across a broader area, in the western Gulf of Maine and was much higher in southern
New England (Figure 25). Incidental catch rates of blueback herring and alewife were
also different between the two time periods, with the highest rates occurring in and
around Block Island Sound during 2005-2010, but occurred offshore, for blueback
herring, in scattered TNMS within SA 612, 613, 615 and 616 during 1999-2004
(Figures 25 and 26). Similar to the paired midwater trawl fleet, the highest incidental
catch rates of both species did not always coincide with the highest levels of effort
(e.g., Block Island Sound catch rates during 2005-2010). Catch rates of American shad
in small mesh bottom trawls (Figure 27) were much higher than for hickory shad
(Figure 28), similar to catch rates of the two shad species in paired midwater trawls.
Catch rates of American shad in small mesh bottom trawls varied between the time
periods and were highest in the vicinity of Long Island Sound during 2005-2010,
followed by a broad range of mostly contiguous offshore areas in the Mid-Atlantic and
southern New England (between the 100 and 400 m isobaths). During 1999-2004, catch
rates of American shad and hickory shad were highest in the offshore areas, particularly
in the southern portion of SA 537 between the 100 and 400 m isobaths (Figure 27 and
28).
Of the four bycatch species, most of the incidental catch in large-mesh gillnet fleet
consists of the two shad species. Although fleet effort was highest off MA and NH
(mainly inside of 100 m) during 2005-2010, catch rates of American shad were highest
in areas where the fleet’s effort was lowest; in the central Gulf of Maine in SA 515
(Figure 29). Incidental catches of hickory shad were extremely low (Figure 30).
Some of the maps included in the analysis showed CPUE data within ten-minute
squares which lacked VTR effort data. Where this disconnect occurred in state waters,
it may have been attributable to the fact that those vessels were not required to have
federal permits, and thus, not required to submit VTRs. When this disconnect occurred
seaward of the boundary for state territorial waters, it may have been due to incomplete
submittals of VTR data for all trips, but more likely was due to differences between the
spatial resolution of the VTR and NEFOP effort data.
1.2.3.2 Maps of CPUE and effort, by fleet and quarter, for all four species
combined
A second series of CPUE and effort maps was prepared for single and paired midwater
trawls combined and small mesh bottom trawls, by quarter, during 2005-2010 because
these two gear types comprised a majority of the incidental catches of all four species
8

during this time period (Table 3). Incidental catches of all four species were mapped on
a quarterly basis to provide a comprehensive summary of the data in time and space.
Within each of the two gear types, the CPUE and effort data are comparable across
quarters.
During 2005-2010, catch rates of all four species combined were highest in midwater
trawls during Q1 and Q4 and were distributed across very large areas, but the areas
were not always contiguous (Figures 31 and 32). During Q1, catch rates were very high
in Block Island Sound and off eastern Long Island as well as in scattered areas of the
Mid-Atlantic off New Jersey (Figure 31). During Q4, catch rates were highest in the
western Gulf of Maine, along the 100 m isobath between Cape Cod, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire and were also very high in an area of low effort by the fleet located
south of Martha’s Vineyard (Figure 32).
During 2005-2010, catch rates of all four species combined were highest in small mesh
bottom trawls during Q1 and Q2 and were also distributed across very large areas, but
which were generally contiguous (Figures 33 and 34). During Q1, the highest catch
rates occurred in and around Block Island Sound, followed secondarily by the area of
highest effort which was located near the shelf edge and north of a the Southern Gear
Restricted Area (polygon denoted as a dashed line in the Mid-Atlantic). The high catch
rates in Block Island Sound occurred primarily in Statistical Area 538, and also
adjacent portions of SA 611 and SA 537, but effort by the small mesh bottom trawl
fleet is unknown.
1.2.3.3 Effectiveness of closed areas to reduce alosid bycatch
The establishment of year-round and/or seasonal closed areas (CAs) and/or gear
restriction areas (GRAs) was evaluated as a potential management measure to reduce
incidental catches of the subject alosid species. The degree of effectiveness of CAs and
GRAs in accomplishing this objective is dependent on the degree of temporal and
spatial overlap between the distribution of fishing effort for the fleets with the
predominant bycatch and the distribution of the bycatch species, and more importantly,
the interannual consistency of such overlap. If the highest incidental catches
consistently occur across a reasonably small area each year, then CAs and/or GRAs
may be effective. However, if the opposite situation is true, the size of the CA and/or
GRA must be large in order to encompass the spatial extent of the interannual
variability, and therefore, may not be practicable. In addition to these considerations,
quantification of the effectiveness of CAs and GRAs is difficult for mobile species.
Maps of NEFSC spring and fall survey catches (presented in Part I) indicate that the
seasonal and interannual distributions of all four species are highly variable in time and
space. In addition, the analyses presented herein indicate that the incidental catches of
all four bycatch species, as well as effort patterns in the predominant fleets which catch
theses species are also highly variable in time and space. This is because of all four
species undergo extensive coastwide migrations, which are largely influenced by water
temperatures, and because the predominant gear types which incidentally catch these
9

species (e.g., Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel in the MWT fleet and Loligo, Illex,
hakes, and Atlantic mackerel in the small mesh BT fleet) are seeking target species
which are also highly migratory. For example, the interannual variability in the spatial
distribution of fishing effort in the midwater trawl fleet was quite variable during 20052010 (Figure 35). There was less variability in the annual effort distributions for the
small mesh bottom trawl fleet, but during some years (e.g., 2005 and 2007) very little
effort occurred inshore (Figure 36). Commercial catches of Atlantic mackerel also
showed substantial interannual variability in the spatial distribution of monthly catches
(Figures 37 and 38).
In conclusion, as a result of the high degree of interannual and seasonal variability in
the spatial distributions of the four bycatch species as well as in the fishing effort of for
the midwater trawl and small mesh bottom trawl fleets which incidentally catch these
species, closed areas are not considered to be an effective management measure for the
reduction of incidental catch of the four species addressed herein.

10

Table 1: Total number of trips recorded for each fleet in the observer, dealer and VTR databases
for the Mid-Atlantic. Landings from the VTR database were used as the raising factor to
estimate catch in the midwater trawl fleets. For all other fleets, the dealer database was used.

Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Number of trips
Bottom trawl
Midwater trawl
Small mesh
Medium mesh
Large mesh
Single
Paired
Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer
VTR Observer
29
1,781
7
412
1
7
31
1,363
19
386
0
11
0
61
1,711
20
361
4
100
5
0
0
39
1,294
12
283
14
284
9
6
1,167
1
103
7
441
14
6
2,170
6
156
14
1,998
1
64
30
60
2,918
3
330
53
3,332
0
120
33
68
3,143
10
652
16
3,344
0
264
0
41
3,426
9
692
5
3,711
0
210
0
24
3,693
3
784
13
3,647
0
239
0
26
3,250
9
777
5
3,865
0
205
0
25
3,230
10
806
28
3,250
5
194
1
42
2,684
12
879
44
3,886
0
170
0
15
2,408
18
998
38
4,172
0
72
1
21
1,637
51
795
11
4,208
0
115
5
108
1,836
151
692
96
4,874
2
99
8
74
1,086
101
466
88
6,478
4
81
11
100
1,810
47
736
62
5,051
8
74
6
86
1,711
139
714
159
3,899
1
86
2
66
1,776
84
701
129
4,391
10
17
8
169
2,031
125
661
162
4,737
5
27
20
182
1,895
187
420
276
3,944
4
15
13

Year
1989

Number of trips
Gillnet
Other
Small mesh
Large mesh
X-large mesh
Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer
Dealer
0
67
0
27
0
15,494

1990

0

137

0

1

1991

0

121

0

1

0

8

17,948

1992

0

100

0

5

15

17,042

1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0
83
126
133
90
100
42
49
54
34
25
12
19
20
19
7
9
12

80
85
185
343
422
699
848
1,110
1,280
1,267
750
1,303
1,270
1,160
1,231
905
1,252
851

0
58
202
172
133
130
23
17
17
10
4
6
4
7
13
2
8
52

33
57
516
531
400
456
566
543
441
376
294
475
335
500
516
642
1177
1122

42
42
44
24
27
36
57
72
97
96
115
330
400
144
245
506
433
283

17,467
15,086
13,440
14,109
18,541
16,378
15,424
15,308
15,747
16,653
17,997
16,892
23,185
25,122
27,634
25,958
25,787
16,538

20
73
65
111
73
19
18
17
11
13
38
82
32
32
44
43
91

11

3

24
294
638
1,021
1,403
1,443
1,954
2,193
2,139
2,104
1,409
1,739
1,470
2,045
2,029
1,693
1,455

1

16,633

VTR
0
0
0
0
44
50
14
6
34
26
74
56
107
195
249
221
184
83
143
162
85

Table 2: Total number of trips recorded for each fleet in the observer, dealer and VTR databases
for New England. Landings from the VTR database were used as the raising factor to estimate
catch in the midwater trawl fleets. For all other fleets, the dealer database was used.

Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Number of trips
Bottom trawl
Midwater trawl
Small mesh
Medium mesh
Large mesh
Single
Paired
Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer
VTR Observer
72
1,432
14
528
56
5,406
0
33
1,665
4
355
54
5,851
0
84
1,278
13
156
78
5,890
2
0
0
56
1,348
1
120
68
5,531
0
0
0
19
1,750
2
153
31
5,079
0
0
7
9
3,426
2
239
27
8,341
0
306
4
37
2,944
2
154
67
12,458
4
785
2
47
2,665
2
51
39
12,475
0
902
0
18
2,477
3
100
24
10,498
0
705
0
5
2,979
0
94
11
11,095
0
508
0
19
2,774
0
214
32
10,193
1
519
2
8
2,297
9
124
99
11,064
7
463
0
8
2,073
10
173
152
11,270
1
336
0
35
1,625
29
221
214
11,138
0
371
0
44
1,653
24
184
385
10,801
2
251
18
86
1,283
83
152
525
9,343
23
254
60
82
1,064
169
131
1341
8,388
43
265
91
48
1,569
35
299
612
7,656
10
195
21
57
1,745
18
213
618
7,461
10
84
11
46
2,016
16
175
751
7,688
11
34
36
195
1,895
23
270
877
7,373
10
48
67
206
2,227
50
251
1049
6,043
29
57
106

Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Number of trips
Gillnet
Small mesh
Large mesh
X-large
Observer Dealer Observer Dealer Observer
0
10
0
497
0
0
10
0
712
0
50
0
1045
0
0
1159
0
0
1133
0
0
3
61
2870
40
0
8
105
6910
46
0
21
55
6448
23
0
12
51
5854
19
3
14
115
5202
15
1
6
98
3860
21
0
17
107
4187
50
1
17
69
4280
33
0
14
91
3724
41
0
20
326
4485
190
1
16
699
3342
536
0
39
587
3491
459
0
67
142
3866
79
2
78
132
5467
164
3
27
170
6538
112
2
12
313
6824
76
0
22
1267
5374
771

12

Other
mesh
Dealer Observer
Dealer
1
40
28,527
32
30,631
2
79
33,011
47
144
33,574
81
118
33,700
934
107
28,586
2,029
101
31,904
1,533
62
35,361
1,214
32
35,373
1,061
15
32,140
1,352
34
25,018
1,881
229
21,374
2,530
28
22,532
2,810
30
23,239
2,987
72
20,573
2,966
240
16,696
2,939
484
39,261
2,416
262
47,023
2,102
317
43,561
2,274
368
55,716
1,989
243
66,351
2,653
383
150,268

VTR
0
0
0
0
0
53
11
18
93
170
165
367
631
651
614
581
463
488
235
185
223
213

Table 3: Proportion of 2005-2010 incidental catch of all river herring and shad species by region, fleet and quarter.

Mid-Atlantic (SA >= 600)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
New England (SA <= 500)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Grand Total

lg
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.008

Bottom Trawl
med
sm
0.002
0.062
0.001
0.018
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.023
0.001
0.010
0.000
0.177
0.000
0.065
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.037
0.002
0.239

xlg
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Gillnet
lg
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.028
0.003
0.004
0.011
0.010
0.033

sm
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001

Paired MWT Single MWT Total MWT
all
all
0.270
0.083
0.353
0.246
0.074
0.320
0.016
0.007
0.023
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.007
0.000
0.008
0.259
0.105
0.364
0.025
0.015
0.040
0.056
0.051
0.107
0.050
0.007
0.057
0.128
0.031
0.159
0.529
0.188
0.716

Grand Total
0.424
0.342
0.037
0.026
0.020
0.576
0.111
0.142
0.115
0.208
1.000

Table 4: Proportion of 2005-2010 incidental catch of American and hickory shad by region, fleet and quarter.

Mid-Atlantic (SA >= 600)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
New England (SA <= 500)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Grand Total

lg
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.027
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.030

Bottom trawl
med
sm
0.012
0.115
0.006
0.030
0.001
0.022
0.001
0.045
0.004
0.018
0.000
0.140
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.048
0.000
0.027
0.013
0.256

xlg
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001

Gillnet
lg
0.041
0.014
0.012
0.004
0.011
0.233
0.028
0.032
0.089
0.085
0.274

13

sm
0.008
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008

Paired MWT Single MWT
all
all
0.115
0.016
0.103
0.014
0.010
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.208
0.078
0.019
0.006
0.043
0.013
0.054
0.021
0.092
0.038
0.324
0.094

Total MWT

Grand Total

0.132
0.117
0.011
0.001
0.003
0.286
0.025
0.056
0.075
0.130
0.418

0.312
0.172
0.049
0.054
0.038
0.688
0.096
0.125
0.219
0.248
1.000

Table 5: Proportion of 2005-2010 incidental catch of river herring by region, fleet and quarter.

Mid-Atlantic (SA >= 600)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
New England (SA <= 500)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Grand Total

lg
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.005

Bottom trawl
med
sm
0.001
0.055
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.182
0.000
0.069
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.045
0.000
0.038
0.001
0.237

xlg
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Gillnet
lg
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

14

sm
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Paired MWT Single MWT
all
all
0.291
0.092
0.265
0.082
0.017
0.008
0.000
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.266
0.109
0.026
0.016
0.057
0.056
0.049
0.006
0.133
0.030
0.556
0.200

Total MWT

Grand Total

0.383
0.347
0.025
0.002
0.008
0.374
0.043
0.114
0.055
0.163
0.757

0.439
0.365
0.036
0.022
0.017
0.561
0.113
0.145
0.101
0.202
1.000

Figure 1: Statistical Areas used to define the fishing regions used in the incidental catch analysis.
The Mid-Atlantic region included Statistical Areas greater than 600. The New England region
included Statistical Areas 464 through 599.

15

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
400

BT
Single MWT
Paired MWT

300

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

350

Gillnet
Other

250
200
150
100
50
0
1989

400

BT

350

Single MWT
Paired MWT

300
250

Gillnet
Other

200
150
100
50

1994

1999

2004

0
1989

2009

1994

1999

Year

2004

2009

Year

b)
300

300

BT

BT
Single MWT
Paired MWT
200

Gillnet

150
100

Paired MWT
200

Gillnet

150
100
50

50

0

0
2005

Single MWT

250

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

250

2006

2007

2008

2009

2005

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Year

c)
3.5

Single MWT
Paired MWT

2.5

Gillnet

2
1.5
1

Single MWT
Paired MWT

2.5

Gillnet
2
1.5
1
0.5

0.5

0

0
2005

BT

3

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

3

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

3.5

BT

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Year

Figure 2: Alewife total annual incidental catch (mt) by region for the four gears with the largest
catches from a) 1989 – 2010 and b) 2005 – 2010, and c) the corresponding estimates of
precision. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.

16

Mid-Atlantic

New England

300

300
large

small
200
150
100
50

small
200
150
100
50

0
2005

medium

250

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

250

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

large

medium

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Figure 3: Alewife total incidental catch (mt) from 2005 – 2010 by region and bottom trawl mesh
category.

17

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
180

180

160

160
Gillnet, xlg

140

140

Gillnet, small

100

BT, large
BT, medium

80

BT, small

60

Paired MWT

Gillnet, xlg

Total catch (mt)

Total catch (mt)

Gillnet, large
120

Single MWT

40

120

BT, medium
BT, small

40

Paired MWT

0

Single MWT

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0

Q3

BT, large

60

20

Q2

Gillnet, small

80

20

Q1

Gillnet, large

100

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

b)
1

0.9
Gillnet, xlg

0.8

Gillnet, large

0.7

Gillnet, small
0.6

BT, large

0.5

BT, medium

0.4

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.3

Single MWT
0.2
0.1

Proportion of total annual catch in NE

Proportion of total annual catch in MA

1

0.9
0.8
Gillnet, xlg

0.7

Gillnet, large

0.6

Gillnet, small
0.5

BT, large

0.4

BT, medium

0.3

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.2

Single MWT
0.1
0

Q1

Q2

Q3

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

Figure 4: Alewife quarterly incidental catch (mt) by region and fleet (a) and the corresponding
proportion of the total annual catch within each region and quarter (b).

18

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
1800

BT

BT

1600

Single MWT

1600

Single MWT

1400

Paired MWT

1400

Paired MWT

Gillnet
1200

Other

1000
800
600
400

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

1800

Other

1000

200
0
1989

Gillnet

1200

800
600
400
200

1994

1999

2004

0
1989

2009

1994

1999

Year

2004

2009

Year

b)
400

BT

350

Single MWT

300

Paired MWT
Gillnet

250
200
150
100

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

400

50

Single MWT

300

Paired MWT
Gillnet

250
200
150
100
50

0
2005

BT

350

0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2005

2010

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

Year

c)
4

BT

3.5

Single MWT

3

Paired MWT

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

4

Gillnet

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

Single MWT

3

Paired MWT
Gillnet

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

0
2005

BT

3.5

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Figure 5: Blueback herring total annual incidental catch (mt) by region for the four gears with the
largest catches from a) 1989 – 2010 and b) 2005 – 2010, and c) the corresponding estimates of
precision. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.

19

Mid-Atlantic
20

50

large

18

45

medium

16

small

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

New England

14
12
10
8
6
4
2

medium
small

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

0
2005

40

large

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Figure 6: Blueback herring total incidental catch (mt) from 2005 – 2010 by region and bottom
trawl mesh category.

20

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
400

400

350

350
Gillnet, xlg

300

Gillnet, large
Gillnet, small

250

BT, large
200

BT, medium
BT, small

150

Paired MWT
100

Total catch (mt)

Total catch (mt)

300

Gillnet, small
200

BT, medium
BT, small

0

0

Paired MWT
Single MWT

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

50

Q3

BT, large

150

50

Q2

Gillnet, large

100

Single MWT

Q1

Gillnet, xlg

250

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

b)
1

0.9
Gillnet, xlg

0.8

Gillnet, large

0.7

Gillnet, small
0.6

BT, large

0.5

BT, medium

0.4

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.3

Single MWT
0.2
0.1

Proportion of total annual catch in NE

Proportion of total annual catch in MA

1

0.9
0.8
Gillnet, xlg

0.7

Gillnet, large

0.6

Gillnet, small
0.5

BT, large

0.4

BT, medium

0.3

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.2

Single MWT
0.1
0

Q1

Q2

Q3

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

Figure 7: Blueback herring incidental catch (mt) by region and fleet (a) and the corresponding
proportion of the total annual catch within each region and quarter (b).

21

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
80
70

Single MWT
Paired MWT

60

Gillnet

50

Other

40
30
20
10
0
1989

BT
Single MWT

70

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

80

BT

Paired MWT
60

Gillnet
Other

50
40
30
20
10

1994

1999

2004

0
1989

2009

1994

1999

Year

2004

2009

Year

b)
40

BT

35

Single MWT

30

Paired MWT
Gillnet

25
20
15
10
5

Single MWT
Paired MWT

30

Gillnet
25
20
15
10
5

0
2005

BT

35

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

40

0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2005

2010

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

Year

c)
2

12
Single MWT

10

Paired MWT
8

BT

1.8

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

BT

Gillnet

6
4
2

Single MWT

1.6

Paired MWT

1.4

Gillnet

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Year

Figure 8: American shad total annual incidental catch (mt) by region for the four gears with the
largest catches from a) 1989 – 2010 and b) 2005 – 2010, and c) the corresponding estimates of
precision. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.

22

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
15

30
large

12

25

medium

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

large

small
9

6

3

small
20
15
10
5

0
2005

medium

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

Year

b)
15

30
x‐large
25

large

12

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

x‐large

small
9

6

3

small
20
15
10
5

0
2005

large

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Figure 9: American shad total incidental catch (mt) from 2005 – 2010 by region and mesh
category for a) bottom trawl and b) gillnet fleets.

23

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
30

30

25

25

Gillnet, xlg

20

Gillnet, small
BT, large

15

BT, medium
BT, small

10

Paired MWT

Gillnet, xlg

Total catch (mt)

Total catch (mt)

Gillnet, large
20

Gillnet, large
Gillnet, small

15

BT, large
BT, medium

10

BT, small

Single MWT

Paired MWT
5

0

0

Q1

Q2

Q3

Single MWT

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

5

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

b)
1

0.9
Gillnet, xlg

0.8

Gillnet, large

0.7

Gillnet, small
0.6

BT, large

0.5

BT, medium

0.4

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.3

Single MWT
0.2
0.1

Proportion of total annual catch in NE

Proportion of total annual catch in MA

1

0.9
0.8
Gillnet, xlg

0.7

Gillnet, large

0.6

Gillnet, small
0.5

BT, large

0.4

BT, medium

0.3

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.2

Single MWT
0.1
0

Q1

Q2

Q3

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

Figure 10: American shad quarterly incidental catch (mt) by region and fleet (a) and the
corresponding proportion of the total annual catch within each region and quarter (b).

24

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
70

Single MWT

60

Paired MWT
Gillnet

50

BT
Single MWT

60

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

70

BT

Other
40
30
20
10

Paired MWT
50

Gillnet
Other

40
30
20
10

0
1989

1994

1999

2004

0
1989

2009

1994

1999

Year

2004

2009

Year

b)
10

10

BT

8

Paired MWT

7

Gillnet

6
5
4
3
2
1

Single MWT

8

Paired MWT

7

Gillnet

6
5
4
3
2
1

0
2005

BT

9

Single MWT

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

9

0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

Year

c)

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

3

3.5

BT

BT

Single MWT

3

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

3.5

Paired MWT
2.5

Gillnet

2
1.5
1

Paired MWT

2.5

Gillnet
2
1.5
1
0.5

0.5

0

0
2005

Single MWT

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Year

Figure 11: Hickory shad total annual incidental catch (mt) by region for the four gears with the
largest catches from a) 1989 – 2010 and b) 2005 – 2010, and c) the corresponding estimates of
precision. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.

25

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
10

large

9

medium

9

8

small

8

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

10

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

medium
small

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

0
2005

large

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

Year

b)
0.3

x‐large

4.5

large

4

small

x‐large
large

0.25

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

5

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1

small
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05

0.5
0
2005

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Figure 12: Hickory shad total incidental catch (mt) from 2005 – 2010 by region and mesh
category for a) bottom trawl and b) gillnet fleets.

26

2010

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
5

5

4.5

4.5
Gillnet, xlg

4

Gillnet, small
3

BT, large

2.5

BT, medium
BT, small

2

Paired MWT

1.5

Gillnet, xlg

3.5

Total catch (mt)

Total catch (mt)

4

Gillnet, large

3.5

Gillnet, large

3

Gillnet, small
2.5

BT, large

2

BT, medium
BT, small

1.5

Single MWT
1

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

Paired MWT

Q1

Q2

Q3

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Single MWT

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

b)
0.6

0.5

Gillnet, xlg
Gillnet, large

0.4

Gillnet, small
BT, large

0.3

BT, medium
BT, small

0.2

Paired MWT
Single MWT

0.1

Proportion of total annual catch in NE

Proportion of total annual catch in MA

0.6

0.5
Gillnet, xlg
0.4

Gillnet, large
Gillnet, small

0.3

BT, large
BT, medium

0.2

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.1

Single MWT

0

Q1

Q2

Q3

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

Figure 13: Hickory shad quarterly incidental catch (mt) by region and fleet (a) and the
corresponding proportion of the total annual catch within each region and quarter (b).

27

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
350

Single MWT

300

Paired MWT
Gillnet

250

Other
200
150
100
50
0
1989

BT
Single MWT

300

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

350

BT

Paired MWT
Gillnet

250

Other
200
150
100
50

1994

1999

2004

0
1989

2009

1994

1999

Year

2004

2009

Year

b)
180

180

BT

BT
140
120

160

Single MWT

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

160

Paired MWT
Gillnet

100
80
60
40

Paired MWT

120

Gillnet

100
80
60
40
20

20

0

0
2005

Single MWT

140

2006

2007

2008

2009

2005

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Year

c)
5

Single MWT

4

Paired MWT

3.5

Gillnet

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

Single MWT

4

Paired MWT

3.5

Gillnet

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

0
2005

BT

4.5

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

Coefficient of variation  (CV)

5

BT

4.5

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Figure 14: Unknown herring total annual incidental catch (mt) by region for the four gears with
the largest catches from a) 1989 – 2010 and b) 2005 – 2010, and c) the corresponding estimates
of precision. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.

28

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
60

large

90

medium
small

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

50

100

large

40
30
20
10

medium

80

small

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0
2005

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2005

2010

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

Year

b)
25

2

x‐large

x‐large
large

20

small

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

Total incidental  catch  (mt)

large

15

10

5

1

0.5

0

0
2005

small

1.5

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Year

Figure 15: Unknown herring total incidental catch (mt) from 2005 – 2010 by region and mesh
category for a) bottom trawl and b) gillnet fleets.

29

Mid-Atlantic

New England

a)
160

160

140

140
Gillnet, xlg

120

Gillnet, large
Gillnet, small

100

BT, large
80

BT, medium
BT, small

60

Paired MWT
40

Total catch (mt)

Total catch (mt)

120

Gillnet, small
80

BT, medium
BT, small

0

0

Paired MWT
Single MWT

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

20

Q3

BT, large

60

20

Q2

Gillnet, large

40

Single MWT

Q1

Gillnet, xlg

100

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

b)
1

0.9
Gillnet, xlg

0.8

Gillnet, large

0.7

Gillnet, small
0.6

BT, large

0.5

BT, medium

0.4

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.3

Single MWT
0.2
0.1

Proportion of total annual catch in NE

Proportion of total annual catch in MA

1

0.9
0.8
Gillnet, xlg

0.7

Gillnet, large

0.6

Gillnet, small
0.5

BT, large

0.4

BT, medium

0.3

BT, small
Paired MWT

0.2

Single MWT
0.1
0

Q1

Q2

Q3

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

0

Q1

Q4

Q2

Q3

Q4

Quarter and year

Quarter and year

Figure 16: Unknown herring quarterly incidental catch (mt) by region and fleet (a) and the
corresponding proportion of the total annual catch within each region and quarter (b).

30

River herring
MWT Landings
Landings w/o MWT
Kept w/o MWT
Kept MWT

1600
1400

Catch (mt)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1988

1993

1998

2003

2008

Shads
MWT Landings
Landings w/o MWT
Kept w/o MWT
Kept MWT

700
600

Catch (mt)

500
400
300
200
100
0
1988

1993

1998

2003

2008

2003

2008

Atlantic herring
120

Catch (10^3 mt)

100

MWT Landings
Landings w/o MWT
Kept w/o MWT
Kept MWT

80
60
40
20
0
1988

1993

1998

Figure 17: Comparison of landings obtained from the dealer database to the amount kept,
quantified as the difference between total incidental catch and discards, for river herring (alewife
and blueback herring), shad species (hickory and American shad) and Atlantic herring.
Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005. This validation exercise was
conducted in a preliminary run where gear was not split into mesh categories.
31

a)
1
Proportion of annual  landings

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

Purse seine

0.5

Paired MWT

0.4

Single MWT

0.3

Bottom trawl

0.2
0.1
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

b)
1
Proportion of annual  landings

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

Purse seine

0.5

Paired MWT

0.4

Single MWT

0.3

Bottom trawl

0.2
0.1
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Figure 18: Distribution of a) mackerel and b) herring landings across gear from 2005 - 2010.
Gears included in the analysis were purse seine, paired midwater trawls, single midwater trawls
and bottom trawls. It was assumed that these gears represented the majority of both mackerel
and herring landings.

32

a)
3

35

Mackerel
Herring

Mackerel Catch (10^6 pounds)

25
2
20
1.5
15
1
10
0.5

Herring Catch (10^6 pounds)

30

2.5

5

0

0

Mesh Size (mm)

b)
0.5

Mackerel
Silver hake

0.6

0.45

Mackerel Catch (10^6 pounds)

0.4
0.5

0.35
0.3

0.4

0.25
0.3

0.2
0.15

0.2

0.1
0.1
0.05
0

0

Mesh Size (mm)

Figure 19: Mackerel and herring midwater trawl landings (a) and mackerel and silver hake
bottom trawl landings (b) by mesh size from 2005 – 2010.

33

Silver hake  Catch (10^6 pounds)

0.7

a)
Proportion of total landings  with known area

0.5

Herring
Mackerel
Unknown herring

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Statistical area

b)
Proportion of total landings  with known area

0.3

Silver hake
Mackerel

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Statistical area

Figure 20: Proportion of species-specific midwater trawl (a) and bottom trawl (b) landings by
statistical area from 2005 - 2010.

34

b)

35

a)

Proportion of Jan‐April landings

0.3

Herring
Mackerel

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Statistical area

b)

Proportion of total landings

0.8

Loligo
Illex
Silver hake
Mackerel

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Statistical area

Figure 22: Proportion of January – April species-specific midwater trawl (a) and bottom trawl (b)
landings by statistical area from 2005 - 2010.

36

Figure 23. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the paired midwater trawl fleet and the fleet’s incidental
catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of alewife (left) and blueback (right), by ten-minute square, during
2005-2010.

37

Figure 24. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the paired midwater trawl fleet and the fleet’s incidental
catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of American shad (left) and hickory shad (right), by ten-minute square,
during 2005-2010.

38

Figure 25. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) bottom trawl
fleet and the fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of blueback herring, by ten-minute square,
during 2005-2010 and 1999-2004.

39

Figure 26. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) bottom trawl
fleet and the fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of alewife, by ten-minute square, during
2005-2010 and 1999-2004.
40

Figure 27. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) bottom trawl
fleet and the fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of American shad, by ten-minute square,
during 2005-2010 and 1999-2004.
41

Figure 28. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) bottom trawl
fleet and the fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of hickory shad, by ten-minute square,
during 2005-2010 and 1999-2004.
42

Figure 29. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the large mesh (mesh 5.50-7.99 in.) gillnet fleet and the
fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of American shad, by ten-minute square, during 20052010 and 1999-2004.

43

Figure 30. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the large mesh (mesh 5.50-7.99 in.) gillnet fleet and the
fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of hickory shad, by ten-minute square, during 20052010 and 1999-2004.

44

Figure 31. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the paired and single midwater trawl fleet and the fleet’s
incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of alewife, blueback herring, hickory shad, and American
shad combined, by ten-minute square, during Quarter 1 (left) and 2 (right) for 2005-2010.

45

Figure 32. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the paired and single midwater trawl fleet and the fleet’s
incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of alewife, blueback herring, hickory shad, and American
shad combined, by ten-minute square, during Quarter 3 (left) and 4 (right) for 2005-2010.

46

Figure 33. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) bottom trawl
fleet and the fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of alewife, blueback herring, hickory
shad, and American shad combined, by ten-minute square, during Quarter 1 (left) and 2 (right) for 2005-2010.

47

Figure 34. Spatial distribution of nominal effort (days fished from Vessel Trip Reports) for the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) bottom trawl
fleet and the fleet’s incidental catch rates (kept+discarded weight/days fished from observed NEFOP trips) of alewife, blueback herring, hickory
shad, and American shad combined, by ten-minute square, during Quarter 3 (left) and 4 (right) for 2005-2010.

48

Figure 35. Variability in the spatial distribution of fishing effort (days fished from the Vessel
Trip Reports), by the paired midwater trawl fleet, during 2005-2010.

49

Figure 36. Variability in the spatial distribution of fishing effort (days fished from the Vessel
Trip Reports), by the small mesh (codend mesh ≤ 3.5 in.) trawl fleet, during 2005-2010.

50

Figure 37. Differences in the spatial distributions of Atlantic mackerel catches during March and
April of 2004 (top) versus 2005 (bottom). Each circle may represent a portion of a trip if the trip
occurred in different statistical areas. Source: 2009 Working Paper for TRAC assessment of
mackerel.

51

Figure 38. Differences in the spatial distributions of Atlantic mackerel catches during March and
April of 2006 (top) versus 2007 (bottom). Each circle may represent a portion of a trip if the trip
occurred in different statistical areas. Source: 2009 Working Paper for TRAC assessment of
mackerel.

52

sub Appendix 1 (still part of Appenidx 2)
Appendix 1
Table A1: Species-specific total annual incidental catch (mt) and the associated coefficient of
variation across all fleets and regions. Midwater trawl estimates were only included beginning in
2005.
Year

Alewife
Catch CV

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

20.35
55.31
68.24
30.56
40.47
5.45
6.36
482.01
41.25
80.88
3.86
28.37
93.02
2.72
248.43
99.74
347.43
57.61
484.02
145.03
158.66
118.50

0.49
0.68
0.48
0.36
0.51
0.30
0.48
1.07
1.01
1.47
0.96
0.67
1.05
3.86
1.46
0.93
0.42
0.91
0.79
0.43
0.26
0.20

American shad
Catch CV
58.92
25.81
104.27
79.80
50.96
70.31
17.17
39.99
37.00
55.31
15.72
74.39
61.92
24.07
21.37
18.16
78.24
29.29
55.08
52.38
59.54
46.12

0.60
0.34
0.25
0.29
0.52
0.67
0.41
0.38
0.67
0.43
0.41
1.82
0.42
0.41
0.91
0.35
0.32
4.37
0.45
0.32
0.45
0.17

Blueback herring
Catch CV
19.60
78.94
115.41
458.17
210.56
40.16
213.50
1803.43
982.04
49.32
206.66
55.46
120.13
173.23
332.48
81.54
220.04
187.48
180.13
526.59
202.02
125.02

53

0.39
0.44
0.37
0.44
0.40
0.33
0.43
2.10
0.65
1.27
0.59
0.37
0.47
0.31
0.56
0.47
0.38
0.67
1.47
0.57
0.30
0.20

Herring NK
Catch CV
7.08
331.34
110.46
387.54
18.60
9.79
51.89
28.68
67.60
0.42
128.81
21.96
2.10
76.51
15.31
176.74
7.18
232.02
105.31
327.99
180.05
86.50

1.03
0.72
0.48
0.39
0.46
0.59
1.44
0.43
4.25
0.65
1.26
0.53
0.42
1.85
1.21
0.74
0.60
1.16
2.08
0.40
0.91
0.32

Hickory Shad
Catch CV
0.00
0.00
39.35
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.02
26.64
18.27
39.19
56.79
0.06
80.62
1.41
14.30
35.03
19.41
13.35
4.77
7.83
10.89
1.12

0.00

0.31
1.42
0.82
0.90
1.45
0.58
0.80
0.38
1.05
0.89
0.78
0.38
0.81
0.98
0.65
0.83
0.65

Table A2: Mid-Atlantic total annual incidental catch (mt) and the associated coefficient of
variation for bottom trawl, single and paired midwater trawls, gillnet, and all other fleets for each
individual species. Herring NK represents unknown herring. Midwater trawl estimates are only
included beginning in 2005.
Bottom Trawl
Species

Alewife

American
Shad

Single MWT
Catch

Paired MWT

CV

Catch

CV

Gillnet
Catch

Year

Catch

CV

1989

15.55

0.61

0.00

0.00

1990

0.04

1.07

0.00

0.00

1991

54.78

0.59

0.00

0.00

1992

21.74

0.51

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.00

0.00

1995

0.00

3.28

0.00

0.00

1996

386.70

1.33

0.03

1997

7.63

3.31

0.00

1998

0.00

1999

0.13

2.03

0.00

0.76

0.26

2000

1.38

1.28

0.00

6.70

0.88

2001

3.24

0.59

0.83

2002

1.52

6.90

0.00

0.00

2003

201.52

1.80

0.00

0.00

2004

24.83

1.57

0.00

51.49

2005

72.68

0.70

21.35

1.43

2006

19.97

2.47

13.96

1.07

2007

8.87

3.12

0.00

2008

5.20

1.71

1.81

0.57

4.51

2009

4.24

1.10

24.06

0.98

2010

6.85

0.51

3.16

0.92

1989

13.32

1990

0.01

162.03

0.78

2.61

1.11

0.14

CV

Other

0.13

Catch

CV

0.00
0.00

0.30

1.49

1.08

0.00

0.00

1.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.69

0.00

0.00

27.90

0.63

0.00

0.00

5.40

0.52

0.00

0.01

0.41

0.00

0.00

4.15

0.46

0.00

0.00

1991

28.95

0.50

0.00

0.00

1992

20.25

0.42

0.00

0.00

1993

0.71

1.29

0.00

0.00

1994

45.73

1.00

0.43

0.11

0.00

1995

0.46

3.63

1.14

0.55

0.00

1996

2.44

0.51

8.66

0.57

0.00

1997

11.21

1.92

2.78

0.20

0.00

1998

9.49

1.05

20.64

0.34

0.00

1999

1.77

1.89

5.40

0.49

1.48

1.33
2.11

0.00

2000

0.11

0.52

4.27

0.87

64.25

2001

0.78

0.77

59.09

0.44

0.00

54

0.97

Bottom Trawl
Species

Blueback
Herring

Herring
NK

Year

Catch

CV

2002

0.40

2003

Single MWT
Catch

Paired MWT

CV

Catch

CV

Gillnet

Other

Catch

CV

Catch

0.73

1.93

0.41

0.00

9.41

2.03

1.25

0.59

0.01

1.06

2004

3.85

0.62

0.13

0.39

0.04

0.86

2005

8.83

0.40

0.48

1.43

27.30

2006

0.63

2.03

3.92

1.07

0.00

2007

7.75

1.93

0.00

2008

0.85

0.79

1.40

0.27

13.84

0.94

0.00

2009

2.78

0.60

0.12

1.07

0.05

1.02

2.97

2010

13.97

0.43

0.00

0.93

0.76

0.00

0.00

1989

8.93

0.65

0.00

0.00

1990

56.86

0.48

0.00

0.00

1991

49.54

0.53

0.00

0.00

1992

360.88

0.44

0.00

0.00

1993

112.69

0.53

1994

0.00

1995

2.24

3.33

0.17

1.55

0.00

1996

1777.32

2.13

0.03

0.87

0.00

1997

878.61

0.67

0.09

0.48

0.00

1998

49.05

1.28

0.11

0.23

0.00

1999

0.10

0.52

0.01

1.34

0.00

2000

54.02

0.38

0.00

0.53

0.00

0.00

0.00

11.89

10.70

0.00

0.83

2.49

0.00
0.00

6.78

0.00

0.00

0.12

0.00

0.00

1.15

0.00

2001

78.34

0.49

0.19

2002

11.52

0.76

0.00

2003

37.41

1.91

0.15

0.47

0.00

2004

22.23

1.11

0.03

1.04

0.00

2005

16.76

0.45

1.31

0.91

123.94

0.61

0.00

2006

2.99

3.65

151.37

0.81

19.07

1.13

0.01

2007

1.21

1.33

0.00

2008

0.30

1.09

1.58

0.00

CV

0.78

0.02

2.11

0.00

0.00
0.88

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.35

380.77

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.94

2009

5.57

0.32

27.99

0.96

51.90

0.74

0.00

0.01

0.88

2010

7.81

0.86

1.66

0.65

7.51

0.88

0.00

0.01

1.03

1989

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

111.73

0.69

0.00

0.00

1991

76.60

0.56

0.00

0.00

1992

53.54

0.65

0.00

0.00

1993

3.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.08

1.00

0.38

0.10

0.00

1995

0.36

2.82

0.03

0.49

0.07

1996

7.01

0.79

0.32

0.84

0.00

55

1.13

Bottom Trawl
Species

Hickory
Shad

CV

Single MWT
Catch

Paired MWT

CV

Catch

CV

Gillnet
Catch

CV

Other

Year

Catch

1997

0.00

1998

0.07

1.85

0.16

0.25

0.00

1999

45.35

2.06

0.14

1.09

0.00

2000

0.64

0.98

0.23

0.63

6.34

2001

0.93

0.80

0.12

0.62

0.00

2002

2.21

0.73

0.00

2003

0.00

2004

167.25

0.78

2005

1.89

0.73

2006

0.00

2007

10.41

2008

0.00

0.02

Catch

CV

0.00

0.94

0.00
1.68

0.00

0.01

1.29

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

1.50

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.96

0.00

4.76

0.00

0.10

22.37

0.86

0.00

52.40

1.12

75.02

2009

3.84

0.71

0.00

158.78

1.02

2010

43.02

0.58

0.00

0.03

0.97

1989

0.00

1990

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

0.00

0.00

39.35

1992

0.00

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.11

0.17

0.00

1995

0.02

2.09

0.01

0.11

0.00

1996

8.92

0.57

0.47

0.32

0.00

1997

4.82

2.18

5.41

0.80

0.00

1998

0.00

0.47

0.39

0.31

0.98

1999

0.11

0.14

0.71

52.14

0.63

2000

0.00

0.05

0.87

0.00

2001

3.10

10.99

0.53

0.00

2002

0.00

1.28

1.15

0.00

2003

4.58

2.61

1.52

1.73

5.35

0.40

2004

5.44

1.60

19.91

1.25

1.60

2.28

2005

7.32

0.41

0.08

0.12

1.27

0.00

2006

3.83

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

2007

1.59

2.86

0.00

0.00

0.44

2008

0.26

0.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

2009

0.18

1.14

0.00

0.00

1.35

2010

0.02

0.51

0.00

0.00

0.32

0.53

0.73

0.00

2.47
1.04

0.69

56

0.06

0.89

0.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.79

0.82

0.00

2.96

0.95

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.77

0.00
3.63

1.20

2.36

7.14

1.17

0.70

0.64

1.08

Table A3: New England total annual incidental catch (mt) and the associated coefficient of
variation for bottom trawl, single and paired midwater trawls, gillnet, and all other fleets for each
individual species. Herring NK represents unknown herring. Midwater trawl estimates are only
included beginning in 2005.
Bottom Trawl
Species

Alewife

American
Shad

Year

Catch

CV

1989

4.66

0.63

1990

55.27

1991

4.02

1992

Single MWT
Catch

Paired MWT

CV

Catch

CV

0.00

0.13

0.95

0.68

0.00

0.00

0.62

0.00

9.44

0.44

1.92

0.45

0.00

6.90

0.25

1993

33.80

0.61

0.00

6.67

0.28

1994

0.08

1.56

0.00

5.36

0.31

1995

2.10

1.37

0.09

1.07

4.17

0.25

1996

38.37

0.39

1.31

1.02

55.60

0.47

1997

10.08

3.16

0.00

23.54

0.40

1998

80.88

1.47

0.00

0.00

1999

2.96

1.24

0.00

0.00

2000

20.30

0.88

0.00

0.00

2001

88.94

1.10

0.00

0.00

2002

1.20

0.78

0.00

0.00

2003

38.87

0.57

0.03

0.66

8.02

0.46

2004

21.31

0.59

0.04

0.55

2.08

0.74

2005

12.98

0.75

0.02

0.56

4.32

0.52

2006

15.86

2.05

0.43

2007

259.38

1.41

1.82

0.80

2008

0.71

0.38

CV

1.92

0.90

0.52

1.34

1.56

1.81

0.72

0.00

0.41

116.52

2.89

97.42

1.42

0.02

31.84

0.85

40.49

1.04

60.46

0.60

0.00

2009

31.26

0.51

10.60

0.53

57.29

0.42

0.01

0.63

3.30

0.41

2010

28.62

0.40

0.58

0.36

69.08

0.28

0.02

0.49

4.79

0.34

1989

45.43

0.77

0.00

0.18

1.02

1990

18.86

0.44

0.00

2.79

0.56

1991

70.77

0.30

0.00

4.54

1.11

1992

56.54

0.38

0.00

3.01

0.41

1993

49.68

0.53

0.00

0.57

0.97

1994

22.86

0.55

1.12

0.88

0.16

0.76

1995

6.52

0.96

8.89

0.29

0.16

1.05

1996

1.05

4.45

27.82

0.48

0.03

1.10

1997

13.68

0.87

5.01

0.44

4.31

0.60

1998

16.98

1.20

8.19

0.44

0.00

1999

0.93

0.64

6.15

0.71

0.00

2000

1.50

1.20

4.25

0.51

0.00

2001

1.98

0.62

0.07

1.66

0.00

57

0.48

Catch

Other
Catch

71.99

CV

Gillnet

Bottom Trawl
Species

Blueback
Herring

Herring
NK

Year

Catch

CV

2002

4.56

2003

Single MWT
Catch

Paired MWT

CV

CV

Other

Catch

CV

Catch

1.41

17.17

0.44

0.00

8.52

0.41

2.18

0.78

0.02

1.07

2004

11.52

0.52

2.63

0.26

0.00

1.29

2005

7.59

0.48

1.98

2006

3.04

0.60

0.00

2007

1.45

0.28

0.00

2008

2.95

0.38

2.57

1.09

2009

17.98

0.51

20.64

2010

11.22

0.25

0.11

1989

8.20

0.56

0.00

2.48

0.69

1990

19.64

1.11

0.00

2.44

0.60

1991

57.25

0.58

0.00

8.62

0.83

1992

85.85

1.45

0.00

11.44

0.50

1993

96.72

0.61

0.00

1.02

0.55

1994

32.99

0.37

6.64

0.84

0.53

0.71

1995

59.07

0.83

104.57

0.71

47.44

0.48

1996

1.53

1.35

0.23

0.73

24.33

0.36

1997

51.56

4.66

0.00

51.79

0.51

1998

0.00

1999

206.56

0.59

0.00

0.00

2000

1.43

0.87

0.00

0.01

0.67

2001

41.50

1.00

0.00

0.08

0.96

2002

161.07

0.33

0.64

1.23

0.00

2003

279.00

0.61

0.02

0.79

15.90

0.41

2004

54.11

0.55

1.83

0.69

3.34

0.61

2005

15.75

0.70

14.03

1.22

45.50

0.55

0.23

0.80

2.53

0.75

2006

3.14

0.82

7.06

0.73

3.65

0.77

0.00

0.17

0.76

2007

38.65

0.60

72.91

3.51

64.97

1.05

0.01

1.32

2.37

0.83

2008

13.73

0.83

17.46

0.76

109.73

0.84

0.02

1.31

3.01

0.77

2009

42.84

0.56

9.85

0.56

61.42

0.46

0.03

0.84

2.40

0.47

2010

9.79

0.41

0.39

1.09

74.45

0.27

0.07

0.39

23.34

0.45

1989

7.08

1.03

0.00

0.00

1990

218.18

1.04

0.00

1.43

0.82

1991

28.44

1.04

0.00

5.43

1.35

1992

318.11

0.46

0.00

15.88

0.37

1993

14.75

0.58

0.00

0.20

0.51

1994

2.26

0.53

6.73

0.84

0.35

0.56

1995

44.96

1.66

3.69

0.59

2.79

0.91

1996

20.80

0.53

0.30

0.99

0.25

1.08

1.04

Catch

Gillnet

CV

29.97

0.67

2.09

0.25

0.00

0.18

0.63

9.46

1.18

0.15

1.06

17.15

0.78

27.86

0.52

0.03

0.95

2.43

0.84

28.30

0.37

0.04

0.99

0.69

6.76

0.34

7.83

0.28

0.42

0.83

0.49

10.28

0.37

9.61

0.19

0.00

0.17

58

0.72

0.00

Bottom Trawl
Species

Hickory
Shad

Year

Catch

CV

1997

67.48

1998

Single MWT
Catch

Paired MWT

CV

Catch

CV

Gillnet

Other

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

4.26

0.08

1.28

0.04

0.64

0.18

1.27

0.00

1999

83.28

1.59

0.03

2000

14.75

0.68

0.00

2001

0.00

2002

74.30

1.91

0.00

2003

15.25

1.21

2004

9.47

0.63

2005

3.20

1.24

0.15

1.36

2006

57.53

1.49

168.41

1.52

2007

72.42

2.93

0.00

2008

97.17

0.58

0.98

2009

15.01

1.48

0.00

2010

8.52

0.90

0.49

1989

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

0.00

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.10

0.00

0.03

1995

0.00

0.00

0.00

1996

17.26

1.24

0.00

0.00

1997

3.68

3.16

0.00

4.37

1998

38.40

1.48

0.00

0.00

1999

4.40

0.70

0.00

0.00

2000

0.00

0.83

0.00

0.00

2001

66.53

0.45

0.00

0.00

2002

0.12

1.00

0.00

0.00

2003

2.59

1.02

0.27

0.46

0.00

2004

8.04

0.78

0.04

0.84

0.00

2005

2.68

0.45

2.58

1.37

6.56

0.01

0.85

0.00

2006

9.32

1.12

0.15

1.56

0.00

0.04

1.00

0.01

1.06

2007

1.99

0.38

0.37

1.66

0.00

0.28

1.33

0.11

0.98

2008

0.90

0.52

0.00

2.89

0.02

0.91

0.12

1.01

2009

2.05

0.76

0.00

0.00

0.17

0.61

0.00

2010

0.06

0.67

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.68

0.00

0.46

59

0.00
1.03

1.54

1.00

0.46

0.03

0.59

0.00

0.02

0.57

0.00

0.00

0.17

0.52

1.64

0.55

0.00

2.25

0.50

3.75

0.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

102.41

0.93

0.67

0.91

17.84

0.18

0.63

0.19

1.15

0.01

0.05

1.13

0.00

0.86

0.88

0.00

0.63

0.62

0.35

0.78

0.29

0.46

13.34

0.55

1.05

0.63

Table A4: Mid-Atlantic total annual incidental catch (mt) and the associated coefficient of
variation by mesh category for bottom trawl and gillnet for each individual species. Herring NK
represents unknown herring. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.
Bottom Trawl
Small mesh
Species

Alewife

American
Shad

Med. mesh
CV

Gillnet
Large mesh

Small mesh

Catch

Catch

CV

Year

Catch

CV

Catch

1989

15.55

0.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

0.04

1.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

54.78

0.59

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

21.72

0.51

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.10

1995

0.00

3.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

1996

386.66

1.33

0.04

0.53

0.00

0.03

1997

6.74

3.75

0.89

0.44

0.00

0.00

1998

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

CV

Large mesh
Catch

CV

0.30

0.00

Catch

0.00
0.00
0.81

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1999

0.13

2.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2000

1.38

1.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2001

3.24

0.59

0.00

0.00

0.83

0.00

0.00

2002

1.52

6.90

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2003

201.52

1.80

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2004

24.29

1.61

0.54

0.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2005

71.58

0.71

1.11

3.34

0.00

0.14

0.00

0.00

2006

19.20

2.57

0.10

2.74

0.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

2007

8.86

3.12

0.01

0.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2008

4.95

1.80

0.02

1.38

0.24

0.74

0.00

0.00

0.00

2009

3.62

1.28

0.09

1.04

0.53

0.82

0.00

0.00

0.00

2010

6.63

0.53

0.06

0.45

0.16

0.95

0.00

0.00

0.00

1989

11.34

0.48

0.00

1.98

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

4.15

0.46

0.00

1991

16.27

0.49

12.67

1992

20.13

0.42

0.00

0.12

1993

0.71

1.29

0.00

0.00

1994

45.69

1.00

0.00

0.04

1995

0.43

3.92

0.03

0.90

1996

2.42

0.51

0.02

1997

6.17

3.48

5.04

1998

9.49

1.05

0.00

1999

1.57

2.12

0.19

2000

0.11

0.52

0.00

2001

0.61

0.68

0.18

0.94

1.95

1.49

1.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.51

0.00

0.42

0.11

0.01

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.36

1.56

0.78

0.35

0.00

7.54

0.00

7.27

0.68

1.39

0.28

0.00

0.40

0.00

0.53

0.54

2.23

0.22

0.02

0.86

0.00

13.36

0.51

6.49

0.23

0.79

0.87

0.00

1.75

0.77

3.64

0.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.08

4.27

0.87

0.00

0.00

58.84

0.44

0.25

0.65

0.00

0.91
2.48

60

0.75

CV

0.00

0.00
0.12

X-large mesh

Bottom Trawl
Small mesh
Species

Blueback
Herring

Herring
NK

Med. mesh
CV

Gillnet
Large mesh

Small mesh

Catch

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

Large mesh

X-large mesh

Year

Catch

CV

Catch

2002

0.40

0.73

0.00

0.00

1.65

0.48

0.29

0.19

0.00

2003

9.41

2.03

0.00

0.00

0.12

0.70

1.12

0.65

0.00

2004

3.23

0.73

0.25

0.83

0.38

0.70

0.13

0.39

0.00

0.00

2005

7.88

0.44

0.01

3.34

0.94

0.59

0.00

0.00

0.00

2006

0.63

2.03

0.00

0.00

0.11

0.34

11.79

10.80

0.00

2007

4.68

3.16

3.07

0.76

0.00

0.44

1.06

0.39

5.17

0.00

2008

0.51

1.27

0.35

0.60

0.00

0.00

2009

2.39

0.69

0.26

0.69

0.13

0.85

0.69

2010

13.51

0.45

0.38

0.51

0.08

1.11

0.00

0.00

1989

8.93

0.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

49.94

0.52

6.93

1.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

49.53

0.53

0.01

1.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

360.88

0.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1993

112.69

0.53

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.00

0.00

1995

2.18

3.43

0.00

0.06

1996

1777.32

2.13

0.00

1997

877.27

0.68

1.34

1998

49.05

1.28

1999

0.10

0.52

2000

54.02

0.38

2001

78.34

2002
2003

0.00
2.17

0.00

0.00
8.80

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

2.56

0.07

0.40

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.93

0.00

0.86

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.52

0.07

0.60

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.30

0.07

0.33

0.00

0.91

0.00

0.00

0.01

1.34

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.49

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.19

11.52

0.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

37.41

1.91

0.00

0.00

0.15

2004

18.21

1.35

3.90

0.56

0.13

1.06

2005

16.61

0.45

0.13

0.52

0.02

0.91

2006

2.79

3.91

0.20

0.60

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

2007

0.72

2.20

0.49

0.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2008

0.30

1.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2009

5.40

0.32

0.00

0.17

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

2010

7.74

0.87

0.01

0.06

1.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.30

0.47

1.21

2.28

CV

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.47

0.88

1989

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

111.73

0.69

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

76.60

0.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

51.48

0.67

2.07

1.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

3.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.08

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.38

0.10

0.00

0.63

0.00

1995

0.31

3.25

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.18

0.03

0.51

0.00

1996

7.01

0.79

0.00

0.00

0.29

0.93

0.03

0.81

0.00

61

1.09

0.00

0.78

1.04

Bottom Trawl
Small mesh
Species

Hickory
Shad

Year

Catch

1997

0.00

1998

0.07

1999

CV

Med. mesh
Catch

CV

Gillnet
Large mesh

Small mesh

Catch

Catch

CV

CV

Large mesh
Catch

CV

Catch

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.85

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.30

0.13

0.28

0.02

45.35

2.06

0.00

0.00

0.07

0.81

0.07

1.96

0.00

2000

0.60

1.03

0.00

0.04

0.21

0.67

0.02

1.03

0.00

2001

0.93

0.80

0.00

0.00

0.12

0.62

0.00

0.00

2002

2.21

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2003

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.00

2004

167.25

0.78

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2005

1.89

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.06

1.50

0.00

0.00

2006

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.96

0.00

0.00

2007

10.41

4.76

0.00

2.55

0.00

0.00

22.37

2008

52.35

1.12

0.05

0.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2009

3.79

0.72

0.05

0.87

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2010

43.01

0.58

0.01

1.12

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1989

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.11

0.17

0.00

1995

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.11

0.00

1996

8.92

0.57

0.00

0.00

0.16

0.16

0.30

0.49

0.00

1997

3.01

3.40

1.81

0.00

5.40

0.80

0.00

0.91

0.00

1998

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.47

0.39

0.00

0.00

1999

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.14

0.71

0.00

0.00

2000

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

1.07

0.03

1.28

0.00

2001

0.44

0.00

10.94

0.54

0.05

0.87

0.00

2002

0.00

0.00

1.28

1.15

0.00

0.00

2003

4.44

2.70

0.14

0.00

1.52

1.73

0.00

0.00

2004

5.44

1.60

0.00

0.00

0.00

2005

7.11

0.42

0.07

2.60

0.15

2006

3.69

0.74

0.14

6.42

0.00

2007

1.44

3.17

0.15

0.43

0.00

2008

0.24

0.97

0.02

0.78

2009

0.12

1.58

0.05

2010

0.01

1.04

0.00

0.83

0.00

2.47
0.53

2.66

1.24

1.21

0.00
0.71

2.67

2.09

19.91

0.00

0.00

0.63

0.00
0.00

1.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.99

0.00

1.35

2.36

0.00

0.00

1.08

0.01

0.32

0.70

0.00

0.00

0.44

1.27

0.86

0.00

0.53

0.12

1.68

CV

0.00

0.00

62

0.62

0.00

X-large mesh

0.77

0.00

0.91

Table A5: New England total annual incidental catch (mt) and the associated coefficient of
variation by mesh category for bottom trawl and gillnet for each individual species. Herring NK
represents unknown herring. Midwater trawl estimates are only included beginning in 2005.
Bottom Trawl
Small mesh
Species

Alewife

American
Shad

Med. mesh

Gillnet
Large mesh

Small mesh

Large mesh
Catch

Year

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

Catch

1989

4.22

0.69

0.32

1.64

0.12

0.98

0.00

0.00

1990

11.91

1.91

0.00

43.36

0.69

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.28

CV

CV

X-large mesh
Catch

CV

0

1991

3.21

0.74

0.57

0.24

1.17

0.00

0.00

1992

1.16

0.62

0.00

0.76

0.64

0.00

0.00

1993

33.75

0.61

0.00

0.06

1.89

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.00

0.08

1.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

1995

2.10

1.37

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.09

1.07

0.00

1996

38.37

0.39

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.31

1.02

0.00

1997

10.05

3.17

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

1998

80.88

1.47

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1999

2.96

1.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2000

20.30

0.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2001

88.28

1.10

0.00

0.66

1.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

2002

1.16

0.80

0.00

0.04

0.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

2003

38.21

0.58

0.00

0.65

0.40

0.00

0.03

0.66

0.00

2004

21.02

0.60

0.00

0.88

0.28

0.35

0.00

0.04

0.55

0.00

2005

11.53

0.84

0.00

0.13

1.45

0.94

0.00

0.02

0.56

0.00

2006

15.68

0.52

0.00

0.18

0.50

0.00

0.00

2007

258.45

0.41

0.00

0.93

0.65

0.00

0.00

0.02

2008

31.31

0.87

0.00

0.53

0.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

2009

27.75

0.57

0.00

3.52

0.65

0.00

0.01

0.63

0.00

2010

26.81

0.43

0.10

1.71

0.18

0.00

0.02

0.51

0.00

1989

38.90

0.89

0.00

6.53

0.33

0.00

0.00

1990

2.95

0.56

0.00

15.91

0.51

0.00

0.00

1991

6.87

0.50

0.28

63.63

0.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

6.87

0.58

0.00

49.67

0.42

0.00

0.00

1993

38.25

0.68

0.00

11.42

0.41

0.00

0.00

1994

18.89

0.66

0.12

0.69

3.86

0.43

0.00

1.12

0.88

0.00

1995

1.24

0.83

0.03

0.99

5.25

1.18

0.00

8.85

0.29

0.04

1996

0.36

12.72

0.04

0.00

0.64

1.07

0.00

27.82

0.48

0.00

1997

2.10

4.25

0.00

11.58

0.68

0.00

4.86

0.46

0.15

1.04

1998

12.95

0.32

0.00

4.03

4.93

0.00

7.21

0.49

0.98

0.91

1999

0.10

1.24

0.00

0.83

0.70

0.00

4.75

0.86

1.40

1.15

2000

0.00

0.00

1.50

1.20

0.00

4.13

0.52

0.12

0.95

2001

0.84

1.08

0.54

0.00

0.07

1.66

0.00

1.27

0.05

2.33

1.81

1.31

0.66

63

1.39

0.00
1.41

0.84

0.00

0.84

Bottom Trawl
Small mesh
Species

Blueback
Herring

Herring
NK

Med. mesh

Large mesh

Small mesh

Large mesh

Catch

CV

Catch

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

0.17

0.71

0.00

17.10

0.44

0.08

1.08

Catch

CV

Catch

2002

4.39

1.47

0.00

2003

7.35

0.47

0.00

0.85

1.17

0.31

0.00

1.62

1.00

0.56

0.88

2004

10.90

0.55

0.00

1.37

0.61

0.30

0.00

2.49

0.27

0.14

0.73

2005

6.88

0.53

0.00

0.12

0.72

0.20

0.00

2.02

0.26

0.07

0.37

0.62

2.58

0.70

0.00

2007

0.75

0.49

0.00

2008

1.15

0.86

0.05

2009

16.21

0.56

0.00

2010

7.80

0.35

0.02

1989

4.58

0.72

0.00

1990

5.79

1.66

0.00

1991

57.20

0.58

0.01

1992

85.38

1.46

1993

96.08

1994
1995

CV

X-large mesh

Year

2006

CV

Gillnet

0.46

0.24

0.00

9.46

1.18

0.00

0.70

0.26

0.00

27.86

0.52

0.00

1.75

0.29

0.00

28.27

0.37

0.03

1.10

1.77

0.23

0.00

7.65

0.28

0.18

0.79

3.40

0.12

0.00

9.55

0.19

0.06

0.43

3.62

0.89

0.00

0.00

13.85

1.42

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.47

0.72

0.00

0.00

0.61

0.00

0.64

0.59

0.00

0.00

32.94

0.37

0.00

0.05

0.63

0.00

6.64

0.84

0.00

58.98

0.83

0.00

0.09

0.48

0.00

104.57

0.71

0.00

1996

1.53

1.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.23

0.73

0.00

1997

51.49

4.66

0.00

0.07

1.41

0.00

0.00

0.61
1.64

0.93

0.00

0.00

1998

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.17

1999

199.81

0.61

0.00

6.74

1.83

0.00

0.00

0.00

2000

1.41

0.88

0.00

0.02

1.49

0.00

0.00

0.00

2001

41.48

1.00

0.00

0.03

0.97

0.00

0.00

0.00

2002

159.90

0.33

0.02

1.31

1.15

0.56

0.00

0.64

1.23

0.00

2003

272.92

0.62

0.12

0.46

5.97

0.35

0.00

0.01

0.96

0.00

1.36

2004

49.61

0.60

0.02

0.80

4.47

0.53

0.00

1.77

0.71

0.06

0.54

2005

14.73

0.75

0.02

0.16

1.01

0.38

0.00

0.23

0.80

0.00

0.90

2006

2.55

1.01

0.12

0.77

0.48

0.40

0.00

0.00

2007

38.36

0.60

0.01

8.19

0.28

0.45

0.00

0.01

1.32

0.00

2008

13.47

0.85

0.00

0.26

0.41

0.00

0.02

1.31

0.00

2009

42.59

0.57

0.00

0.25

0.60

0.00

0.03

0.84

0.00

2010

8.59

0.46

0.07

1.13

0.41

0.00

0.07

0.39

0.00

1989

6.83

1.07

0.00

0.25

1.00

0.00

0.00

1990

10.95

1.90

0.00

207.24

1.09

0.00

0.00

1991

21.44

1.35

6.35

0.64

1.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

313.19

0.47

0.00

4.92

0.55

0.00

0.00

1993

9.70

0.81

0.00

5.05

0.66

0.00

0.00

1994

0.35

0.99

0.00

1.91

0.60

0.00

6.73

0.84

0.00

1995

44.36

1.69

0.00

0.60

0.40

0.00

3.69

0.59

0.00

1996

20.46

0.54

0.07

0.27

0.68

0.00

0.00

0.48

0.87

0.00

64

0.72

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.30

0.99

Bottom Trawl
Small mesh
Species

Hickory
Shad

Med. mesh

Gillnet
Large mesh

Small mesh

Large mesh
Catch

CV

Catch

CV

1.02

0.04

2.28

Year

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

Catch

CV

Catch

1997

61.89

4.64

5.20

0.62

0.38

0.77

0.00

0.04

1998

0.00

0.00

0.18

1.27

0.00

0.00

1999

83.28

1.59

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

2000

14.31

0.70

0.00

0.44

1.48

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.35

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
1.15

0.00
0.00

2001

0.00

2002

73.95

1.91

0.00

2003

14.49

1.28

0.00

0.76

0.58

0.00

0.03

0.59

0.00

2004

9.24

0.64

0.00

0.22

0.59

0.00

0.02

0.60

0.00

1.16

2005

2.97

1.34

0.01

0.12

0.23

0.29

0.00

0.16

0.55

0.01

0.90

2006

57.15

1.50

0.05

0.63

0.33

0.57

0.00

1.98

0.56

0.27

0.99

2007

72.27

2.94

0.00

0.15

0.51

0.00

0.00

0.00

2008

97.08

0.58

0.00

0.09

0.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

2009

14.70

1.51

0.00

0.30

0.39

0.00

0.63

0.62

0.00

2010

8.27

0.93

0.00

0.26

0.68

0.00

0.29

0.46

0.00

1989

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1990

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1991

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1992

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1993

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1994

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

1995

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1996

17.26

1.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1997

3.43

3.40

0.00

0.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

1998

38.40

1.48

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1999

4.40

0.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2000

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.83

0.00

0.00

0.00

2001

66.32

0.00

0.20

0.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

2002

0.00

0.00

0.12

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2003

2.53

1.05

0.00

0.06

0.93

0.00

0.25

0.48

0.01

2004

7.98

0.79

0.00

0.06

0.39

0.00

0.04

0.84

0.00

2005

2.41

0.49

0.00

0.26

0.56

0.00

0.01

0.85

0.00

2006

9.19

1.14

0.00

0.13

0.32

0.00

0.02

1.88

0.02

2007

1.74

0.43

0.00

0.24

0.36

0.00

0.28

1.33

0.00

2008

0.70

0.66

0.00

0.21

0.45

0.00

0.02

0.91

0.00

2009

1.88

0.83

0.02

0.15

0.35

0.00

0.17

0.61

0.00

2010

0.02

1.24

0.00

0.04

0.80

0.00

0.08

0.68

0.00

0.45

0.00

CV

X-large mesh

0.77

0.92

0.30

65

0.63

0.81

1.54

0.00
0.00

0.84

0.00

0.84

1.05

Appendix 3 - FMAT Recommendations

Summary of September 20 Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) meeting for
Amendment 14 to the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan.

Amendment 14 pertains to reducing the incidental catch of blueback herring, alewife, American
shad and hickory shad in MSB fisheries. Amendment 14 also considers the larger question of
optimal river herring and shad management. The following is a summary of the discussions of
the Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT), at a September 20, 2011 meeting held by
webinar, with respect to Amendment 14 Alternatives.
Attendees:
Didden, Jason (FMAT)

Rudolph, Tom

Ellis, Steven (FMAT)

deFur, Peter

Kelliher, Peter (FMAT)

Lyons Gromen, Pam

Hendrickson, Lisa (FMAT)

Stump, Kenneth

Curti, Kiersten (FMAT)

Cevoli, Kristen

Taylor, Kate (FMAT)

Pellegrino, Joanne

Richardson, Katie (FMAT)

Kaelin, Jeff

Stevenson, David (FMAT)

DiDomenico, Greg

Kitts, Drew (FMAT)

Paquette, Patrick

Szumylo, Aja (FMAT)

Part I: J Didden first summarized the analysis conducted on catch of Atlantic (sea) herring,
Atlantic mackerel, river herrings, and shads. From here on, RH/S = River Herrings/Shads
Incidental catch analysis (full summary found in working paper II)
Despite the fact that management is done by target species, the best way is to look at incidental
catch is by discreet time, area, gear (including mesh size) strata. This avoids problems with the
mixed/overlapping nature of the fisheries that incidentally catch RH/S. Considering incidental
catch by a directed trip definition (e.g. 2,000 pounds of herring or 20,000 pounds of mackerel
retained or landed) can confound data interpretation because: 1) fleets often overlap in
catch/target; and 2) a vessel that fished for, but did not catch the targeted species could be
missed. It should be noted that the observer program did not implement high-volume sampling
protocols until 2005. For this reason, mid-water trawl estimates of incidental catch were only
calculated from 2005 on. This also means that comparisons among all gear groups of such
estimates can only be made from 2005 on.

Data sources included:
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) bottom trawl survey data
NEFSC Northeast Fishery Observer Program observer data
Vessel trip report data
Dealer landings data

Table 4 of Working Paper II summarizes estimated shad catch, by stratum, as a proportion of the
total incidental catch during 2005-2010.
Overall by gear: Midwater Trawl (MWT): 42%; Large Mesh (5.5-8.0 in.) Gillnet: 27%; Small
Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT): 26%
Overall by Area: Mid-Atlantic (M-A): 31%; New England (NE) 69%
By quarter: Quarter 4 NE MWT: 13%; Q1 M-A MWT: 12%; Q3 NE MWT: 8%; Q3 NE Gillnet:
(8%)Q4 NE Gillnet: (8%) (50% of total catch from these 6 strata).

Table 5 of Working Paper II summarizes estimated river herring incidental catch, by stratum, as
a proportion of the total incidental catch during 2005-2010:
Overall by gear group: Midwater Trawl (MWT): 76%; Small Mesh (<= 3.5 in.) Bottom Trawl
(SMBT): 24%
Overall by Area: Mid-Atlantic (M-A): 44%; New England (NE) 56%
By quarter: Quarter 1 (Q1) M-A MWT: 35%; Q4 NE MWT: 16%; Q2 NE MWT: 11%; Q1 NE
SMBT: 7%; Q3 NE MWT: 6%; Q3 NE SMBT: 5% (80% of total catch from these 6 strata).

When discards are subtracted from the incidental catch estimates, the amount of “kept catch” of
Atlantic Herring, for 2005-2010, closely matches the landings values in the dealer database,
generally validating the incidental catch estimation method. Comparisons for river herring and
shad do not match in a similar fashion - this is not surprising given the reported discrepancies in
reporting of landings of the four species.

River herring indices/distribution (full summary in working paper I)
Daytime relative abundance and biomass indices were calculated from NEFSC spring and fall
bottom trawl survey data for blueback, alewife, and American Shad. Catches of hickory shad
only occurred during some years and were too low to construct meaningful indices. It is
important to note that the 2009-2011 indices were converted from Bigelow units to Albatross
equivalents and uncertainties related to the conversion factor were not accounted for in the
overall coefficient of variation (CV) calculations for those years.
Blueback: Fall CVs are very high and the percent of positive tows is low, making these indices
less informative than the spring indices. Spring CVs are lower and the percent of positive tows
is much higher. Fall relative abundance has been above the median since 2002 and the 2009 and
2010 indices were the highest of the time series. Spring relative abundance has been near or
above the median since 2006.
Alewife: CV's are relatively low for Alewife with which also had a higher percentage of positive
tows than Blueback. Fall relative abundance indices were generally below the median from
1975-2001and were above the median from 2002-2010.. The spring survey indices showed
several periods of rises and falls: a decline during 1978-1990, increase during 1990-1999,
decline again during 1999-2005, and increase during 2005-2010. Relative abundance indices
for the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011 were the highest values in each of the time series.
American Shad: Survey indices were noisy with relatively high CVs and low percentages of
occurrence, which made it difficult to discern any real trends in the indices.
It is difficult to interpret the NEAMAP (NorthEast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program)
survey indices given the short time series. Also, because the survey covers a small portion of the
entire survey area, it is not clear whether the indices are measuring overall relative abundance or
migrations in and out of the survey area. Migrations could be in or out of estuarine or deeper
waters compared to NEAMAP.
Maps indicating densities of each species from NEFSC spring and fall surveys, pooled by ten
minute square, and across years, showed a wide distribution of RH/S and overlap of Atlantic
Herring and Mackerel catches during both seasons.

Summary
Lack of status information: Catch of river herring appears higher than shad but given the lack
of coast-wide productivity and biological reference points for these stocks, it is not possible to
quantify the impacts of these incidental catches on stock status. This makes the impact analysis
of alternatives extremely uncertain.
Overlap in managed/directed fisheries: Analysis of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel
landings suggests strong overlap between the two in terms of gear/mesh/area, especially in Q1 in
the Mid-Atlantic.
Spatial-Temporal RH/S catch variability (observer data): GIS analyses of effort and
incidental catch rates of river herring and shad combined, by gear group, suggest that while there
are some areas that appear to have high catch rates of RH/S and low effort, incidental catch rates
were generally highest in the areas where fishing effort was highest. The GIS analyses also
indicated that areas with high incidental catch rates during one time period may not show the
same pattern in another time period.
Spatial-Temporal Effort and Directed Catch Variability: Analysis of the spatial distribution
of effort by paired midwater trawls showed substantial variation among years. Analysis of the
spatial distribution of mackerel catches also showed substantial variation when looking at one
month to the next or the same month across years.
Spatial-Temporal catch variability in the Northeast Science Center Bottom Trawl RH/S:
The results of earlier analyses showing substantial year-to-year variability in trawl survey
catches of RH/S were noted. The sizes and locations of standard deviational ellipses that defined
the core distributions of each species indicated a high degree of inter-annual variability during
both spring and fall.

PART II: Recommendations on Management Measures
1. Vessel Reporting
After further review of the potential biological and economic benefits of additional port-side
sampling versus additional at-sea sampling, the FMAT recommends that a port-side program for
sampling of the landings (i.e. landed weight by species) be resurrected into the DEIS. This
would be structured as a 3rd party provider type program. NMFS has stated on the record that
NMFS cannot furnish funding for new programs. Staff will create alternatives to cover funding
options.
FMAT recommends making VTR submissions be required on a weekly basis throughout all
MSB fisheries for general consistency purposes. There is a lot of overlap between permit
holders for mackerel, Illex and Loligo/butterfish and most Illex permit holders will have to report
weekly for other permits in the near future (especially if the Loligo and mackerel permit holders
have weekly reporting requirements added through this Amendment). FMAT suggests Council
include as a Preferred Alternative.
FMAT recommends deleting 48 hour pre-trip notification because the NEFSC observer program
still needs 72 hours for observer placement. Notification should be preferred if a bycatch cap is
preferred.
FMAT reaffirmed that VMS could be useful if area-based management is used but probably not
worth the cost otherwise (though there would be some benefits for assessments and/or fleet
communications to avoid river herring).
2. Dealer reporting.
2b: The FMAT acknowledged the benefits of vessels confirming dealer data, and more
importantly, for additional enforcement of the current requirement for dealers to obtain VTR
serial numbers from vessel captains to link the dealer and VTR data for each trip. This kind of
cross-checking would need to be catalogued for quality assurance. The Regional Office’s FishOn-Line allows vessels to cross-check their landings, but is not currently mandatory, and not all
vessels may have regular internet access. Changing VTR forms is cumbersome. As discussed
above, alternatives for port-side sampling, by NMFS-certified samplers, to quantify dealer
purchases of landings by species (potentially dealer discards also) should also be included in the
DEIS (across MSB fisheries).
FMAT recommends removing the sort and weigh all fish alternative (2c1/2d1). Sorting all fish
for all dealers is not currently practicable.
FMAT suggests that the other Alternatives (regarding weighing all fish) in Alternative Set 2 be
included in the DEIS, but it is probably not necessary to identify preferred alternatives at this
point within this alternative set.

3. Observer Optimization.
FMAT recommends 3b (reasonable assistance) and 3c (pumping/haul-back notification to
observers) as preferred alternatives.
While the FMAT was unable to come to consensus on the issue of always placing observers on
pair-trawl operations, J Didden checked with observer program regarding placement of observers
on paired-vessels. The observer program is already placing observers on both vessels unless one
vessel is only going to be operating as a “wing boat” (not taking on any fish) so this issue
appears to already have been dealt with by the observer program.
FMAT recommends removing 3f and 3g (pumping a certain portion of a haul to avoid a “slipped
haul designation) because they are unfeasible and/or unenforceable. J Didden confirmed with
observer program that these appear very problematic from their perspective.
Regarding operational discards (OD), which for midwater trawlers are fish stuck in the net that
can’t be pumped into the hold, there is concern that we are dealing with minutia. The observer
program staff has quantified OD for declared midwater trawl Atlantic herring trips during 2010
and found that they averaged 10.6% of the total discards of all species by weight (discards
brought on board as well as discards not brought on board). Given the probable small benefit,
FMAT was leaning toward dropping but additional information on operational discards will be
included in analysis. Follow-up with observer program revealed that operational discards are
now usually being brought onto the vessel and sampled in most cases on observed trips and
vessels have been overall cooperative in this regard.
Regarding trip termination due to slippage, add option where vessels have an individual quota of
slippage events.

4. Dockside Monitoring
4b (3rd party landings weight verification) - FMAT suggests wrapping these into the “to be
added” portside sampling alternatives (hiring of 3rd party certified sampler to obtain the
following trip information: VTR serial number, permit number, vessel gear type, and to
subsample landings and dealer discards by species, then scale them up to the trip level and give
total landings and discard information.
4c (volumetric vessel-hold certifications for Tier 3 mackerel and Loligo moratorium permits) good to have in DEIS, but not necessarily a Preferred Alternative
4d (Sustainable Fisheries Coalition bycatch avoidance project) - Given just involves a
commitment to review, fine to identify as a Preferred Alternative.

5. At-sea observer coverage options
FMAT suggests adding 75% to fill out range.
FMAT has not yet been able to determine which coverage levels would result in various levels of
precision. FMAT will try to have this for the October meeting. However, predicted coverage
levels are based on the assumption that fishing effort and catch variability patterns for each fleet
during the previous 12-month period are indicative of future patterns. To the extent that changes
occur, predicted CVs may or may not be realized. For MWT herring limited access vessels in
Southern New England, Amendment 5 analyses suggested that a 25% coverage level would
result in a C.V. around 0.4-0.5, a 50% coverage level would result in a C.V around 0.2-0.3, and a
75% level of coverage would result in a C.V. around 0.2. These values are for river herring
bycatch estimates.
FMAT recommended splitting alternatives out by gear type - as long as bottom trawl appears
lower than mid-water trawl it might not need as much coverage.
The DEIS will note NERO concerns about any phase-in of industry funding (even the first years
would need to be industry-funded to pay for additional coverage for this to be viable).

6. Caps
Probably should have a fleet-area cap (e.g., midwater trawls in New England) rather than using
the regulatory definition of a "Mackerel" or "Herring" trip to define vessels that are subject to the
cap. In other words, the greatest amount of impact on RH/S bycatch reduction would come from
the implementation of a joint cap on both the herring & mackerel fleets. If one instituted just a
cap on the mackerel fleets, one of two things would happen if the mackerel fishery was closed
due to reaching the cap:
One possibility: mackerel fishery closes and the exact same fleet continues fishing in the exact
same place (Mid-Atlantic Q1) and just retains the Atlantic herring catches and discards mackerel.
Since catch per unit effort of the combined species would go down, overall effort could go up.
Other possibility: Q1 catches of mackerel and Atlantic herring in the Mid-Atlantic are so mixed
that closing mackerel would effectively close herring.
FMAT discussed whether to remove alternatives to have a bycatch cap on shad since shad
incidental catches are much lower than river herring catches, and since shad landings appear
much higher than the incidental catches in the gear types examined. The FMAT also discussed
the possibility of a catch cap that included all four species. No consensus was reached.
FMAT noted that setting the cap would be problematic as river herring would probably be a
"data poor" stock w/o approved biological reference points.

7. Area-Based Management
FMAT recommended removing all mesh-based Alternatives because of a lack of selectivity
information for both the target species and for RH/S in trawl fisheries. (make these alternatives
considered but rejected)
FMAT noted that for other kinds of area-based management, if you eliminate effort in one area,
you need to make sure that the effort is not merely displaced to another area with medium or
high densities of RH/S and that large losses of the target species do not occur as a result of the
closed area. Otherwise the fishery may just increase effort to make up the difference and you
may end up killing more RH/S than in the status-quo case.
So the question then becomes can one quantify what would happen to the target and bycatch
species if effort is shifted because of a closed area. The results of analyses to-date (spatialtemporal effort variability, spatial-temporal directed catch variability, spatial-temporal RH/S
catch variability (observer data), and spatial-temporal catch variability of RH/S in the NEFSC
spring and fall bottom trawl surveys, all suggest that it is not currently possible to determine
whether any small closed area would lead to LESS, the SAME, OR MORE RH/S catch. To
implement area-based management, a very large area would need to be used, and it would need
to also encompass different areas seasonally to incorporate the herring fishery to be effective, to
know that positive impacts resulted for RH/S (probably not practicable for closing an area if also
trying to maintain some portion of the mackerel fishery). Area-based management (large areas)
could be useful for fine-tuning observer coverage. Though again, if coverage is required in a
small area and effort is displaced, it is not currently possible to determine whether any small
closed area would lead to LESS, the SAME, OR MORE RH/S catch.
FMAT recommends removing Herring Amendment 5 small area management alternativea for
same reasons as above as they may do more harm than good.

8. Mesh-based management
FMAT recommends removing all mesh-based alternatives because of a lack of selectivity
information for both the target species and for RH/S in trawl fisheries.

9. Stock in the fishery alternatives.
There have been two primary outstanding issues beyond previous discussions (which will be
incorporated into DEIS).
a. Could you add as a stock in the fishery but use ACL/AM flexibility provisions to defer to
ASMFC for primary management as the NPFMC is considering for salmon and deferring to
Alaska? There are several key differences however, that become evident when reviewing
analysis for updating the NPFMC's salmon plan (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/). First,
Alaska has a long history of well-documented successful/sustainable management with Salmon.
Second, it appears that even in terms of just knowing how much is caught, the salmon situation is
different in that RH/S landings and certainly catch (including discards) appear not as well
documented (especially at the species level). ASMFC moratoriums will likely address most of
the landings but not discards. Given these issues, and given that the ACL flexibility guidelines
still require consistency with Magnuson (which the FMAT interprets to mean that alternatives to
ACLs/AMs must achieve the same results), it would not appear that the Council could add RH/S
as a stock in the fishery and then defer responsibility to cap mortality to the ASMFC at the
current time.
b. How could complementary management measures work? In general, if there was a state
retention prohibition (like Virginia will have as of January 1, 2012) across the states then
ASMFC could request similar measures for Federal Waters. Note: Virginia's prohibition will
also apply to vessels transiting state waters after fishing in the EEZ. The ASMFC could request
complimentary management measures regardless of Council actions.  

Appendix 3‐ Overlap Between Amendment 14 to the Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish FMP (MAFMC) and Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP (NEFMC) 
4

5.3.2

Impacts of Measures to Address Net Slippage (Section 3.2.3)

The Council is considering several options in this amendment, in addition to the no action option, to
address net slippage on Atlantic herring vessels.
For the purposes of this amendment, slippage is defined as:
Unobserved catch, i.e., catch that is discarded prior to being observed, sorted, sampled, and/or
brought on board the fishing vessel. Slippage can include the release of fish from a codend or seine
prior to completion of pumping or the release of an entire catch or bag while the catch is still in the
water.
• Fish that cannot be pumped and that remain in the net at the end of pumping operations are
Appendix 5: Northeast Fishery Science Center Report on Slippage and FISH, NK usage.
considered to be operational discards and not slipped catch. Observer protocols include
documenting fish that remain in the net in a discard log before they are released, and existing
(Borrowed
fromrequire
NEFMC
Herring
Amendment
5)observer in this process. Management measures
regulations
vessel
operators
to assist the
are under consideration in this amendment to address this issue and improve the observers’ ability
to inspect nets after pumping to document operational discards.
• Discards that occur at-sea after catch brought on board and sorted are also not considered slipped
catch.
The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) documents Released Catch/Catch Not Brought on
Board as either operational discards (fish that cannot be pumped and/or remain in the gear after a
successful pump – i.e., “left in net after pumping,” “fell out of gear when pumps were switched”), partial
slippage (some fish were kept – i.e., “vessel capacity filled,” “too many dogfish,” “poor quality haul,”
“did not like the mackerel:herring ratio,” etc.), full slippage (no fish were kept – i.e., “herring too small,”
“too many dogfish,” “undesired catch,” “not enough fish worth pumping,” etc.), or gear damage.
Operational discards are observed and documented to the extent practicable by the observer (as Fish NK
or Herring NK – see more information below). Partial and full slippage events are considered to be
“unobserved,” but observers still collect as much information about the released catch as they can for
these events.

5.3.2.1

Analysis of Available Slippage Data

This section provides a summary and technical assessment of available information collected by
observers at the NEFOP about Released Catch/Catch Not Brought on Board.
Data on slippage events need to be collected in a more consistent manner, and this amendment provides
an opportunity to implement the necessary elements of a catch monitoring program to do so. Originally,
the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program was not designed to sample high-volume fisheries for species
composition and/or collect detailed information about released catch events and net slippage, but this is a
need that has arisen in recent years and something that continues to be addressed in the observer sampling
protocol, added to observer logs, and addressed through provisions requiring detailed information when
slippage events occur. The NEFOP has taken significant steps to improve the collection of this
information since before the Council began the development of Amendment 5. Analyses of available
slippage data collected by observers over recent years confirms that (1) information about these events
and the amount and composition of fish that are slipped has improved; and (2) the number of full/partial
slippage events occurring on limited access herring vessels has declined.

Observer Coverage Levels
Table 144 summarizes coverage rates from the NEFSC Observer Program for the 2007-2010 calendar
years (also the herring fishing years) by gear type for all trips that landed greater than 2,000 pounds of
Atlantic herring. 2008, 2009, and 2010 have seen relatively high levels of coverage across all major gear
types in the fishery. Summary coverage rates based on the number of trips observed as a percentage of
the number of trips taken are 4.1% in 2007, 14.8% in 2008, 20.6% in 2009, and 31.7% in 2010. During
the 2010 fishing year (regardless of trip type), the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program covered trips for
about 46% of all Atlantic herring landings.

Table 144 Observer Program Coverage Rates for Trips Landing Greater than 2,000
pounds of Herring, 2007-2010
Year

Gear
Type

Total
Trips

Total
Days

Total Herring
Landed (lbs.)

Obs
Trips

Obs
Days

Obs
Herring
Kept (lbs.)

%
trips
obs

%
days
obs

%
herring
obs

2007

OTF

397

569

10,518,575

12

15

411,751

3%

3%

4%

2007

OTM

138

451

17,491,210

10

40

1,918,285

7%

9%

11%

2007

PTM

240

849

74,405,385

14

58

6,880,147

6%

7%

9%

2007

PUR

346

743

70,088,194

10

23

2,122,267

3%

3%

3%

2008

OTF

100

234

4,588,190

4

4

70,409

4%

2%

2%

2008

OTM

28

107

8,816,600

16

59

3,163,763

57%

55%

36%

2008

PTM

269

1044

110,453,766

46

176

27,211,668

17%

17%

25%

2008

PUR

232

550

59,211,542

27

64

6,941,134

12%

12%

12%

2009

OTF

180

306

9,647,215

11

15

554,579

6%

5%

6%

2009

OTM

50

242

13,875,075

16

69

3,747,316

32%

29%

27%

2009

PTM

356

1321

153,345,903

98

350

49,596,367

28%

26%

32%

2009

PUR

223

596

49,706,514

42

130

9,943,521

19%

22%

20%

2010

OTF

185

343

8,452,546

9

22

298,691

5%

6%

4%

2010

OTM

58

230

19,851,018

32

122

10,190,452

55%

53%

51%

2010

PTM

290

1129

98,165,321

128

545

47,528,352

44%

48%

48%

OTF – small mesh bottom trawl; OTM – single midwater trawl; PTM – paired midwater trawl; PUR –
purse seine
Herring is Atl Herring or Unk Herring
Day defined as (date land - date sail) + 1
Landings data from Vessel Trip Reports

A closer look at observer coverage for the primary gear types in the herring fishery show that coverage
rates have been relatively high for the most recent years. Table 145 summarizes observer coverage levels
for 2009 by gear type, based on number of trips and number of sea days corresponding with landings
from the VTR, Dealer, and IVR databases. All observed trips for these gear types (SMW = single
midwater trawl, PMW = paired midwater trawl, and PS = purse seine) are included in Table 145
regardless of target species or pounds of herring landed. The totals also include trips covered by two or
more observers (i.e., pair trawl trips, trips with catcher/carriers). Overall, coverage across the vessels
using the primary gear types in the herring fishery was greater than 20% in 2009 and averaged close to
30% based on herring landings.

Table 145 Summary of NEFOP Observer Coverage Levels by Gear Type, January –
December 2009
# trips
SMW PMW PS
18
138
53
78
489
222

OBS
VTR
Dealer
IVR

% coverage 23%

Metric tons of herring
landed

# sea days

28%

Total SMW PMW PS
209
74
473
162
789
352
1844 591

24% 26%

21%

26%

Total Total
709
28,938
2787 106,301
101,025
102,617

27% 25%

27% (VTR)
29% (Dealer)
28% (IVR)

A detailed assessment of observer coverage rates based on limited access herring permit category further
confirms that the NEFOP has been covering the vessels managed by the Herring FMP and subject to the
Amendment 5 provisions at relatively high levels in recent years. Table 146 summarizes observer
coverage by the NEFOP for 2009 and 2010 collectively (combined). The total percent coverage based on
the weight of herring landed was 33%; compared to the coverage rates in prior years, coverage for
midwater trawls and purse seine vessels has never been as high.

Table 146 Observer Program Coverage Rates for 2009-2010, by Gear and Permit Category

Permit

A
A/B
A
A
B/C
D

Gear

Pair Trawl
Single Trawl
Purse Seine
Bottom Trawl
Bottom Trawl
Bottom Trawl

Total
Trips

Total
Days

882
123
398
1,020
5,278
36,511

3,382
530
1,086
4,344
11,262
83,639

Trips w/
Herring
683
108
362
118
409
657

Total
Herring
Landed
(000's of
pounds)
250,685
33,726
66,752
12,202
5,710
454

Obs
Trips
329
54
101
119
465
2,609

Obs Days

1,250
211
290
713
1,068
9,386

Observed
Herring
%
% Trips % Days
Kept
Herring
Obs
Obs
(000's of
Obs
pounds)
96,696
37%
37%
39%
13,918
44%
40%
41%
11,794
25%
27%
18%
482
12%
16%
4%
356
9%
9%
6%
25
7%
11%
6%

2008/2009 Slippage Information
*It is important to note that 2008/2009 slippage information is not directly comparable to 2010 slippage
information due to increased observer coverage, changes to observer protocols, and implementation of
the observer discard log in 2010. While the 2008/2009 information is useful to generally characterize
the nature/extent of slippage in the fishery, it is not a complete record of slippage events observed
during these years (unlike 2010); 2010 slippage data has been determined by the Herring PDT to be
more complete and more reliable.
Table 147 provides some information about released catch in the herring fishery based on observed trips
during 2008 and 2009 where slippage events occurred and details were provided by the vessel
captain/operator. In general, released catch includes operational discards (fish sill in gear after pumping
is completed), partial slippage (some fish pumped), full slippage (no fish pumped), and gear damage.
Partial/full slippage accounted for about 1.5% of total observed catch in 2008 and 2009 (total observed
catch – 120,932,721 pounds). When operational discards were observed during 2008 and 2009,
comments indicated fish “were left in net after pumping” or “fell out of gear when pumps were switched.”
Operational discarding events represent the smallest amounts of released catch (see Figure 80). Partial
slippage events included comments like “vessel capacity filled,” “too many dogfish,” “poor quality haul,”
“pump jammed by dogfish,” and “captain did not like the mackerel:herring ratio.” Full slippage events
included comments like “herring too small,” “too many dogfish,” “not enough to be worth pumping,” and
“undesired catch, thought he set on herring” (Figure 81 and Figure 82).
For the 2008/2009 data, NEFOP staff examined the data by hand to investigate and summarize comments
that were provided about slippage events. Sampling protocols in 2008/2009 did not include
comprehensive and detailed documentation of slippage events, so there were events for which no
comments were provided. The data in Table 147 and Figure 80 – Figure 83, therefore, do not represent
all slippage events that were observed, but rather just the events for which additional information was
provided by the captain. This is no longer the case, as the NEFOP discard log implemented in 2010, as
well as observer re-training for high-volume fisheries sampling, has produced clearer protocols for
observers and allowed for detailed information to be collected about all slippage events that are observed
in the fishery (see additional 2010 information below).

Table 147 Frequency of Released Catch Events 2008/2009
year
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009

month # hauls covered
18
Jan
Feb
13
Mar
17
Apr
7
May
21
Jun
27
Jul
34
Aug
14
Sep
5
Oct
40
Nov
24
Dec
18
38
Jan
Feb
28
Mar
16
Apr
17
May
33
Jun
35
Jul
43
Aug
36
Sep
85
Oct
64
Nov
67
Dec
11

kept lbs observed
822,447
2,621,846
2,184,187
1,890,207
4,884,872
2,560,004
3,712,098
2,626,778
110,020
6,617,020
5,181,209
4,794,028
7,432,979
2,782,767
1,958,569
3,585,031
3,711,450
2,339,028
5,773,521
3,040,099
17,204,553
10,046,838
11,730,652
131,920

# hauls w/ released catch
0
0
5
0
1
2
5
0
1
6
2
4
2
6
2
3
10
22
23
15
27
20
34
2

estimated lbs released

17,000
20,000
280
250,600
200
18,740
130
25,400
10,201
175,950
226,000
300
107,675
28,595
181,580
81,650
402,117
214,400
938,215
6,025

Figure 80, Figure 81, and Figure 82 summarize the comments that NEFOP observers received from vessel
captains regarding released catch events in 2008 and 2009. During these years, the estimates of the
amount of released catch were most often provided by the captains. These figures only summarize events
for which comments were provided by the captain; providing these details is voluntary, and while
cooperation between the industry and observers has always been good, additional details were not
required, and observers did not ask as many questions about the released catch until the implementation
of the discard log in 2010. Based on comments received for some of the events that occurred in 2008 and
2009, operational discards and gear damage accounted for 55% of the released catch events, but
represented a much smaller fraction of the total estimated weight of released catch (less than 6%). The
estimated weight of partial slippage events (events for which captains provided an estimate) in 2008/2009
averaged 45,175 pounds, and the estimated weight of full slippage events (when comments were
provided) averaged 27,581 pounds (Figure 80 and Figure 81).

Figure 80 Analysis of Comments Regarding Released Catch 2008/2009
1,000,000

Estimated Weight of Discards (lbs)

100,000

10,000

min-max
mean
median

1,000

Q1-Q3
100

10

1
operational discards

gear damage

partial slippage

full slippage

Figure 81 Analysis of Comments Regarding Released Catch 2008/2009 (continued)
40

# of Hauls with
Released Catch

35

37

30
25

25

20
15

19

20

gear damage

partial slippage

10
5
0
operational discards

full slippage

1,000,000

Total Estimated
Weight of Catch (lbs)

900,000

903,500

800,000
700,000

689,529

600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0

10,376

89,390

operational discards

gear damage

partial slippage

full slippage

Figure 82 Information About Full and Partial Slippage Events 2008/2009

Average Estimated
Weight of Catch
(lbs/haul)

140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000

full

60,000

partial

40,000
20,000
0

4,000

1,689
"not worth it"

undesired species capacity filled

poor quality/size

3,250
pump issues

Slippage information collected by observers in 2008 and 2009 was also examined to identify
similarities/differences between events occurring on vessels using different gear types (Figure 83). The
information provided in 2008 and 2009 suggests that purse seine vessels may experience more released
catch events as a result of operational discards and/or gear damage than midwater trawl vessels. Purse
seine vessels fish almost exclusively in the inshore Gulf of Maine (Area 1A), and the nature of the gear
and the operation of the fishery may result in more instances of operational discards and/or gear damage.
This is an important consideration relative to management measures that would require purse seine
vessels to bring all fish across the deck for sampling, including operational discards (i.e., recently-revised
Closed Area I sampling provisions).
However, as indicated in Figure 83 and previously discussed, comments were not provided for all
released catch events, and information about these events is incomplete. The implementation of the
discard log in 2010, along with increased cooperation from the industry and a desire by everyone to
obtain better information about released catch, has improved sampling, reduced the amount of released
catch that could not be observed, and improved the quality of information collected about these events
(see 2010 information below).

Figure 83 Analysis of Comments Regarding Released Catch 2008/2009 by Gear Type

2010 Slippage Information
*It is important to note that 2008/2009 slippage information is not directly comparable to 2010 slippage
information due to increased observer coverage, changes to observer protocols, and implementation of
the observer discard log in 2010. While the 2008/2009 information is useful to generally characterize
the nature/extent of slippage in the fishery, it is not a complete record of slippage events observed
during these years (unlike 2010); 2010 slippage data has been determined by the Herring PDT to be
more complete and more reliable.
The NEFOP has updated its observer training program to address new requirements for herring vessel
access to Closed Area I as well as general training for observing high volume fisheries. In 2010, the
NEFOP conducted three high-volume fishery training classes to recertify 70 observers. The program was
designed to improve sampling in fisheries that pump fish on board and ensure that only experienced
observers who have proven high data quality will be assigned to these fisheries. The program was
developed to improve fishery-specific training and focuses on defining gear, understanding bycatch
issues, knowing and identifying species of concern, subsampling methodology, common scenarios,
safety, and the process of pumping fish on board.
The NEFOP also implemented a discard log in 2010 to obtain more detailed information regarding
discards in high-volume fisheries. The new discard log is being completed for every haul, and it includes
fields to provide information on what kind of discard event may have occurred, whether or not the
observer could see the contents of the codend when pumping stopped, why catch may have been
discarded, information about the composition of discarded catch, and any challenges the observer may
have experienced when observing the haul. Observers are also documenting released catch (including
operational discards and slippage events) with photographs whenever possible, and bringing in samples of
fish from every trip to confirm species identification.
Between increased observer coverage levels, an increase in information being provided by the fishermen
and crew, and the new observer discard log implemented in 2010, data collected by observers regarding
released catch events on limited access herring vessels during the 2010 fishing year provides much more
detail about catch not brought on board herring vessels, and overall, the information collected about
slippage has improved considerably. Operational discards have been confirmed by observers to be
relatively small amounts of fish that may remain in the net following a successful haul/pump; these fish
are usually caught in the net and/or cannot be pumped on board. Information collected by observers
about operational discards has improved, and hauls with operational discards are considered to be
“observed” hauls; the operational discards are estimated by the observers and represent “small” amounts
of fish. Any partial or full released catch (“slippage” as defined in Amendment 5) is considered
unobserved, but observers still collect as much information as possible about these discards.
In 2010, observer coverage for the midwater trawl fleet was close to 30% fishery-wide and was even
higher on Georges Bank (85% coverage by weight of fish landed). Overall, observers provided data for
929 hauls on limited access herring vessels during the 2010 fishing year. The new discard log allows
observers to provide more information about reasons for not bringing fish on board, including who
estimated the released catch, additional details regarding why the catch was released, and whether the
discards were observed on the deck or in the water; additional information from the 2010 discard log
should be available by the end of this year and will be added to the final Amendment 5 EIS document.

Table 148 provides data for the 332 observer records (287 unique hauls) in 2010 that included fish not
brought on board. About 290 of these hauls were documented with “not enough fish to pump,” i.e.,
operational discards. Observers document operational discards as Herring NK if they are able to see the
fish that are not pumped and confirm that the discards are all herring-bodied fish. Otherwise, the discards
are documented as Fish NK (see below for more information about the evolution of the Herring NK and
Fish NK categories). The total weight of fish not brought on board estimated by observers in 2010 was
about 460,000 pounds; this includes operational discards, which, although more frequent, generally
represent very small amounts of fish. Total herring landings for this fleet in 2010 were about 58 million
pounds.
A preliminary review of the observer data indicate that in 2010, only 35 records (approximately 30 unique
hauls) of 929 hauls (3.2%) that were observed on limited access herring vessels were documented to have
experienced full or partial slippage events. The total estimated catch not brought on board compared to
the total observed catch on these vessels in 2010 was about 0.7% (this does not include fish that were
brought on board and then discarded). In addition, there were 99 hauls observed in Closed Area I during
2010, under the new provisions for sampling catch, implemented in November 2009. There were no
slippage events observed in these 99 hauls, and consequently no Released Catch Affidavits were
submitted from the Closed Area I fishery in 2010. There appears to have been one released catch event
(estimated 1,500 pounds) on a haul that ended (but did not begin) in Closed Area I. However, the
recently-implemented revisions to the Closed Area I rules (January 2011) require that all operational
discards be brought on board; potential logistical and sampling issues associated with this new
requirement are unclear because fishing effort has not yet moved into Closed Area I this year.

Estimated weight (lbs)

Number of hauls with occurrence

Table 148 Summary of 2010 Observed Events on Limited Access Herring Vessels (by
Number and Estimated Weight of Fish in Lbs.) with Fish Not Brought on Board
"reason not
"gear
"fell out of
"no market
"vessel capacity "not enough
specified"
damage"
gear"
value"
filled"
fish to pump"
species
butterfish
1
1
haddock
6
herring nk
3
1
105
atl herring
1
1
18
mackerel
1
1
4
redfish
7
spiny dogfish
1
striped bass
1
1
whiting
1
4
fish nk
10
5
3
2
3
138
hake nk
6
lobster
1
Loligo
1
1
Illex
2
eel nk
2
butterfish
5
1
haddock
72
herring nk
410
3,000
20,622
atl herring
100
175
6,425
mackerel
50
175
155
redfish
38
spiny dogfish
25
striped bass
12
10
whiting
10
372
fish nk
169,450
108,000
4,700
44,000
20,050
72,766
hake nk
215
lobster
10
Loligo
3
10
Illex
13
eel nk
8,150

Figure 84 Observed Events on Limited Access Herring Vessels (by Number of Hauls) with
Fish Not Brought on Board in 2010

Figure 85 Observed Events on Limited Access Herring Vessels (by Estimated Weight of
Fish in Pounds) with Fish Not Brought on Board in 2010

Use of “Herring NK” and “Fish NK”
It is important to understand the use of the Fish NK and Herring NK categories in the observer data and
the ongoing effort by the NEFOP to reduce these categories and better document all fish either kept,
discarded, transferred, or not brought on board in the limited access herring fishery. In 2009, the NEFOP
transitioned to the use of Fish NK to represent the component of the catch for which observers could not
verify identification. This includes partial and fully released tows and operational discards. Prior to
2009, Fish NK, or Herring NK, or Atlantic herring were used to describe this component of the catch,
depending upon observer determinations based on their own visual inspection and/or captain and crew
input.
In 2009, the NEFOP also transitioned to the use of Fish NK to represent the composition of the catch
pumped to the paired vessel when an observer is not present on the boat taking on the fish. Prior to 2009,
Atlantic herring, or Herring NK, or Fish NK were used to represent this component of the catch, based on
the observers assumption that partial catches being pumped to the vessel they were deployed on, were
made up of the similar species composition of that being pumped to the alternate vessel. The 2009 and
2010 protocols for the use of Fish NK and Herring NK were consistent. Using the most recent data as an
example (Table 149), the majority of Fish NK records in 2010 (54%) are associated with fish that were
pumped to the paired vessel without an observer present to subsample. These fish were landed, sold, and
documented through the dealer and VTR data (along with IVR at the time), and the landings may have
been sampled through a State portside sampling program.
In 2010, Herring NK was documented on 122 hauls, and Fish NK was documented on 200 hauls. The
majority of Herring NK (86%) was due to “not enough fish to pump” (operational discards). Sixty nine
percent (69%) of Fish NK was associated with operational discards. In general, the amounts of fish
classified in these categories per haul are relatively small. There was one sampling event in 2010 that
documented 30,000 pounds of Herring NK “kept,” which represents almost half of all Herring NK
observed in 2010 (Table 149, Figure 86, Figure 87). In this one event, the observer was able to see the
fish as they came on board, and during the pumping process, the observer could confirm that the fish were
all herring-bodied fish but could not obtain basket samples for safety reasons. About ½ of observed Fish
NK and Herring NK in 2010 was landed; in these cases, portside sampling would be beneficial to confirm
the species composition of the landings.
The remaining Fish NK records are mostly associated with fish that were discarded and the reason was
not specified, fish that were discarded due to gear damage and operational discards. Operational discards
that the observer is able to visually inspect and therefore term Herring NK instead of Fish NK, represent
36% of the herring NK records. Nine percent (9%) of the Herring NK records are associated with fish
that mainly fell from the chute, were seen by the observer and therefore identified as herring, then washed
overboard. Species identification issues also result in the use of Fish NK or Herring NK. In these cases,
an observer has sent in a whole fish sample, which is identified by experienced staff at the NEFOP. If the
observer has mis-identified the species the use of Fish NK or Herring NK may be used. In 2010, there
was one record changed to Herring NK due to mis-identification of the species.

Number of hauls with occurrence

Table 149 Quantification of Fish NK and Herring NK (in Pounds) on Observed Hauls by Limited Access Herring Vessels in 2010
species
group

"kept"

"kept,
transferred
to other
vessel"

"discarded,
other"

"discarded,
poor
quality,
gear
damage"

"discarded
no
market,
too small"

"discarded
no market,
reason not
specified"

"not
brought
onboard
reason not
specified"

"not
brought
onboard
gear
damage"

"not
brought
onboard
fell out
of gear"

"not
brought
onboard
no
market
value"

"not
brought
onboard
vessel
capacity
filled"

herring
nk

2

0

10

0

1

1

0

0

3

0

0

"not
brought
onboard
not
enough
fish to
pump"
105

1.6%

0%

8.2%

0%

0.8%

0.8%

0%

0%

2.5%

0%

0%

86.1%

6

11

14

1

0

5

10

5

3

3

4

138

3%

5.5%

7%

0.5%

0%

2.5%

5%

2.5%

1.5%

1.5%

2%

69 %

fish nk

TOTALS

122

200

Observed Pounds

322
herring
nk
fish nk

30,004

0

5,620

0

100

150

0

0

410

0

0

20,622

52.73%

0%

9.9%

0%

0.2%

0.3%

0%

0%

0.7%

0%

0%

36.2%

110

692,240

67,065

20

0

90,430

169,450

108,000

4,700

52,000

23,050

72,766

0.01%

54.1%

5.2%

0%

0%

7.1%

13.2%

8.4%

0.4%

4.1%

1.8%

5.7%

56,906

1,279,831

1,336,737

Figure 86 Use of Fish NK and Herring NK Codes on Observed Limited Access Herring
Trips (by Number of Hauls) in 2010

Figure 87 Use of Fish NK and Herring NK Codes on Observed Limited Access Herring
Trips (by Estimated Weight) in 2010

Available information suggests that the amount of fish estimated to be slipped in full/partial slippage
events is less than 100,000 pounds. Information provided by vessel captains in 2008/2009, although
incomplete, indicates that the estimated weight of partial slippage events (events for which captains
provided an estimate) in averaged 45,175 pounds, and the estimated weight of full slippage events (when
comments were provided) averaged 27,581 pounds (Figure 80 and Figure 81). Information about
slippage events and details about the released catch improved considerably in 2010 with the establishment
of the new discard log. In addition, the observed number of slippage events declined in 2010. Figure 88
and Figure 89 characterize discards observed in 2010 and provide some perspective on slippage events by
gear type and management area. Because few slippage events were observed in 2010 (with a relatively
high level of observer coverage across the fishery), disaggregating the data is more difficult due to
confidentiality restrictions. However the information in Figure 88 and Figure 89 show that discards atsea, in total, represent a very small fraction of catch on herring vessels; catch not brought on board
represented the highest fractions of total catch for purse seine and pair trawl vessels fishing in Areas 1 and
2 (purse seine vessels only fish in Area 1).

Figure 88 Summary of 2010 Observed Catch (Pounds) on A/B/C Herring Vessels on
Declared Herring Trips by Gear Type, Management Area, and Disposition
30
Not Brought Onboard

Pounds Observed (Millions)

209

Operational Discards

25

Discarded, Brought Onboard
Kept

20

labels = number of hauls w/ catch

15
62

78
95

10
5
68

50

BOT (3+2)

PS (1A)

19

0
SMW (1A+3+2)

PMW (1A)

PMW (1B)

PMW (3)

PMW (2)

BOT – Bottom Otter Trawl; PS – Purse Seine; SMW – Single Midwater Trawl; PMW – Paired Midwater
Trawl

Figure 89 Summary of 2010 Observed Discards (as Percent of Total Observed Catch) on
A/B/C Herring Vessels on Declared Herring Trips by Gear Type, Management
Area, and Disposition
4.0%

Percent of Total Catch

3.0%

Not Brought Onboard

2.1M

3.5%

Operational Discards
Discarded, Brought Onboard

1.5M

12M

labels = total weight of catch

2.5%

12M

2.0%
1.5%
1.0%

2.5M

25M

PMW (1B)

PMW (3)

0.5%
10M

0.0%
BOT (3+2)

PS (1A)

SMW (1A+3+2)

PMW (1A)

PMW (2)

BOT – Bottom Otter Trawl; PS – Purse Seine; SMW – Single Midwater Trawl; PMW – Paired Midwater
Trawl

nce Center Trrawl Survey D
Data for RH/S
Appendix 6: Northeastt Fishery Scien

Appendix 7: Summary of School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) and Sustainable Fisheries 
Coalition (SFC) Voluntary River Herring/Shad Avoidance Project 

Appendix 8 - Comments received on the DEIS before the June 2012 Council Briefing
Book was created.

MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Richard B. Robins, Jr.
Chairman
Lee G. Anderson
Vice Chairman

800 North State Street, Suite 201
Dover, Delaware 19901-3910
Tel: 302-674-2331
Toll Free: 877-446-2362
FAX: 302-674-5399
www.mafmc.org

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D.
Executive Director

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 1, 2012
TO: Council
FROM: Jason Didden
SUBJECT: MSB Amendment 14
The Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish (MSB) Committee and MSB Advisory Panel will be meeting Friday
June 8, 9am-noon via webinar (https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/126160849) to review the
alternatives in the document, review public comment, and get input from the Advisory Panel. The
comment close for Amendment 14 is June 4, but the comments received to date are included following
this page. A summary of the in-person public hearings, and any additional written comments received
will be forwarded to the Council before the June 8 webinar. Once all public comments are received,
staff may submit staff recommendations regarding Amendment 14 and these will be distributed before
the Council meeting and posted to the web page noted below.

The MSB Committee will meet on Tuesday June 12, 2012, 9am-noon to consider actions on
Amendment 14 to recommend to the Council. The Council will take up the issue on Wednesday. If
requested, a hard copy of the Amendment’s DEIS was mailed with the Council briefing documents and
is available electronically at: http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbAm14current.htm.

There was also a joint Amendment 14 – Amendment 5 (Atl. Herring) technical meeting on May 22 that
looked at coordination issues. A summary of that meeting is being finalized and will be distributed once
complete.

Summary of Rating Definitions and Follow-up Action
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO--Lack of Objections
The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the
proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be
accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
EC–Environmental Concerns
The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the
environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation
measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these
impacts.
EO--Environmental Objections
The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate
protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or
consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA
intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory
The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with
the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS
stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ.
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category 1--Adequate
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those
of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary,
but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.
Category 2--Insufficient Information
The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available
alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be
included in the final EIS.
Category 3–Inadequate
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the
action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of
alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of
such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is
adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made
available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts
involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.

5-12-12

Mr. Daniel Morris
Deputy Regional Administrator
NMFS
55 Great Republic Dr.
Gloucester, Mass. 01930
Dear Mr. Morris:
I am writing on behalf of the Delaware River Shad Fishermen's Association (DRSFA). We are a 700
member conservation group working to preserve, protect and restore migratory fish to the Delaware
River and its tributaries. We strongly support the most vigorous protection ofthe remaining shad and
herring species along our Atlantic coast.
For years, our coastal communities have worked tirelessly to restore culturally and economically
significant species such as river herring and shad to rivers along the Atlantic coast. At the same time, the
incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad annually by the mid-Atlantic mackerel and squid
fisheries remains largely unmonitored and unregulated. I am concerned about this serious, ongoing
threat to these already-depleted species that undermines efforts to restore our estuaries and rivers.
River herring and shad populations are at historic lows, and landings have declined coastwide by 99 and
97 percent, respectively. In response, most Atlantic states prohibit the taking of river herring in coastal
waters and are advancing similar restrictions on American shad. These populations are in dire need of
conservation and management, so it is critical that they are given protection in federal waters under
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Because
these fish have been depleted so severely, the council should choose the option with the most positive
biological impact:
Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery (Alternative 9b-ge).
Developing the long-term protections associated with this designation will take time. Therefore, the
council should adopt the following interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch of
river herring and shad:

** A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c), that ftmctions effectively, does not increase
wasteful discarding, and cannot be circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These
alternatives should be modified to more effectively ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is
reached by lowering the amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed, or retained.
I strongly urge you to also incorporate all ofthe following:

** 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips. One observer must be assigntMIW
each vessel in a pair trawl operation (Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).

2 1 2012

**An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled catch. All catch,
including "operational discards," must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling
(Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a fleetwide limit of
10 dumping events (Alternative 31 and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their
next trip (Alternative 30).

** A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your commitment to these priority reforms.

Charles Furst, President DRSFA
Po 221
Solebury, Pa 18963

***IDENTICAL AMENDMENT 5&14 COMMENT*** 
533 identical comments (7 were altered) 
Dear Mr. Moore, 

Dear Regional Managers, 

I’m very concerned about the impacts of industrial fishing on river herring. 
I would very much appreciate it if you would adopt a comprehensive monitoring and bycatch reduction 
program for river herring, which I’m told are not currently considered in your management of either the 
Atlantic herring fishery or the Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish fishery. I think it’s great that most Atlantic 
states now ban the catch of river herring in state waters, but it worries me that these efforts are not 
matched in federal waters. Large scale fisheries such as these can have major impacts, and should be 
monitored and managed carefully to minimize impacts to not only river herring, but other species like 
groundfish. I support your initiative to improve this aspect of both these fisheries. 

Specifically, if the monitoring and bycatch reduction program you adopt could include the following, I 
would be much obliged. Here’s what I’d like to see the New England Fishery Management Council adopt: 
• A catch limit, or cap, on the total amount of river herring caught in the Atlantic herring fishery (Section 
3.3.5, modified to require immediate implementation of a catch cap). 
• 100 percent at‐sea monitoring on all midwater trawl fishing trips in order to provide reliable estimates 
of all catch, including bycatch of depleted river herring and other marine life (Section 3.2.1.2 Alternative 
2). 
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of catch, including a fleet‐
wide limit of five slippage events for each herring management area, after which any slippage event 
would require a return to port (Section 3.2.3.4 Option 4D). 
• A ban on herring mid‐water trawling in areas established to promote rebuilding of groundfish 
populations (Section 3.4.4 Alternative 5). 
• A requirement to accurately weigh and report all catch (Section 3.1.5 Option 2). 

As for the Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council, I encourage you to adopt the following options: 
• Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery (Alternative 9b‐9e). 
• Developing the long‐term protections associated with this designation will take time. Therefore, the 
council should adopt the following interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at‐sea catch of 
river herring and shad: 
• A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b‐6c), that functions effectively, does not increase wasteful 
discarding, and cannot be circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These alternatives 
should be modified to more effectively ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is reached by 
lowering the amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed, or retained. 

Furthermore, I strongly urge you to incorporate all of the following: 

• 100 percent at‐sea monitoring on all mid‐water trawl fishing trips. One observer must be assigned to 
each vessel in a pair trawl operation (Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d). 
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled catch. All catch, including 
"operational discards," must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling (Alternative 
3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a fleet‐wide limit of 10 dumping 
events (Alternative 3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their next trip 
(Alternative 3o). 
• A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c‐2f). 

Thank you for considering my input, and I look forward to applauding your wise decision. 

Sincerely, 

Y.D. jordan 
1 nassau rd 
montclair, NJ 07043 

***IDENTICAL AMENDMENT 14 COMMENT*** 
6,622 identical comments submitted (61 were altered) 
May 30, 2012 

Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
800 N. State Street, Suite 201 
Dover, DE 19901 

Dear Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

For years, our coastal communities have worked tirelessly to restore 
culturally and economically significant species such as river herring 
and shad to rivers along the Atlantic coast. At the same time, the 
incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad annually by the 
mid‐Atlantic mackerel and squid fisheries remains largely unmonitored 
and unregulated. 

I am concerned about this serious, ongoing threat to these 
already‐depleted species that undermines our efforts to restore our 
estuaries and rivers. 

River herring and shad populations are at historic lows and landings 
have declined coastwide by 99 and 97 percent, respectively. In response 
to this, most Atlantic states prohibit the taking of river herring in 
coastal waters and are advancing similar restrictions on American shad. 
These populations are in dire need of conservation and management, so 
it is critical that they are given protection in federal waters under 
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery 
Management Plan. 

In light of the depleted status of these fish, the Council should 
choose the option with the most positive biological impact: 

Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery. 
(Alternative 9b‐9e). 
Developing the long‐term protections associated with designating river 
herring and shad as stocks in the fishery will take time. Therefore, 
the Council should also adopt the following interim measure to 
immediately reduce and limit the at‐sea catch of river herring and 
shad: 

*  A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b‐6c) that functions 
effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be 
circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These 
alternatives should be modified to more effectively ensure that 
directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is reached by lowering the 
amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed or retained. 

In addition, I strongly urge you to incorporate the following: 
*  100 percent at‐sea monitoring on all mid‐water trawl fishing trips. 
One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation. 
(Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d). 
*  An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of 
unsampled catch. All catch, including "operational discards", 
must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling 
(Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is 
allowed, include a fleet wide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 
3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their 
next trip (Alternative 3o). 
*  A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c‐2f). 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your commitment to 
these priority reforms. 

Sincerely, 

Fiona Kinniburgh 
26 E 2nd St 
New York, NY 10003‐9486 

***EXAMPLE IDENTICAL NY COMMENT*** 
528 identical comments submitted (19 were slightly altered) 
May 29, 2012 

Amendment 14 Comments 

Dear Comments, 

For years, New York and other coastal states and communities along the 
Atlantic coast have worked tirelessly to restore culturally and 
economically significant species such as river herring and shad to 
rivers along the coast. At the same time, the incidental catch of 
millions of river herring and shad annually by the mid‐Atlantic 
mackerel and squid fisheries remains largely unmonitored and 
unregulated. I am concerned about this serious, ongoing threat to these 
already‐depleted species that undermines efforts to restore our 
estuaries and rivers. 

River herring and shad populations are at historic lows, and landings 
have declined coast‐wide by 99 and 97 percent, respectively. In New 
York the Hudson River's historic shad fishery was recently closed to 
protect dwindling populations and a similar fate for river herring is 
likely. In addition, many other Atlantic states prohibit the taking of 
river herring in coastal waters and are advancing similar restrictions 
on American shad. These populations are in dire need of conservation 
and management, so it is critical that they are given protection in 
federal waters under Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Because these fish have been 
depleted so severely, the council should choose the option with the 
most positive biological impact: 

Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery 
(Alternative 9b‐9e). 

Developing the long‐term protections associated with this designation 
will take time. Therefore, the council should adopt the following 
interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at‐sea catch of 
river herring and shad: 

**A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b‐6c), that functions 

effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be 
circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These 
alternatives should be modified to more effectively ensure that 
directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is reached by lowering the 
amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed, or retained. 

I strongly urge you to also incorporate all of the following: 

**100 percent at‐sea monitoring on all mid‐water trawl fishing trips. 
One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation 
(Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d). 

**An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of 
unsampled catch. All catch, including "operational discards," 
must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling 
(Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is 
allowed, include a fleetwide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 3l 
and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their next 
trip (Alternative 3o). 

**A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c‐2f). 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your commitment to 
these priority reforms. 

Sincerely, 

Ms. annette bailey 
753 James St 
Syracuse, NY 13203‐2108 

***INDENTICAL STOCKS IN A FISHERY COMMENT*** 

Count
of these received: 279
‐‐these started coming in on May 31, so we haven’t tallied these yet. 
May 31, 2012 

Executive Director Christopher Moore 

Dear Executive Director Moore, 

I urge the Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service to begin managing depleted populations of 
river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery. Unmanaged catch of 
river herring and shad by industrial trawlers has contributed to a 
collapse of populations of these small but ecologically important 
fish. 

With river herring and shad landed catch down 99 and 97 percent, 
respectively, most states have banned their harvest and the Fisheries 
Service is considering listing river herring under the Endangered 
Species Act. Yet mackerel and squid trawlers can catch millions of 
river herring and shad every year without restriction or even adequate 
monitoring. This is unacceptable; river herring and shad are clearly in 
need of conservation and management within the federal fisheries in 
which they're caught. 

As the council finalizes Amendment 14 to the Mackerel, Squid and 
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, I strongly urge it to vote in favor 
of adding blueback herring, alewife, American shad and hickory shad as 
stocks in the fishery management plan (Action Alternatives 9b‐e). 

I also request that you approve the following measures to immediately 
reduce the at‐sea catch of river herring and shad: 

** A catch cap for river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel 
fishery (Action Alternatives 6b‐6c). 
** 100 percent at‐sea monitoring on all mid‐water trawl fishing trips. 
One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation 
(Action Alternatives 5b4 and 3d). 
** An accountability system to prohibit or discourage wasteful 
operational discards of unsampled catch. All catch must be made 
available to fishery observers for systematic sampling (Action 

Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is 
allowed, include a fleet‐wide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 
3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their 
next trip (Alternative 3o). 
** A requirement to weigh all catch (Alternative 2c‐2f). 

Every year states and communities throughout the mid‐Atlantic and 
elsewhere on the east coast invest significant time and resources to 
restore their herring runs. Fishermen in inland and state coastal 
waters can no longer catch river herring, and instead must bide time 
and hope for populations to rebound. The Mid‐Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service must do 
their part and step forward to adequately regulate these important 
species. 

Sincerely, 

Mr. Peter Currie 
631 W Olney Ave 
Philadelphia, PA 19120‐2219 
(215) 276‐3040 

Many Near Identical Letters Were Received (see previous 4 sample letters).  The next 6 pages 
detail additions made to letters that were not totally identical. 
Unique Amendment 5&14 
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

As the holder of M.A.s in Marine Biology and Environmental Studies, I am a staunch 
defender of our marine resources and ocean and fresh water habitat. 
WHAT PART OF WATER TO SURVIVE DONT YOU GET???  STOP DESTROYING OUR 
OCEANS WITH YOUR OVER USE.  WHO SAYS ITS YOUR TO RUIN ANYWAY? 
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." ‐‐
Mahatma Gandhi 
As a Professor Emeritus of Zoology and Environmental Science, I’m very concerned 
about the impacts of industrial fishing on river herring. 
THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MORE IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO CONSERVE THESE FISH!! 
Don't you know better by now?  If you catch them all, your industry is dead.  I’m very 
concerned about the impacts of industrial fishing on river herring. 
Industrial fishing is an unsustainable method of fishing and must not be supported. With 
regards to river herring, as bycatch industrial fishing is decimating the species. It must 
be stopped entirely. 

Unique Amendment 14 only 
•

•
•
•

3 quotes inserted into the comment 
o “Our duty to the whole, including to the unborn generations, bids us to 
restrain an unprincipled present‐day minority from wasting the heritage of 
these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife 
and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources 
are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method.”‐‐ Theodore 
Roosevelt 
o “As we peer into society's future, we—you and I, and our government—must 
avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and 
convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the 
material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their 
political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all 
generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”‐‐ 
Dwight D. Eisenhower 
o “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty 
of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”‐‐ Aldo Leopold 
Do you think unmonitored fishing is wise? 
I am particularly concerned about the shad, which is a New Jersey fish 
that has been here historically and has had an economic impact on our state. 
Please consider the importance of every species in keeping the biodiversity and 
balance of the ecosystem in order. 

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

I am worried about our fish population 
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT...NOW! 
PERSONALLY, I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO ANY DUMPING OF "BI‐CATCH" FISH.  ALL 
CATCH CAN BE UTILIZED IN SOME WAY – PET FOOD, ETC.  WE HAVE STRIP MINED 
OUR OCEANS AND WE WILL REAP THE PROBLEMS AND EFFECTS OF DEPLETION. 
The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Someone's got to look at 
this situation and say NO. 
We will reap what we sow and will suffer our own consequences no doubt. 
I know these fish don't pay you to rule in their favor, but consider that for years, our 
coastal communities have worked tirelessly to restore culturally and economically 
significant species such as river herring and shad to rivers along the Atlantic coast.  
American Shad were nearly extinct several decades ago due to water pollution ‐ they 
were restored to healthy populations by a concerted effort and CAN BE AGAIN, BUT 
ONLY WITH A COMMITMENT TO DO SO... 
As a fish eater, this issue is important to me.  I want to see our rivers and indigenous 
fish protected for future generations. 
DO WE HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING TO EXTINCTION? 
PLEASE TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY 
As a biologist at Penn State University, I have participated in a research project on 
migrating shad and understand their ecological and economic importance.   I am 
therefore concerned about this serious, ongoing threat to these already‐depleted 
species that undermines our 
efforts to restore our estuaries and rivers. 
As a conservation professional I am concerned about this serious, ongoing threat to 
these already‐depleted species that undermines our efforts to restore our estuaries 
and rivers. 
Can we please do everything in our power to protect our natural resources? 
The incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad by mid‐Atlantic mackerel 
and squid fisheries remains largely unmonitored and unregulated, and is causing 
DEVASTATION throughout coastal foodchains. 
MAN IS DRIVING SEA LIFE TO EXTINCTION.  POLLUTION, FISHING TOO MUCH, SPORT, 
TOXINS, GARBAGE AND OTHER FACTORS ARE KILLING SPECIES, LOSS OF 
CLEAN WATER IS CHANGING FISH BEHAVIOR AND BREEDING.UNTIL MAN REALIZES 
GREED IS NOT THE PLANET'SFIRST PRIORITY THESE CONDITIONS WILL ONLY 
WORSEN.  CAN I BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO SEES THE DIRECTION OUR PLANET IS 
GOING IN????  I WILL NOT BE ALIVE WHEN THE PLANET AND IT'S WATERS AND 
ANIMALS AND SEA LIFE WILL BE DESTROYED‐ BUT‐ IT WILL HAPPEN UNLESS CHANGE 
IS MADE.  NOW‐ NOT IN 10 YRS‐ NOW!!!!!!!!!! 
Once again, OVERFISHING is killing our oceans and the animals who call it 
home!  THE OCEANS ARE ALREADY IN A SORRY STATE ‐ PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO 
STOP THE DAMAGE. 

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•

•
•

Greetings, My wife's family is from Jamesville NC. on the Roanoke River. Herring 
were a staple there. Now they are scarce. Industrial ocean fishing is too aggressive 
and must be curtailed. 
TO ALL OF YOU NUMNUTS THAT ARE DESTROYING STUFF IN THE WORLD HAD 
BETTER DAM SIGHT REALIZE THAT YOU CAN'T EAT MONEY! 
Imagine my surprise to learn that shad are not already extinct! 
I wonder what the people that deplete resources for living think they are going to do 
or leave for resources in the future. 
Please protect the supplies of river herring and American shad at sea from further 
dangerous depletion. 
George Washington was correct in his worries of the ecology. Interesting reading in 
his writtings. This is not the time to shy away from protecting our waters.  
Please!  Give urgent attention to the preservation of river herring and shad, as their  
populations have declined to a dangerous level. 
Fisheries throughout the world are being reduced by overfishing and loss by 
unintended catch.  We can not afford to continue destroying our aquatic resources.  
This is a matter of concern for the environment as well as for mankind's 
welfare.  Everything is connected. 
During the Depression, my mother's family on Albermarle Sound in North Carolina 
got by in part because of netted menhadden.  I grew up hearing about the amazing 
spawning runs that came up the Sound until the Second World War.  Unfortunately, 
during WWII, the fish population crashed, and has struggled ever since.   Such 
damage can be difficult to repair. 
AS A FISHERMAN AND AN ENVIRONMENTALIST I AM SHOCKED THAT WE HAVE 
ALLOWED OUR FISHERIES TO BE DECIMATED. IT'S WELL BEYOND TIME TO PUT A 
STOP TO THE ONSLAUGHT. 
Fishing is in my blood.  Many of my relatives were fishermen and some are still 
fishing.  This issue is important to me and others like me ‐‐ the families of 
fishermen.  
DO NOT KILL OFF OUR RIVERS OR WHAT IS IN THEM! 
S0‐called by‐catch, also called "unintended" catch, is terribly destructive to "bait" for 
larger fish. The huge range of death & destruction for smaller species must be 
addressed for the longterm health for fisheries everywhere. PA contributes to two 
(2) significant watersheds that impact many other biodiversite marine livelihoods: 
Delaware Bay & the Chesapeake and each in turn impact the Atlantic Ocean. A broad 
spectrum overview is needed to encompass immediate and extended species for 
healthy outcomes. N.J., Maryland and VA must be included & cooperatively 
participate. 
Come on, how can any life in the sea survive if this basic building block of the food 
chain is exterminated..... 
Virginia would not be Virginia without the shad.  And how could politicians dream of 
conducting business without the kickoff of the shad planking season???  I am a 

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

native Virginian and still own property there, so I have a keen interest in all things 
that affect the state where my heart always will reside. 
EXTINCT IS FOREVER~!~!~!~ 
My family and I are truly concerned about this. We need to take this very seriously. 
Future generations of people and future years for our natural resources need to be 
progtected. Short term decisions will mean long term losses. 
Please protect river herring and shad. Even though they are small fish, they play an 
immensely important role in the health of coastal ecosystems.  
As an environmental history professor, I am very conscious of the significance of our 
river herring and shad populations and their overall place in our 
environment.  Please protect them! Thank you. 
The health of our costal fisheries is of concern to all citizens. A sustainable  ecosytem 
is necessary both for fishermen's economic health and for the incorpoation of fish in 
a healthy diet. 
I live next to the Herring Run river, but in the 27 years I have walked it banks I have 
yet to see a herring.  It is said that at one time the river was thick with migrating 
herring in the spring.    What an amazing sight that must have been! 
As the Ramapo River Watershed Keeper and someone interested in the health of the 
oceans and the the Hudson River Estuary, I endorse the views expressed below: 
The Chowan river near my hometown was completely dead. With luck and skill it 
was brought back.  As of now, we are "waiting for the herring to run", the last step in 
recovery.  Herring take a long time to overcome pollution.  Protect them. 
Please institute a catch shares system to manage the herring and shad populations. 
This has been used successfully in many other fisheries. 
http://www.edf.org/oceans/catch‐shares 

Unique New York Comments 
•
•
•
•
•
•

Please protect river herring and shad.  They are vital to the health of our rivers and the 
economic vitality of our communities. 
I am an Ursuline Sister living in New York, and Riverkeeper and other organizations have 
helped me to see the importance of protect endangered species. 
I want the fisheries of the Hudson River to survive and flourish so my daughter can 
witness great fish runs and eat local fish caught by local fishermen and women. Please 
take a great step towards that by decreasing bycatch. 
These fish not only are symbolic of our heritage, but more importantly are necessary to 
the functioning of a healthy marine ecosystem. 
You have an opportunity to make a difference in the future.  Show me you can be a 
strong leader. 
This is an economic issue! These fish are the basis of the food chain and therefore the 
while Atlantic fishing industry! Short term gains for a few companies will cost us all 
(including those gaining now) the future of a sustainable fishery! 

•

•

•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

I know that as a neighbour to the U.S., and not a citizen, I cannot effect the political 
system, but when it comes to the ecosystem of which we are all a part, there can be no 
boundaries, as a problem in one area, however isolated, will eventually (and sometimes 
immediately) affect all of us. 
As a follower of St. Francis,who expressed concern and love for all of God's creatures, I 
write to express my concern for river herring and shad populations that are at 
historically low levels, and are truly an endangered species. My concern is heightened 
when I think of Indian Point and the number of small and feeder fish who are caught or 
killed at the water intake areas as water is pumped into the plant for cooling purposes. 
 In New York the Hudson River's historic shad fishery was recently closed to protect 
dwindling populations and a similar fate for river herring is likely. Remember as well that 
striped bass, also important culturally and economically to New York, follow these fish 
up the river to spawn. 
Stop killing fish and disgarding them at sea. This is an obnoxious, atrocious, and 
outragous practice, performed while seafood prices are extremely high and fish stocks 
are dwindling. 
I am concerned about the severe decline in the herring and shad population in the 
Hudson River.I live near the River and appreciate its beauty, as well its economic gift to 
the people along the River. 
As a New Yorker, I long for the day when we can again claim a healthy, robust Hudson 
River full of fish.  
Please restrict the by‐catch of river shad and red herring so that these important, if 
under‐appreciated fish can survive and sustain the ecosystem that depend on them in 
plentiful and consistent numbers. You have all the information needed to make the 
informed decision to save these important species. You have all the mandate behind 
you in making the right decision for the American public.  You have all the reason 
necessary to take steps to prevent this base of the food chain and our fishing economy 
from becoming extinct.  Please have the will to do so, with the enthusiastic support of 
many of us who care. 
Please protect the threatened river herring and shad from Ocean bycatch. They play a 
huge part in our coastal ecosystem. River herring and shad must be protected at all 
costs. 
I am worried about the health of the fish that call the Hudson home, many of which are 
on the brink of collapse. 
As a recreational fisherman in New York City I have long enjoyed fishing for Striped Bass 
in the Hudson River, Brooklyn and Long Island.  I know first hand the positive results 
fishery management has had on the Striped Bass Population.  I have come to appreciate 
the role Herring and Shad play in the food chain as their well as their historical 
significance.  I believe the conservation actions described below will help the current 
threat faced by the dwindling number of Shad and Herring. I hope these action can help 
preserve these fish for my children's generation. 
Please, do the right thing for the oceans and rivers that provide us with fish.  Stop the 
needless waste of these important species.  It's up to you. 

•

As a resident of the Hudson River Valley, where the shad and herring run is a storied 
part of the culture, I am very concerned about the future of these fish. I know 
commercial fishermen personally who can no longer fish for shad, and I'm concerned 
that river herring on the Hudson are still being overfished for bait. While New York has 
taken and will take action to reduce fishing impact in the Hudson, we must enact strong 
regulations in interstate waters to protect and restore these fish populations. That's why 
I support Riverkeeper's effort, and the letter pasted below. 

38 of these letters were received from Lund's Employees

24 Of these Postcards were received from NY, NJ, and
PA

Conserving Ocean Fish and Their Environment
Since 1973
May 23, 2012 

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director  
Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
Suite 201, 800 N. State St  
Dover, DE  19901 

Re: AMENDMENT 14  

Dear Dr. Moore, 

The National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC) appreciates the Mid‐Atlantic 
Council’s commitment to aid in the recovery of river herring and shad populations by 
addressing inadequate catch monitoring, unregulated incidental catch and the inability of the 
current management framework to conserve these wide‐ranging stocks.  The impacts 
associated with depleted1 shad and river herring stocks are far‐reaching.  As anadromous 
forage species, shad and river herring are prey to numerous predators both inland and 
offshore, and through these predator‐prey interactions, shad and river herring are linked to a 
number of recreational and commercial fisheries on the east coast, including those managed by 
the Mid‐Atlantic Council.   
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan 
(MSB FMP) includes a diverse suite of measures for developing badly needed conservation and 
management strategies in federal waters.  We respectfully submit the following comments to 
assist the Council in determining the best path forward. 
We believe the best path forward must be a two‐phase process that begins with an 
interim strategy, coordinated with the New England Council, to improve catch monitoring 
and reduce incidental catch.   While necessary in the short‐term to help mitigate impacts to 
river herring and shad stocks, a fragmented management approach for federal waters, pieced 
together by two separate councils under two separate FMPs, will ultimately fall short ‐ an 
unacceptable scenario given the critical status of these species.   Therefore, the second phase 
would be to fully incorporate shad and river herring into the MSB FMP through a subsequent 
amendment.   The inclusion of shad and river herring as stocks in the fishery is the only 
approach that would afford the Council adequate tools, resources and authority to successfully 
mitigate threats in federal waters for the long‐term. 
1

The ASMFC lists the status of American shad, alewife and blueback herring as depleted in accordance with the most recent stock
assessments for these species.
ASMFC. August 2007. Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:
American Shad Stock Assessment for Peer Review, Volume 1.
ASMFC. May 2012. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: River Herring
Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume 1.

4 Royal Street, SE • Leesburg, VA 20175 • (703) 777-0037 • fax (703) 777-1107
www.savethefish.org

Phase 1: Interim Strategy, Consistent Where Applicable with the New England Council’s 
Atlantic Herring FMP, to Improve Catch Monitoring and Reduce Incidental River Herring and 
Shad Catch. Below we outline interim strategy goals and alternatives that would be most 
effective in achieving these goals. Our comments follow the alternatives and are in italics. 
 Interim Goal 1: Improve the efficiency, timeliness and accuracy of vessel and dealer 
reporting so as to improve the precision of river herring and shad incidental catch 
estimates which are extrapolations based on total reported landings.  Improvements 
should be standardized throughout the mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries and 
consistent with reporting requirements in the Atlantic Herring FMP because of fishery 
overlap.   
Vessel Reporting (Alternative Set 1) 
o 1c: Weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for all MSB permits (mackerel, longfin 
squid/butterfish, Illex) so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed landings and/or 
incidental mortality cap if applicable) and cross checking with other data sources. 
o 1d48: Require 48 hour pre‐trip notification to NMFS to retain/possess/transfer more 
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement. 
o 1eMack & 1eLong: Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels and for longfin 
squid/butterfish moratorium vessels.   
A great majority of mackerel limited access and squid/butterfish moratorium 
permitted vessels are already equipped with VMS (A14 DEIS, pp. 292, 294).   
o 1fMack: Require daily VMS reporting of catch by limited access mackerel vessels so 
as to facilitate monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with 
other data sources.   
o 1gMack &1g Long: Require 6 hour pre‐landing notification via VMS to land more 
than 20,000 pounds of mackerel or more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid, which 
could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside monitoring. 
Dealer Reporting (Alternative Set 2) 
o 2b: Require federally permitted MSB dealers to obtain vessel representative 
confirmation of SAFIS transaction records for mackerel landings over 20,000 lb, Illex 
landings over 10,000 lb, and longfin squid landings over 2,500 lb to catch data errors 
at first point of entry. 
o 2c, d, e & f:: Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all landings related 
to mackerel transactions over 20,000 pounds and longfin squid transactions over 
2,500 pounds.   
We view this suite of alternatives as working together to provide for efficiency and 
flexibility.  Dealers that do not sort by species could document in applications their 
method for estimating the composition of a mixed catch.  If this method cannot be 
applied to a particular transaction, dealers should be able to apply an appropriate 
methodology as long as they document that method with the transaction.   

2 of 10

 Interim Goal 2: Employ increased at‐sea observer coverage levels, with supplementary 
industry funding as needed, and enhanced protocols to ensure that observers have access 
to all catch for sampling in order to improve precision in river herring and shad incidental 
catch estimates and minimize catch that observers record as “Herring Not Known (NK)” 
and “Fish Not Known (NK).”  
Observer Optimization Measures (Alternative Set 3) 
o 3b: Require the following reasonable assistance measures: provision of a safe 
sampling station; help with measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; help with 
bycatch collection; and help with basket sample collection by crew on vessels with 
mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. 
o 3c: Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when pumping/haul‐back 
occurs on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium 
permits. 
o 3d: When observers are deployed on trips involving more than one vessel, observers 
would be required on any vessel taking on fish wherever/whenever possible on 
vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits.   
We recommend striking the words “wherever/whenever possible” from this 
alternative as it leaves too much ambiguity regarding the exceptions to this 
important requirement. According to Appendix 5 of the DEIS (p. 662), the majority of 
Fish NK records are associated with fish that are pumped to the paired trawl vessel 
not carrying the observer.  Between July 2009 and June 2010 over 5.7 million pounds 
of catch was recorded as Fish NK in the observer database.2 
o 3j: Apply “Closed Area I (CA1)” requirements to mackerel limited access and longfin 
squid moratorium permitted vessels.   
These requirements are currently in force in the Atlantic Herring fishery for mid‐
water trawl vessels intending to fish in Groundfish Closed Area 1.  This alternative 
would require that all fish be brought aboard for observer sampling with exceptions 
made for safety, mechanical failure, or spiny dog fish clogging the pump.  Alternative 
3j should clarify that operational discards must be brought aboard for sampling 
consistent with current CA1 sampling regulations.   
o 3l (implemented in conjunction with 3J): For mackerel limited access permitted 
vessels, NMFS would track the number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage 
events (adjustable via specifications) occur in any given year for notified and 
observed mackerel trips then subsequent slippage events on any notified and 
observed mackerel trip would result in trip termination for the rest of that year. The 
goal is to minimize slippage events.  
From 2006‐2010, 26% of hauls on observed mackerel trips had some unobserved 
catch (A14 DEIS, p. 130) ‐ a troublingly large percentage given the cost of observers 
and the need for accurate catch data.  CA1 regulations in the Atlantic herring fishery 
have been highly effective with no observed slippage events recorded in 2010.3  
2

NEFSC. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report 201: Section 2, p. 189.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/SBRM/2011/SBRM_Annual_Discard_Rpt_2011_Section2.pdf
3

Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 5, p. 658.

3 of 10

However, the effectiveness of this measure is likely due to an accountability measure 
tied to the requirements, which is that a vessel is required to stop fishing and exit 
Closed Area I if it releases an un‐sampled net.  Given the three exceptions provided 
for under 3j, permitting 10 slippage events before slippage results in trip termination 
seems to be a reasonable balance that would deter slippage without being unduly 
penalizing.   
o 3n (implemented in conjunction with 3J): For longfin squid moratorium permitted 
vessels, NMFS would track the number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage 
events (adjustable via specifications) occur in any given trimester for notified and 
observed longfin squid trips then subsequent slippage events on any notified and 
observed longfin squid trip would result in trip termination for the rest of that 
trimester. The goal is to minimize slippage events.   
On observed longfin squid trips, an average of 9% of hauls are not seen and sampled 
by observers (A14, p.130).  As discussed above, an accountability measure is an 
important component to the CA1 sampling requirements to ensure compliance, and 
we believe an allowance of 10 slippage events per trimester before trip termination 
is implemented is appropriate for deterring slippage.   
o 3o: For mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels, if a trip is terminated 
within 24 hours because of any of the anti‐slippage provisions (3g, 3h, 3k‐3n), then 
the relevant vessel would have to take an observer on its next trip. 
This alternative should be implemented if observer coverage levels are not set 
sufficiently high (e.g., >50% of trips within a permit tier such as mackerel Tier 3 or 
minor longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permitted vessels) as to discourage 
observer avoidance strategies.   
At‐Sea Observer Coverage Requirements (Alternative Set 5) 
Note: We believe limited resources should be dedicated to an at‐sea observer program, 
which obtains data for both kept and discarded catch.  In contrast, portside sampling 
only captures information for the catch that is maintained, and therefore misses an 
important part of the equation.  Without maximized retention, not considered in 
Amendment 14, we do not support portside sampling (Alternative Set 4) for deriving 
estimates on river herring and shad incidental catch. 
o 5b4: Require 100% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels intending to retain over 
20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign coverage 
based on pre‐trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more than 
20,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more than 
20,000 pounds of mackerel.  
Analyses in Amendment 14 estimate that mid‐water trawl vessels account for 75.7% 
of river herring incidental catch and 41.8% of shad incidental catch (A14, Appendix 2, 
p. 581).  Mid‐water trawl vessels are also responsible for the majority of mackerel 
landings, accounting for 62% of landings in 2010 (Amendment 14, Table 29, p. 247).  
According to information presented in Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP, there are 15 
mid‐water trawl vessels that are eligible for the mackerel limited access program (13 

4 of 10

in Tier 1 and 2 in Tier 2).4  Given the high volume nature of these vessels, and the fact 
that shad and river herring catch events can be rare but quite large when they occur, 
100% coverage is necessary for an accurate accounting of incidental catch.  In 
addition, mid‐water trawl vessels are in the top permit tiers of the Atlantic herring 
limited access fishery, for which the New England Council is considering 100% 
observer coverage.  Given the overlap in the mid‐water trawl fisheries for Atlantic 
herring and mackerel (see A14, Appendix 2, p. 574), observer coverage levels should 
be consistent between the FMPs. 
o Modified 5c: Require 100% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by Tier 1 and Tier 2 
limited access mackerel vessels intending to retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel 
to carry observers. Require 25% of SMBT trips by Tier 3 vessels intending to retain 
over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers.  
Small‐mesh bottom trawls are believed to contribute to 23.7% and 25.6% of river 
herring and shad incidental catch respectively; therefore, it is important to improve 
observer coverage in this fleet to achieve precision in incidental catch estimates.  
Because industry funding will be necessary to achieve coverage levels above the 
status quo, it is important to distribute the observer cost burden equitably among 
fishery participants.  For the mackerel limited access program, 10 SMBT vessels are 
eligible for Tier 1, and 19 are eligible for Tier 2.5  Neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2 vessels are 
capped by a percentage of the quota, and there are no trip limits for Tier 1 vessels.  
For Tier 3, however, 138 vessels qualify,6 and this tier is capped at 7% of the annual 
quota.  Additionally, the average length of a Tier 3 vessel is 65 ft, compared to 78 ft 
for Tier 2 and 110 ft for Tier 17, likely making the observer costs significantly more 
burdensome for vessels in Tier 3 relative to their daily operating costs.   
o Modified 5d: Require 50% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by major longfin 
squid moratorium permitted vessels intending to retain over 2,500 pounds of longfin 
squid to carry observers.   
Merely 3.5% of longfin squid catches by weight have been observed in recent years 
(2006‐2010),8 contributing to great uncertainty in the shad and river herring 
incidental catch estimates for this fishery.  As described above, small‐mesh bottom 
trawls (SMBT) do contribute significantly to shad and river herring incidental catch, 
and higher levels of at‐sea observer coverage will be needed for the Northeast’s 
SMBT fleet in order to obtain reasonably precise estimates of this catch.  Coverage 
must be equitably distributed among vessels according to their activity in the fishery.  
While there are approximately 400 vessels that hold moratorium permits, an average 
of only 103 vessels have been significantly active in this fishery in the last 5 years, 
and these vessels account for around 95% of the annual landings. 9 Of these vessels, 
57 major vessels account for 75% of landings.   
4

MAFMC. Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). May 2011,
Tables 94-96, pp. 447-448.
5

ibid

6

ibid

7

See note 4, Table 82, p. 435.

8

Amendment 14 DEIS, p. 147.

9

MAFMC. Loligo AP Informational Document, April 2012, Table 6.

5 of 10

o 5f: Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any observer coverage goals 
adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea day allocations assigned 
through the sea day allocation process (already implemented in other fisheries). 
NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels would have to contract and pay 
observers. 

 Interim Goal 3: Implement an effective strategy for reducing incidental catch of river 
herring and shad from recent levels. 
Mortality Caps (Alternative Set 6) 
Note: Bycatch avoidance programs are only effective if there is incentive to avoid the 
bycatch. The Sustainable Fisheries Coalition Bycatch Avoidance Project (alternative 4F) is not 
an appropriate measure for the Council to consider for meeting the goal of reducing 
incidental river herring/shad catch.  A similar project employed in the scallop fishery has 
proven successful at reducing yellowtail flounder bycatch because there is a yellowtail 
flounder cap that the scallop fishermen must avoid hitting in order to fish.  The 
establishment of river herring/shad caps should be a prerequisite for Council support of 
industry bycatch avoidance tools. 
o Combine and modify 6b and 6c: Implement a mortality cap for alosines (shad and 
river herring species combined) for the mackerel fishery whereby the mackerel 
fishery would close once it is determined that it created a certain level of alosine 
mortality (that level would be determined annually by Council in specification 
process.  As data improve, the Council could also determine through the 
specifications process if the cap should be further delineated by species).   If the 
mackerel fishery closes because the cap is reached, the mackerel incidental catch 
allowance would be reduced to 2,000 lbs.  
A combined cap would afford a measure of protection to all alosine species as we 
seek more precise estimates of incidental catch with increased observer coverage 
and more robust sampling.  Given the current paucity of data for Mid‐Atlantic 
fisheries, high CVs around species‐specific incidental catch estimates may be 
problematic (A14 DEIS, Appendix 1, Table A2).  Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel 
mid‐water trawl fishery overlap complicates  implementation of a cap on the 
mackerel fishery alone, since Atlantic herring fishing may continue in the same 
quarter and in the same areas allowing catch of river herring and shad to continue.  
The current mackerel incidental allowance of 20,000 lbs is far too liberal for deterring 
directed fishing and minimizing fishing effort should a cap be reached.  In 
comparison, the 2,000 lbs incidental Atlantic herring limit, implemented after a 
herring management area closes, has proven effective.  For example, when Atlantic 
herring Area 2 closed on February 20th of this year, mackerel fishing that takes place 
in the same area leveled off.10   
o 6f: Add mortality caps to list of measures that can be frameworked.   
A cap in the mackerel fishery should be implemented with Amendment 14.  The MSB 
FMP currently does not list incidental catch caps as frameworkable measures.  As 
10

NERO. Weekly Quota and Landing Report. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

6 of 10

data improve, the Council may find that caps in the squid and butterfish fisheries are 
necessary and this alternative would facilitate implementation. 
Hotspot Restrictions (Alternative Set 8) 
o 8eMack: Vessels possessing a federal mackerel permit would not be able to retain, 
possess or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (20,000 pounds mackerel) 
while in a River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is 
onboard the vessel. 
o 8eLong: Vessels possessing a federal moratorium longfin squid permit would not be 
able to retain, possess or transfer more than an incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds 
longfin squid) while in a River Herring Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 
5.5 inches is onboard the vessel. 
o Modified 8f: Make the above measures 8eMack and 8eLong only effective if/when 
they are effective for Atlantic Herring vessels.   

We recognize that the Amendment 14 FMAT and the Atlantic Herring PDT had 
different approaches to hotspot analyses and therefore had differing results.  We 
believe, based on the Amendment 5 analyses,11 there would be a conservation 
benefit to both river herring and shad if the River Herring Protection Areas identified 
through Amendment 5 were implemented.  Though they are driven by water 
temperature, like other small pelagic species, river herring and shad congregate 
where food is available. Static or slowly changing ocean features such as topography 
can significantly influence productivity which in turn influences the location of 
feeding grounds.  If River Herring Protection Areas are implemented in the Atlantic 
herring fishery, then the conservation benefit would be greatly diminished if small‐
mesh gears capable of taking river herring were permitted in the closed areas simply 
because they are targeting a species other than Atlantic herring.  We do not support 
the trigger‐based river herring alternatives in Amendment 5 as triggers based on 
median, mean or highest catch would simply be a labor and resource intensive way 
of maintaining the status quo, and we have modified the above alternative 
accordingly. 

Federal FMPs must describe the species of fish involved in a fishery, and NMFS and the 
Councils are required to manage those stocks in need of conservation and management, such 
as river herring and shad.12  While Amendment 14 is an important response to shad and river 
herring incidental catch, analyses in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) make it 
clear that addressing the problem within MSB fisheries is but one piece of a larger puzzle that 
needs to be assembled in order to adequately protect these fish throughout their life cycles and 
throughout all parts of their range, especially in ocean waters where they spend most of their 
lives.   Fully incorporating river herring and shad into the MSB FMP (Phase 2) is the only 
comprehensive solution provided in Amendment 14 that would afford adequate, long‐term 
conservation and management to these imperiled but ecologically critical species.   
11

See Draft Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Herring, Volume II, Appendices.

12

16 U.S.C. §§ 1853(a)(2); 1852(h)(1). See also Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2012).

7 of 10

Phase 2: Addition of River Herring and Shad as “Stocks in the Fishery”in the MBS FMP 
(Alternative Set 9) 
In our scoping comments submitted in 2010, we stated that “Amendment 14 will be most 
effective if the Mid‐Atlantic Council tackles the issue with a regional, ecosystem perspective 
versus a narrow fishery‐specific view.” Analyses conducted for Amendment 14 correctly take a 
regional and fleet‐based approach to investigating solutions for monitoring and reducing 
incidental catch.  The mid‐water trawl fishery for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel ‐ 
managed by two councils under two separate federal FMPs ‐ accounts for 71% of combined 
river herring and shad incidental catch.  Likewise, fleet overlap exists between New England and 
the Mid‐Atlantic small‐mesh bottom trawl fisheries, which are responsible for an estimated 
24% of the combined incidental catch.13   
Of the roughly 5 million river herring taken at sea every year, many are immature.  The 
majority of the 600,000 American shad taken are also juveniles (A14 DEIS, p. 111).  The “spawn‐
at‐least‐once” principle suggests that sustainability is secured if fish become vulnerable to 
commercial gears only after they have spawned.  Research shows that high fishing mortality on 
immature fish has a significant negative effect on stock status.14  Indeed, the fact that immature 
fish comprise a large portion of at‐sea catch was flagged as a concern by the Peer Review Panel 
in the recent river herring stock assessment.15  The Peer Review Panel also found that total 
mortality levels in all runs examined surpassed the recommended benchmark and called for all 
sources of mortality to be addressed, including ocean bycatch.16 
Throughout the discussion of Amendment 14 alternatives, mention is made that the Council 
is limited to regulating only its own fisheries.  But achieving precision in incidental catch 
estimates or a significant reduction in incidental catch depends on applying management 
measures consistently throughout the Northeast.  Without region‐wide and fleet‐wide 
consistency of monitoring and management measures, the conservation burden will be placed 
on only a subset of fisheries that are contributing to the problem, and the overall conservation 
benefit to river herring and shad will be diminished.  
We strongly support the suite of options in Alternative Set 9 (9b‐e) that would launch an 
amendment process to incorporate blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and hickory 
shad as stocks‐in‐the‐fishery under the MSB FMP.  The amendment process is typically a two‐
year deliberative process, providing ample opportunity for the ASMFC, the Councils and 
stakeholders to work collaboratively on a joint management framework that is appropriate for 
the geographic range and life cycle of these fish.   
The Magnuson‐Stevens Act (MSA) requires Councils to specify annual catch limits (ACLs) at a 
level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, accompanied by accountability 
measures to ensure that the limit is not exceeded.17  To comply with the MSA’s unambiguous 
mandate to prevent overfishing, the revised National Standard 1 regulatory guidelines 18 
13

Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 2, Table 3, p. 581.

14

Vasilakopoulos, P., O'Neill, F. G., and Marshall, C. T. 2011. Misspent youth: does catching immature fish affect fisheries
sustainability? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1525–1534.
15

ASMFC. May 2012. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: River Herring
Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume 1. pp. 15-16.
16

Ibid, p.29

17

16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15)

18

50 CFR § 600.310

8 of 10

require ACLs for all managed stocks in the fishery, which may include non‐target stocks caught 
incidentally as bycatch and either retained or discarded at sea. 19  The intent is to ensure that 
fishing mortality in federally managed fisheries is regulated and minimized as required under 
the U.S. fisheries law, supporting the states’ efforts to conserve and build shad and river herring 
populations.   
With stocks in a fishery designation, incidental catch limits for directed fisheries would be 
based on the best available science about what catch level is sustainable and in line with 
restoration goals, enhancing rather than compromising ASMFC’s authority to manage and 
conserve these important fish.  Among the benefits of a federal component to the interstate 
plan are requirements for river herring and shad to be prioritized in the annual observer and 
data collection programs, additional resources for stock assessment, annual reviews of data for 
fishery specifications, and broadening of the tools available to the Council to address catch in 
other federal fisheries that interact with river herring (See table below).  

ISSUE 

Problem 

Benefit of Federal Stock Designation 

Actions the Mid‐Atlantic Council can take to 
COUNCIL 
manage river herring and shad incidental catch 
AUTHORITY 
are limited to its own fisheries, likely resulting in a 
LIMITED TO ITS 
disproportionate distribution of the conservation 
MANAGED 
burden and/or ineffective management measures.
FISHERIES 

MINIMIZING 
INCIDENTAL 
CATCH 

The tools available to the Council to manage and 
conserve river herring and shad would expand beyond 
its managed fisheries, allowing for conservation and 
management to be applied consistently throughout 
federally‐managed fisheries that contribute to the 
problem. 

The Magnuson Act narrowly defines bycatch as 
Federal stock designation would require that all catch 
discards.  Because most river herring and shad 
is accounted for and maintained at sustainable levels. 
caught in federal fisheries are retained for sale, 
regulatory authority to reduce bycatch under 
National Standard 9 does not afford these species 
adequate protection. 

Federal councils cannot designate essential fish 
EFH  IMPACT 
habitat (EFH) for river herring or shad unless they 
CONSULTATION 
are included in a federal FMP.   

EFH designation would ensure federal agency 
consultation with NOAA on projects that could impact 
these important river herring and shad habitats. 

State resources for stock assessment are 
extremely limited resulting in infrequent stock 
assessments.  Stock assessments that are decades 
old are not useful for management purposes.   

NMFS could allocate resources to aid with the stock 
assessment, including participation of the Northeast 
Fisheries Science Center.  Assessment needs would 
likely dictate that river herring and shad be given 
higher priority in NMFS data collection programs (e.g., 
recording lengths and weights from trawl surveys, 
collecting otoliths for aging, genetic studies). 

STOCK 
ASSESSMENT 
RESOURCES 

There is no standard methodology for 
FEDERAL CATCH 
documenting catch of river herring and shad in 
REPORTING 
federal waters. 

Catch reporting methodology to account for mortality 
on an annual basis would be implemented.  

There is currently no framework for regularly 
The status of river herring and shad fisheries and 
INCORPORATING  incorporating new information about river herring  stocks would be reviewed annually in conjunction with 
NEW 
and shad populations and fisheries into federal 
catch specifications for mackerel, squid, and butterfish.  
INFORMATION   management actions. 
All significant sources of mortality would be identified 
and accounted for. 

19

50 CFR § 600.310(d)(3) & (4).

9 of 10

The ASMFC plan mandates the closure of state fisheries for shad and river herring unless 
the state can demonstrate that its fishery is sustainable.  As a result, the majority of states have 
already implemented river herring moratoriums.  Limits on fishing for American shad are 
imminent for 2013.  Some of these closures are due to inadequate resources to monitor the 
fisheries and document sustainability.  The burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of 
river herring and shad fishermen, the same men and women who in many cases are actively 
engaged in efforts to improve water quality and restore habitat and fish passage.  There is no 
such burden of proof on fisheries catching river herring and shad in federal waters.  Despite 
insufficient monitoring and data to prove that levels of incidental catch are sustainable, the 
catch in federal fisheries is for all intents and purposes unrestricted. 
Depleted to historic lows, river herring and shad are in serious need of conservation and 
management in federal waters.  Alewife and blueback herring are under review for a 
threatened listing under the Endangered Species Act.20  Through a 2‐phase strategy culminating 
in a federal management framework for river herring and shads, the Mid‐Atlantic Council has a 
great opportunity to lead river herring and shad management in federal waters and take an 
active role in recovering these fish, which are invaluable to Atlantic fisheries and ecosystems. 

Sincerely, 

Pam Lyons Gromen 
Executive Director 

20

Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Alewife and Blueback Herring as
Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act, “ 76 Federal Register 212 (02 November 2011), pp 67652-67656.

10 of 10

Mr. Daniel Morris
Acting Regional AdministratorlNortheast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
I am writing because the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will meet in June to decide how to
protect river herring and American shad at sea and I ask your help to save these treasured species.
River herring and shad play an immensely important role in the health of our coastal ecosystems. As food
for larger fish, they help sustain commercial and recreational fisheries on the East Coast and contribute to
the economies of many coastal river towns. Now, they are in critical condition because their populations
have declined by more than 97 percent.
You can help secure the first meaningful protections for these fish in the ocean. Millions are caught each
year, mostly by industrial trawlers targeting Atlantic mackerel. These massive boats tow football field­
size nets and indiscriminately kill millions of pounds of unintended catch annually, including river
herring, shad, bluefin tuna, cod, haddock, and striped bass, as well as whales, dolphins, and seabirds.
For years, our coastal communities have worked tirelessly to restore culturally and economically
significant species such as r-i-veF--herring- and sHad to-rivers~longthe Atlantic coast. At the same time, the
incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad annually by the mid-Atlantic mackerel and squid
fisheries remains largely unmonitored and unregulated. I am deeply concerned about this serious, ongoing
threat to these already-depleted species that undermines our efforts to restore our estuaries and rivers.
I have read that river herring and shad populations are at historic lows and have declined coast wide by 99
and 97 percent, respectively. In response to this, most Atlantic states prohibit the taking of river herring in
coastal waters and are advancing similar restrictions on American shad. These populations are in dire need
of conservation and management, so it is critical that they are given protection in federal waters under
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.

In light of the depleted status of these fish, I agree with those who ask the Council to choose the option
with the most positive biological impact.
Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery. (Alternative 9b-ge).
Developing the long-term protections associated with designating river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery
will take time. Therefore, the Council should adopt the following interim measure to immediately reduce and
limit the at-sea catch of river herring and shad: A catch cap, effective in 2013 (A(ternative 6b-6c) that functions
effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be circumvented by simply declaring into another
fishery. These alternatives should be modified to more effectively ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops if a
cap is reached by lowering the amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed or retained.
Also, I urgently ask you to incorporate all of the following:
• One hundred percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips. One observer must be
assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation. (Alternative Sb4 and Alternative 3d).
•

An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled catch. All catch,
including "operational discards," must be made avai-lable to fishery observers for systematic
sampling (Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include
a fleet wide limit of ten dumping events (Alternative 31 and 3n) and require vessels that dump to
take an observer on their next trip (Alternative 30).
A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).

Currently, millions of pounds of river herring, American shad and other fish are scooped up
indiscriminately by industrial trawlers targeting Atlantic mackerel. Massive boats tow football field-size
nets that pick up fish, whales, dolphins, seabirds -- anything in their path. It is time to rein in these
massive trawlers, and restore balance to the Atlantic.
Thank you for your commitment to these priority reforms and the health of our waters.
~
J. Capozzelli, New York
Yours truly,

MAY 2 1 2012

Appendix 9 - Comments received on the DEIS before the June 2012 Council Meeting but after the
June 2012 Council Briefing Book was created (includes links to several large documents that were
submitted as supporting materials).
Amendment 14 Comment Supplement
Updated 6/11/12

Several large documents have been posted to or linked from:
http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbAm14current.htm. They include (a reference
hardcopy will be available at the meeting):
-C.Hall’s Thesis: Damming of Maine Watersheds and the Consequences for Coastal
Ecosystems with a Focus on the Anadromous River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus and
Alosa aestivalis): A Four Century Analysis.
-Two lists of petitioners from PEW totaling 37,785 individuals including any personal
comments they added to a core letter. These individuals resided mostly in the United
States and represented most if not all U.S. States.
-ASMFC River Herring Advisory Report PLUS ASMFC American Shad Advisory
Report
-The ASMFC’s American Shad Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01, entitled American
Shad Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review – Volume I (Stock Assessment
Overview (August 2007)), Volume II (State-Specific Assessments for Maine to Delaware
River and Bay (August 2007), and Volume III (State-Specific Assessments for Maryland
to Florida (August 2007)), all available at: http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm
-River Herring Benchmark Assessment: Volume I (May 2012) (includes Terms of
Reference & Advisory Report, Technical Committee Response to Peer Review Report,
and Coastwide Assessment); Volume II (May 2012) (includes State/Jurisdiction-specific
Stock Status Summaries); and River Herring Stock Assessment Overview (May 2012),
all available at: http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm

Updates on numbers of similar comments received have also been received:
- The letter on page 6 of the Council Briefing Book (Am5 & Am14) was received from
940 total individuals
- The letter on page 8 of the Council Briefing Book (Am14) was received from 6,645
total individuals
- The letter on page 10 of the Council Briefing Book (New York) was received from 531
total individuals

- The letter on page 12 of the Council Briefing Book (Stock in the Fishery) was received
from 279 total individuals
- The letter on page 32 of the Council Briefing Book (Lunds) was received from 65 total
individuals
- The Postcard on page 34 of the Council Briefing Book was received from 574 total
individuals

The comments in this document were received after the Council Briefing Book mail-out. An
Index Follows:
Page Comment/Communication Provider
3 ASMFC
6 Pew Env. Group to MAFMC
26 Pew Env. Group to NEFMC
51 Hall et al 2010 Article on influence of dams
64 EarthJustice for Flaherty et al
66 NOAA river herring 90 day finding
71 FLAHERTY v Bryson
95 Herring Alliance
99 MD Orgs Letter
102 NY Orgs Letter
104 PA Orgs Letter
109 The Nature Conservancy
112 Pew Env Group Core Sign‐On 1
115 NRDC
124 Pew Env Group Core Sign‐On 2
128 Rothenberger
130 Minore
132 EarthJustice for Herring Alliance
154 Mass Striped Bass Assoc
157 Choir Coalition
175 Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
178 VA Orgs Letter
180 Garden State Seafood Assoc.
184 25 Members of Congress to Rauch
187 Sen. Joan Carter Conway (MD State Senator)
189 Delegate Maggie McIntosh (MD Delagate)
191 DE Orgs Letter
194 Buffer
196 Brotman
197 Glen Anderson

June 4, 2012
Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 North State Street, Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901
RE: AMENDMENT 14
Dear Dr. Moore,
On behalf of the Pew Environment Group I am writing in response to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s (MAFMC or Council) request for public comments on the Amendment
14 (AM 14) Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP). For a full list of our preferred alternatives,
please see Table 1 provided at the end of these comments.
Providing adequate conservation and management for river herrings and shad in federal waters
requires that catch of these species be effectively monitored, reduced and limited, therefore the
Council must select the following alternatives from the AM 14 DEIS:
•
•

•

•

Add river herring and shads as non-target stocks in the MSB FMP. (Alternatives 9b-e)
Implement immediate interim measures to reduce and limit incidental catch of river
herring and shads until the full suite of conservation and management measures to
integrate them as non-target stocks is developed and implemented as required.
o Implement mortality caps for river herring and shads (alosines) in the mackerel
fishery. Modify the proposed caps to reduce the incidental mackerel catch
allowable to 2,000 pounds per trip once the cap is exceeded and directed fishing
for mackerel stops. (Modified Alternatives 6b and 6c, and Alternative 6f)
o Close river herring hotspots to directed squid and mackerel fishing. Close the
“River Herring Protection Areas” identified by the NEFMC in Am 5 to the
Herring Plan (Modified Alternative 8eMack and Alternative 8eLong) and also
create a mechanism under which the larger “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance
Areas” identified in Am 5 could be closed through a future Framework
Adjustment. (Modified Alternative 8b)
Improve vessel reporting and catch monitoring program for all MSB permits, including
100% observer coverage for midwater trawl vessels in the mackerel fishery, and 50%
coverage in the squid fishery, in order to improve precision and accuracy in incidental
catch estimates. (Modified Alternatives 5b4, 5c and 5d, Alternative 5f, Modified
Alternative 5h, and Alternatives 1c, Modified 1d48, 1eMack & 1eLong, 1f Mack,
Modified 1gMack & 1gLong; Modified Alternatives 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f; 3b, 3c, 3d,
Modified 3j, 3l, 3n, 3o)
Include flexible management options, either through the specifications process or through
a framework option, to easily adapt management in the future.

River Herring and Shad Must Be Included as Stocks in the Fishery:
The only alternatives available to the Council that will ensure the long-term protection and
recovery of river herring and shads are the inclusion of these species as non-target stocks in the
Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish FMP (Alternative Set 9b-e). Stocks in the fishery will most
effectively allow the MAFMC to control mortality in its jurisdiction. Furthermore, because
shads and river herring are involved in this fishery and in need of conservation and management,
their addition as stocks in the MSB FMP is required as a matter of law. 1 Under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) is required, through the regional councils, to prepare an FMP or amendments
for all fish stocks that are in need of conservation and management. 2 This requirement was
recently affirmed in Flaherty v. Bryson, which reiterated the MSA’s directive that, under Section
302 of the MSA, Councils must prepare an FMP or amendment for any stock of fish that
“requires conservation and management.” 3 The Council must then set ACL, AMs and other
conservation and management measures for all of the stocks in the fishery. 4
However, since Alternative Set 9b-e states that fully integrating river herring and shads to the
MSB FMP as stocks in the fishery will require a further amendment, the Council must also use
additional alternatives within Amendment 14 as interim measures to reduce and limit the
unregulated incidental catch of river herring and shads discussed below, beginning on page 6.
The MAFMC must include river herring and shads within the MSB FMP as non-target stocks, as
required by the MSA and outlined by the revised National Standard 1 (NS1) Guidelines. 5 The
MSA requires management of fish stocks that are in need of conservation and management. 6
River herring and shads, as outlined in the following section, are in desperate need of
conservation and management at the federal level. This management can take place directly
through federal FMPs created by regional councils and implemented by NMFS, through a
Secretarial FMP created and implemented by NMFS alone, or through NMFS implementation of
regulations consistent with an Interstate Fishery Management Plan (IFMP) and the MSA’s
National Standards. 7

1

See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012) .
16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(1); § 1854(c)(1); 16 U.S.C. § 5103(b)(1). (Emphasis added). See also Flaherty, 2012 WL at
*13.
3
2012 WL 752323, *13, 14 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012) (“[16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(1)] requires FMPs and necessary
amendments for all ‘stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management’ and
which are in need of conservation and management. Id. §§ 1802(13)(a), 1852(h)(1).”).
4
See Flaherty, 2012 WL at *9.
5
50 CFR § 600.310(d)(3-4).
6
16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(1); § 1854(c)(1); 16 U.S.C. § 5103(b)(1). See also Flaherty, 2012 WL at *13.
7
Id. This provision of the Atlantic Coastal Fishery Management Act provides that in the absence of an approved and
implemented federal FMP, after consulting the appropriate council(s) NMFS can implement regulation for federal
waters that are both compatible with the IFMP and consistent with the national standards. Regulations to implement
an approved federal FMP prepared by the appropriate council would supersede any regulation issued by the
Secretary.
2

In the absence of independent action by NMFS, not including river herring and shad in the SMB
FMP is in violation of the MSA requirements to conserve and manage marine resources, and is
inconsistent with the best practices recommended by the NS1 Guidelines. The MSA requires
that federal FMPs describe the fish stocks involved in a fishery. 8 To comply with the MSA’s
mandate to prevent overfishing, the revised NS1 Guidelines require relevant councils to identify
the stocks in the fishery, including the non-targeted stocks that are caught incidentally and
retained or discarded at sea. The MSA defines ‘non-target stocks’ as fish that are “caught
incidentally during the pursuit of target stocks in a fishery, including ‘regulatory discards’ as
defined under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(38). They may or may not be retained for sale or
personal use.” 9 Figure 1 (below) outlines the NS1 approach to classifying aspects of the fishery.
There is no question the river herring and shads are involved in the SMB fishery and are capable
of being managed as part of the FMP. 10 River herring and shads are both caught as incidental
catch and in most cases retained for sale, 11 are clearly stocks that are part of the fishery, and as
such should be included in the FMP as non-target stocks.
Figure 1: 12

8
9

16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(2)

50 C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(4)
10
See 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(2). The Act requires an FMP to contain, among other things, a description of the species
of fish involved in the fishery. A “fishery” is defined as “one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific,
technical, recreational, and economic characteristics.” Id. § 1802(13). A “stock of fish” is defined as a “species,
subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable of management as a unit.” Id. § 1802(42).
National Standard Seven Guidelines provide limited additional guidance stating that the Act requires plans for
"fisheries where regulation would serve some useful purpose and where the present or future benefits of regulation
would justify the costs." 50 C.F.R. § 600.340(b).
11
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Incidental Catch Analysis, page 569-582.
12
Preventing Overfishing. (n.d.). retrieved from http://www.preventoverfishing.com/aclpo/115.html

In Flaherty v. Bryson, the Court made clear that the MSA requires management of populations in
need of conservation and management, such as depleted river herring and shad stating, “the
MRSA [Revised Magnuson-Stevens Act] requires ACLs and AMs for all stocks in need of
conservation and management, not just those stocks which were part of the fishery prior to the
passage of the MRSA…The setting of ACLs and AMs necessarily entails a decision as to which
stocks require conservation and management.” 13 In this case, the Court held that NMFS’s rubber
stamping of the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) failure to include river
herring as a non-target stock in the Atlantic Herring FMP, without ensuring that it was consistent
with the MSA’s “conservation and management requirement,” was unlawful. 14 Since, as
demonstrated previously, river herring and shads are involved in the SMB FMP and in need of
conservation and management, they must be added to the MSB FMP. NMFS must review
Council decisions to ensure that they comply with these requirements of the MSA, and
disapprove those that do not.
In the subsequent FMP amendment, triggered by Alternative set 9, the Council should develop
the required annual catch limits (ACLs) and other Status Determination Criteria (SDC) for river
herring and shad, and any appropriate measures that would be required to ensure that the limits
are not exceeded, or seek alternative methods to satisfy the ACL requirements in consultation
with NMFS. In addition, the Council should consider any other measures necessary to reduce
bycatch, as required by National Standard 9.
River Herring and Shad are in Need of Conservation and Management in the MSB FMP:
The MAFMC should look to the MSA’s definition of “conservation and management” 15 in
making its decision to add these species to the FMP. This definition addresses stocks where
action is necessary to rebuild, restore, or maintain “any fishery resource and the marine
environment,” to ensure a constant food supply and recreational benefits, and to avoid
irreversible or long-term adverse effects on the fishery resources and the marine environment.
National Standard 7 and its guidelines provide some additional criteria that can be looked to for
guidance. 16
River herring and American shad populations are at historic and dramatic lows. 17 Currently river
herring and shads are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)
13

See Flaherty, 2012 WL at *11. Parenthesis added
See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012).
15
16 U.S.C. § 1802(5).
16
See 50 C.F.R. 600.340(b). Although the criteria note that adequate management by an entity like the ASMFC
could be one factor in determining whether a stock should be added to a fishery, in this case, the ASMFC plan does
not address the catch of river herring and shads in federal waters. The Court in Flaherty v. Bryson did not address
this in the opinion because even NMFS recognized that the ASMFC plan does not address the federal waters.
17
The ASMFC lists the status of American shad, alewife and blueback herring as depleted in accordance with the
most recent stock assessments for these species. American Shad: ASMFC. August 2007. Stock Assessment Report
No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: American Shad Stock Assessment for
Peer Review, Volume 1. River Herring: ASMFC. May 2012. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02 of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission: River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume 1. See also: Hall CJ
(2009) Damming of Maine Watersheds and the Consequences for Coastal Ecosystems with a Focus on the
14

under Amendments 2 and 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River
Herring. This plan, however, only implements conservation and management measures in state
waters, and is irrelevant to whether or not river herring and shads are in need of conservation and
management measures in federal waters. Equally irrelevant to the decision about whether to add
these stocks to an FMP is the fact that NMFS has failed to identify them as overfished or that
overfishing is not occurring. 18 What is relevant is that the ASMFC’s recently released stock
assessment for river herring found that alewife and blueback herring along East Coast are
“depleted,” with many populations in a dangerously diminished state. 19 Their disappearance
from traditional fishing grounds in rivers and estuaries is alarming, not only for the communities
and fishermen that depend on them, but for the coastal ecosystem as a whole. Restoration of
these anadromous species depends on a comprehensive management plan that protects them
throughout their lifecycle and migratory range, including while at sea.
Total catch (bycatch and incidental) in federal waters is impeding shad and river herring
rebuilding efforts. According to the ASMFC’s 2012 stock assessment, at-sea fisheries are a
significant factor in the decline of river herring populations over the last 50 years. 20 In some
years, more than 2 million pounds of adult and juvenile river herring are killed incidentally by atsea fisheries, of which the Mid-Atlantic mackerel and squid fisheries contribute to approximately
half of the total at-sea catch. 21 Of the roughly 5 million river herring taken at sea every year,
many are immature. The majority of the 600,000 American shad taken are also juveniles. 22
High fishing mortality on immature fish has a significant negative effect on stock status and
reduces effectiveness of rebuilding efforts, 23 an issue of concern highlighted by the Peer Review
Panel in the recent river herring stock assessment. 24 The Peer Review Panel also found that total
mortality levels in all runs examined surpassed the recommended mortality benchmark and
called for all sources of mortality to be addressed, including ocean bycatch. 25 NMFS observer
records show that at-sea fishing vessels may take as much as 20,000 pounds of blueback herring
in a single net haul.26 To put this in perspective, consider that the 2008 commercial blueback
herring landings from the states of New York, Delaware, and Virginia combined totaled just
26,000 pounds. If the fish are aggregated while at sea, a single haul could obliterate an entire
river’s herring population.
Anadromous River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis): A Four Century Analysis. Masters’
Thesis, Marine and Atmospheric Science, Stony Brook University; Limburg KE, Waldman JR (2009) Dramatic
Declines in North Atlantic Diadromous Fishes. BioScience 59(11): 955-965
18
See Flaherty, 2012 WL at *13.
19
See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment Report, Executive
Summary.
20
See River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Peer review report, Page 8.
21
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Incidental Catch Analysis, Page 571
22
See Amendment 14 DEIS, p. 111
23
See Vasilakopoulos, P., O'Neill, F. G., and Marshall, C. T. 2011. Misspent youth: does catching immature fish
affect fisheries sustainability? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1525–1534.
24
See ASMFC. May 2012. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:
River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume 1. pp. 15-16.
25
Id, at page 29
26
Haul data from North East Fisheries Observer Program, NMFS; Landings data from NOAA’s Annual
Commercial Landing Statistics: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html

Despite efforts to improve riverine ecosystems and longstanding bans on fishing both in-river
and in coastal state waters in a number of states, river herring and shad continue to struggle along
the eastern seaboard. In 2012, all but 5 states 27 on the East Coast placed a moratorium on river
herring in state waters for both commercial and recreational fishing. Even in the states without a
moratorium, fishing for river herring is extremely restricted. In 2013, many states will add new
restrictions to the catch of American shad within state waters, or go into moratorium as well.
Without a federal management plan that compliments the rebuilding efforts within state waters,
river herring and shad fisheries in state waters are unlikely to reopen in the future.
These fish have been an integral part of coastal community life for centuries, and the MSB
fishery is adversely affecting these economically, biologically, and culturally important
resources. In previous decades, when abundance was substantially higher, these fish also played
a key role as forage for a great number of predators including larger, commercially important
fish such as Atlantic cod and striped bass – alosines were once a vital link between the sea and
coastal estuaries, streams and lakes. These ecological and cultural functions must be restored.
Further, because they are forage fish critically important to the diets of dozens of other marine
and terrestrial species, these adverse impacts ripple through the ecosystem and coastal
economies.
The MAFMC Should Implement an Interim Catch Cap for Alosines in the Mackerel
Fishery:
Adding river herring and shad as stocks in the MSB fishery through AM 14 will not constitute
sufficient action in and of itself. While the Council develops a trailing amendment to meet
criteria required under the MSA for fully integrating river herring and shads as stocks in the
MSB FMP, the Council must establish a mortality cap through AM 14 to immediately begin
reducing and limiting at-sea mortality of these depleted species. This interim catch cap should be
effective in 2013, and remain in effect until replaced by ACLs or similar conservation measures
under the MSB FMP once the river herring and shads are fully integrated in the FMP.
The Council should select Alternatives 6b and 6c, to jointly function as a single mortality
cap in the mackerel fishery. However, due to the overlap of the mackerel fishery with the
herring fishery, 28 these alternatives should be modified to improve consistency between the two
FMP’s, improve effectiveness of the cap, and ensure that vessels cannot circumvent a cap by
simply declaring into another fishery. These alternatives should be modified to more effectively
ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops, that mackerel discarding does not continue or
increase, and that river herring and shad removals cease if a cap is reached by lowering the
incidental trip allowance of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed or retained.

27

Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North and South Carolina submitted Sustainable Fishing Plans under
ASMFC regulations and received approval from ASMFC for limited in-river and state waters fisheries.
28
See July 22, 2008 New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) Herring Committee and Advisory Panel
memo, regarding “Background Information re. Herring/Mackerel Fishery Interactions”.

The mackerel fishery should close once it is determined that it created a certain level of alosine
mortality (that level would be determined annually by the Council in a specification process, and
should be set as a proportion of recent alosine catch history, 29 until better data are available).
Such a combined cap (river herring and shads together) would afford better protection to all
alosine species and can be refined once the Council attains more precise estimates of incidental
catch with increased observer coverage. However, because overlap between the Atlantic herring
and Atlantic mackerel fisheries, particularly among large midwater trawl vessels which
constitute the majority of the catch, would complicate the implementation of a cap on the
mackerel fishery alone, Alternatives 6b and 6c should be modified to lower the incidental trip
allowance.
The current mackerel incidental allowance of 20,000 pounds that is proposed under 6b and 6c
may not sufficiently deter directed fishing. This alternative set should be modified to be
consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP, which uses a 2,000 pound incidental Atlantic herring
limit to define, deter and close directed herring fishing, including for the purposes of enforcing
herring ACL’s and sub-ACL’s. 30 This incidental limit has proven effective in Atlantic herring
management 31 and would provide for more consistent regulation of the mixed herring and
mackerel fisheries, including for the purposes of a river herring mortality cap. The AM 14 DEIS
raises the valid concern that directed Atlantic herring fishing might continue, in some cases by
the same vessels, under a closure of the mackerel fishery due to a cap, undermining the
effectiveness of the cap. However, a reduced mackerel incidental limit consistent with the
Atlantic herring limit would likely deter directed Atlantic herring fishing quite effectively and
ensure the integrity of the cap. This is illustrated, via a converse example, by the 2012 Mackerel
Advisory Panel Performance Report, which cites industry statements that the directed mackerel
fishery in 2012 effectively closed once the directed herring fishery in Management Area 2 was
closed via the 2,000 pound limit.32 If the cap is reached, the directed mackerel fishery should be
closed through implementation of an incidental catch allowance of 2,000 pounds, instead of the
20,000 pounds proposed. Further, the implementing language for that incidental limit should be
consistent with the language in the Herring FMP such that the 2,000 pound limit would apply to
vessels “fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing more than 2,000 lb.” 33
29

The MAFMC currently sets ABCs/ACLs in the MSB fisheries using past catch history, and this approach would
be consistent with best available science on setting catch limits on data poor stocks ; catch limits for Atlantic herring
are also based upon recent catch.
30
The 2,000 pound limit used to close the directed fishery was approved in Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP as the
sole proactive Accountability Measure for preventing ACL overages and is described in Amendment 4 at:
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/planamen/final_a4/AM%204%20DOCUMENT%20FORMAL%20SUBMISSION_1
00423.pdf . (see page29).
31
While there have been numerous sub-ACL overages in the herring fishery that are demonstrative of the
inadequacies of the Amendment 4 ACL/AM regime, these have typically been the result of a failure to close the
directed fishery by implementing the 2,000 pound limit in a timely fashion, rather than as a result of any failure of
the 2,000 pound limit to adequately end directed fishing.
32
See 2012 Industry Performance Report. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/1Staff_2013_MSB_ABC_Memo.pdf, Page 5-6.
33
Those regulations state that upon closure of the directed Atlantic Herring fishery, NMFS shall “prohibit herring
vessel permit holders from fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg)
of herring per calendar day in or from the specified management area for the remainder of the closure period.” See

Alterative 6f, which adds mortality caps to the list of measures that can be introduced through a
framework, should also be selected in order to allow for a catch cap on the squid fisheries. As
data improves through better catch monitoring and sampling, the Council may find that caps in
the squid fishery (or in the butterfish fishery, should butterfish catch limits increase significantly
and a directed fishery is re-instituted) are necessary. Currently the MSB FMP does not list
incidental catch caps as frameworkable measures, and this alternative would facilitate
implementation of caps or cap adjustments, should new data reveal a more significant alosine
catch in any of the MSB target fisheries.
Hot Spot Restrictions:
Pew Environment Group supports the closure to directed mackerel and squid fishing of temporal
and spatial protection areas identified as having high rates of river herring or shad bycatch (“hotspots”) as an additional tool that should be deployed to reduce catch of river herring and shad as
an interim measure (i.e., until these stocks are fully integrated as stocks in the fishery), in
addition to the immediate implementation of a mortality cap. The protection areas identified by
the NEFMC Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) are small, and the MAFMC’s Fishery
Management Action Team (FMAT) analyses indicate that protection of small areas alone may
not be adequate to effectively reduce catch, or may result in a fishing effort shift that could
increase river herring and shad morality. However, coupled with a mortality cap, and based on
the PDT’s analysis of the same provisions in Amendment 5, 34 the river herring protection areas
will provide a positive conservation benefit until management measures for river herrings and
shads are fully integrated into the FMP (as stocks in the fishery). Consequently we also request
that the alternatives below be utilized to reduce the total catch of river herring and shad at sea.
As more data becomes available through increased monitoring, the Council should have all
possible tools available at its disposal. The Council should also provide an option under which
the protection areas could be expanded, through a framework action, relative to the specific areas
that are protected initially. For example, consideration should be given to affording protection to
the larger areas identified as “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas” 35 in Amendment 5
(NEFMC). Finally, the MAFMC should modify the hotspot alternative for mackerel vessels to
close them to directed mackerel fishing using a 2,000 pound incidental limit instead of 20,000
pounds as proposed, again to ensure consistency with the herring FMP and to prevent vessels
from circumventing the hotspot requirements. See the preceding section exploring this issue
relative to the mortality cap for a detailed rationale for this modification.
We support the selection of the following measures in this section:
•

Modified Alternative 8b: Make implementing the hotspot requirements of NEFMC’s
Amendment 5 frameworkable. The MAFMC should provide a mechanism through which

most recent herring fishery closure notice dated February 23, 2012 in the Federal Register at
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/12/12HerAear2ClosureTR.pdf
34
See Draft Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Herring, Volume II, Appendices.
35
Also described in Am 14 DEIS (See pages 72-77)

•

•

the Council could, through a Framework Adjustment, expand the hotspots to encompass
the larger River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas, or adjust hotspot requirements to
achieve consistency with the Herring FMP. Due to the overlap in these fisheries, if
hotspot closures are implemented in the SMB fishery that differ from any implemented in
the Atlantic herring fishery, the conservation benefit of the protection areas could be
decreased, for instance if small-mesh gears capable of taking river herring were also
permitted in the closed areas simply by declaring into a different fishery (i.e. declaring a
different target species). As noted before, it is important that the two FMPs achieve
consistency.
Modified Alternative 8eMack: Vessels possessing a federal mackerel permit would not
be able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land 36 more than an incidental
level of fish (2,000 pounds mackerel) while in a River Herring Protection Area unless no
mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.
Alternative 8eLong: Vessels possessing a federal moratorium longfin squid permit
would not be able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land 37 more than an
incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds longfin squid) while in a River Herring Protection
Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.

Again, as noted in our comments above on mortality caps, Alternative 8eMack should be
modified to improve consistency between the SMB and Atlantic Herring FMP’s by aligning the
incidental trip allowances and implementing language. Adjusting this parameter of 8eMack
from 20,000 pounds to 2,000 pounds and more closely aligning the regulatory language will
ensure that vessels cannot circumvent these measures by declaring into another fishery. The
Council should carefully monitor the effectiveness of the hotspot regime for squid vessels to
determine if any similar adjustments are warranted.
Improved Monitoring and Data Collection:
In order to achieve the stated goals of Amendment 14, and ensure the effectiveness of the above
recommended alternatives, it is imperative that the Council improve vessel reporting and thirdparty catch monitoring for all MSB permits. The Council should select as their preferred
alternatives those which increase the accuracy and timeliness of vessel and dealer reporting,
coupled with the management measures that greatly improve the accuracy and precision of thirdparty (i.e. observer) incidental catch estimates. In order to do so, it is critical that the Council
dramatically increase observer coverage and ensure that observers have access to all catch for
sampling. As such, we support the alternatives detailed below and outlined in Table 1. These
alternatives should be consistent with the NEFMC’s Atlantic herring FMP in order to avoid
discrepancies in measures between the Council’s that would cause significant difficulties in
implementation or allow for fishing effort to avoid more robust monitoring in one of the FMP’s
by selectively declaring into the other.

36

Proposed revisions to make this measure more consistent with incidental catch allowance regulations in the
Atlantic Herring FMP. See footnote 33
37
Ibid

Furthermore, we oppose the addition of a sunset clause for any increased observer coverage
levels that are implemented through AM 14. The alternatives already contemplate a review of
the observer requirements by the Council in two years (Alternative 5h). This is a more
appropriate approach. The Service has also indicated that it may take time for an expanded
observer program to be designed for these fisheries and fully established on the water. It would
be unfortunate for a sunset clause to kick in prior to a full observer program, and prior to gaining
the necessary data that the coverage was intended to obtain. Additionally, it must be recognized
that observation can improve performance (e.g., observer effect) and consequently it is risky to
assume that information gathered under 100% monitoring can be used to predict what the fishery
will do without 100% monitoring; the notion that a few years of 100% monitoring can provide a
solid foundation for future management is therefore flawed. We also oppose the issuance of
waivers, under which a vessel or trip assigned an observer would be allowed to sail without an
observer. A robust at-sea monitoring program on vessels of this size, gear type and fishing
power, and which have a known potential for infrequent but destructive bycatch events, must
have 100% coverage. One hundred percent coverage must mean just that: 100%. A blanket
provision allowing the unlimited issuance of waivers with no backstops or other accountability
measures is likely to seriously undermine any 100% coverage requirement or other target
coverage level.
At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements (Alternative Set 5):
The at-sea observer program, which obtains data for both kept and discarded catch, is
critical to understanding total catch of river herring and shads, and must be prioritized by
the Council. To ensure accurate and statistically reliable accounting of catch, increased
observer coverage is necessary. 38 In contrast to at-sea observers, portside sampling only
obtains information for the catch that is retained, and therefore misses an important part
of the equation. Without maximized retention (which is not considered in Amendment
14) we cannot support portside sampling (Alternative Set 4) for deriving estimates on
river herring and shad incidental catch. Taken alone, it would miss at-sea discards and
provide insufficient data. Absent maximized retention and the related need for at-sea
sampling, portside sampling becomes redundant and inefficient.
The current levels of monitoring and data collection within the Mid-Atlantic’s midwater
trawl and small-mesh fisheries are inadequate. 39 We support the following measures:
•

38

Modified Alternative 5b4: Require 100% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels
intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land over 2,000 pounds of
mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip
notifications. Vessels would not be able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer,
or land more than 2,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had notified their intent to

See http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/current/SMB/River_Herring_Letters.pdf .
See June 24th, 2009 MAFMC letter to NMFS, at
http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/current/SMB/River_Herring_Letters.pdf
39

fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land more than 2,000 pounds of
mackerel. 40
Midwater trawl vessels account for 75.7% of river herring incidental catch and 41.8% of
shad incidental catch, 41 and are responsible for the majority of mackerel landings,
accounting for 62% of landings in 2010. 42 According to information presented in
Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP, there are 15 midwater trawl vessels that are eligible for
the mackerel limited access program (13 in Tier 1, and 2 in Tier 2). 43 Given the high
volume nature of these vessels, and the fact that significant shad and river herring catch
events may be infrequent (but events can be large when they occur), 100% coverage is
necessary for an accurate accounting of incidental catch. In addition, midwater trawl
vessels are in the top permit tiers of the Atlantic herring limited access fishery, for which
the New England Council is considering 100% observer coverage. Given the overlap in
the midwater trawl fisheries for Atlantic herring and mackerel, observer coverage levels
should be consistent between the FMPs. 44 Furthermore, for essentially the same reasons
stated above in our explanation for the need to adjust the mackerel incidental limit
downward from 20,000 pounds to 2,000 pounds to better align it with Atlantic Herring
FMP language and ensure the integrity of a mortality cap, the same adjustments should
be made for this alternative. Absent this modification, it is possible that a significant
amount of directed mackerel fishing could take place outside the scope of a 100%
observer coverage requirement, if the vessels simply declared an intent to fish in the
herring fishery (and if the Herring FMP did not have a similar coverage requirement).
Allowing vessels 20,000 pounds of mackerel will not sufficiently deter directed fishing
by these large vessels that comprise the most significant component of the herringmackerel fishery overlap.
•

Modified Alternative 5c: This alternative should be modified to require 100% of
Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT, i.e. mesh <3.5 in) mackerel trips by Tier 1 and
Tier 2 limited access mackerel vessels intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain,
transfer, or land over 2,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. Require 25% of
SMBT trips by Tier 3 vessels intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer,
or land over 2,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. 45

40

Proposed revisions to make this measure more consistent with incidental catch allowance regulations in the
Atlantic Herring FMP. See footnote 33
41
See Amendment 14, Appendix 2, page 581
42
See Amendment 14, Table 29, page 247
43
See MAFMC. Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). May 2011, Tables 94-96, pages 447-448.
44

See Amendment 14, Appendix 2, page 574
Proposed revisions to make this measure more consistent with incidental catch allowance regulations in the
Atlantic Herring FMP. See footnote 33
45

Small-mesh bottom trawls are believed to contribute to 23.7% and 25.6% of river herring
and shad incidental catch respectively; therefore, it is important to improve observer
coverage in this fleet to achieve accuracy and precision in incidental catch estimates.
Because industry funding will be necessary to achieve coverage levels above the status
quo, it is important to distribute the observer cost burden equitably among fishery
participants. For the mackerel limited access program, 10 SMBT vessels are eligible for
Tier 1, and 19 are eligible for Tier 2. 46 Neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2 vessels are capped by a
percentage of the quota, with no trip limits for Tier 1 vessels. For Tier 3, however, 138
vessels qualify, 47 and this tier is capped at 3% of the annual quota. Additionally, the
average length of a Tier 3 vessel is 65 ft, compared to 78 ft for Tier 2 and 110 ft for Tier
1, 48 likely making the observer costs significantly more burdensome for vessels in Tier 3
relative to their daily operating costs. One hundred percent coverage on Tier 1 and Tier 2
SMBT vessels engaging in directed mackerel fishing represents a manageable objective
that will cover the majority of the catch by this gear type, without undue burden on small
boats or the observer infrastructure.
Consistent with our prior suggestions, the MAFMC should also adjust the mackerel
incidental catch limit under this alternative to 2,000 pounds to ensure consistency with
the Atlantic Herring FMP and to prevent vessels from circumventing observer
requirements.
•

Modified Alternative 5d: This alternative should be modified to require 50% of
SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by major longfin squid moratorium permitted
vessels intending to retain 49 over 2,500 pounds of longfin squid to carry observers.

Only 3.5% of longfin squid catches by weight have been observed in recent years (20062010), 50 contributing to great uncertainty in the shad and river herring incidental catch
estimates for this fishery. As described above, small-mesh bottom trawls (SMBT) do
contribute significantly to shad and river herring incidental catch, and higher levels of atsea observer coverage will be needed for the Northeast’s SMBT fleet, in order to obtain
reasonably accurate and precise estimates of this catch. Coverage must be equitably
distributed among vessels according to their activity in the fishery. While there are
approximately 400 vessels that hold moratorium permits, an average of only 103 vessels
have been major vessels in this fishery in the last 5 years, and these major vessels account
for around 95% of the annual landings. 51 Of these vessels, 57 account for 75% of
46

Id.

47

Id.

48

See MAFMC Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). May 2011, Table 82, page 435.
49

While herring-mackerel fishery overlap and consistency concerns are likely not as acute for squid vessels, if the
Council’s intent is to ensure observer coverage on a target percentage of directed squid fishing trips, it may want to
consider revising this alternative to reflect the previously noted language used in the Atlantic herring FMP to define
directed fishing (“fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing”), and which has been proven effective.
See footnote 33
50
See Amendment 14 DEIS, page 147.
51

See April 2012 MAFMC Staff .Memo, AP Informational Document, Table 6.

landings. The Council should identify the approximately 100 most active longfin squid
vessels (or outline procedures whereby they would self-identify) in advance of the fishing
year so that they are clearly and explicitly assigned to the 50% observer coverage bin for
that fishing year. Criteria that could be utilized to sort and assign the fleet in this manner
include an analysis of recent catch history to identify whether these vessels vary
significantly from year to year and/or whether there is a logical annual landings threshold
where the line can be drawn. Alternatively, the Council could identify a reasonable and
typical annual threshold for landings that makes it likely they will capture the most active
vessels (i.e. those which collectively catch 95% of the longfin squid) and require that
vessels wishing to land over that number for the year must declare into the higher
observer coverage program .
•

Alternative 5f: Industry would have to pay for observers that are greater than the
existing sea day allocation assigned. NEFSC would accredit the observers.

As detailed above, no waivers should be issued without explicit limits and accountability
measures to ensure that waivers do not significantly undermine the target coverage level.
•

Modified Alternative 5h: Require reevaluation of coverage requirement after 2 years
to determine if incidental catch rates justify continued expense of continued high
coverage rates.

As stated above, we oppose the addition of a sunset clause for any increased observer
coverage levels that are implemented through AM 14, and believe that a review of the
observer requirements by the Council in two years is a more appropriate approach.
However, the language in this alternative needs to be modified. As written, it is too
restrictive and hints at foregone conclusions. A review of observer coverage should not
be restricted to whether coverage rates are too high and should be reduced. The review
should be a comprehensive analysis of whether coverage levels should be adjusted in
general, including whether they need to be increased.

Observer Optimization Measures (Alternative Set 3):
One of Amendment 14’s main goals is to reduce total catch of river herring and
American shad in the SMB fisheries. In order to successfully reduce total catch of these
species, Amendment 14 must have reliable total catch estimates. Estimates of the amount
of catch are dependent upon good estimates of the total overall catch because total catch
is used in scaling up from the amounts observed in samples. All of the following
measures will aid or enhance more accurate estimates of total catch.
•

Alternative 3b: Require the following reasonable assistance measures: provision of a
safe sampling station; help with measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; help
with bycatch collection; and help with basket sample collection by crew on vessels
with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits.

•

Alternative 3c: Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when
pumping/haul-back occurs on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin
squid moratorium permits.

•

Modified Alternative 3d: When observers are deployed on trips involving more than
one vessel, observers would be required on any vessel taking on fish
wherever/whenever possible on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin
squid moratorium permits.

The language “wherever/whenever possible” should be removed from this alternative.
Should the Council choose 100% monitoring, this language would provide a loophole to
such a requirement and frustrate the goal of more accurate observer data. The majority of
“Fish NK” (or fish unknown) records are associated with fish that are pumped to the
paired trawl vessel not carrying the observer. 52 Between July 2009 and June 2010 over
5.7 million pounds of catch was recorded as Fish NK in the observer database. 53 The
Council should be clear and explicit that any pair trawl trip assigned observer coverage
will require an observer on each platform, and should prohibit the taking of fish on a
vessel without an observer.
•

Modified Alternative 3j: Apply “Closed Area I” (CA1) requirements to mackerel
limited access and longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels. These requirements
are currently in force in the Atlantic herring fishery for midwater trawl vessels
intending to fish in Groundfish Closed Area 1. This alternative would require that all
fish be brought aboard for observer sampling with exceptions made for safety,
mechanical failure, or spiny dog fish clogging the pump.

Alternative 3j should also clarify that, consistent with the current CA1 sampling
regulations, operational discards must be brought aboard for sampling, may only be
dumped under one of the other three allowable exceptions, and therefore if dumped
would be subject to the accountability requirements outlined in 31, 3n and 3o. Vessels
would be permitted to discard (release) un-sampled catch under those limited exceptions,
and those only. Further, consistent with these CA1 rules, and in order to prevent any
abuse of those limited exceptions, an accountability framework should be layered over
the three exceptions as outlined below (Alternatives 3l, 3n and 3o). NMFS has
acknowledged that accurate catch composition records cannot be obtained for dumped
catch (including operational discards), that there are safe and operationally-feasible ways
to get all catch aboard for sampling (including operational discards), and that issues such
as stratification of catch in the cod-end or the strainer-like effect of the pump-intake grate
raise serious questions about the composition of operational discards. 54 In addition, and
consistent with our prior suggestions, this alternative should be modified such that the
mackerel incidental allowance is 2,000 pounds instead of 20,000 pounds, and the
52

See Appendix 5 of the DEIS, page 662.
See NEFSC. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report 201: Section 2, page 189.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/SBRM/2011/SBRM_Annual_Discard_Rpt_2011_Section2.pdf
53

54

See Final Rule entitled Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Discard Provision for Herring Midwater
Trawl Vessels Fishing in Groundfish Closed Area I, Federal Register November 30, 2010,

implementing language should be revised so that the measures apply to trips “fishing for,
catching, possessing, transferring, or landing” the specified amount of the target
species. 55
•

Alternative 3l: For mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS would track the
number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via
specifications) occur in any given year for notified and observed mackerel trips then
subsequent slippage events on any notified and observed mackerel trip would result in
trip termination for the rest of that year. The goal is to minimize slippage events.

At-sea dumping of unobserved catch, sometimes referred to as slippage or released catch
and including the aforementioned operational discards, is an ongoing problem in the
SMB fishery. From 2006-2010, 26% of hauls on observed mackerel trips had some
unobserved catch. 56 It is also a problem in the overlapping Atlantic herring fishery, from
which an illustrative example of successful dumping accountability measures can be
drawn. Prior to the implementation of the CA1 rules discussed on the previous page,
nearly 30% of observed hauls in the Atlantic herring fishery included dumped catch that
was not sampled, and even this is acknowledged as an underestimate because vessel
captains did not provide information on dumped catch on all observed hauls. 57 In
contrast, vessels fishing under Closed Area I (CA1) regulations in the Atlantic herring
fishery had no observed slippage events recorded in 2010. 58 This reduction in dumping
in the herring fishery clearly demonstrates that the CAI rules are effective. It is important
to note, however, that the effectiveness of the CAI regulations is due to the accountability
measures tied to the dumping exceptions, which requires a vessel to stop fishing and exit
CA1 if it releases an un-sampled net. The MAFMC should select final AM 14 measures
that replicate the CA1 regulations. Given the three exceptions provided for under
Alternative 3j, permitting 10 slippage events before slippage results in trip termination
provides a reasonable balance that will deter slippage without being unduly penalizing.
•

55

Alternative 3n: For longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track
the number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via
specifications) occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid
trips then subsequent slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid trip
would result in trip termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to maximize
sampling of catch on observed trips and to discourage and minimize slippage events.

See footnote 33
See Amendment 14 DEIS, page 130
57
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 5, pp. 652-653
58
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 5, page 658.
56

This alternative should be implemented in conjunction with Alternative 3j. On observed
longfin squid trips, an average of 9% to 14 % of hauls are not seen or sampled by
observers. 59 As discussed above, an accountability measure is an important component
to the CA1 sampling requirements to ensure compliance, and an allowance of 10 slippage
events per trimester before trip termination is implemented is appropriate for deterring
slippage.
•

Alternative 3o: For mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels, if a trip is
terminated within 24 hours because of any of the anti-slippage provisions, then the
relevant vessel would have to take an observer on its next trip.

This alternative is necessary if observer coverage levels are not high enough to
effectively deter vessels from dumping unwanted catch or catch they suspect contains
bycatch on the rare occasions they are observed. If there is a high likelihood the next trip
will not be observed, vessels may not be sufficiently discouraged from dumping early in
a trip by the trip termination requirement.
Vessel Reporting (Alternative Set 1):
Weekly VTR submission and daily VMS reporting would improve data accuracy and
facilitate quota tracking (directed landings and/or incidental mortality cap if applicable)
and reduce the risk of overages to any potential mortality cap. It is important to note that
the Atlantic herring FMP already mandates reporting measures identical to or very
similar to each of the alternatives listed below, making these proposed measures
necessary to improve consistency between the FMP’s.

59

•

Alternative 1c: Weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for all MSB permits.

•

Modified Alternative 1d48: Require 48 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS to fish
for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land 60 more than 2,000 pounds of mackerel
so as to facilitate observer placement.

•

Alternative 1eMack & 1eLong: Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels
and for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels.

•

Alternative 1fMack: Require daily VMS reporting of catch by limited access
mackerel vessels so as to facilitate monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and
cross checking with other data sources.

•

Alternative 1fLong: Should be made frameworkable in the event that a mortality cap
becomes necessary in the squid fishery.

See Amendment 14, p.130 states that 9% of hauls on observer trips go unobserved. SSC materials from Mary
2012 suggest that slippage has increased from previous estimates under the Butterfish Bycatch Program to 14%.
See http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/3-2011-Butterfish-Cap-Report(May%202012).pdf.
60
Proposed revisions to make this measure more consistent with incidental catch allowance regulations in the
Atlantic Herring FMP. See footnote 33

•

Modified Alternative 1gMack & Alternative 1g Long: Require 6 hour pre-landing
notification via VMS to land more than 2,000 pounds of mackerel or more than 2,500
pounds of longfin squid, which could facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or
portside monitoring.

Dealer Reporting (Alternative Set 2):
Standardizing the methods by which dealers weigh all catch and requiring vessels to
confirm the amount of fish landed will aid in better overall estimates of catch, in addition
to being essential for ensuring that directed quotas are not exceeded. More accurate data
on landings will also aid in the monitoring of a mortality cap or in achieving the objective
of better catch and bycatch estimates of river herring and shad. As the AM 14 DEIS
points out, “accurate monitoring of the target species can be as important as determining
the encounter rates of [river herring and shad]” in the determination of river herring and
shad catch estimates, due to the use of discard-to-kept ratios or other bycatch/incidental
catch extrapolations. 61
Dealer or vessel self-reporting of unverifiable, unstandardized “hail” weights or visuallybased volumetric estimates are inadequate and unacceptable. They present far too much
opportunity for deliberate or accidental misreporting, and offer no opportunity for thirdparty observers, port samplers, or law enforcement personnel to verify that accurate,
complete and honest catch weights are being reported.
•

Modified Alternative 2b: Require federally permitted SMB dealers to obtain vessel
representative confirmation of SAFIS transaction records for mackerel landings over
2,000 pounds, Illex landings over 10,000 pounds, and longfin squid landings over
2,500 pounds to catch data errors at first point of entry.

•

Modified Alternative 2c-f: Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all
landings related to mackerel transactions over 2,000 pounds and longfin squid
transactions over 2,500 pounds.

Consolidation of Management:
Overlap between the Atlantic mackerel fishery and the Atlantic herring fishery is welldocumented. 62 Improved monitoring and data collection will provide both Councils (as well as
the ASFMC) with a more complete picture regarding the overlap of the Atlantic mackerel and
Atlantic herring fisheries and their interactions with river herring and shads; however, in order to
improve management of all stocks it will be imperative for one FMP to ultimately manage the
stocks. We urge the Mid-Atlantic Council to begin discussions with NFMS, the NEFMC, and
the ASFMC to create a viable, single management plan that will best steward the resources.

61

See Amendment 14 DEIS, page 279
See New England Fishery Management Council Herring Committee and Advisory Panel memo, July 22, 2008,
regarding “Background Information re. Herring/Mackerel Fishery Interactions.”

62

Closing Comments:
Pew Environment Group strongly supports the MAFMC in its effort to develop an amendment to
the MSB FMP that will provide the strongest conservation and management measures for
depleted river herring and shads, and improve monitoring and accountability of the at-sea
fisheries which catch with these species in ocean waters.
Sincerely,

Peter Baker
Director, Northeast Fisheries Program
Pew Environment Group

Table 1:
Alternative Set

Set 1:
Vessel Reporting
Measures

Set 2:
Dealer Reporting
Measures
Set 3: At-Sea
Observation
Measures

Preferred
Alternative
1c

Description to be applied to the MSB FMP

Modified
1d48
1eMack &
1eLong
1fMack
Modified
1gMack &
1gLong
Modified 2b

48 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS intent to fish for, catch,
possess, retain, transfer or land greater than 2,000 lbs mackerel
VMS for all Limited Access mackerel vessels and for longfin
Squid/Butterfish moratorium vessels
Daily VMS of catch by Limited Access mackerel vessels
6 hr. pre-landing notification via VMS to land greater than 2,000 lbs
mackerel or 2,500 lbs longfin Squid

Modified 2c,
d, e, & f
3b
3c

Modified 3d
Modified 3j

Set 5:
Observer
Coverage

3l
(implemented
w/ 3j)
3n
(implemented
w/ 3j)
3o
Modified 5b4
Modified 5c1
and Modified
5c4

Weekly VTR for all MSB permits

Federally-permitted MSB dealers must get vessel confirmation of
SAFIS trans records for mackerel landings greater than 2,000 lbs
and longfin Squid greater than 2,500 lbs
Federally-permitted MSB dealers must weigh all landings related to
mackerel greater than 2,000 lbs and 2,500 lbs of longfin squid
Reasonable assistance measures

Vessel operators must provide observers notice when
pumping/hauling back
When observers are on trips with more than one vessel, observers
required on ANY vessel taking on fish. Whenever/wherever possible
language should be modified
Closed Area 1 Requirements currently in force in Herring FMP apply
to vessels fishing for, catching, possessing, retaining, transferring or
landing 2,000 lbs mackerel or 2,500 lbs squid
10 slippage events per year in mackerel fishery
10 slippage events per year in longfin squid fishery
If a trip is terminated within 24 hours because of any of the antislippage provisions then vessel must take an observer on next trip
100% observer coverage of all MWT mackerel trip intending fish for,
catch, possess, retain, transfer or land over 2,000 lbs mackerel.
Opposed to a sunset provision and issuance of a waiver
100% observer coverage on Tier 1 and Tier 2 SMBT (<3.5 in.)
mackerel trips intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer or
land 2,000 lbs mackerel; 25% observer coverage of Tier 3 SMBT
mackerel trips intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer or
land 2,000 lbs mackerel

Alternative Set

Preferred
Alternative
Modified 5d2
Modified 5f

Set 6:
Mortality Caps
Set 8:
Hotspot
Restrictions

Modified 5h

Combined
and Modified
6b and 6c
6f
Modified
8eMack
8eLong

Modified 8b
Set 9:
Add River
Herring and
Shads as stocks
in the MSB
fishery

9b-9e

Description to be applied to the MSB FMP

50% observer coverage of SMBT major vessels in longfin squid trips
intending to retain greater than 2,500 lbs longfin squid
Vessels contract and pay for observers. Modified to prohibit waivers
and require States receive full provider certification in order to be
providers
2 year review of observer coverage. Review should not be restricted
to whether coverage rates are too high
Mortality cap for shad and river herring species combined for the
mackerel fishery. Once cap is reached an incidental mackerel
allowance of 2,000 lbs
Add mortality caps to list of measures that can be frameworkable
Vessels cannot fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer or land 2,000
lbs mackerel while in a River Herring Protection Area unless no
mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel
Vessels cannot fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer or land 2,500
lbs of longfin squid while in a River Herring Protection Area unless
no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel
Inclusion of the AM 5 Herring PDT hotspots, modified to allow for
future modifications including expansion into larger
“monitoring/avoidance” areas identified by PDT frameworkable
Add blueback herring, alewife, American shad and hickory shad as
SIF under the MSB FMP

June 4, 2012
Captain Paul J Howard, Executive Director
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street Mill 2
Newburyport, MA 01950
RE: Comments on Draft Amendment 5
Dear Captain Howard,
On behalf of the Pew Environment Group I am writing in response to the New England Fishery
Management Council’s (NEFMC or Council) request for public comments on Amendment 5
(Am 5) Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Atlantic Herring Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). Providing adequate conservation and management of the forage fish
resources of the Northeast Shelf ecosystem, including target (Atlantic herring) and non-target
(river herring and shad) species in the Atlantic herring fishery, requires immediate and
fundamental changes in this FMP encompassing catch monitoring, bycatch/incidental catch
reduction, and bycatch/incidental catch limits. As the core of its final action on this FMP
amendment, the Council must select the following alternatives from the Am 5 DEIS:
•
•
•

•
•

•

A requirement to accurately weigh and report all catch (Section 3.1.5 Option 2).
100 percent at-sea monitoring on the largest vessels in the fishery (permit category A &
B) in order to provide reliable estimates of all catch, including catch of depleted river
herring and other marine life (Section 3.2.1.2 Alternative 2).
An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of catch,
including a fleet-wide limit of five slippage events for each herring management area,
after which any slippage event would require a return to port (Section 3.2.3.4 Option
4D).
An immediate catch limit, or cap, on the total amount of river herring and shad caught in
the directed Atlantic herring fishery (Section 3.3.5, modified to require immediate
implementation of a catch cap).
Add river herring and shad as “non-target stocks in the fishery” with immediate initiation
of an action to establish the status determination criteria and other required management
measures (Section 3.3.5, modified to include river herring and shad as non-target
stocks in the FMP).
Closure to directed herring fishing of areas where interactions with river herring have
been demonstrated to be high; we support immediate closure of the River Herring
Protection Areas to directed herring fishing (Section 3.3.3.2.1 Option 1). Since the
“River Herring Protection Areas” that would be closed under this option are relatively
small, the Council should approve Section 3.3.4 to allow for a future expansion, through
a Framework Adjustment, of the closures to the larger “River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas” if appropriate.

•

A ban on herring midwater trawling in areas established to promote rebuilding of
groundfish populations (Section 3.4.4 Alternative 5).

Introduction:
The NEFMC decided to initiate the management action now known as Amendment 5 in the fall
of 2007, in response to what were, at the time, the most comments it had ever received on an
issue: over 10,000 calling for bycatch monitoring and reduction reforms and sent by concerned
members of the public, conservationists, and commercial and recreational fishermen. 1 These
voices overwhelmingly called for robust observer coverage including controls on at-sea dumping
of un-sampled catch, eliminating midwater trawl (MWT) vessel access to Groundfish Closed
Areas (GFCA), and introducing measures to protect severely depleted populations of
anadromous river herring. The NEFMC deserves credit for responding to these voices, but
because the development of these actions has been repeatedly delayed, and thus the call for
action has perhaps become a remote echo to some, it is useful to look back at the past five years
to illustrate that the voices have only grown louder, and the problems in the fishery are more
evident and troubling than ever before.
First, a brief review of new information on the extent of problems in the fishery, much of which
has come to light through the process of developing Am 5, shows that the concerns of the Pew
Environment Group and the public are firmly validated:
•
•

1

The status quo monitoring regime in the fishery cannot provide precise and accurate
estimates of catch 2, nor is it even capable of preventing repeated and destructive quota
overages. 3
At-sea dumping of un-sampled catch has been demonstrated to be serious and
widespread, affecting over 30% of observed hauls in the fishery in 2010 alone. 4 It has
also been shown to undermine the validity of catch data and in most cases to be

See public comment compilation for November 2007 NEFMC meeting at
http://www.nefmc.org/press/council_discussion_docs/Nov2007/Priorities.pdf and Pew Environment Group press
release dated November 7, 2007 available at http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/statementof-peter-baker-of-the-pew-environment-group-and-director-of-the-herring-alliance-on-the-new-england-fisherymanagement-council-nefmc-voting-to-protect-atlantic-herring-8589935244
2
See Am 5 DEIS at page 366 explaining that the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM)
Amendment governing observer coverage in Northeast U.S. fisheries was recently vacated in response to a federal
court ruling, at page 486 acknowledging the high degree of uncertainty in river herring removals estimates, and at
page 415 illustrating that in 2010 over 450,000 pounds of catch in the fishery could not be identified to species (i.e.
was classified as “Herring, Not Known” or “Fish, Not Known.”
3
See Final Rule implementing Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP, available at
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/11/11HerAmend4FR.pdf which includes an analysis showing that
between 2001 and 2009, management area closure thresholds were exceeded on 8 of 36 occasions, and NMFS quota
monitoring reports at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm showing that this trend has
continued in recent years, with cascading overages in management Area 1B of 138% (2010) and 156% (2012).
4
See Am 5 DEIS at page 414

•

•

•

unnecessary and wasteful bycatch, in turn undermining conservation objectives of the
FMP. 5
Groundfish bycatch problems have increased, as evidenced by midwater trawl industry
demands for a five-fold increase in their haddock bycatch allowance, granted by the
Council in April 2011. 6 Newly available data also demonstrate that far too much of this
problem results from fishing by MWT vessels in the GFCA’s. 7 Finally, troubling
evidence of the extent of seafloor contact by MWT gear has emerged, validating concerns
that, contrary to MWT industry claims, their gear is being fished in close proximity to
rebuilding groundfish populations. 8
River herring populations remain in a severely depleted state, and ocean catch in federal
waters has been firmly identified as an ongoing threat to these fish. 9 The Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has implemented aggressive conservation
measures in state waters up and down the coast, but while it initially considered
protections for federal waters, it ultimately did not adopt any, placing the responsibility
squarely on the NEFMC and other federal management entities. 10
Additional developments since the initiation of Am 5 demonstrate the extent and severity
of the threat to river herring populations and highlight the Council’s duty to act. First,
NMFS recently determined that a listing of river herring species as “threatened” under
the Endangered Species Act may be warranted. 11 Second, a federal judge ruled that
NMFS and the Council’s prior decision not to include river herring and shad as stocks in
the Herring FMP was illegal, and makes clear that the Council needs to add catch limits
(or caps) and other protections for river herring and shad. 12

Overwhelming stakeholder and public comment has again flooded into NMFS and the NEFMC
citing all of the above concerns and reiterating the same calls for action that were expressed in
2007, this time in support of the specific management proposals in Am 5 that will deliver real
reform. Specifically, over 40,000 comments have been received to date, the vast majority of
them supporting 100% observer coverage on Category A and B herring vessels, the strongest
possible dumping controls mirroring those currently in place under a pilot program in
5

See Am 5 DEIS at page 415 illustrating extent of catch not identified to species level due to dumping, and at page
419 illustrating that most at-sea dumping is not necessary
6
See Final Framework 46 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP at
http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/frame/fw%2046/110617_FW_46_Resubmission.pdf
7
See Am 5 DEIS at page 490
8
See transcript of NEFMC Herring Oversight Committee meeting on 9/1/2010 pages 185-190 at
http://www.fishtalk.org/rc/nefmc/species/herring/transcripts/20100901_herring_am5_nefmc_os.pdf
9
See ASMFC River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Executive Summary, and peer review report at Page 8.
10
See A Federal Offense: River Herring Robbery at
http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/River_herring_map_FINAL.pdf
11
In response to a petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), NMFS made a 90 day finding
that a listing may be warranted. 76 Fed. Reg. 67652 (Nov. 2, 2011). Listing petition available at
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bsewell/NRDC%20Petition%20to%20List%20Alewife%20and%20BB%20Herrin
g%208-1-11.pdf
12
See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012) and available at
http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/herring-a4-decision-kessler

Groundfish Closed Area I, a requirement to accurately weigh all landings, a prohibition on MWT
access to GFCAs, and the immediate establishment of a river herring catch cap. 13 At a series of
public hearings up and down the East Coast, hundreds of concerned fishermen and other
members of the public took time to tell Council members in person of their support for these
important reforms. 14
Atlantic herring, river herring, and the shad species are all critical forage stocks which support
the marine food web in the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem. As such, their abundance and
availability (presence or absence) reverberates through the ocean and through coastal economies.
Whether as targets of traditional fisheries in and of themselves, as prey for a large and diverse set
of commercially and recreationally valuable fish stocks, or as food for marine mammals and
seabirds, their importance cannot be understated. In the last year alone we have seen three
seminal scientific reports highlighting the importance of conserving forage species.
A study released in July 2011 by Smith et al. demonstrated that fishing on forage species can
have significant negative impacts on marine ecosystems and in particular commercial and
recreationally valuable species. 15 The study went on to recommend management reference points
and exploitation rates for existing forage fisheries that are twice as conservative as the traditional
maximum sustainable yield approach.
In November 2011 a study was published by Cury et al. that found when forage fish biomass
falls below one third of the maximum historical biomass, seabird populations respond by
producing fewer chicks. 16 Most surprising here is that the predator response was consistent
across ecosystems and seabird species. Of importance to resource managers is that this study
provides a threshold of minimum forage species biomass needed to sustain seabird populations
and productivity over the long term.
In April 2012, the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a group of 13 preeminent scientists from
around the globe, released a report providing practical, science-based recommendations for the
management of forage species, given their critical role in marine ecosystems and the need to
transition toward an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The report
demonstrated that forage fish are twice as valuable left in the water as in the net due to the
reliance of commercially-valuable species such as tuna and cod on healthy forage fish
populations. 17 The report also raised warnings about the vulnerability of forage fish populations
13

See Am 5 summary of written comments to date at
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/cte%20mtg%20docs/120606/Final%20AM%205%20Comment%20Summary%20Me
mo%20June%206%20OS%20Mtg.pdf
14
See Am 5 Public Hearings Summary at
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/cte%20mtg%20docs/120606/Amendment5PublicHearingSummaries.pdf

Smith ADM et al 2011. Impacts of Fishing Low–Trophic Level Species on Marine Ecosystems. Science 333 (6046): 1147-50,
26 August 2011 (published online July 21, 2011); available at www.sciencexpress.org.
16
Cury, P.M. et al. 2011. “Global Seabird Response to Forage Fish Depletion – One Third for the Birds.” Science 334:1703-06
17
Pikitch, E., et al. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program.
Washington, DC
15

to collapse. It recommended severely restricting fishing pressure for data-poor forage stocks
(which may be particularly relevant in the case of the alosines in the Atlantic herring fishery) and
it stressed that spatial and temporal closures may be needed to protect ecosystem function,
another finding of importance to managers as they consider the time-area closures proposed in
Am 5 to protect river herring and groundfish.
Catch limits and catch accounting through monitoring are the bedrock of modern fisheries
management in this country and around the world. This amendment must establish limits for the
stocks that are involved in this fishery but which as yet lack limits (river herring and shad) and it
must ensure comprehensive monitoring of the small yet powerful industrial trawl fleet at work in
New England (Category A & B).
On the following pages we describe our preferred Am 5 alternatives in the order presented in the
DEIS. Within each section we present our highest priorities first.
Section 3.1: Proposed Adjustments to the Fishery Management Program
The most critical priorities of the Council for this section must be those actions that will improve
the monitoring of catch in the fishery. While this section mainly proposes refinements to various
self-reporting mechanisms (as opposed to true catch monitoring, which should be done by
trained, independent third-party personnel such as fishery observers) and other administrative
changes to the FMP, there are two proposed measures in Section 3.1 that are of particular
importance to catch monitoring. The first is to require the accurate and verifiable weighing of
catch. The second is to carefully avoid the creation of potential loopholes in the catch
monitoring program through the encouragement of unnecessary new effort in the fishery. In
many fisheries the veracity of catch reporting benefits from the opposing interests of those that
catch and those that purchase the fish. Such is not the case in the industrial herring fishery
where, due to vertical integration, under-reporting can be in the interest of both the seller and the
buyer because they are essentially the same entity. We support the following measures in
Section 3.1:
•

18

Section 3.1.5 Option 2 (Dealers must accurately weigh all landed fish) with all of the
following Sub-Options:
o Sub-Options 2A: (Annual documentation of catch composition estimation
methodology)
o Sub-Options 2B: (Weekly 18 reporting of catch composition estimation for each
individual landing)
o Sub-Options 2C: (Dealer participation in SAFIS with vessel error-checking
through Fish-on-Line)

Note that the Am 5 DEIS narrative description of Sub-Option 2B on page 29 does not specify that weekly
submission of landing event reports is required, however the description of this sub-option in the Executive
Summary on page xvi does specify that this is a weekly reporting requirement.

Standardizing the methods by which dealers weigh all catch, and requiring vessels to
verify the amount of fish landed, will aid in better overall estimates of catch, in addition
to being essential for ensuring that directed quotas are not exceeded. Improved data on
landings will also aid in the monitoring of a mortality cap or in achieving the objective of
better catch estimates of river herring and shad. As the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 14 (Am 14) to the Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish
(SMB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) points out, “accurate monitoring of the target
species can be as important as determining the encounter rates of [river herring and
shad]” in the determination of river herring and shad catch estimates, due to the use of
discard-to-kept ratios, or bycatch/incidental catch ratios, for catch estimation. 19
Dealer or vessel self-reporting of unverifiable, un-standardized “hail” weights or
visually-based volumetric estimates is inadequate and unacceptable. These status-quo
methods present far too much opportunity for deliberate or accidental mis-reporting, they
are not standardized, and offer no opportunity for third-party observers, port samplers, or
law enforcement personnel to verify that accurate and complete catch weights are being
reported.
Sub-Option 2A is basically a simple Catch Monitoring and Control Plan 20 (CMCP) under
which each dealer would be required to explain, in an annual report to the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), how that dealer estimates the amount of bycatch in an
unsorted (bait) landing. Sub-Option 2B would require dealers to compile species-specific
reports for each landing event and submit them once a week. 21 Sub-Option 2C will
facilitate the process of cross-checking dealer reports against vessel reports and speed up
timeliness of data processing. In the absence of third-party landings verification, which
is not proposed in Am 5, cross-checking is a necessary (if fallible) backstop to identify
and prevent misreporting. 22
The Council should consider modifying this entire option to include as much third-party
verification of landed catch weights as possible. In fact, the most powerful aspect of
requiring a verifiable weight or verifiable volumetric proxy is that it can be verified by a
third-party observer. This is not the case for the current captain’s “hail” weight or
captain/dealer visual volumetric estimate. There are simple solutions the Council could
include. For instance, the Council could require that NMFS Observers, when present on
a trip, remain with the vessel throughout the offloading operation to verify the landed
weight. With 100% observer coverage and calibrated holds, considerable efficiency
could be gained through involving on-board observers in objective catch estimation
before off-load. This is another obvious benefit of 100% observer coverage on A & B
vessels.

19

See Amendment 14 DEIS, page 279
See Am 5 DEIS at page 94
21
See footnote 1 regarding the need for the Council to clarify this sub-option
22
See Am 5 DEIS at page 353 which explains that Sub-Option 2C is “designed to identify erroneous data
discrepancies between dealer and vessels reports” including through NMFS follow-up.
20

•

Section 3.1.6 Option 1 (No Action- no increase in open access herring possession limits)
No changes to current open-access possession limits in the Herring FMP are necessary or
justified. Furthermore, to implement any of the proposed changes would potentially
undermine the catch monitoring reforms proposed in this amendment through the
creation of significant new additional herring fishing effort that might not be
appropriately included in the monitoring program.
The information in Am 5 is clear, stating that “available fishery data do not indicate that
the current 3 [metric ton] possession limit of herring for open access permit holders is
problematic at this time” and that this possession limit “does not appear to be resulting in
bycatch/regulatory discards for vessels fishing in any of the management areas.” 23
Furthermore, the herring fishery may have overcapacity concerns already, including in
the sensitive inshore grounds of Area 2 and also the inshore portions of Area 3. This is
illustrated most recently by the 2012 Mackerel Advisory Panel Fishery Performance
Report, which cites industry statements that the directed mackerel fishery in 2012
effectively experienced a premature closure due to rapid harvest of the available herring
quota in Herring Management Area 2. 24

•

Section 3.1.1 Option B (Adopt new fishery definitions)

•

Section 3.1.2 Option B (Adopt Administrative/General Provisions) Sub-Options as
follows:
o Option 2A (Expand possession restrictions to vessels working cooperatively)
o Option 2B (Eliminate the VMS power-down provision)
o Option 2C (Establish an At-Sea Herring Dealer permit)

•

Section 3.1.3.2 Option 2 (Require VMS for carriers)

•

Section 3.1.3.3 Option 3 (Restrict At-Sea Transfers to only permitted herring vessels)

•

Section 3.1.4 Option 2 (Expand pre-trip notification requirements) and Option 3
(Expand pre-landing notification requirements)*
We support all of the measures above since it appears that they will improve catch
reporting and some may indirectly support catch monitoring by providing a better
understanding of overall fleet activities. However we caution that unverified selfreporting should not be a substitute for robust third-party catch monitoring, especially for
the Category A and B vessels that catch the vast majority of the fish.

23

See Am 5 DEIS at page 357
See 2012 Industry Performance Report. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/1Staff_2013_MSB_ABC_Memo.pdf, Page 5-6.
24

The proposed new fishery definitions appear to be reasonable and necessary; however we
caution that the top priority of the Council and NMFS relative to this section must be to
ensure that no loopholes are created which allow catch to inadvertently fall through the
cracks of new monitoring requirements instituted through Am 5. For instance, it appears
that some At-Sea Transfers are actually also offloads, and the Council should clarify this
issue.
We support Option 3 in Section 3.1.3.3 since it will likely allow managers to better
understand the practice of at-sea transfer (AST) by requiring all participating boats to
have a herring permit, and thus to report their activities more robustly. We oppose
Option 2 since it would appear to restrict the practice of AST to only the largest vessels
in the fishery, at the expense of traditional small boat herring fishermen.
* The Council should consider modifying Options 2 and 3 in Section 3.1.4 to specify that
the pre-trip and pre-landing notification requirements also apply to Category D vessels
fishing with midwater trawl gear in all herring management areas (Option 2 already
proposes applying it to them in Areas 1A, 1B and 3). Fishery stakeholders and the public
have expressed serious concerns about MWT bycatch that apply to the entire herring
fishery, across all management areas, and it appears there may be some large MWT
vessels that are mainly active in the mackerel fishery but that possess Category D herring
permits. Requiring pre-trip and pre-landing notifications from all MWT vessels in all
areas would facilitate placement of observers and portside spot-checks by NMFS Office
of Law Enforcement (OLE).
Section 3.2: Catch Monitoring: At-Sea
The Council’s highest priorities in this section should be to approve a robust at-sea observer
program for the largest vessels in the herring fleet: the large midwater and midwater pair trawl
vessels operating with Category A and Category B permits. The Council should require 100%
observer coverage on these vessels. In addition the Council should close loopholes in current
regulations that undermine the accuracy, precision, reliability and completeness of observer data.
Some of these loopholes are simple, and easy to fix. For instance, the Council should explicitly
and firmly abandon the practice of placing an observer on only one vessel in a pair trawl
operation. Others are somewhat more complex, such as those that allow significant amounts of
catch to be discarded at sea prior to being sampled by observers. The Council should approve a
system to reduce and limit this practice, known also as “dumping” or “slipping” catch. Such a
system must have three critical parts: 1) a prohibition on the practice except when necessary, 2) a
set of limited exceptions under which catch may be dumped, and most importantly, 3) a set of
accountability measures, consisting of concrete disincentives, that apply when the exceptions are
exercised to discourage abuse of the exceptions. It should also be considered that with 100%
monitoring, the independent estimation of the soon-to-be landed target catch could easily be

carried out by appropriately trained at-sea observers during or upon the return to port. This
could be done by inspection of certified/calibrated holds (standardized volumetric proxy for
actual weight) and could reduce some of the administrative and economic burden contemplated
under Reporting Requirements (section 3.1.5).
We support the following measures in Section 3.2:
•

Section 3.2.1 Alternative 2 (100% At-Sea Observer coverage on Limited Access
herring vessels, Category A and B only) with the following sub-options:
o Funding Option 2 (Federal and Industry funds)
o Service Provider Option 1 (No Action)
o No issuance of waivers (no fishing would be allowed without an onboard
observers) 25
Between 2007 and 2010, Category A and B vessels caught 98% of the fish in the fishery,
and realized 98% of the fishery revenues. 26 Clearly this sector of the fishery is the most
important one to monitor, and the one best equipped to handle the costs. It is also a
relatively small fleet sailing a relatively small number of trips: Between 2008 and 2010,
an average of only 48 vessels held Category A and B permits, and of these only 30 were
actually active in the fishery (defined as landing more than one pound of herring per
year), sailing an average of only 650 trips per year. 27
The public and fishery stakeholders have overwhelmingly supported this measure. In
fact, the Am 5 Public Comment Summary released on June 1, 2012 states that support for
100% observer coverage on Category A/B vessels was “one of the most common
comments from many individuals, fishermen, industry and [stakeholders] alike.” 28
The simple fact is that vessels of this size and fishing power, fishing with a small-mesh
gear prone to catastrophic bycatch events of depleted species like river herring, require
very high levels of observer coverage. In fact, the only two comparable fleets in the U.S.,
the west coast MWT fishery for Pacific whiting (hake) and the Alaska pollock (walleye)
MWT fishery, both employ mandatory 100% at-sea observer coverage. 29
The Am 5 DEIS recognizes that “overall, the benefits to the Atlantic herring resource
would likely be greatest under Alternative 2 relative to the other alternatives because it

25

While the Am 5 DEIS (see page 35) does not explicitly describe labeled options allowing or disallowing the
issuance of waivers, it does describe these two possibilities and request public comment on the issue
26
See Am 5 DEIS Table 52 on page 231
27
See Am 5 DEIS page 225 and page 250
28
See page 2 of Am 5 summary of written comments to date at
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/cte%20mtg%20docs/120606/Final%20AM%205%20Comment%20Summary%20Me
mo%20June%206%20OS%20Mtg.pdf
29
See Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Part 660.140, Part 660. 150 and 660.160 (Whiting) and Part 679.50
(Pollock)

proposes the highest level of observer coverage and increases the likelihood of better
documenting herring catch.” 30 The DEIS states much the same for non-target species in
the fishery, such as river herring. 31 We would submit that by providing the greatest
benefit to target and non-target species, this alternative provides the greatest net benefit to
all components of the fishery, including herring harvesters, herring processors, and the
stakeholders who rely on herring in the water as prey for other species. The DEIS, in
section 5.2.6 (impacts of observer coverage alternatives on fishery-related businesses and
communities), cites the positive impacts on herring harvesters and processors, and on
other components of the fishery that rely on herring as prey, that would result from
increased observer coverage and the reductions in scientific and management uncertainty
it would produce. 32
We support Funding Option 2, under which an industry-funded observer program would
be implemented to meet the goal of 100% coverage in cases when federal funds were
unavailable. A number of herring harvesting and processing entities, along with the vast
majority of other herring fishery stakeholders, have supported this option. 33 We are
opposed to “grandfathering” all states in the Northeast Region as service providers for
sea sampling and we are opposed to the issuance of waivers which would essentially
nullify any requirement for 100% observer coverage in the fishery. No states are
currently providing observer services and as such none have acquired NMFS approval as
service providers. 34 Therefore the very concept of “grandfathering” is not applicable.
Absent full certification by NMFS of any state wishing to provide observer services,
NMFS and the public would have no assurances that the states would comply with NMFS
data collection, processing, management, sharing, and transparency standards. As the
Am 5 DEIS points out, their “operational details would be unknown.” 35 This is not an
acceptable scenario, and even the Northeast Observer Program (NEFOP) opposes this
option. 36 Finally, one hundred percent coverage must mean just that: 100%. A blanket
provision allowing the unlimited issuance of waivers with no backstops or other
accountability measures is likely to seriously undermine any 100% coverage requirement
or other target coverage level.
•

Section 3.2.3 Option 4D (Closed Area I Provisions with Trip Termination)
Effective conservation and management of Atlantic herring, river herring, and other
marine resources in a manner consistent with the Atlantic herring FMP and the

30

See Am 5 DEIS at page 370
See Am 5 DEIS at page 381
32
See Am 5 DEIS at page 391
33
See Am 5 written comment compilations at
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/cte%20mtg%20docs/120606/HR%20A5%20COMMENTS%20NEFMC%20.pdf and
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/cte%20mtg%20docs/120606/HR%20A5%20COMMENTS%20NERO.pdf
34
See Am 5 DEIS at page 394
35
Ibid
36
Ibid
31

Magnuson Stevens Act require that the wasteful, unnecessary and data-undermining
practice of at-sea dumping be reduced and limited. Only Option 4D will effectively do
so, and we urge the Council to approve this measure, which is based closely on a highly
successful pilot program in CAI that has proven to effectively control dumping without
undue impact on herring fishery operations.
The Council should also explicitly clarify that, consistent with the current CAI sampling
regulations, under Option 4D operational discards a) must be brought aboard for
sampling, b) may only be dumped under one of the other three allowable exceptions
(safety, mechanical failure, and spiny dogfish clogging the pump) and c) if dumped
would be subject to the accountability requirements outlined in the measure (the dumping
event would be tallied toward the fleet-wide allowance of 5 dumping events per herring
management area, and subsequent dumping would trigger a requirement to terminate the
trip and return to port). We point out that in January 2011, the NEFMC passed a motion
clarifying that any reference to current federal regulations (i.e. the current CAI
provisions) in the Am 5 document refers to those regulations as specifically codified in
the CFR, which indicates that Option 4D must treat operational discards as they are
treated under current CAI rules. 37
NMFS has acknowledged a) that accurate catch composition records cannot be obtained
for dumped catch (including operational discards), b) that there are safe and
operationally-feasible ways to get all catch aboard for sampling (including operational
discards), and c) that issues such as stratification of catch in the cod-end or the strainerlike effect of the fish pump intake grate raise serious questions about the composition of
operational discards. 38 Taken together, these issues clearly demonstrate that current
regulations allowing dumping undermine conservation objectives of the herring FMP.
At-sea dumping of unobserved catch, sometimes referred to as slippage or released catch
and including the aforementioned operational discards, is an ongoing problem in the
Atlantic herring fishery. Furthermore, the CAI rules currently in place in this fishery
provide a compelling example of successful accountability measures for dumping.
Between 2008 and 2009, nearly 30% of observed hauls in the Atlantic herring fishery
included dumped catch that was not sampled, and even this is acknowledged as an
underestimate because vessel captains did not provide information on dumped catch on
all observed hauls. 39 In contrast, vessels fishing under Closed Area I (CA1) regulations
in the Atlantic herring fishery had no observed slippage events recorded in 2010. 40 This
reduction in dumping clearly demonstrates that the CAI rules are effective. It is
37

See summary of NEFMC motions from January 2011 at http://www.nefmc.org/actions/motions/motions-jan11.pdf
See Final Rule entitled Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Discard Provision for Herring Midwater
Trawl Vessels Fishing in Groundfish Closed Area I, Federal Register November 30, 2010 available at
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/10/10HerMultiClosedAreaIMidWaterDiscard.pdf
39
See Am 5 DEIS at pages 408-409
40
See Am 5 DEIS at page 414
38

important to note, however, that this effectiveness is due to the accountability measures
in place to discourage abuse of the dumping exceptions, which require a vessel to stop
fishing and exit CA1 if it releases an un-sampled net. This accountability approach must
be retained and therefore the measure must be effectively translated from one that is
custom-crafted to apply to CAI to one that works for the entire fishery.
The hybrid approach, which grants a fleet-wide allowance of dumping events per herring
management area, to be followed by a trip termination requirement, is a sensible and
justified solution. The proposed fleetwide allowance is neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable. As the Am 5 DEIS points out, observed dumping events in the fishery in
past years are not unreasonably out of proportion to the proposed allowance under Option
4D, especially if one considers the probable elimination of unnecessary dumping that will
result from the new rules driving behavioral changes. 41 Given the buffer against trip
termination provided by the dumping allowance, the three exceptions provided under
which dumping could occur, and the success to date of the CAI pilot program (no trips
were required to leave CAI in 2010, and to date there have been no reports of safety or
operational problems in 2011, the first year in which operational discards were required
to be brought aboard) Option 4D provides a reasonable balance that will deter slippage
without undue penalty.
•

Section 3.2.2 Option 2 (Implement Additional Measures to Improve Sampling) SubOptions as follows:
o Sub-Option 2A (Provide a Safe Sampling Station)
o Sub-Option 2B (Provide Reasonable Assistance)
o Sub-Option 2C (Provide Notice of Starting Pumping Operations)
o Sub-Option 2E (Improve Communications between Pair Trawl Vessels)
We support the measures listed above as they will improve catch sampling by at-sea
observers.
We oppose Sub-Options 2D (Requirements for Trips with Multiple Vessels) and 2F
(Visual Access to the Net/Codend).
We oppose Sub-Option 2D, which would seemingly require a sensible step (the
deployment of an observer on both vessels of any pair trawl trip assigned observer
coverage) because it contains an unacceptable loophole (the inclusion of the phrase
“wherever/whenever possible”). Since a pair trawling operation is considered one trip by
NEFOP, and since NEFOP has stated that it already adheres to this policy, this is one of
the simplest monitoring reforms that can and should be applied to the fishery. Pumping
of catch to an unobserved vessel in a pair trawl team is one of the largest culprits in the

41

See Am 5 DEIS at page 433

widespread problem of the “Fish, Not Known” category that undermines catch
composition data in the fishery. 42
We also oppose Sub-Option 2F, which would require vessel operators to provide “visual
access” to the net for observers. This is an entirely unacceptable, loophole-ridden
variation on status-quo, and will not allow for any actual catch sampling. NMFS has
acknowledged that so-called visual access does not allow reliable catch estimation,
stating in the Final Rule implementing the revised CAI sampling requirements that absent
the catch being brought aboard “species identification of fish remaining in the net is not
typically possible. Observers may be able to identify large-bodied organisms in the net,
but are unable to reliably differentiate many fish to their species. Even if fish at the
surface of the net are identifiable, the contents may not be homogeneous and the observer
cannot determine the full composition of the net.” 43
Section 3.3: Management Measures to Address River Herring Bycatch
The Council must take proactive action in Am 5 to conserve and manage severely depleted
alosine 44 species that are clearly involved in the fishery and are indisputably in need of
conservation and management. Specifically, these stocks are currently caught, killed, and in
most cases harvested from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, the federally managed ocean
waters between 3 and 200 miles from shore), in very large numbers, by vessels in the Atlantic
herring fishery. Most are then landed and even sold, yet there are no federal regulations of any
kind to manage this impact. The Council must accept responsibility for this unmanaged
mortality and approve measures to monitor, reduce and limit it through the implementation of
new regulations on the Category A and B vessels that catch the vast majority of the fish and
realize the vast majority of the revenue in the fishery.
Please note that while there are river herring-specific monitoring measures proposed in this
section, for instance options to apply higher levels of observer coverage or limit at-sea dumping,
these would apply only to certain areas identified as river herring bycatch “hotspots” (referred to
in the DEIS as the “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas”). Even worse, in some cases
these proposed measures would apply only after large amounts of river herring bycatch were
detected on a fleet-wide basis (the so-called “trigger” approach). We oppose all of these
measures because the Council should not limit the application of a robust monitoring program
for the vessels catching most of the fish in this fishery to these limited areas. The Category A
and B vessels must be monitored robustly in all times and areas, including 100% at-sea observer
coverage and a system to control at-sea dumping, not just in river herring hotspots. Robust
42

See Am 5 DEIS at page 418
See Final Rule entitled Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Discard Provision for Herring Midwater
Trawl Vessels Fishing in Groundfish Closed Area I, Federal Register November 30, 2010 available at
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/10/10HerMultiClosedAreaIMidWaterDiscard.pdf
44
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and
hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)
43

monitoring of river herring catch will be delivered by fishery-wide monitoring measures for the
Category A and B fleet, which the Council should select and approve from Section 3.2 as we
outline earlier in this letter. The Council must focus its efforts in this section on measures to
both reduce (utilizing hotspot closures) and limit (utilizing a catch cap) the catch of severely
depleted river herring and shad by vessels engaged in directed herring fishing.
Therefore we support the following measures to address river herring catch and bycatch in this
section.
•

•
•

Modified Section 3.3.5 (An immediate catch limit, or cap, on the total amount of river
herring and shad caught in the directed Atlantic herring fishery, with cap amounts based
on the median annual river herring and shad catch by management area using a 3 or 5
year window, with a provision for updating the cap through specifications based on new
scientific information as it becomes available.)
Modified Section 3.3.5 (Add river herring and shad as “non-target stocks in the fishery”
with immediate initiation of an action to establish the status determination criteria and
other required management measures.)
Section 3.3.3.2.1 Option1 (Closed Areas: Close River Herring Protection Areas
(“hotspots”) to directed herring fishing). Since the “River Herring Protection Areas” that
would be closed under this option are relatively small, the Council should approve
Section 3.3.4 to allow for a future expansion, through a Framework Adjustment, of the
closures to the larger “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas” if appropriate.

The Council and NMFS are legally obligated to add river herring and shad to the Atlantic herring
fishery management plan. See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323, *13 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012).
Until they are added to the plan with fully implemented status determination criteria and other
legally required measures, the Council must take immediate action to decrease the incidental
catch of river herring and shad in the Atlantic herring fishery. Id. at *16. These measures must
be accompanied by the application of a robust monitoring program with 100% at-sea monitoring
and a system to control dumping. In addition to adding river herring and shad as stocks in the
fishery of the Atlantic Herring FMP (discussed further below), we support the following
alternatives as interim measures to reduce incidental catch of river herring and shad:
Until River Herring and Shad are Fully Integrated into the FMP the Council Must
Establish a River Herring and Shad Catch Cap
We support a modification of Alternative Section 3.3.5. It should be modified to implement
an immediate cap for all alosines (river herring and shad, or “River Herring”) based on the
3 or 5 year median annual river herring and shad catch by management area, with a
provision for updating the cap based on new scientific information as it becomes available
(through specifications). The Amendment 5 record and DEIS fully support approval of this
modified alternative, and the Council has the authority and the legal obligation to initiate this cap
immediately. See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 at *16 (“to meet their responsibility to

ensure compliance with the National Standards, Defendants must demonstrate that they have
evaluated whether the FMP or amendment minimized bycatch to the extent practicable.”)
Amendment 5 has been developed to address the widely-recognized need to reduce bycatch in
the Atlantic herring fishery and has specifically identified River Herring as a key issue to be
addressed. 45 River Herring are caught, killed and either landed or discarded in federallymanaged waters between 3 and 200 miles from shore by vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery.
Although the majority appears to be landed and sold with Atlantic herring and mackerel, there
are no meaningful federal regulations under any fishery management plan that manages this
catch. The Council must take responsibility for this unmanaged mortality in the herring fishery
and approve measures that will improve monitoring, reduce bycatch/incidental catch, and
establish catch caps/limits for these species, especially for the Category A and B vessels that
catch the vast majority of River Herring and realize the vast majority of the revenue in this
fishery.
The Herring Alliance has previously requested a catch cap for River Herring. 46 As noted by the
PDT report referenced below, catch caps are often based on recent catch history when it is
decided not to use an existing stock assessment for establishing a catch limit or one is not
available. This would provide strong incentive to avoid River Herring and help to minimize its
overall catch. For guidance on various analyses, please see the document prepared for the
Atlantic Herring PDT entitled Developing River Herring Catch Cap Options in the Directed
Atlantic Herring Fishery 47and contained in Volume II of the DEIS for Amendment 5,
particularly Table 4 which provides Sub-Options for River Herring Catch Triggers by Area.
Until River Herring are Fully-Integrated into the FMP, the Council Must Implement
Hotspot Closures
The New England Council has identified a variety of “River Herring Protection Areas”
(relatively small) and “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas” (larger) in Amendment 5 as
areas where river herring interactions are high. As an immediate interim measure until river
herring and shad (“River Herring”) are fully integrated into the FMP, herring vessels should be
excluded from the River Herring Protection Areas. With modifications, we support
Alternative Sections 3.3.3.2.1 and 3.3.4.
Alternative Section 3.3.3.2.1 should be modified to clarify that “directed fishing for herring” in
these closures means herring-permitted vessels fishing for, possessing, catching, transferring or
landing more than 2,000 pounds of herring from the River Herring Protection Areas on all
fishing trips. In addition, it should also be modified to reflect that Category C & D permits will
not be affected by these closures if not carrying gear capable of catching Atlantic herring.
45

See 74 Fed. Reg. 68577 (Dec. 28, 2009).
See January 21, 2011 Letter from Herring Alliance to Executive Director NEFMC re: Capping River Herring
Catch in the Atlantic Sea Herring Fishery.
47
Amendment 5 DEIS, Volume II, Appendix VII, pp. 362-376.
46

Although we support the closures identified, we are opposed to the sub-option which allows
a vessel to “declare out of the fishery” because it provides a loophole for limited access herring
vessels to avoid having to comply with the Closed Areas prohibition. Alternatives 3.3.3.2.1 and
3.3.3.2.3 already provide appropriate exemptions, although the exemptions under 3.3.3.2.1
should be clarified to include vessels not fishing with mesh gear (e.g. hook and line). If adopted,
this is an area where the NEFMC and the MAFMC should coordinate their actions in
Amendment 5 and Amendment 14 so that all small-mesh gear types capable of catching River
Herring are prohibited from fishing in the closed areas, regardless of the target species.
Because the hotspots closed under Alternative 3.3.3.2.1 are relatively small, the Council
should also approve Section 3.3.4 which allows for future expansion or modification,
through a Framework Adjustment. The closure of larger “River Herring
Monitoring/Avoidance Areas” should be considered, as well as other areas if justified
through further analyses, including data from 100% monitoring of the fishery. Based on
various analyses provided in Volume II of Amendment 5 DEIS, closing the protection
areas will help to minimize bycatch of river herring and shad populations in the
short‐term; however, the distribution of these species is likely too variable for these small
closed areas to be effective, especially standing alone, in the long‐term. We oppose the
trigger-based closures under this alternative because the Council should not limit its
application of a robust monitoring program to those limited areas for the vessels
catching most of the fish in this fishery. Category A and B vessels must be monitored
robustly at all times and in all areas, including through 100% at-sea monitoring with a
system to control at-sea dumping, not just in river herring hotspots. Further, because
herring and mackerel are often targeted by the same vessels at the same time, the Council
should coordinate these closures with the MAFMC to ensure consistency.
The Council Cannot Rely on a Voluntary Bycatch Avoidance Program such as the
SFC/SMAST/DMF Project described in Alternative 3.3.2.2.4 to Satisfy its National
Standard 9 Obligation to Minimize Bycatch
Any voluntary bycatch avoidance program, such as the SFC/SMAST/DMF Project described in
Alternative 3.3.2.2.4, a University-based voluntary program, is inappropriate as a regulatory
measure and would be ineffective without a mortality cap. This alternative contemplates a
“stand-alone approach for river herring bycatch” and must be removed from consideration in
Amendment 5. There are simply no meaningful incentives to avoid bycatch through the program
without a cap. Any positive results from the program to date are the result of the incentive to
avoid meaningful regulation through this amendment, and will disappear as soon as Amendment
5 passes. The bycatch avoidance program for the Atlantic scallop fishery is successful at
reducing bycatch only because there is a yellowtail flounder cap that scallop fishermen must
avoid to continue fishing.
The Council Must Add River Herring and Shad to the Atlantic Herring FMP

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires federal FMPs to describe the fish stocks involved in a
fishery, and NMFS and the councils to manage those stocks in need of conservation and
management. 48 FMPs must contain conservation and management measures consistent with the
National Standards, including National Standards One and Nine which require management
measures that prevent overfishing and minimize bycatch. 49 The Act requires annual catch limits
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for all stocks in need of conservation and
management. 50 To prevent overfishing the National Standard One Guidelines require councils to
identify the stocks in the fishery, including non-target stocks caught incidentally and retained or
discarded at sea. 51 A stock can be identified in more than one fishery. 52 Identification as a stock
in the fishery triggers ACL requirements and the standard approach to setting ACLs contained in
the National Standard 1 Guidelines. NMFS must review council decisions to ensure that they
comply with the Act, and disapprove those that do not.
The question of which stocks must be included in the Atlantic herring FMP was recently
addressed in federal court. See Flaherty, 2012 WL at *13 (holding that the Magnuson-Stevens
48

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires an FMP or an amendment for those fisheries requiring “conservation and
management.” See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(1); 1853(a)(2). For purposes of determining which target and non-target
stocks require conservation and management, the Act provides a definition of “conservation and management” at 16
U.S.C. § 1802(5). Id. at *1, fn 3. This definition should be looked to for guidance in making decisions about what
stocks belong in a FMP, and refers to rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining “any fishery resource and the marine
environment,” assuring among other things, a food supply, recreational benefits, and avoiding long-term adverse
effects on fishery resources and the marine environment. National Standard 7 guidelines include a set of criteria for
determining whether a fishery needs management that tracks this statutory definition and other MSA objectives and
requirements, including examination of the condition of the stock or stocks of fish. The criteria also note that
“adequate” management by an entity like the ASMFC could be one factor in determining whether a stock should be
added to a fishery. In this case, although ASMFC management was noted by NMFS during briefing the Flaherty v.
Bryson case, the Court did not address it in its opinion because (as even NMFS recognized) the ASMFC plan does
not address federal waters. 50 C.F.R. § 600.340(b).
49
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1) & (9).
50
Id. § 1853(a)(15).
51
50 CFR § 600.310(d)(3), (4). A “fishery” is defined as “one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific,
technical, recreational, and economic characteristics.” Id. § 1802(13). A “stock of fish” is defined as a “species,
subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable of management as a unit.” Id. § 1802(42). The
National Standard One Guidelines provide additional guidance on the classification of the stocks in an FMP. See 50
C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1) (“Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(a)(2) requires that an FMP contain, among other
things, a description of the species of fish involved in the fishery. The relevant Council [in the first instance]
determines which specific target stocks and/or non-target stocks to include in a fishery consistent with the Act’s
requirements. See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323, *14. The regulations define “target stocks” as “stocks that
fishers seek to catch for sale or personal use, including ‘economic discards’ as defined under Magnuson-Stevens Act
section 3(9),” and “non-target species” and “non-target stocks” as “fish caught incidentally during the pursuit of
target stocks in a fishery, including ‘regulatory discards’ as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(38).
They may or may not be retained for sale or personal use. Non-target species may be included in a fishery and, if
so, they should be identified at the stock level.” Id. § 600.310(d)(2)-(4).
52
See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310 (d)(7) ("If a stock is identified in more than one fishery, Councils should choose which
FMP will be the primary FMP in which management objectives, SDC, the stock's overall ACL and other reference
points for the stock are established.")

Act requires Councils to prepare an FMP or amendment for any stock of fish that “requires
conservation and management.”). Councils must make two determinations: (1) which stocks can
be treated as a unit for purposes of management, and therefore should be considered a fishery,
and (2) which of these fisheries then “require conservation and management.” Id. at *9. The law
does not allow managers to unreasonably delay decision-making regarding the appropriate
composition of a fishery given their statutory obligations to ensure that overfishing does not
occur. Id. at *12. The court also rejected any interpretation of the National Standard One
Guideline found at 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1), as providing the Council with unreviewable
discretion to determine what stocks belong in an FMP. Id. The Court held that while the
Council’s role is to name the species to be managed “in the first instance,” NMFS has a duty “in
the second instance” to ensure an FMP, including the composition of its fishery, satisfies MSA
requirements. Id. at **13, 14. Moreover, Councils and NMFS cannot limit the stocks they
include in a fishery to just those stocks that already happen to be part of an FMP, or those they
have officially designated as overfished (or where overfishing is occurring). Id. at **12-14.
Thus, binding precedent makes clear that stocks in need of conservation and management must
be added to an FMP. A decision by this Council to wait for a specific remedy order in the
Flaherty v. Bryson case or to ignore the law outlined in that opinion when making management
decisions about River Herring would ignore critical information on how to determine the
composition of this fishery for management and violate the law.
River herring and shad are involved in the Atlantic herring fishery and capable of being managed
as part of it. See Amendment 5 DEIS at p. 134; see also p. 447 (Coincidence of River Herring
and Shad; see also Flaherty, 2012 WL at * 12 (“Defendants’ conclusory statement that river
herring would simply have to wait until a future amendment does not suffice.”) The incidental
catch of river herring and shad by all ocean-intercept fisheries (including the herring fishery)
averaged an estimated 459 metric tons of river herring per year and an estimated 63 metric tons
of shad per year. 53 By contrast, landings of river herring and shad, provided by the ASMFC for
fisheries in state waters during the same time period, averaged 601 and 581 metric tons
respectively. 54 Further, it is estimated that the mid-water trawl fishery for both Atlantic herring
and Atlantic mackerel accounts for 71% of the combined incidental catch of river herring and
shads. NMFS observer records show that at-sea fishing vessels may take as much as 20,000
pounds of blueback herring in a single net haul. 55 River herring and shad are caught, kept,
landed and sold in this fishery, as well as discarded as bycatch. 56 Thus, it is indisputable that
these species are involved in the Atlantic herring fishery and can be managed as part of it.

53

See Amendment 14 DEIS at p. 222.
Id.
55
Haul data from North East Fisheries Observer Program, NMFS; Landings data from NOAA's Annual Commercial
Landing Statistics, available at: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.
56
See Amendment 5 DEIS at pp. 54, 134, 447; see also Appendix IIA, VI, VII (Volume II).
54

River herring and shad are in dire need of conservation and management. In addition to the
science identified in the DEIS for Amendment 5 (and the DEIS for Amendment 14), 57 the new
benchmark stock assessment for river herring, approved for management use by the ASMFC on
May 1, 2012, confirms that river herring along the entire Atlantic seaboard are depleted, with
many of the river runs barely persisting and near historic lows. 58 Of 24 river stocks that the
stock assessment team was able to characterize regarding current condition, 92% were described
as depleted. 59 There were “severe declines in [fishery] landings” which “began coastwide in the
early 1970s and domestic landings are now a fraction of what they were at their peak having
remained at persistently low levels since the mid-1990s.” 60 U.S. commercial landings are down
93% from the 1970’s. 61 The peer review panel similarly observed that “[s]tocks of river herring
are greatly depleted compared to the early 17th century baseline, as well as compared to that of
the late 19th century.” 62 The peer review “concurs with the SASC [stock assessment subcommittee] conclusions that river herring stocks are depleted, that ocean bycatch is an issue, and
that recovery will require management on multiple fronts.” 63 For the first time, ocean bycatch of
river herring was examined in a stock assessment, and it concluded that at-sea fisheries are a
significant factor in the decline of the species’ populations over the last 50 years. 64
In addition to the new stock assessment, NMFS recently determined that a listing of river herring
(blueback herring and alewife) as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act may be
warranted. 65 Finding that the petition presented “substantial scientific information that the
petitioned action may be warranted,” NMFS initiated a year-long status review. As described in
the petition, existing state and federal regulatory mechanisms are insufficient for river herring. 66
The current federal/state/regional management framework has avoided the coordinated
management necessary to conserve and manage these species. Specifically, the regulatory
measures drafted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in Amendment
2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring, and implemented
through state laws, have proven insufficient because this interstate compact agency has confined
the reach of its plan to state waters. Moratoriums on directed fisheries for river herring in several
57

See Amendment 14 DEIS, § 2.1.9 Addition of RH as “Stocks in the Fishery” in the MSB FMP at pp. 82-89, §
6.2.5 River Herring Stock Status at p. 210, §6.5.6 Description of Candidate Species for Listing Under the ESA, at p.
240.
58
See The ASMFC’s River Herring Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, Volume I – Coastwide (May 2012)
(“Stock Assessment Report”).
59
Stock Assessment Report - Executive Summary.
60
Stock Assessment Report - Executive Summary.
61
Stock Assessment Report - Executive Summary.
62
Terms of Reference & Advisory Report of the River Herring Stock Assessment Peer Review (March 2012)(“Peer
Review Report”), Introduction at p. 8.
63
Id. at p. 8.
64
Id.
65
In response to a petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), NMFS made a 90 day finding
that a listing may be warranted. 76 Fed. Reg. 67652 (Nov. 2, 2011). Listing determinations are made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after a full status review, and taking into account all
efforts to protect and manage the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A).
66
NRDC Petition at 78-79.

states have been in place for years without sufficiently beneficial results. 67 Although the
ASMFC is required to coordinate its management measures with NMFS to promote the
conservation of stocks throughout their ranges, this authority has not been exercised.
Shads also need conservation and management. As noted above, figures used to develop
Amendment 14 indicate that on average 120,000 pounds of shad were caught per year in ocean
intercept fisheries including the Atlantic herring fishery from 2006-2010. 68 Of these
approximately 600,000 fish, many of them were juveniles. 69 Currently, shads are managed under
Amendment 3 to the IFMP for Shad and River Herring and according to the most recent stock
assessment their status is “depleted” as well. The assessment states that shad “stocks were at alltime lows and did not appear to be recovering to acceptable levels.” 70 The stock assessment also
noted that coast-wide declining trends raised flags that ocean mortality was having a serious
impact, and the peer review team listed bycatch monitoring as a high priority for future action. 71
Amendment 3 currently prohibits ocean intercept fishing for shad, however there is little
enforcement. No assessments are available for hickory shad but as noted in the Amendment 14
DEIS, “many runs are likely below historical levels for reasons similar to those discussed below
for Atlantic shad.” 72
River herring and shad populations remain in a severely depleted state, and ocean catch in
federal waters has been firmly identified as an ongoing threat to these fish. While the ASMFC
has implemented conservation measures in state waters up and down the coast, it has ultimately
not adopted any protections for federal waters, placing the responsibility squarely on the New
England Council, as well as NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Council to conserve and manage these
species.
Section 3.4: Management Measures to Address Midwater Trawl Access to Groundfish
Closed Areas
The Council should acknowledge the fundamental change in the understanding of the impacts of
midwater trawl gear that has occurred in the years since it was approved for use in the yearround Groundfish Closed Areas (GFCA). Even since Amendment 5 (originally known as
Amendment 4 73) was initiated, new information about this gear has emerged that shows that
67

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina have prohibited harvest for several years without
recovery of species’ populations. See Species Profile: River Herring States and Jurisdictions Work to Develop
Sustainable Fisheries Plans for River Herring Management, p.2 available at:
http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm. Sustainable Fishery Plans have been approved for 5 states (Maine,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina and New York.
68
See Amendment 14 DEIS, §4.1.B at p. 111.
69
Id.
70
ASMFC. August 2007. Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission: American Shad Stock Assessment for Peer Review, Volume 1.
71
See ASMFC American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review Panel, Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 of the
ASMFC, Terms of Reference & Advisory Report to the American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review. July 2007.
72
Amendment 14 DEIS, s. 6.2.6 at p. 213.
73
See Am 5 DEIS at page 6

groundfish bycatch problems have increased. In fact, haddock interactions have become so
frequent and problematic that the midwater trawl industry demanded and received a five-fold
increase in their haddock bycatch allowance in April 2011. 74 Newly available data also
demonstrate that far too much of this problem results from fishing by MWT vessels in the
GFCAs. 75 Finally, troubling evidence of the extent of seafloor contact by MWT gear has
emerged, validating concerns that, contrary to MWT industry claims, their gear is being fished in
close proximity to the bottom where rebuilding groundfish populations aggregate. 76 Midwater
trawl gear was approved for use in these sensitive groundfish spawning and nursery areas in
1998 based on the assumption that the gear was incapable of catching significant amounts of
groundfish. This was based in part on limited at-sea observer data (13 tows, to be precise, with
little to none in the actual groundfish closed areas). 77 It is now clear that the assumption that
MWTs do not catch groundfish is not correct.
Since approval in 1998, standards for approving access to these areas have changed. Fishermen
wishing to conduct operations in these areas today must conduct robust experimental fisheries
with 100% catch sampling by independent observers, and may do so only after applying for and
receiving Exempted Fishing Permits (EFP). EFPs outline rigorous requirements for the scientific
sampling of the catch, and typically include very stringent EFP-specific caps on target catch and
on bycatch species. Successful experimental fisheries must analyze and submit data and report
on results to NMFS and the Council, including a rigorous review process before results can be
used for management purposes. 78 Finally, fishermen must successfully secure management
measures through a change to an FMP in order to create new fishing opportunities in the GFCA
based on the experimental results.
Therefore the Council should approve the following measures:
•

Section 3.5 Alternative 5 (Closed Areas)
The Council should rescind access to these sensitive areas immediately for all midwater
trawl and paired midwater trawl vessels. Regardless of whether a new, more robust atsea monitoring program is applied to the entire Category A and B herring fleet through
other actions in this amendment, the year-round groundfish closed areas can and should
be subject to a higher standard. There is ample precedent for applying such a higher
standard to fishing operations in the GFCAs. For instance, there is the previously
mentioned EFP process for securing the opportunity to fish in these areas. There is also
the current set of special rules created for herring vessels in Groundfish Closed Area I

74

See footnote 6 on page 2 of this letter
See footnote 7 on page 3 of this letter
76
See footnote 8 on page 3 of this letter
77
See Framework Adjustment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP at
http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/frame/Groundfish_Framework_18.pdf
78
See NEFMC Research Steering Committee Research Review Policy at
http://www.nefmc.org/research/RSC%20ResearchReviewPolicy%20(2).pdf
75

(CAI) which require midwater trawlers to have 100% observer coverage and to adhere to
special rules that limit dumping of un-sampled catch.
Closing these areas would encourage herring fishermen to design, apply for, and
implement responsible and well-regulated experimental fisheries to determine if, where,
when and how any future midwater trawling in these areas should occur. This option
would ensure that a public process takes place prior to the issuance of any potential EFPs,
such that the public and other affected fishery stakeholders (i.e. groundfishermen) have
the opportunity to provide critical input on EFP conditions and experimental design.
There are a number of highly-appropriate monitoring measures which are beyond the
scope of this amendment or fishery-wide adoption at this time, but which are perfectly
appropriate for vessels applying for access to these areas. These include deployment of
more than one observer on each vessel to ensure more effective and complete catch
sampling, use of electronic monitoring measures especially bottom contact or footrope
height sensors, use of video cameras at key locations where fish might be discarded but
where observers do not have clear lines of sight, and at-sea catch weighing. In addition,
any EFP allowing access to these areas for midwater trawl vessels can and should impose
stringent EFP-specific caps on catch and bycatch, or other effort-based controls (such as
limits on fishing near or on the seafloor) to control and limit negative impacts on
groundfish from the experimental fishery.
Consolidation of Management:
Overlap between the Atlantic mackerel fishery and the Atlantic herring fishery is welldocumented. 79 Improved monitoring and data collection will provide both Councils (as well as
the ASFMC) with a more complete picture regarding the overlap of the Atlantic mackerel and
Atlantic herring fisheries and their interactions with river herring and shads; however, in order to
improve management of all stocks it will be imperative for one FMP to ultimately manage the
stocks. We urge the Council to begin discussions with NFMS, the NEFMC, and the ASFMC to
create a viable single management plan that will best steward the resources.
Closing comments:
Pew Environment Group strongly supports the NEFMC in its effort to improve the conservation
and management of critical forage fish resources involved in this fishery, including both target
(Atlantic herring), and non-target (depleted river herring and shads) stocks. Direct and indirect
impacts on other marine species caught accidentally in the fishery, or affected by a loss of prey
caused by herring and river herring removals, should also be better monitored and controlled.
For too long, large midwater trawl vessels have operated in this fishery with substandard
monitoring and accountability, to the detriment of other fishermen, the public and the ecosystem.

79

See New England Fishery Management Council Herring Committee and Advisory Panel memo, July 22, 2008,
regarding “Background Information re. Herring/Mackerel Fishery Interactions”

Sincerely,

Peter Baker, Director
Northeast Fisheries Program
Pew Environment Group

The historic influence of dams on
diadromous fish habitat with a focus on
river herring and hydrologic longitudinal
connectivity

Landscape Ecology
ISSN 0921-2973
Volume 26
Number 1
Landscape Ecol (2010)
26:95-107
DOI 10.1007/
s10980-010-9539-1

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.

1 23

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107
DOI 10.1007/s10980-010-9539-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The historic influence of dams on diadromous fish habitat
with a focus on river herring and hydrologic longitudinal
connectivity
Carolyn J. Hall • Adrian Jordaan
Michael G. Frisk

•

Received: 23 February 2010 / Accepted: 1 October 2010 / Published online: 4 November 2010
! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The erection of dams alters habitat and
longitudinal stream connectivity for migratory diadromous and potamodromous fish species and interrupts
much of organismal exchange between freshwater and
marine ecosystems. In the US, this disruption began
with colonial settlement in the seventeenth century but
little quantitative assessment of historical impact on
accessible habitat and population size has been
conducted. We used published surveys, GIS layers
and historical documents to create a database of 1356
dams, which was then analyzed to determine the
historical timeline of construction, use and resultant
fragmentation of watersheds in Maine, US. Historical
information on the anadromous river herring was used
to determine natural upstream boundaries to migration
and establish total potential alewife spawning habitat
in nine watersheds with historic populations. Dams in
Maine were constructed beginning in 1634 and by 1850
had reduced accessible lake area to less than 5% of the
virgin 892 km2 habitat and 20% of virgin stream
habitat. There is a near total loss of accessible habitat
by 1860 that followed a west-east pattern of European
migration and settlement. Understanding historic
Electronic supplementary material The online version of
this article (doi:10.1007/s10980-010-9539-1) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
C. J. Hall (&) ! A. Jordaan ! M. G. Frisk
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook
University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

trends allows current restoration targets to be assessed
and prioritized within an ecosystem-based perspective
and may inform expectations for future management of
oceanic and freshwater living resources.
Keywords Historical Ecology ! Gulf of Maine !
Habitat fragmentation ! Alewife ! Blueback herring !
Forage fish ! Ecosystem ! Energy flux ! Restoration
targets

Introduction
Widespread species loss and large-scale environmental change over the past 400 years has been well
documented (Foster et al. 2002; Lotze et al. 2006;
Jackson 2008). One prominent environmental change
has been the fracturing of coastal watersheds by manmade obstructions (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994;
Humphries and Winemiller 2009). Damming of
waterways alters the aquatic environment and surrounding landscape through sedimentation, channelization, flooding and temperature changes (Poff et al.
1997; Poff and Hart 2002; Walter and Merritts 2008).
Passage of aquatic migratory species between feeding
and spawning sites is interrupted, as is the exchange of
nutrients among ecosystems (Kline et al. 1990; Bilby
et al. 1996; Walters et al. 2009). Subsequent habitat
and population loss leads to alteration of foodwebs,
loss of biodiversity, species decline and extirpation

123

Author's personal copy
96

(Pringle et al. 2000; Jackson et al. 2001; Pess et al.
2008; Morita et al. 2009). An understanding of the
historical condition of ecosystems before significant
anthropogenic impact is required to assess restoration
targets, yet landscape studies and ecological baselines
are often lacking historical perspective or use incomplete data (Wu et al. 2003). Historical data is needed
to empirically evaluate the loss of habitat connectivity
in relation to species presence and ecosystem function
over centuries to effectively apply conservation and
restoration methods (Haila 2002).
In the northeastern U.S., concentrated commercial
fishing, forestry, agriculture and damming of riverways began altering the condition of river ecosystems
with the arrival of European colonists in the seventeenth century. Unfortunately, reliable records of
watershed conditions and fish harvests were not kept
until the formation of Federal and State Fish Commissions in the 1860s (Atkins and Foster 1868; Judd 1997).
Previous to these records were numerous mentions of
colonial mill dams obstructing the migration of
spawning fishes including river herring [collectively
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis)], shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus) (Anonymous 3/26/1798; Moody 1933,
pp 445–446). After the construction of the first saw mill
dam in Maine in 1634 (Pope 1965, p. 219), hundreds of
small dams appeared statewide wherever natural
waterfalls and topography provided an area of
impoundment and the vertical height required to
generate mechanical energy (Moody 1933, p. 332;
Clark 1970, p. 336). In 1829 it was estimated that 1,686
principal manufacturing establishments, primarily
mills, depended upon water-power (Greenleaf 1829,
p. 451). Forty years later, over 3,100 sites in use or
potentially suitable for harnessing water-power were
documented in Maine (Wells 1869).
The species listed above are diadromous, crossing
the ocean-freshwater boundary to complete spawning,
and provided abundant resources to historical local
diets and commercial fisheries along the Gulf of
Maine’s coastal and inland ecosystems (Atkins and
Foster 1868; Mullen et al. 1986). They also provided a
rich forage base for valuable coastal predators and
game fish including Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
(Baird 1872; Graham et al. 2002). Decline of coastal
cod populations has been linked to the loss of the
nutritious and predictable food source these species

123

Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

provided (Baird 1883; Ames 2004). By 1870, State
Fish Commissioners concluded that dam construction
was the principal cause of migratory fish extinction
from Maine’s waterways (Atkins and Foster 1868)
and 20 years later estimated that only 10% of original
habitat remained available for spawning (Atkins
1887). Current diadromous species’ populations are
at historic lows with some at less than 1% of early
nineteenth century estimations (Lotze and Milewski
2004; Saunders et al. 2006). Presently, river herring
and Atlantic sturgeon are listed as species of concern
and Atlantic salmon as an endangered species (Federal Register 2006). Thus, efforts to provide long-term
solutions through population and watershed restoration are of immediate importance, yet no comprehensive attempts have been made to assess virgin habitat
baselines or thoroughly document the long-term scale
of habitat destruction these species have endured.
Historical records of dam construction can present a
timeline of stream and landscape alteration and
physical impediment of spawning diadromous species.
Here we estimate the loss of accessible freshwater
habitat within Maine from 1600 to 1900 due to dam
obstruction. First, we present a spatial and temporal
analysis of dam construction from the seventeenth
through the nineteenth century. Second, we quantitatively present an analysis of accessible migratory and
spawning area, both stream and lake habitat, impacted
by the erection of dams over time with river herring as
our example ‘‘species.’’ Current river herring habitat
status and coastal watersheds will be evaluated in light
of the historical baseline determined for the state of
Maine and related to restoration of stream networks
and ecosystem connectivity.

Materials and methods
River herring life history
River herring are a mid-trophic level species that prey
primarily on zooplankton (Bigelow and Schroeder
1953). River herring reach reproductive maturity in
3–5 years and are iteroparous, or capable of spawning
for multiple years, returning to spawn in natal Maine
streams between late April and early July (MDMR
1982). Alewives historically migrated over 300 km to
spawning areas in quiet freshwaters of Maine, primarily lakes and ponds but also slow sections of streams;

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

bluebacks prefer riverine habitat up to or near head of
tide with moving water. Both species will spawn below
head of tide provided that appropriate habitat is
available (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; MDMR
1982). For the purpose of this study, measured stream
habitat is defined broadly as accessible habitat for both
species but is not included in measurable alewife
spawning habitat which is limited to lakes and ponds,
and thus an underestimate of total potential area.
Study area
Dams throughout Maine were documented, but
analysis was limited to nine historical river herring

97

watersheds, approximately 60% of our estimated
historical range, that were divided amongst three
categories: (1) primary river watersheds with extensive tributaries totaling a stream distance of 1000 km
or greater; (2) secondary watersheds with few
tributaries totaling less than 1000 km; (3) bay
watersheds composed of multiple small rivers and
coastal waterways (Fig. 1). Primary (category 1)
watersheds are the Androscoggin, Kennebec and
Penobscot Rivers. Secondary (category 2) watersheds
are the Mousam, Sheepscot, St. George, Union and
Dennys Rivers. The Casco Bay watershed with the
Presumpscot River was used as the example for
tertiary (category 3) watersheds. Watershed analysis

Fig. 1 State of Maine
highlighted with historical
river herring watersheds
assessed in this study for
temporal spawning habitat
changes from 1600 to 1900

123

Author's personal copy
98

was constrained to within the State of Maine. The
Damariscotta River watershed is also referenced in
this study.
Methodology
We followed a 6-step procedure to document and
map locations of dams, natural boundaries and
upstream limits of diadromous fish migration, and
determine the historical timeline of use and main
stem blockage by dams.
1. Determination of current dam locations
The Maine Geographic Information Systems (MEGIS) Impound database completed in 2006 by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service Gulf of Maine Coastal
Program (MEGIS 2006) served as our initial database
and includes full demographics of still functional
dams including waterway, latitude and longitude,
ownership, year of completion of the most recent dam
at the location (not the original configuration),
structural height, and limited information about recent
breaches or removals. The database was developed
from data collected in the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers (USACE) 1987 Dam Survey, Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP),
Bureau of Land and Water Quality (BLandWQ) staff
for use with BLandWQ projects. The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) reviewed all
point locations against existing orthophotography or
digital raster graphic base layers. Point locations of
dams, levees, and impoundments in Maine are at
1:24000 scale. Inventories of removed dams, potentially removable dams and currently active dams
listed by MDEP (2009) were an additional source.

Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

Nineteenth and twentieth century governmental
reports were also used to identify and date original
construction of dams. These included Maine Commissioner of Fisheries (COF) reports spanning from
1868 to 1899 (Atkins and Foster 1868, 1869; Atkins
and Stillwell 1874; Atkins 1887; Smith 1899), and
alewife fisheries reports and collections of Atlantic
Sea-Run Salmon Commission river surveys and
management reports through the 1980s (Rounsefell
and Stringer 1945; Supplementary Materials I).
Dates and locations of dams constructed prior to
Wells (1869) were found in wills, historical magazines and journals, town histories, eighteenth and
early nineteenth century newspaper articles and
records of early nineteenth century Maine Legislative
Records containing legislative acts and petitions held
at the Maine State Archives (Supplementary Materials I). Hand drawn maps labeled with early settlements included in historical publications gave clear
references to location of mills and date of existence.
For a full list of references used to date and locate
mills and dams see Supplementary Materials I. In
historical literature, mills are documented more
consistently than dams, therefore it was assumed
the presence of a mill indicated the presence of a
dam.
3. Determination of main stem blockage
Main stem blockage, particularly dams at head of
tide, was determined from historical reports by
Atkins (1887) and other publications that stated the
year of full obstruction and were only considered
migration obstacles beginning on sourced dates.
4. Determination of natural barriers and limits
to upstream alewife migration

2. Determination of historic dams and timeline of use
The most comprehensive reference for historic dams
was The Water-power of Maine, a hydrographic survey
with water resource demographics from the 1860s
(Wells 1869). Not all dams reported in Wells (1869)
were included in this study. Omitted dams were: (1) not
located due to an historic name or no precise location
mentioned; (2) upstream of alewife migrations; (3) on
tributaries above head of tide with no pond area for
alewife spawning; or (4) one of many already surveyed
dams on a short stretch of waterway (under 3 miles).

123

Natural barriers and limits of anadromous species
upstream passage, particularly alewives, were determined using Maine COF reports, alewife fishery and
Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon Commission river survey
and management reports (Atkins and Foster 1868,
1869; Atkins and Stillwell 1874; Atkins 1887; Smith
1899; Rounsefell and Stringer 1945; Supplementary
Materials I). Because of historical omnipresence of
alewives in Maine ponds with connection to the
ocean (Atkins 1887; Mullen et al. 1986), all water
bodies below natural barriers within known migration

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

distances were considered potential spawning sites.
Thus, we assumed presence of fish unless we found
evidence to the contrary. Town histories were
instrumental in further determining presence or
absence of alewives. For example, in The History of
Sanford
Maine
1661–1900
(Emery
1901,
pp. 169–170) litigation regarding fish passage for
salmon, alewives and shad at mills within the town of
Sanford on the Mousam River is discussed. This
indicates alewives surmounted the considerable falls
downstream of Sanford. Our approach possibly
overestimates alewife lake and pond spawning habitat
and requires further water body sediment and artifact
research to empirically determine historical presence.
5. GIS mapping
All dams, natural obstructions and migratory limits
were mapped using ESRI" ArcGISTM v.9.3. Map
base layers in 1:24000 scale of watersheds, counties
and coastline were obtained from the MEGIS database (MEGIS 2004). Latitude and longitude in
decimal degrees were geo-referenced using the
Geographic Coordinate System North America 1983.

99

intermittent or not connected to water bodies above
head of tide were not included. Perennial streams
below or to head of tide but without connection to
water bodies were included for potential blueback
migratory and spawning habitat.
Let m be the river mouth and nv the historical
natural limit of migration; virgin habitat for alewife
spawning (VA), and blueback and alewife migration
(VBB, A), is the sum of all suitable lake (L, in km2)
and stream (S, in km) habitat, respectively, such that:
VA ¼

nv
X

L;

m

VBB;A ¼

Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees for existing and historical dam sites were confirmed or
determined using the 26th (2003) and 30th (2007)
editions of the DeLorme Maine Atlas and GazetteerTM and Google Earth 5.0 during the period of
January to July 2009. Additionally, personal site
visits were conducted throughout the state of Maine
in 2008 and 2009 to ground-truth over 90 dams with
GPS and obtain information, photographs and meet
with current owners and local residents.
Analysis
Virgin spawning habitat was dated in year 1600, pre
European colonization. Historical river herring migratory and spawning habitat was estimated using stream
and lake demographics from MEGIS (2004). Streams
categorized as perennial on the MEGIS database that
led to ponds within the estimated range of alewife
migration were used to calculate potential stream
migration distance whereas streams categorized as

S;

m

Accessible habitat (hA, hBB, A) was then calculated
chronologically from 1600 to 1900 each year a new
obstruction occurred within the defined virgin habitat
area, where nx is the year specific upstream migration
boundary:
hA ¼

nx
X

L;

m

hBB;A ¼

nx
X

S

m

Changes in accessible habitat (HA, HBB,A) resulting from dam construction was calculated using:
H A ¼ V A # hA ;

6. Error checking

nv
X

HBB;A ¼ VBB;A # hBB;A

Then change from virgin conditions in percent
(RA, RBB,A) since 1600 was calculated:
RA ¼

HA
100;
VA

RBB;A ¼

HBB;A
100
VBB;A

Results
Dam timeline
A total of 1356 historical and current dams were
documented in the state of Maine from the Piscataqua/Salmon Falls River in the west to the St. Croix
River in the east and all inlets and islands along the
coast (Table 1). A comprehensive database with the
history of each dam including use, dates of construction and reconstruction, owners, fish passage capability, hydrology, etc. can be viewed at the Gulf
of Maine Historical Ecology Research website:
www.GOMHER.org. Dams were grouped according
to watershed access to coastal regions divided into
western, central and eastern. Earliest construction of
dams in the three regions was 1634, 1640 and 1763
for western, central and eastern, respectively. Of the

123

Author's personal copy
100
Table 1 Summary of
historical and current dams
in Maine by region and
watersheda

Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

Coastal
region

Watershed

Western

Piscataqua/Salmon Falls River

29

1634

York River

12

1634

6

Mousam River

24

1672

12

Kennebunk River

10

1749

1

Saco River

72

1648

42

6

1674

2

68

1732

30

Fore River
Presumpscot River
Royal River
Central

a

Includes dams that could
not be assigned latitude and
longitude
b

Dams still present in 2006
at completion of the MEGIS
impoundment database.
Includes dams with fish
passage and those more
recently removed or
breached

General

Number of dams
still on watershed
as of 2006b
12

10

1722

4

226

1754

128

Androscoggin River

145

1716

79
15

47

1664

Damariscotta River

8

1726

2

Pemaquid River

6

1640

3

Medomak River

12

1797

5

St. George River

35

1647

18

Penobscot River

283

1768

116
11

Union River

36

1766

Narraguagus River

15

1773

4

Pleasant River

9

1765

2

Machias River

13

1763

6

East Machias River

12

1765

4

Orange River

6

1828

4

Dennys River

19

1787

8

Pennamaquan River

18

1823

7

St. John River

77

1811

48

St. Croix River

48

1780

20

110

1651

Coastal Waterways
Total

1356 dams documented in this study, 47% (634
dams) were still present on the waterways as of 2006.
Not all of the locations of dams were identified
clearly enough in the literature for exact, or estimated, latitude and longitude; therefore a total of
1333 dams were assigned coordinates and are presented in Fig. 2a.
Accumulation of dams across the state on all
watersheds is mapped in four time periods:
1630–1750
(Fig. 2b),
1630–1800
(Fig. 2c),
1630–1850 (Fig. 2d) and 1630–1900 (Fig. 2e). A
total of 43, 164, 187 and 521 dams were completed in
each of the four time periods, respectively, for a total
of 915 dams. Between 1750 and 1800, dam completion more than tripled and by 1900, increased 20-fold.

123

Year of earliest
documented dam
construction

Kennebec River
Sheepscot River

Eastern

Total dams
constructed
1600-present

1356

45
634

Dam development remained localized in the
southwest of the state until northeast expansion in
the mid 1700s (Fig. 2b, c). The rate of expansion to
the east was more rapid than northern, or inland, but
by 1850 the maximum range was reached in both
directions while the density of dams continued to
increase through the present (Fig. 2).
Historical habitat analysis
The Penobscot watershed had the most virgin habitat
with 5332 km of streams and 327.7 km2 of lake area
whereas the Mousam watershed was the smallest with
183.5 km of streams and 10.7 km2 of lake area
(Table 2). From 1720 to 1846, impassable dams were

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

101

Fig. 2 Temporal and spatial accumulation of dams in Maine
for which latitude and longitude were determined. Each dot
represents a dam. a comprehensive of all dams completed

through 2008. b all dams constructed by 1750. c–e the
cumulative increase of completed dams in 50-year increments
from 1750 to 1900

constructed at or near head of tide on the main stem
of our nine historical river herring watersheds
(Table 2). Head of tide dams alone reduced accessible stream distance and lake area to between 7–59%
and 0–33%, respectively, having the greatest impact
on the Kennebec, Mousam and Casco Bay watersheds
with less than 1% of virgin lake surface area
remaining after construction.
A representative watershed for each category is
used to illustrate chronological changes in available
spawning habitat. The Kennebec, St. George and
Casco Bay represent primary, secondary and bay
watersheds. See Supplementary Material II for

remaining watersheds. On the Kennebec watershed,
considerable reductions in stream and lake habitat
first occurred in 1754. Stream habitat declined to
65.4% and lake area to 53.6% (Fig. 3a). Dam
construction in 1760 reduced lake area to 25.6% of
virgin habitat and in 1792 further reduced habitat to
14.8% of streams and 4.8% of lake area. In 1837 the
Edwards Dam was built at head of tide which
reduced stream habitat to 6.9%. The last dams to
have a measurable impact on the Kennebec
watershed were completed in 1867 and left 4.9%
and 0.4% of stream and lake area available,
respectively.

123

Author's personal copy
102

Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

Table 2 Nine focus watersheds with total virgin stream distance (SD) and lake surface area (LSA) in year 1600 for potential
accessible river herring habitat, year of head of tide dam construction and percent remaining stream and lake habitat after full
obstruction at head of tidea
Virgin SD (km)

Virgin LSA (km2)

Androscoggin

906.2

45.9

1807

14.9

Kennebec

2392.3

197

1837

7.3

0.5

1

Penobscot

5332

327.7

1835

18.6

8.2

2

Mousam

183.5

10.7

1720

8.1

0

2

Sheepscot

558

19.4

1762

58.2

32.4

Category

Watershed

1
1

Year

% SD

% LSA
4.4

2

St. George

549.2

31.7

1840s

20.5

6.8

2

Union

480.9

93.2

1800

21.5

5.2

2

Dennys

230.1

30.1

1846

31.9

1.9

3

Casco Bay

862.1

136.1

1819

20.9

0.1

a
Percent calculated based on presence of head of tide dam only. Habitat loss from other dams built on watersheds previous to above
years or below head of tide not considered for this estimate

On the St. George watershed, the first notable
reductions in available habitat occurred in 1777
resulting in 82.7% of stream and 72.2% of lake area
remaining (Fig. 3b). Obstructed at head of tide in 1785,
habitat was reduced to 18.9% stream and 4.9% lake
area. The last dam to have a measurable impact on
accessible spawning habitat was completed in 1867
leaving 13% stream and 0% lake habitat available.
Changes in available spawning habitat in Casco
Bay were quite different between streams and lakes.
Stream distance decreased 9.5% in fairly regular
intervals until 1762 while lake area remained above
99% (Fig. 3c). Construction of a main stem dam on
the Presumpscot River in 1762 reduced lake habitat
to 3% and stream habitat to 57.8%. The Presumpscot
River provides access to 116.4 km2 Sebago Lake, the
principal lake of the Casco Bay watershed. By
blocking access to Sebago Lake, the dam obstructed
nearly 97% of the watershed lake habitat but only
about a third of the accessible stream habitat.
For an overall picture of Maine, the nine analyzed
watersheds were combined (Fig. 3d). Remaining
stream and lake habitat both decreased to below
50% by 1800 and were further reduced to 16.22% and
2.42% by 1900, respectively.

Discussion
This study provides the first comprehensive temporal
and spatial analysis of dam construction as it relates
to historical watersheds in Maine and determination of

123

virgin baselines for diadromous river herring habitat.
We illustrate the early history of anthropogenic
fracturing of northeastern U.S. coastal ecosystems
and consequent statewide loss of longitudinal connectivity and diadromous spawning habitat accessibility.
From 1634 to 1850 mill dam construction on tributaries and small watersheds reduced Maine’s river herring
lake habitat by more than 95%. Large dams on primary
rivers at head of tide led to a near total loss of
accessible habitat by the 1860s. Legacy land use has
diminished hydrologic connectivity within and among
coastal ecosystems resulting in shifts to ecological
form and function that must be recognized and
incorporated explicitly into restoration.
Implications for restoration and management
While restoration and trending towards pre-colonial
habitat have occurred since the American Civil War
(Foster 2002), obstruction of waterways, especially at
head of tide, has meant that waterways and diadromous fish are not experiencing the same trend. In
light of our results, Atkins’ (1887) underestimated
lost habitat by an order of magnitude, and even the
dire estimate of 1% remaining at present (Lotze and
Milewski 2004) fails to identify that this baseline was
reached 150 years ago, before industrial pollution
and human-induced climate change had become
widespread concerns. Historically, alewife migrated
193 km and 322 km inland on the Kennebec and
Penobscot Rivers, respectively (Atkins and Foster
1868), but completion of head of tide dams restricted

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

103

Fig. 3 Percent virgin
habitat. Percent stream
distance remaining (on left)
and percent lake surface
area remaining (on right)
for representative
watersheds of three
categories and all nine
assessed watersheds
combined to represent the
state: a primary rivers
represented by the
Kennebec River,
b secondary rivers
represented by the St.
George River, c tertiary bay
systems represented by
Casco Bay and d state of
Maine. Vertical drop down
lines in each graph indicate
year of dam construction
that resulted in a
measurable loss of potential
spawning habitat

migration to less than 8% and 19% virgin habitat.
Penobscot historical alewife catch declined from 1
million individuals in 1867 (Atkins 1887) to 230,283
in 1943 (Maine Department of Marine Resources

unpublished data), documenting species decline due to
habitat fragmentation and other factors. The extent of
habitat loss during the 1800s left little spawning habitat
accessible to wild populations along the Maine coast

123

Author's personal copy
104

with the Damariscotta River serving as the only
consistent documented refuge for river herring (Maine
Secretary of State 1804–1893). As a result, Damariscotta fish were likely responsible for repopulating other
watersheds through straying and restocking efforts as
habitat re-opened during the 1900s (Rounsefell and
Stringer 1945). Increased population biocomplexity,
where population structure includes access to a greater
variety of spawning sites, improves species resilience
in the face of environmental changes (Hilborn et al.
2003). Genetic and spatial variability of spawning
populations would have been reduced from numerous
discrete groups to as few as one, potentially endangering the resiliency of the species and possibly contributing to its current depleted status.
Over 100 years before recognition of the dramatic
impacts of species loss, and advent of the Endangered
Species Act, river herring were already at critically low
population levels experiencing habitat conditions
linked to genetic bottlenecks. The current IUCN Red
List criteria for listing a species as ‘‘vulnerable’’
includes a 30% or greater loss of historic Area of
Occupancy or Extent of Occurrence (IUCN Standards
and Petitions Working Group 2008). Our study is far
from global and does not conform to regional Red List
guidelines’ definition of a state or province (IUCN
2003). Yet, if our analysis can be assumed to represent
the entire State, continued presence of migration
barring dams contributing to 70% or greater loss of
accessible habitat per watershed would merit a listing of
‘‘regionally endangered’’. Disruption of habitat-use and
spawning migrations occurred during colonial development along the entire U.S. Atlantic coast (ASMFC
2009). An IUCN evaluation of river herring in watersheds throughout the greater Gulf of Maine, from Bay
of Fundy in the north to Cape Cod in the south, would
include numerous extirpated historical runs where the
species is ‘‘regionally extinct’’ (IUCN 2003, p. 10).
Subpopulation watershed loss could be the most
important conservation parameter on a regional scale.
Incorporation of assessments at watershed and subpopulation levels into regional river herring management efforts is critical and should be required.
Fortunately, alewives are ideal candidates for
restoration because they rapidly populate reopened
spawning habitat within 3–5 years, roughly equivalent
to the species age of maturity (Atkins and Foster 1868;
Pardue 1983; Lichter et al. 2006). Some progressive
state management plans have implemented individual

123

Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

watershed restoration programs (Brown et al. 2008;
MDMR 2008; Brady 2009) and currently there are
numerous efforts in Maine to restore stream connectivity and diadromous fish habitat access through fish
passage construction, dam removal and stocking with
varying success. Fish passage over the head of tide
Brunswick Dam in 1981 provided access to 53.8% of
historical lake habitat for the Androscoggin watershed
(Brown et al. 2008). Removal of the head of tide
Edwards Dam in 1999, without unblocking additional
upstream dams, allowed access to only 1% of potential
lake habitat within the Kennebec watershed (MDMR
2008). Yet, removal of Fort Halifax Dam in 2008 at the
mouth of the Sebasticook River provided access to
45% of the original lake habitat. Opening of these two
dams potentially provided access to 46% of the
Kennebec watershed’s virgin lake habitat. Finally,
planned removal of the main stem Great Works and
Veazie Dams on the Penobscot would restore 37% of
the Penobscot watershed’s historical lake habitat
(MBSRFH 2007; MDEP 2009), which with the already
accessible Orland River would make 42% of historic
lake habitat available. We propose that habitat is the
best indicator of restoration success and efforts to
reopen historical spawning habitat and apply management per watershed, in addition to larger coastal
regions, is an important step towards restoring Gulf of
Maine river herring.
Landscape and ecosystem impacts
Understanding the consequences of diadromous species’ loss of access to spawning habitat is relatively
straightforward compared to assessing their contribution to Gulf of Maine ecosystems, including as a
nutrient vector between freshwater and marine environments. Extensive research on anadromous and
semelparous (death after single spawning) Pacific
salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) has shown significant
transport of marine derived nutrients to freshwater
spawning sites and incorporation into aquatic and
terrestrial food webs (Kline et al. 1990; Bilby et al.
1996; Schindler et al. 2003). River herring along the
Atlantic coast could be equally important but differ
from Pacific salmon by not providing as substantial
an influx of nutrients through mortality. However, by
returning to the marine environment multiple times,
iteroparous river herring provide repeated exchange
between fresh and marine aquatic systems. Short-

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107

term research on small watersheds shows evidence of
marine derived nutrient incorporation into freshwater
ecosystems (MacAvoy et al. 2000; Walters et al.
2009). Long-term studies of river herring reintroduction and nutrient transport are needed to understand
greater ecosystem impacts (Schindler et al. 2003).
Small-scale natural and human induced change to
watershed morphology was not accounted for in our
four-century analysis. To assess large-scale obstruction, we assumed stream distance and lake area
remained consistent with values obtained from MEGIS
(2004). As mentioned in the introduction, long-term
presence of dams seriously affects water body characteristics and biological habitat availability (Poff and
Hart 2002; Wu et al. 2004; Walter and Merritts 2008).
Accurate estimates of these changes are difficult to
obtain (Petts 1989; Poff et al. 1997) and require
quantitative analyses of historical maps and sediment
profiles to determine river width, depth and lake
surface area over time. Also, small-scale natural (i.e:
beaver dams) and human induced (i.e: road culverts)
fragmentation was not assessed here. Inclusion of this
work is necessary to improve understanding and
management of localized landscape changes.
We have focused on the long-term destruction of
river herring habitat. Substantial impacts on other
diadromous species, including salmon, American eel
(Anguilla rostrata) and shad, and their contributions to
freshwater and coastal ecosystems were not considered. Consideration of all species implies a devastating
loss of diadromous biomass from coastal food webs, as
suggested for over 100 years (Baird 1872; Ames
2004). While trophically important river herring also
potentially provide prey buffering for juvenile salmon
from fish and bird predators (Fay 2003), restoration
efforts have suffered because of perceived competition
with sport fisheries (Willis 2006). Further, river herring
as bycatch in marine fisheries such as Atlantic herring
(Clupea harengus) is increasingly considered an
impediment to successful restoration (Kritzer and
Black 2007). Thus, recovery of one species does not
occur in a vacuum.
While diadromous fish are impacted by obstructions
to a greater degree than potamodromous species (Cote
et al. 2009), fragmentation of rivers, isolation of lake
and stream habitat, rapid increase of impoundments
combined with deforestation and other land-use
changes that accompanied dams, have altered landscape ecology and affected all species (Foster et al.

105

2003). Fragmentation, land clearance and conversion
to pasture land co-occurred with mill development.
Thus, the documentation of damming is an indicator of
regional changes to the landscape, including loss of
foundation species (Ellison et al. 2005), shifts in
species and habitats, nutrient composition, soil and
sediment structure, presence of woody debris and
overall flora and fauna (Foster et al. 2003). When the
scale of alteration is considered (Walter and Merritts
2008) in relation to hydrologic connectivity and the
relative strengths and directionality of hierarchal
processes (Poole 2002), a dramatic shift from habitat
continuum to discontinuum, not only within stream
networks, but across the freshwater-oceanic boundary,
has occurred. Further, punctuated discontinuities
across the landscape together with homogenization of
forests at the regional scale (Foster et al. 1998) have
shifted the biotic structure and nutrient flux of Maine’s
ecosystems. Today, the terrestrial, riverine and marine
landscape of Maine favors shorter-lived rapid growing
species compared to pre-colonial ecosystems (Foster
et al. 2002). A systematic and comprehensive plan is
required to determine minimum habitat connectivity
and species restoration targets, with multi-level
involvement from individual watersheds to coast-wide
management. Finally, by comparing current watershed
restoration results to baseline habitat and productivity
estimates we can determine the effectiveness of
proposed actions towards regaining ecological connectivity after centuries of watershed obstruction.
Acknowledgments This work has benefited from
conversations with Robert M. Cerrato, William Leavenworth,
Karen Alexander, Theodore Willis, Michele Dionne, Gail
Wippelhauser and Tom Squiers. We are indebted to the staff of
The Maine Historical Society, The Maine State Archives, The
Fogler Library Special Collections at the University of Maine
Orono, and The Bangor Public Library Local History/Special
Collections. We would like to thank J Wu, G Poole, D Cote and
1 anonymous reviewer for comments that improved this
manuscript. We also thank undergraduate researchers Jaime
Wright and Veronica Scorcia. This research was funded by a
2007 Mia J. Tegner Memorial Research Grant in Marine
Historical Ecology and Environmental History (awarded to
Adrian Jordaan) and NOAA award NA07NMF4550320.

References
Ames EP (2004) Atlantic Cod stock structure in the Gulf of
Maine. Fisheries 29:10–28
Anonymous (1798) Legislature of Massachusetts. The Eastern
Herald and Gazette of Maine [Portland] 26 March, 1798

123

Author's personal copy
106
ASMFC (2009) Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Plan for
shad and river herring (river herring management).
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Atkins CG (1887) The river fisheries of Maine. In: Goode BG
(ed) The fisheries and fishery industries of the United
States, Section V, vol. 1, pp 673–728
Atkins CG, Foster N (1868) First Report of the Commissioners
of Fisheries of the State of Maine, 1867. Owen and Nash,
Printers to the State, Augusta, ME
Atkins CG, Foster N (1869) Second Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of the State of Maine, 1868. Owen and
Nash, Printers to the State, Augusta, ME
Atkins CG, Stillwell EM (1874) Obstructions to the upward
movement of fishes in streams, and the remedy In: US
Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part II, Report of the
Commissioner for 1872 and 1873. Appendix E; Sections
XXIII and XXIV. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 589–621
Baird ST (1872) Letter to Maine Commissioner of Fisheries on
the diminution of the supply of food-fishes. In: Atkins CG
(ed) 1872 Sixth Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries
of the State of Maine, 1872. Owen and Nash, Augusta,
ME, pp 7–10
Baird ST (1883) US Commission of Fish and Fisheries Report
of the Commissioner for 1883. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC
Bigelow HB, Schroeder WC (1953) Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. US Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin
#74, vol 53. US Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC, 577 pp
Bilby RE, Fransen BR, Bisson PA (1996) Incorporation of
nitrogen and carbon from spawning coho salmon into the
trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable
isotopes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:164–173
Brady PD (2009) Marine fisheries to work with local river
herring officials on sustainable management of Massachusetts River Herring. DMF News 30: 9. Massachusetts
Department of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA
Brown ME, Maclaine JE, Flagg L (2008) Anadromous fish restoration in the Androscoggin River Watershed. 2007 report
on the operation of the Brunswick fishway. FERC #2284,
Maine Dept of Marine Resources. PL 89-304, 28 pp
Clark CE (1970) The Eastern Frontier: the settlement of
Northern New England 1610–1713. Alfred A Knopf, New
York, 419 pp
Cote D, Kehler DG, Bourne C, Wiersma YF (2009) A new
measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks.
Landscape Ecol 24:101–113
Dynesius M, Nilsson C (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the Northern third of the World.
Science 266(5186):753–762
Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K,
Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett
GM, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV,
Stinson KA, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Von Holle
B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested
ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3(9):479–486
Emery E (1901) In: Emery WM (ed) The history of Sanford
Maine 1661–1900. Fall River, ME, 537 pp

123

Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107
Fay C (2003) Biological and ecological role of alewives. Maine
Rivers annual conference 2003, September 27–28, 2003
Indian Island, ME
Federal Register (2006) Vol 71, No 200/Tuesday, October 17,
2006/Notices, pp 61022–61025
Foster DR (2002) Thoreau’s country: a historical-ecological
perspective to conservation in the New England landscape. J Biogeogr 29:1537–1555
Foster DR, Motzkin G, Slater B (1998) Land-use history as
long-term broad-scale disturbance: regional forest
dynamics in central New England. Ecosystems 1:96–119
Foster DR, Motzkin G, Bernardos D, Cardoza J (2002) Wildlife
dynamics in the changing New England landscape.
J Biogeogr 29:1337–1357
Foster DR, Swanson FJ, Aber JD, Burke I, Brokaw N, Tilman
D, Knapp A (2003) The importance of land-use legacies
to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 53:77–88
Graham J, Engle S, Recchia M (2002) Local knowledge and
local stocks: an atlas of groundfish spawning in the Bay of
Fundy. The Centre for Community-based Management,
Extension Dept., St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada
Greenleaf M (1829) A survey of the State of Maine: In: Reference to its geographical features, statistics and political
economy. Shirley and Hyde, 460 pp
Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation
research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology.
Ecol Appl 12(2):321–334
Hilborn R, Quinn TP, Schindler DE, Rogers DE (2003) Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proc Natl Acad
Sci 100:6564–6568
Humphries P, Winemiller KO (2009) Historical impacts on
river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. Bioscience 59(8):673–684
IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List
criteria at regional levels: version 3.0. IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK, ii ? 26 pp
IUCN Standards and Petitions Working Group (2008) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria.
Version 7.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions
Working Group of the IUCN SSC Biodiversity Assessments Sub-Committee in August 2008. Downloadable
from http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/
RedListGuidelines.pdf
Jackson JBC (2008) Ecological extinction and evolution in the
brave new ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(Suppl 1):
11458–11465
Jackson JBC, Kirby M, Berger W, Bjorndal KA, Botsford L,
Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Erlandson J, Estes
JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange C, Lenihan H, Pandolfi
JM, Peterson C, Steneck R, Tegner MJ, Warner RR
(2001) Historical overfishing and the collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 293:629–638
Judd RW (1997) Common lands, common people. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 335 pp
Kline TC, Goering JJ, Mathisen OA, Poe PH, Parker PL (1990)
Recycling of elements transported upstream by runs of
Pacific salmon I q15N and q13C evidence in Sashin Creek,
southeastern Alaska. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:136–144

Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:95–107
Kritzer J, Black P (2007) Oceanic distribution and bycatch of
river herring. An analysis of federal fishery-independent
and fishery-dependent data. Progress report. October
2007. Environmental Defense
Lichter J, Caron H, Pasakarnis TS, Ridgers SL, Squiers TS Jr,
Todd CS (2006) The ecological collapse and partial
recovery of a freshwater tidal ecosystem. Northeastern
Nat 13(2):153–178
Lotze HK, Milewski I (2004) Two centuries of multiple human
impacts and successive changes in a North Atlantic food
web. Ecol Appl 14(5):1428–1447
Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG,
Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX, Peterson CH, Jackson
JBC (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312(5781):
1806–1809
MacAvoy SE, Macko SA, McIninch SP, Garman GC (2000)
Marine nutrient contributions to freshwater apex predators. Oecologia 122:568–573
Maine Secretary of State. Fish Inspector Records (1804–1893)
Boxes 1–9. Maine State Archives. Augusta, ME
MBSRFH (2007) Draft strategic plan for the restoration of
diadromous and resident fishes to the Penobscot River.
Maine Bureau of Sea-Run Fisheries and Habitat, Department of Marine Resources, Augusta, ME
MDEP (2009) January 1, 2009 status reports: hydropower
projects in Maine, DEPLW0363-H2009, and Dam Removals in Maine and Dams Subject to Regulated Minimum
Flow Releases. Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
MDMR (1982) Statewide river fisheries management plan.
Maine Department of Marine Resources, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Atlantic Sea
Run Salmon Commission. State of Maine Augusta, ME
MDMR (2008) Kennebec River anadromous fish restoration
Annual progress report—2007. Maine Department of
Marine Resources, Bureau of Sea-Run Fisheries and
Habitat, 131 pp
MEGIS (2004) Watershed, county line and coast base layers.
Maine Geographic Information Systems (comp, ed),
United States Geological Survey. Last accessed April
2009 at http://megismainegov/catalog/
MEGIS (Maine Geographic Information Systems) (comp, ed),
Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), Maine Emergency
Management Agency (MEMA), Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (MEDEP)(comp, ed) (2006)
Impound database. Last accessed August 2008 at
http://megismainegov/catalog/
catalogasp?state=2andextent=cover
Moody RE (1933) The Maine Frontier 1607–1763. Yale University, New Haven, CT, 462 pp
Morita K, Morita SH, Yamamoto S (2009) Effects of habitat
fragmentation by damming on salmonid fishes: lessons
from white-spotted charr in Japan. Ecol Res 24(4):711–
722
Mullen DM, Fay CW, Moring JR (1986) Species profiles: life
histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (North Atlantic)—alewife/blueback
herring U S Fish Wildl Serv Biol Rep 82(1156) U S Army
Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 21 pp

107
Pardue GB (1983) Habitat suitability index models: alewife
and blueback herring. USFWS, FWS/OBS-82/10.58,
22 pp
Pess GR, McHenry ML, Beechie TJ, Davies J (2008) Biological impacts of the Elwha River dams and potential salmonid reasons to dam removal. Northwest Sci 82(Sp Iss
SI):72–90
Petts GE (1989) Perspectives for ecological management of
regulated rivers. In: Alternatives in regulated river management by JA Gore and GE Petts. CRC Press, pp 3–24
Poff NL, Hart DD (2002) How dams vary and why it matters
for the emerging science of dam removal. Bioscience
52(8):659–668
Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter
BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow
regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration.
Bioscience 47(11):769–784
Poole G (2002) Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing
uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshw Biol
47:641–660
Pope CH (1965) The pioneers of Maine and New Hampshire
1623 to 1660. Originally published Boston, 1908. Geneological Pub Co, Baltimore, MD, 252 pp
Pringle CM, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ (2000) Regional effects
of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the
New World: tropical-temperate comparisons. Bioscience
50:807–823
Rounsefell GA, Stringer LD (1945) Restoration and management of the New England alewife fisheries with special
reference to Maine. US Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service. Trans Am Fish Soc 73:394–424
Saunders R, Hachey MA, Fay CW (2006) Maine’s diadromous
fish community: past, present, and implications for
Atlantic salmon recovery. Fisheries 31(11):537–547
Schindler DE, Scheuerell MD, Moore JW, Gende SM, Francis
TB, Palen WJ (2003) Pacific salmon and the ecology of
coastal ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 1(1):31–37
Smith HM (1899) Notes on the extent and condition of the
alewife fisheries of the United States in 1896. In: US
Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries Report part XXIV for
the year ending June 30, 1898. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC, pp 31–43
Walter RC, Merritts DJ (2008) Natural streams and the legacy
of water-powered mills. Science 319:299–304
Walters AW, Barnes RT, Post DM (2009) Anadromous alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) contribute marine-derived
nutrients to coastal stream food webs. Can J Fish Aquat
Sci 66:439–448
Wells W (1869) The Waterpower of Maine Hydrographic
Survey of Maine Sprague. Owen and Nash, Printers to the
State, Augusta, ME, 526 pp
Willis TV (2006) St. Croix River alewife—smallmouth bass
interaction study. Final Report to Maine Rivers, Hallowell, Maine
Wu J, Huang J, Han X, Zongqiang X, Gao X (2003) Three
Gorges Dam—experiment in habitat fragmentation? Science 300:1239–1240
Wu J, Huang J, Han X, Gao X, He F, Jiang M, Jiang Z, Primack RB, Shen Z (2004) The Three Gorges Dam: an
ecological perspective. Front Ecol Environ 2(5):241–248

123

ALASKA

CALIFORNIA

NORTHWEST

FLORIDA

MID-PACIFIC

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

NORTHEAST

WASHINGTON, DC

NORTHERN ROCKIES
INTERNATIONAL

June 4, 2012
Mr. Daniel Morris, Acting NMFS Regional Administrator
Northeast Regional Office
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
[email protected]
Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Suite 201, 800 N. State St
Dover, DE 19901
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re:

Public Comment on Draft Amendment 14 to the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery
Management Plan and its Draft EIS No. 20120106. See Notice Of Availability, 77 Fed.
Reg. 23713 (Apr. 20, 2012).

Dear Mr. Morris and Dr. Moore,
On behalf of Michael S. Flaherty, Captain Alan Hastbacka, the Ocean River Institute, and the
Herring Alliance, please accept these comments on Amendment 14 and its Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. It is our clients’ view that blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and
hickory shad must be added to the Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan
(“MSB FMP”) because these stocks are without question involved in the fishery and in need of
conservation and management. See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2012);
16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(1); and 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1). The Mid-Atlantic Council should select
Alternatives 9b-9e in the Amendment 14 DEIS to add these species as “stocks in the MSB
FMP,” and immediately begin a trailing amendment to set the actual annual catch limits,
accountability measures, and other required management measures.
The documents listed below and either included as attachments to this letter, or provided through
citation because their file size is too large to easily transmit, support the selection of Alternatives
9b-9e. Please include all of these documents in the Amendment 14 administrative record and
ensure that they are considered as part of your deliberations on Amendment 14:
1. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) finding that a listing of river herring
under the Endangered Species Act as a “threatened” species may be warranted. See 76
Fed. Reg. 67652 (Nov. 2, 2011), attached as Attachment 1.

1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE NW,
SUITE 702
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
T: 202.667.4500
F: 202.667.2356
E: [email protected]
W: www.earthjustice.org

2. The ASMFC’s American Shad Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01, entitled American
Shad Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review – Volume I (Stock Assessment Overview
(August 2007)), Volume II (State-Specific Assessments for Maine to Delaware River and
Bay (August 2007), and Volume III (State-Specific Assessments for Maryland to Florida
(August 2007)), all available at: http://www.asmfc.org/ (follow link to Managed Species,
follow link to Shad and River Herring, see Stock Assessment Reports).
3. The ASMFC’s American Shad Peer Review Report of the American Shad Stock
Assessment Report No. 07-01, entitled Terms of Reference & Advisory Report to the
American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review, attached as Attachment 2 and also
available at: http://www.asmfc.org/ (follow link to Managed Species, follow link to Shad
and River Herring, see Stock Assessment Reports).
4. The ASMFC’s River Herring Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, available at:
http://www.asmfc.org/meetings/2012SpringMtg/ShadandRiverHerringManagementBoard
_2.pdf.
5. The ASMFC’s River Herring Peer Review of Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02,
entitled Terms of Reference & Advisory Report of the River Herring Stock Assessment
Peer Review, attached as Attachment 3 and also available at: http://www.asmfc.org/
(follow link to Meetings, follow link to ASMFC Spring Meeting, follow link to Shad and
River herring Management Board Materials #2, pp. 1-36. The Stock Assessment Report
and the Peer Review Report were accepted for management use by the ASMFC on May
1, 2012.
6. Judge Kessler’s Opinion in the United States district court for the District of Columbia,
Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2012), attached as Attachment 4.
The Herring Alliance intends to provide further detailed comments on Amendment 14 supporting
the addition of these species to the MSB FMP. These additional Herring Alliance comments are
supported by Mr. Flaherty, Captain Hastbacka, and the Ocean River Institute and should be
considered on their behalf as well.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
/s/ Roger Fleming
Roger Fleming, Attorney
Erica Fuller, Attorney
Earthjustice
[email protected]
[email protected]

2

67652

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
The petition and other pertinent
information are also available
electronically at the NMFS Web site at
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/
CandidateSpeciesProgram/
RiverHerringSOC.htm.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 111024651–1650–01]
RIN 0648–XA739

National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request
for comments.
AGENCY:

We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding for a petition to list alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback
herring (Alosa aestivalis) as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act and
to designate critical habitat concurrent
with a listing. We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned
action may be warranted. Accordingly,
we will conduct a review of the status
of alewife and blueback herring,
collectively referred to as river herring,
to determine if the petitioned action is
warranted. To ensure that the review is
comprehensive, we solicit information
pertaining to this species from any
interested party.
DATES: Information related to this
petition finding must be received by
January 3, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the RIN 0648–XA739, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal http//
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant
Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be
posted to http://www.regulations.gov
without change. All Personal Identifying
Information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:10 Nov 01, 2011

Kim
Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office (978) 282–8485 or Marta
Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources (301) 713–1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Listing Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List Alewife and Blueback
Herring as Threatened Under the
Endangered Species Act

Jkt 226001

Background
On August 5, 2011, we, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
received a petition from the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
requesting that we list alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) and blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis) each as threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
their range under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). In the alternative,
they requested that NMFS designate
distinct population segments (DPS) of
alewife and blueback herring as
specified in the petition (Central New
England (CNE), Long Island Sound
(LIS), Chesapeake Bay (CB) and Carolina
for alewives, and CNE, LIS, and CB for
blueback herring). The petition contains
information on the two species,
including the taxonomy; historical and
current distribution; physical and
biological characteristics of the species’
habitat and ecosystem relationships;
population status and trends; and
factors contributing to the species’
decline. NRDC also included
information regarding the possible DPSs
of alewife and blueback herring as
described above. The petition addresses
the five factors identified in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA: (1) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5)
other natural or man-made factors
affecting the species’ continued
existence.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding as to whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted.
ESA implementing regulations define
substantial information as the amount of

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In
determining whether substantial
information exists for a petition to list
a species, we take into account several
factors, including information submitted
with, and referenced in, the petition and
all other information readily available in
our files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made
within 90 days of the receipt of the
petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and
the finding is to be published promptly
in the Federal Register. If we find that
a petition presents substantial
information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted,
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to conduct a review of the status of the
species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) requires the
Secretary to make a finding as to
whether the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of the
receipt of the petition. The Secretary has
delegated the authority for these actions
to the NOAA Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries.
The ESA defines an endangered
species as ‘‘any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA
section 3(6)).’’ A threatened species is
defined as a species that is ‘‘likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range (ESA
section 3(19)).’’ As stated previously,
under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a
species may be determined to be
threatened or endangered as a result of
any one of the following factors: (1)
Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; (2) over-utilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Listing
determinations are made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available, after
conducting a review of the status of the
species and taking into account efforts
made by any state or foreign nation to
protect such species.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination can address a species,
subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate
species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). NRDC
presents information in the petition
proposing that DPSs of alewife and
blueback herring are present in the
United States and indicating that it may
be appropriate to divide the population

E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM

02NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules
into DPSs of alewife and blueback
herring as specified in the petition. If we
find that listing at the species level is
not warranted, we will determine
whether any populations of these
species meet the DPS policy criteria,
and if so, whether any DPSs are
endangered or threatened under the
ESA.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Life History of Alewife and Blueback
Herring
Alewife and blueback herring are
collectively referred to as ‘‘river
herring.’’ Due to difficulties in
distinguishing between the species, they
are often harvested together in
commercial and recreational fisheries,
and managed together by the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC). Throughout this finding,
where there are similarities, they will be
collectively referred to as river herring,
and where there are distinctions they
will be identified by species.
River herring can be found along the
Atlantic coast of North America, from
the maritime provinces of Canada to the
southeastern United States (Mullen et
al., 1986; Shultz et al., 2009). The
coastal ranges of the two species
overlap, with blueback herring found in
a greater and more southerly
distribution ranging from Nova Scotia
down to the St. John’s River, Florida;
and alewife found in a more northerly
distribution, from Labrador and
Newfoundland to as far south as South
Carolina, though the extreme southern
range is a less common occurrence
(Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002;
ASMFC, 2009a; Kocik et al., 2009).
Adults are most often found at depths
less than 100 m (328 ft) in waters along
the continental shelf (Neves, 1981;
ASMFC, 2009a; Shultz et al., 2009).
River herring have a deep and
laterally compressed body, with a small,
pointed head with relatively large eyes,
and a lower jaw that protrudes further
than the upper jaw (Collette and KleinMacPhee, 2002). The dorsal fin is small
and slightly concave, pelvic fins are
small, pectorals are moderate and low
on the body, and the caudal fin is forked
(Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002).
The coloring varies, ranging from dark
blue and bluish green to grayish green
and bluish gray dorsally; and silvery
with iridescence in shades of green and
violet on the sides and abdomen. In
adults, there is often a dusky spot that
is located at eye level on both sides
behind the margin of the gill cover. The
colors of alewife are thought to change
in shade according to substrate as the
fish migrates upstream, and sea run fish
are thought to have a golden cast to their

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:10 Nov 01, 2011

Jkt 226001

coloring (Collette and Klein-MacPhee,
2002).
Blueback herring and alewife are
similar in appearance; however, there
are some distinguishable characteristics:
Eye diameter and the color of the
peritoneum. The eye diameter with
alewives is relatively larger than that of
blueback herring. In blueback herring,
the snout length is generally the same as
the eye diameter; however with
alewives, the snout length is smaller
than the diameter of the eye (Collette
and Klein-MacPhee, 2002). In alewives,
the peritoneum is generally pale/light
gray or pinkish white, whereas the
peritoneum in blueback herring is
generally dark colored and either brown
or black, and sometimes spotted
(Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002;
ASMFC, 2009a).
River herring are anadromous,
meaning that they migrate up coastal
rivers in the spring from the marine
environment, to estuarine and
freshwater rivers, ponds, and lake
habitats to spawn (Collette and KleinMacPhee, 2002; ASMFC, 2009a; Kocik
et al., 2009). They are highly migratory,
pelagic, schooling species, with
seasonal spawning migrations that are
cued by water temperature (Collette and
Klein-MacPhee, 2002; Schultz, 2009).
Depending upon temperature, blueback
herring typically spawn from late March
through mid-May. However, they have
been documented spawning in the
southern parts of their range as early as
December or January, and as late as
August in the northern range (ASMFC,
2009a). Alewives generally migrate
earlier than other alosine fishes, but
have been documented spawning as
early as February to June in the southern
portion of their range, and as late as
August in the northern portion of the
range (ASMFC, 2009a). It is thought that
river herring return to their natal rivers
for spawning, and do exhibit natal
homing. However, colonization of
streams where river herring have been
extirpated has been documented;
therefore, some effective straying does
occur (ASMFC, 2009a).
Throughout their life cycle, river
herring use many different habitats
ranging from the ocean, up through
estuaries and rivers, to freshwater lakes
and ponds. The substrate preferred for
spawning varies greatly and can include
substrates consisting of gravel, detritus,
and submerged aquatic vegetation.
Blueback herring prefer swifter moving
waters than alewife (ASMFC, 2009a).
Nursery areas can include freshwater
and semi-brackish waters; however,
little is known about their habitat
preference in the marine environment
(Meadows, 2008; ASMFC, 2009a).

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

67653

Analysis of Petition and Information
Readily Available in NMFS Files
In the following sections, we use the
information presented in the petition
and in our files to: (1) Describe the
distribution of alewife and blueback
herring; and (2) evaluate whether
alewife and blueback herring are at
abundance levels that would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that
listing under the ESA may be warranted
due to any of the five factors listed
under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Abundance
The NRDC asserts that alewife and
blueback herring populations have
suffered dramatic declines over the past
4 decades (ASMFC, 2008). The NRDC
cites the ASMFC as stating that alewife
and blueback herring harvest averaged
almost 43 million pounds (19,504
metric tons (mt)) per year from 1930 to
1970. NRDC also cites ASMFC (2008) in
stating that peak harvest occurred in the
late 1940s and early 1950s and was
highest in Virginia and North Carolina.
The NRDC notes that commercial
landings of river herring began
declining sharply coastwide in the
1970s. However, ASMFC (2009a) reports
that 140 million pounds (63,503 mt) of
river herring were commercially landed
in 1969, marking the peak in river
herring catch; this is a discrepancy from
what is stated in the petition. From the
peak landings in 1969, landings
declined to a point where domestic
landings recently (2000–2007) exceeded
only 2 million pounds (907 mt) yearly
(ASMFC, 2009a). Declines in catch per
unit effort (CPUE) have also been
observed in two rivers for blueback
herring and for alewife, and declining
trends in CPUE for the combined
species were also observed in two out of
three rivers examined (ASMFC, 2009a).
ASMFC (2009a) also reports declines
in abundance through run size estimates
for river herring combined, as well as
for individual species of alewife and
blueback herring. Abundance declined
in seven out of fourteen rivers in New
England from the late 1960s to 2007,
with no obvious signs of recovery;
however, since 2004, there have been
some signs of recovery in five out of
fourteen rivers (ASMFC, 2009a).
Coastwide declines have been observed,
particularly in southern New England
(Davis and Schultz et al., 2009). In the
Connecticut River the number of
blueback herring passing Holyoke Dam
declined from 630,000 in 1985 to a low
of 21 in 2006 (Schultz et al., 2009).

E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM

02NOP1

67654

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification or Curtailment of Habitat
or Range
In the petition, the NRDC states that
habitat alterations, loss of habitat, and
impaired water quality have contributed
to the decline of river herring since
colonial times. NRDC further states that
climate change now poses an increasing
threat as well. NRDC states that dams
and turbines block access to spawning
and foraging habitat, may directly injure
or kill passing fish, and change water
quality through alterations in flow and
temperature, which NRDC asserts is
significantly impacting river herring.
NRDC cites ASMFC (2009b) which
indicates that flow variations caused by
dams, particularly hydropower dams,
can displace eggs as well as disrupt
migration patterns, which will adversely
affect the survival and productivity of
all life stages of river herring as well as
other anadromous fish. ASMFC (2009b)
indicates that increased flows at dams
with fishways can also adversely affect
the upstream migration of adults,
impeding their ability to make it up
through the fishway, as well as the
downstream migration of juveniles,
causing an early downstream migration
and higher flows through sluiceways
resulting in mortality. According to
NRDC, dams have caused river herring
to lose access to significant portions of
their spawning and foraging habitat. In
addition to altering flow and changing
environmental parameters such as
temperature and turbidity, NRDC
indicates that dams, particularly
hydropower dams, cause direct
mortality to various life stages of river
herring through entrainment and
impingement in turbines, and changing
water pressures. In addition, NRDC
states that turbines used in tidal
hydroelectric power plants may impact
river herring with each tidal cycle as the
fish migrate through the area.
Dredging and blasting were also
identified by NRDC as significant
threats to river herring. The petition
cites ASMFC (2009b), asserting that
increased suspended sediment, changes
in water velocities, and alteration of
substrates through dredging can directly
impact river herring habitat. In addition,
NRDC asserts that these operations may
affect migration patterns and spawning
success, and they can directly impact
gill tissues, producing near fatal effects
(NMFS, 1998; ASMFC, 2009b).
The NRDC also asserts that water
quality poses a significant threat to river
herring through changes in water
temperature and flow, introduction of
toxic pollutants, discharge, erosion, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:10 Nov 01, 2011

Jkt 226001

nutrient and chemical run-off (ASMFC,
2009b). NRDC states that ‘‘poor water
quality alone can significantly impact
an entire population of alewife or
blueback herring.’’ ASMFC (2008) notes
that significant declines in dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels in the Delaware
River during the 1940s and 1950s from
heavy organic loading made portions of
the river during the warmer months of
the year uninhabitable to river herring.
ASMFC (2008, 2009a) indicates that
river herring abundance is significantly
affected by low DO and hypoxic
conditions in rivers and that these
conditions may also prevent spawning
migrations.
River herring susceptibility to toxic
chemicals and metals was also
identified by NRDC as a threat to the
species. The NRDC asserts that river
herring are subjected to contaminants
through their habitat, which may be
contaminated with dioxins,
polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons,
organophosphate and organochlorine
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls,
and other hydrocarbon compounds, as
well as toxic metals. Citing ASMFC
(1999), the NRDC states that because of
industrial, residential, and agricultural
development, heavy metal and various
types of organic chemical pollution has
increased in nearly all estuarine waters
along the Atlantic coast, including river
herring spawning and nursery habitat.
NRDC asserts that these contaminants
can directly impact fish through
reproductive impairment, reduced
survivorship of various life stages, and
physiological and behavioral changes
(ASSRT, 2007; 75FR 61872).
The NRDC also identified climate
change as a threat to river herring
habitat. According to NRDC, the spatial
distribution, migration, and
reproduction of alewife may be affected
through rising water temperatures
caused by climate change. Citing the
International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) (2001), NRDC states that fish
larvae and juveniles may have a high
sensitivity to water temperature and
suggests that headwaters and rivers may
be more vulnerable; thus, the effects of
climate change may be more significant
to anadromous species, which utilize a
multitude of habitats. According to
ASMFC (2009b), as water temperatures
rise, the upstream spawning migration
of alewife declines, and will mostly
cease once temperatures have risen
above 21 degrees Celsius. In addition to
increasing water temperatures, climate
change may affect river herring through
increased precipitation that may affect
rivers and estuaries along the coast.
Citing Kerr et al. (2009), the NRDC
reports that a 10 percent increase in

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

annual precipitation is expected in the
Northeast United States from 1990 to
2095 and that precipitation has already
increased 8 percent over the past 100
years (Markham and Wake, 2005). As
increased water flows may affect
anadromous fish migration, increased
precipitation and the potential for
flooding in rivers due to climate change
may pose a significant threat to river
herring (Limburg and Waldman, 2009).
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific or Education
Purposes
The NRDC identified direct harvest,
bycatch, and incidental catch as
significant threats to river herring. River
herring were historically fished through
inshore fisheries, and constitute one of
the oldest fisheries in North America
(Haas-Castro, 2006). Commercial
landings of river herring reached nearly
34,000 metric tons (mt) in the 1950s, but
in the 1970s, landings fell below 4,000
mt. According to ASMFC (2008), foreign
commercial exploitation of river herring
in the 1960s led to drastic declines in
abundance of river herring. Annual
commercial landings over the past
decade have varied from 137 mt to 931
mt, and 90 percent of this catch was
typically harvested by Maine, North
Carolina, and Virginia fisheries (HaasCastro, 2006). Historically, river herring
were targeted for food, bait and fertilizer
purposes; however, they are currently
most often used for bait in commercial
fisheries (Collette and Klein-MacPhee,
2002). The NRDC contends that declines
in river herring abundance are greatly
affected by commercial overharvest,
noting that direct harvest of river
herring currently takes place in Maine,
New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey,
some rivers in Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, and South Carolina.
Bycatch and incidental catch were
also identified by NRDC as resulting in
significant mortality of river herring,
stating that this catch occurs in both
state and Federal waters. NRDC asserts
that the anadromous life history of river
herring presents the potential for
increased bycatch due to the species
schooling behavior at congregation sites
throughout different portions of
migration. Citing Lessard and Bryan
(2011), NRDC indicates that ‘‘hot spots’’
of bycatch and incidental catch have
been found in the winter between Cape
Cod and Cape Hatteras, in the spring
with blueback herring in the southern
region, and in the fall in the Gulf of
Maine and Georges Bank. The NRDC
states that a variety of sources including
landings records, log books, portside
sampling efforts, and the NMFS
observer program provide information

E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM

02NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

on bycatch and incidental catch,
asserting that most of these sources are
likely to underestimate the amount of
bycatch that occurs.
The NRDC cites Lessard and Bryan
(2011) in stating that the majority of
bycatch of river herring is taken with
mid-water otter paired trawls, and that
catch with this gear type appears to be
increasing from 2000–2008, with an
estimation of around 500,000 to 2.5
million pounds (227 to 1,134 mt) of
river herring caught annually as
bycatch. In addition, the NRDC asserts
that the Atlantic herring and Atlantic
mackerel fisheries are increasing their
use of single and pair mid-water trawls,
and are using larger, more efficient nets,
increasing the effort and efficiency in
this fishery. The petition further
outlines specific overharvesting issues
within the Damariscotta, Hudson,
Delaware, Potomac, Chowan, SanteeCooper, and the St. John’s Rivers, as
well as Chesapeake Bay and Albermarle
Sound.
Predation and Disease
The NRDC identifies predation and
disease as another threat facing river
herring. Citing the Maine Department of
Marine Resources (ME DMR) (2003),
NRDC states that river herring may be
preyed upon by striped bass, bluefish,
tuna, cod, haddock, halibut, American
eel, brook trout, rainbow trout, brown
trout, lake trout, landlocked salmon,
smallmouth bass, largemouth bass,
pickerel, pike, white and yellow perch,
seabirds, bald eagle, osprey, great blue
heron, gulls, terns, cormorants, seals,
whales, otter, mink, fox, raccoon, skunk,
weasel, fisher, and turtles. It asserts that
the decline of some populations of river
herring is due to increased predation,
citing ASMFC (2008) as noting a
concern with increasing striped bass
abundance, and identifying predation
by striped bass as contributing
significantly to the decline of river
herring in some rivers. Additionally,
many species of cormorants along the
coast are increasing in abundance, and
predation on alosines by cormorants has
been increasing, although Dalton et al.
(2009) suggested that the double-crested
cormorant is not believed to pose an
immediate threat to the recovery of
alewife in Connecticut.
According to the NRDC, significant
cumulative mortality can occur with
viral hemorrhagic septicemia, which is
a viral infection known to infect certain
anadromous fish, including river
herring. Additionally, NRDC asserts that
when levels of suspended solids are
present during spawning, alewife eggs
are significantly more likely to contract
a naturally occurring fungus infection.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:10 Nov 01, 2011

Jkt 226001

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The NRDC states that state and
Federal regulatory mechanisms are
insufficient and contributing to drastic
declines in river herring populations
that continue throughout all or a
significant portion of the species’
ranges. Due to difficulties in
distinguishing between the species,
alewife and blueback herring are
managed together by the ASMFC as
river herring. NRDC states that ASMFC
has the authority to develop and issue
interstate fishery management plans
(FMP) for fisheries administered by the
state agencies and will coordinate
management with Federal waters.
According to NRDC, ASMFC adopted
an amendment to the coast-wide FMP
for American shad and river herring in
2009, to specifically address the
declining river herring populations
coastwide. The petition asserts that this
amendment is not likely to protect river
herring sufficiently, as it ‘‘does not
require, and is not likely to result in,
adequate measures to reduce significant
incidental catch and bycatch/bycatch
mortality of these species, particularly
in federal waters.’’ NRDC also asserts
that this amendment does not address
non-fishing stressors on river herring
sufficiently. The petition further states
that four states have already had
prohibitions on the harvest of river
herring in place, and even with this
prohibition on all harvest, these states
have continued to see declines.
The petition notes that river herring
are not subject to the requirements and
protections of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) because they are not
currently managed under an FMP as a
stock, and therefore, are not federally
managed in regard to overfishing and
depleted stocks under the MSA. Even
though river herring are caught and sold
as bycatch, and FMPs are meant to
minimize bycatch, the NRDC asserts
that any provisions in FMPs meant to
address bycatch of river herring have
proven to be ineffective and inadequate.
NRDC further asserts that bycatch
reporting is inadequate and limited and
that there are currently no FMPs under
the MSA that specifically address
bycatch and bycatch mortality of river
herring.
The NRDC notes that currently the
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management
Council (MAFMC) is developing two
amendments to two separate FMPs that
include proposals for improving the
monitoring of bycatch of river herring in
these fisheries; however, it asserts that
it was unknown whether the bycatch

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

67655

monitoring measures for river herring
would be included in the final
amendment.
NRDC also indicates that under the
MSA or the Atlantic Coast Fisheries Act,
NMFS has the potential to initiate
emergency rulemaking or other actions
to reduce bycatch of river herring in
small mesh fisheries, but has declined
to do so thus far. NRDC further notes
that NMFS has declined to take
emergency rulemaking actions for
bycatch of river herring in small-mesh
fisheries in New England and the MidAtlantic.
Federally managed stocks are required
to have essential fish habitat (EFH)
designated under the MSA; however,
since river herring are not considered a
federally managed stock under the
MSA, EFH has not been designated for
this species. A provision under the 1996
amendments to the MSA provides for
comments from regional councils on
activities that may affect anadromous
fish habitat; however, the NRDC asserts
that this provision has not provided any
significant modifications to activities
affecting anadromous fish habitat.
In addition to fisheries, the petition
indicates that Federal laws and
regulations have also failed to protect
river herring and their habitat from
threats such as poor water quality,
dredging, and altered water flows. The
petition briefly describes the Clean
Water Act (CWA), the Federal Power
Act (FPA), and the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act, and identifies where
these regulations present inadequacies
that are failing to protect river herring.
NRDC notes that the CWA should limit
discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters and that some progress has been
made in terms of industrial sources.
NRDC also concludes that the CWA has
not ‘‘adequately regulated nutrients and
toxic pollutants originating from nonpoint sources.’’ In addition, some
permits for dredging and excavation
require permitting from the Army Corps
of Engineers, and NRDC notes that these
may benefit river herring through
placing restrictions on the timing and
location of activities in river herring
habitats. The FPA allows for protection
of fish and wildlife that may be affected
by hydroelectric facilities. As
mentioned previously, NRDC asserts
that fish passage at hydroelectric
facilities can be inefficient, and the
dams themselves affect water flow
which can pose a significant threat to
river herring. Thus, according to NRDC,
FPA protections for river herring are
inadequate. The NRDC further states
that the Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act does not require any measures for
river herring that would improve

E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM

02NOP1

67656

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

habitat, reduce bycatch, or mitigate
other threats to river herring, and
therefore provides inadequate
protection for the species. The NRDC
notes that there are Federal protections
that may benefit river herring which are
intended for other anadromous species
such as Atlantic salmon and shortnose
sturgeon; however, it asserts that any
benefits from these protections are
minor and insufficient to fully protect
river herring.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Existence
The petition describes other natural or
manmade factors that may be affecting
river herring, including invasive
species, impingement, entrainment, and
water temperature alterations. The
petition states that invasive species may
threaten food sources for alewives and
blueback herring. ASMFC (2008)
describes the negative effect zebra
mussel introduction to the Hudson
River had on phytoplankton and
zooplankton, and subsequently water
quality. According to ASMFC (2008), a
decrease in both micro and macro
zooplankton as well as phytoplankton
improved water clarity and increased
shallow water zoobenthos by 10
percent. Early life stages of river herring
feed on zooplankton as well as
phytoplankton (ASMFC, 2008). Strayer
et al. (2004) hypothesized that the
introduction of this invasive species
created competition for availability of
the preferred food source of early life
stages of river herring, and found that
larval river herring abundance
decreased with increased zebra mussel
presence. Thus, according to the
petition, invasive species introduction
and subsequent water quality changes
which may affect plankton abundance
can decrease the abundance of early life
stages of river herring.
As described previously, the petition
asserts that various life stages of river
herring may be impinged or entrained
through water intake structures from
commercial, agricultural, or municipal
operations. These intake structures alter
flow, and may cause direct mortality to
various life stages of river herring if they
are impinged or entrained by the intake.
In addition, aside from direct mortality,
the petition asserts that intakes alter
flow, which can affect water quality,
temperature, substrate, velocity, and
stream width and depth. NRDC suggests
that these alterations can affect
spawning migrations as well as
spawning and nursery habitat, which
could pose a significant threat to river
herring.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:10 Nov 01, 2011

Jkt 226001

Petition Finding
Based on the above information,
which indicates ongoing multiple
threats to both species as well as
potential declines in both species
throughout their ranges, and the criteria
specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action concerning alewife
and blueback herring may be warranted.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this
positive 90-day finding requires NMFS
to commence a status review of the
species. During our status review, we
will review the best available scientific
and commercial information, including
the effects of threats and ongoing
conservation efforts on both species
throughout their ranges. Alewife and
blueback herring are now considered to
be candidate species (69 FR 19976;
April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of
the receipt of the petition (August 5,
2011), we will make a finding as to
whether listing alewife and/or blueback
herring as endangered or threatened is
warranted, as required by section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing these
species is not warranted, we will
determine whether any populations of
these species meet the DPS policy
criteria (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996),
and if so, whether any DPSs are
endangered or threatened under the
ESA. If listing either species (or any
DPS) is warranted, we will publish a
proposed listing determination and
solicit public comments before deciding
whether to publish a final determination
to list them as endangered or threatened
under the ESA.

species. We request that all information
be accompanied by: (1) Supporting
documentation such as maps and
bibliographic references; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents.
Peer Review
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
published a series of policies regarding
listings under the ESA, including a
policy for peer review of scientific data
(59 FR 34270). OMB issued its Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review on December 16, 2004. The
Bulletin became effective on June 16,
2005, and generally requires that all
‘‘influential scientific information’’ and
‘‘highly influential scientific
information’’ disseminated on or after
that date be peer reviewed. The intent
of the peer review policy is to ensure
that decisions are based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available. Independent peer reviewers
will be selected to review the status
review report from the academic and
scientific community, tribal and other
Native American groups, Federal and
state agencies, the private sector, and
public interest groups.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: October 27, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–28430 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

References Cited

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

A complete list of the references used
in this finding is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622

Information Solicited
To ensure the status review is based
on the best available scientific and
commercial data, we solicit information
pertaining to alewife and blueback
herring. Specifically, we solicit
information in the following areas: (1)
Historical and current distribution and
abundance of these species throughout
their ranges; (2) population status and
trends; (3) any current or planned
activities that may adversely impact
these species, especially as related to
the five factors specified in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA and listed above; (4)
ongoing efforts to protect and restore
these species and their habitat; and (5)
any biological information (life history,
morphometrics, genetics, etc.) on these

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

[Docket No. 100217095–1652–02]
RIN 0648–AY56

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Amendment 32
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

NMFS proposes to implement
management measures described in
Amendment 32 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Reef Fish

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM

02NOP1

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

2012 WL 752323
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Michael S. FLAHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
John BRYSON,1 in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Commerce, et al.,
Defendants.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Erica Fuller, Earthjustice, Ipswich, MA, Roger M.
Fleming, Earthjustice, Appleton, ME, Stephen Elston
Roady, Earthjustice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Kristen Byrnes Floom, Rachel K. Bowen, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION
GLADYS KESSLER, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiffs Michael S. Flaherty, Captain Alan A.
Hastbacka, and the Ocean River Institute bring this suit
against Defendants Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(“NOAA”), and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(“NMFS”). Plaintiffs allege that Amendment 4 to the
Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan violates the
Magnuson–Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management Act (“MSA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 4321 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act
(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 et seq.
This matter is now before the Court on Cross–Motions for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. Nos. 17, 19]. Upon
consideration of the Motions, Oppositions, Replies, Oral
Argument, Supplemental Briefs, the entire record herein,
and for the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in
part and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Statutory Background

1. The Magnuson–Stevens Act
Congress first enacted the MSA in 1976 “to take
immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery
resources found off the coasts of the United States.” 16
U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1). The Act provides a “national
program” designed “to prevent overfishing, to rebuild
overfished stocks, to insure conservation, to facilitate
long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to
realize the full potential of the Nation’s fishery
resources.” Id. § 1801(a)(6).
In order to balance the need for “a cohesive national
policy and the protection of state interests,” the MSA
establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils
composed of federal officials, state officials, and private
parties appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. C & W
Fish Co. v. Fox, 931 F.2d 1556, 1557 (D.C.Cir.1991); 16
U.S.C. § 1852. These councils are responsible for
developing fishery management plans (“FMPs”) for
fisheries in federal waters within the United States
Exclusive Economic Zone, which includes ocean water
from three to two hundred miles offshore. Id. § 1853.
Each council must prepare and submit to NMFS2 an FMP
and any amendments that may become necessary “for
each fishery under its authority that requires conservation
and management.” Id. § 1852(h)(1). FMPs must include
the “conservation and management measures” that are
“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 longterm health and stability of the fishery.”3
Id. § 1853(a)(1)(A). FMPs must also be consistent with
the ten “National Standards” provided for in the MSA, as
well as all other provisions of the MSA, and “any other
applicable law.” Id. § 1853(a)(1)(C); see also id. § 1851
(setting forth National Standards).
*2 Once a council has developed a plan, NMFS must
review the plan to determine whether it comports with the
ten National Standards and other applicable law. Id. §
1854(a)(1)(A). Next, after a period of notice and
comment, NMFS must “approve, disapprove, or partially
approve a plan or amendment,” depending on whether the
plan or amendment is consistent with the Standards and
applicable law. Id . § 1854(a)(3). Even if NMFS
disapproves the proposed FMP or amendment, it may not
rewrite it. That responsibility remains with the council,
except under specifically defined circumstances. Id. §§
1854(a)(4), (c). If NMFS approves the plan or does not
express disapproval within 30 days, the FMP becomes
effective. Id. § 1854(a)(3).

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

At the beginning of 2007, Congress re-authorized and
amended the MSA. Magnuson–Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of
2006 (“MSRA”), P.L. 109–479, 120 Stat. 3575 (2007).
One of the goals of the MSRA was to “set[ ] a firm
deadline to end overfishing in America.” 2007
U.S.C.C.A.N. S83, S83. To accomplish this purpose,
Congress added provisions to the MSA calling for science
based limits on total fish caught in each fishery.
The amended MSA requires the regional councils to add
to all FMPs mechanisms for setting the limits, termed
Annual Catch Limits (“ACLs”), on the amount of fish
caught and accountability measures (“AMs”) for ensuring
compliance with the ACLs. 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15).
These limits and accountability measures must take effect
“in fishing year 2011” for most fisheries, including the
Atlantic herring fishery.4 Pub.L. No. 109–479, § 104(b),
120 Stat. 3575, 3584.

2. The National Environmental Policy Act
Congress enacted NEPA in order “to use all practicable
means, consistent with other essential considerations of
national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans,
functions, programs, and resources to the end that the
Nation may ... fulfill the responsibilities of each
generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b). To accomplish that
goal, NEPA requires all federal agencies to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) whenever they
propose “major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.” Id. § 4332(2)(C).
To determine whether an EIS must be prepared, the
agency must first prepare an environmental assessment
(“EA”). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). An EA must “[b]riefly
provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or
a finding of no significant impact.” Id. § 1508.9(a). Even
if the agency performs only an EA, it must still briefly
discuss the need for the proposal, the alternatives, and the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the
alternatives. Id. § 1508.9(b). If the agency determines,
after preparing an EA, that a full EIS is not necessary, it
must prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact
(“FONSI”) setting forth the reasons why the action will
not have a significant impact on the environment. Id. §§
1501.4(e), 1508.13.
B. Factual Background

*3 Plaintiffs challenge Amendment 4 to the Atlantic
Herring Fishery Management Plan, developed by the New
England Fishery Management Council (the “Council”).
76 Fed.Reg. 11373 (Mar. 2, 2011). Atlantic herring
(Clupea harengus) have been managed through the
Atlantic Herring FMP since January 10, 2001.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 5578.
Atlantic herring inhabit the Atlantic Ocean off of the East
coast of the United States and Canada, ranging from
North Carolina to the Canadian Maritime Provinces. Id. at
6091. Atlantic herring can grow to about 15.6 inches in
length and live 15–18 years. Id. at 6092. Atlantic herring
play a vital role in the Northwest Atlantic ecosystem,
serving as a “forage species,” i.e. food, for a number of
other fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. Id. at 6111.
Human beings also hunt Atlantic herring. Fishermen and
women predominantly catch Atlantic herring using
midwater trawl gear, paired midwater trawls, and purse
seines. AR 6146. To do this, boats working alone or in
tandem drag nets through the water scooping up fish as
they go. Not surprisingly, these nets snare large numbers
of other fish and marine wildlife at the same time. Id. at
6146–48, 6170–80.
Of particular concern to Plaintiffs are four species, often
caught incidentally with Atlantic herring, collectively
referred to as “river herring”: (1) blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis), (2) alewive (Alosa pseudoharengus), (3)
American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and (4) hickory shad
(Alosa mediocris). See Pls.’ Mot. 1. River herring are
apparently so-called because they are anadromous—that
is, they spawn in rivers but otherwise spend most of their
lives at sea, whereas Atlantic herring spend their entire
lives at sea. Id. It is undisputed that river herring play a
similar role to Atlantic herring, providing forage for large
fish and mammals, including cod, striped bass, bluefin
tuna, sharks, marine mammals, and seabirds. Id. at 1, 8;
see also AR 763–64. The Atlantic Herring Fishery
Management Plan, as updated by Amendment 4, provides
ACLS and AMs for Atlantic herring but not for river
herring.
C. Procedural Background
On May 8, 2008, NMFS published a Notice of Intent,
announcing that the Council would be preparing
Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Herring FMP as well as an
Environmental Impact Statement. AR 5577. The Notice
explained that the MSRA required that ACLs and AMs be
established by 2011 for all fisheries not subject to
overfishing. Id. at 5578. Because the Atlantic herring
fishery had not been determined to be subject to

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

overfishing, Amendment 4 was “necessary to update the
Herring FMP in a manner ... consistent with the new
requirements of the MSRA” and was required to be in
place by 2011. Id.
The Notice also indicated measures under consideration
by the Council. Specifically, the Notice stated that
Amendment 4 might address as many as five objectives:
*4 1. To implement measures to improve the
long-term monitoring of catch (landings and
bycatch) in the herring fishery;
2. To implement ACLs and AMs consistent with the
MSRA;
3. To implement other management measures as
necessary to ensure compliance with the new
provisions of the MSRA;
4. To develop a sector allocation process or other
LAPP [“Limited Access Privilege Program”] for the
herring fishery; and
5. In the context of objectives 1–4 (above), to
consider the health of the herring resource and the
important role of herring as a forage fish and a
predator fish throughout its range.
Id.
However, on December 28, 2009, NMFS and the Council
changed course. At that time, NMFS issued a second
Notice of Intent explaining that “only the ACL/AM
components will move forward as Amendment 4, and that
the Council intends to prepare EA for the action.” Id. at
5640–41. In addition, “[a]ll other proposed measures
formerly included in Amendment 4, including the catch
monitoring program for the herring fishery, measures to
address river herring bycatch, criteria for midwater trawl
access to groundfish closed areas, and measures to
address interactions with the mackerel fishery, will now
be considered in Amendment 5.” Id. at 5641. The Notice
also promised that those “measures will be analyzed in an
EIS” to be issued with Amendment 5. Id.
In short, the Government dropped from Amendment 4
any attempt to add protections for fish other than the
Atlantic herring, such as the river herring of concern to
Plaintiffs in this litigation, electing only to address
Atlantic herring ACLs and AMs.
On March 2, 2011, NMFS published Amendment 4 as a
Final Rule in the Federal Register. Id. at 6325. In keeping
with the December 28, 2009 Notice of Intent, Amendment
4 designated Atlantic herring as the only “stock in the

fishery” and did not provide for any measures specifically
targeted at protecting river herring. Id. at 6326. The Final
Rule implemented an Interim Acceptable Biological
Catch (“ABC”) Control Rule for Atlantic herring, from
which ACLs could then be determined. Id. at 6327. The
Final Rule also established three AMs: (1) when a
threshold amount of Atlantic herring is caught, NMFS is
to close relevant management areas; (2) if a certain
amount of haddock is incidentally caught, vessels are to
face restrictions; and (3) if the total amount of Atlantic
herring caught in a year exceeds any ACL or sub-ACL,
the ACL or sub-ACL is to be reduced by a corresponding
amount in the year after the calculation is made. Id.
On April 1, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [Dkt.
No. 1]. Plaintiffs allege that: (1) Defendants violated the
MSA and APA by failing to include catch limits for river
herring in Amendment 4; (2) Defendants violated the
MSA and APA by failing to set adequate ACLs for
Atlantic herring in Amendment 4; (3) Defendants violated
the MSA and APA by failing to set adequate AMs for
Atlantic herring in Amendment 4; and (4) Defendants
violated NEPA by failing to develop an EIS for
Amendment 4. Compl. ¶¶ 70–113.
*5 On September 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Pls.’ Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 17]. On
October 7, 2011, Defendants filed their Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion and Cross–Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Defs.’ Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 19]. On October 28,
2011, Plaintiffs filed their Reply to Defendants’
Opposition and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion (“Pls.’
Reply”) [Dkt. No. 20]. On November 18, 2011,
Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition
(“Defs.’ Reply”) [Dkt. 22]. On January 4, 2012, oral
argument on the cross-motions was heard by this Court.
On January 11, 2012, with the Court’s permission,
Defendants and Plaintiffs filed respective Supplemental
Memoranda (“Defs.’ Supp. Mem.” and “Pls.’ Supp.
Mem.”) [Dkt. Nos. 27 and 28].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment will be granted when there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). Because this case involves a challenge to a final
administrative decision, the Court’s review on summary
judgment is limited to the Administrative Record. Holy
Land Found. for Relief and Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d
156, 160 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S.
138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973));
Richards v. INS, 554 F.2d 1173, 1177 (D.C.Cir.1977)
(“Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure for
resolving a challenge to a federal agency’s administrative

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

3

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

decision when review is based upon the administrative
record.”).
Agency decisions under the Magnuson–Stevens Act and
NEPA are reviewed pursuant to Section 706(2) of the
APA. 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(1)(B) (“the appropriate court
shall only set aside” actions under the MSA “on a ground
specified in [5 U.S.C. §§ ] 706(2)(A), (B), (C), or (D).”);
Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, –––F.3d ––––, No. 10–5299, 2011
WL 2802989, at *2 (D.C.Cir. July 19, 2011); C & W Fish,
931 F.2d at 1562; Oceana v. Locke, F.Supp.2d, No.
10–744(JEB), 2011 WL 6357795, at *8 (D.D.C. Dec.20,
2011). In relevant part, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) requires a court
to hold agency action unlawful if it is “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.”
The arbitrary and capricious standard of the APA is a
narrow standard of review. Citizens to Preserve Overton
Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28
L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). It is well established in our Circuit
that the “court’s review is ... highly deferential” and “we
are ‘not to substitute [our] judgment for that of the
agency’ but must ‘consider whether the decision was
based on a consideration of the relevant factors and
whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’ “ Bloch
v. Powell, 348 F.3d 1060, 1070 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting
S. Co. Servs., Inc. v. FCC, 313 F.3d 574, 579–80
(D.C.Cir.2002)); see also United States v. Paddack, 825
F.2d 504, 514 (D.C.Cir.1987). However, this deferential
standard cannot permit courts “merely to rubber stamp
agency actions,” NRDC v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 755
(D.C.Cir.2000), nor be used to shield the agency’s
decision from undergoing a “thorough, probing, in-depth
review.” Midtec Paper Corp. v. United States, 857 F.2d
1487, 1499 (D.C.Cir.1988) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
*6 An agency satisfies the arbitrary and capricious
standard if it “examine [s] the relevant data and
articulate[s] a satisfactory explanation for its action
including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’ “ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct.
2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck
Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9
L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)); Lichoulas v. FERC, 606 F.3d 769,
775 (D.C.Cir.2010). Finally, courts “do not defer to the
agency’s conclusory or unsupported suppositions.”
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force,
375 F.3d 1182, 1186–87 (D.C.Cir.2004).
III. ANALYSIS

A. Standing
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ suit must be dismissed
because they lack Article III standing. Defs.’ Mot. 13–15.
The doctrine of standing reflects Article III’s
“fundamental limitation” of federal jurisdiction to actual
cases and controversies. Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009).
The doctrine “requires federal courts to satisfy themselves
that ‘the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to warrant his [or her]
invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.’ “ Id. (quoting
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498–99, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45
L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)) (emphasis on “his” in original).
To obtain the injunctive relief they seek, Plaintiffs must
show that (1) they have “suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is
(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent,
not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and
(3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends
of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167,
180–81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000); see also
Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351
(1992); Shays v. FEC, 414 F.3d 76, 83 (D.C.Cir.2005).
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that their alleged injury is “imminent” or
“traceable.” Defs.’ Mot. 13. They have not challenged any
of the other requirements for standing.
1. Injury in Fact–Imminence
Plaintiffs claim that they are harmed (1) because they are
unable to fish for or observe river herring and (2) because,
due to the decline of river and Atlantic herring as forage,
they are less able to fish for or observe striped bass.
Flaherty Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4–5, 12–13; Hastbacka Decl. ¶¶ 6–9,
14–16; Moir Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16–17 [Dkt. No. 17–2].
Defendants argue that the injury associated with striped
bass is not actual or imminent because Plaintiffs have
failed to assert that they are “actually unable to fish for
striped bass as a result of NMFS’ actions.” Defs.’ Mot. 13
(emphasis in original).
Defendants are incorrect. Captain Alan Hastbacka has
asserted that the fish his clients target, which include
striped bass, are “more abundant, bigger, and healthier”
when “there are adequate forage fish” and that he can
“sell more tackle ... when the fishing is good.” Hastbacka
Decl. ¶ 6. During at least one fishing season, the fish
targeted by Captain Hastbacka and his clients, including
striped bass, disappeared when the Atlantic herring stock

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

4

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

in the area was depleted. Id. ¶ 9. Michael Flaherty
similarly states that “Defendants’ failures challenged in
this case. negatively impact the health and population
levels of the striped bass I fish for.” Flaherty Decl. ¶ 12.
*7 In other words, Plaintiffs claim that their ability to fish
striped bass for sport or business has been, and will
continue to be, harmed by the state of the Atlantic herring
fishery because adequate conservation measures to protect
the herring upon which striped bass feed have not been
adopted. See, e.g., N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, Inc. v. Gutierrez,
518 F.Supp.2d 62, 82 (D.D.C.2007) (economic harm “is a
canonical example of injury in fact sufficient to establish
standing.”) (citing Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Hodel, 839 F.2d
694, 704 (D.C.Cir.1988)).
Indeed, Defendants themselves have amply made the
point that Atlantic herring serve as an important forage
species for striped bass and other ocean predators. AR
6111. In its analysis of Amendment 4, the Council stated
that its actions “should acknowledge the role that Atlantic
herring plays in the Northwest Atlantic ecosystem and
address the importance of herring as a forage species for
many fish stocks, marine mammals, and seabirds.” Id.
According to the Council, “[o]ne of the objectives of this
amendment ... is ... to consider the health of the herring
resource and the important role of herring as a forage
fish.” Id . at 6111–12. Hence, there is no doubt that
Plaintiffs face imminent harm to their interests in striped
bass, should Defendants fail to properly manage Atlantic
herring.
Defendants attempt to analogize this case to FCC v.
Branton, 993 F.2d 906 (D.C.Cir.1993). They argue that,
“[a]s in Branton, where the plaintiff did not have standing
because his injury was based on a possibility that he may
someday be exposed to harm, Captain Hastbacka’s
concern that he may ‘someday’ be unable to fish for
striped bass as a result of the actions that NMFS took in
Amendment 4 is patently insufficient to satisfy the ‘injury
in fact’ requirement.” Defs.’ Mot. 13–14.
Defendants’ analysis is not convincing. Branton pointed
out that “[i]n order to challenge official conduct one must
show that one ‘has sustained or is immediately in danger
of sustaining some direct injury’ in fact as a result of that
conduct.” 993 F.2d at 908 (quoting Golden v. Zwickler,
394 U.S. 103, 109, 89 S.Ct. 956, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969)).
The plaintiff in Branton alleged “that he was injured
because he was subjected to indecent language over the
airwaves” on one past occasion. Id. at 909. Our Court of
Appeals held that “a discrete, past injury cannot establish
the standing of a complainant ... who seeks neither
damages nor other relief for that harm, but instead
requests the imposition of a sanction in the hope of

influencing another’s future behavior.” Id. The allegation
of a single incident of indecent language is obviously very
different from the ongoing scenario presented here, where
Plaintiffs state that the striped bass which they and their
clients fish and observe are now and will in the future be
threatened by overfishing of the Atlantic and river
herring.
Plaintiffs in this case have alleged continuous and
ongoing harm to their ability to fish for species dependant
on the Atlantic and river herring. The harm to striped bass
stemming from improper regulation of forage fish
presents a concrete explanation for how Plaintiffs will be
injured by Defendants’ actions. Lujan, 504 U .S. at 564;
N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 81 (in addressing
the injury in fact prong, “courts ask simply whether the
plaintiff has ‘asserted a present or expected injury that is
legally cognizable and non-negligible.’ ”) (quoting Huddy
v. FCC, 236 F.3d 720, 822 (D.C.Cir.2001)).
2. Traceability
*8 Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs’ injuries are not
traceable to Amendment 4 because they “occurred long
before NMFS issued the final rule implementing
Amendment 4” and “because they concern species
beyond the scope of the Amendment.” Defs. ‘ Mot. 14.
The first argument is easily disposed of. As explained
above, Plaintiffs have stated that they continue to suffer
from the depletion of river herring stocks and from the
negative impact that depletion of river and Atlantic
herring has on striped bass. See supra Part III.A.1;
Hastbacka ¶¶ 6, 9; Flaherty Decl. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs need
demonstrate neither proximate causation nor but-for
causation to establish traceability; they must only show
that “ ‘the agency’s actions materially increase[d] the
probability of injury.’ “ N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518
F.Supp.2d at 83 (quoting Huddy, 236 F.3d at 722); see
also Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 849
(9th Cir.2002) (to be “fairly traceable,” chain of causation
must be plausible). Again, Defendants themselves have
acknowledged the chain of causation between
under-regulation of herring fishing and the abundance and
health of predator fish. AR 6111–12. Plaintiffs’
contention that Defendants’ choices in Amendment 4 will
materially increase the probability of their injury is far
more than merely plausible.
Further, taken to its logical conclusion, Defendants’
argument would preclude anyone from challenging FMPs,
since the decline of the nation’s fisheries began before the
MSA was enacted with the purpose of stopping that
deterioration. See 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1). Therefore, the

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

5

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

fact that the injuries may have begun before issuance of
Amendment 4 is no obstacle to Plaintiffs’ standing.
Defendants’ next argument is no more persuasive. As to
river herring, the claim that Plaintiffs’ injury cannot be
traced to Amendment 4 because Amendment 4 does not
address management of river herring is plainly circular
when the essence of Plaintiffs’ challenge is to
Defendants’ substantive decision not to include that
species. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ decision not to
manage river herring violated the MSA and APA. The
harm caused by depletion of river herring by commercial
fishing is clearly traceable to Defendants’ decision not to
restrict river herring catch. Moreover, there is no doubt
that increased regulation of river herring catch would
contribute to the rebuilding of that stock. Branton, 993
F.2d at 910 (traceability and redressability “tend to merge
... in a case such as this where the requested relief consists
solely of the reversal or discontinuation of the challenged
action.”) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 759 n. 24,
104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)).
As to striped bass, the fact that Amendment 4 does not
specifically regulate striped bass is of no moment. As
previously explained, Plaintiffs have articulated a
perfectly plausible explanation for how harm to their
ability to fish or observe striped bass is traceable to
Defendants’ claimed deficiencies in regulating herring.
N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 83.
*9 In short, Plaintiffs have shown a causal connection
between Defendants’ regulatory choices in Amendment 4
and the health of river herring and striped bass stocks.
Further, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that (1) they have
“suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as
opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth,
528 U.S. at 180–81. They therefore have standing to
challenge Amendment 4.

As described above, the MSA requires the Council to
prepare an FMP “for each fishery under its authority that
requires conservation and management.” 16 U.S.C. §
1852(h)(1). The Act defines a “fishery” as “one or more
stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes
of conservation and management and which are identified
on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical,
recreational, and economic characteristics.” Id. §
1802(13). A “stock of fish” is “a species, subspecies,
geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable
of management as a unit.” Id. § 1802(42). The Council
determines which “target stocks” (fish that are
deliberately caught), and/or “non-target stocks” (fish that
are incidentally caught), to include in the fishery. 50
C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1).
In other words, in developing an FMP, the Council must
decide which species or other categories of fish are
capable of management as a unit, and therefore should be
included in the fishery and managed together in the plan.
This decision entails two basic determinations. The
Council must decide (1) which stocks “can be treated as a
unit for purposes of conservation and management” and
therefore should be considered a “fishery” and (2) which
fisheries “require conservation and management.” 16
U.S.C. §§ 1802(13), 1852(h)(1). The Council must then
set ACLs and AMs for all stocks in the fishery. Id. §
1853(a)(15). After the Council completes its proposed
plan or amendment, NMFS must review it for compliance
with applicable law and standards. Id. § 1854(a)(1)(A).

B. Stocks in the Fishery

Plaintiffs contend that Amendment 4 contravenes the
Act’s requirements by failing to include river herring as a
stock in the Atlantic herring fishery. Pls.’ Mot. 15.
Consequently, Plaintiffs argue, Defendants have violated
the MSA and APA by erroneously concluding that
Amendment 4 comports with the provisions of the MSA.
Pls.’ Mot. 20; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1854(a)(1)(A) (NMFS
must determine whether FMPs are consistent with
provisions of MSA); N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d
at 71–72 (“Secretarial review of a FMP or plan
amendment submitted by a regional council focuses on
the proposed action’s consistency with the substantive
criteria set forth in, and the overall objectives of, the
MSA.”).

Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ decision to approve
Amendment 4 because the Amendment includes only
Atlantic herring, and excludes river herring, as a stock in
the fishery. Once a fish is designated as a “stock in the
fishery,” the Council must develop conservation and
management measures, including ACLs and AMs, for that
stock. Pls.’ Mot. 14; 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a). Hence, the
Atlantic Herring FMP includes no protective measures for
river herring.

*10 The Court must now consider whether NMFS acted
arbitrarily and/or capriciously in approving Amendment
4. 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(1); 5 U.S .C. § 706(2). The Court’s
“task is not to review de novo whether the amendment
complies with [the MSA’s] standards but to determine
whether [NMFS’s] conclusion that the standards have
been satisfied is rational and supported by the record.” C
& W Fish, 931 F.2d at 1562; see also Blue Ocean Inst. v.
Gutierrez, 585 F.Supp.2d 36, 43 (D.D.C.2008).

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

6

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

Defendants argue that the Administrative Record fully
supports their decision and rely on two basic rationales.
First, Defendants argue that, because of the imminence of
the 2011 statutory deadline for completion of Amendment
4, the decision to postpone consideration of inclusion of
river herring in the fishery until development of
Amendment 5 was reasonable. Second, Defendants argue
that NMFS properly deferred to the Council’s
determination as to the makeup of the fishery.
1. Delay Due to Statutory Deadline
Defendants first point to the pressure imposed by the
MRSA’s deadline. Defendants state that, in June 2009,
they determined that consideration of measures
specifically designed to protect river herring should be
delayed so that they could meet the 2011 statutory
deadline for providing measures to protect Atlantic
herring. Defs.’ Mot. 17, 38; see AR 6325–26 (“In June
2009, the Council determined there was not sufficient
time to develop and implement all the measures originally
contemplated in Amendment 4 by 2011, so it decided that
Amendment 4 would only address ACLs and AMs
requirements and specification issues.”). Defendants’
logic was that because time was limited and the MSA
required ACL and AM rules for all stocks in the fisheries
and Atlantic herring had already been identified as a stock
in the fishery, they could best comply with the MSA by
formulating only the Atlantic herring regulations and
postponing consideration of regulations for the
management of river herring. See Pub.L. No. 109–479, §
104(b), 120 Stat. 3575, 3584 (requiring that FMPs
including processes for setting ACLs and AMs take effect
“in fishing year 2011 for all ... fisheries” not determined
to be overfished, including the Atlantic herring fishery).
While it is correct that the MRSA did impose the 2011
deadline, Defendants fail to provide any explanation or
analysis from which the Court can conclude that the delay
in considering the composition of the fishery, which
entailed exclusion of river herring, was reasonable.
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 375 F.3d at 1186–87 (“we do
not defer to the agency’s conclusory or unsupported
suppositions.”). The MSRA was signed at the beginning
of 2007. Defendants identify nothing in the
Administrative Record that explains why, when the
Council had more than four years to meet the statutory
deadline for fishing year 2011, it could not address
whether river herring, in addition to Atlantic herring, were
in need of ACLs and AMs and still meet its deadline.
*11 The Administrative Record discloses only vague and
conclusory statements that “there was not sufficient time
to develop and implement all the measures originally

contemplated in Amendment 4 by 2011.” AR 6325; see
also AR 5641. The closest Defendants come to providing
a substantive explanation is to quote a slide from a
January 26, 2011, meeting regarding proposed
Amendment 5, which reads, “the Herring [Plan
Development Team] cannot generate a precise enough
estimate of river herring catch on which to base a cap.”
AR 5361. That document does not explain why an
estimate could not have been generated prior to issuance
of Amendment 4, nor why the Council could not at the
very least have devised an interim Acceptable Biologic
Catch control rule based on the best available science, as
it did in Amendment 4 for Atlantic herring. Defendants
point to no other evidence in the Administrative Record to
explain why the Council was unable to address
management of river herring in the four years of lead time
that elapsed between the signing of the MSRA and the
final promulgation of Amendment 4.
The reason that Defendants’ failure matters is that the
MRSA requires ACLs and AMs for all stocks in need of
conservation and management, not just for those stocks
which were part of the fishery prior to passage of the
MRSA. Although the MRSA does not explicitly require
the Council to reassess the makeup of the fishery, it does
require the Council and NMFS to set ACLs and AMs by
2011 “such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery.”
16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15). The setting of ACLs and AMs
necessarily entails a decision as to which stocks require
conservation and management. Id. §§ 1802(13),
1853(a)(15). Hence, Defendants must provide some
meaningful explanation as to why it was not possible to
consider which stocks, other than Atlantic herring, should
be subject to the ACLs and AMs which are so central to
effective fishery management and avoidance of
overfishing. NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539
(D.C.Cir.2010) (“an agency may not shirk a statutory
responsibility simply because it may be difficult.”).
Moreover, Defendants have not explained why the
information in the Administrative Record cited by
Plaintiffs was deemed insufficient to justify including
river herring as a stock, as urged in many comments
submitted on the Proposed Regulation, or to permit
setting at least an interim Acceptable Biological Catch
limit for the species, just as was done for Atlantic herring.
See Pls.’ Mot. 18–19 (citing AR 154, 157, 315, 407, 645,
665, 755, 779, 780, 795, 903, 1257, 1288, 1506, 1978,
2550, 2571, 2602, 2806, 3789, 6341).
In short, Defendants themselves cite to no evidence or
facts supporting the Council’s excuse that “there was not
sufficient time” to consider the fishery’s composition. AR
6325; Kristin Brooks Hope Ctr. v. FCC, 626 F.3d 586,
588 (D.C.Cir.2010) (“The agency’s explanation cannot
‘run [ ] counter to the evidence,’ ... and it must ‘enable us

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

7

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

to conclude that the [agency’s action] was the product of
reasoned decisionmaking.’ ”) (quoting Motor Vehicle
Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43, 52).
*12 While a looming statutory deadline may in some
instances provide justification for an agency’s delay in
decision-making, it does not relieve Defendants of the
duty to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action
including a rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made”—especially when the agency was
given a four-year lead time to meet that deadline and
failure to meet it could have serious consequences for the
species to be protected. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463
U.S. at 43 (internal quotation omitted). Defendants’
conclusory statement that river herring would simply have
to wait until a future amendment does not suffice. Kristin
Brooks Hope Ctr., 626 F.3d at 588; McDonnell Douglas
Corp., 375 F.3d at 1186–87.
2. Deference to the Council
Defendants also argue that river herring were not
designated as a stock in the fishery because the Council
decided to include only target stocks in the fishery, and
river herring is a non-target stock. Defs.’ Mot. 17 (citing
AR 6067). According to Defendants, NMFS deferred to
the Council’s decision not to include any non-target
stocks in the fishery, and needed to do no more. AR 6256,
6330. The crux of Defendants’ argument is that under
both the structure of the MSA and the agency’s own
regulations, unless a species is determined by NMFS to be
“overfished” or the Council’s decision is in clear violation
of the MSA,5 NMFS should simply defer to the Council’s
determination of what stocks are in the fishery rather than
conduct an independent review of whether that
determination complies with the MSA’s provisions and
standards. Defs.’ Mot. 15–16; Defs.’ Reply 4–9.
a. Statutory Provisions
Defendants argue that the “Magnuson–Stevens Act
entrusts the Councils with the responsibility to prepare
FMPs for those fisheries requiring conservation and
management” and that the “inclusion of a species ... in a
fishery management unit is based on a variety of
judgment calls left to the Council.” Defs.’ Mot. 15.
Defendants rely on 16 U.S.C. § 1852(h), giving the
Council the responsibility to prepare and submit FMPs
and amendments, and on 16 U.S.C. § 1854(e), requiring
an FMP only where NMFS has determined that a fishery
is “overfished.” Therefore, Defendants contend, in the
absence of a finding of overfishing, council decisions
about the make-up of a fishery are unreviewable by

NMFS and are entitled to deference.
Plaintiffs view Defendants’ argument as “threaten[ing] to
unravel the entire fabric of the Act.” Pls.’ Mot. 17. They
caution that, under the Defendants’ interpretation of the
MSA, “councils would be left with the sole discretion to
include any, or no, stocks in their FMPs, regardless of
whether there is scientific information demonstrating the
need for their conservation and management.” Id.
Defendants are correct that “it is the Council that has the
responsibility to prepare the FMP in the first instance for
those fisheries requiring conservation and management,”
which includes describing the species to be managed.
Defs.’ Reply 4–5 (citing 16 U .S.C. §§ 1852(h)(1),
1853(a)(2)) (emphasis in original). As explained above,
except in special circumstances,6 the council prepares and
submits proposed FMPs and amendments to NMFS. 16
U.S.C. § 1852(h)(1).
*13 What Defendants fail to fully appreciate, however, is
that once the council completes its work, the MSA
requires NMFS to review its plan to determine whether it
comports “with the ten national standards, the other
provisions of [the Act], and any other applicable law.” Id.
§ 1854(a)(1)(A). Thus, it is Defendants’ responsibility to
decide whether an FMP, including the composition of its
fishery, satisfies the goals and language of the MSA. N.C.
Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 71–72 (“Secretarial
review of a FMP or plan amendment submitted by a
regional council focuses on the proposed action’s
consistency with the substantive criteria set forth in, and
the overall objectives of, the MSA.”). While Defendants
are correct that it is the Council’s role to name the species
to be managed “in the first instance,” it is NMFS’s role, in
the second instance, to ensure that the Council has done
its job properly under the MSA and any other applicable
law.
It is true that the MSA requires management measures
when NMFS finds overfishing. But it certainly does not
follow that in the absence of overfishing NMFS may
simply rubber stamp the Council’s decisions. Section
1854(a) is clear: NMFS must examine whether the FMP
“is consistent with the national standards, the other
provisions of [the MSA], and any other applicable law.”
16 U.S.C. § 1854(a)(1)(A). While NMFS may defer to the
Council on policy choices, the Act plainly gives NMFS
the final responsibility for ensuring that any FMP is
consistent with the MSA’s National Standards, and “the
overall objectives” of the Act. N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518
F.Supp.2d at 71–72.
Defendants’ responsibilities therefore include ensuring
compliance with Section 1852(h)’s requirement that the

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

8

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

Council prepare an FMP or amendment for any stock of
fish that “requires conservation and management.” 16
U.S.C. § 1852(h)(1). That Section requires FMPs and
necessary amendments for all “stocks of fish which can
be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and
management” and which are in need of conservation and
management. Id. §§ 1802(13)(a), 1852(h)(1). Thus,
NMFS must make its own assessment of whether the
Council’s determination as to which stocks can be
managed as a unit and require conservation and
management is reasonable. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n,
463 U.S. at 52 (“agency’s explanation ... [must] enable us
to conclude that [its decision] was the product of reasoned
decisionmaking.”).
There is no basis for concluding, as Defendants do, that
the structure of the MSA weakens Section 1854’s
command that NMFS review proposed plans and
amendments for compliance with the statute. The
standards to be applied in reviewing NMFS’s conclusion
that Amendment 4 complies with Section 1852(h) are
therefore no different than review of NMFS’s conclusion
that an amendment complies with the National Standards.
See N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 71–72
(“Secretarial review of a FMP or plan amendment
submitted by a regional council focuses on the proposed
action’s consistency with the substantive criteria set forth
in, and the overall objectives of, the MSA.”). Merely
deferring to the Council’s exclusion of non-target species
like river herring without any explanation for why that
exclusion complies with the MSA fails to meet APA
standards. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’ n, 463 U.S. at 43
(agency must “examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action”); Tourus Records,
Inc. v. DEA, 259 F.3d 731, 737 (D.C.Cir.2001) (“A
fundamental requirement of administrative law is that an
agency set forth its reasons for decision; an agency’s
failure to do so constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency
action.”) (internal quotations omitted).
b. Defendants’ Regulation
*14 National Standard 1 of the MSA states,
“Conservation and management measures shall prevent
overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the
optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing
industry.” 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1). Defendants cite to 50
C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1), which interprets that Standard,
and states: “[t]he relevant Council determines which
specific target stocks and/or non-target stocks to include
in a fishery.” According to Defendants, this provision
justifies NMFS’s failure to explain why the Council’s
decision comports with the MSA. Defs.’ Mot. 15.

However, Section 1854 states in no uncertain language
that NMFS must “determine whether [the plan or
amendment] is consistent with the national standards, the
other provisions of this chapter, and any other applicable
law.” 16 U.S.C. § 1854(a)(1)(A). A mere regulation can
never override a clear Congressional statutory
command—i.e., that NMFS shall review FMP
amendments for compliance with all provisions of the
MSA. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d
694 (1984); Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA,
489 F.3d 1221, 1228 (D.C.Cir.2007). Nor, it should be
noted, need 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1) be interpreted as
Defendants do. It is absolutely correct that under the
MSA, the councils do have the responsibility to determine
what stocks to include in the fishery. But that is not the
end of the process. After the councils make their
determination, NMFS must still make its final compliance
review.
Simply put, 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1) cannot be
understood to permit NMFS to ignore its duty to ensure
compliance with the MSA. The councils do not have
unlimited and unreviewable discretion to determine the
make-up of their fisheries.
Therefore, Defendants were required to review
Amendment 4 for compliance with the MSA. Defendants
need not prove that the decision to designate only target
stocks as stocks in the fishery was the best decision, but
they must demonstrate that they reasonably and rationally
considered whether Amendment 4’s definition of the
fishery complied with the National Standards and with the
MSA’s directive that FMPs be generated for any fisheries
requiring conservation and management. Mere deference
to the Council, with nothing more, does not demonstrate
reasoned decision-making. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n,
463 U.S. at 56 (agency’s decision was arbitrary and
capricious because it failed to analyze the issue); Am.
Equity Inv. Life Ins. Co. v. SEC, 613 F.3d 166, 179
(D.C.Cir.2010) (same); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of
Eng’rs, 772 F.2d 1043, 1051 (2d Cir.1985) (“agency’s
action is held to be arbitrary and capricious when it ...
utterly fails to analyze an important aspect of the
problem.”).
C. Bycatch
Plaintiffs also contend that Amendment 4 fails to
minimize bycatch, in violation of National Standard 9. 16
U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9). “Bycatch” refers to “fish which are
harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for
personal use” including “economic discards and
regulatory discards.” Id. § 1802(2). In other words, fish

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

9

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

incidentally caught in a trawler’s net and then later
thrown away are bycatch. “In simple terms, bycatch kills
fish that would otherwise contribute toward the
well-being of the fishery or the nation’s seafood
consumption needs.” Conservation Law Found. v. Evans,
209 F.Supp.2d 1, 14 (D.D.C.2001).
*15 The Final Rule implementing Amendment 4
addresses bycatch in one sentence: “[b]y catch in the
herring fishery will continue to be addressed and
minimized to the extent possible, consistent with other
requirements of the MSA.” 76 Fed.Reg. 11373, 11374;
AR 6326. Plaintiffs argue that this one sentence is
insufficient under the MSA, because the Act “requires
that all FMPs and FMP amendments contain concrete
conservation and management measures to minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.”
Pls.’ Mot. 21. Defendants respond that (1) Plaintiffs have
waived their claim under National Standard 9 by failing to
raise an objection during the administrative process; and
(2) the Council and NMFS have sufficiently minimized
bycatch based on the best available science. Defs.’ Mot.
19–21.
Defendants’ first argument is, to put it mildly,
hyper-technical, and without merit. Defendants concede
that Plaintiffs did comment on bycatch during the
administrative process, but only before Defendants issued
their second Notice of Intent, limiting Amendment 4’s
scope to addressing ACLs and AMs for Atlantic herring.
Defs.’ Reply 10. Nonetheless, Defendants contend that
Plaintiffs’ failure to raise the issue again, after NMFS
announced that Amendment 4 would proceed in its
reduced form, bars them from bringing the claim. Id. That
is, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived their bycatch
claim by not raising it a second time, after Defendants had
already made clear that they would not consider bycatch
in Amendment 4.
This argument finds no support in caselaw—nor for that
matter in fundamental fairness. Certainly it is true “that a
party will normally forfeit an opportunity to challenge an
agency rulemaking on a ground that was not first
presented to the agency for its initial consideration.”
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. Fed. Motor
Carrier Safety Admin., 429 F.3d 1136, 1150
(D.C.Cir.2005). But Defendants cite no authority
requiring parties to raise the ground repeatedly after the
agency has rejected their suggestion or after each new
version of the proposed action is issued.
Moreover, by raising the bycatch issue before
Amendment 4 was reduced in scope, Plaintiffs clearly
satisfied the purposes of this issue waiver rule. Plaintiffs “
‘alert[ed] the agency to [their] position and contentions,’

in order to allow the agency to give the issue meaningful
consideration.” Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S.
752, 764, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004) (quoting
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S.
519, 553, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978)); see also
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety, 429 F.3d at 1150
(the two reasons for an “issue exhaustion” or “issue
waiver” rule are that (1) “the role of the court is to
determine whether the agency’s decision is arbitrary and
capricious for want of reasoned decisionmaking” and (2)
“ ‘[s]imple fairness ... requires as a general rule that
courts should not topple over administrative decisions
unless the administrative body ... has erred against
objection made at the time appropriate under its practice.’
”) (quoting United States v. L.A. Trucker Lines, Inc., 344
U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952)).
Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not
waived their claim under National Standard 9.
*16 Defendants’ second argument is more substantive.
They contend that, in fact, they have satisfied their
responsibility to minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable.
National Standard 9 requires that “[c]onservation 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.” 16
U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9). While each FMP must attempt to
minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, it must also
“balance competing environmental and economic
considerations” as embodied in the ten National
Standards. Ocean Conservancy v. Gutierrez, 394
F.Supp.2d 147, 157 (D.D.C.2005); Pacific Coast Fed’n of
Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Locke, No. C 10–04790 CRB, 2011
WL 3443533, at *9 (N.D.Cal. Aug.5, 2011). Nonetheless,
to meet their responsibility to ensure compliance with the
National Standards, Defendants must demonstrate that
they have evaluated whether the FMP or amendment
minimized bycatch to the extent practicable. Conservation
Law Found., 209 F.Supp.2d at 14.
Defendants argue that they have met this burden because
the FMP as a whole minimizes bycatch.7 Defs.’ Mot.
20–21. Defendants point to (1) Amendment 1 to the FMP,
which “prohibits midwater trawling vessels from fishing
in a designated area for Atlantic herring from June 1 to
September 30 of each year,” (2) the haddock incidental
catch cap, which addresses haddock bycatch and was
developed through Framework 43 of the Northeast
Multispecies FMP,8 and (3) the limits generally placed on
the herring fishery by the interim ABC control rule. Id.
None of these three examples demonstrate that
Defendants undertook any effort to consider whether
Amendment 4, or the FMP as amended by Amendment 4,

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

10

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

minimized bycatch to the extent practicable.
The first measure identified by Defendants, Amendment
1, simply bans use of midwater trawling vessels in one of
the Atlantic herring fishery’s four management areas for
four months of the year. 72 Fed.Reg. 11252, 11257 (Mar.
12, 2007). While this rule, issued in March of 2007, does
reduce the use of a type of boat that causes substantial
bycatch, it does so for only four months per year in only
one management area. The second measure, the haddock
incidental catch cap, which was issued as part of the
Northeast Multispecies FMP, only considers haddock
bycatch, and gives no incentive for minimizing bycatch of
other species, such as river herring. AR 6153. Finally, the
third measure is merely the limits on Atlantic herring
catch and in no way limits fishing to minimize river
herring or other bycatch. Thus, this measure only has the
ancillary benefit of reducing bycatch and bycatch
mortality of river herring and other fish by generally
limiting the amount of fishing in the Atlantic herring
fishery.
The existence of an earlier rule to reduce bycatch and two
measures that, at best, have only an incidental effect on
bycatch does not show that NMFS ever considered the
significant issue of whether the Atlantic Herring FMP
minimizes bycatch or bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable based on the best available science. 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1851(a)(2), (9). While each of these three measures
may have some impact on total bycatch in the Atlantic
herring fishery, none of them indicate that Defendants
have considered the issue in any substantive manner.
*17 Defendants also quote from two sections of
Amendment 4 that discuss bycatch. First, Defendants
point to the section of the Council’s substantive analysis
of Amendment 4 that ostensibly discusses National
Standard 9. Defs.’ Mot. 20–21. This single paragraph
explains that “the Council made the decision to include
only [Atlantic] herring as a stock with the knowledge that
other mechanisms exist to deal with non-targets [sic]
species caught,” and “one of the objectives of
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP, which is
under development, is to develop a program which
effectively and efficiently monitors bycatch and
potentially acts to reduce it.” AR 6087. “The amendment
therefore specifies that bycatch is to be monitored and
minimized accordingly.”9 Id. If anything, this statement
makes it clear that neither the Council nor NMFS made
any effort to consider whether bycatch was minimized to
the extent practicable. 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9).
Second, Defendants point to the section of their analysis
of the “Environmental Impacts of Management
Alternatives” dealing with the “Impacts on Non-target

Bycatch Species.” AR 6193–95. Defendants quote:
“Amendment 4 ‘limit [s] the catch of non-target/bycatch
species, particularly through the limit to the fishery placed
by the interim ABC control rule.’ “ Defs.’ Mot. 20–21
(quoting AR 6193). In context, all that the document
actually says is that, because of Amendment 4’s interim
limits on the total catch allowed for Atlantic herring, there
will be less incidental catch of non-target species than
under “the no action alternative.” AR 6193–94. Again,
this conclusion does not reflect any examination or
consideration of whether the FMP, as amended, actually
minimizes bycatch to the extent practicable. 16 U.S.C. §
1851(a)(9).
Finally, Defendants state that they chose to defer
consideration of National Standard 9 due to the 2011
statutory deadline for Amendment 4. Defs.’ Mot. 21. For
the reasons discussed at length above, supra Part III.B.1.,
this rationale does not suffice to demonstrate reasoned
analysis of the bycatch issue. In sum, there is no evidence
that the agency “thoroughly reviewed the relevant
scientific data on bycatch and consulted with participants
in the fishery to determine whether the proposed
regulations would be effective and practical,” as they
must do to satisfy their responsibilities to ensure
compliance with the National Standards. Ocean
Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at 159; Conservation Law
Found., 209 F.Supp.2d at 14. Therefore, Defendants’
approval of Amendment 4, without addressing the
minimization of bycatch to the extent practicable, was in
violation of the MSA and APA.
D. ACLs for Atlantic Herring
Plaintiffs claim that Amendment 4’s annual catch limit
(“ACL”)10 for Atlantic herring violates the MSA because
it fails to prevent overfishing and is not based upon the
best available science. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1851(a)(1), (2). As
detailed above, the MRSA significantly enlarged the
Council’s and NMFS’s duties by requiring all FMPs to
include “a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits
... at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the
fishery.” Id. § 1853(a)(15). The new ACLs are to set
specific limits on the total fish caught in each fishery.
*18 The setting of an ACL entails a rather laborious
process intended to generate a scientific basis for the final
catch limit. First, the Council must define an overfishing
limit (“OFL”), which, to simplify, is an estimate of the
rate of fishing at which a fishery will not be sustainable.11
50 C.F.R. §§ 600.310(e)(1)(i)(A)-(2)(i)(E).
Second, the Council must determine the acceptable
biological catch (“ABC”), which is the amount of fish that

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

11

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

may be caught without exceeding the overfishing limit,
after taking into account scientific uncertainty. Id. §
600.310(f)(2)(ii). In order to set the ABC, the Council
must first establish an “ABC control rule,” which explains
how the Council will account for scientific uncertainty
when setting the ABC. 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(4). The
objective of the ABC control rule is to create a buffer
between OFL and ABC so that there is a low risk that
OFL will be exceeded. See id. §§ 600.310(b)(v)(3), (f)(4).

management measures shall be based upon the best
scientific information available.” Id. § 1851(a)(2).
National Standard 2 “requires that rules issued by the
NMFS be based on a thorough review of all the relevant
information available at the time the decision was made ...
and insures that the NMFS does not ‘disregard superior
data’ in reaching its conclusions.” Ocean Conservancy,
394 F.Supp.2d at 157 (quoting Building Indus. Ass’n v.
Norton, 247 F.3d 1241, 1246–47 (D.C.Cir.2001)).

Third, and finally, the Council must set the ACL, which is
the amount of fish that may be caught without exceeding
the ABC, after taking into account management
uncertainty, such as late reporting, misreporting, and
underreporting of catch.12 Id. § 600.310(f)(1). In
mathematical terms, the entire process can be described as
OFL≥ABC≥ACL. AR 6061. In plain English, the ABC
must be equal to or less than OFL, to account for
scientific uncertainty, and the final ACL must be equal to
or less than ABC, to take into account management
uncertainty. 50 C.F.R. §§ 600.310(e)-(f).

This rule “is a practical standard requiring only that
fishery regulations be diligently researched and based on
sound science.” Ocean Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at
157. Further, “[c]ourts give a high degree of deference to
agency actions based on an evaluation of complex
scientific data within the agency’s technical expertise.”
Am. Oceans Compaign v. Daley, 183 F.Supp.2d 1, 4
(D.D.C.2000) (citing Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v.
NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 103, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437
(1983)). Therefore, “[l]egal challenges to the Secretary’s
compliance with National Standard 2 are frequent and
frequently unsuccessful” and Plaintiffs face a “high
hurdle.” N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 85.

Further, each council must establish a scientific and
statistical committee (“SSC”), whose members must
include Federal and State employees, academicians, or
independent experts with “strong scientific or technical
credentials and experience.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(g)(1)(A),
(C). The SSC provides “ongoing scientific advice” for
fishery management decisions, including the setting of
ABC and OFL. Id. § 1852(g)(1)(B). In particular, the
Council must create its ABC control rule based on
scientific advice from the SSC. 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(4).
Additionally, ACLs “may not exceed the fishing level
recommendations” of the Council’s SSC. 16 U.S.C. §
1852(h)(6). To summarize, in the process of setting the
final ACL, the council must solicit scientific advice from
the SSC and, based on that advice, establish a rule for
acceptable biological catch to account for scientific
uncertainty, and then set an ACL that permits no greater
fishing levels than the SSC recommends.
Finally, ACLs must, of course, be consistent with the
National Standards. Id. § 1853(a)(1)(C). Plaintiffs argue
that the Atlantic herring ACL fails to comply with
National Standards 1 and 2. National Standard 1 requires
that “[c]onservation and management measures shall
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United
States fishing industry.” Id. § 1851(a)(1). Hence, they
argue, NMFS’s conclusion that the Atlantic herring ACL
prevents overfishing while achieving optimum yield must
be “rational and supported by the record.” C & W Fish,
931 F.2d at 1562; Blue Ocean Inst., 585 F.Supp.2d at 43.
*19 National Standard 2 instructs, “[c]onservation and

Amendment 4’s ABC control rule, which is intended to
account for scientific uncertainty, sets the ABC for
Atlantic herring at the three-year average annual catch
measured from 2006–2008, or at 106,000 metric tons
(“mt”). AR 6068–69. In other words, the ACL for
Atlantic herring will be equivalent to the average yearly
catch from 2006 to 2008, minus a buffer for management
uncertainty. Plaintiffs argue that this ABC control rule
violates National Standards 1 and 2. Plaintiffs claim that
using this three-year average, without any further discount
to reflect scientific uncertainty, will not prevent
overfishing and is not based on the best available
science.13 Pls.’ Mot. 22–27.
To the contrary, the Administrative Record demonstrates
that the Council properly considered the advice of its SSC
and, after review of the best scientific information then
available, selected an ABC control rule. The
Administrative Record indicates that the SSC identified
“considerable scientific uncertainty” in attempting to
assess the size of the Atlantic herring stock, and therefore
“recommended that the ABC be set based on recent catch,
and asked the Council [to] determine the desired risk
tolerance in setting the ABC.” AR 6068. In accordance
with the SSC’s advice, the Council considered three
options for defining recent catch: (1) the most recent,
available single-year catch figure of 90,000 mt in 2008;
(2) the most recent, available three-year annual average of
106,000 mt from 2006–2008; and (3) the most recent,
available five-year annual average of 108,000 mt from
2004–2008. Id.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

12

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

The Council ultimately decided to use the three-year catch
figure to estimate ABC, based on four rationales. First, a
three-year average is commonly used to estimate “recent”
trends in a fishery. Id. Second, the 2008 catch “was one of
the lowest on record for many years” and using the
one-year estimate may fail to account for general
variability in annual catch. Id. Third, because the
three-year average is lower than the five-year average, it
provides a more conservative estimate, and is therefore
preferable in order to account for other factors, such as
“the importance of herring as a forage species.” Id.
Fourth, and finally, the specification of the ABC at
106,000 mt provides a 27% buffer from the maximum
sustainable fishing mortality rate of 145,000 mt for 2010,
in order to account for scientific uncertainty. Id. at 6069.
*20 Plaintiffs point to no evidence that the agency
ignored superior or contrary data, as they must to succeed
in a National Standard 2 challenge.14 N.C. Fisheries
Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 85. Instead, Plaintiffs protest that
“Defendants arbitrarily ignored at least two approaches
for setting ABC that were scientifically superior.” Pls.’
Reply 12. First, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants did not
adopt an earlier recommendation by the SSC that the
ABC control rule include a 40% buffer between OFL and
ABC. Second, Plaintiffs state that Defendants refused to
accept the approach they identified to set the ABC at 75%
of recent average catch. Pls.’ Reply 12 (citing AR 3909,
5615). But, as explained above, the Council provided
perfectly rational explanations, based on the best available
science, for selecting its ABC control rule, which
accounted for scientific uncertainty and comported with
the SSC’s recommendations. AR 6088–89. National
Standard 2 demands no more. Ocean Conservancy, 394
F.Supp.2d at 157.
Nor, finally, does National Standard 1 provide any
independent reason for invalidating the ABC control rule.
National Standard 1 requires that “each Council must
establish an ABC control rule based on scientific advice
from its SSC” and that “[t]he determination of ABC
should be based, when possible, on the probability that an
actual catch equal to the stock’s ABC would result in
overfishing.” 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(4). The Council
considered the advice of its SSC, examined several
options for setting the ABC control rule, and made a
reasoned determination that using the three-year average
catch offered the best approach. The Court must defer to
an agency’s rational decision when supported by the
Administrative Record, as here, and particularly when
that decision involves the type of technical expertise
relied upon in this case. Bloch, 348 F.3d at 1070; C & W
Fish, 931 F.2d at 1562; Am. Oceans Compaign, 183
F.Supp.2d at 4.

Although Plaintiffs may be correct that the Council could
have selected a more conservative ABC control rule,
which would have resulted in a more conservative ACL,
Plaintiffs must do far more than simply show that
Defendants did not take their preferred course of action.
See N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 85; Am.
Oceans Campaign, 183 F.Supp.2d at 14 (“the fact that
Plaintiffs would have preferred a more detailed analysis
does not compel the conclusion that the Secretary’s action
was arbitrary and capricious.”). Plaintiffs must show
“some indication that superior or contrary data was
available and that the agency ignored such information.”
N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 85. Plaintiffs have
made no showing other than that the agency did not select
their favored control rule. Therefore, Defendants’
adoption of Amendment 4’s ABC control rule and
resultant ACLs was not arbitrary and/or capricious.
E. AMs for Atlantic Herring
In order to enforce the new ACLs, the amended MSA
requires all FMPs to include “measures to ensure
accountability.” 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15). “AMs are
management controls to prevent ACLs ... from being
exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL
if they occur.” 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(g)(1). Therefore,
whenever possible, FMPs should include AMs “to prevent
catch from exceeding ACLs” and “when an ACL is
exceeded ... as soon as possible to correct the operational
issue that caused the ACL overage, as well as any
biological consequences to the stock or stock complex
resulting from the overage.” Id. §§ 600.310(g)(2), (3).
*21 Just like ACLs, AMs must satisfy the National
Standards, including National Standard 2. As explained at
greater length above, National Standard 2 “is a practical
standard requiring only that fishery regulations be
diligently researched and based on sound science.” Ocean
Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at 157. And of course,
“[c]ourts give a high degree of deference to agency
actions based on an evaluation of complex scientific data
within the agency’s technical expertise.” Am. Oceans
Compaign, 183 F.Supp.2d at 4.
Plaintiffs argue that Amendment 4’s AMs are deficient
for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs claim that the existing
monitoring system used to detect when ACLs are reached,
is insufficient. Pls.’ Mot. 28–31. Second, Plaintiffs
contend that the actual group of AMs included in the
Atlantic herring FMP “are fundamentally flawed and
insufficient to minimize the frequency and magnitude of
catch in excess of the ACLs for Atlantic herring.” Id. at
31–33. Each claim is considered in turn.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

13

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

1. Monitoring System
Currently, owners or operators of vessels with permits to
fish for Atlantic herring are required to make a weekly
report of herring they catch through an “Interactive Voice
Response” (“IVR”) system. 50 C.F.R. § 648.7(b)(2)(I).
The reports are verified by comparing them to weekly
dealer data. AR 6255. According to Defendants, “there is
an incentive for fishermen to report catch accurately”
“[b]ecause payment for catch is often tied to vessel/dealer
reports.” Defs.’ Reply 17. Additionally, federal observers
on board fishing boats monitor bycatch. Pls.’ Mot. 9; Defs
.’ Reply 17. Between 2005 and 2007, the annual
percentage of trips observed ranged from 8% to 26%, for
an annual average of 16%.15 AR 653.
Plaintiffs argue that this monitoring system violates the
MSA because “[a]ccurate catch limits are impossible at
present in the Atlantic herring fishery because monitoring
in the fishery is based heavily on unverified reports of
catch and landings.” Pls.’ Mot. 30. Further, “accurate
estimates cannot be accomplished because even on trips
where a federal observer is on board the vessel, vessels
are not required to bring all catch onboard [sic] for
sampling and inspection” and “the ability to extrapolate
catch and bycatch up to fleetwide estimates is impossible
because there are insufficient observer coverage levels
and at-sea dumping of unsampled catch occurs, even on
otherwise observed trips.” Id.
However, Plaintiffs offer no evidence to demonstrate
“some indication that superior or contrary data was
available and that the agency ignored such information.”
N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 85; Ocean
Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at 157 (National Standard 2
requires “only that fishery regulations be diligently
researched and based on sound science.”). Indeed,
Plaintiffs again cite no evidence in the Administrative
Record to support their claims that “accurate catch limits
are impossible,” that “accurate estimates cannot be
accomplished,” or that “the ability to extrapolate catch
and bycatch up to fleetwide estimates is impossible.” Pls.’
Mot. 30.
*22 Rather than cite to evidence that the Council or
NMFS disregarded the best available science, Plaintiffs
advance two legal arguments. First, Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants have admitted that the current monitoring
system is inadequate. Pls.’ Mot. 17. But the
Administrative Record citations provided by Plaintiffs say
no such thing. All that they do say is that the Council was
considering measures “to improve catch monitoring.” AR
5587; see also AR 380–83, 2883, 2886. The statement
that monitoring could, potentially, be improved, certainly
does not amount to a concession that the current system is

legally insufficient. Nor, it should be pointed out, would it
benefit the notice and comment process if an agency were
unable to consider possible policy improvements for fear
that even soliciting comments would be considered an
admission that current policies are legally inadequate.
Second, Plaintiffs claim that “vessel catch reports have
been found time and again to be unreliable,” citing a
decision by this Court. Pls.’ Reply 17. However,
Conservation Law Foundation, the case cited by
Plaintiffs, merely observed that the defendants in that case
conceded that there were problems with their bycatch
monitoring and that the New England Council’s
Multispecies Monitoring Committee concluded that
commercial fishers unlawfully underreport bycatch. 209
F.Supp.2d at 13, 13 n. 25. Certainly, the conclusion of a
different council committee, based on a separate factual
record in a separate fishery, does not preclude this
Council from concluding that observer coverage
constitutes one of several sufficient monitoring
mechanisms.
The Administrative Record contains evidence that
Defendants did in fact consider Plaintiffs’ comments and
determined that the current monitoring system is
sufficient. AR 6255, 6328. Specifically, in her “Decision
Memorandum,” NMFS’s Regional Administrator Patricia
A. Kurkul stated that, after considering comments
expressing concerns regarding the monitoring, she
“conclude[d] that current reporting and monitoring is
sufficient to monitor catch against ACLs/sub–ACLs.” Id.
at 6255. She explained that herring quotas can be
monitored by weekly reports with verification by
comparison to dealer reports, and stated that the agency
would continue to develop improvements to the reporting
system in Amendment 5. Id. While NMFS may not have
performed an in-depth analysis, it reasonably relied on a
policy that has been in place since 2004 and which
underwent its own notice and comment process before
being adopted. See 69 Fed.Reg. 13482 (Mar. 23, 2004).
Most importantly, though, Plaintiffs provide no
evidence—in this case—that this longstanding monitoring
system, while far from perfect, was not “diligently
researched and based on sound science.” Ocean
Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at 157; N.C. Fisheries Ass’n,
518 F.Supp.2d at 85. While there are serious concerns
about the efficacy of the current monitoring system, see
AR 651, the Court must nonetheless afford “a high degree
of deference to agency actions based on an evaluation of
complex scientific data.” Am. Oceans Compaign v. Daley,
183 F.Supp.2d at 4. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that Defendants’ approval of Amendment
4’s monitoring system was arbitrary and/or capricious.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

14

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

2. Specific Accountability Measures
*23 Amendment 4 designates three management
measures—two measures which were previously in place
and one new policy—as AMs for the Atlantic herring
fishery. AR 6327; 50 C.F.R. § 648.201(a). The first AM is
a management area closure device intended to prevent
ACL overages. This AM prohibits vessels from catching
more than 2000 lbs of Atlantic herring per day once
NMFS has determined that catch will reach 95% of the
annual catch allocated to the given management area. 50
C.F.R. § 648.201(a)(1). The second AM, known as the
haddock incidental catch cap, attempts to prevent ACL
overages by limiting Atlantic herring catch to 2000 lbs
per day once NMFS has determined that the limit on
incidental haddock catch has been reached. Id. §
648.201(a)(2). The third, and final, AM aims to mitigate
ACL overages by deducting the amount of any overage
from the relevant ACL or sub-ACL for the fishing year
following NMFS’s determination of the overage. Id. §
648.201(a)(3). Plaintiffs argue that each of these AMs is
fundamentally flawed. Pls.’ Mot. 31–33.
a. Management Area Closure
Plaintiffs criticize the management area closure measure
because it has not always prevented ACL overages in the
past. Id. at 31. Plaintiffs claim that the measure “has
already proven to be ineffective,” id., and that
“Defendants acknowledge that [it] has already failed to
work.” Pls.’ Reply 18. Plaintiffs erroneously characterize
a more nuanced response from Defendants as a significant
concession. What the Administrative Record actually
demonstrates is that NMFS recognized that in 2010, a
particular management area experienced an overage of
138% of its quota, but that “[w]hen there is a pulse of
fishing effort on a relatively small amount of unharvested
quota ... the chance of quota overage exists, regardless of
reporting or monitoring tools.”16 AR 6328; Defs.’ Mot.
28. Indeed, the Council considered this issue and
concluded that, “[w]hile some overages have been
experienced, the frequency and degree of overage has not
been significant enough to compromise the health of the
resource complex as a whole.” AR 6077.
Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the management area
closure measure violates the MSA because it permits
some overages despite MSA’s requirements (1) that
ACLs be set at levels to prevent overfishing and (2) that
AMs prevent catch from exceeding ACLs. Pls.’ Reply
18–19 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15); 50 C.F.R. §
600.310(g)(2)).17 This argument is unconvincing.
First, the existence of an ACL overage does not mean that

overfishing is occurring. See 16 U.S.C. § 1802(34)
(defining overfishing as “a rate or level of fishing
mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to
produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing
basis.”). In other words, an overage does not necessarily
establish that the capacity of a fishery to produce the
maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis is being
jeopardized. Indeed, the entire purpose of the process by
which ACLs are generated is to create an effective buffer
between ACLs and overfishing limits. See supra Part
III.D.
*24 Second, the National Standard 1 guidelines cited by
Plaintiffs do not, as Plaintiffs claim, state that “NMFS
must ‘prevent catch from exceeding ACLs.’ “ Pls.’ Reply
19 (quoting 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(g)(2)). The full text of
that provision reads, “[w]henever possible, FMPs should
include inseason monitoring and management measures to
prevent catch from exceeding ACLs.” 50 C .F.R. §
600.310(g)(2) (emphasis added). Indeed, these guidelines
specifically require AMs that can correct ACL overages
when they occur. Id. § 600.310(g)(3). Such AMs would
hardly be necessary if NMFS was under an obligation to
guarantee that overages never occur. In sum, Plaintiffs
have not demonstrated that the one example of an
admittedly very high overage in 2010 demonstrates that
the use of the management area closure AM is
fundamentally flawed.
b. Haddock Incidental Catch Cap
Plaintiffs argue that because the haddock incidental catch
cap “is an accountability measure for haddock, which is
managed in the Northeast Multispecies FMP,” it “is
irrelevant as an accountability measure for the Atlantic
herring ACL.” Pls.’ Mot. 31. Defendants respond that,
even though the cap only covers incidental catch of
haddock, it “is likely to have real benefits to the herring
stock” and that “[a]ccountability measures are
management tools that work together to help prevent a
fishery from exceeding its ACL.” Defs.’ Mot. 28–29.
Simply put, Plaintiffs argue that only measures designed
to enforce ACLs or mitigate ACL overage can be
considered AMs, while Defendants claim that any
measure that might have the effect of reducing catch, and
thereby helping to keep it at a level within an ACL, can
constitute an AM.
Plaintiffs have the better of this argument. The statute
requires, in unambiguous language, that FMPs include
“measures to ensure accountability” with “annual catch
limits.” 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15). “Accountability” means
“the quality or state of being accountable, liable, or
responsible.” Webster’s Third New International

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

15

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

Dictionary 13 (1993). The management area closure
measure discussed above clearly fits this definition: it
holds fishermen and women accountable for abiding by
Atlantic herring ACLs by restricting the amount of fish
they catch when they get close to the limit on Atlantic
herring. The haddock catch cap has no such effect. It
merely holds fishermen and women accountable for
incidentally catching too much haddock by limiting their
ability to fish when the cap is reached. Fishermen and
women may far exceed any Atlantic herring ACL and still
happily fish for herring so far as the incidental haddock
catch cap is concerned, as long as they have not
accidentally caught too much haddock.

Ocean Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at 157. In response to
concerns over the delay, NMFS explained that “[t]he
herring fishing year extends from January to December.”
AR 6328. Because the “fishery can be active in
December,” “information on bycatch of herring in other
fisheries is not finalized until the spring of the following
year,” and NMFS must “provide sufficient notice to the
industry,” the overage deduction cannot be taken in the
year immediately following the year of the overage. Id.
That is, Defendants just do not have all the necessary
information nor the necessary time to calculate overages
when one fishing year ends in December and the next
begins in January.18

Hence, standing alone, the haddock incidental catch cap
does not fulfill the MSA’s demand that FMPs include
measures to ensure accountability for ACLs. 16 U.S.C. §
1853(a)(15). Nonetheless, it should be noted that nothing
prevents NMFS or the Council from considering the
effect of the haddock incidental catch cap when
determining whether the FMP’s AMs satisfy the MSA by,
inter alia, ensuring accountability with ACLs and
preventing overfishing. Id. §§ 1851(a), 1853(a)(15); see
also 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(g).

In addressing the issue, the Council and NMFS did
consider the impact of the delay on the fishery. The Final
Rule explains that “[h]erring is a relatively long-lived
species (over 10 years) and multiple year classes are
harvested by the fishery.” Id. “These characteristics
suggest that the herring stock may be robust to a single
year delay in overage deductions.” Id. More importantly,
“[t]here is no evidence that a single year delay is more
likely to affect the reproductive potential of the stock than
an overage deduction in the year immediately following
the overage.” Id.

c. Overage Deduction

Plaintiffs do not offer any evidence that the necessary
calculations for the Herring fishery can be completed in
time to avoid the delay in overage deduction, nor do they
offer “some indication that superior or contrary data was
available and that the agency ignored such information.”
N.C. Fisheries Ass’n, 518 F.Supp.2d at 85. Instead,
Plaintiffs assert that “corrective measures in the fishery
are not routinely delayed,” Pls.’ Mot. 32, and that
Defendants “have implemented next-year overage
deductions in other fisheries.” Pls.’ Reply 20. These
claims are not enough to show that Defendants’ analysis
of the needs of this fishery, as outlined above, were
unreasonable or based on unreliable information. Bloch,
348 F.3d at 1070; C & W Fish, 931 F.2d at 1562; Ocean
Conservancy, 394 F.Supp.2d at 157.

*25 The overage deduction AM is intended to satisfy
Defendants’ responsiblity, when an ACL is exceeded, “as
soon as possible to correct the operational issue that
caused the ACL overage, as well as any biological
consequences to the stock or stock complex resulting
from the overage when it is known.” 50 C.F.R. §
600.310(g)(3). The overage deduction AM provides that
any overage in a given year is subtracted from a
subsequent year’s ACL or subACL, so that violating
catch limits in one year lowers the permissible catch in a
future year. 50 C.F.R. § 648.201(a)(3). The logic of this
AM is simple: the effects of catching too much fish will
be corrected by reducing the amount of fish caught in the
future.
Plaintiffs argue that this AM violates the mandate to
correct ACL overages “as soon as possible” because the
overage deduction is taken not in the fishing year
immediately following the overage, but rather in the year
after. Pls.’ Mot. 32; AR 6327. Defendants contend that
“[i]t is not possible to require payback of overages in the
next year because the final data is not available
immediately .” Defs.’ Mot. 29.
The issue presented is whether the decision that a
year-long delay is necessary was “rational and supported
by the record,” C & W Fish, 931 F.2d at 1562, and was
“diligently researched and based on sound science.”

*26 In sum, Amendment 4 includes two AMs,
supplemented by the haddock incidental catch cap,
designed to prevent ACL overages and to correct
overages when they occur. 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(g). While
Plaintiffs have identified what they perceive to be
weaknesses with the AMs, they have failed to offer
evidence that undermines Defendants’ own showing of a
reasonable decisionmaking process or that demonstrates
Defendants’ rejection of superior information. Particularly
in light of the need for deference in this technical and
complex area, the Court must defer to Defendants’
conclusion that Amendment 4’s AMs satisfy the
requirements of the MSA. Am. Oceans Campaign, 183

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

16

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

F.Supp.2d at 14.
F. Compliance with NEPA
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ Environmental
Assessment (“EA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(“FONSI”) violate NEPA. NEPA’s requirements are
“procedural,” calling upon “agencies to imbue their
decisionmaking, through the use of certain procedures,
with our country’s commitment to environmental
salubrity .” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey,
938 F.2d 190, 193–94 (D.C.Cir.1991). “NEPA does not
mandate particular consequences.” Id. at 194.
Under NEPA, agencies must prepare an EIS for “major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment .” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). In an EIS,
the agency must “take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental
consequences before taking a major action.” Baltimore
Gas & Elec. Co., 462 U.S. at 97 (1983) (citations
omitted).
However, NEPA provides agencies with a less
burdensome alternative—in certain situations, an EA,
which is a less thorough report, may suffice. Monsanto
Co. v. Geerston Seed Farms, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 130
S.Ct. 2743, 2750, 177 L.Ed.2d 461 (2010) (citing 40
C.F.R. §§ 1508.9(a), 1508.13). An EA is a “concise
public document” that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare
an environmental impact statement or a finding of no
significant impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a).19 After
completion of an EA, an agency may conclude that no
EIS is necessary. If so, it must issue a FONSI, stating the
reasons why the proposed action will not have a
significant impact on the environment. Id. § 1501.4(e).
In reviewing an EA or FONSI, courts consider four
factors. Courts must determine whether the agency:
“(1) has accurately identified the
relevant environmental concern, (2) has
taken a hard look at the problem in
preparing its [FONSI or Environmental
Assessment], (3) is able to make a
convincing case for its finding of no
significant impact, and (4) has shown
that even if there is an impact of true
significance, an EIS is unnecessary
because changes or safeguards in the
project sufficiently reduce the impact to
a minimum.”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d 1147, 1154
(D.C.Cir.2011) (quoting TOMAC v. Norton, 433 F.3d

852, 861 (D.C.Cir.2006)) (alterations in Van Antwerp ).
*27 Courts review EAs and FONSIs under the familiar
arbitrary or capricious standard of the APA. Van Antwerp,
661 F.3d at 1154; see also Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. at 763
(“An agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS can be set
aside only upon a showing that it was arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.”); Town of Cave Creek, Ariz. v.
FAA, 325 F.3d 320, 327 (D.C.Cir.2003).
Plaintiffs allege a host of deficiencies with Defendants’
EA and FONSI. Their claims fall into two categories: (1)
Defendants unlawfully segmented their decisionmaking
and prejudged the environmental impacts of Amendment
4 to avoid preparing an EIS; and (2) Defendants failed to
take a hard look at Amendment 4’s environmental
consequences.20 Pls. Mot. 34–44.
1. Segmented Decisionmaking & Prejudgment
Plaintiffs advance two arguments that Defendants’ EA
was procedurally improper. First, Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants unlawfully divided certain actions between
Amendments 4 and 5 in order to cast Amendment 4 as
insignificant and escape the EIS requirement. Pls.’ Mot.
38–39. Plaintiffs are correct that “ ‘[a]gencies may not
evade their responsibilities under NEPA by artificially
dividing a major federal action into smaller components,
each without significant impact.’ “ Jackson Cnty., N.C. v.
FERC, 589 F.3d 1284, 1290 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting
Coal. on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 68
(D.C.Cir.1987)); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)
(“Connected actions” are actions that are “closely related
and therefore should be discussed in the same impact
statement.”). However,
“The rule against segmentation ... is not
required to be applied in every situation.
To determine the appropriate scope for
an EIS, courts have considered such
factors as whether the proposed segment
(1) has logical termini; (2) has
substantial independent utility; (3) does
not foreclose the opportunity to consider
alternatives, and (4) does not
irretrievably commit federal funds for
closely related projects.”
Jackson Cnty., 589 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Taxpayers
Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 298
(D.C.Cir.1987)).
There is no evidence whatsoever in the Administrative

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

17

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

Record that Defendants sought to escape their
responsibilities under NEPA “by disingenuously
describing [the Atlantic herring FMP] as only an
amalgamation of unrelated smaller projects.” Nat’l
Wildlife Fed’n v. Appalachian Reg’l Comm’n, 677 F.2d
883, 890 (D.C.Cir.1981). Although the Court has rejected
the basis for NMFS’s decision not to consider certain
issues before the 2011 statutory deadline, supra Part
III.B.1., there is no suggestion that NMFS reduced the
scope of Amendment 4 to avoid preparing an EIS.
Amendment 4 sets out ACLs and AMs for Atlantic
herring. Amendment 5 has been proposed to consider,
inter alia, the composition of the fishery and updated
monitoring systems. There is no doubt that Amendment 4
has logical termini, has substantial independent utility,
does not foreclose future alternatives, and does not
irretrievably commit federal funds for closely related
projects. Jackson Cnty., 589 F.3d at 1290.
*28 Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants “unlawfully
predetermined that only an EA would be necessary for
Amendment 4.” Pls.’ Mot. 40. In this context,
“predetermination occurs only when an agency
irreversibly and irretrievably commits itself to a plan of
action that is dependent upon the NEPA environmental
analysis producing a certain outcome.” Forest Guardians
v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692, 714 (10th
Cir.2010) (emphasis in original); see also Air Transp.
Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 663 F.3d 476,
488 (D.C.Cir.2011) (“ ‘strong’ evidence of ‘unalterably
closed minds’ [is] necessary to justify discovery into the
Board’s decisionmaking process” on the basis of
prejudgment); C & W Fish, 931 F.2d at 1565 (“an
individual should be disqualified from rulemaking ‘only
when there has been a clear and convincing showing that
the Department member has an unalterably closed mind
on matters critical to the disposition of the proceeding.’ ”)
(quoting Ass’n of Nat’l Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 F.2d
1151, 1170 (D.C.Cir.1979)).
Plaintiffs have not met the “high standard to prove
predetermination.” Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 714.
Plaintiffs’ only evidence that Defendants had unalterably
closed minds is (1) the statement in the December 17,
2009 memorandum by NMFS’s Assistant Regional
Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries that “I have
determined that, based on our initial review of the
proposed subject project and the criteria provided in
Sections 5.04 and 6.03 d.2 of NAO 216–6, an
environmental assessment is the appropriate level of
NEPA review for that project,” AR 5639, and (2) the line
in the December 28, 2009 Notice of Intent, announcing
the narrowed scope of Amendment 4, that “the Council
intends to prepare an EA for the action.” AR 5641.
Neither of these statements rises to the level of

irreversibly or irretrievably committing NMFS to a
certain course of action. Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at
714. An administrator’s statement of an opinion, based
upon review of the action’s subject matter and relevant
regulatory guidance, suggests conscious thought rather
than prejudgment, and does not lead to the conclusion that
the administrator would not change his or her mind upon
review of the full EA.
In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
Defendants unlawfully avoided the responsibility of
preparing an EIS by either improperly segmenting their
actions or predetermining the outcome of the EA.
2. Hard Look
In order to pass muster under NEPA, Defendants’ EA and
FONSI must have “taken a hard look at the problem.”
Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d at 1154. Defendants argue that
NMFS took a “hard look” at the environmental impact of
its action, including the effects on relevant ecosystem
components, the Atlantic herring stock, the essential fish
habitat, protected species, and non-target/bycatch species,
as well as economic and social impacts. Defs.’ Mot.
34–35 (citing AR 6032, 6185–201). Plaintiffs do not
challenge these arguments. Rather, the thrust of Plaintiffs’
argument is that Defendants failed to consider the
potential impact of reasonable alternatives. Pls.’ Mot. 36,
42–44.
*29 Environmental Assessments must include a “brief
discussion ... of alternatives ... [and] of the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.” 40
C.F.R. § 1508.9(b). In considering the analogous
requirement for an EIS, our Court of Appeals explained
that “the agency’s choice of alternatives are ... evaluated
in light of [its reasonably identified and defined]
objectives; an alternative is properly excluded from
consideration in an environmental impact statement only
if it would be reasonable for the agency to conclude that
the alternative does not ‘bring about the ends of the
federal action.’ “ City of Alexandria, Va. v. Slater, 198
F.3d 862, 867 (D.C.Cir.1999) (quoting Citizens Against
Burlington, 938 F.2d at 195). Although an EA generally
imposes less stringent requirements on an agency than an
EIS, it is clear that an EA’s “hard look” must include
consideration of reasonable alternatives. Am. Oceans
Campaign, 183 F.Supp.2d at 19–20; Citizens Exposing
Truth About Casinos v. Norton, No. CIV A 02–1754 TPJ,
2004 WL 5238116, at *9 (D.D.C. Apr.23, 2004); Fund
for Animals v. Norton, 281 F.Supp.2d 209, 225
(D.D.C.2003).
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should have, but failed to

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

18

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

consider the impacts of (1) ACLs and AMs for river
herring, (2) potential alternative ABC control rules, (3)
potential improvements to the current monitoring system,
and (4) alternatives for addressing bycatch. Pls.’ Mot.
35–36, 43–44. As to the failure to consider ACLs or AMs
for river herring21 or alternatives for addressing bycatch,
the Court concludes that, for the reasons stated supra
Parts III.B–C, Defendants have failed to include a
discussion of reasonable alternatives. 40 C.F.R. §
1508.9(b). Defendants have not provided a reasoned
explanation for why they could not and did not consider
these alternatives, which clearly would “bring about the
ends of the federal action,” City of Alexandria, 198 F.3d
at 867 (internal quotation omitted), which were “to bring
the FMP into compliance with new [MSA] requirements”
by setting ACLs and AMs. AR 6325.
As to alternatives to the ABC control rule and monitoring,
Defendants argue that it was reasonable to delay further
consideration until Amendment 5.22 Defs.’ Mot. 40–41.
This response is unsatisfactory. A central function of
NEPA’s requirements is for the agency to consider
environmental impacts “[b]efore approving a project.”
City of Alexandria, 198 F.3d at 866. Therefore, delaying
consideration of relevant and reasonable alternatives until
a future date violates the “hard look” requirement. 40
C.F.R. § 1508.9(b); Am. Oceans Campaign, 183
F.Supp.2d at 19–20; see also Found. on Econ. Trends v.
Heckler, 756 F.2d 143, 158 (D.C.Cir.1985) (“agency
determinations about EIS requirements are supposed to be
forward-looking”); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 677 F.2d at 889
(“ ‘the basic function of an EIS is to serve as a
forward-looking instrument to assist in evaluating
proposals for major federal action’ ”) (quoting Aersten v.
Landrieu, 637 F.2d 12, 19 (1st Cir.1980)).
*30 More importantly, Defendants’ EA demonstrates a
total failure to consider the environmental impacts of
alternatives to the proposed ABC control rule or AMs.
The EA does contain a section entitled “Environmental
Impacts of Management Alternatives,” but this section
only compares the effects of the proposed ACL and AM
rules to “no action” alternatives. AR 6037, 6185–95. As
the EA itself admits, the “no action” alternative is in fact
no alternative at all—taking no action would result in a
plain violation of the MSA’s ACL and AM
requirements.23 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15); AR 6185.
Obviously, actions that would violate the MSA cannot be
reasonable alternatives to consider. Am. Oceans
Campaign, 183 F.Supp.2d at 20 (finding failure to
consider reasonable alternatives where EAs did “not even
consider any alternatives besides the status quo (which
would violate the FCMA).”).
Equally conspicuous is the fact that while Amendment 4

does contain analysis of rejected alternatives in its
substantive sections, there is no related consideration of
environmental impacts in its Environmental Assessment.
For example, the Council considered alternate ABC
control rules, such as use of a one-year or five-year
average for defining recent catch, and AMs, such as
closure of management areas at a lower percentage of
ACL, establishment of a threshold/trigger for an in-season
adjustment to ACL, and establishment of a lower trigger
for closing the fishery in the following year, to name a
few. AR 6083–84, 6088. Tellingly, none of these
alternatives receive any treatment in the Environmental
Assessment.
In the absence of consideration of alternatives, the Court
cannot say that Defendants took a “hard look” at
Amendment 4’s environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. §
1508.9(b); Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d at 1154; Am. Oceans
Campaign, 183 F.Supp.2d at 20. Therefore, Defendants’
reliance on Amendment 4’s EA and resulting FONSI was
arbitrary and capricious. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d at 1154;
Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. at 763.
G. Remedy
The question of the appropriate remedy in this case
presents substantial complexities. Plaintiffs argue that the
Court “has the power to design a remedy that both
establishes a deadline and directs the Defendants to take
specific actions to comply with the law” and that the
Court ought to vacate Amendment 4. Pls.’ Supp. Mem.
4–5. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ requests “conflict [
] with the law of this Circuit” and urge the Court to
remand to the agency for further consideration. Defs.’
Mot. 42. The question of remedy is further complicated
by the fact that many of Amendment 4’s deficiencies may
be remedied by Amendment 5, which is already under
consideration, with a targeted implementation date of
January 1, 2013. Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 2. At oral argument, the
parties requested an opportunity to further brief the
remedy issue, should Plaintiffs’ prevail in any of their
claims. Therefore, the Court will withhold judgment on
the question of remedy. The accompanying Order
contains a briefing schedule to resolve this issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
*31 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in
part and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted in part and denied in part.
An Order will issue with this opinion.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

19

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
1

Secretary Bryson is substituted for Gary Locke
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Civil Action No. 11–660(GK). | March 8, 2012.
2

The Secretary of the Department of Commerce has
delegated the authority and stewardship duties of
fisheries management under the MSA to NMFS, an
agency within the Department. Compl. ¶ 13. On behalf
of the Secretary, NMFS reviews FMPs and FMP
amendments and issues implementing regulations. Id.

3

The Act defines “conservation and management” as:
all of the rules, regulations, conditions, methods,
and other measures (A) which are required to
rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which are useful
in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any
fishery resource and the marine environment; and
(B) which are designed to assure that—
(i) a supply of food and other products may be
taken, and that recreational benefits may be
obtained, on a continuing basis;
(ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on
fishery resources and the marine environment are
avoided; and
(iii) there will be a multiplicity of options
available with respect to future uses of these
resources.
16 U.S.C. § 1802(5).

4

The MSRA sets an earlier deadline of “fishing year
2010 for fisheries determined by [NMFS] to be subject
to overfishing.” Pub.L. No. 109–479, § 104(b), 120
Stat. 3575, 3584. The statute defines “overfishing” or
“overfished” as “a rate or level of fishing mortality that
jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the
maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.” 16
U.S.C. § 1802(34). NMFS has not determined the
Atlantic herring fishery to be overfished.

5

that the Council’s decision to exclude a species from a
fishery is unreviewable. Later, at oral argument,
however, Defendants agreed that the Council’s decision
must not be arbitrary or capricious.

Defendants have not been consistent in explaining what
sort of review NMFS must apply to the Council’s
determination of the composition of a fishery. In their
Motion, Defendants concede that NMFS must review
FMPs and amendments for consistency with the
National Standards and applicable law, but argue that
“[t]he inclusion of a species not determined to be
overfished in a fishery management unit is based on a
variety of judgment calls left to the Council.” Defs.’
Mot. 15–16. Hence, Defendants appear to be arguing

6

For example, NMFS may develop its own FMP if a
council fails to do so within a reasonable time for a
fishery in need of conservation and management, or
NMFS may order a council to take action to end
overfishing and rebuild stocks if it finds that a fishery is
overfished or approaching a condition of being
overfished. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1854(c)(1), (e).

7

Defendants make much of the distinction that “as a
legal matter, the Magnuson–Stevens Act requires that
the overall fishery management plan be consistent with
National Standard 9–not that each separate amendment
contain measures to minimize bycatch.” Defs .’ Mot. 20
(citing 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9)) (emphasis in original).
While it may be correct that Amendment 4’s
compliance with National Standard 9 should be viewed
in the context of the entire FMP, it is also clear, as
discussed earlier, that NMFS was required to review
Amendment 4 “to determine whether it is consistent
with the national standards.” 16 U.S.C. §
1854(a)(1)(A). Hence, NMFS’s review of Amendment
4 had to include some analysis of whether the FMP
minimized bycatch “to the extent practicable.” Id. §
1851(a)(9). As discussed at length below, Defendants
have identified nothing in the Administrative Record
demonstrating such examination.

8

The haddock incidental catch cap specifies an
“incidental haddock catch allowance” for the season for
the herring fishery. AR 6153. In simple terms, when a
vessel has reached the allowance for incidental haddock
catch, it is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or
landing more than 2,000 pounds of herring per trip for
the rest of the year. Id.

9

The paragraph in full reads:
National Standard 9 states that bycatch must be
minimized and that mortality of such bycatch must
be minimized. As such, the Council made the
decision to include only herring as a stock with the
knowledge that other mechanisms exist to deal
with non-targets [sic] species caught by the
herring fishery. The amendment therefore
specifies that bycatch is to be monitored and
minimized accordingly. This amendment also
includes the haddock catch cap, being
implemented as an AM, which is another way in

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

20

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

which bycatch is considered and minimized
without the haddock stock being defined as a part
of the fishery. Furthermore, one of the objectives
of Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP,
which is under development, is to develop a
program which effectively and efficiently
monitors bycatch and potentially acts to reduce it
with collaboration from the fishing industry. The
measure maximizes the flexibility provided to the
Council so that it can utilize the best scientific
information available at the time when the new
amendment is implemented. For these reasons the
Council decided that until such time that evidence
is brought to the Council which indicates that
another species needs to be added to the definition
of a stock within the herring FMP in order to be
managed acceptably, Atlantic herring will be the
only defined stock in the fishery.
AR 6087.

10

Amendment 4 permits the Council to establish both an
overall ACL for the Atlantic herring fishery, and
sub-ACLs for specific management areas. AR 6072–73,
6090.

11

Even this first step entails a number of complex and
technical calculations and analyses. For example, in
order to determine an OFL, one must, among other
things, consider (1) the Maximum Sustainable Yield
(“MSY”), defined as “the largest long-term average
catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock
complex under prevailing ecological, environmental
conditions and fishery technological characteristics ...,
and the distribution of catch among fleets,” (2) the
MSY fishing mortality rate (“Fmsy”), defined as “the
fishing mortality rate that, if applied over the long term
would result in MSY,” and (3) the MSY stock size
(“Bmsy”), defined as “the long-term average size of the
stock or stock complex, measured in terms of spawning
biomass or other appropriate measure of the stock’s
reproductive potential that would be achieved by
fishing at Fmsy.” 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(1)(i).

12

Again, the Court must emphasize that even this
complex explanation, abridged for the purposes of
comprehension, omits details of the considerably more
complicated process. See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f).

13

Plaintiffs also object to Defendants’ adoption of an
“Interim” ABC control rule. Pls.’ Mot. 22. Defendants
correctly point out that “nothing in the MSA ...
precludes the use of an interim rule” and, of course, all

ABC control rules are interim in the sense that the
agency can, and should, revise their rules as superior or
more recent information becomes available. Defs.’
Mot. 25 (emphasis in original). Perhaps most
importantly, the decision to label the rule “interim”
with the expectation that the Council can develop a new
control rule in the 2013–2015 herring specifications
based on a 2012 stock assessment was perfectly rational
and supported by the Administrative Record. C & W
Fish, 931 F.2d at 1562; see 76 Fed.Reg. 11373, 13375;
AR 6088–89.

14

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed “to account for
the role of forage in the ecosystem” when setting its
ABC control rule. Pls.’ Mot. 25–27. However, the
Council’s analysis of Amendment 4 states that Atlantic
herring’s role as a forage species was an “Important
Consideration” for the SSC and Council when
considering the ABC control role and definition of
ABC. AR 6051–52, 6054. Indeed, the Council selected
the three-year average approach in part because it felt
that it best accounted for “other factors identified by the
SSC, including recruitment, biomass projections, and
the importance of herring as a forage species.” Id. at
6088.

15

Plaintiffs claim that since the 1990’s, “observer
coverage has ranged from less than one percent of the
total annual fishing trips taken in many years to roughly
twenty percent in a handful of years.” Pls.’ Mot. 9
(citing AR 651, 653, 779). The only citation that
supports this claim is a report by the Herring Alliance
stating that the coverage rate “has fluctuated from 1 to
17 percent of total fishing trips since the mid–1990s,
but are typically between 3 and 6 percent.” AR 779.
Defendants state that this report, produced by “ ‘a
coalition of environmental organizations that formed ...
to protect and restore ocean wildlife ... by reforming the
Atlantic herring fishery,’ “ is not peer-reviewed or
approved by NMFS or the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. Defs.’ Mot. 8 n. 6 (quoting
www.herringalliance.org/ about-our-work).
More importantly, the Herring Alliance’s estimate is
contradicted by the data presented by the Maine
Department of Marine Resources and Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries. That data demonstrates
that 26% of trips were covered in 2005, 14% of trips
in 2006, and 8% of trips in 2007, thus supporting
Defendants’ claim of 16% annual coverage over the
three-year period. AR 653.
Plaintiffs also claim that “NMFS has never provided
observer coverage levels sufficient to derive accurate
catch and bycatch estimates.” Pls.’ Mot. 9 (citing AR
651, 653). Although one of the slides cited contains a
line reading “Low samples [sic] sizes means power
to detect low,” it is unclear how Plaintiffs concluded

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

21

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

that NMFS has never been able to derive accurate
catch and bycatch estimates. AR 651.

16

According to Defendants, there were a total of three
management area overages in the four Atlantic herring
management areas between 2007 and 2010. Defs.’
Reply. 18, 18 n. 20. In addition to the 38% overage
Plaintiffs focus on, one management area experienced
only a 1% overage in 2009 and another management
area experienced only a 5% overage in 2010. Defs.’
Reply, Ex. 2.

17

Plaintiffs actually cite to 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(g)(3), but
both the language quoted and the relevant substance is
contained in § 600.310(g)(2).

18

Defendants also point out in their briefing that “Federal
dealer data is not finalized until the spring of the
following year and state dealer data is finalized even
later,” and this data is used in confirming overage
calculations. Defs.’ Reply 21.

19

Regulations interpreting NEPA’s EIS and EA
requirements have been promulgated by the Council of
Environmental Quality (“CEQ”). See 40 C.F.R. §
1500.1 et seq. Although “the binding effect of CEQ
regulations is far from clear,” TOMAC v. Norton, 433
F.3d at 861 (D.C.Cir.2006), both agencies and courts
have consistently looked to them for guidance. See,
e.g., Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d 1147,
1154–55 (D.C.Cir.2011); Town of Cave Creek, Ariz. v.
FAA, 325 F.3d 320, 327–332 (D.C.Cir.2003); Grand
Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 341–42
(D.C.Cir.2002).

20

Because the Court concludes, for the reasons given
below, that Defendants’ failed to take a “hard look at
the problem,” Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d at 1154, it will
not reach the third set of Plaintiffs’ NEPA claims,
namely that Defendants erroneously concluded that
Amendment 4 will not have a significant environmental
impact. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to
evaluate the cumulative impacts of Amendment 4, as
they must when determining significance, and that
Defendants’ determination that the action had
insignificant effects was in error. Pls.’ Mot. 34–38,
41–42. Defendants’ main response is that Amendment
4’s adoption of an ABC control rule and AMs was
procedural only, and did not substantively affect the
fishery. Defs.’ Mot. 39–40. In any case, Defendants

will have to reassess this conclusion after taking a ‘hard
look’ at Amendment 4’s impacts.

21

Defendants have directed the Court’s attention to the
decision in Oceana, 2011 WL 6357795. Defs.’ Notice
of Supp. Authority [Dkt. No. 25]. In that case, the court
held that NEPA did not require NMFS to consider the
composition of the fishery in its EIS. Id. at *28–30.
However, in Oceana, the court focused on the
challenged amendment’s purpose to implement “ ‘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,’ “ and concluded that the defendants acted
within the scope of the amendment’s objectives. Id. at
*29 (quoting the final amendment) (emphasis in
Oceana ).
In contrast, in this case, Amendment 4’s purpose is
“to bring the FMP into compliance with new [MSA]
requirements” by setting ACLs and AMs. AR 6325;
see also AR 5640 (purpose of Amendment 4 is “to
bring the FMP in compliance with [MSA]
requirements to specify annual catch limits (ACLs)
and accountability measures (AMs) .”). For the
reasons spelled out above, supra part III.B,
Defendants could not fulfill the purpose of their
proposed Amendment 4 to comply with the strict
new MSA requirements without giving some reason
for their decision to name only Atlantic herring as a
stock in the fishery.

22

Defendants also claim that it was proper to delay
consideration of a permanent ABC control rule until
obtaining “a proper scientific basis.” Defs.’ Mot. 41.
This argument misses the point. Even if setting an
“interim” ABC control rule, Defendants could have
considered alternative interim ABC control rules. See
Pls.’ Mot. 43.

23

This is another reason that Oceana is not applicable to
this case. In Oceana, the so-called “ ‘no-action’
alternative” actually entailed using the MSY Control
Rule as the ABC control, thereby fulfilling the MSA’s
mandate to set in place a process for establishing
ACLs.2011 WL 6357795, at *31–35. By contrast, in
this case, in Defendants’ own words, “[u]nder the no
action alternative no process for setting ACLs would be
established” and therefore “the alternative fails to
comply with the MSA or NS1 Guidelines.” AR 6185.
Hence, in Oceana, the no action alternative was legally
permissible, whereas for Amendment 4 the no action
alternative is not a legally viable option.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

22

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2012)

End of Document

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

23

Flaherty v. Bryson, --- F.Supp.2d ----

Filings (2)
Title

PDF

1. Complaint ror Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Michael S. FLAHERTY, Captain Alan A. Hastbacka, Ocean River
Institute, Plaintiffs, v. Gary LOCKE, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic And
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Defendants.
2011 WL 1235745
2. Docket 1:11cv00660
FLAHERTY ET AL v. LOCKE ET AL

—

Court

Date

Type

D.D.C.

Apr. 1, 2011

Pleading

D.D.C.

Apr. 1, 2011

Docket

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

24

June 4, 2012
Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 N. State St., Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901
Dear Dr. Moore:
The Herring Alliance is writing in response to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (MAFMC
or Council) request for public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment
14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan.
The Herring Alliance seeks to ensure that Amendment 14 includes management measures that will
protect river herring and shad, promote their long-term recovery, and have the most positive biological
impact:
Incorporation of river herring and shad as stocks within the federal fishery management plan for
Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish (Alternative 9b-9e) would afford river herring and shad the
conservation and management they direly need.
Almost two years ago, we wrote to express concern about the status of river herring and shad. Specifically,
we asked the MAFMC to carefully analyze the negative impacts that midwater trawlers in the Atlantic
mackerel fishery have on these important and imperiled forage fish.1 Since then, the Herring Alliance has
grown from 17 to 52 regional, national and international organizations, concerned about the status of the
Atlantic coast’s forage fish. Our growth demonstrates the expanding consciousness about the critical role
that forage fish play in the food web and the concern for their enduring depletion.
The Council would be remiss to choose any options that fail to recognize and address the depleted status
of river herring and shad, their signature ecological role, and the indelible threat to their survival
presented by the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The Council must do this by implementing all of the
following for river herring and shad in the MSB fishery: robust monitoring, bycatch and incidental catch
reduction, and overall catch limits. The recovery of river herring and shad is being impeded by incidental
catch at sea,2 including mortality caused by mid-water trawlers targeting Atlantic mackerel.3 According to
the Northeast Science Center, millions of river herring and shad every year are ensnared and killed by a
fleet of approximately 20 midwater trawlers.4 These trawlers account for 71 percent of the coastwide atsea catch.5 In addition to including river herring and shad as stocks within the mackerel, squid, butterfish
fishery (Alternative 9b-9e), it is imperative that the Council take immediate steps to curb this catch by
immediately implementing the following:
An interim cap, or limit, on river herring and shad catch (Alternative 6b-6c) that functions effectively,
does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be circumvented.
1

http://herringalliance.org/images/stories/Scoping_Comments_MSB_14_Herring_Alliance_0709_2010.pdf
ASMFC River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, May 2012, Executive Summary.
3 Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP DEIS, April 2012, pp.220.
4
Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, May 2011, Tables 94-96, pp. 447-448.
5
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP DEIS, April 2012, Appendix 2, Table 3.
2

59 Temple Place, Suite 1114, Boston, MA 02111
www.herringalliance.org | www.pewenvironment.org

Close river herring hotspots to directed squid and mackerel fishing: the MAFMC should close the
“River Herring Protection Areas” identified by the New England Fishery Management Council in
Amendment 5 to the Herring Plan (Alternatives 8eMack and 8eLong) and also create a mechanism
under which the larger “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas” identified in Amendment 5 could
be closed through a future Framework Adjustment (Modified Alternative 8b).
100 percent at-sea monitoring on all midwater trawl fishing trips, including assigning one observer to
each pair trawl vessel (Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).
An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of un-sampled catch. All catch, including
“operational discards”, must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling
(Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a fleet wide
limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer
on their next trip (Alternative 3o).
A requirement to weigh all catch (Alternative 2c-2f).
Coast-wide, we have done a tremendous amount of work in state waters to restore our river herring and
shad populations. Now it is time for the Council to do everything it can in federal waters to bring back
these iconic species that have been an integral part of coastal community life for centuries. An effective
management strategy hinges on the ability to develop a single, comprehensive and coordinated strategy to
reduce ocean bycatch for all of the Northeast industrial small-mesh fisheries including the Atlantic
mackerel and Atlantic herring fisheries. We look forward to your action on these priority issues.
Sincerely,
Peter Baker
Director, Herring Alliance
Director, Northeast Fisheries Program, Pew
Environment Group
Boston, Massachusetts

Drew Koslow
Riverkeeper
Choptank Riverkeeper
Easton, Maryland

Art Benner
President
Alewives Anonymous
Rochester, Massachusetts

Sean Mahoney
Vice President and Director of Maine Advocacy
Center
Conservation Law Foundation
Portland, Maine

Alan Duckworth, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Blue Ocean Institute
Cold Spring Harbor, New York

Roger Fleming
Project Attorney
Earthjustice
Washington, DC

Paul Earnshaw
President
Buckeye Brook Coalition
Warwick, Rhode Island

Anthony Irving
Chair
Eightmile River Wild & Scenic Study Committee
Haddam, Connecticut

Bill Goldsborough
Director of Fisheries Programs
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Annapolis, Maryland

John Rumpler
Senior Environmental Attorney
Environment America
Washington, DC

59 Temple Place, Suite 1114, Boston, MA 02111
www.herringalliance.org | www.pewenvironment.org

Emily Figdor
Environment Maine
Portland, Maine

Pine DuBois
Executive Director
Jones River Watershed Association
Kingston, Massachusetts

Ben Wright
Environment Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Jessica O’Hare
Environment New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
Channing Jones
Environment Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
Berl Hartman
Director
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) New England
Boston, Massachusetts
Eileen Fielding
Executive Director
Farmington River Watershed Association
Simsbury, Connecticut
William Tanger
President
Float Fishermen of Virginia
Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia

Stan Kotala
Conservation Chair
Juniata Valley Audubon
Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania
EkOngKar Singh Khalsa
Executive Director
Mystic River Watershed Association
Arlington, Massachusetts
Pamela Lyons Gromen
Executive Director
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
Leesburg, Virginia
Brad Sewell
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
Steve Pearlman
Advocacy Director
Neponset River Watershed Association
Canton, Massachusetts
Carol Carson
President
New England Coastal Wildlife Alliance
Middleboro, Massachusetts

Fred Akers
River Administrator
Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational
River Council
Samantha Woods
Newtonville, New Jersey
Executive Director
North and South River Watershed Association
Phil Kline
Norwell, Massachusetts
Senior Oceans Campaigner
Greenpeace
Deborah A. Mans
Washington, DC
Baykeeper & Executive Director
NY/NJ Baykeeper
Kerry Mackin
Keyport, New Jersey
Executive Director
Ipswich River Watershed Association
Rob Moir
Ipswich, Massachusetts
Executive Director
Ocean River Institute
Cambridge, Massachusetts

59 Temple Place, Suite 1114, Boston, MA 02111
www.herringalliance.org | www.pewenvironment.org

Gib Brogan
Northeast Representative
Oceana
Washington, DC

Joshua S. Verleun
Staff Attorney & Chief Investigator
Riverkeeper
Ossining, New York

George Comiskey
President
Parker River Clean Water Association
Byfield, Massachusetts

Margaret Miner
Executive Director
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut
Litchfield, Connecticut

Kevin McAllister
President
Peconic Baykeeper
Quogue, New York

Jaime Lynn Pollack
Shark Angels
New York, New York

Adam Garber
PennEnvironment
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Erik Michelson
Executive Director
South River Federation
Edgewater, Maryland
Chris Trumbauer
Riverkeeper and Executive Director
West/Rhode Riverkeeper
Shady Side, Maryland

Other Herring Alliance members:
Delaware River Shad Fishermen's Association, Hellertown, Pennsylvania
Environment Connecticut, West Hartford, Connecticut
Environment New Jersey, Trenton, New Jersey
Environment New York, New York, New York
Environment North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
Environment Virginia, Washington, DC
Greater Boston Trout Unlimited, Boston, Massachusetts
Island Institute, Rockland, Maine
Lowell Parks & Conservation Trust, Lowell, Massachusetts
Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation, New Bern, North Carolina
Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Washington, DC

59 Temple Place, Suite 1114, Boston, MA 02111
www.herringalliance.org | www.pewenvironment.org

Howard King
240 Harbor Lane
Queenstown, MD 21658

Steven Linhard
1004 Jackson Street
Annapolis, MD 21403

Mike Luisi
Maryland DNR
Tawes State Office Bldg, B-2
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401

June 4, 2012
Dear Maryland Council Members:
We represent 18 Maryland based organizations and are writing to request that the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (“MAFMC”) take the lead on federal management of river herring
and American shad by including robust, science-based conservation and management measures in
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.
Maryland’s rivers once teemed with river herring and shad, providing an abundant food source for
wildlife, opportunities for commercial and sport fishing, and a wildlife viewing experience that
delivered ocean bounty to our towns. Many of us have spent countless hours working to restore
river herring and shad runs in Maryland, monitoring water quality and cleaning up waterways. The
Maryland legislature has dedicated millions of dollars towards restoring our coastal estuaries and
rivers by regulating pollution and restoring habitat. Maryland recently implemented a moratorium
on commercial and recreational fishing for river herring. American shad fisheries have been closed
since 1980 with the exception of a small catch and release fishery. But more work needs to be done
in federal waters to recover these depleted fish.
In federal waters, the incidental catch of river herring and shad remains a serious concern, and
impedes recovery. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center estimates that millions of river herring
and shad are caught every year by industrial mackerel and Atlantic herring trawlers operating in
federal waters. We are encouraged that the MAFMC and New England Fishery Management
Council are currently developing plans to address this problem. We ask the MAFMC to set the
standard for protecting river herring and shad and ensure that Amendment 14 has robust
management measures that protect river herring and shad throughout their range in federal waters,
including:
• Incorporation of river herring and shad as stocks within the federal fishery management plan for
Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish. This action would afford river herring and shad direly
needed conservation and management measures in federal waters.
• An interim cap or limit in 2013 on river herring and shad catch in the mackerel fishery.
• 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips, including assigning one
observer to each vessel in a pair trawl operation. This fleet of approximately 20 mid-water
trawl vessels is responsible for over 70% of combined river herring and shad incidental catch.
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of unsampled catch.
All catch must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling.
• A requirement to weigh all catch.
With your support of these measures, and our continued commitment to restoring inshore habitat,
we can promote the recovery of our river herring and shad runs and ensure their survival for many
generations to come. Thank you for your consideration.

Bill Goldsborough, Director of Fisheries Program
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Annapolis, MD
Tommy Landers, Director
Environment Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Claudia Friedezky, Conservation Representative
Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club
College Park, MD
Karla Raettig, Executive Director
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Annapolis, MD
Jacquelyn Bonomo, Executive Director
Audubon Maryland/DC
Baltimore, MD
David Curson, Director of Bird Conservation
Audubon Maryland/DC
Washington, DC
Steven Mickletz, Naturalist & Manager of Public Programs
Irvine Nature Center
Owings Mills, MD
Karen Lukacs, Executive Director
Wicomico Environmental Trust
Salisbury, MD
Drew Koslow, Riverkeeper
Choptank Riverkeeper
Cambridge, MD
Timothy Junkin, Executive Director
Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy
Easton, MD
David Foster, Riverkeeper
Chester River Association
Chestertown, MD
Tina Meyers, Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper
Blue Water Baltimore
Baltimore, MD

Eric Michelson, Executive Director
South River Federation
Edgewater, MD
Chris Trumbauer, Executive Director
West Rhode Riverkeeper
Shady Side, MD
Joseph Henderson, Manager
Buzz's Marina
Ridge, MD
Daniel Campbell, Coast Guard Master
Buzz's Marina
Ridge, MD
Russell Hudson, Owner
Chesapeake Classics LLC.
Cambridge, MD
Debbie Drury, Owner
Drury's Marina
Ridge, MD
Donald George Foster, Manager
The Tackle Box
Lexington Park, MD
Mayor James Ireton, Jr.
City of Salisbury
Salisbury, MD

Jim Gilmore
NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources
205 Belle Meade Rd
E. Setauket, NY 11733

Stephen Heins
NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources
205 Belle Meade Rd
E. Setauket, NY 11733

June 4, 2012
Dear Council Members:
We represent New York fishermen, businesses, and conservation organizations concerned about the
incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad each year at sea. We are writing to request that the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council (“MAFMC”) take the lead on federal management of river herring
and American shad. Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management
Plan, should include robust, science-based conservation and management measures that provide coastwide
protection for these depleted species.
New York’s coastal communities are culturally connected with our state’s historic river herring and shad
runs. Their spring return once provided opportunities for recreational fishing, supported in-river commercial
fisheries that in turn sustained small river towns, and filled our estuaries with a staple food for wildlife.
Many of us have spent countless hours working to restore river herring and shad habitat in New York,
monitoring water quality and cleaning up waterways. Our state and local governments have devoted millions
of dollars towards restoring our river herring and shad runs by regulating pollution and restoring spawning
grounds. New York has strict limits on recreational fishing for river herring and imposed a moratorium on
the recreational and commercial fishing for American shad in the Hudson River and the Marine and Coastal
District of New York. But more work needs to be done in federal waters to recover these depleted fish.
In federal waters, the incidental catch of river herring and shad remains a serious concern, and impedes their
recovery. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center estimates that industrial trawlers operating in federal
waters catch millions of river herring and shad every year. Immediate action is needed to curb the catch of
these depleted species at sea. As our designated state officials to the Council, we are asking you to break the
logjam on protecting river herring and shad and ensure that Amendment 14 has robust management
measures that protect river herring and shad throughout their range in federal waters, including:
• Incorporation of river herring and shad as stocks within the federal fishery management plan for Atlantic
mackerel, squid and butterfish. This action would afford river herring and shad direly needed
conservation and management measures in federal waters.
• An interim cap or limit in 2013 on river herring and shad catch in federal waters.
• 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips, including assigning one observer to
each vessel in a pair trawl operation. This fleet of approximately 20 mid-water trawl vessels is
responsible for over 70% of combined river herring and shad incidental catch.
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of unsampled catch. All
catch must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling.
• A requirement to weigh all catch.
With your support of these measures, and our continued commitment to restoring inshore habitat, we can
promote the recovery of our river herring and shad runs and ensure their survival for many generations to
come. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on this important fishery management plan.

Signed,
Alpha Adventures, Inc
Capt. Adrian Mason
New York

Natural Resources Protective Association
Jim Scarcella
Director
Staten Island, New York

Audubon New York
Sean Mahar
Director of Government Relations
and Communications
Albany, New York

Peconic Baykeeper
Kevin McAllister
Baykeeper & President
Quogue, New York

Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Adrienne Esposito
Executive Director
Farmingdale, New York

Scenic Hudson, Inc.
Sacha Spector, PhD
Director of Conservation Science
Poughkeepsie, NY

Environment New York
David Van Luven
State Director
New York, New York

Seatuck Environmental Association
Enrico G. Nardone, Esq.
Executive Director
Islip, New York

Friends of the Bay
Patricia Aitken
Executive Director

Shark Angels
Jamie Pollack
Director

Hudson Riverkeeper
Joshua S. Verleun
Staff Attorney
Ossining, New York

Sierra Club, Long Island Group
Bill Stegemann
Conservation Chair

Natural Resources Defense Council
Brad Sewell
Senior Attorney
New York, New York

cc. Governor Cuomo
Dr. Chris Moore

Wildlife Conservation Society
John F. Calvelli
Executive Vice President for Public Affairs
Bronx, New York

G. Warren Elliott
822 Shatzer Orchard Road
Chambersburg, PA 17202

John Arway, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Comm.
1601 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9299

David Miko, Chief
Division of Fisheries Mgmt.
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Comm.
450 Robinson Lane
Bellefonte, PA 16823-9616

June 4, 2012
Dear Council Members:
We represent Pennsylvania fishermen, businesses, and conservation organizations concerned about the
incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad each year at sea. We are writing to request that the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council (“MAFMC”) take the lead on management of river herring and
American shad in federal waters where the bulk of this at-sea catch is occurring. Amendment 14 to the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, should include robust, science-based
conservation and management measures that provide coastwide protection for these depleted species.
Pennsylvania’s river communities are culturally connected with our state’s historic river herring and shad
runs. Their spring return once provided opportunities for recreational fishing, supported in-river commercial
fisheries into central Pennsylvania that in turn sustained small river towns, and filled our estuaries with a
staple food for wildlife. Many of us have spent countless hours working to restore river herring and shad
habitat in Pennsylvania. Our state and local governments have devoted millions of dollars towards restoring
our river herring and shad runs by regulating pollution and restoring spawning grounds. The initial effort in
our state’s shad restoration began in 1866 with the formation of what is today the Pennsylvania Fish and
Boat Commission. In fact, shad restoration was the driving force behind the formation of the
Commission. As part of our historic commitment to restore these forage fish, Pennsylvania imposed a
moratorium earlier this year on recreational and commercial fishing for river herring and similar restrictions
on American shad are imminent. But, more work needs to be done in federal waters to recover these depleted
fish, most importantly new monitoring, bycatch reduction, and bycatch limitation measures.
In federal waters, the incidental catch of river herring and shad remains a serious concern, and impedes their
recovery. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center estimates that industrial trawlers operating in federal
waters catch millions of river herring and shad every year. Immediate action is needed to curb the catch of
these depleted species at sea. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has long understood the
importance of these fish to our state’s recreational fisheries and river ecology. We are asking you to break
the logjam on protecting river herring and shad and ensure that Amendment 14 has robust management
measures that protect river herring and shad throughout their range in federal waters, including:
• Incorporation of river herring and shad as stocks within the federal fishery management plan for Atlantic
mackerel, squid and butterfish. This action would afford river herring and shad direly needed
conservation and management measures in federal waters.
• An interim cap or limit in 2013 on river herring and shad catch in federal waters.
• 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips, including assigning one observer to
each vessel in a pair trawl operation. This fleet of approximately 20 mid-water trawl vessels is
responsible for over 70% of combined river herring and shad incidental catch.
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of unsampled catch. All
catch must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling.
• A requirement to weigh all catch.
With your support of these measures, and our continued commitment to restoring inshore habitat, we can
promote the recovery of our river herring and shad runs and ensure their survival for many generations to
come. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on this important fishery management plan.

Signed,
Melinda Hughes-Wert, President
Nature Abounds
Clearfield, PA

Donna Smith-Remick, President
Friends of Poquessing Watershed
Philadelphia, PA

Michael Helfrich, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper
Stewards of Lower Susquehanna, Inc. (SOLS)
York, PA
Thomas Y. Au, Conservation Chair
Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Chapter
Harrisburg, PA

Steve Oliphant
Susquehanna Outfitters
Harrisburg, PA

Tom Fuhrman
Lake Erie Region Conservancy
Erie, PA

Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania State Director
Clean Water Action
Pittsburgh, PA

Bart Larmouth, Manager
FFF Certified Casting Instructor
Delaware River Club
Starlight, PA

Dorsey D. O’Connell, Assistant Secretary
Beaver Creek Anglers, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA

Scott McDonough, President
Delaware River Fishermen's Association
Philadelphia, PA

Steve Stroman, Policy Director
Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture)
Harrisburg, PA

Bob Hetz, Nursery Manager
3-C-U Trout Association
Fairview, PA

Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., Executive Director
Clean Air Council
Philadelphia, PA
Brenda L. Smith, Executive Director
Nine Mile Run Watershed Association
Pittsburgh, PA

Rev. Dr. A. Glenn Williams, President
Anderson Creek Watershed Association
Curwensville, PA
James E. Jordan, Jr., Executive Director
Brandywine Valley Association
Red Clay Valley Association
West Chester, PA

Victoria Laubach, Executive Director
Green Valleys Association of Southeastern PA
Pottstown, PA

Phil Wallis, Executive Director
John James Audubon Center at Mill Grove
Audubon, PA

Christopher M. Kocher, President
Wildlands Conservancy
Emmaus, PA

Diane M. Lengle, President
Lower Penns Creek Watershed Association
New Berlin, PA

Mike Ansel, Vice-President
Cocalico Sportsmen Association
Denver, PA

Steven Brugger, Owner
Lake Erie Ultimate Angler
Erie, PA

Jerry Potocnak, President
Arrowhead Chapter Trout Unlimited
Sarver, PA

Beverly Braverman, Executive Director
Mountain Watershed Association
Melcroft, PA

Linda Sieber, Chair
Sherman’s Creek Conservation Association
Shermansdale, PA

Katie Donnelly, Associate Director
Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership
Philadelphia, PA

Homer S. Wieder, Chairman
Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition for Environmental Studies
Lewisburg, PA

Patrick Grenter, Esq., Executive Director
Center for Coalfield Justice
Washington, PA

Larry Gould, President
Tobyhanna Creek/Tunkhannock Creek Watershed Association
Pocono Lake, PA

Adam Garber, Field Director
PennEnvironment
Philadelphia, PA

Pam Brown, Conservation Director
French & Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust
Phoenixville, PA

Cc: Governor Corbett

June 4, 2012
Christopher M. Moore
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 North State Street, Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901
via email [email protected]
Re: DEIS for Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery
Management Plan
Dear Dr. Moore:
The Nature Conservancy offers the following comments on the DEIS for Amendment 14 to the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.
The mission of The Nature Conservancy (the Conservancy) is to conserve the lands and waters on
which all life depends. With the support of more than one million members, the Conservancy has
protected more than 120 million acres and 5,000 river miles around the world. We currently run
more than 150 marine conservation projects in 32 countries and every coastal state in the U.S.
Through its work with both freshwater and marine species and habitats, the Conservancy helps to
connect terrestrial, freshwater and marine conservation efforts by building on the Conservancy's
network of partners and innovative approaches developed at sites around the world to pursue
integrated coastal conservation. Shad and river herring provide a vital link in both freshwater and
marine food webs and require an integrated conservation approach that crosses habitats and
political boundaries. They are a focus of our work all along the Atlantic coast, under a
comprehensive restoration strategy that aims to address access to and from spawning habitats and
habitat restoration, as well as fishing rates.
River herring and American shad populations are at historic lows and have shown little sign of
recovery despite considerable efforts to improve river habitat and protect remaining populations.
Bycatch in federal waters is likely to be an important factor affecting river herring and shad
rebuilding efforts and we urge the MAFMC to adopt measures to monitor and reduce incidental
catch of these species.
Alternative Set 1 and 2: Reporting Measures
The Nature Conservancy supports measures that improve catch reporting and accounting for all
catch, including river herring species. We support VTR submissions required on a weekly basis
Page 1 of 3
Comments from The Nature Conservancy on Draft Amendment 14

throughout all MSB fisheries, 72-hour pre-trip notification for observer placement and 6-hr landing
notification. In addition, a mechanism is needed to provide accurate information on the weight of
fish taken, while allowing some flexibility to account for regional and gear differences.
Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
We support all of the alternatives that require vessels to cooperate with the observer program,
recognizing that these practices are currently the norm. There are currently no requirements or
disincentives for MSB-permitted vessels to avoid slipping hauls; we support increasing
accountability by establishing a cap on slippage events that results in trip termination after 5
slipped hauls.
Alternative Set 4 & 5: Port-side and At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
Effective monitoring is a foundation of management and monitoring/reporting in small mesh
fisheries must be improved. We support mandatory reporting coupled with monitoring programs
adequate to reliably estimate bycatch for the entire fishery. Due to their capacity to catch large
volumes of RH/S at once, the largest vessels are the highest priority for new investment in
monitoring. Smaller vessels also have an impact on RH/S mortality and require an appropriate
level of monitoring; Observer coverage needs to increase to adequately cover gear types, range, and
seasonality of MSB fisheries to 100% monitoring for large vessels and below .3 CV for SMBT.
Combinations of observers, portside, and (ultimately) electronic monitoring should be considered
to provide the most statistically valid and cost-effective data.
Alternative Set 6, 7, 8: River Herring Catch Caps and Closed Areas
A regulatory limit on RH/S mortality in ocean fisheries is a necessary incentive for full, continuous
participation in practices to reduce bycatch. With a cap there are many potential co-management
options, including examples like the SFC/SMAST bycatch avoidance project. The Conservancy is a
funding partner in the project. This project should continue and the information derived from this
project used to inform the development of management measures and harvest practices to avoid
RH/S bycatch. Ultimately, the Council should establish a biologically based cap on RH/S mortality;
however until that happens, an interim approach for limiting RH/S bycatch is needed.
The lack of consensus between the FMAT and PDT on the best approach points to tradeoffs between
the costs and benefits of caps and closed areas. The most important consideration is that the poor
condition of RH/S coastwide is clear, even without formal reference points, and mortality must be
reduced. It is highly unlikely that up to 5 million river herring and 600,000 shad annually represent
a sustainable level of catch at sea.
An interim catch cap based on recent catches would at least begin to address the problem of
excessive mortality. Given that both river herring and shads are impacted by bycatch, caps for both
groups of species are needed. Due to high co-incidence of river herring and shad bycatch, the areas
identified in the spatial management alternatives could work for both.
It would make most sense to have a fleet-area cap (e.g., midwater trawls in MidAtlantic) rather than using the regulatory definition of a "Mackerel" or "Herring" trip to define
vessels that are subject to the cap. Amendment 5 contains provisions for a cap to be added later.

Page 2 of 3
Comments from The Nature Conservancy on Draft Amendment 14

Significant biological and genetic research is currently taking place to assess the impact of
nearshore bycatch events on populations of shad and river herring. It is important that as many
provisions as possible be frameworkable or handled in specifications to allow for adaptive
management to meet the goal of reducing bycatch and increasing RH/S populations.
Alternative Set 9: Adding RH/S as ‘‘Stocks in the Fishery’’ in the MSB FMP.
The poor condition of RH/S, and the fact that significant numbers of these species are caught in
Federal-water fisheries, suggests that extension of provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act, such as
ACLs, EFH, and rebuilding timeframes may be warranted. In any case, it is critical to adopt
measures to monitor and reduce incidental catch of these species, as described above, to
complement state waters conservation measures.
We applaud the Councils and ASMFC for their efforts to create a unified approach to bycatch
reduction across habitats and jurisdictions. Due to the important role of these species as forage
fish, we look forward to articulation of ecosystem level goals and objectives informed by the
ongoing work of the ecosystem subcommittee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee.
The Conservancy welcomes the opportunity to work with the MAFMC, NEFMC, ASMFC and other
partners to support appropriate funding to quantify bycatch in ocean fisheries, as well as for funds
needed to implement recommendations for conservation and restoration of habitats for
diadromous fishes.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the scoping document for Amendment 14. If
you have any questions, please contact Alison Bowden at 617-532-8360 or [email protected].
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to collaborating with the Council in
supporting improved management of the SMB and Atlantic herring fisheries as well as recovery
efforts for river herring and other species.
Sincerely,

Lise A. Hanners, Ph.D
Director of Conservation, Eastern U.S. Conservation Division

Page 3 of 3
Comments from The Nature Conservancy on Draft Amendment 14

June 4, 2012
Dr. Christopher Moore
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 N. State Street
Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901

Mr. Daniel Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
Northeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298

RE: AMENDMENT 14
Dear Dr. Moore:
The Pew Environment Group has collected 27,981 comments in response to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Specifically, these comments ask the Council to:
•
•

•

Include river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery. (Alternative 9b-9e).
Adopt the following interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch
of river herring and shad: A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c) that
functions effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be
circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery.
Incorporate all of the following:
o 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips. One
observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation.
(Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).
o An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled
catch. All catch, including "operational discards", must be made available to
fishery observers for systematic sampling (Alternative 3j with operational
discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a fleet wide limit of 10
dumping events (Alternative 3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to
take an observer on their next trip (Alternative 3o).
o A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f). I have attached the
comment letter that was signed by each person on the attached list.

I have attached a list with the name, city and state of each person who signed the attached letter.
Thank you,

Theresa Labriola,
Senior Associate, Northeast Fisheries Program
Pew Environment Group
Pew Environment Group | The Pew Charitable Trusts
59 Temple Place, Suite 1114 | Boston, MA 02111| p: 617.728.0300
www.PewEnvironment.org

June 4, 2012
Dr. Christopher Moore
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 N. State Street
Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901

Mr. Daniel Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
Northeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298

Dear Mr. Daniel Morris and Mr. Chris Moore:
For years, our coastal communities have worked tirelessly to restore culturally and economically
significant species such as river herring and shad to rivers along the Atlantic coast. At the same time,
the incidental catch of millions of river herring and shad annually by the mid-Atlantic mackerel and
squid fisheries remains largely unmonitored and unregulated. I am concerned about this serious,
ongoing threat to these already-depleted species that undermines our efforts to restore our estuaries
and rivers.
River herring and shad populations are at historic lows and have declined coastwide by 99 and 97
percent, respectively. In response to this, most Atlantic states prohibit the taking of river herring in
coastal waters and are advancing similar restrictions on American shad. These populations are in dire
need of conservation and management, so it is critical that they are given protection in federal waters
under Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. In
light of the depleted status of these fish, the Council should choose the option with the most positive
biological impact:
Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery. (Alternative 9b-9e).
Developing the long-term protections associated with designating river herring and shad as stocks in
the fishery will take time. Therefore, the Council should adopt the following interim measure to
immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch of river herring and shad:
• A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c) that functions effectively, does not increase
wasteful discarding, and cannot be circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These
alternatives should be modified to more effectively ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops if a
cap is reached by lowering the amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed or retained.
I strongly urge you to also incorporate all of the following:
• 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips. One observer must be assigned
to each vessel in a pair trawl operation. (Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled catch. All catch,
including "operational discards", must be made available to fishery observers for systematic
sampling (Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a
fleet wide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take
an observer on their next trip (Alternative 3o).
• A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your commitment to these priority reforms.
Sincerely,

First Name
Merritt
charlene
Angelo
Steven
Gerald
Tasha
Ronn
barbara
Jessica
sybille
shamarie
deanna
Annie
Maija
karen

Last Name
Andruss
austin
Barry
Bergt
Brookman
Brooks
Brown
brown
Bush
castro
coomler
cox
Dlima
Dreimane
dupont

City
Juneau
anchorage ak
Anchorage
Anchorage
Kenai
EAGLE RIVER
Wasilla
wasilla
Anchorage
Kenai
WASILLA
Ketichikan
Apo
Anchorage
Wasilla

State
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK

alyssa

enyart

Anchorage

AK

Linda
Cecile
Louis
Hugh
Jelena
corinna
Melissa
Ken
NINA
Yvonne
Jessica
Rita

Falcone
Ferrell
Fisher
Fleischer
Fliehman
forbrich
Frost
Gibb
GONDOS
Gonzalez
Grantier
Hendrickson

Homer
Ketchikan
Elfin Cove
Anchorage
Homer
Güstrow
Eagle River
Anchorage
FRANKSTON
ANCHORAGE
Anchorage
Anchorage

AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK

Janeen
Kevin
Zara
BRADY
Elizabeth
Sherry
Karlene

Herr
Howell
Ivanova
JACKSON III
Jacobs
Kimmons
Kotulak

Anchorage
North Pole
Anchorage
PALMER
Anchorage
Wasilla
Anchorage

AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK

Charlotte
christel
Dee
Flo
Bonnie
malia
Casey
Pam
Ralph

Lee
ling
Longenbaugh
Madriaga
McCartney
mcinerney
Muir
Nelson
Newball

Anchorage
COPPER CENTER
Juneau
ANCHORAGE
Anchorage
juneau
Chugiak
Juneau
Old Providence Island

AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK

Comments

We are all subject to the food chain. Enough of
the race off of the cliff mentality!
Dolphins are amazing creatures who deserve
respect the save the life of human beings. If Japan
dosn't want the dolphins there america would
love to have them in their sea. aquirems should'nt
be here the animals deserve to be free!

Because I live on this planet and do not want to
destroy any fishery

its important to retain balance, you cannot retain
balance if you consume faster than growth.

Natural Resources Defense Council
th

40 West 20 Street
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 727-2700
Fax: (212) 727-1773

Via Email ([email protected]) and U.S. Mail
June 1, 2012
Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 N. State St., Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901
Re: Comments on Amendment 14 to the Mackerel, Squid & Butterfish FMP
Dear Dr. Moore,
Please accept the following comments from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on
Amendment 14 to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (MAFMC’s or Council’s)
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP). We commend the
MAFMC for initiating this management action to protect severely depleted populations of river
herring and shad from further decline and to begin rebuilding these populations to healthy
levels. The status of these species, combined with significant unregulated fishing mortality in
the MSB fishery, requires robust and immediate conservation and management in federal
waters. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 14 sets out a suite
of measures that, if adopted, could address current management gaps.
For the reasons stated below, we believe that the Council and NMFS are legally obligated to
designate and manage river herring and shad as “stocks in the fishery.” As implementing
management measures resulting from this decision will take a period of time, we also believe
that, in the interim, a number of proposed management actions to provide monitoring and
accounting for river herring and shad fishing mortality, and limiting that mortality to sustainable
levels, are necessary. Accordingly, we urge the Council to select the following actions:




Designate and manage river herring and shad as “stocks in the fishery” (Actions 9b-9e).
Implement mortality caps for river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel fishery
(Actions 6b-6c) and permit the setting of mortality caps through framework actions
(Action 6f).
Adopt 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips (Action 5b4)
and require at least one observer to each vessel in a pair trawl operation (Action 3d).

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP





June 1, 2012

Ensure all catch is made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling (Action
3j), include a fleet-wide limit of 10 dumping events (Actions 3l and 3n), and require
vessels that dump to take an observer on their next trip (Alternative 3o).
Require dealers to weigh all catch (Actions 2c-2f) and to obtain vessel representative
confirmation of landings (Action 2b).
Require weekly vessel trip reports (Action 1c), vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (Actions
1eMack and 1eLong), and daily VMS reports (Actions 1fMack and 1fLong).

River Herring and Shad Are Severely Depleted and Require Robust Federal Management
The four species of river herring and shad included in Amendment 14 – alewife, blueback
herring, American shad and hickory shad (hereafter collectively referred to as river herring and
shad) – are severely depleted and in need of conservation and management. For example, river
herring catch levels have plunged almost 99 percent from pre-1970 levels and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering designating the two species, which are already
on the agency’s “Species of Concern” list, as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.1
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has implemented moratoria on river
herring and shad fishing within state waters unless sustainability of such catch can be
demonstrated.
Recent stock assessments for river herring and shad have documented significant declines for
these species and have identified fishing mortality from ocean fisheries as contributing to these
declines. The 2011 river herring stock assessment concluded that 23 alewife and blueback
herring populations were depleted, one stock was increasing, and the status of 28 other stocks
were unknown due to data limitations.2 The stock assessment report found that additional
management is required:
“Due to the poor condition of many river herring stocks, management actions
to reduce total mortality are needed. These could include reductions in
directed commercial or recreational fishery mortalities, reductions in total
incidental catch (retained and discarded fish), habitat restoration, and
improvements in upriver and downstream fish passage.”3
The most recent American shad stock assessment also found severely-depleted population
levels, as the DEIS for Amendment 14 summarizes:
“The 2007 American shad stock assessment found that stocks were at all-time
lows and did not appear to be recovering to acceptable levels. It identified the
primary causes for the continued stock declines as a combination of excessive
1

76 Fed. Reg. 67652 (Nov. 2, 2011).
ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION (ASMFC), River Herring Stock Assessment Overview (May 2012).
3
ASFMC, Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume I, Section C,
River Herring Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review,” at 58 (May 2012).
2

2

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

total mortality, habitat loss and degradation, and migration and habitat access
impediments. Although improvement has been seen in a few stocks, many
remain severely depressed compared to their historic levels.”4
Various factors have contributed to the severe decline of river herring and shad populations
along the Atlantic. While the relative contribution of each of these sources to the decline is
difficult to estimate precisely, it is beyond dispute that fishing mortality from the oceanintercept fishery continues to play a significant role. Incidental catch of river herring and shad
by ocean-intercept fisheries – averaging an estimated 459 metric tons of river herring and 63
metric tons of shad per year – comprises a substantial share of overall fishing mortality of these
species.5 By comparison, from 2005-2010, river herring and shad landings averaged 601 and
581 metric tons, respectively.6
The DEIS for Amendment 14 recognizes the following shortcomings of current management of
river herring and shad:





Low levels of catch monitoring, resulting in relatively high uncertainty about incidental
catch of river herring and shad,
MSB fisheries “may be negatively impacting [river herring and shad] populations,”
No limits on incidental catch of river herring and shad in federal fisheries, and
Existing federal/state/regional management framework “may be insufficient to
adequately conserve river herring and shad stocks.7

Amendment 14 also recognizes many of the benefits that would result from the recovery of
river herring and shad stocks, including: additional commercial and recreational fishing
opportunities, an expanded forage base for important species like striped bass, and the
preservation of cultural heritage, non-market existence value and subsistence fishing for Native
American communities.8 Improved federal management could help realize these benefits
through a combination of improved stock assessments, more precise reference points, a better
understanding of the relative contribution of various factors for decline of river herring and
shad, reduced incidental catch, precisely tailored annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
measures (AMs), and enabling the protection of essential fish habitat.
River Herring and Shad Must Be Designated as Stocks in the Fishery
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs include all “conservation and management
measures” that are “necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the
fishery, to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and
4

MID-ATLANTIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB)
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (April 2012) (Amendment 14), at 213.
5
Id., at 222.
6
Id.
7
Id., at 189.
8
Id., at 442-43.

3

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery.”9 As described above, the significant
decline in river herring and shad populations, coupled with the lack of management for
unregulated incidental catch in the ocean-intercept fishery, demonstrates that federal
conservation and management is both necessary and appropriate. The specific management
measures required of all stocks in the fishery (e.g., annual catch limits, accountability measures,
and essential fish habitat designation) are essential to the conservation of these species,
including by improving fishing mortality accountability, improved monitoring and data
collection, and additional resources for stock assessments and habitat protections. These are
all necessary ingredients of an adequate management regime for these species, without which
it is likely that the populations will remain severely depleted and at risk of further decline.
All FMPs and plan amendments must be consistent with the 10 National Standards established
in the MSA.10 National Standard 1 requires that all FMPs must “prevent overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery…”11 The overfishing limit,
defined under the National Standard 1 Guidelines as “a level of fishing mortality or annual total
catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing
basis,” is the upper limit on fishing mortality permitted.12 Optimum yield is a reduction in
fishing level from MSY to account for “any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor.”13
Fishing mortality, especially from the unregulated incidental ocean catch, may be resulting in
the overfishing of river herring and shad and preventing the achievement of optimum yield.
Failure to manage this important source of mortality for these species ignores the Council’s
obligation to account for relevant economic, social, and ecological factors in maintaining
optimum yield for the fishery. The closure of most commercial and recreational river herring
and shad fisheries up and down the East Coast has had significant adverse economic and social
impacts. The decline of river herring and shad populations continues to have a variety of
ecological impacts for other important fish species dependent on these species as forage.
Taken together, the lack of Federal management of these species prevents fishery managers
from maintaining optimum yield from each fishery and fails to prevent the overfishing of river
herring and shad.
National Standard 2 requires that “conservation and management measures shall be based
upon the best scientific information available.”14 The current DEIS for Amendment 14 was
prepared before the results of the latest river herring stock assessment were released, and thus
fail to consider this new scientific information in evaluating the various alternative actions,
including whether river herring must be managed as stocks in the fishery. Section 6.2.5
mentions the 2012 river herring assessment, but does not include an analysis of the status of
the stock based on that assessment. Although the stock assessment could not provide precise
biological reference points on a coast-wide basis for each species of river herring, and thus was
9

16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(1)(A).
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a).
11
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1).
12
50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(2)(i)(B), (D).
13
50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(3)(i)(A).
14
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(2).
10

4

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

unable to determine whether the species are currently overfished or subject to overfishing on a
coastwide basis, the assessment was able to determine that 23 of 24 assessed river herring
populations are depleted. In addition, at least ten river herring stocks have been specifically
determined to be “overfished.”15 The 2012 river herring assessment also concluded that
“management actions to reduce total mortality are needed...includ[ing] reductions in directed
commercial or recreational fishery mortalities, reductions in total incidental catch (retained and
discarded fish)…”16 Failure to consider this vital information, available at the time the DEIS was
made available for public comment and review by the MAFMC in preparation of its decision on
Amendment 14 at the June Council meeting, would violate the MSA, Administrative Procedure
Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
National Standard 3 requires that “…interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in
close coordination.”17 The MSA also requires that each Council prepare and submit to NMFS an
FMP and any amendments that may become necessary “for each fishery under its authority
that requires conservation and management.”18 According to a recent court decision on
Amendment 4 to the New England Atlantic Herring FMP, “[t]hat Section requires FMPs and
necessary amendments for all ‘stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of
conservation and management’ and which are in need of conservation and management.” 19
Consideration for determining whether stocks can be treated as a unit for purposes of
conservation and management are based on geographical, scientific, technical, recreational,
and economic characteristics.20 River herring and shad are caught in the same geographical
location using the same fishing gear as stocks in the MSB fishery. They are also interrelated
scientifically, as their ecological niches overlap with MSB species. For example, both river
herring and mackerel serve as prey for striped bass populations, meaning that a precipitous
decline in one population can have deleterious and unpredictable effects on the other. River
herring and shad have also supported an important recreational fishery up and down the
Atlantic coast that is directly affected by the currently unregulated incidental catch of these
species in the MSB fishery. Accordingly, river herring and shad should be managed within the
MSB fishery management unit.
National Standard 8 requires that conservation and management measures take into account
the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities, provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic
15

See ASMFC, Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume II (May
2012), at 412 (finding 9 of 15 river herring stocks in Maryland and the Upper Chesapeake Bay to be “overfished”);
id., at 549-550 (stating that the Chowan River blueback herring population “remains overfished” and is “less than
5% of the amount necessary to replace itself in the complete absence of fishing.”).
16
ASFMC, Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume I, Section C,
River Herring Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review,” at 58 (May 2012).
17
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(3). NMFS’s National Standard 3 Guidelines provide that stocks should be chosen to be
managed as a unit (i.e., as “stocks in the fishery”) based on biological, geographic, economic, technical, social, and
ecological factors. 50 C.F.R. § 600.320(d)(1)(i)-(vi).
18
16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(1).
19
Flaherty v. Bryson, 1:11-cv-00660-GK at 30 (D.D.C. 03/09/12) (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1802(13)(a), 1852(h)(1)).
20
16 U.S.C. § 1802(13)

5

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

impacts on such communities.21 The DEIS for Amendment 14 includes a description of the
biology of river herring and shad in Section 6.2, but related description of the socio-economic
background of the directed river herring and shad fisheries are absent from Section 6.7, which
includes such information for mackerel, squid, and butterfish. Failure to account for, and
minimize to the extent practicable, the social and economic impacts of actions being
considered under Amendment 14 on the historically-important river herring and shad fisheries,
many of which have been closed due to stock depletion, would violate National Standard 8.
National Standard 9 requires that conservation and management measures minimize bycatch
and bycatch mortality “to the extent practicable.”22 According to the DEIS, practicability rests
on whether “a reduction in bycatch mortality would increase the overall net benefit of that
fishery to the Nation through alternative uses of the bycatch species.”23 Based on this
interpretation, the Council should analyze the relative value of the incidental catch of river
herring in shad in the MSB fishery (e.g., the cost of reductions in mackerel and squid catch
necessary for different reductions in river herring and shad incidental catch) and the alternative
value and opportunity cost of those fish to inland directed fisheries and as prey for other
important fisheries. The DEIS currently lacks this information and fails to conduct any kind of
bycatch practicability analysis, as required by National Standard 9. The DEIS claims that
“[b]ecause information on how much RH/S catch might be sustainable is lacking, it is not
currently possible to quantify the impact on RH/S stocks of any catch reductions that may
occur…”24 While it is true that further analysis will be required to determine precisely what
level of fishing mortality is adequate to prevent overfishing, rebuild the stock, and ensure
sustainability of the resource, this need not prevent the Council from evaluating the relative
value of river herring and shad as incidental catch in the ocean-intercept fishery, as catch in the
directed inland fisheries and as forage in the ecosystem. Well established scientific modeling
methods, such as “Ecopath” and “Ecosim,” exist for quantifying the value of forage fish both as
an economic commodity and as ecological support for other species in the ecosystem, as were
recently used in the April 2012 Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force Report.25
The MSA explicitly requires, “within each Council’s geographical area of authority,” that NMFS
“identify those fisheries that are overfished or are approaching a condition of being
overfished.”26 For any species determined to be overfished or approaching an overfished
condition, NMFS is required to establish an FMP, plan amendment, or proposed regulations.27
As stated above, the most recent stock assessment for river herring, which was published after
the current DEIS for Amendment 14 appears to have been drafted, lists 23 populations as
21

16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(8).
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9).
23
Amendment 14, at 112 (quoting National Marine Fisheries Service, “What is Bycatch,” available at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_whatis.htm).
24
Amendment 14, at 477.
25
LENFEST FORAGE FISH TASKFORCE, Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs (April 2012), available at
http://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/files/Little%20Fish,%20Big%20Impact.pdf.
26
16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(1).
27
16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(3).
22

6

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

“depleted.”28 The most recent shad assessment found “that stocks were at all-time lows and
did not appear to be recovering to acceptable levels.”29 The ASFMC lists both river herring and
shad as “depleted on a coast-wide basis.”30 Although there are many factors contributing to
the depleted status of these stocks, fishing mortality, especially from the unregulated oceanintercept fishery, remains a significant factor preventing these species from recovering. As the
Advisory Report from the latest river herring stock assessment explains: “Determining the
relative contribution of various factors to this mortality is difficult given the limited data, but it
is likely that a number of factors will need to be addressed, including fishing (both in-river and
ocean bycatch)…”31 The prospects for the recovery of river herring and shad are dependent on
controlling fishing mortality. NMFS and the Council have a statutory obligation to identify to
what extent river herring and shad are overfished or approaching an overfished condition and
to enact conservation and management measures that are necessary and appropriate to
prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the longterm health and stability of the fishery.32
The DEIS states that the Council must answer two key questions in determining whether to add
river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery:
1. Is the current management framework is sufficient to conserve river herring and shad
stocks?
2. Can federal management by the Council improve management of river herring and shad
enough to justify the management cost burden?
On the first question, there is abundant evidence that the current management framework is
insufficient. The stocks are at all-time low population levels that are no longer capable of
supporting historically important inland fisheries, resulting in consideration of the two river
herring species for ESA listing, yet one of the largest sources of mortality of these stocks
remains completely unregulated. We respectfully disagree that “the Council could achieve
much of what it would do for [river herring and shad] informally outside of federal FMP
management.”33 As the Council makes clear in its discussion of the benefits of managing river
herring and shad as stocks in the fishery, choosing not to manage these stocks would mean less
support for improving stock assessments, less precise reference points, a weaker understanding
of the reasons for the stocks’ declines, a lack of ACLs and AMs, no requirement to end and
prevent overfishing, to attain optimum yield, or to develop rebuilding plans, and weaker
measures to identify and protect essential fish habitat.

28

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION (ASMFC), River Herring Stock Assessment Overview (May 2012).
A14, at 213.
30
ASFMC, Overview of Stock Status of River Herring and Shad, available at
http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/shad_RiverHerring_StockStatus.pdf.
31
ASFMC, Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment, Volume I, Section A,
River Herring Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review,” at 25 (May 2012).
32
16 U.S.C. §§ 1854(e)(1), (e)(3); 1853(a)(1)(A).
33
Amendment 14, at 447.
29

7

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

Regarding the second question, if there were no clear benefits of including river herring and
shad in federal management and the costs prohibitively high, then it clearly would not make
sense to move forward with this action. But, this is far from the case here. There is an urgent
and legally-mandated need to reduce currently unmanaged ocean fishing mortality of these
species and the incremental administrative cost increases that come with additional
management responsibility are not prohibitive. The type of cost-benefit analysis proposed by
the Council is the wrong metric here, as the MSA does not impose a cost-benefit analysis for
determining what conservation measures are required to end overfishing, rebuild overfished
populations, and protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of the
fishery.34 In addition, the socio-economic costs to historically-important inland river herring
and shad fisheries, and other fisheries that depend on these species for forage have not been
fully accounted for in the DEIS.
Adopt Mortality Caps for River Herring and Shad
We recommend that the Council immediately implement mortality caps for river herring and
shad in the Atlantic mackerel fishery (Actions 6b-6c). We also recommend that such a cap be
implemented jointly with the Atlantic herring fishery under the management of the NEFMC.
Both the DEIS and the FMAT Report explain why adopting a mortality cap in only one of these
fisheries would not accomplish the goals of effectively reducing bycatch of river herring and
shad because of the close association of the Atlantic mackerel and herring fisheries.35 On a
procedural level, we also recommend that the setting of mortality caps be permitted to be
done as a framework action rather than a full FMP amendment (Action 6f).
Expand Observer Coverage and Other Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
We urge the Council to adopt 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips
(Action 5b4) and require at least one observer to each vessel in a pair trawl operation (Action
3d). To maximize the efficacy of expanded observer coverage, all catch must be made available
to fishery observers for systematic sampling (Action 3j). A fleet-wide limit of 10 dumping
events should be established (Actions 3l and 3n) and vessels that dump should be required to
take an observer on their next trip (Alternative 3o). We recommend that dealers be required
to weigh all catch (Actions 2c-2f) and to obtain vessel representative confirmation of landings
(Action 2b). Finally, to improve data collection, mackerel and longfin squid vessels should be
required to submit weekly vessel trip reports (Action 1c) and daily VMS reports (Actions
1fMack, 1fLong, 1eMack, and 1eLong).

34

Courts have concluded that “the purpose of the Act is clearly to give conservation of fisheries priority over shortterm economic interests.” NRDC v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872, 879 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “the Act sets this
priority in part because the longer-term economic interests of fishing communities are aligned with the
conservation goals set forth in the Act.”); see also NRDC v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding that
NOAA “must give priority to conservation measures”).
35
Amendment 14, 374; FMAT Report, at 640.

8

NRDC Comments on Amendment 14 to the MAFMC’s MSB FMP

June 1, 2012

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter and for your consideration
of our recommendations.
Very Truly Yours,

David Newman, Oceans Program Attorney
Brad Sewell, Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10011
212‐727‐4557
[email protected]
cc:

MAFMC Members
Daniel Morris, Acting Regional Administrator, NMFS NERO

9

June 4, 2012
Dr. Christopher Moore
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 N. State Street
Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901

Mr. Daniel Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
Northeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298

RE: AMENDMENT 14
Dear Dr. Moore:
The Pew Environment Group has collected an additional 9,804 comments in response to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Specifically, these comments ask the Council to:
•
•

•

Include river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery. (Alternative 9b-9e).
Implement he following interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch
of river herring and shad: A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c), that
functions effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be circumvented
by simply declaring into another fishery. These alternatives should be modified to more
effectively ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is reached by lowering the
amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed, or retained.
Incorporate all of the following:
o 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips. One observer
must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation (Alternative 5b4 and
Alternative 3d).
o An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled catch.
All catch, including "operational discards," must be made available to fishery
observers for systematic sampling (Alternative 3j with operational discards
prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a fleetwide limit of 10 dumping events
(Alternative 3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their
next trip (Alternative 3o).
o A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).

I have attached a list with the name, city and state of each person who signed the attached letter.
Thank you,
Theresa Labriola,
Senior Associate, Northeast Fisheries Program
Pew Environment Group
Pew Environment Group | The Pew Charitable Trusts
59 Temple Place, Suite 1114 | Boston, MA 02111| p: 617.728.0300
www.PewEnvironment.org

' 
4+
2012



$-
$%&!"$
!!$

.& &
%$*
  &

!' 

700

-
&&
&$&

'&
201

!($+

18801

$-
 
!$$%

& 
! 
 %&$&!$

!$&%&
!

&! 
$ 
%$%
$(

55
$&
"'
$(

!'%&$+

01830.2287

,




14
















 





$
$-
!!$,

!$
*$%+
!'$
!%&
!' &%
(
)!$
&$%%*
&!
$%&!$
'&'$*
 

! !*
%  &
%"%
%'
%
$($
$$ 
 
%
&!
$($%
! 
&

& &
!%&-
&
&
%
&+
&
  &
&
!
! %
!
$($
$$ 
 

%
 '*
*
&
.& &
$
 
%#'
%$%
$ %
$*

' ! &!$
 
' $'&-



! $ 
!'&
&%
%$!'%+
! ! 
&$&
&!

&%
$*."&
%"%
&&
' $ %
!$&%
&!
$%&!$
!'$
%&'$%
 

$($%-


($
$$ 
 
%
"!"'&! %
$
&
%&!$
!)%+
 
  %
(
 

!%&)
*
88
 
86
"$ &+
$%"&(*-


$%"! %+
!%&
& &
%&&%

"$!&
&
& 
!
$($
$$ 

!%&
)&$%
 
$
(  
%$

$%&$&! %
!
$
%-
%
"!"'&! %
$

$

!
! %$(&!

 
  &+
%!
&
%
$&
&&
&*
$
(
"$!&&!

$
)&$%

' $
  &
14
&!
&
& &
$+
#'+
 
'&&$%
%$*

  &
 -
'%
&%
%
(

"&
%!
%($*+
&
!' 

%!'
!!%
&
!"&!
)&
&
!%&
"!%&(
!!
"&,




















(!" 
&
! .&$
"$!&&! %
%%!&
)&
&%
% &!
)
&
&-

$!$+
&
!' 
%!'
!"&
&
!!) 
 &$
%'$
&!
&*

$'
 
&
&
&.%
&
!
$($
$$ 
 
%,

//
&
"+
&(

2013

+
&&
' &! %
&(*+
!%

!&
 $%
)%&'
%$ +
 
 !&

$'( &
*
%"*
$ 

 &!
 !&$
%$*-
%
&$ &(%
%!'

!
&!
!$
&(*

 %'$
&&
$&
$
% 
%&!"%


"
%
$
*
!)$ 
&

!' &
!
$
&&


%
!$+
"!%%%%+
!$
$& -
















##&%%



!




 !









































##




















 
$

 $


















"




























&%










































##















































&(+,,1
"&
, %
(%
% ##
&++(
((
(&"(
8(0
(+#
+# 
'( )
)+'% 
 
%%+
&(+%)&%
%
)0

((0
$ +

0
(&.%
 %
+(&%

0%%
(.&% +
 ##
&%"0
 $(#0
&+
,)%
"
+'%

. )
&,(+%0
#)"
$
#&1
$0
'($
'( % +&
(. "
'( #
,))##
( )+&'(

%# $

,(
8&%%##
.%
&&( 

&$')&%
%

%!+&- 
%(!
*++(+
&#%
 ++) ("
,0
-&%%

0%%
 )&%#+
,,#
 )(
+(
(%0
 #%
.(1
 0##
#+(

)# 
$##
(+%
#/"&)

(%
(  (&
# )+
&1"%
&%
0(
"0
(0%+
, +
& %)
.0%



=>
+(+
55
D=D
>>
-

%.
( +&%
(%

?C
&/
>=E=
===B<
&) "&
#
==D<
("
-
9
>
=>@>D
 %+(
("
 (
=??=
&%)

=E@<<
()#0
0
>?@@=
,# "
(
>B=<

@>%
-
'+
=
>BE
 )
(
?<@
&0)
+
?=<<
&($
 (
???A
&%))
#-
@@?=
 %,(
(
A=<<
 ( #
-
AC=B
%%0 ##
(
AE?

&#)+)
.0
5
B<>=<
(
("
(
CA?E
)+(&&"
 (
E
&(+
&,#)

5
55
&/
<=EE
55&/4
B?=B

&/
B=EC

&/
C>C
(,
&%&
(#
#-()
&)+
@?
1$"
)&"5
%&4D6=<
 +
'+5
=<<
=
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:32 PM
Didden, Jason T.
Fwd: Protect Threatened River Herring and Shad

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Melissa Rothenberger
Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Subject: Protect Threatened River Herring and Shad
To: [email protected]

Jun 4, 2012
Amendment 14 Comments
Dear Comments,
For years, New York and other coastal states and communities along the
Atlantic coast have worked tirelessly to restore culturally and
economically significant species such as river herring and shad to
rivers along the coast. At the same time, the incidental catch of
millions of river herring and shad annually by the mid-Atlantic
mackerel and squid fisheries remains largely unmonitored and
unregulated. I am concerned about this serious, ongoing threat to these
already-depleted species that undermines efforts to restore our
estuaries and rivers.
River herring and shad populations are at historic lows, and landings
have declined coast-wide by 99 and 97 percent, respectively. In New
York the Hudson River's historic shad fishery was recently closed to
protect dwindling populations and a similar fate for river herring is
likely. In addition, many other Atlantic states prohibit the taking of
river herring in coastal waters and are advancing similar restrictions
on American shad. These populations are in dire need of conservation
and management, so it is critical that they are given protection in
federal waters under Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Because these fish have been
depleted so severely, the council should choose the option with the
most positive biological impact:
Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery
(Alternative 9b-9e).
Developing the long-term protections associated with this designation
will take time. Therefore, the council should adopt the following
interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch of
river herring and shad:
1

**A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c), that functions
effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding, and cannot be
circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These
alternatives should be modified to more effectively ensure that
directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is reached by lowering the
amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed, or retained.
I strongly urge you to also incorporate all of the following:
**100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips.
One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation
(Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).
**An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of
unsampled catch. All catch, including "operational discards,"
must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling
(Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is
allowed, include a fleetwide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 3l
and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their next
trip (Alternative 3o).
**A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your commitment to
these priority reforms.
Sincerely,
Ms. Melissa Rothenberger
PO Box 536
Brewster, NY 10509-0536
(845) 279-2995

2

Didden, Jason T.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

MSB Amendment14
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:35 PM
Didden, Jason T.
Fwd: Amendment 14 Comments

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Anna Minore
Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM
Subject: Amendment 14 Comments
To: [email protected]

May 30, 2012
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
800 N. State Street, Suite 201
Dover, DE 19901
Dear Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
River herring and shad populations are at historic lows.
In light of the depleted status of these fish, the Council should
choose the option with the most positive biological impact:
Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery.
(Alternative 9b-9e).
Developing the long-term protections associated with designating river
herring and shad as stocks in the fishery will take time. Therefore,
the Council should also adopt the following interim measure to
immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch of river herring and
shad:
* A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c)
In addition, I strongly urge you to incorporate the following:
* 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips.
One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation.
(Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).
* An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of
unsampled catch. All catch, including "operational discards",
must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling
(Alternative 3j with operational discards prohibited). If dumping is
allowed, include a fleet wide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative
3l and 3n) and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their
next trip (Alternative 3o).
1

* A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).
I like eating fish...and the big fish that I like to eat depend on the
over-all health of the water eco-system. I bet that your grandchildren
would like eating fish also. Maybe we should save some for them, eh?
Sincerely,
Anna Minore
32 Holiday Dr Apt 130
Kingston, PA 18704-5343

2

ALASKA

CALIFORNIA

NORTHWEST

FLORIDA

MID-PACIFIC

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

NORTHEAST

WASHINGTON, DC

NORTHERN ROCKIES
INTERNATIONAL

June 4, 2012

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Suite 201, 800 N. State St
Dover, DE 19901
[email protected]
RE:

Comments on Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery
Management Plan and Draft EIS (No. 20120106)

Dear Dr. Moore:
We are writing on behalf of the Herring Alliance1 to urge the Mid-Atlantic Council to approve
final management measures for inclusion in Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP) that immediately begin to recover and rebuild
river herring and shad populations. The existing fragmented management approach for these
species has left river herring and shad with no meaningful regulation in federal waters where
they are caught in the MSB fishery, with inadequate catch monitoring, no measures to minimize
incidental catch, and no catch limits. This has contributed to the severely depleted status of these
keystone species and left them in dire need of conservation and management.2 The National
Marine Fisheries Service is legally obligated to conserve and manage these depleted stocks in
federal waters, and the Mid-Atlantic Council should assume leadership in shaping this
management by selecting approving the following management measures:



Add river herring and shad as non-target stocks in the fishery. Alternative Set 9b-9e.
Implement immediate interim measures to reduce and limit incidental catch of river
herring and shads until the full suite of conservation and management measures to
integrate them as non-target stocks in the fishery is developed and implemented:
o Implement mortality caps for river herring and shads (alosines) in the mackerel
fishery. Modify the proposed caps to reduce the incidental mackerel catch allowable

1

The Herring Alliance includes 52 organizations representing nearly 2 million individuals. The Herring Alliance is
concerned about the status of the Atlantic coast’s forage fish (e.g., Atlantic herring, menhaden, and mackerel, river
herring and shads, butterfish, and squids), that play a critical role in the food web as prey to a large number of
predators, many of which support valuable recreational and commercial fisheries. A current list of Herring Alliance
members is attached to this letter. See membership at: www.herringalliance.org/alliance-members.
2
For example, the 2012 river herring stock assessment and peer review conclude that river herring are depleted, that
ocean catch is an issue, and that they require fisheries management. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02 of the
ASMFC Terms of Reference & Advisory Report of the River Herring Stock Assessment Peer Review, at 8, available
at: http://www.asmfc.org/meetings/2012SpringMtg/ShadandRiverHerringManagementBoard_2.pdf. Similarly, the
2007 the American Shad stock assessment and peer review concluded that shad populations have been declining in
abundance for years, are not recovering, and are in need of management actions addressing fishing impacts to the
species. See Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 of the ASMFC Terms of Reference and Advisory Report to the
American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review (2007) at 19, available at: http://www.asmfc.org/.
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE NW,
SUITE 702
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
T: 202.667.4500
F: 202.667.2356
E: [email protected]
W: www.earthjustice.org

to 2000 pounds per trip once the cap is exceeded and directed fishing for mackerel
stops. Combined and Modified Alternatives 6b and 6c, and Add mortality caps to
the list of frameworkable measures. Alternative 6f.
o Close river herring hotspots to directed squid and mackerel fishing. Close the “River
Herring Protection Areas” identified by the NEFMC in Amendment 5 to the Atlantic
Herring FMP. Modified Alternative 8eMack and Alternative 8eLong. Also create
a mechanism under which the larger “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas”
identified in Amendment 5 could be closed through a future Framework Adjustment.
Modified Alternative 8b.




Improve vessel reporting and catch monitoring program for all MSB permits, including
100% observer coverage for Mid-water trawl vessels in the Mackerel fishery, in order to
improve precision and accuracy in incidental catch estimates. Alternatives 1c, Modified
Alternative 1d48, Alternatives 1eMack & 1eLong, Modified Alternative1fMack,
Alternatives 1gMack & 1gLong; Modified Alternatives 2b, 2c, &2d, Alternatives 2e
&2f; Alternatives 3b & 3c, Modified Alternative 3d, Modified Alternative 3j,
Alternatives 3l, 3n, & 3o; Modified Alternative 5b4, Modified Alternatives 5c1 &
5c4, Modified Alternative 5d2, Modified Alternatives 5f, Alternative 5g, and
Modified Alternative 5h.
Include flexible management options, either through the specifications process or through
a framework option, to easily adapt management in the future.

Detailed comments are provided below. Where alternatives have been modified, the
modification is noted.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Roger Fleming
Roger Fleming, Attorney
Erica Fuller, Attorney
Earthjustice

2

Detailed Herring Alliance Comments
1. The Council Must Add River Herring and Shad to the MSB FMP
2.1.9 Alternative Set 9 – Addition of RH/S as “Stocks in the Fishery” in the MSB FMP
The Herring Alliance strongly supports the suite of options in Alternative Set 9b-9e that
add all four (4) species of river herring and shad (RH/S) to the MSB FMP and launch an
amendment process to add the additional measures necessary to fully integrate blueback
herring, alewife, American shad, and hickory shad as stocks in the fishery in the MSB
FMP.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires federal FMPs to describe the fish stocks involved in a
fishery, and NMFS and the councils to manage those stocks in need of conservation and
management. 3 FMPs must contain conservation and management measures consistent with the
National Standards, including National Standards One and Nine which requires management
measures that prevent overfishing and minimize bycatch.4 The Act also requires annual catch
limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for all stocks in the fishery.5 The National
Standard 1 Guidelines require councils to identify the stocks in the fishery, including the nontargeted stocks that are caught incidentally and retained or discarded at sea.6 Identification as a
stock in the fishery triggers federal annual catch limit (ACL) requirements and the standard

3

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires an FMP or an amendment for those fisheries requiring “conservation and
management.” See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(1); 1853(a)(2). For purposes of determining which target and non-target
stocks require conservation and management, the Act provides a definition of “conservation and management” at 16
U.S.C. § 1802(5). Id. at *1, fn 3. This definition should be looked to for guidance in making decision about what
stocks belong in a FMP, and refers to rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining “any fishery resource and the marine
environment,” assuring among other things, a food supply, recreational benefits, and avoiding long-term adverse
effects on fishery resources and the marine environment. National Standard 7 guidelines include a set of criteria for
determining whether a fishery needs management that tracks this statutory definition and other MSA objectives and
requirements, including examination of the condition of the stock or stocks of fish. The criteria also note that
“adequate” management by an entity like the ASMFC could be one factor in determining whether a stock should be
added to a fishery. In this case, although ASMFC management was noted by NMFS during briefing the Flaherty v.
Bryson case, the Court did not address it in its opinion because (as even NMFS recognized) the ASMFC plan does
not address federal waters.
4
16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1) & (9).
5
Id. § 1853(a)(15).
6
50 CFR § 600.310(d)(3), (4). A “fishery” is defined as “one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific,
technical, recreational, and economic characteristics.” Id. § 1802(13). A “stock of fish” is defined as a “species,
subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable of management as a unit.” Id. § 1802(42). The
National Standard One Guidelines provide additional guidance on the classification of the stocks in an FMP. See 50
C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1) (“Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(a)(2) requires that an FMP contain, among other
things, a description of the species of fish involved in the fishery. The relevant Council [in the first instance]
determines which specific target stocks and/or non-target stocks to include in a fishery” consistent with the Act’s
requirements. See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323, *14. The regulations define “target stocks” as “stocks that
fishers seek to catch for sale or personal use, including ‘economic discards’ as defined under Magnuson-Stevens Act
section 3(9),” and “non-target species” and “non-target stocks” as “fish caught incidentally during the pursuit of
target stocks in a fishery, including ‘regulatory discards’ as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(38).
They may or may not be retained for sale or personal use.” Non-target species included in a fishery should be
identified at the stock level. Id. § 600.310(d)(2)-(4).

3

approach to setting ACLs contained in the National Standard 1 Guidelines.7 NMFS must review
council decisions to ensure that they comply with the Act, and disapprove those that do not. 16
U.S.C. § 1854(a).
The question of which stocks must be included in a fishery management plan was recently
addressed in federal court. See Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 at *13 (D.D.C. Mar. 8,
2012) (holding that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Councils to prepare an FMP or
amendment for any stock of fish that “requires conservation and management.”). Councils must
make two determinations: (1) which stocks can be treated as a unit for purposes of management,
and therefore should be considered a fishery, and (2) which of these fisheries then “require
conservation and management.” Id. at *9. The law does not allow managers to unreasonably
delay decision-making regarding the appropriate composition of a fishery given their statutory
obligations to ensure that overfishing does not occur. Id. at *12. The court also rejected any
interpretation of the National Standard One Guideline found at 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(d)(1), as
providing the Council with unreviewable discretion to determine what stocks belong in an FMP.
Id. The Court held that while the Council’s role is to name the species to be managed “in the
first instance,” NMFS has a duty “in the second instance” to ensure an FMP, including the
composition of its fishery, satisfies MSA requirements. Id. at **13, 14. Moreover, Councils and
NMFS cannot limit the stocks they include in a fishery to just those stocks that already happen to
be part of an FMP, or those they have officially designated as overfished (or where overfishing is
occurring). Id. at **12-14.
There is no question that river herring and shad are involved in the mackerel and herring
fisheries and are capable of being managed as part of the MSB FMP. See Flaherty, 2012 WL
at * 12 (“Defendants’ conclusory statement that river herring would simply have to wait until a
future amendment does not suffice.”). First, it is undisputed that river herring and shads are in
the Atlantic mackerel fishery because they are caught, kept, landed, and sold in it as well as
discarded as bycatch.8 It is estimated that the mid-water trawl fishery for Atlantic herring and
Atlantic mackerel accounts for 71% of the combined incidental catch of river herring and shads;
fleet overlap between the small-mesh bottom trawl fisheries account for another approximately
24% of the combined incidental catch.9 NMFS Observer records show that at-sea fishing vessels
may take as much as 20,000 pounds of blueback herring in a single net haul.10 Because they are
involved in this fishery, considering and implementing solutions to the problems of incidental
catch in ocean intercept fisheries was the purpose of Amendment 4 and cannot be ignored.11
River herring are in dire need of conservation and management. In addition to the science
identified in the DEIS that shows that river herring are in need of conservation and
management,12 new information makes conservation and management of these species even
more critical. The new benchmark stock assessment for river herring, approved for management

7

See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(a), (b)(ii).
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Incidental Catch Analysis, at pp. 569-582.
9
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 2, p. 581.
10
Haul data from North East Fisheries Observer Program, NMFS; Landings data from NOAA's Annual Commercial
Landing Statistics, available at: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.
11
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Executive Summary at 9.
12
See Amendment 14 DEIS, § 2.1.9 Addition of RH as “Stocks in the Fishery” in the MSB FMP at pp. 82-89, §
6.2.5 River Herring Stock Status at p. 210, §6.5.6 Description of Candidate Species for Listing Under the ESA, at p.
240.
8

4

use by the ASMFC on May 1, 2012, confirms that river herring along the entire Atlantic
seaboard are depleted, with many of the river runs barely persisting and near historic lows.13 Of
24 river stocks for which the stock assessment team was able to characterize current condition,
92% were described as depleted.14 According to the assessment report “severe declines in
[fishery] landings began coastwide in the early 1970s and domestic landings are now a fraction
of what they were at their peak having remained at persistently low levels since the mid1990s.”15 U.S. commercial landings today are down 93% from the 1970’s.16 The peer review
panel similarly observed that “[s]tocks of river herring are greatly depleted compared to the early
17th century baseline, as well as compared to that of the late 19th century.”17 It “…concurs with
the SASC [stock assessment sub-committee] conclusions that river herring stocks are depleted,
that ocean bycatch is an issue, and that recovery will require management on multiple
fronts…”18 For the first time ocean bycatch of river herring was examined in a stock assessment
and it concluded that at-sea fisheries are a significant factor in the decline of the species’
populations over the last 50 years. 19
In addition to the benchmark stock assessment, NMFS recently determined that a listing of river
herring (blueback herring and alewife) as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act may
be warranted.20 Finding that NRDC’s petition presented “substantial scientific information
indicating the petitioned action may be warranted” NMFS initiated a year-long status review. As
described in the petition, existing state and federal regulatory mechanisms have proven to be
insufficient for river herring. 21 This is due in large part because of the federal/state/regional
management framework with shared responsibilities for these migratory fish that has avoided the
type of coordinated management necessary to conserve and manage the species. For example, in
state waters river herring are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(“ASMFC”) under Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River
Herring (“Amendment 2”). Regulatory measures drafted by the ASMFC, and implemented
through state laws, have proven insufficient in significant part because this interstate compact
agency and Amendment 2 have confined the reach of their management plan to state waters only.
Although Amendment 2 was drafted in response to dramatic declines in the abundance of river
herring, it contains no measures necessary to adequately monitor, limit, and reduce the incidental
catch of river herring in federal waters where millions are caught every year by mid-water
trawlers targeting Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. Currently, states without an approved
Sustainable Fisheries Plan must close their commercial and recreational fisheries; however, state
moratoriums on directed fisheries for river herring have been in place for several years in a

13

See The ASMFC’s River Herring Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02, Volume I – Coastwide (May 2012)
(“Stock Assessment Report”).
14
Stock Assessment Report - Executive Summary.
15
Stock Assessment Report - Executive Summary.
16
Stock Assessment Report - Executive Summary.
17
Terms of Reference & Advisory Report of the River Herring Stock Assessment Peer Review (March 2012)(“Peer
Review Report”), Introduction at p. 8.
18
Id. at p. 8.
19
Id.
20
In response to a petition filed by the in response to a petition filed by the National Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), NMFS made a 90 day finding that a listing may be warranted. 76 Fed. Reg. 67652 (Nov. 2, 2011). Listing
determinations are made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after a full status
review, and taking into account all efforts to protect and manage the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A).
21
NRDC Petition at 78-79.

5

number of critical states without sufficiently beneficial results.22 Although the ASMFC is
required to coordinate its management measures with NMFS, acting through NMFS to promote
the conservation of stocks throughout their ranges, this authority has not been exercised.
Shads are involved in the fishery and in need of conservation and management. Figures
used the Mid-Atlantic Council to develop Amendment 14 indicate that on average 120,000
pounds of shad were caught in ocean intercept fisheries from 2006-2010.23 Of the approximately
600,000 fish, many of them were juveniles that had not spawned.24 Shads are managed under
Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River herring and, similar
to river herring, the ASMFC lists the status of American shad as depleted in accordance with its
most recent stock assessment.25 Despite efforts in state waters, the 2007 stock assessment found
that “stocks were at all-time lows and did not appear to be recovering to acceptable levels.”26
The stock assessment also noted that coast-wide declining trends raised flags that ocean
mortality was having a serious impact, and the peer review team listed bycatch monitoring as a
high priority for future action.27 No assessments are available for Hickory Shad but as noted in
the DEIS, “many runs are likely below historical levels for reasons similar to those discussed
below for Atlantic Shad.”28
With a “stock in the fishery” designation under Alternative Set 9b-9e, the Mid-Atlantic
Council would take immediate action to implement incidental catch limits for river herring
and shad in the directed fishery for Atlantic mackerel (and Atlantic herring) based on the
best available science about what catch level is sustainable and in line with restoration
goals. At a minimum, the species meet the definition of non-target stocks because they are
caught incidentally in the pursuit of Atlantic mackerel (and Atlantic herring). The trailing
amendment, triggered by the choice of Alternative Set 9b-9e, would further develop the required
ACLs and other management measures required by law. As the DEIS notes, the law provides for
some flexibility in meeting the National Standard 1 requirements and could allow the MidAtlantic Council to seek assistance in meeting its legal obligations from the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission.29 However, as the DEIS makes clear (see §§ 6.2.5 and 6.2.6
summary of stock status), the existing federal/state/regional management framework is
insufficient to adequately conserve RH/S stocks - the no action Alternative 9a is unacceptable.
The designation of these four species as stocks in the fishery is the foundational decision
triggering determination of status determination criteria, establishment of ACLs, and

22

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina have prohibited harvest for several years without
recovery of species’ populations. See Species Profile: River Herring States and Jurisdictions Work to Develop
Sustainable Fisheries Plans for River Herring Management, p.2 available at:
http://www.asmfc.org/shadRiverHerring.htm. Sustainable Fishery Plans have been approved for 5 states (Maine,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina and New York) that met the July 1, 2011 deadline.
23
See Amendment 14 DEIS, §4.1.B at p. 111.
24
Id.
25
ASMFC. August 2007. Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission: American Shad Stock Assessment for Peer Review, Volume 1.
26
See Amendment 14 DEIS, §6.2.6 at p. 213.
27
See ASMFC American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review Panel, Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 of the
ASMFC, Terms of Reference & Advisory Report to the American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review. Conducted
July 16-20, 2007, Alexandria, Virginia.
28
Amendment 14 DEIS, s. 6.2.6 at p. 213.
29
See March 18, 2011 Letter submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the Herring Alliance to Dr. Malcolm Rhodes,
Chairman of the ASMFC Shad and River Herring Board.

6

identification of essential fish habitat, in addition to development of the other required measures
necessary to make this FMP comply with the law.30

2. Industry’s Argument Regarding Stock in the Fishery Designation Is
Incorrect
Industry, in their comments on Alternative Set 9, attempts to inject an entirely new (and
misguided) legal theory into the discussion of whether river herring and shad should be
added as stocks in the fishery of the MSB FMP. See June 4, 2012, Letter from Lund’s
Fisheries Incorporated to Executive Director MAFMC re Amendment 14, at p. 8. In its letter,
industry claims that “stock determination criteria” are a “necessary condition for a Council to
establish a species as a ‘stock in the fishery’” under the National Standard One guidelines, and
that the ASMFC stock assessment is fraught with disclaimers preventing its use to assess status.
Id. This interpretation of the final rule is incorrect for a number of reasons.
As outlined above, the relevant inquiry into what species should be added to an FMP is found in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Councils to first determine the
species involved in their fisheries and then prepare an FMP for those that require conservation
and management.31 The Act also requires any plan to specify “objective and measurable criteria
for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished . . ..”32 The National
Standard One Guidelines reinforce this analysis and require stocks involved in the fishery be
identified, so they can be added to an FMP, and status determination criteria can be used to
prevent overfishing. See 50 C.F.R. §§ 600.310 (d)(1) (an FMP must contain a “description of
species of fish involved in the fishery”), (d)(4) (“Non-target species may be included in a fishery
and, if so, they should be identified at the stock level”), and (e)(2)(“status determination criteria
(SDC) mean the quantifiable factors, MFMT, OFL, and MSST, or their proxies, that are used to
determine if overfishing has occurred, or if the stock complex is overfished.”). In that order,
stocks are identified as needing conservation and management, added to a plan, and criteria are
established (if not already available) to ensure that the plan prevents overfishing.
Alternative Set 9b-9e identifies a two-step process that will make the designation of river herring
and shad consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act stating:
The Council could add none, one, or any combination of these species as “stocks” in the
fishery. Selecting any of the action alternatives would result in the Council immediately
beginning another amendment to add all of the provisions 1-15 above to the FMP for any
species that is added. Such a process would likely take another 1-2 years to complete,
with the development of ACLs/AMs (or ACL alternatives) and essential fish habitat
designations taking the most time and being the most substantive of those provisions.
Amendment 14 DEIS, § 5.9.3 at 194. Prior to publication of these alternatives, NMFS
determined that an EIS was the appropriate level of NEPA review for this proposed federal

30

In addition, the Council should consider any other measures necessary to reduce bycatch, as required by National
Standard 9. See 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9).
31
See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(1), 1853(a)(2); see also Flaherty v. Bryson, 2012 WL 752323 at * 11, 12.
32
Id. at § 1853(a)(10).

7

action, 74 Fed. Reg. 68577 (Dec. 28, 2009), and approved this DEIS, NOAA Award No.
NA10NMF4410009.
“Need” does not equate to a prerequisite. Although no citation was provided, the preamble to
the final rule the industry refers to simply states that “‘Stocks in the fishery’ need status
determination criteria, other reference points, ACL mechanisms and AMs.” Final Rule, 74 Fed.
Reg. 3178 at 3179 (Jan. 16, 2009). No one disputes that stocks ultimately “need” these criteria to
prevent overfishing; however, nothing in the Act, the Final Rule, or the regulations interpreting
National Standard One contemplates the necessity of status determination criteria prior to adding
a stock in the fishery. On the contrary, the regulations contemplate the order discussed above
and even the use of proxies (if necessary), based on the best scientific information available, for
reference points not yet identified including proxies for MSY, FMSY and BMSY.33 A plain reading
of the regulation does not support industry’s distorted view.
Finally, the ASMFC’s river herring stock assessment has now been peer-reviewed and approved
by the ASMFC Shad & River Herring Management Board for management use and it cannot be
used as an excuse not to manage these species. Under the scenario outlined in Alternative set 9b9e, the Council has 1-2 years to complete the trailing amendment and identify the SDC.
Moreover, if necessary, the Mid-Atlantic Council could use proxies for those values as it has
used in other managed species.34 This stock assessment report represents best available science
and while it did not provide reference points for the coastwide river herring complex, it provided
ample evidence that river herring and shad are in need of conservation and management, and
thus should be added to a plan.

3. Until River Herring and Shad are Fully Integrated into the FMP the
Council Must Establish a River Herring and Shad Catch Cap
2.1.6 Alternative Set 6: Mortality Caps
The Herring Alliance strongly supports interim measures that:
 Combine and modify Alternatives 6b and 6c to implement a single mortality cap for
all river herring and shad species (alosines) in the mackerel fishery (closing the
mackerel fishery when the cap is exceeded), and modifying the incidental catch
allowance of Atlantic mackerel after the fishery is closed to 2,000 pounds.
 Implement Alternative 6f to allow mortality caps to be added to the list of measures
that can be frameworked.
The addition of river herring and shad as stocks in the MSB fishery through Amendment 14 will
not sufficiently reduce incidental catch while the Mid-Atlantic Council develops a trailing
amendment that fully integrates them into the MSB FMP; therefore, the Herring Alliance
supports a mortality cap that immediately reduces and limits the at-sea mortality of these
depleted species. This interim catch cap should be effective in 2013, and remain in effect until

33

See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(1)(iv) (“Where this uncertainty cannot be directly calculated, such as when proxies are
used, then a proxy for the uncertainty itself should be established based on the best scientific information, . . ..”).
34
See May 3, 2011 Staff Memorandum regarding 2012 Atlantic Mackerel, Illex, Loligo, and Butterfish OFL/ABC
Recommendations; see also May 23, 2012, SSC recommendations setting OFL proxy for butterfish.

8

replaced by ACLs or similar conservation measures under the MSB FMP once the river herring
and shads are fully integrated in the FMP.
A combination and modification of Alternatives 6b and 6c could function as a single mortality
cap in the mackerel fishery as more precise estimates of incidental catch are obtained with
increased observer coverage and more robust sampling. Currently, the overlap of the Atlantic
mackerel and Atlantic herring mid-water trawl fishery complicates the implementation of a
mortality cap on the mackerel fishery alone because if the mortality cap operated to shut the
Atlantic mackerel fishery down, Atlantic herring fishing could continue in the same Quarter and
same Area allowing incidental catch of river herring and shad to continue. Further, the current
mackerel incidental allowance of 20,000 pounds proposed under 6b and 6c is far too liberal to
deter directed fishing and minimize fishing effort should a mortality cap on RH/S be reached.
This alternative set, and others below, should be modified to be consistent with the Atlantic
Herring FMP which uses a 2,000 pound incidental Atlantic herring limit to define, deter,
and close directed herring fishing, including for the purposes of enforcing herring ACL’s
and sub-ACLs.35 The 2,000 pound incidental Atlantic herring limit, implemented after a herring
management area closes to enforce sub-ACLs, has proven effective. For example, when the
Atlantic herring Area 2 closed on February 20th of this year, mackerel fishing taking place in the
same area leveled off.36 Thus, a combined and modified cap would improve the effectiveness of
the cap and ensure that vessels cannot circumvent a cap by simply declaring into another fishery.
The modification from the current incidental allowance of 20,000 pounds of mackerel to 2,000
pounds would more effectively ensure that once the cap is reached that directed mackerel fishing
stops, that mackerel discarding does not continue or increase, and that river herring and shad
removals cease if a cap is reached by lowering the incidental trip allowance of mackerel that can
be fished for, possessed or retained. Further, the implementing language for that incidental
limit should be consistent with the language in the Atlantic Herring FMP such that the
2,000 pound incidental limit would apply to vessels “fishing for, catching, possessing,
transferring, or landing more than 2,000 lb.”37
Alternative 6f adds mortality caps to the list of frameworkable measures and is appropriate in
order to allow for a catch cap on the squid or butterfish fisheries (should a directed butterfish
fishery become higher than the current level) as data improves through catch monitoring and
sampling and as the need arises. Currently the MSB FMP does not list incidental catch caps as
frameworkable measures, and this alternative would facilitate implementation should new data
reveal a more significant alosine catch in any of the target fisheries.
Note: The Council Can Not Rely on a Voluntary Bycatch Avoidance Program such as the
SFC/SMAST/DMF Project described in Alternative 4f to Satisfy its National Standard 9

35

The 2,000 lb limit used to close the directed herring fishery was approved in Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Herring
FMP as the sole proactive accountability measure for preventing ACL overages and is described in Amendment 4 at:
http://www.nefmc.org/herring/planamen/final_a4/AM%204%20DOCUMENT%20FORMAL%20SUBMISSION_1
00423.pdf, at p.29.
36
See NERO. Weekly Quota and Landing Report available at:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm.
37
Those regulations state that upon closure of the directed Atlantic Herring fishery, NMFS shall “prohibit herring
vessel permit holders from fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg)
of herring per calendar day in or from the specified management area for the remainder of the closure period.” See
77 Fed. Reg. 10668 (Feb. 23, 2012).

9

Obligation to Minimize Bycatch. This University based voluntary program is inappropriate as
a regulatory measure and would be ineffective without a mortality cap. This alternative
contemplates a “stand-alone approach for river herring bycatch” and should be removed from
consideration. There are simply no meaningful incentives to avoid bycatch through the program
without a cap. Any positive results from the program to date are the result of the incentive to
avoid meaningful regulation, and will likely disappear as soon as Amendments 14 and
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP pass. The bycatch avoidance program for the Atlantic
scallop fishery is successful at reducing bycatch only because there is a yellowtail flounder cap
that scallop fishermen must avoid to continue fishing.

4. Until River Herring are Fully Integrated into the FMP the Council
Must Implement Hotspot Closures
2.1.8 Alternative Set 8: Hotspot Restrictions
As interim measures the Herring Alliance supports the following alternatives:






Modified Alternative 8b: Make implementing the hotspot requirements of
NEFMC’s Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Plan for Mackerel/longfin squid
vessels frameworkable. Modified to provide a mechanism through which the MidAtlantic Council could expand the hotspots identified in Amendment 5 to encompass
the larger River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas, or adjust hotspot
requirements to achieve consistency with the Atlantic Herring FMP through a
Framework Adjustment.
Modified Alternative 8eMack: Vessels possessing a federal mackerel permit would
not be able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land38 more than an
incidental level of fish (2,000 pounds of mackerel) while in a River Herring
Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.
Alternative 8eLong: Vessels possessing a federal moratorium longfin squid permit
would not be able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land39 more than an
incidental level of fish (2,500 pounds longfin squid) while in a River Herring
Protection Area unless no mesh smaller than 5.5 inches is onboard the vessel.

As an interim measure, the Herring Alliance supports a Modified Alternative 8b, that closes the
temporal and spatial protection areas identified as having high rates of river herring or shad
bycatch (“hot-spots”) to directed mackerel and squid fishing as an additional tool that should be
deployed to reduce catch of river herring and shad as an interim measure (i.e., until these stocks
are fully integrated as stocks in the fishery), in addition to the immediate implementation of a
mortality cap. The protection areas identified by the New England Council’s Herring Plan
Development Team (PDT) are small, and the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Fishery Management
Action Team (FMAT) analyses indicate that protection of small areas alone may not be adequate
to effectively reduce catch, or, may result in a fishing effort shift that could increase river herring
and shad morality. However, coupled with a mortality cap, and based on the PDT’s analysis of

38

Proposed revisions make this measure more consistent with the incidental catch allowance regulations in the
Atlantic Herring FMP as previously described.
39
Id.

10

the same provisions in Amendment 5, the river herring protection areas will provide a positive
conservation benefit until management measures for river herrings and shads are fully integrated
into the FMP (as stocks in the fishery). As more data becomes available, through increased
monitoring and reporting, the Council should expand the protection areas as necessary through a
framework action and give consideration to the larger areas identified in Amendment 5 and
described in Amendment 14 as “River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas.”40
For all of the reasons described in the sections on mortality caps and observer coverage, the
Herring Alliance also supports a Modified 8eMack which reduces the incidental level of
mackerel a federal permit would be able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer or land in a
River Herring Protection Area from 20,000 pounds to 2,000 pounds, and Alternative 8eLong, as
modified to reduce the total catch of river herring and shad at sea. The Council should carefully
monitor the effectiveness of the hotspot regime for squid vessels to determine if any similar
adjustments are warranted.

5. Require 100% observer coverage for Mid-water trawl vessels in the
Mackerel fishery
2.1.5 Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
To achieve the stated goals of Amendment 14 and ensure the effectiveness of the other
alternatives the Herring Alliance supports the following alternatives, while opposing a
sunset clause for increased observer coverage levels implemented through Amendment 14
and the waiver associated with Alternative 5f and discussed on page 160:






Modified Alternative 5b4: Require 100% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels
intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land over 2,000 pounds of
mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip
notifications. This alternative would be modified such that vessels would not be able
to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land more than 2,000 pounds of
mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more than 2,000 pounds of
mackerel.
Modified Alternative 5c1: Require 25% of SMBT trips by Tier 3 limited access
mackerel vessels intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land over
2,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign coverage
based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to fish for, catch, possess,
retain, transfer, or land more than 2,000 pounds of mackerel unless they had
notified their intent to retain more than 2,000 pounds of mackerel.
Modified Alternative 5c4: Require 100% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by Tier
1 and Tier 2 limited access mackerel vessels intending to fish for, catch, possess,
retain, transfer, or land over 2,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The
NEFSC would assign coverage based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be
able to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land more than 2,000 pounds of
mackerel unless they had notified their intent to retain more than 2,000 pounds of
mackerel.

40

See Amendment 14 DEIS, § 2.1.8 at pp. 72-77.

11







Modified Alternative 5d2: Require 50% of SMBT (<3.5 in) longfin squid trips by
major longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels intending to retain over 2,500
pounds of longfin squid to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign coverage
based on pre-trip notifications. Vessels would not be able to retain more than 2,500
pounds of longfin squid unless they had notified their intent to retain more than
2,500 pounds of longfin squid.
Modified Alternative 5f: Vessels would have to pay for observers to meet any
observer coverage goals adopted by the Council that are greater than existing sea
day allocations assigned through the sea day allocation process (already
implemented in other fisheries). NEFSC would accredit observers and vessels
would have to contract and pay observers. Modified to prohibit waivers, especially
without explicit limits and accountability measures to ensure that waivers do not
undermine the target coverage level. Modified to require States receive full
provider certification in order to be providers.
Modified Alternative 5h: Requires reevaluation of coverage requirements after 2
years to determine if incidental catch rates should be adjusted - up or down based
on circumstances.

Monitoring an industrial fishery is a mandatory precondition of access to millions of pounds of
public resources. Congress intended that there be both “limits” and “accountability” in fisheries,
with the ultimate goal of “protect[ing], restor[ing], and promot[ing] the long-term health and
stability of the fishery.” 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(1)(A). In order to achieve accountability, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs include monitoring and reporting measures necessary
to track retained catch and discarded bycatch, including a standardized reporting methodology to
assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery). See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853(a)(5),
(a)(11). Adequate accountability measures are also vital to fulfilling National Standard One’s
mandate to prevent overfishing, id., and National Standard Nine’s requirement that
“[c]onservation 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,” id. §
1851(a)(9). These directives are critical to the effective implementation of Amendment 14
which depends upon the accurate measurement of the amounts of river herring and shad caught
and discarded in this fishery41 and if this fishery cannot be monitored adequately, it should not
have access to this national public resource.
In order to achieve the stated goals of Amendment 14, and ensure the effectiveness of the
recommended alternatives, it is imperative that the Mid-Atlantic Council increase observer
coverage and ensure that observers have access to all catch. 42 Adequate monitoring and bycatch
measures are vital to ensuring that overfishing is prevented. See e.g., Flaherty, 2012 WL at *16
(“to meet their responsibility to ensure compliance with the National Standards, Defendants must
demonstrate that they have evaluated whether the FMP or amendment minimized bycatch to the
extent practicable.”). The at-sea observer program, which obtains data for both kept and
discarded catch, is critical to understanding total catch of river herring and shads, and must be

41

By themselves vessel catch reports have been found unreliable. See Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans, 209
F. Supp. 2d 1 at 13, n. 25 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting unlawful underreporting of bycatch) (Kessler, J.). In addition,
dealers have no possible way of knowing the amount of river herring and other species discarded at sea as bycatch
because they only see and buy what is brought to their facility.
42
See http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/current/SMB/River_Herring_Letters.pdf.

12

prioritized by the Council. In contrast to at-sea observers, portside sampling only obtains
information for the catch that is retained, and therefore misses an important part of the equation.
Only those alternatives which increase the accuracy and timeliness of vessel and dealer reporting
(discussed below), coupled with management measures that greatly improve the accuracy and
precision of third-party (i.e. observer) incidental catch estimates should be selected in
Amendment 14. In addition, these alternatives should be consistent with Amendment 5 in order
to avoid discrepancies that would cause significant difficulties in implementation or allow for
fishing effort to avoid more robust monitoring in one of the FMP’s by selectively declaring into
the other.
In order to properly cover mid-water trawl mackerel trips, 100% observer coverage is necessary
and the Herring Alliance supports a Modified Alternative 5b4. Mid-water trawl vessels account
for 75.7% of river herring incidental catch and 41.8% of shad incidental catch,43 and are
responsible for the majority of mackerel landings, accounting for 62% of landings in 2010.44
According to information presented in Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP, there are 15 mid-water
trawl vessels that are eligible for the mackerel limited access program (13 in Tier 1 and 2 in Tier
2).45 Given the high volume nature of these vessels, and the fact that significant shad and river
herring catch events may be infrequent (but events can be large when they occur), 100%
coverage is necessary for an accurate accounting of incidental catch. In addition, mid-water
trawl vessels are in the top permit tiers of the Atlantic herring limited access fishery, for which
the New England Council is considering 100% observer coverage. Given the overlap in the midwater trawl fisheries for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel, observer coverage levels should
be consistent between the FMPs.46 Further, for essentially the same reasons stated above in our
explanation for the need to adjust the mackerel incidental limit downward from 20,000 pounds to
2,000 pounds to ensure the integrity of a mortality cap, the same adjustment should be made for
this alternative. Absent this modification, it is possible that a significant amount of directed
mackerel fishing could take place outside the scope of a 100% observer coverage requirement if
the vessels simply declared an intent to fish in the herring fishery (and if the Herring FMP did
not have a similar coverage requirement). Limiting vessels to 20,000 pounds of mackerel will
not sufficiently deter directed fishing by the large MWT vessels which comprise the most
significant component of the herring-mackerel fishery overlap.
In order to properly cover small-mesh bottom trawl mackerel trips, the Herring Alliance supports
a hybridization of Modified Alternatives 5c1 and 5c4 with a tier approach to assigning different
coverage levels to small mesh bottom trawl vessels (SMBT). Small-mesh bottom trawls are
believed to contribute to 23.7% and 25.6% of river herring and shad incidental respectively;
therefore, it is important to improve observer coverage in this fleet to achieve accuracy and
precision in incidental catch estimates. Because industry funding will be necessary to achieve
coverage levels above the status quo, it is important to distribute the observer cost burden
equitably among fishery participants. For the mackerel limited access program, 10 SMBT
vessels are eligible for Tier 1, and 19 are eligible for Tier 2.47 Neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2 vessels

43

See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 2 at p. 581.
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Table 29 at p. 247.
45
See MAFMC. Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (May
2011), Tables 94-96 at pp. 447-448.
46
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 2 at p. 574.
47
Id.
44

13

are capped by a percentage of the quota, with no trip limits for Tier 1 vessels. For Tier 3,
however, 138 vessels qualify,48 and this tier is capped at 3% of the annual quota. Additionally,
the average length of a Tier 3 vessel is 65 ft., compared to 78 ft. for Tier 2 and 110 ft. for Tier
1,49 likely making the observer costs significantly more burdensome for vessels in Tier 3 relative
to their daily operating costs. 100% coverage on Tier 1 and Tier 2 SMBT vessels engaging in
directed mackerel fishing represents a manageable objective that will cover the majority of the
catch by this gear type without undue burden on small boats or the observer infrastructure.
The Herring Alliance supports a Modified Alternative 5d2, which calls for 50% observer
coverage on the major longfin squid vessels. Currently only 3.5% of longfin squid catches by
weight have been observed (2006-2010),50 contributing to great uncertainty in the shad and river
herring incidental catch estimates for this fishery. As described above, small-mesh bottom
trawls (SMBT) contribute significantly to shad and river herring incidental catch, and higher
levels of at-sea observer coverage will be needed for the Northeast’s SMBT fleet in order to
obtain reasonably accurate and precise estimates of this catch. Coverage must be equitably
distributed among vessels according to their activity in the fishery. While there are
approximately 400 vessels that hold moratorium permits, an average of only 103 vessels have
been major vessels in this fishery in the last 5 years, and these major vessels account for around
95% of the annual landings. 51 The Mid-Atlantic Council should identify these approximately
100 most active longfin squid vessels (or outline procedures whereby they would self-identify) in
advance of the fishing year so that they are clearly and explicitly assigned to the 50% observer
coverage bin for that year. Criteria that could be utilized to sort and assign the fleet in this
manner include an analysis of recent catch to identify whether these vessels vary significantly
from year to year and/or whether there is a logical annual landings threshold where the line can
be drawn. Alternatively, the Council could identify a reasonable and typical annual threshold for
landings that makes it likely they will capture the most active vessels (i.e. those which
collectively catch 95% of the longfin squid) and require that vessels wishing to land over that
number for the year must declare into the higher observer coverage program. While herringmackerel fishery overlap and consistency concerns are likely not as acute for squid vessels, if the
Council’s intent is to ensure observer coverage on a target percentage of directed squid fishing
trips, it may want to consider revising this alternative to reflect the previously noted language
used in the Atlantic herring FMP to define directed fishing (“fishing for, catching, possessing,
transferring, or landing”), and which has been proven effective.
With respect to Modified Alternative 5f, the Herring Alliance opposes the addition of a sunset
clause for any increased observer coverage levels implemented through Amendment 14. The
alternatives already contemplate a future review of the observer requirements by the Council in
Alternative 5h and the Service has indicated that it may take time for an expanded observer
program to be designed once these fisheries are fully established on the water. It would be
unfortunate for a sunset clause to kick in prior to a full observer program, and prior to gaining
the necessary data that the coverage was intended to obtain. The Herring Alliance also opposes
the issuance of waivers (as discussed under Alternative 5f on page 160), under which a vessel or

48

Id.
See MAFMC Amendment 11 DEIS, Table 82 at p. 435.
50
See Amendment 14 DEIS at p. 147.
51
See MAFMC April 2012 Staff Loligo AP Informational Document, at Tables 4 and 6, available at:
http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/Loligo%20APInfo-2012.pdf.
49

14

trip assigned an observer would be allowed to sail without an observer. A robust at-sea
monitoring program on vessels of this size, gear type and fishing power, with a known potential
for infrequent but destructive bycatch events, must have 100% coverage. 100% coverage must
mean just that: 100%. A blanket provision allowing the unlimited issuance of waivers with no
backstops or other accountability measures is likely to seriously undermine any 100% coverage
requirement or other target coverage level.
On the issue of review, the Herring Alliance supports a Modified Alternative 5h that requires
reevaluation in 2 years to determine whether observer coverage rates should be adjusted;
however, as written Alternative 5h is too restrictive and hints at foregone conclusions. The
Herring Alliance supports a comprehensive analysis of whether coverage levels should be
adjusted in general, including whether they need to be increased.
Note: Without maximized retention (not considered in Amendment 14) the Herring
Alliance cannot support portside sampling (Alternative Set 4) for deriving estimates on
river herring and shad incidental catch. Taken alone, it would miss at-sea discards and
provide insufficient data.

6. Additional Measures to Improve At-Sea Sampling
2.1.3 Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
In order to successfully reduce total catch of river herring and shad and achieve the goals of
Amendment 14, it must have reliable total catch estimates. Estimates of the amount of catch are
dependent upon accurate estimates because total catch is used to scale up from the amounts
observed in samples. To ensure reliable total catch estimates of river herring and shad, and
achieve the goals of Amendment 14 the Herring Alliance supports the alternatives listed
below:







Alternative 3b: Require the following reasonable assistance measures: provision of a
safe sampling station; help with measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; help
with bycatch collection; and help with basket sample collection by crew on vessels
with mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permits.
Alternative 3c: Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when
pumping/haul-back occurs on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin
squid moratorium permits.
Modified Alternative 3d: When observers are deployed on trips involving more than
one vessel, observers would be required on any vessel taking on fish
wherever/whenever possible on vessels with mackerel limited access and/or longfin
squid moratorium permits. Modified to remove the whenever/wherever language.
Modified Alternative 3j: Modified to apply “Closed Area I” (CA1) requirements to
all mackerel limited access and longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels
intending to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land over 2,000 pounds of
mackerel. These requirements are currently in force in the Atlantic herring fishery
for mid-water trawl vessels intending to fish in Groundfish Closed Area 1. This
alternative would require that all fish be brought aboard for observer sampling with
exceptions made for safety, mechanical failure, or spiny dog fish clogging the pump.
15







Alternative 3l: Related to 3j, for mackerel limited access permitted vessels, NMFS
would track the number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events
(adjustable via specifications) occur in any given year for notified and observed
mackerel trips then subsequent slippage events on any notified and observed
mackerel trip would result in trip termination for the rest of that year. The goal is to
minimize slippage events.
Alternative 3n: For longfin squid moratorium permitted vessels, NMFS would track
the number of slippage events. Once a cap of 10 slippage events (adjustable via
specifications) occur in any given trimester for notified and observed longfin squid
trips then subsequent slippage events on any notified and observed longfin squid
trip would result in trip termination for the rest of that trimester. The goal is to
maximize sampling of catch on observed trips and to discourage and minimize
slippage events.
Alternative 3o: For mackerel and/or longfin squid permitted vessels, if a trip is
terminated within 24 hours because of any of the anti-slippage provisions (3g, 3h,
3k-3n), then the relevant vessel would have to take an observer on its next trip.

In Alternative 3d, the language “wherever/whenever possible” should be removed. Should the
Council choose 100% monitoring, this language would provide a loophole to such a requirement
and frustrate the goal of more accurate observer data. The majority of “Fish NK” (or fish
unknown) records are associated with fish that are pumped to the paired trawl vessel not carrying
the observer. 52 Between July 2009 and June 2010 over 5.7 million pounds of catch was recorded
as Fish NK in the observer database.53 The Council should be clear and explicit that any pair
trawl trip assigned observer coverage will require an observer on each platform, and should
prohibit the taking of fish on a vessel without an observer.
Modified Alternative 3j should clarify that consistent with the current CA1 sampling regulations,
operational discards must be brought aboard for sampling, and may only be dumped under one of
the other three allowable exceptions, and therefore if dumped would be subject to the
accountability requirements outlined in 31, 3n and 3o. Vessels would be permitted to discard
(release) un-sampled catch under those limited exceptions, and only those circumstances.
Further, consistent with these CA1 rules, and in order to prevent any abuse of those limited
exceptions, an accountability framework should be layered over the three exceptions as
outlined below (Alternatives 3l, 3n and 3o). NMFS has acknowledged that accurate catch
composition records cannot be obtained for dumped catch (including operational discards), that
there are safe and operationally feasible ways to get all catch aboard for sampling (including
operational discards), and that issues such as stratification of catch in the cod-end or the strainerlike effect of the pump-intake grate raise serious questions about the composition of operational
discards.54 The implementing language should also be revised so that the measures apply to trips
“fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing” the specified amount of the target
species to be consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP.

52

See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 5 at p.662.
See NEFSC. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report 201: Section 2 at p. 189,
available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/SBRM/2011/SBRM_Annual_Discard_Rpt_2011_Section2.pdf.
54
See Final Rule entitled Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Discard Provision for Herring Midwater Trawl
Vessels Fishing in Groundfish Closed Area I, 75 Fed. Reg. 73979 (Nov. 30, 2010).
53

16

To minimize slippage events, the Herring Alliance supports Alternative 3l to cap the number of
slippage events per year in the mackerel fishery at 10. From 2006-2010, 26% of hauls on
observed mackerel trips had some unobserved catch.55 In contrast, vessels fishing under Closed
Area I (CA1) regulations in the Atlantic herring fishery had no observed slippage events
recorded in 2010.56 However, prior to the implementation of the CA1 rules, the Atlantic herring
fishery had an observed slippage rate of 35%.57 This reduction in dumping in the herring
fishery clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the CAI rules. It is important to note,
however, that the effectiveness of the CAI regulations is due to the accountability measures tied
to the dumping exceptions, which requires a vessel to stop fishing and exit CA1 if it releases an
un-sampled net. The Mid-Atlantic Council should select final measures in Amendment 14 that
replicate the CA1 regulations. Given the three exceptions provided for under Alternative 3j,
permitting 10 slippage events before slippage results in trip termination provides a reasonable
balance that will deter slippage without unduly penalizing those involved.
To minimize slippage events, the number of slippage events in the longfin squid fishery should
also be capped at 10 events consistent with Alternative 3n and implemented in conjunction with
Alternative 3j. On observed longfin squid trips, an average of 9% to 14 % of hauls are not seen
and sampled by observers.58 As discussed above, an accountability measure is an important
component to the CA1 sampling requirements to ensure compliance, and an allowance of 10
slippage events per trimester before trip termination is implemented is appropriate for deterring
slippage.
Alternative 3o, which requires a vessel which has had its trip terminated within 24 hours because
of an of the anti-slippage provisions to take an observer on its next trip, is necessary if observer
coverage levels are not high enough to effectively deter vessels from dumping unwanted catch or
catch they suspect contains bycatch on the rare occasions they are observed. If there is a high
likelihood the next trip will not be observed, vessels may not be sufficiently discouraged from
dumping early in a trip by the trip termination requirement.
Note: The Herring Alliance is opposed to the Released Catch Affidavits as discussed in
Alternative 3e because the Mid-Atlantic Council does not track the cause of the slippage and in
and this alternative will not ensure results.

7. Additional Measures to Improve At-Sea Sampling
2.1.1 Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures

55

See Amendment 14 DEIS at p.130.
See Amendment 14 DEIS, Appendix 5 at p. 658.
57
See MEFMC Herring Committee Meeting, July 27, 2010. In 2009, 35% of observed Atlantic herring hauls were
completely or partially released during 2009, with over a thousand metric tons released. With only 1/5 of the trips
(in 2009) observed, the total quantity of fish released in much high than actually observed.
58
See Amendment 14 DEIS at p.130 (“From 2006-2010 approximately 9% of hauls on observed longfin squid trips
[] and 26% of hauls on observed mackerel trips [] had some unobserved catch.”). See also SSC materials from Mary
2012 which suggests that slippage has increased from previous estimates under the Butterfish Bycatch Program to
14%, available at: http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/3-2011-Butterfish-CapReport(May%202012).pdf.
56

17

To improve quota monitoring and enforcement the Herring Alliance strongly supports the
following Alternatives:









Alternative 1c: Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for all MSB permits
(Mackerel, longfin quid//Butterfish, Illex) so as to facilitate quota monitoring
(directed landings and/or incidental mortality cap if applicable) and cross checking
with other data sources.
Modified Alternative 1d 48: Require all mackerel trips give 48 hour pre-trip
notification to NMFS to fish for, catch, possess, retain, transfer, or land more than
2,000 pounds of mackerel so as to facilitate observer placement.
Alternatives 1eMack & 1eLong: require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels
and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels;
Modified Alternative 1fMack – requires daily VMS reporting of catch by limited
access mackerel vessels. Modified to make this frameworkable in the event that a
mortality cap becomes necessary in the squid fishery.
Modified Alternative 1f Long: Require daily VMS reporting of catch by longfin
squid moratorium permits so as to facilitate monitoring (directed and/or incidental
catch) and cross checking with other data sources. Requiring VMX and trip
declarations would be a prerequisite for this alternative. Modified to make
frameworkable in the event that a mortality cap becomes necessary in the squid
fishery.
Modified Alternatives 1gMack and 1g Long: require 6 hour pre-landing notification
via VMS to land more than 2,000 pounds of mackerel or more than 2,500 pounds of
longfin squid, which would facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or
portside monitoring.

Weekly VTR for all MSB permits (mackerel, longfin squid/butterfish, Illex) will facilitate quota
monitoring (directed landings and/or incidental mortality cap if applicable) and cross checking
with other data sources. 48 hour pre-trip notification to NMFS for those mid-water trawl and
Tier 1 and 2 SMBT vessels intending to retain, possess, or transfer more than 2,000 pounds of
mackerel is critical for observer placement and consistent with the recommended alternatives for
observer coverage above. Because the VMS on limited access mackerel vessels and longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium vessels, as well as daily reporting of catch will also facilitate
monitoring (directed and/or incidental) and cross checking of other data sources. As noted in the
DEIS a great majority of these limited access mackerel and squid/butterfish moratorium
permitted vessels are already equipped with VMS.59 Six (6) hour pre-landing notification via
VMS to land more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel or more than 2,500 pounds of longfin squid,
will also facilitate quota monitoring, enforcement, and/or portside monitoring. In addition, the
Atlantic herring FMP already mandates reporting measures identical to or very similar to each of
the alternatives listed above, making these proposed measures necessary for improved
consistency between the two plans.
2.1.2 Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures

59

See Amendment 14 DEIS at pp. 292, 294.

18

To precisely estimate incidental catch of RH/S in these fisheries the Herring Alliance
supports the following alternatives:
 Modified Alternative 2b: Require federally permitted MSB dealers to obtain vessel
representative confirmation of SAFIS transaction records for mackerel landings
over 2,000 pounds, Illex landings over 10,000 pounds, and longfin squid landings
over 2,500 pounds to catch data errors at first point of entry; and
 Modified Alternatives 2c and 2d: Require that federally permitted SMB dealers
weigh all landings related to mackerel transactions over 2,000 pounds. If dealers do
not sort by species they would need to document in dealer applications or with each
transaction so long as the proper methodology was documented.
 Alternative 2e: Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all landings
related to longfin squid transactions over 2,500. If dealers do not sort by species,
they would need to document in dealer applications how they estimate relative
compositions of a mixed catch.
 Alternative 2f: Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all landings
related to longfin squid transactions over 2,500 pounds. If dealers do not sort by
species, they would need to document with each transaction how they estimate
relative compositions of a mixed catch.
Standardizing the methods by which dealers are required to weigh all catch and confirm the
amount of fish landed will aid in better overall estimates of catch, in addition to being essential
for ensuring that directed quotas are not exceeded. More accurate data on landings will also aid
in the monitoring of a mortality cap or in achieving the objective of better catch and bycatch
estimates of river herring and shad. As the DEIS points out, “accurate monitoring of the target
species can be as important as determining the encounter rates of [river herring and shad]” in the
determination of river herring and shad catch estimates, due to the use of discard to kept ratios or
other bycatch/incidental catch extrapolations.60
Dealer or vessel self-reporting of unverifiable, unstandardized “hail” weights or visually-based
volumetric estimates are inadequate and unacceptable. They present far too much opportunity
for deliberate or accidental misreporting, and offer no opportunity for third-party observers, port
samplers, or law enforcement personnel to verify that accurate, complete and honest catch
weights are being reported. The Herring Alliance views this suite of alternatives (Modified
Alternatives 2b- 2d, Alternative 2e, and Alternative 2f) as working together to minimize dealer
reporting while providing for increased efficiency and flexibility. Dealers that do not sort by
species could document their method for estimating the composition of a mixed catch.
Consistent with previous alternative chosen, the modification of Alternative 2b, 2c, and 2d will
decrease the incidental landings limit of mackerel from 20,000 pounds to 2,000 as the trigger for
dealers to weigh all landings and to obtain vessel representative confirmation of SAFIS
transactions.
***

60

See Amendment 14 DEIS at p. 279.

19

Alewives Anonymous
Rochester, Massachusetts
www.plumblibrary.com/alewives.html

Environment Maine
Portland, Maine
www.environmentmaine.org

Blue Ocean Institute
Cold Spring Harbor, New York
www.blueocean.org

Environment Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
www.environmentmassachusetts.org

Buckeye Brook Coalition
Warwick, Rhode Island
www.buckeyebrook.org

Environment New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
www.environmentnewhampshire.org

Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Annapolis, Maryland
www.cbf.org

Environment New Jersey
Trenton, New Jersey
www.environmentnewjersey.org

Choptank Riverkeeper
Easton, MD
www.midshoreriverkeeper.org

Environment New York
New York, New York
www.environmentnewyork.org

Conservation Law Foundation
Boston, Massachusetts
www.clf.org

Environment North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
www.environmentnorthcarolina.org

Delaware River Shad Fishermen's Association
Hellertown, Pennsylvania
www.drsfa.org

Environment Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
www.environmentrhodeisland.org

Earthjustice
Washington, DC
www.earthjustice.org

Environment Virginia
Washington, DC
www.environmentvirginia.org

Eightmile River Wild & Scenic Coordinating
Committee
Haddam, Connecticut
www.eightmileriver.org

Farmington River Watershed Association
Simsbury, Connecticut
www.frwa.org

Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2)
Boston, Massachusetts
www.e2.org
Environment America
Washington, DC
www.environmentamerica.org
Environment Connecticut
West Hartford, Connecticut
www.environmentconnecticut.org

Float Fishermen of Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
www.floatfishermen.org
Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
www.forva.giving.officelive.com
Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational
River Council
Newtonville, New Jersey
www.gehwa.org/river.html

Greater Boston Trout Unlimited
Boston, Massachusetts
www.gbtu.org

New England Coastal Wildlife Alliance
Middleboro, Massachusetts
www.necwa.org

Greenpeace
Washington, DC
www.greenpeace.org

North and South River Watershed Association
Norwell, Massachusetts
www.nsrwa.org

Ipswich River Watershed Association
Ipswich, Massachusetts
www.ipswichriver.org

NY/NJ Baykeeper
Keyport, New Jersey
www.nynjbaykeeper.org

Island Institute
Rockland, Maine
www.islandinstitute.org

Oceana
Washington, DC
www.oceana.org

Jones River Watershed Association
Kingston, Massachusetts
www.jonesriver.org

Ocean River Institute
Cambridge, Massachusetts
www.oceanriver.org

Juniata Valley Audubon
Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania
www.jvas.org

Parker River Clean Water Association
Byfield, Massachusetts
www.businessevision.info/parker_river

Lowell Parks & Conservation Trust
Lowell, Massachusetts
www.lowelllandtrust.org

Peconic Baykeeper
Quogue, New York
www.peconicbaykeeper.org

Mystic River Watershed Association
Arlington, Massachusetts
www.mysticriver.org

PennEnvironment
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
www.pennenvironment.org

National Coalition for Marine Conservation
Leesburg, Virginia
www.savethefish.org

Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and
Rivers
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
www.pawatersheds.org

Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
www.nrdc.org
Neponset River Watershed Association
Canton, Massachusetts
www.neponset.org
Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation
New Bern, North Carolina
www.neuseriver.org

Pew Environment Group
Washington, DC
www.pewenvironment.org
Riverkeeper
Ossining, New York
www.riverkeeper.org
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut
Litchfield, Connecticut
www.riversalliance.org

Shark Angels
New York, New York
www.sharkangels.org
Shenandoah Riverkeeper
Washington, DC
www.shenandoahriverkeeper.org
South River Federation
Edgewater, MD
www.southriverfederation.net
West and Rhode Riverkeeper
Shady Side, MD
www.westrhoderiverkeeper.org

June
 4,
 2012

Dr.
 Chris
 Moore,
 Executive
 Director

Mid-­‐Atlantic
 Fishery
 Management
 Council

800
 North
 State
 Street,
 Suite
 201

Dover,
 DE
 19901

RE:
 AMENDMENT
 14

Dear
 Mr.
 Moore:

The
 MSBA
 has
 been
 recognized
 in
 many
 venues
 as
 speaking
 for
 the
 New
 England
 recreational

fishing
 community
 on
 the
 issue
 of
 reforming
 the
 Atlantic
 Mackerel
 fishery.

 The
 following

comments
 are
 based
 upon
 years
 of
 communicating
 with
 individual
 anglers,
 groups
 of
 anglers
 at

various
 events
 and
 finally
 interaction
 with
 other
 recreational
 fishing
 organizations.

We
 are
 concerned
 that
 the
 Atlantic
 Mackerel
 fishery
 is
 having
 a
 detrimental
 effect
 on

recreational
 fishing
 in
 New
 England.

 Collectively,
 the
 recreational
 fishing
 community
 wants

regulations
 adopted
 that
 bring
 strict
 monitoring
 and
 accountability
 to
 the
 industrial
 scale

operators
 within
 the
 Atlantic
 Mackerel
 fishery.
 Our
 community
 believes
 that
 this
 can
 be
 achieved

if
 the
 NEFMC
 were
 to
 adopt
 the
 following
 set
 of
 alternatives:

Alternative
 Set

  Preferred

Description
 to
 be
 applied
 to
 the
 MSB
 FMP

Alternative

Set
 1:

1c

Weekly
 VTR
 for
 all
 MSB
 permits

Vessel
 Reporting

Measures

Modified

48
 hour
 pre-­‐trip
 notification
 to
 NMFS
 intent
 to
 fish
 for,
 catch,

1d48

possess,
 retain,
 transfer
 or
 land
 greater
 than

 2,000
 lbs
 mackerel

1eMack
 &

VMS
 for
 all
 Limited
 Access
 mackerel
 vessels
 and
 for
 longfin

1eLong

Squid/Butterfish
 moratorium
 vessels

1fMack

Daily
 VMS
 of
 catch
 by
 Limited
 Access
 mackerel
 vessels

Modified

6
 hr.
 pre-­‐landing
 notification
 via
 VMS
 to
 land
 greater
 than
 2,000

1gMack
 &

lbs
 mackerel
 or
 2,500
 lbs
 longfin
 Squid

1gLong

Set
 2:

Modified
 2b
  Federally-­‐permitted
 MSB
 dealers
 must
 get
 vessel
 confirmation
 of

Dealer
 Reporting

SAFIS
 trans
 records
 for
 mackerel
 landings
 greater
 than
 2,000
 lbs

Measures

and
 longfin
 Squid
 greater
 than
 2,500
 lbs

Modified
 2c,
  Federally-­‐permitted
 MSB
 dealers
 must
 weigh
 all
 landings
 related

Alternative
 Set

Set
 3:
 At-­‐Sea

Observation

Measures

Preferred

Alternative

d,
 e,
 &
 f

3b

Description
 to
 be
 applied
 to
 the
 MSB
 FMP

3c

Vessel
 operators
 must
 provide
 observers
 notice
 when

pumping/hauling
 back

When
 observers
 are
 on
 trips
 with
 more
 than
 one
 vessel,

observers
 required
 on
 ANY
 vessel
 taking
 on
 fish.

Whenever/wherever
 possible
 language
 should
 be
 modified

Closed
 Area
 1
 Requirements
 currently
 in
 force
 in
 Herring
 FMP

apply
 to
 vessels
 fishing
 for,
 catching,
 possessing,
 retaining,

transferring
 or
 landing
 2,000
 lbs
 mackerel
 or
 2,500
 lbs
 squid

10
 slippage
 events
 per
 year
 in
 mackerel
 fishery

to
 mackerel
 greater
 than
 2,000
 lbs
 and
 2,500
 lbs
 of
 longfin
 squid

Reasonable
 assistance
 measures

Modified
 3d

Modified
 3j

3l

(implemented

w/
 3j)

3n

10
 slippage
 events
 per
 year
 in
 longfin
 squid
 fishery

(implemented

w/
 3j)

3o

If
 a
 trip
 is
 terminated
 within
 24
 hours
 because
 of
 any
 of
 the
 anti-­‐
slippage
 provisions
 then
 vessel
 must
 take
 an
 observer
 on
 next
 trip

Modified
 5b4
  100%
 observer
 coverage
 of
 all
 MWT
 mackerel
 trip
 intending
 fish

for,
 catch,
 possess,
 retain,
 transfer
 or
 land
 over
 2,000
 lbs

mackerel.

 Opposed
 to
 a
 sunset
 provision
 and
 issuance
 of
 a
 waiver

Modified
 5c1
  100%
 observer
 coverage
 on
 Tier
 1
 and
 Tier
 2
 SMBT
 (<3.5
 in.)

and
 Modified
  mackerel
 trips
 intending
 to
 fish
 for,
 catch,
 possess,
 retain,
 transfer

5c4

or
 land
 2,000
 lbs
 mackerel;
 25%
 observer
 coverage
 of
 Tier
 3
 SMBT

mackerel
 trips
 intending
 to
 fish
 for,
 catch,
 possess,
 retain,
 transfer

or
 land
 2,000
 lbs
 mackerel

Modified
 5d2
  50%
 observer
 coverage
 of
 SMBT
 major
 vessels
 in
 longfin
 squid

trips
 intending
 to
 retain
 greater
 than
 2,500
 lbs
 longfin
 squid

Modified
 5f

Vessels
 contract
 and
 pay
 for
 observers.
 Modified
 to
 prohibit

waivers
 and
 require
 States
 receive
 full
 provider
 certification
 in

order
 to
 be
 providers

Modified
 5h
  2
 year
 review
 of
 observer
 coverage.

 Review
 should
 not
 be

restricted
 to
 whether
 coverage
 rates
 are
 too
 high

Combined

Mortality
 cap
 for
 shad
 and
 river
 herring
 species
 combined
 for
 the

and
 Modified
  mackerel
 fishery.
 Once
 cap
 is
 reached
 an
 incidental
 mackerel

6b
 and
 6c

allowance
 of
 2,000
 lbs

6f

Add
 mortality
 caps
 to
 list
 of
 measures
 that
 can
 be
 frameworkable

Modified

Vessels
 cannot
 fish
 for,
 catch,
 possess,
 retain,
 transfer
 or
 land

8eMack

2,000
 lbs
 mackerel
 while
 in
 a
 River
 Herring
 Protection
 Area
 unless

no
 mesh
 smaller
 than
 5.5
 inches
 is
 onboard
 the
 vessel

8eLong

Vessels
 cannot
 fish
 for,
 catch,
 possess,
 retain,
 transfer
 or
 land

2,500
 lbs
 of
 longfin
 squid
 while
 in
 a
 River
 Herring
 Protection
 Area

unless
 no
 mesh
 smaller
 than
 5.5
 inches
 is
 onboard
 the
 vessel

Set
 5:

Observer

Coverage

Set
 6:

Mortality
 Caps

Set
 8:

Hotspot

Restrictions

Alternative
 Set

Preferred

Alternative

Modified
 8b

Description
 to
 be
 applied
 to
 the
 MSB
 FMP

Inclusion
 of
 the
 AM
 5
 Herring
 PDT
 hotspots,
 modified
 to
 allow
 for

future
 modifications
 including
 expansion
 into
 larger

“monitoring/avoidance”
 areas
 identified
 by
 PDT
 frameworkable

Add
 blueback
 herring,
 alewife,
 American
 shad
 and
 hickory
 shad
 as

SIF
 under
 the
 MSB
 FMP

Set
 9:

9b-­‐9e

Add
 River

Herring
 and

Shads
 as
 stocks

in
 the
 MSB

fishery

•

We
 thank
 both
 MAFMC
 members
 &
 staff
 for
 considering
 our
 comments.

Sincerely

Capt.
 Patrick
 Paquette

MSBA
 Gov;t
 Affairs

Coalition
for
the
Atlantic
Herring
Fishery's
Orderly,
Informed
and
Responsible
Long
Term
Development



June
4th,
2012


Ms.
Carrie
Nordeen

NMFS
Northeast
Regional
Office

55
Great
Republic
Drive

Gloucester,
MA
01930


Re:
Herring
Amendment
5
Environmental
Impact
Statement


Dear
Carrie,


I
 am
 writing
 today
 on
 behalf
 of
 the
 undersigned
 CHOIR
 supporters
 to
 comment
 on
 the

Amendment
 5
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 (EIS)
 and
 to
 request
 that
 the
 Council
 take
 the

specific
 actions
 listed
 below
 to
 ensure
 better
 management
 of
 the
 herring
 fishery.
 CHOIR
 is
 an

industry
 coalition
 made
 up
 of
 commercial
 and
 recreational
 fishing
 organizations,
 fishing
 and

shore
side
businesses,
researchers
and
eco‐tourism
companies.



The
 Council
 initiated
 this
 amendment
 in
 2007
 in
 response
 to
 the
 widespread
 concerns
 of
 the

fishing
 and
 ecotourism
 industries
 and
 the
 general
 public
 regarding
 the
 inadequate
 management

and
monitoring
of
the
large
herring
pair
and
single
midwater
trawlers.
These
concerns
are
just
as

real
 today
 as
 they
 were
 five
 years
 ago:
 observer
 coverage
 levels
 are
 still
 inadequate;
 dumping

catch
 before
 it
 is
 sampled
 is
 still
 allowed
 in
 most
 areas;
 catch
 weighing
 is
 still
 based
 on
 self‐
reported
 estimations;
 and,
 finally,
 these
 vessels
 are
 still
 given
 full
 access
 to
 Groundfish
 Closed

Areas
(GFCAs).


We
 first
 urge
 the
 Council
 to
 implement
 100%
 observer
 coverage
 on
 Category
 A
 and
 B

herring
vessels
(Section
3.2.1,
Alternative
2).
Selecting
these
measures
only
for
A
and
B
boats

will
allow
the
Council
to
cover
the
small
number
of
large
vessels
that
are
responsible
for
over
97%

of
the
total
 herring
 landings,
 thus
 reducing
cost
and
complexity.
Elsewhere
in
the
country
boats

like
 these
 would
 be
 required
 to
 carry
 at
 least
 100%
 observer
 coverage
 and
 we
 feel
 the
 same

should
be
happening
here.



These
 herring
 trawlers
 are
 the
 biggest
 and
 most
 powerful
 vessels
 on
 the
 entire
 coast
 and
 tow

enormous
small‐mesh
nets
at
high
speed.
They
are
allowed
to
tow
anywhere
in
the
water
column,

as
well
as
in
GFCAs
and
areas
known
to
hold
large
amounts
of
river
herring.
They
are
targeting
the

primary
forage
stock
in
the
region,
thereby
guaranteeing
interaction
with,
and
bycatch
of,
species

such
 as
 cod,
 pollock,
 whiting,
 striped
 bass
 and
 bluefin
 tuna.
 Having
 the
 unique
 privilege
 to
 use

such
efficient
gear
in
this
manner
should
carry
the
unique
responsibility
to
completely
document

your
catch.
The
only
way
to
know
for
sure
what
the
impact
of
these
boats
is
on
species
like
cod

and
river
herring
is
to
require
100%
coverage.


While
 it
 is
 true
 that
 there
 have
 been
 modest
 increases
 in
 observer
 coverage
 in
 recent
 years,

coverage
levels
are
still
far
too
low,
with
60
to
70
percent
of
trips
unobserved
fishery‐wide.

Given

the
 dramatic
 increases
 in
 coverage
 offshore
 that
 have
 driven
 the
 recent
 overall
 increases,
 it
 is


1


clear
 that
 for
 some
 management
 areas
 the
 number
 of
 unobserved
 trips
 is
 likely
 much
 larger.

There
 is
 great
 incentive
 to
 fish
 differently
 when
 an
 observer
 is
 on
 the
 boat,
 and
 this
 practice
 is

known
to
occur
under
low
coverage
rates.

Therefore
it
is
essential
to
have
100%
coverage.

Second,
the
Council
should
implement
Closed
Area
I
(CAI)
provisions
with
trip
termination

after
 ten
 events
 in
 order
 to
 reduce
 dumping
 on
 Category
 A
 and
 B
 vessels
 (Section
 3.2.3.4

Option
4C).
Unlike
groundfish
trawlers,
most
herring
midwater
trawlers
pump
their
catch
aboard

before
 bringing
 the
 net
 aboard;
 as
 such,
 these
 boats
 can
 dump
 or
 “slip”
 unwanted
 catch
 before

bringing
 it
 aboard
 for
 sampling.
 One
 species
 that
 may
 be
 dumped
 most
 often
 is
 Atlantic
 herring

itself
(if
it
is
unmarketable
due
to
being
“feedy,”
small,
or
full
of
spawn,
if
mixed
in
with
species

like
dogfish
that
cannot
be
pumped,
or
if
mixed
with
any
unwanted
bycatch).
The
success
of
the

recently
 implemented
 rules
 in
 Closed
 Area
 I
 prove
 that
 such
 measures
 are
 effective
 at
 reducing

dumping
in
a
safe
manner.
Now
the
Council
must
require
similar
rules
throughout
the
geographic

range
 of
 the
 fishery,
 in
 combination
 with
 100%
 observer
 coverage,
 to
 know
 for
 sure
 what

amounts
 of
 herring,
 river
 herring,
 cod,
 and
 other
 species
 are
 being
 caught.
 The
 key
 to
 dumping

accountability
rules
is
to
have
real
disincentives
so
that
legitimate
exceptions
are
not
abused
and

turned
into
loopholes
and
this
measure
will
do
just
that
since
it
will
not
rely
on
self‐reporting
and

the
use
of
affidavits.


Third,
 the
 Council
 should
 implement
 measures
 to
 require
 weighing
 of
 catch
 across
 the

fishery
 (Section
 3.1.5
 Option
 2).
 It
 is
 hard
 to
 understand
 how
 an
 important
 fishery
 in
 this
 day

and
age
is
not
already
weighing
its
catch.
It
is
completely
unacceptable
to
be
basing
landings
totals

on
unverifiable
estimations
by
the
captains
or
dealers
and
we
hope
the
Council
will
put
an
end
to

this
practice.


Lastly,
 the
 Council
 should
 prohibit
 midwater
 trawl
 vessels
 participating
 in
 the
 herring

fishery
 from
 access
 to
 Groundfish
 Closed
 Areas
 (Section
 3.4.4
 Alternative
 5).
 These
 boats

were
 allowed
 into
 the
 closed
 areas
 under
 the
 assumption
 that
 they
 could
 not
 catch
 groundfish;

this
 assumption
 has
 since
 been
 proven
 false.
 There
 is
 no
 reason
 these
 boats
 should
 be
 towing

small‐mesh
gear
through
areas
off‐limits
to
groundfish
boats.



Since
 these
 boats
 entered
 the
 herring
 fishery
 in
 the
 nineties
 they
 have
 been
 a
 source
 of
 great

controversy.
 This
 controversy
 originated
 in
 the
 fishing
 and
 other
 industries
 that
 rely
 on
 the

ecosystem
and,
in
turn,
herring.
Many
of
our
supporters
feel
that
a
ban
on
pair
trawling
is
the
only

solution
to
the
problem
and
yet
have
worked
hard
to
try
and
find
a
middle
ground
that
will
allow

for
this
fleet
 to
 be
 managed
 properly
without
banning
it
outright.
We
hope
that
the
Council
 will

take
this
opportunity
to
make
the
right
decisions
and
to
finally
put
rules
in
place
that
are
adequate

given
the
realities
of
the
way
the
fishery
now
operates.


Thanks
for
your
time,


Steve
Weiner,
Chair


On
behalf
of
the
undersigned
CHOIR
supporters:


2


Commercial
Fishing
Groups,
Organizations
and
Entities:


American
Bluefin
Tuna
Association,
Ex.
Director
Rich
Ruais,
Salem,
NH

Northeast
Coastal
Communities
Sector,
Manager
Aaron
Dority

Maine
Coast
Fishermen’s
Association,
Ex.
Director
Ben
Martens,
Brunswick,
ME

Penobscot
East
Resource
Center,
Ex.
Director
Robin
Alden,
Stonington,
ME

New
Hampshire
Commercial
Fishermen’s
Association,
President
Erik
Anderson

Northeast
Hook
Fishermen’s
Association,
Pres.
Marc
Stettner,
Portsmouth,
NH

Cape
Cod
Commercial
Hook
Fishermen’s
Association,
CEO
John
Pappalardo,
Chatham,
MA

Northeast
Fisheries
Sector
III,
Gloucester,
MA



Commercial
Angler’s
Association,
Ex.
Director
Russell
E.
Cleary,
Maynard,
MA

Friends
of
South
Shore
Fisheries,
President
Skip
DeBrusk,
Scituate,
MA

Martha’s
Vineyard/Dukes
County
Fishermen’s
Association,
Pres.
Warren
Doty


Party/Charter/Recreational
Groups
and
Organizations:


Maine
Association
of
Charterboat
Captains,
Bath,
ME

Sportsmen’s
Alliance
of
Maine,
Augusta,
ME

Boothbay
Region
Fish
&
Game
Association,
Boothbay,
ME

Coastal
Conservation
Association
‐
New
Hampshire,
Pres.
Don
Swanson

Northeast
Tuna
Club,
President
Jeremy
Johnson,
Peterborough,
NH

Northeast
Charterboat
Captain’s
Association,
Pres.
Dave
Auger

Stellwagen
Bank
Charter
Boat
Association,
Pres.
Steve
James,
Marshfield,
MA

Cape
Cod
Charter
Boat
Association,
President
Buddy
Wilson,
Orleans,
MA

Massachusetts
Beach
Buggy
Association,
President
Scott
Morris

Massachusetts
Striped
Bass
Association,
President
Jim
Dow,
Braintree,
MA

New
England
Charter
Boat
Association,
President
Todd
Rodzen

New
Inlet
Boating
Association,
Skip
Cornell,
Marshfield,
MA

League
of
Essex
County
Sportsmen’s
Clubs,
Tom
Walsh,
Hawthorne,
MA

Nantucket
Angler’s
Club,
Pres.
Phil
Albertson,
Nantucket,
MA

Green
Harbor
Tuna
Club,
President
Lori
Atwater,
Green
Harbor,
MA

Plum
Island
Surfcasters,
President
Julio
Silva,
Newburyport,
MA

Falmouth
Fishermen’s
Association,
Pres.
George
Costello,
East
Falmouth,
MA

Maddie’s
Anglers
Club,
President
Chip
Wolcott,
Marblehead,
MA

Haverhill
Ridge
Runners
Fish
and
Game
Club,
Vincent
Monaco,
Haverhill,
MA


Rhode
Island
Saltwater
Angler’s
Association,
Pres.
Steven
Medeiros,
Coventry,
RI

Rhode
Island
Party
&
Charter
Boat
Association,
Pres.
Rick
Bellavance,
Warwick,
RI

Connecticut
Charter/Party
Boat
Association,
Pres.
Bob
Veach,
New
London,
CT

Recreational
Fishing
Alliance,
Ex.
Director
Jim
Donofrio,
New
Gretna,
NJ

Freeport
Tuna
Club,
President
Bill
Toohey,
Freeport,
NY

Atlantis
Anglers
Association,
President
Reed
Reimer,
Freeport,
NY

New
York
Sportfishing
Federation,
Pres.
Jim
Hutchinson
Jr.,
Forest
Hills,
NY

National
Association
of
Charterboat
Operators,
E.D.
Bobbi
Walker,
Orange
Beach,
AL

Delaware
River
Shad
Fisherman’s
Association,
Pres.
Bill
McWha


Marine
Research
and
Education
Organizations:


Atlantic
Salmon
Federation,
Vice
Pres.
Andrew
Goode,
Brunswick,
ME

Downeast
Salmon
Federation,
Ex.
Director
Dwayne
Shaw,
Columbia
Falls,
ME


3


Acadia
Institute
of
Oceanography,
Sheri
Gilmore,
Seal
Harbor,
ME

Allied
Whale,
Director
Sean
Todd,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Cetos
Research
Organization,
Director
Ann
Zoides,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Downeast
Audobon
Society,
President
Leslie
Clapp,
Ellsworth,
ME

Somes
Meynell
Wildlife
Sanctuary,
Director
Damid
Lamon,
Somesville,
ME

Friends
of
Blue
Hill
Bay,
President
Barbara
Arter,
Blue
Hill,
ME

Friends
of
Maine
Seabird
Islands,
Michael
Thompson,
Rockland,
ME

Blue
Ocean
Society,
Director
Jen
Kennedy,
Portsmouth,
NH

Whale
Center
of
New
England,
Laura
Howes,
Gloucester,
MA

The
Ocean
Alliance,
Ian
Kerr,
Gloucester,
MA


National
Audobon
Society
Seabird
Restoration
Program,
Steven
Kress,
Ithaca,
NY

Coastal
Research
and
Education
Society
of
Long
Island,
Pres.
Arthur
Kopelman

The
Great
Whale
Conservancy,
Pres.
Michael
Fishback,
Greensboro,
NC


Party
Boat
and
Whale
Watch
Companies:


Bunny
Clark
Deep
Sea
Fishing,
Capt.
Tim
Tower,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

Bar
Harbor
Whale
Watch
Company,
Naturalist
Zack
Klyver,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Boothbay
Whale
Watch,
Naturalist
Mechele
Vanderlaan,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

Odyssey
Whale
Watch,
Christopher
Cutshall,
Portland,
ME

First
Chance
Whale
Watch,
Dwight
Raymond,
Kennebunkport,
ME

Nor’easter
Deep
Sea
Fishing,
Capt.
Michael
Perkins,
Kennebunk
ME

Eastman’s
Dock
Deep
Sea
Fishing
and
Whale
Watching,
Phil
Eastman,
Seabrook,
NH

Lady
Tracey
Anne,
Inc.,
and
Lady
Courtney
Alexa,
LLC,
Mark
Godfroy,
Seabrook,
NH

Atlantic
Fleet
Whale
Watch,
Capt.
Brad
Cook,
Rye
Harbor,
NH

Granite
State
Whale
Watch,
Pete
Reynolds,
Rye
Harbor,
NH

Seven
Seas
Whale
Watch,
Paul
Frontiero,
Gloucester,
MA

Clipper
Fleet
Fishing,
Joe
Grady,
Salisbury,
MA

Walsh’s
Deep
Sea
Fishing,
Bob
Walsh,
Lynn,
MA

Newburyport
Whale
Watch,
Capt.
Bill
Neelon,
Newburyport,
MA

Yankee
Fleet
Deep
Sea
Fishing
and
Whale
Watching,
Tom
Conley,
Gloucester,
MA

Cape
Ann
Whale
Watch,
Jim
Douglass,
Gloucester,
MA

Capt.
John
Boats
Whale
Watching
and
Fishing
Tours,
Bob
Avila,
Plymouth,
MA


Helen
H
Deep
Sea
Fishing,
Capt.
Joe
Huckmeyer,
Hyannis,
MA

Dolphin
Fleet
Whale
Watch,
Jay
Hurley,
Eastham,
MA

F/V
Skipper,
Capt.
John
Potter,
Oak
Bluffs,
MA

Klondike
IX,
Capt.
Pete
Pearson,
New
Rochelle,
NY


Commercial
Fishing
Vessels:


F/V
Drew
and
Payton,
Donald
Simmons,
Jr.,
Friendship,
ME

F/V
Vallerie
J,
Donald
Simmons,
Sr.,
Friendship,
ME

F/V
Outer
Limits,
Dustin
Reed,
Friendship,
ME

F/V
Amy
Lynn,
Gregory
Simmons,
Friendship,
ME

F/V
Heather
and
Isaac,
Keith
Simmons,
Friendship,
ME

F/V
Mary
Elizabeth,
Ted
Ames,
Stonington,
ME

F/V
Deborah
Ann,
Chris
Clark,
Southwest
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Hunter,
Vaughn
Clark,
Southwest
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Heather
Rose
IV,
Gene
Thurston,
Southwest
Harbor,
ME


4


F/V
Linda
Sea,
John
Stanley,
Southwest
Harbor,
ME

F/V
CC
&
Water,
Cookie
Whitten,
Winter
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Sandra
E,
Allan
Vitkus,
Vinalhaven,
ME


F/V
Gulf
Traveler,
John
Cotton,
Tenants
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Leslie
and
Jessica,
Gary
Libby
and
Larry
Wood,
Port
Clyde,
ME

F/V
Ella
Christine,
Randy
Cushman,
Port
Clyde,
ME

F/V
Bug
Catcher,
Gerry
Cushman,
Port
Clyde,
ME

F/V
Capt.
Lee,
Justin
Libby,
Port
Clyde,
ME

F/V
Lauren
Dorothy,
Edward
Thorbjoursen,
Port
Clyde,
ME

F/V
Ruthless,
Justin
Thompson,
Port
Clyde,
ME

F/V
Two
Toots,
Mark
Huntlay,
St.
George,
ME

F/V
Eliza
B,
Neil
Cunningham,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Three
Bells,
Mark
Jones,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Jazamataz,
Don
Page,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Mary
E,
Jeff
Norwood,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Danny
&
Chad,
Jody
Murray,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Don’t
Ask,
Randy
Durgan,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Ella
&
Sadie,
Colin
Yentsch,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Andrea
J,
Dave
Fischer,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Sully,
Mathew
Rice,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Bottom
Line,
Carlton
Yentsche,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Intrapment,
Rodney
Lowery,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
No
Respect,
Michael
Pinkham,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Amy
Gale,
Caleb
Hodgdon,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Lion’s
Den,
John
Shostak,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME


F/V
Julia
G
III,
Bradley
Simmons,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Lady
Esther,
Larry
Knapp,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Johanna
Marie,
John
Farnham,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Lindsey
P
II,
Dana
Hodgdon,
Boothbay,
ME

F/V
Suzanne
B,
David
Norton,
Boothbay,
ME

F/V
Bout
Time,
Andrew
Kenny,
Boothbay,
ME

F/V
Phyllis
III,
Jody
Durgan,
Boothbay,
ME

F/V
Arzetta
Sue,
Mark
Lewis,
Boothbay,
ME

F/V
Gratitude,
Michael
Stevens,
Five
Islands,
ME

F/V
Sheann
and
Jess,
Chipper
Preble,
Five
Islands,
ME


F/V
Miss
Connie,
Gregg
Gilliam,
Small
Point,
ME

F/V
Heather
Kate,
Glen
Gilliam,
Small
Point,
ME

F/V
Morning
Starr,
Herbie
Yeaton,
West
Point,
ME

F/V
Allie
K,
Steve
Simmons,
Southport,
ME

F/V
Sea
Strider,
Marty
Thibault,
Southport,
ME

F/V
Mystic
Rose,
Michael
Fossett,
South
Bristol,
ME

F/V
Elizabeth
Jane,
Clay
Gilbert,
South
Bristol,
ME

F/V
Jeanne
C,
Kelo
Pinkham,
Trevett,
ME

F/V
High
Roller,
Steve
Benner,
Warren,
ME

F/V
Carol
Ann,
Gary
Hatch,
Owl’s
Head,
ME

F/V
Pamela
Grace,
Troy
Bichrest,
Cundys
Harbor,
ME

F/V
GetSome,
Jimmy
Soto,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Erin
and
Sarah,
Peter
Speeches,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Bella
&
Bailey,
Keith
Jordan
and
Dean
Gower,
Portland,
ME


5


F/V
Endeavor,
Marshall
Spear,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Bingham,
William
Smith,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Stella
Maris,
Jessie
Field,
Portland,
ME


F/V
Hooker,
Phil
Chase,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Julia
&
Carly,
Joe
Mazerolle,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Longjack,
Joel
Strunk,
Portland,
ME

F/V
Kathleen
J,
Stuart
Fay,
South
Portland,
ME

F/V
Claudette
C,
Gary
C.,
and
Gary
E.
Obrien,
South
Portland,
ME

F/V
Kelly
Anne,
Keith
Landrigan,
South
Portland,
ME

F/V
Banshee,
John
Harmon,
South
Portland,
ME


F/V
Belly
Filla,
Alex
Notis,
South
Portland,
ME

F/V
Maria
and
Dorothy,
Rob
Odlin,
Scarborough,
ME


F/V
Seldom
Seen,
Matt
Weber,
Monhegan
Island,
ME

F/V
Arco
Felice,
Lexi
Krausse,
Rockport,
ME

F/V
OnLine,
Geoff
Pellicia,
Scarborough,
ME

F/V
Molly
Jane,
Kurt
Christianson,
Pine
Point,
ME

F/V
Valborg,
Kirk
Plender,
Peaks
Island,
ME

F/V
Zerlina,
David
Schalit,
Brooklin,
ME

F/V
Misty
Mae,
Donald
Paulson,
Cushing,
ME

F/V
Scoot
Too,
Doug
Gerry,
Springvale,
ME


F/V
Old
Mud,
Donald
Sproul,
West
Bath,
ME

F/V
Sea
Wench,
Capt.
Kyle
Gagne,
Lyman,
ME

F/V
Theresa
Ann,
Tom
Cassamassa,
Saco,
ME

F/V
Angel
III,
Bruce
Haskell,
Saco,
ME

F/V
Mal‐Max,
Stephen
Carlton
and
Zack
Metcalf,
Biddeford,
ME

F/V
Santiago,
Ben
Pasquale,
Arundel,
ME

F/V
Hayley
Ann,
Joe
Nickerson,
Arundel,
ME

F/V
Megan
Molly,
Richard
Willman,
Jefferson,
ME

F/V
Pamala
Jean,
Adam
Littell,
Kennebunkport,
ME

F/V
Miss
Nikki,
Chris
Angelos,
Kennebunkport,
ME

F/V
Olympic
Lady,
Kurt
Moses,
Kennebunkport,
ME

F/V
Allyson,
Capt.
Thomas
Mansfield,
Kennebunkport,
ME


F/V
Pretender,
Tad
Miller,
Kennebunk,
ME

F/V
Clover,
Bill
McIntire,
Kennebunkport,
ME



F/V
Alana
Marie,
Paul
Rioux,
Kennebunkport,
ME

F/V
Emily
Rachel,
Tony
Coleman,
Wells,
ME

F/V
Eileen
K,
Mike
Parenteau,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
A.
Maria,
Sonny
McIntire,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Amy
Elizabeth,
Matt
Forbes,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Buckwacka,
Mike
Horning,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Elizabeth
Ames,
Chris
Weiner,
Perkins
Cove,
ME


F/V
Josie
B,
Steve
Merrill,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
All
In,
Michael
Lorusso,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Sara
Beth,
Kenneth
Yorke,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Queen
of
Peace,
Shane
and
Bobby
McIntire,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Bettina
H,
Tim
Virgin,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Petrel,
Micah
Tower,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

F/V
Sticker
Shock,
Hank
Greer,
York
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Rush,
David
Webber,
York
Harbor,
ME


6


F/V
Merlin,
David
Linney,
York
Harbor,
ME

F/V
Risky
Business,
Michael
Ramsey,
York
Harbor,
ME


F/V
Sushi
Hunter,
Capt.
Doug
Anderson,
Eliot,
ME



F/V
Fortunate,
Jeremy
Reynolds,
Kittery,
ME

F/V
Sally
G,
Joe
Barrone,
Kittery,
ME

F/V
Endeavour,
Emile
Bussiere,
Kittery,
ME

F/V
Maggie
Grace,
Thomas
Allen,
Kittery
Point,
ME

F/V
Miss
Guided,
Paul
Spencer,
Rochester,
NH

F/V
Merilyn
J,
F/V
Miss
Ava,
Ron
Lien,
Gilford,
NH

F/V
Cindy
K,
Bo
Adams,
Rochester,
NH

F/V
Sugar
Bear,
Capts.
Silvio
Balzano,
Bruce
Brennan,
Garth
Morin,
and
Mark












Brambilla,
New
Castle,
NH

F/V
Pin
Wheel,
Tyler
McLaughlin,
Rye
Harbor,
NH

F/V
Sea
Hag,
Arthur
Splain,
Rye,
NH


F/V
Penny
B,
James
Bowles,
Rye,
NH

F/V
Rough
Times,
Chris
Adamitis,
Portsmouth,
NH

F/V
Island
Girl,
Bob
Bryant,
Portsmouth,
NH

F/V
Pacifier,
Michael
McLaughlin,
Rye,
NH

F/V
Zero
Nine,
Bill
Boise,
Rye,
NH


F/V
Thalasa,
Charles
Panasis,
Dover,
NH

F/V
Julia
G,
Thomas
and
Ted
Sutton,
Hampton
Harbor,
NH

F/V
Toby
Ann,
Brian
Higgins,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Bounty
Hunter,
Billy
Monte,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Coot,
Dana
Kangas,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Tuna.com,
Capt.
Dave
Carraro,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Freebird,
Gregg
Swinson,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
American
Heritage,
F/V
Kristania,
Michael
Leary,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Ryan
Zackary,
F/V
Rock
On,
F/V
Lori
B,
Rich
Burgess,
Gloucester,
MA


F/V
JJ,
Rick
Pramas,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Mary
D,
Daniel
Doumani,
Newburyport,
MA

F/V
The
Gov,
Mark
Godfried,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Christina,
Kevin
Leonowert,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Gratitude,
Eric
Swanson,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Jean
Anne,
Capt.
Jules
Boudreau,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Susan
C,
Joe
Jancewicz,
Gloucester,
MA


F/V
Jeanne
Marie,
Mike
Blanchard,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Osprey,
Steve
Corbett,
Gloucester,
MA

F/V
Katie
May,
Dean
Holt,
Newburyport,
MA

F/V
Sooner
or
Later
III,
John
Nichols,
Newburyport,
MA


F/V
Amanda,
Peter
Atherton,
Newburyport,
MA

F/V
Karen
Elain,
Don
and
Craig
Nelson,
Salisbury,
MA


F/V
Merganser,
Peter
Fyrberg,
Rowley,
MA

F/V
Ella
Briggs,
Dylan
Caldwell,
Pigeon
Cove,
MA

F/V
James
&
Christine,
Michael
Cornell,
Marblehead,
MA

F/V
Seven
Sea,
Bob
Oulette,
Danvers,
MA





F/V
Fishbucket,
Capt.
Mike
Delzingo,
Boston,
MA

F/V
Hookin‐Up,
Capt.
Darin
DiNucci,
Winthrop,
MA

F/V
YA‐HOO,
Capt.
Doug
Brander,
Hull,
MA


F/V
Lady
Lyn,
Capt.
Bill
Henderson,
Hull,
MA



7


F/V
Jesse
J,
Capt.
John
Richardson,
Hingham,
MA

F/V
Moonlighter,
Mark
Paolucci,
Quincy,
MA

F/V
All
Risk,
Newton
Johnson,
Boston,
MA

F/V
Bad
Influence,
Capt.
Tom
Scanlon,
Lynn,
MA

F/V
Bare
Bone,
Will
and
George
French,
North
Andover,
MA

F/V
Hot
Reels,
Jeff
Webber,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Caitlin
Marie,
Dave
Cataldo,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Perfect
C’s,
F/V
Lisa
Marie,
Michael
Pratt,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Fortunate,
Frank
Papp,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Soggy
Dollar,
Mike
Buckley,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Ocean
Runner,
Brian
Flannery,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Family
Jules,
Thomas
Libertini,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Go
Figueire,
Capt.
Jeremy
Figueiredo,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Fish
Stix,
Capt.
Claude
S.
Holt,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Akula,
Jordan
Sanford,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Finestkind,
Dana
Blackman,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Lady
Pamela,
Michael
McNamara,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Hannah
G,
Steven
Getto,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Bampy,
Ralph
Pratt,
Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Papaneil,
Neil
Chandler,
Duxbury,
MA

F/V
Shadowline,
Putnam
Maclean,
Marshfield,
MA

F/V
Iron
Skippy,
John
Bunar,
Duxbury,
MA

F/V
Sashamy,
Capt.
Doug
Amorello
and
Jeff
Amorello,
Plymouth,
MA

F/V
Justified,
Danny
Hunter,
Plymouth,
MA

F/V
Katie
Marie,
Nate
Cavacco,
Plymouth,
MA

F/V
Lorraine
B,
Capt.
Bob
Briggs,
Scituate,
MA

F/V
Coyote,
Scott
Brady,
Scituate,
MA

F/V
Mulberry
Canyon,
Capt.
John
Galvin,
Quissett,
MA

F/V
Sea
Wolf,
Tom
Smith,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Hindsight,
Brett
Wilson
and
Woddy
Wood,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Last
Resort,
Dan
Howes,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Tammy
Rose,
Capt.
Corey
Stewart,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Cynthia
C,
Tyler
Macallister,
Sandwich,
MA

F/V
Metal
Health,
Steven
Pechinsky,
Sandwich,
MA

F/V
Shocker,
Herb
Finley,
Sandwich,
MA


F/V
Ezyduzit,
F/V
Rueby,
William
Chaprales,
Sandwich,
MA

F/V
No
Worries
Too,
Capt.
Dick
King,
Westport,
MA


F/V
Blue
Heron,
Jonathan
Geary,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Miss
Rockville,
Andrew
Keese,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Saga,
Ben
Bergquist,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Horse
Mackeral,
David
Gelfman,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Rug
Rats,
Bob
St.
Pierre,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Miss
Fitz,
John
Our,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Ann
Marie,
Jim
Nash,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Beggars
Banquet,
Bob
Keese,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Never
Enough,
Bruce
Kaminski,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Fairtime,
Frank
Sontoro,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Ouija,
Gerald
Miszkin,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Ocean
Lady,
Christopher
Ripa,
Chatham,
MA


8


F/V
Kittiwake,
Ken
Eldredge,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Edward
&
Joseph,
Charlie
Dodge,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Magic,
Mike
Abdow,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Frenzy,
Ray
Kane,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Wildwood,
Nick
Hyora,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Constance
Sea,
Mike
Woods,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Lost,
Nick
Muto,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Dawn
T,
Stuart
Tolley,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Bada
Bing,
Tye
Vecchione,
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Cuda,
John
Tuttle
and
William
Barabe,
North
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Unicorn,
Robert
Eldredge,
South
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Riena
Marie,
Ted
Ligenza,
South
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Yellowbird,
James
Eldredge,
West
Chatham,
MA

F/V
Luau,
John
and
Mark
Shakliks,
Eastham,
MA

F/V
Anna
Marie,
Ray
Brunelle,
Eastham,
MA

F/V
Suzies
Riches,
Rich
Whiteside,
Barnstable,
MA

F/V
Tenacious
II,
Eric
Hesse,
Dennis,
MA


F/V
Alicia
Ann,
Greg
Walinski,
Dennis,
MA

F/V
Back
Off,
F/V
Fighting
Irish,
Shawn
Sullivan,
Dennis,
MA

F/V
Hawk,
Capt.
Dennis
Lanzetta,
East
Dennis,
MA

F/V
Lucky
7,
Carl
Coppenrath,
South
Dennis,
MA


F/V
Peggy
B
II,
Ronald
Braun,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Arlie
X,
Thomas
Szado,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Sea
Holly,
Mark
Leach,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Kelly
J,
Michael
Terrenzi,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Zachary
T,
Nick
O’Toole,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Sea
Chase,
Roscoe
Chase,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Sea
Hook,
Earl
LeGeyt,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Tricia
Lynn,
Glen
LeGeyt,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Haywire,
Chris
Pistel,
Harwich,
MA

F/V
Sue
Z,
Capt.
Tom
Traina,
Harwich
Port,
MA

F/V
Lilly
Lulu,
John
Lashar,
Harwich
Port,
MA

F/V
Relentless,
Mark
Poirier,
Harwich
Port,
MA

F/V
Machaca,
F/V
Tormenta,
Capt.
Willy
Hatch,
Falmouth,
MA

F/V
Bank
Runner,
George
Breen,
Falmouth,
MA

F/V
Fish
Hawk,
Jeff
Capute
and
Joe
Weinberg,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Predatuna,
Dennis
Chaprales,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Lori
Ann,
Dorwin
Allen,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Sea
Hawk,
Carol
Huckmeyer,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Isabella
H,
Patrick
Radford,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Rachel
M,
Roy
McKenzie,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Gypsy,
Tom
Ryshavy,
Hyannis,
MA

F/V
Cynthia
C,
Thedore
Velsor
and
Todd
Espindola,
Mattapoisett,
MA

F/V
Inseine,
Mike
Lange,
New
Bedford,
MA

F/V
Knotty
Girl,
Andrew
Eaves,
New
Bedford,
MA

F/V
Reality,
James
P.
Ellis,
Nantucket,
MA

F/V
Seas
The
Day,
Kirby
Jones,
Nantucket,
MA

F/V
Althea
K,
Pete
Kaizer,
Nantucket,
MA

F/V
Quitsa
Strider,
Jonathan
and
Matt
Mayhew,
Chilmark,
MA


9


F/V
Unicorn,
Greg
Mayhew,
Chilmark,
MA

F/V
Annalee,
Annette
Cingle,
Chilmark,
MA

F/V
Wynott,
Patrick
Jenkinson,
Chilmark,
MA

F/V
Megan
and
Haley,
Jeff
Lynch,
Chilmark,
MA

F/V
Martha
Elizabeth,
Wes
Brighton,
Chilmark,
MA

F/V
Jenny
J,
Lev
Wylodka,
Chilmark,
MA

F/V
Sharon,
Ann,
Capt.
Sean
Egan,
Chilmark,
MA


F/V
Tenacious,
Capt.
Rob
Coad,
Edgartown,
MA


F/V
Caroline,
Alan
Gagnon,
Edgartown,
MA

F/V
Clean
Sweep,
Dan
Gilkes,
Edgartown,
MA


F/V
Surfside,
Graham
Murray,
Edgartown,
MA



F/V
Short
Fuse,
Capt.
Steve
Purcell,
Edgartown,
MA

F/V
Shearwater,
Capt.
Paul
McDonald
and
Eli
Bonnell,
Menemsha,
MA

F/V
Dazed
and
Confused,
Capt.
Alex
Friedman
and
Chris
Jones,
Oak
Bluffs,
MA

F/V
Poco
Loco,
David
Kadison,
Oak
Bluffs,
MA

F/V
Smokin
Eel,
Tom
Norbury,
Oak
Bluffs

F/V
Layla
Ann,
Stephen
Morris,
Oak
Bluffs,
MA

F/V
Pogie
Time,
Eduard
Begin,
Tisbury,
MA

F/V
Solitude,
Andy
Wheeler,
Vineyard
Haven,
MA

F/V
Chum
King,
Jamie
King,
Vineyard
Haven,
MA

F/V
Little
Tunny,
Capt.
John
Schillinger,
Vineyard
Haven,
MA


F/V
Diggin
It
II,
Dan
Zawisza,
Old
Saybrook,
CT

F/V
Destiny,
Capt.
Mike
Deskin,
Clinton,
CT


F/V
Susan
H,
Eric
Herbst,
Clinton,
CT

F/V
Tracings,
Dan
Weber,
Old
Saybrook,
CT

F/V
Scurge,
Marty
Hall,
New
London,
CT

F/V
Hot
Tuna,
Timothy
Ott,
Broad
Channel,
NY

F/V
Miss
Isabella,
Ken
Clark,
Shelter
Island,
NY

F/V
Going
Deep,
Tyler
Clark,
Shelter
Island,
NY

F/V
Gannett
II,
Chip
Edwards,
Shelter
Island,
NY

F/V
Moonshine,
Spurge
Krasowski,
Brielle,
NJ

F/V
Lucky
Lady,
Walter
Harmstead,
Manasquan,
NJ


Charter
and
Guide
Companies:


Shark
Six
Sportfishing
Charters,
Capt.
Barry
Gibson,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

Sweet
Action
Charters,
Capt.
Dan
Wolotsky,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

Breakaway
Sportfishing,
Capts.
Pete
and
Nick
Ripley,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

Maine
Saltwater
Guide
Service,
Capt.
Forrest
Faulkingham,
Wiscasset,
ME

Sea
Ventures
Charters,
Capt.
Dave
Sinclair,
Wayne,
ME

Asticou
Charter
Boat
Co.
Capt.
Richard
Savage,
Northeast
Harbor,
ME

Kennebec
River
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Chester
Rowe,
Bath,
ME

Obsession
Sportfishing
Charters,
Capt.
Dave
Pecci,
Bath,
ME



Marsh
River
Charters,
Capt
Hank
DeRuiter,
West
Bath,
ME

Captain
Doug
Jowett
Charters,
Capt.
Doug
Jowett,
Brunswick,
ME

Offshore
Adventures
Fishing,
Capt.
John
Pappas,
Cape
Elizabeth,
ME

Diamond
Pass
Outfitters,
Capt.
Luis
Tirado,
South
Portland,
ME

Atlantic
Adventures
Charters,
Capt.
James
Harkings,
Portland,
ME

Teazer
Charters,
Capt.
Pete
Morse,
South
Portland,
ME




10


Morning
Flight
Charters,
Capt.
Dave
Paul,
South
Portland,
ME

Kristin
K
Charters,
Capt.
Ben
Gardner,
South
Portland,
ME

Maine
Coast
Guide
Service,
Capt.
Keith
Hall,
Scarborough,
ME

Eggemogin
Guide
Service,
Capt.
Pete
Douvarjo,
Sedgwick,
ME

Captain
Doug
Jowett
Charters,
Capt.
Doug
Jowett,
Brunswick,
ME

Maine
River
&
Sea
Charters,
Capt.
Mike
Jancovic,
Belgrade,
ME

Jillian
II
Fishing
Charters,
Capt
Richard
Crosby,
Buxton,
ME


Live
Wire
Charters,
Capt.
Rick
Hanlin,
Sabattus,
ME


Bass
I
Charters,
Capt.
Dean
Krah,
Newcastle,
ME

Trina
Lyn
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Todd
Stewart,
Old
Orchard
Beach,
ME

Rippin’
Lips
Charters,
Capt.
Jim
Bollinger,
Old
Orchard
Beach,
ME

Hook’d
Up
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Garon
Mailman,
Saco,
ME

Pritnear
Heaven
Charters,
Capt.
Dave
Johnson,
Camp
Ellis,
ME

Saco
Bay
Guide
Service,
Capt.
Cal
Robinson,
Biddeford,
ME

Libreti
Rose
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Bruce
Hebert,
Kennebunkport,
ME

Manta
Ray
Adventures,
Capt.
Jon
Manter,
Kennebunkport,
ME


F/V
Miss
Megan
II
Charters,
Capts.
Shawn
and
Megan
Tibbetts,
Wells,
ME

Nastashet
Roads
Charters,
Paul
R.
Hood,
Wells,
ME

Lethal
Weapon
Charters,
Capt.
Bob
Liston,
Wells
Harbor,
ME

Capt.
Satch
&
Sons
Fishing,
Capts.
Satch,
Den
and
Whit
McMahon,
Wells,
ME

Yellow
Boat
Charters,
Capt.
Ben
Weiner,
Perkins
Cove,
ME

Bigger
N’
Better
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Mike
Sosik,
York,
ME

G
Cove
Charters,
Capt.
Greg
Brown,
York
Harbor,
ME

Clandestino
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Keper
Connell,
Rye,
NH

Tontine
Charters,
Capt.
Patrick
Dennehy,
Rye,
NH

Captain
Bill’s
Charters,
Capt.
Bill
Wagner,
Rye,
NH

Melanie
Jeanne
Fisheries,
LLC,
Ralph
McDonald,
Exeter,
NH

Cap’n
Sav’s
Charters,
Capt.
Radziic,
Rye,
NH

Roof
Rafta
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Patrick
Colby,
Hampton
Harbor,
NH

Shoals
Fly
Fishing
&
Light
Tackle,
Capt.
Peter
Whelan,
Portsmouth,
NH

Reel
Job
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Steve
Main,
Hampton,
NH

Kool‐Aid
Charters,
Capt.
Cody
Dodds,
Hanover,
NH

Seacoast
New
Hamsphire
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Bob
Weathersby,
Rye,
NH

Rod’s
Delight
Charters,
Capt.
Rod
Ratcliffe,
Salisbury,
MA

Rings
Island
Charters,
Capt.
Gary
Morin,
Salisbury,
MA

Rocky
Point
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Bill
Jarman,
Newburyport,
MA

Shadowcaster
Charters,
Capt.
James
Goodhart,
Newburyport,
MA

Merrimack
River
Charters,
Capt.
Bob
Bump,
Newburyport,
MA

Atlantic
Charter,
Capt.
Norm
Boucher,
Newburyport,
MA

Summer
Job
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Scott
Maguire,
Newburyport,
MA

Erica
Lee
II
Charters,
Lee,
Bob
and
Erica
Yeomans,
Newbury,
MA

Kelly
Ann
Charters,
Capt.
Mauro
DiBacco,
Rowley,
MA

Sigler
Guide
Service,
Capt.
Randy
Sigler,
Marblehead,
MA

Tuna
Hunter
Fishing
Charters,
Capts.
Gary
and
Karen
Cannell,
Gloucester,
MA

Sweet
Dream
Sportfishing
III,
Capt.
Bruce
Sweet,
Gloucester,
MA

Sandy
B
Charters,
Capt.
Bruce
Bornstein,
Gloucester,
MA

Full
Strike
Anglers,
Capt.
George
Lemieux,
Gloucester,
MA

Kayman
Charters,
Capt.
Kevin
Twombly,
Gloucester,
MA

Karen
Lynn
Charters,
Capt.
Collin
MacKenzie,
Gloucester,
MA


11


North
Coast
Angler,
Capts.
Skip
Montello,
Dave
Beshara
and
Al
Montello,
and













Instructor
Stephen
Papows,
Rockport,
MA

Purelife
Charters,
Capt.
Jay
Shields,
Beverly,
MA

Sheila
D
Charters,
Capt.
Arthur
Caissie,
Danvers,
MA

Law
&
Order
Charters,
Capt.
Pete
Murphy,
Scituate
Harbor,
MA

Charter
Vessel
Ghillie,
Capt.
Charlie
Wade,
Marshfield,
MA

Crimson
Tide
Charters,
Capts.
Fred
Lavitman
and
Chris
Joyal,
Marshfield,
MA


White
Cap
Charters,
LLC,
Capt.
Brad
White,
Marshfield
Hills,
MA

CPF
Charters,
Capt.
Mike
Pierdnock,
Brant
Rock,
MA

F/V
Top
Shelf
Charters,
Capt.
Jim
Gilpin,
Norwell,
MA

Massachusetts
Bay
Guides,
Capts.
Greg,
Taylor
and
Bryan
Sears,
Corey
Carlson,
Don









Campbell,
Dave
and
Ed
Newell,
and
Dave
Kraus,
Green
Harbor,
MA

Big
Fish
Charters,
Capt.
Tom
Depersia,
Green
Harbor,
MA

Relentless
Charters,
Capts.
Dave
Waldrip,
Jeremiah
Mulcahy
and
Curtis
Maxon,







Green
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Typhoon
Charters,
Andrew
Marshall,
Green
Harbor,
MA

Black
Rose
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Rich
Antonino,
Green
Harbor,
MA

Enoch
Charters,
Capt.
Jay
Berggren,
Scituate,
MA

White
Cap
Charters
LLC,
Capt.
Brad
White,
Scituate,
MA


Capt.
Tim
Brady
&
Sons
Charters
and
Tours,
Capt.
Tim
Brady,
Plymouth,
MA

Reel
Time
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Roland
Lizotte,
Plymouth,
MA


Go
Fish
Sportfishing
Charters,
Capt.
Patrick
Helsingius,
Sudbury,
MA

Bill
&
Jules
Fishing,
Capt.
Bill
Bryant,
Brockton,
MA

Little
Sister
Charters,
Capt.
Jason
Colby,
Quincy,
MA

Black
Hull
Charters,
Capt.
Ronnie
Munafo,
Quincy,
MA

Midnight
Charters,
Capt.
Roger
Brousseau,
Quincy,
MA

Boston
Fishstix
Guides,
Capts.
John
Mendelson
and
Rich
Armstrong,
Quincy,
MA

Ave
Maria
Charters,
Capt.
Mike
Bousaleh,
Braintree,
MA

Boston
Fishing
Charters,
Kateiri
Bousaleh,
Braintree,
MA

Reel
Pursuit
Charters,
Capt.
Paul
Diggins,
Boston,
MA

BigTips
Charters,
Capt.
Edward
Manning,
Boston,
MA

CJ
Victoria
Charters
and
Rod
Building,
Capt.
Rob
Savino,
Winthrop,
MA

City
Slicker
Charters,
Capt.
John
Wallace,
Winthrop,
MA

Beth
Ann
Charters,
Capt.
Rich
Wood,
Provincetown,
MA

Fin
Addicition
Charters,
Capt.
Jeff
Smith,
Wellfleet,
MA

Chatham
Charters,
Capt.
Matt
Swenson,
Chatham,
MA

Capeshores
Charters,
Capt.
Bruce
Peters,
Eastham,
MA

Roxy
Charterboat,
Capt.
Thomas
Hayes,
Eastham,
MA

F/V
Miller
Time,
Charles
Miller,
Eastham,
MA

F/V
Gusto,
Jonah
Turner,
Eastham,
MA

F/V
Fairlady,
Matthew
Bettencourt,
Eastham,
MA

Castafari
Charters,
Capt.
Damon
Sacco,
Falmouth,
MA

Sea
Dog
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Bruce
Cranshaw,
Falmouth,
MA

F/V
Sea
Frog,
J.
Roger
Tessier,
Harwich,
MA

Fishtale
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Mort
Terry,
Harwich
Port,
MA


Cape
Cod
Charter
Fishing,
Capt.
Art
Brosnan,
Saquatucket
Harbor,
MA

Laura
Jay
Charters,
Capts.
Don
and
Jay
Cianciolo,
East
Sandwich,
MA

Liberty
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Martin
Costa,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Hobo,
Andy
Napolitano,
Orleans,
MA


12


F/V
Fair
Lady,
Chuck
Catalou,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Osprey,
Don
Viprino,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Rose
Pengelly,
John
Avellar,
Orleans,
MA

F/V
Stunmei
II,
Walter
Farrell,
Orleans,
MA

Bluefin
Charters,
Capt.
Brian
Courville,
Falmouth,
MA

Southside
Charters,
Capt.
Todd
Bialas,
Falmouth,
MA

Cape
Cod
Sportfishing
‐
Janine
B,
Capt.
Wayne
Bergeron,
Dennis,
MA

Striper
Charters,
Capt.
Gary
Swanson,
South
Yarmouth,
MA


Stray
Cat
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Ron
Murphy,
Hyannis
Harbor,
MA

F/V
Angler,
Jason
Alger,
Hyannis,
MA

Breakwater
Charters,
Capt.
Mike
Conly,
Marthas
Vineyard,
MA


Tomahawk
Charters,
Capt.
Buddy
Vanderhoop,
Aquinnah,
MA

Capt.
Clarke
Charters,
Capt.
Jennifer
Clarke,
Chilmark,
MA

North
Shore
Charters,
Capt.
Scott
McDowell,
Chilmark,
MA

Contessa
Fly
Fishing,
Capt.
W.
Brice
Contessa,
Edgartown,
MA

Jean
Marie
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
John
Crocker,
Edgartown,
MA

High
Tides
Charter
&
Guide
Service,
Capt.
Russ
Lawrence,
Edgartown,
MA

Wayfarer
Charters,
Capt.
Ed
Jerome,
Edgartown,
MA

Great
Harbour
Charters,
Capt.
Charlie
Ashmun,
Edgartown,
MA

Featherwedge
Charters,
Capt.
Nick
Warburton,
Menemsha,
MA

Sortie
Charters,
Capt.
Alex
Preston,
Menemsha,
MA

Capt.
Bucky
Burrows
Charters,
Capt.
Bucky
Burrows,
Vineyard
Haven,
MA


Done
Deal
Charters,
Capt.
Jeffrey
Canha,
Vineyard
Haven,
MA

Martha’s
Vineyard
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Dick
Vincent,
Vineyard
Haven,
MA

Topspin
Charters,
Capt.
Karsten
Reinemo,
Nantucket,
MA

Nantucket
Sportfishing
Co.,
David
Martin,
Nantucket,
MA

F/V
Just
Do
It
Too,
Capt.
Marc
Genthner,
Nantucket,
MA

Herbert
T.
Sportfishing,
Fred
Tonkin,
Nantucket,
MA

Snapper
Charters,
Capt.
Doug
Lindley,
Nantucket,
MA

Monomoy
Charters
&
Critter
Cruise,
Capt.
Josh
Eldridge,
Nantucket,
MA

West
Wind
Fishing
Charters,
Capt.
Bob
Rank,
Nantucket,
MA

Albacore
Charters,
Capts.
Bob
DeCosta
and
Smitty
Smith,
Nantucket,
MA

Capt.
Tom’s
Charters,
Capts.
Tom
Mleczko,
Nat
Reeder,
Jason
Mleczko,
and
Colin













Sykes,
Nantucket,
MA

Tide
Hunter
Charters,
Capt.
Scott
Bradley,
Stoughton,
MA

Get
The
Net
Charters,
Capt.
Nat
Chalkey,
Woods
Hole,
MA

Riptide
Charters,
Capt.
Terry
Nugent,
Buzzards
Bay,
MA

F/V
The
Kid$
Money
Charters,
Capt.
Bob
McCarey,
Bourne,
MA

Diablo
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Kevin
Malone,
Pocasset,
MA

Lincoln
Brothers
Fishing
Charters,
Capts.
Sam
and
Josh
Lincoln,
Pocasset,
MA

Race
Point
Charters,
Capt.
Christopher
Long,
Sesuit
Harbor,
MA

Slamdance
Charters,
Capt.
Steve
Moore,
Barnstable,
MA

Busy
Line
Charters,
Capt.
Norm
Bardell,
Galilee,
RI

Cherry
Pepper
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Lin
Safford,
Charlestown,
RI

Reel
to
Reel
Charters,
LLC,
Capt.
Scott
Lundberg,
Narragansett,
RI

Maverick
Charters,
Capt.
Jack
Riley,
Hope
Valley,
RI

Coastal
Charters
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Dom
Petrarca,
Portsmouth,
RI

Flaherty
Charters,
Capt.
Tim
Flaherty,
Middletown,
RI

After
You,
Too,
LLC,
Capt.
Frank
Blume,
New
London,
CT


13


Togfather
Fishing,
Dennis
Cataldo,
Farmingdale,
NY

Double
Diamond
Charters,
Capt.
Manuel
Canales,
Neptune,
NJ

Tuna
Wahoo
Charter
Fishing,
Capt.
Rich
Adler,
Point
Pleasant,
NJ

Shark
Inlet
Charters,
Capt.
Mike
Formichella,
Belmar,
NJ

Midcoast
Kayak
Fishing,
Bryan
Rusk,
Easton,
MD

Canyon
Runner
Fishing
Charters,
Adam
LaRosa,
Pirate’s
Cove,
NC

Sushi
Sportfishing,
Capt.
Charley
Pereira,
Pirate’s
Cove,
NC

F/V
Reel
Therapy,
Bob
Memmen,
Jupiter,
FL


Tackle
Shops
and
Companies:


Saco
Bay
Tackle,
Peter
Mourmouras,
Saco,
ME

Tightlines
Tackle,
Dave
Mason,
Walpole,
ME

Luke’s
Reel
Repair,
Lionel
Lucas,
Kennebunk,
ME



Webhannet
River
Boatyard
and
Tackle
Shop,
Capt.
Scott
Worthing,
Wells,
ME


Eldredge
Bros.
Fly
Shop,
Jim
Bernstein,
Cape
Neddick,
ME

White
Anchor
Bait
&
Tackle
Shop,
Carl
Jordan,
Boothbay,
ME

Offshore
Marine
Outfitters,
Matt
Nagy,
York,
ME

Jeff’s
Bait
Shop,
Jeff
Roberts,
Lovell,
ME

Bucko’s
Parts
and
Tackle,
Michael
J
Bucko,
Fall
River,
MA

Fisherman’s
Outfitter,
John
White,
Gloucester,
MA

First
Light
Anglers,
Nat
Moody
and
Derek
Spingler,
Rowley,
MA

Offshore
Pursuits
Premium
Tackle,
David
Dodsworth,
MA


Fishing
Finatics,
Pete
Santini,
Everett,
MA

Green
Harbor
Bait
and
Tackle,
Bob
Pronk,
Marshfield,
MA

Crossroads
Bait
and
Tackle,
Michael
Hogg,
Salisbury,
MA

Antique
Lures,
Marty
McGovern,
Whitman,
MA

Fore
River
Bait
and
Tackle,
Rick
Newcomb,
Quincy,
MA

















































Arthur’s
Custom
Rods,
Arthur
Kaplan,
Quincy,
MA

Bigfish
Tackle
Co.,
Lawrence
Wentworth,
Hanover,
MA

MBG
Tackle,
Capt.
Bryan
Sears,
Scituate,
MA

Belsan
Bait
and
Tackle,
Pete
Belsan,
Scituate,
MA

Squid
Bars,
Co.,
Capt.
Taylor
Sears,
Greenbush,
MA

Offshore
Innovations
Inc.,
and
Next
Day
Bait,
Kevin
Glynn,
Falmouth,
MA

The
Hook‐Up
Bait
and
Tackle,
Capt.
Eric
Stewart,
Orleans,
MA

Nelson’s
Bait
and
Tackle,
Provincetown,
MA

Sportsman’s
Landing,
Dennis,
MA

Sunrise
Bait
and
Tackle,
Gerald
Armstrong,
Harwich,
MA


Powderhorn
Outfitters,
Jeff
Lubin
and
Andy
Little,
Hyannis,
MA

RonZ
Mfg.
Co.,
Ron
Poirier,
Brewster,
MA

Wally’s
Wood
Lures,
Walter
Morris,
Sandwich,
MA


Manny’s
Tackle,
Capt.
Don
Fillman,
Sandwich,
MA

Riverview
Bait
and
Tackle,
Lee
Boisvert,
Yarmouth,
MA

Nantucket
Tackle,
Arthur
Quinn,
Nantucket,
MA

Bill
Fisher
Tackle,
Corey
and
Cameron
Gamiill,
Nantucket,
MA

Coop’s
Bait
and
Tackle,
Cooper
and
Lela
Gilkes
Edgartown,
MA

Larry’s
Bait
and
Tackle,
Steve
Purcell,
Colin
Floyd,
Hulian
Peppas
and
Ron
Domurat,











Edgartown,
MA

Dick’s
Bait
and
Tackle,
Oak
Bluffs,
MA



14


Cardinal
Bait
and
Tackle,
Michael
Cardinal,
Westerly,
RI

RI
Poppers,
Armand
Tetreault,

Woonscket,
RI

Point
Jude
Lures,
Joe
Martins,
Newport,
RI

River
&
Riptide
Anglers,
Capt.
David
Porreca,
Coventry,
RI

JB
Tackle
Co.,
Kerry
and
Kyle
Douton,
Niantic,
CT

The
Fish
Connection,
Capts.
Joe
and
Jack
Balint,
Preston,
CT


Fisherman’s
World
Tackle,
Rick
Mola,
Norwalk,
CT

River’s
End
Tackle,
Pat
Abate,
Old
Saybrook,
CT


Hillyer’s
Tackle,
Matt
and
Jon
Hillyer,
Waterford,
CT

Aquaskinz
Corp.,
Kadir
Aturk,
Lindenhurst,
NY

BFG
Tackle,
Capt.
Chuck
Fisher,
Dundalk,
MD

South
Chatham
Tackle,
Inc.,
Bob
Earl,
Sanford,
NC

Cox
Custom
Tackle,
Lee
Cox,
Raleigh,
NC

Laceration
Lures,
LLC,
Joey
Massey,
Raleigh,
NC


Ecotourism
Companies:


Lulu
Lobster
Boat
Ride,
Capt.
John
Nicolai,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Downeast
Nature
Tours,
Owner/Guide
Michael
Good,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Aquaterra
Adventures
Sea
Kayaking,
David
Legere,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Coastal
Kayaking
Tours,
Owner/Guide
Glenn
Tucker,
Bar
Harbor,
ME

Port
Clyde
Lobster
Tours
&
Adventures,
Kim
Libby,
Port
Clyde,
ME

Downeast
Windjammer
Cruises,
Cranberry
Cove
Ferry
Co.,
and
Bar
Harbor
Ferry










Service,
Capt.
Steven
Pagels,
Columbia
Falls,
ME

Old
Quarry
Ocean
Adventures,
Capt.
Bill
Baker,
Stonington,
ME

River
Run
Tours,
Inc.,
Capt.
Ed
Rice,
Bath,
ME

Kayak
Excursions,
Stefan
Kuenzel,
Kennebunkport,
ME

The
Gift
Sailing
Cruises,
Capt.
Steve
Perkins,
Perkins
Cove,
ME


Businesses,
Publications,
and
Others:


Dysart’s
Great
Harbor
Marina,
Ed
Dysart,
Southwest
Harbor,
ME

Marine
Systems
Custom
Boats,
Eric
Clark,
Southwest
Harbor,
ME

Barnacle
Billy’s
Inc.,
Bill
Tower,
Ogunquit,
ME

Skipper
Fisheries,
Roger
Libby,
Port
Clyde,
ME

R
&
B
Fisheries,
Betty
Libby,
Port
Clyde,
ME

Port
Clyde
Fresh
Catch,
Alicia
Morris
and
Kelly
Eisler,
Port
Clyde,
ME

Spencer
For
Hire,
Capt.
Bill
Spencer,
Boothbay
Harbor,
ME

Cavers
Marine,
Rick
Cavers,
South
Paris,
ME

Navtronics
Marine
Electronics,
Tim
Greer,
York,
ME

Redman
Marine
Fabricators,
Noell
Redman,
York,
ME

Underdog,
LLC,
Jeffrey
Douglas,
Kennebunkport,
ME

Thomas
&
Lord
Builders,
Kevin
Lord,
Kennebunk,
ME

Hanson
Wood
Turning,
LLC,
Steve
Hanson,
Kennebunkport,
ME

Estes
Oil
and
Propane,
Mike
Estes,
York,
ME

William
Ross
Design,
William
Ross,
York,
ME

Kittery
Point
Boat
Builders,
LLC,
Eliot,
ME

MGX,
LLC,
Kittery
Point,
ME

D
&
J
Fuels,
North
Berwick,
ME


15


Kittery
Point
Yacht
Yard,
Corp.,
Kittery,
ME


Blunas,
LLC,
Ogunquit,
ME

J
River
Skiffs,
Dan
Horning,
Cape
Neddick,
ME

M/Y
Shogun,
Capt.
Mike
Finnegan,
Edgecomb,
ME

LaJoie
Brothers,
John
LaJoie,
Augusta,
ME

Sturtivant
Island
Tuna
Tournament,
Pres.
Phil
Grondin,
ME

Great
Bay
Aquaculture,
George
Nardi
and
Gennaco,
Portsmouth,
NH

Sanders
Lobster,
Jeff
Sanders,
Portsmouth,
NH

Portsmouth
Scuba,
Jay
Gingrich,
Portsmouth,
NH

Seaport
Fish,
Rick
Pettigrew,
Rye
NH

Ray’s
Seafood,
Andrew
Widen,
Rye,
NH

J
&
K
Fisheries,
Jason
Driscoll,
Rye,
NH

Sea
View
Lobster
Corp,
Michael
Flanigan,
Rye,
NH

Petey’s
Restaurant,
Peter
Aikens,
Rye
NH



Shoals
Bait
Pens
and
Harpoons,
LLC,
Ritchie
White,
Rye,
NH


New
Hampshire
Precision
Metal
Fabrication,
Inc.,
Londonderry,
NH


JC
Boat,
Jack
Cadario,
Brookline,
NH

Boatwise,
LLC,
Capt.
Rick
Kilborn,
South
Hampton,
NH


North
Atlantic
Marine
Service,
Steve
McNally,
Amesbury,
MA

NewEnglandSharks.com,
Capt.
Tom
King,
Scituate,
MA

Captain
Mike
Sawyer,
S.P.,
Plymouth,
MA

Boston
Big
Game
Fishing
Club,
Marshfield,
MA

Maguro
America,
Inc.,
Robert
Fitzpatrick,
Chatham,
MA

Nantucket
Fish
Co.,
Pres.
Andrew
Baler,
South
Dennis,
MA

Chatham
Pier
Fish
Market,
Chatham,
MA


North
Atlantic
Traders,
Ltd.,
Bob
Kliss,
Lynn,
MA

Hy‐Line
Cruises,
Gerald
Poyant,
Hyannis,
MA


Menemsha
Texaco,
Marshall
and
Katie
Carroll,
Menemsha,
MA

Neptune
Marine
Service,
Justin
Wall,
Brewster,
MA

Brant
Point
Marine,
Bill
Davidson,
Nantucket,
MA

Nantucket
Seafoods,
Dan
Lemaitre,
Nantucket,
MA

Michaelangelo
&
Son,
Michael
Cannistrarro,
Marston
Mills,
MA

Island
Taxidermy
and
Wildlife
Studio,
Janet
Messineo,
Martha’s
Vineyard,
MA

The
Fisherman’s
Line,
Bob
Rogers,
Assonet,
MA

Tri‐State
Fishing
Tournaments,
Steve
Mantia,
Carver,
MA

Vineyard
Blues,
Peter
Oneil,
Worcester,
MA

Okuma
Reels
and
Yeti
Coolers,
Mnfct.
Rep.
Mike
Batta,
West
Barnstable,
MA

On
The
Water
Magazine,
Publisher
Chris
Megan,
East
Falmouth,
MA

Poon
Harpoons,
Falmouth,
MA

New
England
Farm
Union,
Pres.
Annie
Cheatham,
Shelburn
Falls,
MA

Crestar/The
Frame
Factory,
Jason
Dittelman,
East
Greenwich,
RI

Compass
Seafoods,
LLC,
Patrick
Mead,
Charlestown,
RI

Bert’s
Boats,
LLC,
Robert
Fanella,
Narragansett,
RI

Laptew
Productions,
Mike
Laptew,
North
Kingstown,
RI

Fred
C.
Church
Insurance,
Lowell,
MA

Stripersonline.com,
Tim
Surgent,
Wall,
NJ

Fisherman’s
Post,
Publisher
Gary
Hurley,
Wilmington,
NC


16


Coalition
for
the
Atlantic
Herring
Fishery's
Orderly,
Informed
and
Responsible
Long
Term
Development


June
4th,
2012


Dr.
Christopher
M.
Moore,
Executive
Director

Mid‐Atlantic
Fishery
Management
Council

800
N.
State
Street,
Suite
201

Dover,
DE
19901


Re:
Amendment
14
to
the
Atlantic
Mackerel,
Squid,
and
Butterfish
(SMB)
FMP


Dear
Chris,


I
 am
 writing
 today
 on
 behalf
 of
 CHOIR
 to
 support
 increased
 monitoring
 of
 the
 midwater
 trawl

mackerel
fishery
as
well
as
stronger
rules
in
other
parts
of
the
FMP.
CHOIR
is
an
industry
coalition

made
 up
 of
 over
 650
 commercial
 and
 recreational
 fishing
 organizations,
 fishing
 and
 shore
 side

businesses,
researchers
and
eco‐tourism
companies
that
rely
on
healthy
stocks
of
herring
and
other

forage
species.


It
 is
 critical
 that
 there
 is
 consistency
 between
 the
 final
 Herring
 Amendment
 5
 and
 the
 SMB

Amendment
 14
 given
 that
 many
 of
 the
 same
 boats
 target
 both
 mackerel
 and
 herring.
 Without

consistency
between
the
two
plans
there
will
be
loopholes
that
will
be
exploited,
undermining
the

rules
in
both
of
these
fisheries.


I
have
attached
the
CHOIR
Amendment
5
Sign
On
Letter,
signed
by
over
650
CHOIR
supporters
that

are
advocating
for
increased
monitoring,
dumping
controls,
and
better
accountability.
It
is
critical
to

CHOIR
that
these
same
measures
be
adopted
in
the
mackerel
fishery
so
that
there
are
no
loopholes.

When
a
boat
goes
mackerel
fishing
it
needs
to
be
held
to
the
same
standards
as
those
followed
on
a

boat
going
herring
fishing.


Mackerel,
like
herring,
is
an
important
forage
fish
in
the
Gulf
of
Maine
and
on
George’s
Bank
and
we

believe
 that
 there
 must
 be
 increased
 monitoring
 and
 antidumping
 provisions.
 Please
 read
 though

our
Amendment
5
letter
and
note
of
all
the
commercial
fishermen,
groups
and
other
businesses
that

signed
on
in
support
of
these
important
new
rules
on
the
large
midwater
trawl
fishery.


Thanks
for
your
time,


Steve
Weiner,
Chair


Didden, Jason T.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Bonnie Brady
Monday, June 04, 2012 11:46 PM
[email protected]; Didden, Jason T.
amendment 14 comments

June 4, 2012 

Dr. Christopher Moore 
Executive Director 
Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
800 N State Street, Suite 201 
Dover, DE 19901 
Re: Amendment 14  

Dear Dr. Moore, 

On the behalf of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, we would like to offer the following comments re 
Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. 

2.1.1 
We support weekly VTRs for MSB permits. (1c)   
We support 48 hours notice for pre‐trip notification (1d48) 
We do not support VMS for mackerel or longfin squid boats unless money could be made available to the fleet for the 
purchase of this costly equipment as was done by the PFMC several years ago. 
http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/background/document‐library/vessel‐monitoring‐systems/ 
The cost to purchase, plus monthly fees in the range of $200/monthly, is too expensive for many of the participants in 
these fisheries. 
We do not support daily VMS reporting because of the same cost issue noted above.  
1

We support 1FMack, 1fLong, 1gMack, and 1gLong only if funds were made available for VMS purchase. 

2.1.2 
We do not support 2b. Fishermen in New York already are buried with administrative work, both electronic and 
paper, relating to landing fish, and in NY often do not have the facilities to accurately weigh fish past hail weights 
since their fish are boxed at sea. That which the dealer weighs and receives is what the fisherman is paid for. Dealer 
reports are the gold standard for weight and should still be utilized at the point of contact. Untold hours of internet 
fact‐checking of weights is not possible in most small fishing businesses today in New York, nor should it be required. 
Dealer reports have all the information necessary. 

We do not believe that MSB species should be weighed using a volume weight conversion, because of the costs to 
industry including requiring vessel hold certification. In other words, all species should be weighed. 

2.1.3 
We support 3b. Can’t imagine why we would need to support 3c‐ its is a no brainer‐ if the observer doesn’t know 
when hauling back/pumping is occurring, perhaps they should look to another profession. But for the sake of 
argument, we support 3c, along with 3d, and 3e.  
We do not support 3f, 3g or 3j due to safety issues. We do not support 3h, 3I, 3j, 3k, 3l, 3m, 3n, 3o, and 3p‐ as 
slippage can occur for a variety of safety reasons, and to force fishermen to either choose between hauling/pumping 
in an unsafe state or face termination of trip could promote risk‐taking during normal operations instead of 
consistently safe fishing practices. 

2.1.4 
We support 4a 
Industry cannot afford one more additional forced sampling/observer cost as the proverbial straw breaking industry’s 
economic back. If NMFS or outside environmental interests want additional observers, then NMFS or the outside 
environmental interests must pay for them. We cannot support 4b, 4c, 4d or 4e because of the additional fishing 
community costs which are not mixed and would have a certain and catastrophic net impact on the individual boats 
and their communities. 

We support 4f. 

2.1.5 
2

We cannot support any of the 5‐alternatives for the same reasons as above in 2.1.4 paragraph one. They are cost 
prohibitive with no other alternative seen except to force boats out of the fishery. 

2.1.6 
We support 6a  
In a recent studies there was less than one half of one percent of incidental bycatch of river herring compared to 
catch in the squid fishery. There is no need for a cap.  River herring is being used by outside interests as the aquatic 
version of the blue salamander tossed across the neighbor’s property to prevent them from building; its only purpose 
through its inferred swimming co‐existence is to decimate a healthy, sustainable Mid‐Atlantic small mesh fishery 
based on dogma and not science.  

2.1.7 
We support 7a. 

2.1.8 
We support 8a  

2.1.9 
We support 9a 

Thank you for taking the time to address our concerns. 
Sincerely 
Bonnie Brady,  
Executive Director,  
LICFA 

3

www
w.garden
nstateseeafood.org
Gregory P. DiDom
menico, Execu
utive Director
60
09-675-0202
[email protected]
212 West
W State Streeet
Trenton, New Jersey, 008608
Officee (609) 898-11000

June 5, 20
012
Dr. Christtopher M. Mo
oore
Executivee Director
Mid-Atlan
ntic Fishery Management
M
Council
C
800 N. State Street, Su
uite 201
Dover, DE
E 19901
Re:
Amendment
A
14
1 – email to: msbamendm
[email protected] / [email protected]
Dear Dr. Moore:
M
Please acccept these com
mments on beehalf of the Garden
G
State S
Seafood Assocciation (GSSA
A); GSSA is
comprised
d of commerccial fishermen
n, shore-based
d processors, commercial ddock facilitiess, seafood
markets, restaurants,
r
an
nd various ind
dustry supporrt businesses ffrom New Jerrsey.
1 Additional Vessel Rep
porting Meassures
2.1.1 Alteernative Set 1:
We suppo
ort the follow
wing alternattives;
•
•
•
•
•

b which woulld institute weeekly vessel trip
t reporting for Atlantic m
mackerel perm
mits to facilittate
1b
qu
uota monitoriing and cross checking witth other data ssources.
1d
d72which wo
ould require 72
7 hour pre-triip notificationn to the Natioonal Marine F
Fisheries Servvice
(N
NMFS/the Ag
gency) to faciilitate observeer placement ((as currently required in thhe Atlantic heerring
FMP).
1
which
h would requiire VMS for llimited access mackerel veessels and
1eeMack and 1eLong
moratorium
m
lon
ngfin vessels.
1ffMack and 1fLong
1
which
h would require daily VMS
S reporting off catch by lim
mited access
mackerel
m
vesseels and morattorium longfin
n vessels.
1g
gMack which
h would requiire 6 hour pree-landing notiification via V
VMS for all liimited access
mackerel
m
vesseels.

2 Additional Dealer Rep
porting Meassures
2.1.2 Alteernative Set 2:
We are opposed to altternative 2b,, which would
d require fedeerally permitteed MSB dealers to obtain
vessel rep
presentative co
onfirmation of
o SAFIS tran
nsaction recorrds for mackeerel landings oover 20,000
1

pounds, Illex landings over 10,000 pounds and longfin squid landings over 2,500 pounds. The purpose of
this proposal is to catch errors at the first point of entry in the data system but places fishermen and
dealers in a potentially adversarial, competitive regulatory posture that should be reserved for the Agency.
Weighing and sorting will make dealer reports more accurate than they are today and eliminate the need
for fishermen and dealers to compare their reports, and put fishermen in a position so that they could be
penalized if estimates (hails) and actual weights vary, which they will certainly continue to do.
We support alternative 2d, which would require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all
landings related to mackerel transactions of 20,000 pounds but we believe this alternative should reach all
mackerel landings. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to document with each transaction
how they estimated the relative composition of a mixed catch.
We support alternative 2f, which would require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all landings
related to longfin squid transactions over 2,500 pounds but we believe this alternative should reach all
longfin squid landings. If dealers do not sort by species, they would need to document with each
transaction how they estimated the relative composition of a mixed catch.
2.1.3 Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
We support alternatives 3b and 3c, which would require Captains and crew to provide reasonable
assistance to observers and provide observers notice when pumping/haul back occurs on vessels with
mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium permits.
We support the intent of alternative 3d, which would place an observer on any vessel taking on fish
wherever/whenever possible, on vessels with mackerel limited access permits. We recognize that the
assignment of an observer on each vessel in a pair trawl operation (primarily in the mackerel and herring
fisheries) has been at the discretion of the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) up to this
point in time. In addition this alternative does not apply to the longfin squid fishery.
We support alternative 3e for the Mackerel fishery only, requiring the use of a “Released Catch
Affidavit” if unobserved fish is released, or ‘slipped’ for any reason. I have not been made aware of any
complaints from NEFOP observers and assume they are satisfied with the cooperation they are already
receiving onboard vessels.
We are opposed to alternatives 3f, 3g and 3j, which would require all fish to be discarded to be brought
aboard for sampling by the observer. As we have repeatedly pointed out during the development of A14,
and herring A5, there are significant operational restrictions that make it impossible, or dangerous, to
bring the pump and codend, or brailer, over the rail during fishing activities on most, if not all, midwater
trawl fishing vessels.
We are strongly opposed to alternatives 3h, 3i, 3j, 3l, 3m, 3n, 3o and 3p (proposing trip termination
after any slipped catch) as being simply punitive in nature and not constructive to the ongoing cooperation
between our Captains, our crews and the observers on our vessels.
It is important, however, to retain in regulation, as has been done in the herring fishery, that fish can be
released throughout the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries (although pumping does not normally occur
in the longfin squid fishery) if the vessel operator finds that:
1. Pumping the catch could compromise the safety of the vessel;
2. Mechanical failure precludes bringing some or all of the catch aboard the vessel; or
3. Spiny dogfish have clogged the pump and consequently prevent pumping of the rest of the catch.

2

2.1.4 Alternative Set 4: Port-Side and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
We are opposed to alternatives 4b and 4c, which would require industry-funded 3rd party port-side
landings sampling programs for mackerel and longfin squid vessels. To the extent possible, A14 and
herring A5 should be consistent in their requirements concerning the mackerel and herring fisheries’
efforts to reduce catches of river herring and shad, principally because many of these vessels (primarily
those in the mackerel fishery) operate in both fisheries, depending upon the seasonal availability of the
fishery resources that are the target of these directed fisheries.
We are opposed to alternative 4e, which would require volumetric vessel-hold certification for longfin
squid moratorium permits.
We support alternative 4f for the herring and mackerel fisheries only, a two-phase bycatch avoidance
approach based on the SFC/SMAST/DMF project, as the only option that will best work to reduce the
incidental catch of river herring in the herring, mackerel fisheries and allow for the continued production
of optimum yield from the Atlantic herring and mackerel fishery resources.
2.1.5 Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
We support alternative 5b1, which would require 25% of MWT mackerel trips by federal vessels
intending to retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers.
We support alternative 5c1, which would require 25% of SMBT (<3.5 in) mackerel trips by federal
vessels intending to retain over 20,000 pounds of mackerel to carry observers. The NEFSC would assign
coverage based on pre-trip notifications.
We support alternative 5h, which would require reevaluation of coverage requirement after 2 years to
determine if incidental catch rates justify additional high coverage rates at the %25 level. If an analysis
justified continued rates of observer coverage, a limited industry funded observer program would be
considered at that time.
2.1.6 Alternative Set 6: Mortality Caps
We support alternative 6a, the no-action alternative. We do not support the Council considering a
historical catch-based or a biologically-based cap, through either a framework adjustment process or the
specifications process with this amendment. It is our understanding that neither the FMAT nor the
herring PDT have recommended the establishment of a cap because there is insufficient information upon
which to base one.
The relative mortality effects of incidental catches in the mackerel, longfin squid and herring fisheries are
unknown and would be critically important to understand before attempting to set a biologically-based
cap and risk the industry’s ability to fish successfully for mackerel, longfin squid or herring.
As for our knowledge of the river herring bycatch in the longfin squid fishery, recent estimates from the
observer trips associated with the bycatch cap indicate minimal amounts.
2.1.7 Alternative Set 7 – Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
We support alternative 7a, the no-action alternative. We have previously identified our support for
increased observer coverage in the mackerel fishery, and have agreed to fund additional coverage if it is
justified after a 2 year review, which will help to identify the amount of river herring and shad that may
be encountered, on a day-to-day basis during those times and in those areas where the fish may be found.
We are opposed to area closures as they are not sensitive to which fish species may be found within them,
on a real-time basis. In addition, the SMAST bycatch avoidance project will continue to work to direct
the fleets away from where concentrations of river herring and shad may be found, also in real-time, so
3

that we can meet the National Standard 9 requirement that, to the extent practicable, the incidental catch
of and mortality of river herring and shad species be minimized.
2.1.8 Alternative Set 8 – Hotspot Restrictions
We support alternative 8a, the no-action alternative.
2.1.9 Alternative Set 9 – Addition of RH/S as “Stocks in the Fishery” in the MSB FMP
We support alternative 9a, the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, primary RH/S
management would continue to rest with the states, as coordinated through the ASMFC, as stated at page
82 of the PHD.
The January 16, 2009 Final Rule amending the guidelines for National Standard 1 (NS1) provides
guidance to the Councils concerning criteria necessary to establish target and non-target species as
“stocks in the fishery” stating that “Stocks in the fishery” need status determination criteria, other
reference points, ACL mechanisms and AMs.”
It is our opinion, after reviewing the recently published ASMFC stock assessment for river herring and
the accompanying peer review report, there continues to be insufficient information upon which to
establish a status determination for these species.
In discussing the population model used in the ASMFC assessment (page 19), the Peer Review panel
stated, “In summary, the panel concurred with the SASC (Stock Assessment Subcommittee) that the
DB-SRA (depletion-based stock reduction analysis) model did not adequately model river herring stock
conditions and should not be used to assess status.”
Also, in response to TOR 6 of the assessment, “Evaluate stock status determination from the assessment;
if appropriate, recommend changes or specify alternative methods/measures” (page 23), the Peer Review
panel found, “Coast wide status of the stock (biomass and exploitation rates) in relation to management
reference points could not be determined.”
Since the revised NS1 guidelines are clear that identifying “stock determination criteria” is a necessary
condition for a Council to establish a species as a “stock in the fishery”, it is therefore inappropriate for
RH/S stocks to be designated as such in the SMB FMP. It is our view that the SMB FMP is sufficient to
work to minimize bycatch and the mortality of the bycatch of RH/S stocks when they may be found in the
ocean, through the management measures that we are supporting in our comments concerning the PHD.
The outcome of the NEFMC’s consideration, and rejection, of RH/S species as “stocks in the Atlantic
herring fishery” should be instructive for the MAFMC. In the March 2, 2011 Final Rule, implementing
“approved measures” in A4 to the Atlantic herring FMP (FR Vol. 76, No.41), the NMFS makes the
following statements concerning this issue: “While other species are caught incidentally when fishing
for herring, herring is the target stock, and the only stock directly managed by the Herring FMP. This
action established herring as a stock in the fishery…Bycatch in the herring fishery will continue to be
addressed and minimized to the extent possible, consistent with other requirements of the MSA.”
Sincerely,

Gregory P. DiDomenico
Gregory P. DiDomenico
Executive Director
Garden State Seafood Association

4

June 4, 2012
Howard King
240 Harbor Lane
Queenstowne,
MD 21658

Steven Linhard
1004 Jackson Street
Annapolis, MD
21403

Mike Luisi
Maryland DNR
Tawes State Office Bldg, B-2
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Maryland Council Members:
I am writing to request that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (“MAFMC”) take the
lead on federal management of river herring and American shad by including robust, sciencebased conservation and management measures in Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.
Maryland’s rivers once teemed with river herring and shad, providing an abundant food source
for wildlife, opportunities for commercial and sport fishing, and a wildlife viewing experience
that delivered ocean bounty to our towns. Conservationists and legislators alike have spent
countless hours working to restore river herring and shad runs in Maryland, monitoring water
quality and cleaning up waterways. The Maryland General Assembly has dedicated millions of
dollars towards restoring our coastal estuaries and rivers by regulating pollution and restoring
habitat. Maryland recently implemented a moratorium on commercial and recreational fishing
for river herring. American shad fisheries have been closed since 1980 with the exception of a
small catch and release fishery. But more work needs to be done in federal waters to recover
these depleted fish.
In federal waters, the incidental catch of river herring and shad remains a serious concern, and
impedes recovery. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center estimates that millions of river
herring and shad are caught every year by industrial mackerel and Atlantic herring trawlers
operating in federal waters. We are encouraged that the MAFMC and New England Fishery
Management Council are currently developing plans to address this problem. We ask the
MAFMC to set the standard for protecting river herring and shad and ensure that Amendment 14
has robust management measures that protect river herring and shad throughout their range in
federal waters, including:
 Incorporation of river herring and shad as stocks within the federal fishery management plan
for Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish. This action would afford river herring and shad
direly needed conservation and management measures in federal waters.

 An interim cap or limit in 2013 on river herring and shad catch in the mackerel fishery.
 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips, including assigning one
observer to each vessel in a pair trawl operation. This fleet of approximately 20 mid-water
trawl vessels is responsible for over 70% of combined river herring and shad incidental
catch.
 An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of unsampled
catch. All catch must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling.
 A requirement to weigh all catch.
With your support of these measures, and our continued commitment to restoring inshore habitat,
we can promote the recovery of our river herring and shad runs and ensure their survival for
many generations to come. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Delegate Maggie McIntosh
Chair, Environmental Matters Committee
District 43
Baltimore City

June 4, 2012
Lee Anderson
206 Sypherd Dr
Newark, DE 19711

David E. Saveikis, Director
Division of Fish and Wildlife
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901

Richard Cole
Division of Fish & Wildlife
PO Box 330
Little Creek, DE 19961

Dear Delaware Council Members:
We represent more than 16 Delaware based organizations and are writing to request that the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council (“MAFMC”) take the lead on federal management of river
herring and American shad by including robust, science-based conservation and management
measures in Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management
Plan. These comments are in response to the open public comment period for this Plan.
Delaware’s rivers and estuaries once supported abundant river herring and shad, providing
opportunities for recreational fishing and an abundant food source for wildlife. Many of us have
spent countless hours working to restore river herring and shad habitat in Delaware, monitoring
water quality and cleaning up waterways. Our state and local governments have devoted millions of
dollars towards restoring our coastal estuaries and rivers by regulating pollution and restoring
spawning grounds. Delaware recently implemented a moratorium on commercial and recreational
fishing for river herring and a similar moratorium on American shad is imminent. But more work
needs to be done in federal waters to recover these depleted fish.
In federal waters, the incidental catch of river herring and shad remains a serious concern, and
impedes recovery. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center estimates that millions of river herring
and shad are caught every year by industrial mackerel and Atlantic herring trawlers operating in
federal waters. We are encouraged that the MAFMC and New England Fishery Management
Council are currently developing plans to address this problem. We ask the MAFMC to set the
standard for protecting river herring and shad and ensure that Amendment 14 has robust
management measures that protect river herring and shad throughout their range in federal waters,
including:
 Incorporation of river herring and shad as stocks within the federal fishery management plan for
Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish. This action would afford river herring and shad direly
needed conservation and management measures in federal waters.
 An interim cap or limit in 2013 on river herring and shad catch in the mackerel fishery.
 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips, including assigning one
observer to each vessel in a pair trawl operation. This fleet of approximately 20 mid-water
trawl vessels is responsible for over 70% of combined river herring and shad incidental catch.
 An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of unsampled catch.
All catch must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling.
 A requirement to weigh all catch.

With your support of these measures, and our continued commitment to restoring inshore habitat,
we can promote the recovery of our river herring and shad runs and ensure their survival for many
generations to come. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Moyer, President
Inland Bays Foundation
Dagsboro, Delaware
Brian Winslow, Executive Director
The Delaware Nature Society
Hockessin, Delaware
Maya vanRossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper
Bristol, Pennsylvania
Elizabeth K. Brown, of Counsel
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Bristol, Pennsylvania
Sarah Bucic, Vice-Chair
Sierra Club- Delaware Chapter
Wilmington, Delaware
Jim Black, Vice-Chair
Sierra Club- Delaware Chapter
Wilmington, Delaware
Lynn Williams, President, on behalf of the Board of Directors
Christina Conservancy
Wilmington, Delaware
Phil Kline, Senior Ocean Campaigner
Greenpeace- Delaware Chapter
Washington, District of Columbia
Shirley Posey, President
Christina River Watershed Cleanup
Bear, Delaware
Sallie Forman, President and Founder
Save Our Lakes Association 3
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
Alan Mueller, Executive Director
Green Delaware
Port Penn, Delaware
Melinda Hughes-Wert, Executive Director
Nature Abounds
Clearfield, Pennsylvania

Michael Tyler, President
Citizens Coalition, Inc.
Nassau, Delaware
Nancy Diehl, Member
Delaware City Environmental Commission
Delaware City, Delaware
James Jordan, Executive Director
Brandywine Valley Association
West Chester, Pennsylvania
Robert Struble, Watershed Conservation Director
Red Clay Valley Association
West Chester, Pennsylvania
Doug Parham, Member
Inland Bays Foundation
Dagsboro, Delaware
Stuart Dick, Member
Ducks Unlimited
Wilmington, Delaware
Amy Roe, Ph.D, Member of many environmental organizations
Newark, Delaware

Didden, Jason T.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

MSB Amendment14
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:04 PM
Didden, Jason T.
Fwd: Comments on Draft Amendment 14 -- Manage river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Anita Buffer
Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Subject: Comments on Draft Amendment 14 -- Manage river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery
To: [email protected]

May 31, 2012
Executive Director Christopher Moore
Dear Executive Director Moore,
Behave RESPONSIBLY. Don't act with GREED.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the National Marine
Fisheries Service MUST begin MANAGING DEPLETED populations of river
herring and shad as stocks in the fishery.
Unmanaged catch of river herring and shad by industrial trawlers has
contributed to a COLLAPSE of populations of these small but
ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT FISH.
With river herring and shad landed catch DOWN 99 and 97 percent.
Most states have BANNED their harvest and the Fisheries Service is
considering listing river herring under the ENDANGERED Species Act.
Yet mackerel and squid trawlers can catch MILLIONS of river herring and
shad every year WITHOUT RESTRICTION or even ADEQUATE MONITORING
This is UNACCEPTABLE.
We NEED conservation and management within the FEDERAL FISHERIES in
which they're caught befroe they are all GONE.
As the council finalizes Amendment 14 to the Mackerel, Squid and
Butterfish Fishery Management Vote in favor of adding blueback herring,
alewife, American shad and hickory shad as stocks in the fishery
management plan (Action Alternatives 9b-e).
** A catch CAP for river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel
fishery (Action Alternatives 6b-6c).
** 100 percent AT SEA MONITORING on all mid-water trawl fishing trips.
One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a pair trawl operation
1

(Action Alternatives 5b4 and 3d).
** An ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM to PROHIBIT or discourage WASTEFUL
OPERATIONAL DISCARDS. All catch must be made available to fishery
observers for systematic sampling (Action Alternative 3j with
operational discards prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a
fleet-wide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 3l and 3n) and
require vessels that dump to take an observer on their next trip
(Alternative 3o).
** A REQUIREMENT to weigh all catch (Alternative 2c-2f).
Every year states and communities throughout the mid-Atlantic and
elsewhere on the east coast invest significant time and resources to
restore their herring runs. Fishermen in inland and state coastal
waters can no longer catch river herring, and instead must bide time
and hope for populations to rebound. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service MUST DO
THEIR PAR and step FORWARD to adequately REGULATE these important
species.
Sincerely,
Ms. Anita Buffer
Winding Way
Warminster, PA 18974-5453
(267) 282-5147

2

Didden, Jason T.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

MSB Amendment14
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:03 PM
Didden, Jason T.
Fwd: Comments in support of river herring conservation, Amendment 5 & Amendment 14

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jill Brotman
Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Comments in support of river herring conservation, Amendment 5 & Amendment 14
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Moore,
Dear Regional Managers,
I’m very concerned about the impacts of industrial fishing on river herring.
I would very much appreciate it if you would adopt a comprehensive monitoring and bycatch reduction program for
river herring, which I’m told are not currently considered in your management of either the Atlantic herring fishery or
the Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish fishery. I think it’s great that most Atlantic states now ban the catch of river herring in
state waters, but it worries me that these efforts are not matched in federal waters. Large scale fisheries such as these
can have major impacts, and should be monitored and managed carefully to minimize impacts to not only river herring,
but other species like groundfish. I support your initiative to improve this aspect of both these fisheries.

Thank you for considering my input, and I look forward to applauding your wise decision.
Sincerely,

Jill Brotman
2075 Coventry Road
Cleveland Heights, OH 44118

1

Didden, Jason T.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

MSB Amendment14
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:03 PM
Didden, Jason T.
Fwd: CONSERVE river herring conservation. Info on Amendments 5 and 14.

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Glen Anderson
Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Subject: CONSERVE river herring conservation. Info on Amendments 5 and 14.
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Moore,
Dear Regional Managers,
Industrial fishing is DESTROYING the sustainability of river herring.
I call upon you to adopt a comprehensive monitoring and bycatch reduction program for river herring.
Currently you are failing to address this serious concern.
When you manage the Atlantic herring fishery and the Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish fishery, I URGE YOU TO
PROTECT RIVER HERRING.
Most Atlantic states prohibit cathing river herring in state waters, but I CALL UPON YOU TO PROTECT RIVER
HERRING IN FEDERAL WATERS TOO.
Specifically, if the monitoring and bycatch reduction program you adopt could include the following, I would be much
obliged. Here’s what I’d like to see the New England Fishery Management Council adopt:
• A catch limit, or cap, on the total amount of river herring caught in the Atlantic herring fishery (Section 3.3.5,
modified to require immediate implementation of a catch cap).
• 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all midwater trawl fishing trips in order to provide reliable estimates of all catch,
including bycatch of depleted river herring and other marine life (Section 3.2.1.2 Alternative 2).
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful slippage, or dumping, of catch, including a fleet-wide limit of
five slippage events for each herring management area, after which any slippage event would require a return to port
(Section 3.2.3.4 Option 4D).
• A ban on herring mid-water trawling in areas established to promote rebuilding of groundfish populations (Section
3.4.4 Alternative 5).
• A requirement to accurately weigh and report all catch (Section 3.1.5 Option 2).
As for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, I encourage you to adopt the following options:
• Inclusion of river herring and shad as stocks within the fishery (Alternative 9b-9e).
• Developing the long-term protections associated with this designation will take time. Therefore, the council should
adopt the following interim measure to immediately reduce and limit the at-sea catch of river herring and shad:
• A catch cap, effective in 2013 (Alternative 6b-6c), that functions effectively, does not increase wasteful discarding,
and cannot be circumvented by simply declaring into another fishery. These alternatives should be modified to more
effectively ensure that directed mackerel fishing stops if a cap is reached by lowering the amount of mackerel that can
1

be fished for, possessed, or retained.
Furthermore, I strongly urge you to incorporate all of the following:
• 100 percent at-sea monitoring on all mid-water trawl fishing trips. One observer must be assigned to each vessel in a
pair trawl operation (Alternative 5b4 and Alternative 3d).
• An accountability system to discourage the wasteful dumping of unsampled catch. All catch, including "operational
discards," must be made available to fishery observers for systematic sampling (Alternative 3j with operational discards
prohibited). If dumping is allowed, include a fleet-wide limit of 10 dumping events (Alternative 3l and 3n) and require
vessels that dump to take an observer on their next trip (Alternative 3o).
• A requirement to weigh all catch. (Alternative 2c-2f).
Thank you for considering my input, and I look forward to applauding your wise decision.
Sincerely,

Glen Anderson
5015 15th Ave SE
Lacey, WA 98503

2

Appendix 10 - Amendment 14 Hearing Summaries

Amendment 14 Public Hearings Summary (April/May 2012) 

Note: RH/S = River Herring and Shad 

4/30: Alexandria, VA (At the ASMFC Meeting) 
Attendance: 

Comments: 
Greg DiDomenico:  Can you look at which vessels are responsible for most bycatch? 
Ray Kane: I would like to see more accountability and consistency with NEFMC Amendment 5.  A shared 
strategy should include:  
1)100% observer coverage on high‐volume vessels in upper limited access tiers of mackerel and herring 
(including an observer on both vessels in pair trawl operations). 
2)Increased observer coverage for minor limited access participants to improve estimates but should 
consider their relative contribution to overall landings 
3)Improve dealer reporting and make consistent across FMPs including requiring weighing and sorting 
all catch for all vessels 
4)For all vessel to bring all catch including operational discards aboard for observer sampling (similar to 
closed area 1 rules in New England). 
5)Implement RH/S catch caps and use RH protection areas (and closed areas) until catch caps are 
implemented (not trigger based). 

Pam Lyons‐Gromen (on behalf of National Coalition for Marine Conservation): 
‐Catch of RH/S in federal waters is unrestricted (versus severe state restrictions) 
‐A regional and fleet based approach is appropriate 
‐MWT fisheries account for 71% or RH/S incidental catch 
‐SMBT fisheries account for 24% of RH/S catch 
‐Need consistency throughout Mid‐Atlantic and New England 
‐Strongly support adding RH/S as stocks in the fishery 
   ‐Would add resources and tools to conserve RH/S 
‐A fragmented approach is likely to fail. 
‐NCMC will follow‐up with specific comments 

Phil Klein, Greenpeace USA 
‐Support comments of Ray Kane and Pan Lyons‐Gromen 
‐Observers and good data are critical 

‐100% on MWT, as high as is feasible for rest of fleet 
‐Work cooperatively across range of fish…add as stocks in the fishery 
‐Don’t allow tows to be dumped before contents can be sampled 
‐These would lead to a catch cap 

Darren Saletta, Massachusetts Commercial Striped Bass Association 
‐Need consistency with New England 
‐VMS and VTR alternatives appear good 
‐Need to know what is being caught, 100% observer coverage 
‐Need to do everything we can to reduce slippage events and fully account for all fish 
‐Would like to see coast‐wide caps.   
‐Consider recent studies that concluded forage fish have higher value as forage than landings 
‐Need accurate weighing/reporting by dealers 

5/15: Riverhead, NY (Hotel) 
Attendance: 
The attendance sheet was lost related to a theft, however the recording of the hearing was not lost.  
Attendees included Bonnie Brady, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association; Emerson Hasbrouck 
(Cornell Marine Program), Byron Young (NYS Retired), and Theresa Labriola (PEW). 

Comments: 
Byron Young:  
‐Everyone should have the same reporting requirements.   
‐The data does not appear ready to support caps.   
‐Increased observer coverage needs to be considered relative to costs.   
‐The NEFMC, MAFMC, ASMFC, and Canadians need to work cooperatively to address RH/S throughout 
their distributions. 

Emerson Hasbrouck:  Provided information on Herring catch in Cornell’s cooperative research work, 
which was provided in the briefing book.   
‐Before restrictions or caps are placed on the fisheries, need to figure out how much current catch is 
impacting RH/S stocks.  
‐ Like Byron’s comments, a coordinated approach is needed among the relevant management partners.   
‐Cornell has just received funding for developing a real‐time bycatch avoidance fleet communication 
protocol but preliminary work suggests areas of higher RH/S catch are very dynamic. 

5/16: Internet Webinar with facilitated listening station in Newport News, VA 
Attendees 
At Newport News: 
Name
Beau Beasley
Jerry Benson
Thomas A. Miller
Sharon Wilson
Chris Irby
Terra Pascarosa
Katarina Bezekova
Eric Brittle
Alex Bailey
Mark Nesius
Ben Duff

Affiliation
Press
Menhaden Coalition/CCA-VA
FORVA & FFV
VMRC
ODU
Sierra Club
TerraScapes
DGIF
Kneeland Nesius
Fisherman

Address
(email, if possible)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

On the Internet: 
Name
O'Reilly, Rob
Wynne, Bennett
Kaelin, Jeff
Taylor, Kate
Bowden, Alison

Affiliation
VMRC
NCW
Lunds
ASMFC
TNC

Shelton, James
Cevoli, Kristen

Pew

Address
(email, if possible)
[email protected].… 
bennett.wynne@ncwildlife.… 
[email protected] 
[email protected] 
[email protected] 
[email protected]… 
[email protected] 

Comments 
Internet Comments (all from Shelton, James):
-I recommend a scientific approach that is verifiable and effective.
-Council needs to determine a safe amount that can be taken that still allows River Herring and Shad to
Rebound. Also recommended:
-From Alternative 3 paired observations are needed to make a valid count.
-From Alternative 4 100% coverage mid water and small mesh to get an accurate count of by catch.
-From Alternative 6 - RH/S cap mortality cap must be observed and that catch ended at the point.
-I suggest that Fish Trawlers might adopt the Sustainable Fisheries ByCatch Avoidance as a way of
meeting the Catch limit and still getting their target species.

Comments from Individuals in Newport News:
Jerry Benson:
-Have concern about trawlers impact on RH/S and depletion of forage is endangering ecosystems
-Recent Lenfest Forage Report supports protecting RH/S
-Council should create management controls on the mackerel and squid fisheries to help reverse decline
of forage in Mid-Atlantic

Thomas A. Miller (Speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Rivers of Virginia, and Float Fishermen of 
Virginia): 
‐Coastal Communities have been working on restoring RH/S 
‐Incidental catch of RH/S in mackerel and squid fisheries is largely unmonitored and unregulated 
‐Create comprehensive monitoring and accountability/oversight for the industrial trawl fleet  
‐Choose options with the best effect toward restoring RH/S 
‐Recommend a catch cap that can not be circumvented by choice of trip declarations 
‐Recommend 100% monitoring of MWT 
‐Recommend discouraging slippage so that all catch is available for observers for sampling 
‐Recommend weighing all catch 

Eric Brittle: 
‐Professionally, VA is more than happy to increase communication and assist in data exchange 
‐Personally, recommend addition of RH/S as stocks in the fishery 

Chris Irby: 
‐Recommend addition of RH/S as stocks in the fishery to improve conservation 
    ‐Need federal management…states already managing 
‐Trawlers are not leaving fish for local fishing 

Terra Pascarosa (Chair of Chesapeake Bay Group Sierra Club): 
‐Recommend addition of RH/S as stocks in the fishery 
‐Recommend a cap (Alts 6) 
‐Recommend 100% observer coverage on trawl trips 
‐Recommend weighing all catch 

Katarina Bezekova: 
‐Need to protect small fish so we can catch more big fish 
‐Recommend addition of RH/S as stocks in the fishery 
‐Recommend a cap (Alts 6) 
‐Recommend observers on both trawlers for pair MWT 
‐Recommend  100% coverage on MWT 
‐Recommend weighing all catch 

Alex Bailey: 
‐There shouldn’t be any bycatch if you don’t have a permit.  Adding RH/S as stocks in the fishery should 
help the bay and rivers. 

Ben Duff: 
‐Urge addition of RH/S as stocks in the fishery 

5/17: Cape May, NJ (Hotel) 
Attendance: 

Name
Patty Doerr
Sonia Rite
Kristen Cevoil
Fred Akers
Stephaine Cash
John Conneely
Stefan Axelsson
Jeff Kaelin

Affiliation

Address
(email, if possible)

TNC
PEW
PEW

[email protected]

Lunds

[email protected]

[email protected]
Great Egg  Harbor Watershed Association [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Comments: 
Can you look at which vessels are responsible for most bycatch? 
Jeff Kaelin: Lund’s will be submitting detailed comments.  Jeff Kaelin read a 1 page comment, which was 
included in the briefing book for the June 2012 Council meeting (other Lunds’ employees signed this 
letter as well to provide their input.  Jeff  also recognized TNC for supporting the SMAST project.  Jeff 
also thought that looking at if a few vessels are causing the most RH/S problems is a good idea. 

Fred Akers:  Submitted written comments on behalf of Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association, which 
were included in the briefing book for the June 2012 Council meeting.  Generally hopes better 
management will avoid RH from having to get listed with ESA. 

5/21: Gloucester, MA (at Mass DMF Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Field Station) 

Attendance: 

Name
Theresa Labriola
Katharine Deuel
Erica Fuller
Greg Wells
Ben Gahogan

Affiliation
PEW
PEW
Earth Justice

Address
(email, if possible)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Comments: 
Erica Fuller on behalf of Herring Alliance 
‐RH/S are at historic lows and in dire need of conservation and management in federal waters 
‐MAFMC has the obligation to protect and conserve these depleted stocks 
MAFMC should choose: 
‐RH/S should be added as stocks in the fishery. 
‐New England’s rejection of RH as stocks in the fishery was recently found to be unlawful 
‐Section 302 of the Magnuson Act requires an FMP for any stock capable of being managed in a unit and 
in need of conservation and management. 
‐Overfishing and current designation as stocks in the fishery are not the only triggers whether a stock 
should be a stock in the fishery and NMFS must review and provide justification for any decision 
‐RH/S are caught, sold, and/or discarded in MSB fisheries 
RH stock assessment and consideration of listing shows RH/S are in need of management 
‐You should add RH/S as stocks in the fishery 
‐Herring Alliance supports a modified catch cap as an interim measure that shuts mackerel fishing by 
lowering the amount of mackerel that can be fished for, possessed, or retained.  We support 
alternatives 6b and 6c. 
‐We support 5b4 and 3d to place observers on all mid‐water trawl fishing vessels 
‐We support accountability measures to discourage slippage, including operational discards (3j with 
operational discards prohibited).  If dumping is allowed, provide for a fleet wide limit of 10 dumping 
events and require vessels that dump to take an observer on their next trip.  3l, 3n, 3o. 
‐We support a requirement to weigh all catch, alternatives 2c‐2f. 

5/22: Warwick, RI (immediately after Amendment 14/Amendment 5 joint technical 
meeting) 

Attendance: 

Name
Eric Reid
Geir Monsen
Kristen Cevoli
Jud Crawford
Pam Lyons
Gromen

Affiliation
Deep Sea Fish
Seafreeze
PEW

Address
(email, if possible)

PEW 

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

NCMC

[email protected]

Comments: 
Geir Monsen:  
‐If you are going to develop a fishery management plan for RH/S you are going to have to develop a few 
thousand because each river & creek is its own stock and you will have to have a plan for each river. 
‐There is no information on how much can be taken out of all the rivers 
‐Water quality has improved in recent decades that should result in better recruitment 
‐These are feel good actions and you have no clue about what they are going to do 
‐For the most part there is an incentive to avoid river herring because zoos and aquariums do not want 
river herring mixed into marine mammal food. 
‐Seafreeze sorts all fish and has been catching very little. 
‐Since no one wants to get river herring, a lot of that the Amendment considers is already in place. 
‐Cormorants are targeting RH at river mouths in the fall, far surpassing commercial fishing mortality. 

Ray Kane: 
‐Has there been tagging of River Herring?  I think you should consider a 25‐miles buffer zone from the 
coast out (entire coast).  Maine and New Hampshire use buffers (40 mile).  Small triggered hotspots will 
not work.   

Pam Lyons Gromen: 
‐Request that for upcoming meetings, that they be provided an update of the river herring stock 
assessment, which found them to be depleted to historic lows 

Jud Crawford on behalf of Pew Environment Group: 
‐There are caps on salmon on the west coast that are not river specific. 
‐MAFMC has an opportunity to take a leadership role with regard to stocks in the fishery 
‐The Amendment 4 lawsuit suggests stock in the fishery designation is required 
‐Amendment 14 should be able to officially add RH/S as stocks in a fishery and then implement 
measures later.   
‐Want better monitoring of both directed landings and bycatch 
‐Mixed nature of fisheries must be addressed and not used as an excuse to do nothing 
‐Recommend designating RH/S as stocks in the fishery and initiate a follow‐up amendment to 
implement associate required measures 
‐See other measures, in particular a catch cap as a good interim measure (Alt Set 6), especially matched 
with 100% observer coverage on the larger scale small mesh midwater fishery as a condition for access 
‐If a cap is implemented, make the mackerel possession limit very low to address cap pitfalls identified in 
the EIS 
‐The costs for observer coverage can be brought down in half as is being done in other fisheries. 
‐Allow frameworking of protection areas as well as a increases in size of those areas. 

Eric Reid, on behalf of Deep Sea Fish, RI: 
‐RH/S face major habitat impediments and this should be the focus of recovery efforts 
‐$800/day would be a tremendous financial burden 
‐A variety of state‐level of efforts are underway 
‐Commercial fishermen are being blamed which there are other culprits 
‐Urge no action on all alternatives 
‐The DEIS is insanely long. 

Appendix 11 - Supplemental reference documents and communications, including
letters from NMFS to the MAFMC and NEFMC on Amendments 14 and 5.
Amendment 14 Reference Supplement
Updated 6/11/12

The materials in this document were received or requested after the Council Briefing Book mailout. An Index Follows:

Page Comment/Communication Provider
2 NMFS NERO to MAFMC
7 NMFS NERO to NEFMC
12 June 6 Herring Motions Passed
16 June 6 Herring Motions All
21 Joint FMAT/PDT Report
46 SMAST Report 5/18/2012
64 River Herring Assessment Summary
68 Misc Analyses

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHEAST REGION
SS Great Republic Drive
Gloucester. MA 01930-2276

JUN - 5 2012
Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Suite 201
800 State Street
Dover, DE 19901
Dear Rick:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 14 to the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and have
evaluated the potential effectiveness and feasibility of alternatives under consideration. The Mid­
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has spent a substantial amount of time developing
this amendment, and there are many alternatives that offer clear improvements to the MSB FMP
and can be implemented by the NOAA Fisheries Service.
We support the consideration of the following alternatives in Amendment 14:
• Expanding the requirement for weekly vessel trip reports (VTRs) to all MSB permits
(Alternative lc), consistent with reporting requirements for other Northeast Region permits;
• Expanding vessel requirements related to at-sea sampling (Alternatives 3b and 3c) to help
ensure safe sampling and improve data quality;
• Establishing a river herring catch cap (Alternative 6b) to directly control river herring
fishing mortality;
• Requiring 48-hour pre-trip notifications for directed mackerel trips (Alternative Id48) and
vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (Alternative leMack) to help facilitate monitoring and
compliance for a river herring catch cap;
• Requiring daily VMS catch reports (Alternative 1fMack), which are currently required for
the Atlantic herring fishery, should the New England Fishery Management Council choose
to implement a companion river herring catch cap for the Atlantic herring fishery;
• Allowing the joint Sustainable Fisheries CoalitionlUniversity of Massachusetts School for
Marine Science and Technology/Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries bycatch
avoidance program to investigate providing real-time, cost-effective information on river
herring distribution and fishery encounters (Alternative 4f).
Several issues that are considered in Amendment 14 have been the subject of much debate and
public comment. These issues include: Increasing observer coverage; addressing net slippage;
improving dealer data; and addressing river herring bycatch. NOAA Fisheries Service supports
improvements to fishery dependent data collections, be it through expansion of monitoring at sea, or
greater quality assurance of the dealer data. We also share the Council's concern for reducing
bycatch and unnecessary discards, and appreciate the Council's work on addressing these issues.
However, some specific alternatives in Amendment 14, if adopted, would require still more thought,
more robust rationale, and further justification by the Council. As we have commented previously,
"".,~

f.!I\\

1

~..

9

~

~,,,,,,, .. ::;tI'

we share the Council's desire/need to have better data about these fisheries, and we support the
motive and concept of the alternatives that aim to do this. However, we must be mindful of the
burden and technical details of implementing the alternatives. Additionally, we cannot give our full
support for alternatives for which the agency is not likely to have sufficient resources to execute.
The following sections detail our concerns with the specified alternatives. I have noted in this
section which alternatives we believe require further justification by the Council, and those that we
believe have serious implementation issues that we cannot overcome.

Vessel Reporting Measures (Alternative Set 1)
We are generally supportive of the vessel reporting alternatives that are necessary to ensure the
effectiveness and feasibility of the programs the Council selects in this Amendment. We urge the
Council to weigh each program proposed in Amendment 14 in its entirety and consider how the
program will be administered and monitored moving forward.
Dealer Reporting Measures (Alternative Set 2)
Dealers are currently required to report the weight of purchased fish. A variety of methods are used
by dealers to determine the weight offish, including weighing fish on scales and estimating weight
based on volumetric measures. Without verification of scale accuracy and readouts, alternatives
that require dealers to weigh all fishing using a scale (Alternatives 2c-2f) may not provide
substantial enough improvements to data to justify the cost. Because Alternative 2g allows dealers
to continue using scales and/or volumetric estimates to determine the weight offish, there is no
appreciable difference between Alternative 2g and status quo.
Alternatives 2c-2f require dealers to document how they estimate the relative composition of mixed
catch in order to facilitate quota monitoring. However, this qualitative information cannot be
incorporated into quota monitoring because we use the weights provided by the dealers, regardless
of the methods used to determine weights. Additionally, we are unable to evaluate, either annually
or for individual transactions, the sufficiency of the information submitted.
Alternative 2b requires vessel owners/operators to review and validate catch data for their vessels in
Fish-On-Line. This alternative has the potential to improve quota monitoring and year-end catch
determinations by highlighting data reporting issues. However, vessels are currently able to review
both vessel and dealer reported data via Fish-On-Line and discover data issues. The Council should
consider whether the utility of Alternative 2b outweighs the additional reporting and administrative
burden associated with the requirement.
The Council should also be aware that, if these any of these alternatives are made mandatory, they
would become compliance measures that would affect future vessel permit issuance (similar to VTR
and VMS compliance).

At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures (Alternative Set 3)
I am concerned about the effectiveness and legal justification for the alternatives designed to reduce
slippage events in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries. Alternatives that require trip
termination lack a well explained basis for the threshold to trigger trip termination (i.e., Alternatives
3k-3n, either 5 or 10 slippage events per season or trimester). The trip termination triggers require a
clear and supportable rationale and justification. Once the threshold to trigger trip termination has
been reached, all vessels that slip catch, regardless of the reason for slipping (including safety or
2

mechanical failure), would be required to return to port. The Council must provide sufficient
rationale for requiring vessels to terminate a trip after the trigger while allowing the specified
number of slippage events prior to the trigger without consequence. Further, trip termination
alternatives may create the situation of the vessel operator having to choose between trip
termination or bringing catch aboard the vessel despite a safety concern or mechanical failure.
Such a provision must be consistent with National Standard 10 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and requires additional detailed explanation from the Council.
For NOAA Fisheries Service to approve a measure like this, the Council must provide a rational
basis that we can support in relation to requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and other applicable law.
Additionally, we are concerned that slippage requirements are triggered when an observer is aboard
the vessel. Requirements for a vessel to terminate a trip should not depend on the presence of an
observer. NOAA Fisheries Service acknowledges that observes are helpful when evaluating
compliance with slippage requirements, but implementing requirements contingent on the presence
of an observer unduly places the observer in a compliance/enforcement role and creates the
potential for conflict between the vessel's crew and the observer.
We also do not believe there is utility in requiring released catch affidavits for slippage events, as
the affidavit will not provide any new information that is not currently reported by the observer
program. We recently implemented protocols for observers to collect detailed information on
discards, including slippage, in the herring and mackerel fisheries, such as why catch was discarded,
the estimated amount of discarded catch, and estimated composition of discarded catch. Given this
new data collection, requiring vessel operators to complete a slipped catch affidavit whenever catch
is slipped and an observer is aboard is an unnecessary reporting burden for the industry. As we
strive to improve management of the mackerel fishery, observer data, both on discards and slipped
catch, are the best information to understand and account for discarding.

Port-side and Other SamplingIMonitoring Measures (Alternative Set 4)
NMFS agrees that while at-sea observers are essential for monitoring river herring and shad
discards, port-side sampling is an efficient, cost-effective way to enhance the characterization of
retained river herring and shad catch. Though Amendment 14 proposes industry funding to cover
the port-side sampling, we estimate the cost to implement the infrastructure component of a port­
side sampling program to be significant. Unfortunately, we do not have the available resources to
administer the infrastructure components of this new program, given our budgetary constraints.
At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements (Alternative Set 5)
Amendment 14 includes alternatives that increase the level of observer coverage in the mackerel
and longfin squid fisheries using NOAA Fisheries Service or industry funds to support the
additional coverage. While we share the Council's interested in improving fishery dependent data
quality, our current and anticipated budgets do not provide support for expanded levels of observer
coverage. The available funds must be distributed for observers in all of our Northeast fisheries,
and we are under pressure to increase coverage levels in all fisheries. We simply cannot afford to
support any alternatives that increase the observer coverage level in the mackerel or longfin squid
fisheries under agency funding. We acknowledge that the analysis in the Amendment 14 document
demonstrates that an industry-funded observer program would put substantial financial burden on
the mackerel and longfm squid industries. If the Council proceeds with an industry funded option,
it must carefully weigh the benefits of such a program with the costs to the industry.
3

Alternatives to Address River Herring/Shad Bycatch and Catch (Alternative Sets 6-8)
Analyses in the DEISs for MSB Amendment 14 and the New England Fishery Management
Council's Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (Herring FMP) suggest
that time/area management alternatives considered in Amendment 14 are unlikely to effectively
minimize the bycatch of river herring due to the variable distribution of river herring. Analyses in
Amendment 14 suggest that time/area management for river herring would require the use oflarge
areas to ensure that time/area management was not just redistributing fishing effort, possibly in a
way that increased river herring catch. Maps of Northeast Fisheries Science Center spring and fall
survey catches indicate that the seasonal and inter-annual distribution of river herring is highly
variable in time and space. River herring distribution is highly variable because they undergo
extensive coast-wide migrations, largely influenced by water temperature. In addition, the
incidental catch of river herring/shad and effort pattern of fleets encountering river herring/shad
(i.e., midwater trawl, small-mesh bottom trawl) are also highly variable in time and space because
those fleets target species that are highly migratory (e.g., herring, mackerel, squid, whiting).
To address our concerns about time/area closures, a river herring catch cap would be the most
effective alternative in Amendment 14 at controlling the catch of river herring. Further, due to the
mixed nature of the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries, especially during January through April
in Atlantic Herring Management Area 2, the potential for the greatest river herring catch reduction
would come from the implementation of a joint river herring catch cap for both the Atlantic herring
and mackerel fisheries. A catch cap has the potential to directly control river herring fishing
mortality with less compliance and administrative burden than time/area management.
In addition, the Council should carefully consider whether the benefits of river herring catch cap for
the longfin squid fishery, or a shad cap for the mackerel or longfin squid fishery, outweigh the
costs, especially given the scale of shad catch (125,000 Ib per year, 2006-2010) compared to river
herring catch (1,000,000 Ib per year, 2006-20 I0), and the relative contribution of Mid-Atlantic
small-mesh bottom trawl fisheries to total river herring and shad mortality (5% and 11.5% of total
mortality, respectively).

Addition of River Herring/Shad as "Stocks in the Fishery" in the MSB FMP (Alternative Set
9)
The DEIS for Amendment 14 includes alternatives that would initiate Council action to consider
adding, in a future action, alewife, blueback, American shad, and/or hickory shad as stocks in the
MSB FMP (Alternative Set 9). These alternatives are not true alternatives under NEPA because
they do not result in any NOAA Fisheries Service action. Rather, they would initiate a future
Council amendment that would consider and analyze various management reference points, to
describe and delineate EFH, and to prescribe appropriate conservation management objectives and
measures. If the Council determines that it should consider adding alewife, blueback, American
shad, and/or hickory shad as stocks in the MSB FMP, consistent with Alternative ,Set 9, we advise
that the Council should initiate an amendment in a motion at the June Council meeting. My staff
can communicate with your staff regarding any necessary adjustments to the final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) to reflect this course of action.
Should the Council choose to initiate an amendment to consider adding river herring/shad as stocks
in the MSB FMP, we urge you to work collaboratively with the New England Fishery Management
4

Council to develop options for potential management programs. Both the herring and MSB species
interact with river herring and shad, and a management program would need to include
consideration of interactions across both FMPs. In addition, there can only be one lead Council for
the river herring/shad species. The recommendation as to which Council will take the lead on a
river herring/shad FMP should be included in your joint deliberations.
In summary, I urge the Council to select alternatives that effectively monitor and minimize bycatch
in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, and do not significantly expand the compliance and
administrative burden of these fisheries, without a commensurate benefit to data quality.
Alternatives in Amendment 14 have complimentary alternatives in the Amendment 5 to the Atlantic
Herring FMP. Given the significant overlap between the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries,
we urge both Councils to select similar alternatives regarding monitoring and addressing river
herring/shad bycatch.
Finally, various reviewers noted teclmical issues with the draft environmental impact statement that
will need to be addressed in the FEIS. My staff will provide those comments directly to Council
staff. I appreciate the time and effort that the Council and Council staff have put into this
amendment and I look forward to working with the Council to complete this action.

Daniel S. Morris
Acting Regional Administrator

5

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministratIon
NATIONAl. MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHEAST REGION
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

JUN - 5 2012
C.M. "Rip" Cunningham, Jr., Chairman
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
Dear Rip:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 5 to the
Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (Herring FMP) and have evaluated the potential
effectiveness and feasibility of the alternatives under consideration. The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) has spent years developing this amendment, and there are many
alternatives that offer clear improvements to the Herring FMP and can be implemented by
NOAA Fisheries Service.
We support the consideration of the following alternatives in Amendment 5:
• Modifying the herring transfer at-sea and offload definitions to better document the

transfer of fish;

• Expanding the possession limit restrictions to all vessels working cooperatively,

consistent with requirements for pair trawl requirements;

• Eliminating the vessel monitoring system (VMS) power down provision for limited
access herring vessels, consistent with VMS provisions for other fisheries;
• Establishing an "At-Sea Herring Dealer" permit to better document the transfer and

purchase of herring;

• Allowing vessels to enroll as herring carriers with either a VMS declaration or letter of
authorization;
• Expanding pre-trip and pre-landing notification requirements, as well as adding a VMS
gear declaration, to all limited access herring vessels to help facilitate monitoring;
• Reducing the advance notice requirement for the pre-trip notification from 72 hours to 48
hours;
• Expanding vessel requirements related to at-sea sampling to help ensure safe sampling
and improve data quality;
• Establishing a river herring catch cap in a future framework to directly control river

herring fishing mortality; and

• Allowing the joint Sustainable Fisheries CoalitionlUniversity of Massachusetts School
for Marine Science and TechnologylMassachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries
bycatch avoidance program to investigate providing real-time, cost-effective information
on river herring distribution and fishery encounters.
Several issues that are considered in Amendment 5 have been the subject of much debate and
public comment. These issues include: Increasing observer coverage; addressing net slippage;

•~~

(~)
~

improving dealer data; addressing river herring bycatch; and addressing midwater trawling in
groundfish closed areas. NOAA Fisheries Service supports improvements to fishery dependent
data collections, be it through expansion of monitoring at sea or greater quality assurance of the
dealer data. We also share the Council's concern for reducing bycatch and unnecessary
discarding, and appreciate the Council's work on addressing these issues.
However, some specific alternatives in Amendment 5, if adopted, would require still more
thought, more robust rationale, and further justification by the Council. As we have commented
previously, we share the Council's desire/need to have better data about the fishery, and we
support the motive and concept of the alternatives that aim to do this. However, we must be
mindful ofthe burden and technical details of implementing the alternatives. Additionally, we
cannot give our full support for alternatives for which the agency is not likely to have sufficient
resources to execute.
The following sections detail our concerns with the specified alternatives. I have noted in this
section which alternatives we believe require further justification by the Council and those that
we believe have serious implementation issues that we cannot overcome.

Alternatives to Allocate Observer Coverage
Amendment 5 includes alternatives that increase the level of observer coverage in the herring
fishery using NOAA Fisheries Service or industry funds to support the additional coverage.
While we share the Council's interest in improving fishery-dependent data, our current and
anticipated budgets do not provide support for expanded levels of observer coverage. The
available funds must be distributed for observers in all of our Northeast fisheries, and we are
under increasing pressure to increase observer coverage in all fisheries. We simply cannot afford
to support any alternatives that increase the observer coverage level in the herring fishery under
agency funding. We acknowledge that the analysis in Amendment 5 demonstrates that an
industry-funded observer program would put substantial financial burden on the herring industry.
If the Council proceeds with an industry-funded observer program, it must carefully weigh the
benefits of such a program against the costs to the industry.
Under the industry-funded observer program alternative, Amendment 5 contains a Sub-Option
that would exempt states from observer service provider requirements. To ensure data quality
standards, we believe that all observer service providers should be held to the same requirements.
The requirements include such things as standards of conduct, reporting requirements, conflict of
interest statements, and emergency action plans. I therefore recommend that the Council adopt
the alternative that requires states to comply with all observer service provider requirements.

Alternatives to Address River Herring Bycatch
Analyses in the DEISs for Herring Amendment 5 and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (MSB FMP)
suggest that time/area management alternatives considered in Amendment 5 are unlikely to
effectively minimize the bycatch of river herring due to the variable distribution of river herring.
Analyses in Amendment 14 suggest that time/area management for river herring would require
the use of large areas to ensure that time/area management was not just redistributing fishing
effort, possibly in a way that increased river herring catch. Maps of Northeast Fisheries Science

2

Center spring and fall survey catches indicate that the seasonal and inter-annual distribution of
river herring is higWy variable in time and space. River herring distribution is highly variable
because river herring undergo extensive coast-wide migrations, largely influenced by water
temperature. In addition, the incidental catch of river herring and effort pattern of fleets
encountering river herring (i.e., midwater trawl, small-mesh bottom trawl) are also highly
variable in time and space because those fleets target species that are highly migratory (e.g.,
herring, mackerel, squid, whiting).
To address our concern about time/area management, a river herring catch cap, implemented
through a future framework, would be the most effective alternative in Amendment 5 at
controlling the catch of river herring. Further, due to the mixed nature of the herring and
mackerel fisheries, especially during January through April in Herring Management Area 2, the
potential for the greatest river herring catch reduction would come from the implementation of a
joint river herring catch cap for both the herring and mackerel fisheries. A catch cap has the
potential to directly control river herring fishing mortality with less compliance and
administrative burden than time/area management.

Alternatives to Address Net Slippage
I am concerned about the effectiveness and legal justification for the alternatives designed to
reduce slippage events in the herring fishery. Alternatives that require trip termination and/or
catch deduction lack a well explained basis for the threshold to trigger trip termination (i.e.,
either 5 or 10 slippage events in a management area) and the amount of catch deduction (i.e.,
100,000 lb). Both the termination trigger and the catch deduction require clear and supportable
rationale and justification. Once the threshold to trigger trip termination has been reached, all
vessels that slip catch, regardless of the reason for slipping (including safety or mechanical
failure), would be required to return to port. The Council must provide sufficient rationale for
requiring vessels to terminate a trip after the trigger while allowing the specified number of
slippage events prior to the trigger without consequence. Further, the trip termination
alternatives may create the situation of the vessel operator having to choose between trip
termination or bringing catch aboard the vessel despite a safety concern or mechanical failure.
Such a provision must be consistent with National Standard 10 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and requires additional detailed explanation from the
Council. For NOAA Fisheries Service to approve a measure like this, the Council must provide
a rational basis that we can support in relation to requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and other applicable law. Additionally, we are concerned that
slippage requirements are triggered when an observer is aboard the vessel. Requirements for a
vessel to terminate a trip or report a slippage deduction (i.e., 100,000 lb) should not depend on
the presence of an observer. NOAA Fisheries Service acknowledges that observers are helpful
when evaluating compliance with slippage requirements, but implementing requirements
contingent on the presence of an observer unduly places the observer in a
compliance/enforcement role and creates the potential for conflict between the vessel's crew and
the observer.
We also do not believe there is utility in requiring released catch affidavits for slippage events, as
the affidavit will not provide any new information that is not currently collected by NEFOP.
NEFOP recently implemented protocols for observers to collect detailed information on discard,

3

including slippage, in the herring and mackerel fisheries, such as why catch was discarded, the
estimated amount of discarded catch, and estimated composition of discarded catch. For 2010,
NOAA Fisheries Service determined the amount of discards in the herring fishery by
extrapolating observer data to the entire herring fishery. The amount of observed herring
discards ("Atlantic herring" and "herring not known") was divided by the amount of observed
fish landed. That discard ratio was then multiplied by the amount of all fish landed for each trip
to calculate total amount of herring discards in 2010. The amount of discards was determined
for each management area and gear type. Given this new data collection, requiring vessel
operators to complete a slipped catch affidavit whenever catch is slipped and an observer is
aboard is an unnecessary reporting burden for the industry. As we strive to improve
management ofthe herring fishery, observer data, both on discards and slipped catch, are the best
information to understand and account for discarding.

Reporting Requirements for Dealers
Dealers are currently required to report the weight of purchased fish. A variety of methods are
used by dealers to determine the weight of fish, including weighing fish on scales and estimating
weights, based on volumetric measures. Because Option 2 allows dealers to continue using
scales andlor volumetric estimates to determine the weight of fish, there is no appreciable
difference between Option 2 and status quo.
Sub-Options 2A and 2B require dealers to document how they estimate the relative composition
of mixed catch in order to facilitate quota monitoring. However, this qualitative information
cannot be incorporated into quota monitoring because we use the weights provided by the
dealers, regardless of the methods used to determine weights. Additionally, we are unable to
evaluate, either annually or for individual transactions, the sufficiency of the information
submitted.
Sub-Option 2C requires vessel owners/operators to review and validate catch data for their
vessels in Fish-On-Line. This Sub-Option has the potential to improve quota monitoring and
year-end catch determinations by highlighting data reporting issues. However, vessels are
currently able to review both vessel and dealer reported data via Fish-On-Line and discover data
issues. The Council should consider whether the utility of Sub-Option 2C outweighs the
additional reporting and administrative burden associated with the requirement.
The Council should also be aware that if any of these Sub-Options become requirements, they
would also become compliance measures that would affect future vessel permit issuance (similar
to vessel trip report and VMS compliance).

Alternatives to Address Midwater Trawl Access to Groundfish Closed Areas
Amendment 5 considers an alternative that would prohibit midwater trawling in groundfish
closed areas, unless the vessel has an experimental fishing permit. Analyzes in the DEIS suggest
that midwater trawl vessels are not catching significant amounts of groundfish either inside or
outside the groundfish closed areas. Additionally, the majority of groundfish bycatch by
midwater trawl vessels is haddock, and the catch of haddock by midwater trawl vessels is already
managed through a haddock catch cap. The data do not indicate that prohibiting midwater
trawling in groundfish closed areas is necessary for groundfish conservation.

4

In summary, I urge the Council to select alternatives that effectively monitor herring, minimize
bycatch in the herring fishery, and do not significantly expand the compliance and administrative
burden of the herring fishery without a commensurate benefit to data quality. Alternatives in
Amendment 5 have complimentary alternatives in the Amendment 14 to the MSB FMP. Given
the significant overlap between the herring and mackerel fisheries, I also encourage the Council
to consider the recommendations by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council on
Amendment 14 to the MSB FMP when recommending monitoring and bycatch measures for
Amendment 5.
Finally, various reviewers noted technical issues with the DEIS that will need to be addressed in
the final EIS. My staff will provide those comments directly to Council staff. I appreciate the
time and effort that the Council and Council staff have put into this amendment and I look
forward to working with the Council to complete this action.
Sincerely,

aniel S. Morris
Acting Regional Administrator

5

New England Fishery Management Council
50 WATER STREET

|

NEWBURYP ORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950

|

PHONE 978 465 0492

C.M. “Rip” Cunningham Jr., Chairman | Paul J. Howard, Executive Director

|

FAX 978 465 3116

HERRING COMMITTEE MOTIONS
Herring Committee Meeting
Radisson Hotel, Plymouth MA
June 6, 2012
CATCH MONITORING AT-SEA
(PINK SECTION OF AMENDMENT 5 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT)
Alternatives to Allocate Observer Coverage on Limited Access Herring Vessels (Section 3.2.1)
1.

Recommend to the Council as a preferred alternative for Section 3.2.1 Alternative 2,
100% coverage on Category A and B and C herring vessels, coupled with the Herring AP
recommendation for Funding Option 2 – Federal and Industry Funds– with a maximum
contribution of $325 per sea day by the fishing industry, and Option 2 to authorize the
States as service providers
MOTION CARRIED 7-3-1.

2.

Move that a waiver for an at-sea observer be granted for a fishing trip if NEFOP cannot
provide an observer within 24 hours of the vessel’s notification of the prospective trip. A
waiver will not be granted if the trip is to include tows in areas and at times associated
with measures to avoid or protect river herring
MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1.

Other Measures to Address Catch Monitoring At-Sea (Section 3.2.2 – Measures to
Improve/Maximize Sampling At-Sea)
3.

That the Committee recommend as a preferred alternative, Section 3.2.2, Option 2, SubOptions 2A-2F, p. 30 of the public hearing document
MOTION CARRIED 9-0-1.

Other Measures to Address Catch Monitoring At-Sea (Section 3.2.3 – Measures to Address
Net Slippage)
4.

That for Section 3.2.3, Measures to Address Net Slippage the Committee recommend
Option 4, Sub-Option 4C Closed Area I Provisions Trip Termination after ten slippage
events by each gear type – midwater trawl (single and paired), purse seine, and bottom
trawl (with an added exception for slippage under #3 spiny dogfish clogging the pump for
all gear types).
Language will be modified to reflect requirements for all gear types and for vessels that
do not pump fish.
MOTION CARRIED 7-1-2.

Other Measures to Address Catch Monitoring At-Sea (Section 3.2.4 – Maximized Retention
Alternative)
5.

That the Committee recommend as a preferred alternative, Section 3.2.4, Option 1 – No
Action
MOTION CARRIED 9-1-1.
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(BLUE SECTION OF AMENDMENT 5 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT

6.

Recommend that the Council adopt Section 3.3.1B – Proposed Regulatory Definitions
MOTION CARRIED 10-0-1.

7.

Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.2B – Proposed Administrative/General
Provisions – Including 2A, 2B, and 2C
MOTION CARRIED 10-0-1.

8.

Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.3.2 Option 3 – Dual Option for
Carriers (VMS or LOA)
MOTION CARRIED 10-0-1.

9.

Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.3.3 Option 3 – Prohibit Transfers At
Sea to Non-Permitted Vessels
MOTION CARRIED 9-1-0.

10.

Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.4 Option 2 – Modify and Extend PreTrip Notification Requirements AND in Section 3.1.4, Option 3 – Extend Pre-Landing
Notification Requirement
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

11.

Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.5 Option 2 with Sub-Option 2B –
require dealers to accurately weigh all fish and require documentation for individual
landings submissions on how species composition of mixed catch is estimated.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

12.

Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.6 Option 2 for Limited Access
Mackerel permit holders (all three tiers) – 20,000 pound possession limit in Areas 2/3 for
vessels that also possess a limited access mackerel permit, and that the possession limit
could be adjusted in the future through the specifications process
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

13.

To require that all herring vessels must offload all fish before leaving the dock prior to
the start of the next fishing trip unless there is confirmation by an observer or
enforcement of weight on board that will be offloaded at the time of the next landing
event.
MOTION CARRIED 6-1-2.

MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO ADDRESS RIVER HERRING BYCATCH
(GREEN SECTION OF AMENDMENT 5 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT
14.

Recommend Section 3.3.5 on p. 59 of the public hearing document for a river herring
catch cap, which the Council would consider through a framework adjustment
MOTION CARRIED 6-0-3.

15.

To recommend as a preferred alternative to address river herring bycatch Alternative 2,
Option 4 – Two-Phase Bycatch Avoidance Approach based on SMAST/SFC Project.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MEASURES TO ADDRESS MIDWATER TRAWL ACCESS TO GROUNDFISH
CLOSED AREAS
(PURPLE SECTION OF AMENDMENT 5 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT
16.

Recommend Alternative 4, Option 4A for midwater trawl access to groundfish closed
areas – Apply Closed Area I Provisions with 100% Observer Coverage, to all current
year-round closed areas.
MOTION CARRIED 9-1-0.

HERRING AMENDMENT 5 COMMITTEE MEETING  
DRAFT MOTIONS 6‐6‐12 
Catch Monitoring Alternatives:  
MOTION Terry Stockwell/Mary Beth Tooley: Recommend to the Council as a preferred alternative for 
Section 3.2.1, Alternative 2, 100% observer coverage on Category A and B herring vessels.  Along with AP 
recommendation for funding, Option 2, federal and industry funds with a maximum contribution of 
$325 per sea day by the fishing industry.   
MOTION AMENDED: Recommend to the Council as a preferred alternative for Section 3.2.1, Alternative 
2, 100% observer coverage on Category A and B herring vessels.  Along with AP recommendation for 
funding, Option 2, federal and industry funds with a maximum contribution of $325 per sea day by the 
fishing industry, and Option 2 to authorize the states as service providers.  
MOTION TO AMEND: Recommend to the Council as a preferred alternative for Section 3.2.1, Alternative 
2, 100% observer coverage on Category A and B and C  herring vessels.  Along with AP recommendation 
for funding, Option 2, federal and industry funds with a maximum contribution of $325 per sea day by 
the fishing industry, and Option 2 to authorize the states as service providers.  MOTION TO AMEND: 6, 4, 
1 abstention: motion passes.  
MOTION: Recommend to the Council as a preferred alternative for Section 3.2.1, Alternative 2, 100% 
observer coverage on Category A and B and C  herring vessels.  Along with AP recommendation for 
funding, Option 2, federal and industry funds with a maximum contribution of $325 per sea day by the 
fishing industry, and Option 2 to authorize the states as service providers.  MOTION: 7, 3, 1 in favor. 
MOTION CARRIES 
MOTION: Dave Pierce/Terry Stockwell Move that a waiver for an at sea observer be granted for a fishing 
trip if NEFOP cannot provide an observer within 24 hours of the vessel’s notification of the prospective 
trip. A waiver will not be granted if the trip is to include tows in areas and at times associated with 
measures to avoid or protect river herring. MOTION: 9, 0, 1 Motion Passes (Berg missing) 
MOTION: Mary Beth Tooley/Terry Stockwell. That the committee recommend as a preferred alternative, 
Section 3.2.2, Option 2, Sub‐Options 2A through 2F, measures to improve sampling. Motion carried 9‐0‐
1.   
MOTION: Mary Beth Tooley/Terry Stockwell.  That the Committee recommend as a preferred 
alternative, Section 3.2.4, Alternative 1 (No Action) MOTION CARRIES 9, 1, 1.  
Measures to Address Net Slippage 3.2.3 
MOTION: Dave Pierce/Glen Libby. Move that For Section 3.2.3, Measures to Address Net Slippage, the 
Committee recommend Option 4, Sub‐Option 4B Closed Area I Provisions with Catch Deduction 
(100,000 pounds) and Trip Termination after ten slippage events.  

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE: Terry Stockwell/?. Move that For Section 3.2.3, Measures to Address Net 
Slippage, the Committee recommend Option 4, Sub‐Option 4C Closed Area I Provisions and Trip 
Termination after ten slippage events by each gear type (midwater trawl single, midwater trawl paired, 
purse seine, bottom trawl (with an added exception for #3 spiny dogfish clogging the pump). Language 
will be modified to reflect requirements for all gear types and for vessels that do not pump fish.  
MOTION: Move that For Section 3.2.3, Measures to Address Net Slippage, the Committee recommend 
Option 4, Sub‐Option 4C Closed Area I Provisions and Trip Termination after ten slippage events by each 
gear type (single and paired midwater trawl, purse seine, bottom trawl (with an added exception for #3 
spiny dogfish clogging the pump). Language will be modified to reflect requirements for all gear types 
and for vessels that do not pump fish. Motion CARRIES 7, 1, 2.  
Section 3.3.3.1 Regulatory Definitions  
MOTION: Dave Pierce/Terry Stockwell. Recommend that the Council adopt Section 3.3.1B Proposed 
regulatory Definitions . Motion Carries 10, 0, 1.  
MOTION: Terry Stockwell/Mary Beth Tooley: Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.2.B 
Proposed Administrative/General Provisions Including 2A, 2B, and 2C. Motion Carries 10, 0, 1 
MOTION: Mary Beth Tooley/Terry Stockwell: Recommends as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.3.2.3 
Option 3 Dual Option for Carrieres (VMS or LOA). Motion Carries 10, 0, 1 
MOTION: Mary Beth Tooley/Erling Berg: Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.3.3 Option 3 
Prohibits transfers at sea to non‐permitted vessels.  
MOTION To Substitute: Dave Pierce./Peter Kendall: Recommend as preferred alternative Section 3.1.3.3 
Option 1‐No Action Motion Fails 2, 8, 0 
MOTION Mary Beth Tooley/Erling Berg: Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.3.3 Option 3 
Prohibits transfers at sea to non‐permitted vessels. Motion carries 9, 1, 0 
3.1.4 Trip Notification Requirements 
MOTION MBT/Erling Berg:  Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.4 Option 2 to modify and 
extend the pre‐trip notification requirements and 3.1.4 Option 3 to extend the pre‐landing notification 
requirements. Motion carries unanimously.  
3.1.5 Dealer Reporting Requirements  
MOTION Terry Stockwell/Mary Beth Tooley : Recommend as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.5 Option 
2 with sub‐Option 2B to require dealers to accurately weigh all fish and require documentation for 
individual landings submissions on how species composition of mixed catch is estimated. Motion carries 
unanimously.  

MOTION Mary Beth Tooley: That Atlantic herring vessels be required to file a single VTR per trip, by 
statistical area, that lists any at sea transfers on that trip.  
MOTION WITHDRAWN by MBT. 
MOTION Terry Stockwell/Mary Beth Tooley: To require that all herring vessels must offload all fish 
before leaving the dock prior to the start of the next trip.   
MOTION: Dave Pierce/Peter Kendall .To table the previous motion until after the break. Motion carries 
unanimously.  
3.1.6 Changes to Open Access Permit Provisions for the Limited Access Mackerel Fishery  
MOTION Mary Beth Tooley/Erling Berg Recommends as a preferred alternative Section 3.1.6 Option 2 
for the limited access mackerel permit holders  (Tiers 1, 2, 3), 20,000 pound possession limit in Areas 2/3 
for vessels that also possess a limited access mackerel permit and this possession limit could be adjusted 
in the future through the specifications process.   Motion carries unanimously.  
MOTION to remove the previous motion from the table. Unanimous.  
TABELED MOTION RECONSIDERED AND PERFECTED To require that all herring vessels must offload all 
fish before leaving the dock prior to the start of the next fishing trip unless there is confirmation by an 
observer or enforcement of weight on board that will be offloaded at the time of the next landing event.  
Motion Carried 6, 1, 2. 
Measures to Address River Herring Bycatch Section 3.3 
MOTION Dave Pierce/Mark Gibson:  That for Measures to Address River Herring Bycatch the committee 
recommend:    
(1) Alternative 3 River Herring Protection Section 3.3.3.2 Option 1 (Closure Areas) for the three 
designated ¼ degree squares north of 4130 N Latitude to be closed during the bimonthly periods  
described on pg. 54 of the public hearing document for Amendment 5 and  
(2) Alternative 2 River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Approach Based on SFCSMAST/DMF Project) 
applied to bimonthly monitoring/avoidance areas described on page 41 of the public hearing 
document for Amendment 5. (Except for three designated ¼ degree squares north of 4130 N 
Latitude where river herring protection measures apply.  
(3) If the Bycatch Avoidance Approach is discontinued for any reason (e.g.funding) then the 
following would be implemented in its place:  
a. Alternative 3: Protection Areas Option 1 (Closed Area) only for the ¼ degree square off 
the eastern shore of Cape Cod from November through February and then  
b. Alternative 3 Option 2 (Trigger Based Closed Areas) Sub‐option 3C (mean) for catch 
triggers in the GOM (127,100 lb) and Southern New England (478,500 lb) for all other 
designated bi‐monthly closures of river herring protection areas. Reporting Option 1: 
Report Total Catch by Trigger Area is recommended.  

MOTION FAILS 3, 7, 0 
MOTION Dave P/Frank Blout: To Recommend (1) Alternative 3, River Herring Protection, Option 1 – 
Closed Areas for the ¼ degree square areas on the Eastern side of Cape Cod and (2) Alternative 2, River 
herring monitoring and avoidance, Option 4, Two Phase Bycatch Avoidance Approach based on SMAST, 
applied to all other bimonthly Montoring/Avoidance Areas described on page 41 of the public hearing 
document for Amendment 5. MOTION FAILS 3,6,1 
MOTION Mary Beth Tooley/Glen Libby: To Recommend   Section 3.3.5 on Pg 59 of the public hearing 
document  for a River Herring Catch Cap which the Council would Consider through a Framework 
Adjustment. MOTION Carries 6,0,3.  
MOTION Terry Stockwell/Peter Kendall: To Recommend as a preferred alternative, Alternative 2, Option 
4, a Two Phase Bycatch Avoidance Approach based on SMAST/SFC Project. MOTION Carries 
Unanimously.  

Section 3.4 Midwater Trawl Access to Groundfish Closed Areas 
MOTION Terry Stockwell/Howard King: To recommend Alternative 4, Option 4A for midwater trawl 
access to groundfish closed areas.  Apply Closed Area I Provisions with 100% Observer Coverage, to all of 
the current year round closed areas.  MOTION Carries 9, 1, 0.  
MOTION Mary Beth Tooley/Terry Stockwell:  Recommend that the industry funded at sea observer 
program be developed through a work group that includes the Agency, Council, and the industry.  The 
work group shall meet to develop the initial recommendations to the Council by January 2013. When 
Amendment 5 is implemented, interim measures will include herring industry contributions of $325 per 
sea day to supplement federal funds. This will apply to all permit categories approved for observer 
coverage allocations in Amendment 5.  
MOTION PERFECTED (FRIENDLY) Mary Beth Tooley/Terry Stockwell:  Recommend that the industry 
funded at sea observer program be developed through an ad hoc Committee that includes the Agency, 
Council, and the industry.  The ad hoc Committee shall meet to develop the initial recommendations to 
the Council by January 2013. When Amendment 5 is implemented, interim measures will include herring 
industry contributions of $325 per sea day to supplement federal funds. Waivers will be issued when 
observers cannot be deployed during the development of the program.  This will apply to all permit 
categories approved for observer coverage allocations in Amendment 5.  
MOTION TO AMEND Peter Kendall/Frank Blount:  To add: Also, waivers would not be issued for 
midwater trawl vessels fishing in groundfish year round closed areas (if 100% coverage is required in the 
closed areas). MOTION Carries 5, 3, 1  
INSERTED INTO MAIN MOTION: Recommend that the industry funded at sea observer program be 
developed through an ad hoc Committee that includes the Agency, Council, and the industry.  The ad 

hoc Committee shall meet to develop the initial recommendations to the Council by January 2013. 
When Amendment 5 is implemented, interim measures will include herring industry contributions of 
$325 per sea day to supplement federal funds. Waivers will be issued when observers cannot be 
deployed during the development of the program.    Also, waivers would not be issued for midwater 
trawl vessels fishing in groundfish year round closed areas (if 100% coverage is required in the closed 
areas).  This will apply to all permit categories approved for observer coverage allocations in 
Amendment 5.  MOTION FAILED 3 ,6, 0 

NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

FINAL REPORT
NEFMC Herring Plan Development Team (PDT)
MAFMC Mackerel Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT)
May 22, 2012
Radisson Airport Hotel, Warwick RI
The New England Council’s Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) met jointly with the MidAtlantic Council’s Mackerel Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) on May 22, 2012 in
Warwick, RI to:
•

Review the Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEISs) for Amendment 5 to the
NEFMC Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Amendment 14 to the MAFMC
Mackerel FMP and provide technical recommendations for both Councils to consider during
the selection of final management measures for these amendments (June Council meetings)

•

Discuss/develop recommendations for industry-funded monitoring programs in Amendments
5 and 14

•

Discuss issues associated with river herring bycatch and develop recommendations related to
Amendments 5 and 14

•

Discuss the overlap between the herring and mackerel fisheries and develop related
recommendations for both Councils to consider during the selection of final management
measures for Amendments 5 and 14

Meeting Attendance: Lori Steele, Herring PDT Chairman; Jason Didden, Mackerel FMAT
Chairman; Rachel Neild, NEFMC Staff: Matt Cieri, Jon Deroba, Tim Cardiasmenos, Sara
Weeks, Micah Dean, Jamie Cournane, Min-Yang Lee, Madeleine Hall-Arber, Carrie Nordeen,
Lindsey Feldman, Aja Szumylo, Jamie Cournane; Chris Vonderweidt (ASMFC), Steve Correia
(via Webinar) (Herring PDT Members); Kate Taylor (ASMFC), Lisa Hendrickson, Drew Kitts,
(additional Mackerel FMAT Members); Rob Vincent (NMFS NERO), Dave Ellenton (Cape
Seafoods), Jeff Kaelin (Lund’s Fisheries), Pamela Lyons Gromen, Jud Crawford (Pew), and
several other interested parties.
The meeting audio and presentations, where applicable, are available at:
http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbAm14current.htm.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0

FMP ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................................................... 3

1.1

VESSEL REPORTING MEASURES ............................................................................. 3

1.2

DEALER REPORTING MEASURES ............................................................................ 4

1.3

OTHER PROPOSED FMP ADJUSTMENTS................................................................. 4

2.0

MEASURES TO MAXIMIZE SAMPLING AND ADDRESS NET SLIPPAGE ........ 6

2.1

CLOSED AREA I INFORMATION ............................................................................... 7

2.2

PRELIMINARY 2011 OBSERVER DATA (INCLUDING CATCH NOT BROUGHT
ON BOARD) .................................................................................................................... 7

3.0

ALTERNATIVES TO ALLOCATE OBSERVER COVERAGE AND OPTIONS
FOR INDUSTRY-FUNDED CATCH MONITORING ............................................... 12

3.1

MONITORING PROGRAM – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................... 13

3.2

NEFOP SEA SAMPLING VS. AT-SEA MONITORING ............................................ 14

3.3

MONITORING PROGRAM – POTENTIAL COSTS .................................................. 17

3.4

ATLANTIC HERRING VESSELS (BACKGROUND INFORMATION) .................. 20

3.5

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 21

4.0

MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO ADDRESS RIVER HERRING BYCATCH..... 23

5.0

ATTACHMENT (FOR INFORMATION/REFERENCE): SERVICE PROVIDER
REGULATIONS/REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... I

After a brief round of introductions, Ms. Steele provided an update to the Herring PDT regarding
the status of the Draft Amendment 5 document, the DEIS, public hearing process, and the
timeline for final decision-making by the Council (June 19-21, 2012 NEFMC Meeting). Mr.
Didden provided a similar update for Amendment 14 to the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Mackerel
FMP, also scheduled for final-decision making at the June 12-14, 2012 MAFMC Meeting.

1.0

FMP ADJUSTMENTS

The PDT and FMAT discussed several components of Amendments 5 and 14, using the table
provided in both DEIS documents, which identifies overlapping measures and outstanding
consistency issues (see table in Amendment 5, Overlap Between Amendment 14 to the
Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish FMP (MAFMC) and Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP (NEFMC)).
1.1

VESSEL REPORTING MEASURES

The overlapping vessel reporting measures include VTR/VMS reporting requirements and trip
notification requirements. Many of the existing requirements for the herring fishery were
implemented by NMFS through rulemaking in 2011, and the NERO supports implementation of
consistent measures in the mackerel amendment. Several consistency issues were identified by
the PDT and FMAT for consideration during final decision-making:
•

Lead times for pre-trip notifications should be consistent across both the herring and
mackerel fisheries. A 72-hour lead time was originally proposed for fleets that had
previously very little observer coverage, so additional time was provided to address the
geographical range of the fishery and uncertainty about the number of trips and the number
of available observers (from service providers). As the programs have grown, more
observers are available in more ports for more timely departures. Therefore, the PDT/FMAT
recommends that the Councils consider adopting a 48-hour lead time for pre-trip notifications
in both amendments.

•

If the Councils adopt pre-trip notification requirements (for observer deployment), the
language in the final amendment referring to a “pre-trip notification system” should be
interpreted generally and not necessarily to mean the existing pre-trip notification system
(PTNS) for the groundfish fishery. It may ultimately be more efficient to develop a new
(more flexible/adaptable) pre-trip notification system.

•

A pre-trip notification system can be costly (time, manpower, resources) and should only
apply to the vessels targeted for observer coverage. The current pre-trip notification system
includes two full-time staff members with others who fill in during evenings, weekends, and
holidays. The system has to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Currently, over
1,000 vessels call-in over 20,000 pre-trip notifications every year. While the notification
system is helpful to the observer program in deploying observers more efficiently and
reducing costs associated with dock tours and sending selection letters, it becomes inefficient
and more costly (for the industry and government) if vessels that are not subject to observer
coverage requirements are utilizing the system. The language in Amendment 5 should
acknowledge that the notification system should link directly to the observer coverage
requirements in the fishery as well as provide some flexibility to allow NMFS to notify
vessels (perhaps annually) when there is a need to participate in the pre-trip notification
program.

•

Current pre-trip notification requirements for the herring fishery (72 hours) apply to Category
A/B/C/D vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear in Areas 1A, 1B, and 3. These
requirements were implemented as part of the haddock catch cap provisions in Framework
43/46 to the Groundfish FMP and may require modification for consistency purposes,
depending on which notification requirements are adopted in Amendment 5 and to which
vessels they apply.

•

One outstanding issue that the PDT/FMAT identified relates to notification and reporting
requirements for mixed herring/mackerel trips. Currently, there are VMS declarations for the
herring fishery and Amendment 14 considers them for the mackerel fishery, but not for
mixed trips. There is no pre-trip gear declaration proposed in the mackerel amendment, but
there is one proposed in the herring amendment. The mackerel amendment is proposing
daily VMS reporting, which is already required in the herring fishery. Implementing the
same requirements for both fisheries may improve consistency. The Herring PDT/FMAT
suggests that further consideration of a pre-trip “pelagic” or “herring/mackerel” mixed trip
VMS declaration may be useful to streamline requirements for the industry, improve
compliance, and enhance enforcement of regulations in both fisheries.

1.2

DEALER REPORTING MEASURES

The Dealer Reporting Measures in Amendment 5 and Amendment 14 include a requirement for
dealers to accurately weigh all fish and several sub-options to clarify that requirement and
possibly provide an additional cross check between VTR and dealer data. NERO staff expressed
support for Option 2C, which would utilize the Fish Online system to allow vessel operators to
verify their sales with the corresponding dealer reports. ACL/sub-ACL monitoring in the herring
fishery relies on multiple data streams, and providing a cross-check between the dealers and the
vessels at the first point of sale could reduce mis-matches between VTR and dealer data. This, in
turn, could enhance real-time quota management as well as the end-of-the-year data
reconciliation process. NERO staff noted that the Agency’s long-term goal is to make Fish
Online more user-friendly and helpful for the industry to access catch data.

1.3

OTHER PROPOSED FMP ADJUSTMENTS

Before moving on, Ms. Steele asked the Herring PDT members for additional
comments/discussion on the elements of the Amendment 5 catch monitoring program that do not
overlap with the mackerel amendment. The PDT and FMAT briefly discussed measures to
address transfers of herring at sea and agreed that issues related to reporting/monitoring of
herring transferred at sea have largely been clarified between NMFS and the industry in recent
years and that the amount of herring affected by this activity is minimal. The Herring PDT also
agreed to update the permit numbers for the limited access mackerel program, for the Council to
consider when selecting measures to (possibly) allow some limited access mackerel vessels with
open access herring permits to fish under a possession limit higher than the current 3 mt.

Table 1 describes the anticipated mackerel limited access vessels and the Atlantic herring
permits which are held (based on 2011 data – note that the application period for a limited access
mackerel permit does not end until February 2013). The shaded cells represent the number of
projected limited access mackerel vessels (by tier) that possess either a Category D (open access)
herring permit or no herring permit. Currently, there are a total of 64 vessels with Herring
Category D (open access) permits which are projected to qualify for a Limited Access mackerel
permit; most of these vessels would qualify for a Tier 3 Mackerel permit. While many vessels
may qualify, these vessels account for only a small amount of herring catch.
In recent years, about 95% of all Atlantic mackerel landed has been landed by vessels that are
expected to qualify for a Tier 1 mackerel limited access permit. Based on the updated analysis of
limited access qualifier, there are expected to be one Tier 1 mackerel vessel with a Category D
herring permit (no expected Tier 1 mackerel vessels are without a herring permit of some kind)
and 12 Tier 2 mackerel vessels with a Category D herring permit (no expected Tier 2 mackerel
vessels are without a herring permit of some kind).
Table 1 Herring Permits Held by Anticipated Vessels Qualifying for Mackerel Limited
Access Permits
Herring Permit Category
1
Mackerel
Tier

2
3
4
None

A

B

C

D

None

18
0
2

0
1
1

4
4
7

1
12
51

0
0
2

14
2

2
0

26
4

1,392
316

319

Note: Data are preliminary; implementation of the mackerel limited access program is pending.

2.0

MEASURES TO MAXIMIZE SAMPLING AND ADDRESS NET SLIPPAGE

The Herring PDT/Mackerel FMAT discussed the measures under consideration in both
amendments to maximize sampling at-sea and address net slippage.
•

Under each of the measures selected to improve/maximize sampling at-sea (Section 3.2.2),
language should be added/modified to clarify requirements for each gear type subject to the
provisions (midwater trawl, purse seine, bottom trawl).

•

The Herring PDT/Mackerel FMAT does not support the options under consideration in
Amendment 5 to address net slippage that include a catch deduction for reasons previously
discussed (may increase inconsistencies between data sets and complicate catch monitoring,
not consistent with the goals and objectives of Amendment 5; potential consequence of
closing a management area/triggering accountability measures and affecting vessels that may
not have slipped catch; see February 24, 2011 Herring PDT Report for additional discussion).

•

Overall, the PDT/FMAT noted that the options under consideration to address net slippage
are somewhat ad hoc and reflect a general lack of understanding about the extent of problems
related to net slippage. The PDT/FMAT support improved data collection and efforts to
minimize unsampled/unobserved catch; many of the measures to address net slippage may
not improve catch monitoring by minimizing unsampled catch or increasing the observers’
ability to estimate the content and species composition of a bag, depending on how
participants respond to the various measures. The PDT/FMAT reiterated its concerns about
safety-at-sea and suggested that the Council consider issues related to National Standard 10
(Safety) when selecting final measures and providing its rationale. Moreover, there may be
other reasons that the Council supports a trip termination measure to address net slippage; the
Council should identify these reasons when selecting final management measures. The
PDT/FMAT reiterated the importance of ensuring that observers are not placed in situations
where they are perceived to be serving as enforcement agents.

•

Requiring a Released Catch Affidavit may provide some additional information to evaluate
the frequency and nature of slippage events in the fishery. The Council may want to consider
implementing this requirement on all trips, not just trips with an observer on board. While it
is not clear how effective enforcement of this requirement could be, it still could provide a
low gain (in terms of additional information) for a relatively low burden. Although this
information is already required to be reported on VTRs, an affidavit would create a separate,
perhaps more detailed source of information to evaluate slippage.

2.1

CLOSED AREA I INFORMATION

•

Only one slippage event has been observed in Closed Area I since the implementation of the
rules in November 2009. The PDT/FMAT recognized that interpretation of this information
needs further consideration, for example to understand the nature of slippage outside of
Closed Area I and whether “Closed Area I Rules” have been successful in reducing slippage
events. To do so, the PDT/FMAT briefly reviewed preliminary observer data summarizing
“catch not brought on board” in the herring fishery during 2011 (see below).

•

NEFOP staff on the Herring PDT investigated recent observer data more closely to evaluate
the occurrence of slippage events outside of Closed Area I.
According to the Amendment 5 DEIS, there were 99 hauls observed in Closed Area I during
2010, under the new provisions for sampling catch, implemented in November 2009. There
were no slippage events observed in these 99 hauls, and consequently no Released Catch
Affidavits were submitted from the Closed Area I fishery in 2010. There appears to have
been one released catch event (estimated 1,500 pounds) on a haul that ended (but did not
begin) in Closed Area I.
In 2011, there were 28 hauls observed in the Closed Area I from vessels on declared Atlantic
herring trips. These hauls represent less than three (3) vessels fishing, and therefore, the
specific details cannot be released due to confidentiality restrictions. There were no partial
or full slippage events documented in Closed Area I during 2011. There were 313 observed
trips in all Atlantic Herring Management areas (trips defined by gear type and include purse
seine and paired/single midwater trawl) in 2011, resulting in a total of 723 associated
observed hauls.

2.2

PRELIMINARY 2011 OBSERVER DATA (INCLUDING CATCH NOT
BROUGHT ON BOARD)

The following information was provided by NEFOP staff on the Herring PDT and updates some
information provided in the Amendment 5 Draft EIS.
Table 2 summarizes coverage rates from the NEFOP for the 2007-2011 calendar years (also the
herring fishing years) by gear type for all trips that landed greater than 2,000 pounds of Atlantic
herring and updates Table 142 in the Amendment 5 DEIS. Forty six percent (46%) of total
herring landings were observed during 2010. During the 2011 fishing year, the Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program covered trips for about 55% of all midwater trawl Atlantic herring
landings, 45% of pair trawl landings, 25% of purse seine landings, and 13% of bottom trawl
herring landings.
Observer coverage of mackerel catch has generally been less in recent years, partially because
the observer program used to select away from trips that target mackerel but still notified for
herring (this was due to coverage needs for herring related to groundfish).

Table 2 Observer Program Coverage Rates for Trips Landing Greater than 2,000 pounds
of Herring, 2007-2011
Year

Gear
Type

Total
Trips

Total
Days

Total Herring
Landed (lbs.)

Obs
Trips

Obs
Days

Obs
Herring
Kept (lbs.)

%
trips
obs

%
days
obs

%
herring
obs

2007

OTF

397

569

10,518,575

12

15

411,751

3%

3%

4%

2007

OTM

138

451

17,491,210

10

40

1,918,285

7%

9%

11%

2007

PTM

240

849

74,405,385

14

58

6,880,147

6%

7%

9%

2007

PUR

346

743

70,088,194

10

23

2,122,267

3%

3%

3%

2008

OTF

100

234

4,588,190

4

4

70,409

4%

2%

2%

2008

OTM

28

107

8,816,600

16

59

3,163,763

57%

55%

36%

2008

PTM

269

1044

110,453,766

46

176

27,211,668

17%

17%

25%

2008

PUR

232

550

59,211,542

27

64

6,941,134

12%

12%

12%

2009

OTF

180

306

9,647,215

11

15

554,579

6%

5%

6%

2009

OTM

50

242

13,875,075

16

69

3,747,316

32%

29%

27%

2009

PTM

356

1321

153,345,903

98

350

49,596,367

28%

26%

32%

2009

PUR

223

596

49,706,514

42

130

9,943,521

19%

22%

20%

2010

OTF

185

343

8,452,546

9

22

298,691

5%

6%

4%

2010

OTM

58

230

19,851,018

32

122

10,190,452

55%

53%

51%

2010

PTM

290

1129

98,165,321

128

545

47,528,352

44%

48%

48%

2011

OTF

175

368

9,449,163

24

59

1,208,293

14%

16%

13%

2011

OTM

61

165

17,647,500

27

91

9,758,411

44%

55%

55%

2011

PTM

295

1071

115,321,409

123

452

51,562,629

42%

42%

45%

2011

PUR

271

603

37,908,770

79

172

9,506,794

29%

29%

25%

OTF – small mesh bottom trawl; OTM – single midwater trawl; PTM – paired midwater trawl; PUR –
purse seine
Herring is Atl Herring or Unk Herring
Day defined as (date land - date sail) + 1
Landings data from Vessel Trip Reports

Table 3, Figure 1, and Figure 2 on the following pages summarize data for the observer records
(1140 unique hauls) in 2011 on limited access declared herring trips that included fish not
brought on board. About 198 of these hauls were documented with “not enough fish to pump,”
i.e., operational discards. Observers document operational discards as Herring NK if they are
able to see the fish that are not pumped and confirm that the discards are all herring-bodied fish.
Otherwise, the discards are documented as Fish NK. Data were pulled similar to the 2010
released catch/slippage data provided in the Draft Amendment 5 EIS (see Section 5.3.2.1, p. 413
of Amendment 5 DEIS for comparable 2010 data).
The total weight of fish not brought on board estimated by observers in 2011 was 1,041,211
pounds; this includes operational discards, which, although more frequent, generally represent
very small amounts of fish.

A review of the observer data indicate that in 2011, 78 out of 1,140 hauls were observed on
limited access declared herring trips to have experienced full or partial slippage events (catch not
brought on board, not including operational discards). The ratio of total estimated catch not
brought on board compared to the total observed catch on these vessels in 2011 was about 1.4%
(this does not include fish that were brought on board and then discarded). By gear type, this
ratio translates to 0.16% for bottom otter trawl (all areas), 5.31% for purse seine (Area 1A),
2.19% single midwater trawl (all areas), 0.11% pair trawl (Area 1A), 0.53% pair trawl (Area 3),
and 0.48% pair trawl (Area 2).
Table 3 Summary of 2011 Observed Events on Limited Access Herring Vessels – Declared
Herring Trips (by Number and Estimated Weight of Fish in lbs.) with “Fish Not
Brought on Board” Codes

Number of hauls with
occurrence

species

"gear
damage"

"fell out of
gear"

"vessel
capacity
filled"

"no market
value"

atl herring

5

0

1

1

1

23

dogfish

0

0

0

0

0

1

eel nk

0

0

0

0

0

4

fish nk

27

6

0

5

12

54

herring nk

7

1

4

1

6

116

Illex

1

0

0

0

0

3

redfish

0

0

0

1

0

0

shrimp nk

0

0

0

0

0

1

squid nk

1

0

0

0

0

2

2,754

0

10

10,000

500

1,947

dogfish

0

0

0

0

0

80

eel nk

0

0

0

0

0

860

fish nk

339,170

394,000

0

68,400

108,500

11,398

43,700

300

170

10,000

32,700

16,248

Illex

3

0

0

0

0

30

redfish

0

0

0

400

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

10

0

0

0

0

30

atl herring
Estimated weight (lbs)

"reason not
specified"

"not enough
fish to
pump"
(operational
discards)

herring nk

shrimp nk
squid nk

Note: Information in all columns except for the far right (“not enough fish to pump” (operational
discards)) represents partial/full slippage events.

Figure 1 Observed Events on Limited Access Herring Vessels – Declared Herring Trips in
2011 with “Fish Not Brought on Board” Codes (by Species and Number of Hauls)

Note: All columns except for “‘not enough fish to pump’ (operational discards)” represent partial/full
slippage events.

Figure 2 Observed Events on Limited Access Herring Vessels – Declared Herring Trips in
2011 with “Fish Not Brought on Board” Codes (By Species and Estimated Weight
of Fish in Pounds)

Note: All columns except for “‘not enough fish to pump’ (operational discards)” represent partial/full
slippage events.

There was almost no mackerel fishery in 2011, but in 2010 there were eight (8) observed
mackerel trips (50% mackerel or over 100,000 pounds mackerel) that caught about 5.5 million
pounds of fish (about 2 million pounds of mackerel and 3.3 million pound of herring) and had
about 12,000 pounds of unobserved fish (“not brought on board”), some of which was specified
by species but mostly consisted of “Fish, NK.”

3.0

ALTERNATIVES TO ALLOCATE OBSERVER COVERAGE AND OPTIONS
FOR INDUSTRY-FUNDED CATCH MONITORING

Amy Van Atten from the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) presented an overview
of updated information about the NEFOP Fisheries Sampling Program and costs associated with
both observer coverage and at-sea monitoring programs (which utilize service providers). The
PDT and FMAT discussed cost issues associated with observers and at-sea monitors. Ms. Van
Atten noted that the Atlantic herring fishery is the most complicated fishery in the Northeast
Region to sample.
Observer costs throughout the Northeast region are higher than costs in other parts of the country
for many reasons, including more complicated trip logistics, high levels of training required, and
a high rate of trip cancellation. Observers on the west coast, for example, are often deployed for
30 days at a time, resulting in reduced travel expenses and less down time. Northeast region
fisheries include many single and small boat day trips, which are spread across multiple states
and remote ports. Frequent trip cancellations (due to poor weather or fishing conditions) also
increase costs. Depending on how the program is structured, the per-day costs of an industryfunded catch monitoring program are not likely to be significantly less than the per-day costs of
the NEFOP program.
It is possible that program costs can be lowered with adequate planning and design time.
However, a successful industry-funded monitoring program will probably take a significant
amount of time to develop and incorporate into the current management system. Careful
attention must be paid to designing the program properly to ensure data quality, reduce troubleshooting with industry and service providers, increase efficiency, and reduce costs. While this
should not delay the selection of final management measures and the completion of Amendments
5 and 14, it should be recognized by all parties that this element of the amendments may require
more time for implementation than others. Ms. Van Atten’s presentation explores several ways
to reduce costs and compares costs between utilizing NEFOP observers and at-sea monitors; this
information will be presented to the Herring Committee at its June 6 meeting.
Mr. Didden also presented a preliminary vessel by vessel analysis that appears to show that while
over 2008-2010 vessels that have over 500 pounds of river herring observed caught in one year
may have over 500 pounds caught in another, the vessels varied considerably from year to year
in terms of both the absolute quantity of river herring caught and in terms of the ratio of river
herring caught to retained catch. This analysis was in response to a comment submitted on April
3 by Jim Ruhle. Due to the limited time available for new analysis the findings would have to be
categorized as very preliminary. In addition, targeting of individual “problem” vessels might be
out of the scope of alternatives considered in Amendments 5 and 14. Additional work on this
issue may suggest measures that could be appropriate for future consideration.

3.1

MONITORING PROGRAM – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The New England Council identified the following goals (numbered) and objectives (bulleted) of
the catch monitoring program established in Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP:
1.

To create a cost effective and administratively feasible program for provision of
accurate and timely records of catch of all species caught in the herring fishery;
•

2.

Review federal notification and reporting requirements for the herring fishery to
clarify, streamline, and simplify protocols;

Develop a program providing catch of herring and bycatch species that will foster
support by the herring industry and others concerned about accurate accounts of
catch and bycatch, i.e., a well-designed, credible program;
•

Avoid prohibitive and unrealistic demands and requirements for those involved in
the fishery, i.e., processors and fishermen using single and paired midwater
trawls, bottom trawls, purse seines, weirs, stop seines, and any other gear capable
of directing on herring;

•

Improve communication and collaboration with sea herring vessels and
processors to promote constructive dialogue, trust, better understanding of
bycatch issues, and ways to reduce discards;

•

Eliminate reliance on self-reported catch estimates;

3.

Design a robust program for adaptive management decisions;

4.

Determine if at-sea sampling provides bycatch estimates similar to dockside
monitoring estimates;
•

Assure at-sea sampling of at-sea processors’ catches is at least equal to shoreside
sampling;

•

Reconcile differences in federal and states’ protocols for dockside sampling, and
implement consistent dockside protocols to increase sample size and enhance trip
sampling resolution.

The Mid-Atlantic Council’s goals in terms of monitoring are:
"Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring" – Purpose A is to consider alternatives that
would implement monitoring programs for the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) fisheries
that are sensitive enough and robust enough to the spatial and temporal variability of River
Herring/Shad (RH/S) distributions so that good RH/S catch estimates can be generated.

In 2008, two researchers from the Archipelago organization in British Columbia authored a
paper evaluating monitoring and reporting needs for sectors in New England (McElderry and
Turris 2008). In the paper, they urged that, “the design of an effective and comprehensive
monitoring program is guided by having a clear understanding of the objectives for the
program.” Objectives were broken into categories based on whether they were objectives of
managers or industry participants, and some were considered to be shared while others were
distinct between the two groups. The objectives for managers included TAC management,
quantifying total mortality, species and area management, timely information, improved stock
assessment, and improved compliance. Industry’s monitoring objectives were listed as timely
and accurate data, a level playing field, affordability, and economic benefits.
Once program goals and minimum data needs are determined, calculations can be done to determine the
most cost-effective way to achieve the desired outcomes.

3.2

NEFOP SEA SAMPLING VS. AT-SEA MONITORING

The goals and objectives for the New England catch monitoring program (above) are relatively
broad in scope. Identifying a narrower set of goals and objectives for an industry-funded
monitoring program and reducing sampling requirements could reduce costs and enhance the
program’s effectiveness in the earlier years. Data generated by a more simplified at-sea
monitoring (ASM) program may not be comparable/additive to NEFOP observer data, but may
still provide some critical information to enhance catch monitoring and address the goals and
objectives identified by the Councils. Moreover, while NEFOP and ASM data may not be
additive, they could still be utilized for the same purposes because they should meet the same
data quality standards (i.e. quota monitoring, estimating bycatch, stock assessment, depending on
the goals and objectives). Developing a more simplified ASM program funded by the industry
could be an intermediate step towards a more comprehensive long-term program that can evolve
adapt to meet the monitoring and data collection needs of management, science, and the industry.
After the implementation of Amendment 5 (and Amendment 14), Federally-funded observer
coverage would continue through the NEFOP at a baseline level (currently defined by the SBRM
process), so an industry-funded program could be developed separately and focused, at least at
first, on a more narrow set of sampling objectives. Biological sampling could be eliminated for
ASMs, reducing training and gear costs. ASMs could be tasked with documenting and providing
detailed information on slippage events in the fishery (as one objective, for example). However,
the PDT and FMAT recognize that “data creep” (data collection needs, which continue to
increase) and multiple priorities will likely make it more challenging shave costs in this area.
Table 4 provides perspective on some example goals for a monitoring program; these examples
have been gleaned from a literature review (background work for the groundfish program) and
include some goals that were identified through the NEFMC sector workshop (2011). Some
additional examples that relate directly to the herring fishery have been provided for
consideration relative to an at-sea monitoring (ASM) program versus the NEFOP observer
program. All of the example goals provided in the table below are currently being addressed by
the NEFOP sea sampling program.

Table 4 Example Goals for Monitoring Programs
Category
Science
Science
Science
Science
Science
Science
Science
Science
Science
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Other
Herring
Herring
Herring

Goal
Determine total catch and effort of target or regulated species
Determine total catch and effort of non-target or non-regulated species
Biological sampling
Environmental parameters
Protected species monitoring/sampling
Determine discard rate
Quantify total mortality including discards
Determine catch by area
Obtain accurate catch and effort information
Area and gear restrictions
Illegal discarding
Prohibited species
Monitor overall ACL
Reduce management and/or biological uncertainty
Document slippage
Document at-sea discards
XXX

Table 5 generally describes the differences between Northeast Fisheries At-Sea Monitoring
Program Monitors (ASM) and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) Observers (or
NMFS-approved observers). Both programs are developed and overseen by NMFS Fisheries
Sampling Branch at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). The main difference
between the two is that monitors collect a reduced set of data, thereby reducing training time,
gear requirements, and internal support resources. NEFOP observers and ASM monitors are
trained by the NEFSC. Data collected by both programs are processed by the NEFSC.
Observers and monitors identify and record all species caught, are trained in sub-sampling
methodology, and receive advanced training in vessel safety.
Table 5 Differences Between NMFS-Approved Observers and At-Sea Monitors
ASM
MONITOR

NEFOP
OBSERVER/NMFS-APPROVED
OBSERVER

NO
(High School diploma or
equivalency)

YES

11 days

15 days

DATA COLLECTION

Basic

Advanced
Ex: sighting logs

BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING

None

Mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and
crustaceans

AMOUNT OF GEAR
ISSUED

44
items

83
items

GEAR CHARACTERISTICS
INFORMATION

Basic

Advanced
Ex: record intricate gear
configurations

PERFORMANCE-BASED
BONUS PROGRAM

No

Yes (Discontinued)

SUPPLEMENTAL
RESEARCH PROJECTS

No

Yes

Paper + Electronic
(Paper worksheets, iPaq)

Paper + Electronic
(Paper Logs, iPaq, Rugged laptops)

Not required, however added to
training and shadow trip program

Yes, 4 are required

NEFSC

NEFSC

NEFSC
Data availability = ~7 days

NEFSC
Data availability = ~90 days

TASKS/
REQUIREMENTS
BACHELOR’S DEGREE
NMFS TRAINING
DURATION

RECORDING DATA
TRAINING TRIP
REQUIREMENTS
TRAINING PROVIDER

DATA PROCESSING

The costs of the monitoring program may be reduced through ASMs in several ways: (1) ASMs
can be contracted for shorter time frames (2 years versus 5 years); (2) the duties of ASMs can be
more narrowly defined geographically, temporally, or through selection of vessels/gear types; (3)
the multi-vendor contract model may encourage competition and result in reduced program
costs; (4) ASMs do not have defined meal reimbursement policies or monetary data quality
bonus incentives; and (5) training and gear requirements/costs may be reduced by removing
biological sampling requirements and/or other sampling depending on the goals/objectives.

3.3

MONITORING PROGRAM – POTENTIAL COSTS

The costs of an industry-funded monitoring program will depend on the details – scale, number
of vessels, goals and objectives. Analysis in the Draft Amendment 5 EIS evaluates the costs of
observer coverage and impacts of industry-funded at-sea monitoring based on an assumed rate of
$1,200 per sea day. This could be considered an upper bound on costs and is based on the
objective of sampling the fishery to generate data that mirror the NEFOP observer data (i.e., to
generate accurate accounts of catch and bycatch in the fishery).
The Herring PDT and Mackerel FMAT agree that the dockside monitoring program proposed in
Amendment 14 to the Mackerel FMP is likely to provide a significant cost savings for collecting
catch information for the mackerel fishery. The PDT/FMAT support future reconsideration of a
dockside monitoring program for the herring fishery.
Currently, NMFS does not have legislative authority to collect funds to support governmentcontracted observer coverage, with very limited exceptions (North Pacific). A mix of
government and industry funding is utilized by some programs in the U.S., including the North
Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP), Northeast Fisheries Observer Program
(NEFOP), and At-Sea Hake Observer Program (A-SHOP).
North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP)
•

Largest industry-funded program, est. 1989

•

Groundfish vessels 60-125 feet (30%), groundfish vessels greater than 125 feet (100%),
shoreside processors 500-1000 mt groundfish per month (30%), shoreside processors more
than 1000 mt groundfish per month (100%)

•

NMFS – operational oversight, certification training, identification of observer duties and
sampling methods, observer debriefing, data management, observer program management

•

Industry (vessel owners, processing plant owners) – observer costs (wages)

•

In 2009, the industry provided approx. $13M to support observer deployment and data
collection, and NMFS provided about $4.7M to support the program.

At-Sea Hake Observer Program (A-SHOP)
•

Est. 2004

•

100% coverage catcher-processors and motherships (2 observers on vessels 125 feet or
greater)

•

NMFS – operational oversight, certification training, identification of observer duties and
sampling methods, observer debriefing, data management, observer program management

Atlantic Sea Scallop Observer Program
•

Est. 2006 through Emergency Rule and permanently implemented in A13 to monitor bycatch
of yellowtail flounder in Scallop Access Areas, and interactions with sea turtles

•

10% of all scallop trips in Access Areas and limited access trips in open areas

•

Current service providers – AIS (70 observers), EWTS (26 observers), Fathoms Research (8
observers)

Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Monitoring Program (Work in Progress)
•

Regulations pertaining to an industry-funded monitoring program for the multispecies
(groundfish) fishery were implemented in Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies
(Groundfish) FMP.

•

NEFOP funds increased in FY2010 for groundfish sector monitoring; funding limited for
future years, and shifting towards industry-funded program

•

Current service providers (paid directly by NEFOP through contracts) – AIS (43 observers),
EWTS (26 observers), and MRAG (28 observers)

Based on Groundfish Fishing Year 2010, the overall cost at-sea monitoring sea day cost is
$917.95 (see Table 6). The costs for an at-sea monitor can be separated into two components: atsea and infrastructure. At-sea monitors are paid a sea day rate and an hourly rate when they’re
on land or extended travel. They use an average of 12 hours per day for at sea time. The
average at-sea monitor sea day wages, insurance, and benefits comprise the highest percentage of
costs at 68.68% ($630.44). Travel and training are smaller components at 3.52% ($32.28) and
4.08% (37.46) respectively. Infrastructure and support costs account for the remainder. These
include coordination of trip logistics, gear and equipment, communication and shipping, business
fees and taxes. Sector contract labor including training and data processing costs $114.17
(12.44%). Support contracts for expert trainers, vessel training trips, freezers and facilities cost
$37.88 (4.13%). Gear costs another $8.85 (0.96%). FSB FTE labor costs $50.86 (5.54%) and
travel is $6.00 (0.65%).

Table 6 NEFOP and ASM Cost Comparison for Groundfish Fishing Year 2010
CALCULATION OF SEADAY COSTS FOR ASM AND NEFOP (Based on Groundfish Fishing Year 2010)

ASM COSTS
ASM Seaday (avg)
ASM Travel (avg)
ASM Training (avg)
Sector Contract Labor
(Training and Data
Processing)
Support Contracts
(Expert Trainers, Vessel
Training Trips, Freezers,
Facility)
ASM Gear

FSB FTE Labor
FSB FTE Travel
Center Overhead

ESTIMATED
AT‐SEA PORTION
TOTAL COST PER OF SEADAY COST
SEADAY
$630.44
$32.28
$700.19
$37.46

$114.17

INFRASTRUCTURE
PORTION OF ASM
SEADAY COST

$37.88
$8.85

$50.85

*SUPER LOADED ASM SEADAY

NEFOP COSTS

68.68%
3.52%
4.08%

NEFOP Seaday
NEFOP Travel
NEFOP Training

12.44%

$917.95

Percentages
49.88%
3.99%

$39.70

2.67%

NEFOP Meals

$12.55

0.84%

4.13%

NEFOP Data
Quality Rewards

$41.22

2.77%

0.96%

NEFOP Land
Hours

0.65%
$217.76

AT‐SEA PORTION
OF NEFOP SEADAY
COST

$741.88
$59.38

5.54%

$6.00
$0.00

Percentages

ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST PER
SEADAY

0.00%

NEFOP Contract
Labor
Support
Contracts
NEFOP Gear

$1.41

$896.14

INFRASTRUCTURE
PORTION OF
NEFOP SEADAY
COST
$165.98

0.09%

11.16%

$37.88

2.55%

$13.65

0.92%

FSB FTE Labor

$170.06

11.43%

FSB FTE Travel

$6.00

0.40%

Center Overhead

$197.51

*SUPER LOADED NEFOP SEADAY

$393.57
$1,487.22

13.28%

3.4

ATLANTIC HERRING VESSELS (BACKGROUND INFORMATION)

Table 7 summarizes the number of federally permitted Atlantic herring vessels by Amendment 1
permit category and length. There were 101 vessels with limited access permits during the 2010
fishing year. The majority of participants in the directed Atlantic herring fishery are Category A
and B vessels. There was a reduction of three vessels (from 49 to 46) in the limited access
directed fishery (Categories A and B) in 2010 from the previous year, possibly due to substantial
cuts in herring catch limits in the 2010-2012 specifications (see following subsections for more
information). There are 55 limited access incidental catch permit holders in the fishery, and over
2,000 open access permit holders.
Table 7 Number of Vessels by Atlantic Herring Permit Category, 2008-2010
Year
Herring
Permit
Category

2008

2009

2010

A

45

45

42

B

5

4

4

C

58

55

55

D

2,409

2,394

2,258

Source: NMFS Permit databases, May 2011
As Table 8 demonstrates, in 2010, 30 out of the 46 vessels (65%) that held a Category A or B
herring permit (limited access directed fishery) were “active,” meaning they landed herring
within that year. Twenty seven percent (27%) of Category C vessels (limited access incidental
catch) landed herring in 2010, while only 4% of Category D permits landed herring in 2010.
However, the number of Category D permits that landed herring increased significantly in 2010
to 94, up from 67/68 in 2009/2008 respectively.
Table 8 “Active” vs. “Latent” Vessels by Category, 2008-2010
2008

2009

2010

Category

Total # of
Vessels

Active
Vessels

Difference

Total # of
Vessels

Active
Vessels

Difference

Total # of
Vessels

Active
Vessels

Difference

A/B

50

30

20

49

31

18

46

30

16

C

58

10

48

55

13

42

55

15

40

D

2,409

68

2,341

2,394

67

2,327

2,258

94

2,164

Note: Active is defined in the above table as having landed one pound or more Atlantic herring
during that fishing year.

3.5

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

The Herring PDT and Mackerel FMAT discussed various elements of a draft discussion paper
identifying issues associated with developing an industry-funded monitoring program, which
would provide information about costs associated with observer coverage and at-sea monitoring
and will discuss some possible approaches to developing an industry-funded program for the
herring fishery. Following the meeting, it was agreed that the elements of the discussion paper
would be incorporated into this report.
The Herring PDT and Mackerel FMAT note the following important considerations:
•

Because of the need for an industry-funded catch monitoring program to evolve and change
to meet the needs of science, management, and the industry, it will be important to structure
an industry-funded program such that it can modified to incorporate various monitoring
approaches, possibly including dockside monitoring and electronic monitoring in the future.
Evaluation of the existing/evolving monitoring program and continued research into new
technologies enhances industry participation in the program and allows for a more bottom-up
approach to catch monitoring. The PDT and FMAT also suggest consideration of a “Pelagic
Industry-Funded Monitoring Program” to further align long-term management of the herring
and mackerel fisheries. This program could incorporate the at-sea monitoring components of
both amendments and the shoreside monitoring component of Amendment 14, to improve
coordination and allow monitoring to advance in the most cost-effective and efficient manner
for both fisheries.

•

An industry-funded catch monitoring program, if developed for the herring fishery, should be
“adaptable,” i.e., structured so that additional elements like shoreside and electronic
monitoring may be incorporated in the future.

•

The delineation of duties for each party in a monitoring program needs to be considered
carefully in order to ensure accuracy of data, elimination of redundancy, and cost reduction.

•

It may be prudent to consider a more comprehensive approach to developing industryfunded monitoring programs for all fisheries in the Northeast Region.

•

Communication networks are important, and notification requirements are essential.








For 100% coverage, the sampling frame can be determined through vessel permits.
For less than 100% coverage, the PTNS or similar system would be utilized to allow
NMFS/NEFOP to select trips to cover and deploy observers
Within Agency – permit information and adjustments to coverage levels and vessels
subject to monitoring requirements
NMFS and Industry – requirements for coverage, notifications, observer health and
safety regulations, issuance of waivers
NMFS and Service Providers – roles and responsibilities clearly defined, coverage
levels and priorities, vessels subject to requirements, how/when information will be
transmitted
Industry and Service Providers – fees to be charged per trip, what costs are included,
billing and payment procedures, how late payments will be handled.

•

Nonpayment issues may be a concern. Observer service providers may refuse to deploy
observers on a particular vessel if that vessel has outstanding balances due. Regulations may
be implemented to protect observer service providers from fishermen who refuse to pay their
observer service charges.

•

A close working relationship between NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and the
observer program is critical to ensure that vessels comply with observer requirements, and to
maximize the safety of observers.

Potential Provisions/Requirements
There are several potential provisions/requirements that the Council could consider
implementing as part of an industry-funded monitoring program, to try to address some of the
challenges (administration, communication, sampling, observer certification, training, conflict of
interest, safety, equipment, data quality) that have been experienced with other industry-funded
programs.
•

Requirement for the observer service provider to report observer deployments daily to NMFS
to allow monitoring of pre-determined coverage levels

•

Requirement for observer service provider to report to NMFS the failure to respond to an
industry request for observer coverage due to lack of available observers

•

NMFS could provide an estimated number of observer sea days for the fishing year to all
service providers

•

NMFS could maintain a list of certified service providers and distribute this list to all vessels
participating in the fishery

•

Requirement for observer service provider to submit to NMFS, if requested, a copy of each
type of signed and valid contract between the provider and the vessel

•

Requirement for observer service provider to submit observer deployment and logistics
reports to NMFS on a weekly basis

•

Requirement for service providers to sign, under penalty of perjury, a conflict of interest
statement

•

Daily reports by the providers to NMFS – summary trip data must be reported back to NMFS
within 24 hours of landing; raw data must be provided to NMFS within a certain period of
time after landing; observer must be available to NMFS for debriefing for a certain period of
time following any observed trip

•

Prohibition on service providers from deploying the same observer consecutively on the
same vessel for more than a certain number of days/trips per month

•

Requirements to share information with NMFS re. vessels with outstanding payments due

4.0

MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO ADDRESS RIVER HERRING BYCATCH

The Herring PDT and Mackerel FMAT discussed the measures under consideration in both
amendments to address river herring bycatch and noted the following:
•

Coordination between the herring and mackerel fisheries would be essential under a river
herring catch cap, to improve the effectiveness of the cap and potentially reduce impacts on
the industry.

•

During the development of these amendments, the Mackerel FMAT generally supported a
management approach based on river herring catch caps, while the Herring PDT generally
supported a spatially-based management approach (the mackerel amendment also considers
large-scale area closures). The PDT and FMAT noted, however, that both groups have
identified challenges associated with any of the approaches under consideration, and overall,
the technical opinions of the two groups are not widely disparate.

At this meeting, the PDT/FMAT jointly discussed the alternatives under consideration. Table 9
summarizes some important factors that both Councils should consider when selecting measures
to address river herring/shad (RH/S) bycatch. Several common themes that apply to all
alternatives include:
•

The statuses of RH/S are “depleted” so mitigation of impacts should be considered.

•

The degree of beneficial overall impacts related to RH/S from any measure are uncertain
because of the lack of assessment reference points and uncertain contribution from various
sources of mortality. Related to a cap, minimal information exists on what would be an
appropriate amount for a catch cap.

Table 9 Overview of Measures to Address River Herring/Shad Bycatch in Herring Amendment 5/Mackerel Amendment 14

Measure

Mortality Caps

Small Area
Management
(hotspots)

Effectiveness in Controlling
or Reducing River Herring
and/or Shad (RH/S) Catch

Implementation
Difficulty

While precision is dependent on
Requires certain
observer coverage, caps are the
infrastructure and NEROonly measure that directly control
NEFSC cooperation
the amount of RH/S catch in a
adjustments but such
given fishery (though impacts of
infrastructure is in place for
doing that are uncertain);
other fisheries (ex.,
however, no ability to index a
butterfish, haddock catch
catch cap to the RH/S population
cap)
size

Enforcement
Difficulty

Monitoring Needs

Similar catch and bycatch
caps already exist and are
monitored on a weekly
basis by NERO.
Closures are relatively
Depending on how precise
easy to enforce but
an estimate the Council
assessing compliance
wants to be using when
with observer call-in
closing a fishery, may need
requirements is more
high level of observer
difficult.
coverage. Programmatic
reviews of effectiveness
are required for adaptive
management.

Economic Effects

Difficult to predict but
could be significant; If a
cap is set high, or low
bycatch is observed,
then perhaps minimal
impacts on fishery.
Major impacts are
possible if a cap is set
low, or high bycatch is
observed.

Reduces catch in the area(s) if in
Area-based
a given year RH/S are present
management is relatively Easier if all vessels have
easy if all vessels have
and fishery would have
VMS requirements. All
Area-based management
otherwise operated there in such
VMS reporting
herring vessels have VMS, Low impacts given the
is widely used in other
a year. Overall catch impact
but not all
requirements but harder
small size of the areas.
fisheries.
uncertain since may displace
squid/mackerel/butterfish
otherwise. Smaller,
shifting areas are harder
fishing effort and create new
vessels
to enforce.
bycatch hotspots.

Table 9 Overview of Measures to Address River Herring/Shad Bycatch in Herring Amendment 5/Mackerel Amendment 14
(continued)

Measure

Effectiveness in
Controlling or Reducing
River Herring and/or
Shad (RH/S) Catch

Large Area
Management

More likely to reduce RH/S
catch than small areas
because severe restriction
would likely reduce overall
effort.

Implementation
Difficulty

Area-based
management is widely
used in other fisheries.

Enforcement Difficulty

Monitoring Needs

Economic Effects

Easier if all vessels have
Area-based management
VMS requirements. All
is relatively easy if all
herring vessels have VMS, Major impacts due to large
vessels have VMS
but not all
areas involved.
reporting requirements but
squid/mackerel/butterfish
harder otherwise.
vessels

2nd Program Report
Period covered by Report 6/30/2010 - 5/18/2012
River Herring bycatch Avoidance in Small Mesh Fisheries
Easygrants ID: 21368

Principle Investigators:

Dr. Kevin D. E. Stokesbury
Dr. Daniel Georgianna
Dr. Michael P. Armstrong
Peter Moore

Primary Contact:
Address:

Dr. Kevin D. E. Stokesbury
School for Marine Science and Technology,
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth,
200 Mill Road Suite 325
Fairhaven, MA, 02719

Phone:

(508) 910-6373

Fax:

(508) 910-6374

Email:

[email protected]

1

Project Summary
This project is a collaboration between the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition (SFC), the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) and the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) to develop river herring and
American shad (alosine) bycatch avoidance methods. Sustainable Fisheries Coalition members
account for the majority of US landings of Atlantic herring and mackerel. River herring species
are also encountered in these directed fisheries. Minimizing unintended bycatch has been a goal
of SFC members since fisheries managers alerted the industry in 2006 that the river herring
species complex was depressed. The specific goals of the project are to develop (1) a real-time
bycatch avoidance intra-fleet communication system, (2) a predictive model of where alosines
are likely to occur in space and time, and (3) additional support for port sampling to inform the
initiative. Work completed to achieve each goal and comparison of to-date results grant
evaluation metrics is described in detail in the body of the report. In summary, three river herring
bycatch avoidance systems, focusing on the times and locations with the most alosine bycatch,
have been conducted. High levels of cooperation by industry members and the appearance of
distinct spatial and temporal bycatch patterns within the avoidance areas suggests these systems
may have resulted in reduced alosine bycatch. Several ranges of environmental variables with
significantly different probabilities of catch for species of interests have been identified within
the National Marine Fisheries Service bottom trawl survey database. The MA DMF has sampled
13 of the 14 vessels that have landed in Massachusetts ports, and approximately 161 out of 299
trips (as of 3/15/12). This work is being incorporated into a PhD dissertation titled
"Understanding and avoiding River herring and American shad bycatch in the Atlantic herring
and mackerel mid-water trawl fisheries". The student has completed all course requirements,
passed his comprehensive exams, and is preparing to defend his proposal on May, 30 2012.
However, committee members have recommended that another year of fisheries dependent work
would add significant strength to the dissertation.
Project Objective: Real-time fleet communication system
Since January 2011, 13 mid-water trawl vessels have participated in three alosine bycatch
avoidance systems. These voluntary bycatch avoidance systems operated under the hypothesis
that alosines do not continuously school with Atlantic herring and mackerel while at sea.
Therefore, with enough information and clear, quick communication, areas for vessels to fish
that contain adequate amounts of target species but not large amounts of alosines could be
identified. The following steps were taken to implement an initial voluntary bycatch avoidance
program for mid-water trawl vessels landing in Massachusetts during the 2011 winter fishery
(January-March);
Determine Catch Information Source: One requirement of a near-real time information
system is a reliable data source that systematically calculates bycatch rates and discloses fishing
locations (Gauvin et al., 1996). Two programs, the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program
(NEFOP) and the MA DMF portside sampling program, provided these data. The MA DMF
portside sampling program samples approximately 50% of all Massachusetts landings and prior
2

to 2010 about 85% of all mid-water trawl landings occur in Massachusetts (MA DMF,
unpublished data). Edited trip level catch composition is available about 48 hours after a vessel
lands. Tow locations were available through MA DMF trip logs voluntarily completed by vessel
captains. From 2009-2010 the NEFOP sampled about 40% of Atlantic herring mid-water trips,
though about two-thirds of these samples were from July to December (NEFMC, 2012).
Uncorrected tow level data were available about 5 days after a vessel landed (Beagley personal
comm.). Due to coverage rates and timeliness, the MA DMF portside sampling program was the
primary information source for this study while NEFOP data provided tow level catch
information for trips with multiple tows and high alosine bycatch.
Reduce spatial scale: The Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries range from coastal
waters to a maximum of 66◦E. During the winter, fishing effort occurs south of Cape Cod, MA to
Virginia. A program over this entire range could make communications cumbersome and
contains numerous alosine hotspots. An alternative approach was to conduct the program in one
specific high bycatch area (Gauvin et al 1996, O'Keefe et al. 2010). Based on historic MA DMF
port sampling, NEFOP data and Cournane and Correia (2010) an approximately 60x70 nm area
off the coast of New Jersey was identified as the target bycatch hotspot (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Area of focus for winter 2011 bycatch avoidance system. This handout was distributed
to captains and used to communicate bycatch information.
Determine Thresholds to Classify Catches: Large catches of alosine in the mid-water
trawl fishery are uncommon but account for the vast majority of alosine bycatch. From January
2000 through September 2010 the top 10% of tows with alosine bycatch (all tows with greater
than 2,000kg of alosines) accounted for over 80% of NEFOP observed alosine mid-water trawl
bycatch by weight (Figure 2). Thresholds were set to identify trips with these large tows (Table
1). Ratio thresholds were used instead of hard numbers to avoid biases created by small tow or
trip sizes. A ratio of 1:81kg (Alosine: Target species) identified a trip in the top 10% of alosine
bycatch events while a ratio of 1:425 suggested a lower bycatch event (Table 1). These ratios
3

were used to classify trips as having high (1:80, greater than 1.25% alosines), low (1:425, less
than 0.2% alosines), or moderate (between 1:80 and 1:425) amounts of bycatch.

Figure 2. Northeast Fisheries Observer Program observed mid-water trawl tows from January
2000-Septermer 2010 ranked lowest to highest by amount of bycatch. Of the 343 tows shown in
the figure the 35 tows with the most bycatch (grey box, top 10%) account for about 80% of
observed bycatch.
Table 1. Of 72 trips sampled by Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries portside sampling
from May 2008-July 2010, 55 had greater than 1kg of alosine bycatch. The six trips with the
most bycatch (top 10%) all had greater than or equal to 2,000kg and a ratio less than 1kg of
alosines:81kg of target species. Trips with a ratio greater than 1:425 all had less than 900kg of
bycatch. Based on this, ratios of 1:80 (1.25%) and 1:425 (0.2%) were used to indicate high and
low bycatch trips, respectively. Ratios between the two represented a buffer and identified a
moderate trip.
Trip rank (total alosine bycatch)

Alosine:Target ratio (kg)

1

1:49

2

1:26

3

1:63

4

1:81

5

1:72

6

1:64

14-55

>1:425
4

Develop Communication System: Vessels notified the MA DMF and SMAST through
their shipboard e-mail system of their departure and landing times, hail weights, landing ports
and other information. These emails allowed MA DMF portside samplers to meet vessels at ports
and sample entire offloads. Edited and expanded catch data were relayed by MA DMF staff to
SMAST less than 48 hours after vessels completed their offloads. This information as well as
tow locations (from MA DMF trip logs) and any available NEFOP information was then
accumulated and transformed into a weekly or bi-weekly bycatch advisory that was emailed to
vessels. Bycatch information was accessed and shared with captains using a coded, grid system
of small cells approximately 5x8 nm that was distributed to them (Figure 1). Based on the pace
of the fishery weekly or bi-weekly advisories via email were appropriate. Advisories classify
areas as either having low, moderate, or high bycatch and contained other information such as
weekly bycatch rates or catches of river herring outside of the areas of focus. Information was
not reported for cells without tows, and advisories only included information less than two weeks
old. Cumulative bycatch information is available through the SMAST website
(http://www.smast.umassd.edu/Bycatch_Avoidance/index.php).
Using the methods described above (currently being reviewed for publication in Fisheries
Research see Bethoney et al Submission), two additional avoidance systems were implemented
in the fall of 2011 and winter of 2012. The fall 2011 system targeted an area in the Gulf of Maine
identified as a high river herring bycatch area. Due to a limited amount of Atlantic herring Total
Allowable Catch when the Atlantic herring spawning area closure was opened to mid-water
trawl vessels, fishing activity occurred for approximately two weeks. Information indicating
alosine bycatch was unlikely to occur at depths greater than 73m was circulated prior to the
launching of the bycatch information system. In the winter of 2012, the scope of the avoidance
system was expanded to include an area off Rhode Island that is heavily utilized by the midwater fleet.
Progress towards Value at Grant Completion: Reduced bycatch
Year to year bycatch reduction should not be used as the primary metric to evaluate the
success of this system to reduce bycatch because of potential changes in alosine populations
levels, inter-annual variability in alosine catchability, and the nature of bycatch in the fishery
(Figure 2). Alosine biomass fluctuations could increase or decrease bycatch amounts
independent of avoidance measures. Overlap between mid-water trawl effort and alosine
distribution varies inter-annually due to environmental factors and fleet behavior (Kritzer and
Black 2009). A single trip within an avoidance area could contain a larger amount of alosines
than observed during the entire previous year. If the location of this catch was shared with the
fleet, the area was avoided and an area with low bycatch was identified, the system should not be
classified as a failure. Based on these reasons evaluation methods should focus on intra-annual
metrics of industry participation, consistent, low bycatch in identified areas, and reduced intraannual bycatch rates (Abbot and Wilen 2010).
Winter 2011: High levels of cooperation by industry members, fishing patterns within the
avoidance area, and the appearance of distinct spatial and temporal bycatch patterns within the
avoidance areas suggests near-real time communications may have resulted in reduced alosine
bycatch. Nine of the 12 active mid-water trawl vessels fishing for Atlantic herring and mackerel
participated in the near-real time information system (two of the active mid-water trawl vessels
were not recruited to participate because they were landing in New Jersey and primarily targeting
5

squid but these vessels have participated in subsequent avoidance programs). Approximately 150
emails (indicating departing and landing location, dates and times as well as catch size) were
received from these vessels and processing plant managers. A high percent of MA DMF trip logs
(containing spatial, temporal and qualitative tow information) were completed by captains of
participating vessels. Initial effort was focused in the northwest portion of the avoidance grid.
Cells fished in this area were identified as having low or moderate bycatch until an advisory on
February 17th identified cell E3 as having high bycatch (Figure 3). This area remained a high
bycatch area throughout the fishery as E3 was reentered resulting in another high bycatch event
and an additional advisory. After February 17th until the end of the fishery, the mean vector of
observed effort was 115 degrees ± 35 degrees (r=0.75, n=8) and significantly different from the
direction of the high bycatch area (270 to 360 degrees, Figure 4). The directions are in relation to
a center point, placed at the lower right corner of cell E3 (Figure 4). This region, depicted in
Figure 4, was chosen as the high bycatch region because it contained multiple moderate cells and
a high cell that were identified early enough to expect a quantifiable reaction. The direction of
mean effort after February 17th pointed towards the southeast region of the avoidance grid. This
region of the avoidance grid was identified as a low bycatch area through an advisory issued on
February 25th (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Cumulative bycatch information from 4 different time periods during the winter of
2011, from top left: 2/1, 2/17, 3/2, 4/1. Numbers inside cells indicate the number of tows

6

within each cell. Red indicates cells with high alosine bycatch while yellow and green
indicate moderate and low respectively.

Figure 4. Cumulative alosine bycatch information through February 17th as well as mean
direction vector of tow locations (blue arrow) and 95% confidence interval (blue cross-hatch)
after February 17th. The vector direction relates to a center point (blue circle) placed at corner of
the high bycatch area (red cross-hatch). Numbers inside cells indicate the number of tows within
each cell. Red indicates cells with high bycatch while yellow and green indicate moderate and
low, respectively.
The overall behavior of the vessels within the avoidance area provides evidence of
cooperation (Figure 4). Though the significant shift in tow locations away from the high bycatch
area to the southeast could be due to the availability target species, the timing of this shift
coincides with bycatch advisories and avoidance of a known high bycatch area. Reentry into the
high bycatch cell shows that target species were present in both the northwest and southeast
portions of the avoidance grid simultaneously (Figure 3). In total 5 cells were classified as
having high bycatch with only one possibly reentered
The appearance of distinct spatial and temporal bycatch patterns within the avoidance
area suggests vessels can avoid large catches of alosines within the spatial scale used for this
study. The percentages of effort, target catch, and alosine catch, based on MA DMF trip logs and
port-sampling, in the northwest region (above row H, Figure 3) and southeast low bycatch region
(row H and below, Figure 3) are displayed in Table 2. Based on the occurrence of high and
moderate catches of alosines, it appears that alosines initially were absent from the northwestern
part of the avoidance grid in large quantities but moved into this area as the winter progressed
(Figure 4, Table 2). As effort shifted further offshore to the southeast later in the season, no high
or moderate catches of alosines occurred, suggesting a high abundance of target fishes but not
7

alosines. In addition, the only re-entry into a high bycatch cell, after about 8 days, resulted in
another high bycatch event. This displays a degree of temporal stability in the bycatch pattern,
which is essential to an effective avoidance system (Abbot and Whilen, 2010; Gauvin et al.,
1996). Though the timing of migrations, exact routes and distribution undoubtedly varies from
year to year, the catch pattern observed suggests mid-water trawl vessels can be moved to areas
with low alosine bycatch and adequate levels of target species using the scale of this study (Table
2).
Table 2. Percentage of trips, target catch, and alosine catch in two separate regions of a
voluntary bycatch avoidance area. For trips comprised of tows in both areas, estimated tow
weights (by vessel captains) were used for the amount of target catch, while portside sampling
amounts of alosines were assigned to a single tow identified by the Northeast Fisheries Observer
Program.
Trips
75%

Northwest Area
Target Catch Alosine Catch
75%
97%

Trips
25%

Southeast Area
Target Catch Alosine Catch
25%
3%

Intra-annual bycatch reduction was tested by comparing bycatch rates calculated from
NEFOP data of participating vessels to a control group. The three active mid-water trawl vessels
not in communication or completing MA DMF trip logs during the winter of 2011 were
identified as the control group. Bycatch rates (alosine kg/ target mt) are a better measurement of
bycatch reduction than total alosine catch, because rates are comparable across different catch
and vessel sizes, reflect productivity, and match the definition of bycatch classifications given to
SFC members. Though the avoidance systems only alters vessel behavior within areas of focus,
the system assumes the majority of bycatch occurs within these areas. Incorporating bycatch
rates from all areas could reveal if this assumption is correct and increase sample size. Intraannual past seasonal (December-April) bycatch rates (2008-2010) of the control and
participating vessels for each avoidance system was compared to test if bycatch rates were
different before the avoidance system. No significant difference was found between the bycatch
rates of control in participating vessels in any year (Figure 5, Mann-Whitney U Test's, all pvalues >0.2). However, in 2011 the difference between the mean bycatch rate of participating
and control vessels was greatest and the lack of significance is likely due to variance (sample
size of control vessels was only 6 tows) and not similarity.

8

Figure 5. Bycatch rates, calculated from Northeast Fisheries Observer Program documentation
of vessels that participated in the winter 2011 avoidance system (white) and those that did not
(grey). Past bycatch rates during previous winter seasons (December-April) are also shown.
Error bars are ± 1 standard error.
Fall of 2011: Similar to the winter of 2011, industry cooperation and the separation of
alosines and target species suggests this system may have resulted in decreased alosine catch.
Captains and on-shore managers continued to notify the project of landing and departure times as
well as completing MA DMF trip logs. In addition, 10 of the 11 active mid-water trawl vessels
participated in the avoidance. Initial effort occurred in the northeast part of the grid with low
bycatch (Figure 6). This information was shared with the fleet and effort continued there for the
remainder of the two-week fishery with little alosine bycatch. Fifteen of the seventeen
Massachusetts landings during the avoidance system were sampled by the MA DMF. These trips
landed approximately 3,000 mt of Atlantic herring and less than 3 mt of alosines (MA DMF,
Unpublished data). The mean tow depth of participating vessels was significantly deeper than
73m (97m,1-tailed t-test P=.02) and greater than in previous years (ANOVA, Tukey Post Hoc
Ps<.01, except 2009 P=.43). NEFOP data from this time period has been requested but not yet
received so the bycatch rates of participating and non-participating vessels cannot be compared.
In addition, this comparison may not be appropriate because only one active vessel did not
participate.

9

Figure 6. Cumulative bycatch information from fall 2011 avoidance system in the western Gulf
of Maine. Numbers inside cells indicate the number of tows within each cell. Yellow and green
indicate moderate and low bycatch events. Prior to the opening of the fishery, industry members
were informed alosine bycatch was most likely to occur at depths less than 40 fathoms (73m, red
dots).
Winter 2012: An avoidance system, covering an additional area off of Rhode Island, was run
from mid-December until the Atlantic herring Management Area 2 was closed in mid-February
(Figure 7). The results of this avoidance system have not been fully analyzed. Eight advisories
were issued during this time period. Fleet participation was high (10 of 11 active vessels). After
an advisory on February 4th identified high bycatch in the Rhode Island area, most participating
vessels shifted their effort to the New Jersey area to pursue Atlantic mackerel and avoid river
herring (D.Conneely personal comm.). One pair of vessels wanted to re-enter a cell classified as
having high bycatch. This reentry was discussed and the captain felt, if he used a different
technique, he could avoid catching river herring in this area. In his subsequent trip he returned to
the high bycatch area and was able to reduce his bycatch percentage from 3.0% to 0.3% (MA
DMF, Unpublished data).

10

Figure 7. Cumulative bycatch information from 4 different time periods during the winter of
2012, from top left: 1/20, 2/1, 2/4,2/20. Numbers inside cells indicate the number of tows within
each cell. Red indicates areas with high alosine bycatch while yellow and green indicate
moderate and low respectively.
Overall, the amount and location of effort in the winter of 2012 was substantially
different from the winter of 2011 (Figure 3, Figure 7). This difference was likely due to the
availability of large schools of Atlantic herring in inshore waters that allowed the Area 2 quota to
be taken by February 20th. In past years the vessels continued fishing for the target species in
Area 2 until late March or early April and returned in December without reaching the area quota
before the new fishing year. In addition, there was more effort off of Cape Cod and Long Island.
No avoidance grid was placed near the backside of Cape Cod and disagreement about the spatial
scale of information may have resulted in a high bycatch event. The moderate and high catches
of alosines off of Long Island represent a bycatch pattern not previously document by any at sea
monitoring program. In contrast, only low bycatch events were documented within the New
Jersey avoidance area despite effort in similar areas at similar times (specifically cell E3, see
Figures 3, 7). These points emphasize the importance of repeating this monitoring and avoidance
effort for a third year as there is little past information to compare the amount, locations, and
timing of alosine bycatch found in the previous two years. Further, the ability to conduct another
avoidance system during the fall will reveal if previous results and bycatch patterns observed in
2011 are repeated 2012. Due to continued high participation by mid-water vessels, there is a lack
11

of a "control" group (one vessel not participating). If bycatch rates cannot be compared between
vessels receiving bycatch information and those that are not, a new method to directly test the
effect of these systems on bycatch may be needed. If a direct measure cannot be established, it
will be critical to build as much descriptive evidence for bycatch reduction as possible.
Progress towards Value at Grant Completion: Replicable bycatch reduction program
(program usable for small mesh fisheries)
In the winter of 2012, with funding from The Nature Conservancy, we replicated our near-real
time bycatch information system in the Rhode Island small mesh bottom trawl fishery. Please see
attached Nature Conservancy final repot draft for detailed information.
Outreach
Scientific Presentations
6/27/2011: "Developing an alternative scale to address river herring bycatch in U.S. Northwest
Atlantic mid-water trawl fisheries". Poster presentation at Reconciling Spatial Scales and Stock
Structure for Fisheries Science and Management, Portsmouth, NH
9/3/2011: "An information system to avoid river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa
aestivalis) bycatch in the Northwest-Atlantic". Oral presentation at the American Fisheries
Society annual meeting, Seattle, WA
9/3/2011: "River Herring and American Shad Bycatch Avoidance in Atlantic Herring and Mackerel
Mid-Water Trawl Fisheries". Oral presentation at the American Fisheries Society annual meeting,
Seattle, WA
10/27/2011: "River Herring and American Shad Bycatch Avoidance in Atlantic Herring and
Mackerel Mid-Water Trawl Fisheries". Oral presentation at the Northeast Regional Collaborative
Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH
9/27/2012: "Quantifying and reducing river herring bycatch in the U.S. northwest pelagic trawl
fisheries" Abstract submitted to ICES Annual Science Conference, Bergen, Norway
Scientific Publications
"Developing a fine scale system to address river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus, A. aestivalis)
and American shad (A. sapidissima) bycatch in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic mid-water trawl
fishery" Under review by Fisheries Research
Management/Public Presentations
12/20/2011: Oral presentation to the NEFMC Herring Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel
6/30/2011: Poster presentation to NEFMC Plan Development Team

12

10/11/2011: Oral presentation to MAFMC
2/7/2012: Oral presentation to ASMFC Shad and River herring Management Board
Management/Public Publications
Avoidance system listed as possible river herring bycatch reduction alternative in the NEFMC
Amendment 5 to the Atlantic herring Fishery Management Plan
Information from project included in NEFMC Amendment 5 Environmental Impact Statement
Avoidance system listed as possible river herring bycatch reduction alternative in the MAFMC
Amendment 14 to the squid, mackerel, butterfish Fishery Management Plan
4/2/2012: "Experts team up to reduce bycatch", New Bedford Standard Times.
5/2012: "Avoidance program IDs river herring hot spots", Commercial Fisheries News
Literature Cited
Abbott JK and Wilen JE. 2010. Voluntary cooperation in the commons? evaluating the sea state
program with reduced form and structural models. Land Econ 1(86):131-54.
Gauvin JR, Haflinger K, Nerini M. 1996. Solving bycatch: Considerations for today and
tomorrow - implementation of a voluntary bycatch avoidance program in the flatfish
fisheries of the eastern Bering sea. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska University. Report nr 96-03. 79 p.
Kritzer J. and Black P. 2009. The oceanic distribution of alewives: An examination of seasonal
and interannual patterns, and bycatch rise. Challenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic
global environment; 6/18/07; Halifax. Bathesda,MD: American Fisheries Society. 936 p.
NEFMC (New England Fisheries Management Council). 2012. Draft amendment 5 to the
Atlantic herring FMP.
O'Keefe C. E., DeCelles G., Georgianna D., Stokesbury K. D. E. and Cadrin S. X. 2010.
Confronting the bycatch issue: An incentive-led approach to maximizing yield in the US sea
scallop fishery. ICES CM; September 20-24; Nantes,France. . 4 p.

13

Project Objective: Refine "hot spot" data and develop predictive model
Through discussions with Drs. Eric Palkovacs and Andre Boustany at the Duke
University Marine Laboratory (who are working on a National Fish and Wild Foundation project
with a similar objective), it was agreed that they would focus on predicting river herring
distributions throughout all seasons, while our project would focus on predicting distributions
during the winter and applying these findings to bycatch reduction. To achieve this object, we
are testing if oceanographic features can be used to indicate areas with a high probability of large
catches of alosines, Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. The National Marine Fishery Service
(NMFS) bottom trawl and NEFOP mid-water trawl data sets contain catch at sea data useful for
achieving this goal. Restricting our analysis to the winter allows us to focus on the region (south
of Cape Cod, Massachusetts) and time where the NMFS bottom trawl survey and the mid-water
trawl fishery overlap, where the most alosine bycatch occurs, and reduces seasonal and regional
factors. Based upon the environmental measurements taken at sea by the NMFS bottom survey
and past studies, the variables sea surface temperature, bottom temperature, the difference
between sea surface and bottom temperature, bottom salinity, surface salinity and depth were
examined for a relationship to catch at sea.
If correlations are found between environmental factors and catch at sea, results could be
used to identify specific pathways or areas associated with each species. The utility of this
information to reduce bycatch could then be tested using the NEFOP mid-water trawl dataset and
the Finite-Volume Community Ocean Model (FVCOM). FVCOM is a verified prognostic
coastal ocean circulation model that incorporates realistic time-dependent temperature
projections and can be used to identify oceanographic conditions on a daily basis from 20002009 (Chen et al. 2003, Chen et al. 2006, Cowles 2008). FVCOM environmental data was joined
to NEFOP catch at sea data through at stepwise process in ArcGIS 10. Hindcast environmental
conditions were mapped using natural neighbor interpolation to create a continuous surface of
temperature, salinity and depth values from the FVCOM data points. Natural neighbor
interpolation uses continuous, area-based weighted averages to create a structured surface of
points based on existing data points and does not interpret trends (therefore all values are within
the range of real data). The result is a smoothed distribution, making it appropriate for variables
that are influenced by adjacent areas (Tsai et al. 2005). NEFOP catch-at-sea data was then be
plotted with an area of uncertainty for catch location. Catch locations were assigned a catch
radius equal to the average straight line tow distance because most mid-water trawl vessels turn
during a tow; eliminating the usefulness of the tow end location. The NEFOP catch locations
were then joined to the environmental conditions they overlapped with in time and space. This
created a new dataset that could be used to compare much bycatch and target catch was within
predicted alosine "hot spots".
Progress towards Value at Grant Completion: Predictive maps
For all five species the NMFS data set is dominated by samples without catch but that
may contain relevant environmental information. Based upon this and graphs of abundance and
presence/absence of each species against environmental variables, we attempted to use logistic
regressions to find correlations between environmental variables and catch at sea. Logistic
regression models can provide equivalent qualitative results as more complex statistical
approaches (Fletcher et al. 2005, Lewin et al. 2010). Logistic regressions relate binary response
variables to predictor variables by identifying a probability of occurrence as a function of the
14

predictor variables (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). Catch at sea of alewife, blueback herring,
American shad, Atlantic herring, and Atlantic mackerel was transformed into a binary variable
by classifying the fishes as present or absent in a tow or by using a threshold amount. However,
catch at sea patterns within the NMFS bottom trawl dataset fitted logistic regression models
poorly. When environmental variables were transformed, through squaring or square rooting,
results did not make sense from a biological perspective despite indications of a good fit to the
logistic regression model. Therefore, we have changed our approach and are now using a
likelihood ratio test (G test). The G-test can be used to test if the probability of catch at sea is
uniform across an environmental variable range. Further, if the initial test yields significant
results, the G-test statistic is additive allowing for the results of several G-tests to be summed.
This allows for ranges of equal probability of catch to be identified (Sokal and Rohlf 1995).
Using this method we have identified several ranges of environmental variables with
significantly different probabilities of alewife catch within the NMFS bottom trawl survey (Table
3). In addition, the probability of Atlantic herring catch differs with ranges of sea surface and
bottom temperature (Table 3). We plan to continue using the G-test method to test the remaining
environmental variables and species of interests. These result could then be analyzed and
combined to create predictive maps of where alosines are most likely occur during the winter.
The utility of this information to reduce bycatch could then be evaluated by comparing the
environmental ranges associated with alosines to Atlantic herring or mackerel and catch within
the NEFOP/FVCOM database .

15

Table 3. Preliminary results of G-test analysis to identify marine preferences for alewife,
blueback herring, American shad, Atlantic herring and mackerel. The probability of catch within
a given range is homogenous, while the probability of catch between groups is significantly
different (Unplanned tests for homogeneity with Dunn-Šidák Correction). Blank spaces indicate
a repeated cell value.
Feature
Species
Range
Proportion Present
Sea Surface Temp. (oC)
Atlantic herring
1-3,5-7
0.60
4
0.52
8-9
0.25
10-11
0.05
Alewife

1-6
7
8-9
10-11

0.51
0.37
0.20
0.05

Atlantic herring

6-7
1-5
8
9
10
11-13

0.70
0.56
0.42
0.25
0.12
0.05

Alewife

1-7
8-9
10-14

0.47
0.25
0.15

Sea Surface-Bottom Temp. (oC)

-8--4,-2-0
1-2,-3
3

0.36
0.28
0.05

Surface Salinity (PPT)

20-30,32-33
31,34
35

0.45
0.25
0.03

Bottom Salinity (PPT)

24-33
34
35
36

0.45
0.34
0.16
0.09

Depth (m)

41-80
0-30,101-110
31-40,81-100,111-291

0.46
0.33
0.24

Bottom Temp. (oC)

16

Outreach
Scientific Presentations
6/26/2012: "The utility of environmental predictors of catch to reduce bycatch in the northwest
Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery" Abstract accepted to The Relative Importance of Fishing and
the Environment in the Regulation of Fish Population Abundance, A Symposium of the
American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, New Bedford, MA
Literature Cited
Chen C, Beardsley R, Cowles G. 2006. An unstructured grid, finite-volume coastal ocean model
(FVCOM) system special issue entitled "advances in computational oceanography".
Oceanography 19(1):78-89.
Chen C, Liu H, Beardsley R. 2003. An unstructured grid, finite-volume, three-dimensional
primitive equations ocean model: Application to coastal ocean and estuaries. J Atmos Ocean
Tech 20(1):159-86.
Cowles G. 2008. Parallelization of the FVCOM coastal ocean model. Int J High Perform C
22:177-93.
Fletcher D, MacKenzi D, Villouta E. 2005. Modelling skewed data with many zeros: A simple
approach combining ordinary and logistic regression. Environ Ecol Stat 12:45-54.
Hosmer DW and Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: WileyInterscience Publications.
Lewin WC, Freyhof J, Huckstorf V, Mehner T, Wolter C. 2010. When no catches matter: Coping
with zeros in environmental assessments. Ecol Indic (10):572-83.
Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ. 1995. Analysis of frequencies. In: Biometry. 3rd ed. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company. 685 p.
Tsai FT, Sun N, Yeh WW. 2005. Geophysical parameterization and parameter structure
identification using natural neighbors in groundwater inverse problems. J Hydrol 308:26983.

17

Project Objective: Expand MA DMF Port-sampling Program
Collaboration with the SFC has been critical to the success of the portside sampling
program. The 11 active SFC mid-water trawl vessels represent a significant portion of the
Atlantic mackerel and herring mid-water trawl fleet. For example, 99% of NEFOP documented
mid-water trawl Atlantic mackerel catch by weight in 2010 occurred on vessels that were part of
the SFC (2 vessels observed in 2010 are no longer active). A fleet communication system was
created in October 2010; vessels notify the MA DMF and SMAST through their shipboard email system of their departure and landing times, hail weights and landing ports. Notification of
landing times and other information allows portside samplers to easily meet vessels at ports and
sample entire offloads. Additionally, captains voluntarily complete MA DMF trip logs that
reveal tow locations, weights and other information.
The MA DMF port sampling program was a reliable and timely source of catch
composition and, in general, the proximity of tows within a trip or the lack of bycatch made trip
level catch information equivalent to tow by tow information. Coordination between the MA
DMF and the NEFOP has maximized the number of trips observed and the speed of information
exchange with the added ability to address uncertainties created by trip level catch information.
Without the higher coverage rates of the portside sampling program the second highest catch of
alosines observed during the winter 2011 avoidance system would have gone unnoticed. Without
the tow by tow information of the NEFOP, a low bycatch area would have been misclassified as
a high bycatch area.
The MA DMF completed a pilot comparison of NEFOP sea sampling estimates of river
herring bycatch to portside sampling estimates. This study was presented to the Atlantic herring
Plan Development Team (PDT) and, in contrast to a previous study, found good agreement
between portside and at sea estimates (for detailed methods see attached Support Document B).
However, this analysis only included 30 co-sampled mid-water trawl trips. Including co-sampled
trips since the completion of the study and after June 30, 2012 would make the analysis more
robust.
Progress towards Value at Grant Completion: 50% fleet coverage
Since the implementation of the project on October 1, 2010 MA DMF has sampled 13 of the 14
vessels that have landed in Massachusetts ports, and 164 out of 328 trips (as of 5/23/12).
Outreach
Management/Public Presentations
Information gathered by the MA DMF port-sampling program is used to inform MA DMF
employees on Regional Councils, Plan Development Teams, and through other decision making
avenues.

18

Introduction

ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: River Herring

This document presents a summary of the 2012 benchmark stock
assessment for alewife and blueback herring, collectively referred to
as river herring. The assessment was peer-reviewed an independent
panel of scientific experts through the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) External Peer Review process. This
assessment is the latest and best information available on the status
of the Atlantic river herring fisheries management.

Management Overview

The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Shad and River Herring was one of the very first FMPs
developed at the ASMFC in 1985. In 1994, the Shad and River Herring Management Board
determined that the FMP was no longer adequate for protecting or restoring the remaining shad
and river herring stocks. Amendment 1 was adopted in 1998 and required specific American shad
monitoring programs, as well as recommended fishery-dependent and independent monitoring
programs for river herring and hickory shad, in order to improve stock assessment capabilities.
In 2009, the Shad and River Herring Management Board approved Amendment 2, which
strengthened river herring management. The Amendment prohibits state waters commercial and
recreational fisheries beginning January 1, 2012, unless a state or jurisdiction has a sustainable
management plan reviewed by the Technical Committee and approved by the Management
Board. The Amendment defines a sustainable fishery as “a commercial and/or recreational
fishery that will not diminish the potential future stock reproduction and recruitment.”
Submitted plans must clearly demonstrate that the state’s or jurisdiction’s river herring fisheries
meet this new definition of sustainability through the development of sustainability targets
which must be achieved and maintained. Amendment 2 required states to implement fisheriesdependent and independent monitoring programs, and contains recommendations to member
states and jurisdictions to conserve, restore, and protect critical river herring habitat. As of
January 1, 2012, the Shad and River Herring Management Board approved sustainable fishery
management plans for Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina.

What Data Were Used?

The river herring assessment used both fishery-dependent and -independent data as well as
information about river herring biology and life history. Fishery-dependent data come from
commercial fisheries that target river herring or catch them incidentally, while fisheryindependent data are collected through scientific research and surveys. Data from a total of 57
river systems from Maine through Florida were included in this assessment.

Life History

River herring are anadromous, like salmon, meaning they live in the ocean but spawn in
freshwater. River herring spawn in the spring in rivers from Florida through Maine and up into
Canada. The newly spawned fish migrate out of the rivers into the ocean in the fall, where they
spend the next three to five years of their life. When they are sexually mature, they return to the
river where they were born to spawn. Unlike salmon, river herring do not all die after spawning
and may return to spawn several times over the course of their lives. The oldest observed ages
for river herring are 14 years for alewife and 11 for blueback herring, but the oldest fish seen in
rivers today are six to eight years old.

Fishery-Dependent Data

Millions of Pounds

River herring are caught in a number of different fisheries, both as a target species and as bycatch. Because
alewife and blueback herring are difficult to tell apart, commercial landings cannot be separated by species
and instead are reported here simply as “river herring.” The assessment included historical landings back to
1887, although the fisheries that target river herring date back to colonial times. Reported commercial
landings of river herring peaked in 1965 and declined steadily and rapidly after that. The earliest years of data
are not complete; they include records
80
from only some states and rivers. The
70
quality of the data has improved as
60
reporting requirements have become
rigorous. The commercial landings come
50
from a combination of NOAA Fisheries
40
Service port sampling, dealer reports, and
30
fishermen reports. In some river systems,
20
biological samples were available from the
commercial catch to describe the age and
10
sex composition. The assessment also
examined time-series of commercial catchper-unit-effort (CPUE), a fishery-dependent
index of abundance, from some rivers
6
Blueback Herring
where consistent measures of effort were
Alewife
5
available.

Millions of Pounds

2007
2002
1997
1992
1987
1982
1977
1972
1967
1962
1957
1952
1947
1942
1937
1932
1927
1922
1917
1912
1907
1902
1897
1892
1887

4

River herring are also caught as bycatch in
ocean fisheries targeting other species such
as Atlantic herring and mackerel. This
incidental catch may be discarded at sea or
retained and landed. Total incidental catch
of river herring was estimated from
sampling done by at-sea observers.

3
2
1
-

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

Although river herring are caught by
recreational anglers, both as a target
species and as bait for other gamefish like
striped bass, there is very little data on
recreational landings. The NOAA Fisheries
Service Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey, which tracks recreational saltwater landings, rarely
encounters anglers fishing for river herring and, as a result, its estimates of recreational landings are highly
uncertain and were not used in the assessment.

Figures 1 & 2. Commercial landings of river herring (combined alewife
and blueback herring), 1887 – 2010 (top) and total incidental catch of
alewife and blueback herring, 1989 – 2010 (bottom). Note: Only 2005 2010 include incidental catch estimates from mid-water trawls.

Fishery-Independent Data

The assessment examined run size indices from five states, young-of-year indices from 10 states, adult net and
electrofishing indices from three states, and 19 fishery-independent trawl surveys conducted in coastal
waters. The fishery-independent data sets represent a relatively short time series, compared to the long
history of the fishery, and all of them were initiated after the peak and sharp decline in landings.

The run size indices are counts of river herring using fish passage or being lifted at dams. For some rivers, the
counts represent the entire run. For other rivers, the counts represent an unknown fraction of the total run
size, as not all the fish that return to the river to spawn utilize the available fish passage. Run size indices were
only available for states in New England.
Young-of-year (YOY) indices track the relative
abundance of river herring spawned each year and are
conducted in rivers and bays. YOY indices were available
for Maine through North Carolina.
State fishery-independent trawl surveys were conducted
in nearshore coastal waters and bays and track the
abundance of juvenile and adult fish. The NOAA
Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center
bottom-trawl survey had the widest geographic range of
the available trawl surveys, sampling both inshore and
offshore waters from Massachusetts to North Carolina.

State
ME

NH

MA

What Models Were Used?

River herring were assessed on a river-by-river basis
where the data were available. For the vast majority of
rivers, the data were not available to conduct a modelbased stock assessment. Instead, trend analysis was
used to identify patterns in the available fisherydependent and -independent data sets. For three rivers
– the Monument River in Massachusetts, the Nanticoke
River in Maryland, and the Chowan River in North
Carolina – data were available to construct statistical
catch-at-age models. Spawning stock biomass per
recruit analysis was used to calculate benchmarks for
total mortality (Z), which were compared to estimates
of Z from the observed age structure of adult alewife
and blueback herring for rivers where those data were
available.

RI

River

Status Relative to Historic
Levels/Recent Trends

Union

DepletedA, StableA
IncreasingA , StableA

Cocheco

UnknownA,B, StableA,B

Exeter

DepletedA, IncreasingA

Lamprey

DepletedA, UnknownA

Oyster

DepletedB, StableB

Taylor

DepletedB, DecreasingB

Winnicut

DepletedA,B, UnknownA,B

Mattapoisett

DepletedA, UnknownA

Monument

DepletedA, UnknownA

Parker

DepletedA, UnknownA

Stony Brook

DepletedA, UnknownA

Buckeye

DepletedA, UnknownA

Gilbert

DepletedA, DecreasingA

Nonquit

DepletedA, DecreasingA

Damariscotta

CT
Connecticut
DepletedB, DecreasingB
DepletedA,B, StableA.B
NY
Hudson
MD, DE
Nanticoke
DepletedA,B, DecreasingA,B
VA, MD,
Potomac
DepletedA,B, UnknownA,B
DC
NC
Chowan
DepletedA,B, StableA.B
Santee-Cooper
SC
DepletedB, IncreasingB
Table 1. Status of select alewife and blueback herring
stocks along the Atlantic coast. Status relative to historic
levels is pre-1970. Recent trends reflects last ten years of
data. A = Alewife only; B= Blueback herring only; A,B =
Alewife and blueback herring by species

The assessment also attempted to model the coastwide population using a Depletion-Based Stock Reduction
Analysis (DBSRA). This model was developed to estimate management parameters for data-poor stocks by
determining what the unfished population size had to have been in order to sustain the observed catches
without going extinct. However, the Peer Review Panel determined the reference points produced by the
model were not credible and the model required further development before it was appropriate for
management use.

What is the Status of the Stock?

Of the 52 stocks of alewife and blueback herring for which data were available, 23 were depleted relative to
historic levels, one stock was increasing, and the status of 28 stocks could not be determined because the
time-series of available data was too short.

Estimates of abundance and fishing mortality could not be developed because of the lack of adequate data.
The “depleted” determination was used instead of “overfished” and “overfishing” because of the many factors
that have contributed to the declining abundance of river herring, which include not just directed and
incidental fishing, but also habitat loss, predation, and climate changes.

Data and Research Needs

Efforts to assess the status of river herring on the Atlantic coast are hampered by a lack of data. The stock
assessment identified a number of high priority research needs.
Estimates of total catch of river herring need to be improved through expanded observer and port sampling
coverage to quantify additional sources of mortality, including bait fisheries and incidental catch in other
fisheries. Genetic analysis and other techniques are needed to determine population stock structure along the
coast and to quantify which stocks are impacted by mixed stock fisheries (including bycatch fisheries).
To reduce uncertainty in age determination, current ageing techniques for river herring should be assessed
and validated using known-age fish, scales, otoliths and spawning marks. Ideally, states should conduct
biannual aging workshops to maintain consistency and accuracy in ageing fish sampled in state programs.
Monitoring protocols and analyses should be developed and implemented to determine river herring
population responses and targets for rivers undergoing restoration (dam removals, fishways, supplemental
stocking, etc.), as well as to quantify and improve fish passage efficiency and support the implementation of
standard practices.

Glossary

Age class: all of the individuals in a stock that were spawned or hatched in the same year. This is also known
as the year class or cohort.
Catch-at-age: the number of fish of each age that are removed in a year by fishing activity.
Fishing mortality (F): the instantaneous (not annual) rate at which fish are killed by fishing
Natural mortality (M): the instantaneous (not annual) rate at which fish die because of natural causes
(predation, disease, starvation, etc)
Spawning stock biomass per recruit analysis: an expanded form of yield per recruit analysis that incorporates
maturity and fecundity information. These models provide a group of reference points that define the amount
of spawning biomass to preserve to ensure a population can replace itself.
Statistical catch-at-age (SCAA) model: an age-structured stock assessment model that works forward in time
to estimate population size and fishing mortality in each year. It assumes some the catch-at-age data have a
known level of error.

References

ASMFC. 2012. River Herring Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, Stock Assessment Report No. 12‐2 (supplement), 1049 p.
ASMFC. 2009. Guide to Fisheries Science and Stock Assessments. Washington, DC.
http://www.asmfc.org/publications/GuideToFisheriesScienceAndStockAssessments.pdf

Council staff requested that NERO staff Run several simulated caps to examine recent
catch amounts from a cap perspecitive as well as the recent CVs.

Run 1
Longfin
RH

2011 river herring catch for trips with longfin ≥ 2500 lb
32,820,353 Total kept_all from n = 1326 dealer trips
0.00137 2011 catch rate from n = 148 observed trips
44,812 Estimated river herring catch

CV

0.42591

2010 river herring catch for trips with mackerel ≥ 20,000 lb
Run 2
Mackerel 34,904,581 Total kept_all from n = 78 dealer trips
RH
0.00500 2011 catch rate from n = 20 observed trips
174,643 Estimated river herring catch

0.49457

2009 river herring catch for trips with mackerel ≥ 20,000 lb
Run 3
Mackerel 68,799,229 Total kept_all from n = 161 dealer trips
RH
0.00267 2011 catch rate from n = 17 observed trips
183,501 Estimated river herring catch

0.65875

River herring includes alewife (nespp3 = 001) and blueback herring (nespp3 = 112)

Report run on May 29, 2012

Amendment
A
t 14, Append
dix 12 - Respponses to Coomments

Appendicces 8, 9, and
d 10 contain the public co
omments thaat were receiived on the D
DEIS, both
written and via public hearings. Responses to
t those com
mments follow
w below. Thhe Council
received many similaar commentss so there is not
n a responnse for everyy individual ccomment buut the
various comments
c
an
nd responsess below coveer the substanntive commeents that werre received. In
general, the
t Council received and
d considered
d the commeents from thee public as part of its
decision--making proccess for Amendment 14..

y commenterrs voiced stro
ong support for rigorouss catch monittoring in thee Mackerel,
1: Many
Squid, an
nd Butterfish
h (MSB) fish
heries and viigorous proteection for Riiver Herringgs and Shadss
(RH/S), including
i
dirrect Councill/Federal maanagement off RH/S stockks (also know
wn as the "sttock
in the fish
hery" issue).
The prefeerred alternaatives in the Amendmentt are designeed to create a rigorous syystem to monnitor
RH/S and
d other incid
dental catch that
t occurs in
i the MSB ffisheries throough vessel reporting, ddealer
reporting
g, and at-sea observation
ns measures. The MSB ffisheries are the fisheriess under the
Council'ss control that appear to have
h
substan
ntial RH/S caatch. The Coouncil has allso
recommeended mortallity caps to directly
d
limitt the catch oof RH/S that occurs in thhe mackerel
fishery, which
w
appears to be the particular
p
MSB
M fishery tthat accounts for most R
RH/S catch w
within
the MSB
B fisheries. The
T implemeentation of th
he cap will ooccur via thee 2014 annuaal specificatiions
package and may incclude a comb
bined RH/S cap
c if the avvailable data is insufficieent to supporrt
separate river herring
g and shad caaps (addition
nal caps couuld be framew
worked). Thhe Council
decided that
t the quesstion of direcct Council/Federal manaagement of R
RH/S stocks would mostt
appropriaately be conssidered in a separate Am
mendment, annd Amendm
ment 15 has aalready been
commencced to fully consider
c
thiss question giiven the com
mplex issues involved in RH/S
managem
ment, includiing inter-ageency coordin
nation.

2: Many commenters supported 100% at-sea monitoring of mid-water trawl fishing trips and
measures to discourage slippage on observed trips, which is when catch in a net is released in the
water prior to being observed by the observer.
The preferred alternatives in the Amendment would require 100% observer coverage of midwater trawl (MWT) mackerel trips (5b4) as well as tiered coverage levels for small mesh bottom
trawl mackerel trips (100% for Tier 1, 50% for Tier 2, and 25% for Tier 3) (5c4) along with
requiring mackerel vessels to pay $325 when they carry observers to help fund the desired
coverage levels (5f). The Council cannot mandate coverage of all trips using a particular gear - it
can only regulate the fisheries for which it has authority. Unless safety, mechanical, or spiny
dogfish issues make it inappropriate, the longfin squid and mackerel limited access vessels
would not be able to release hauls of fish (“slippage”) prior to observer documentation, and catch
affidavits would have to be completed for any pre-observed net release (3j). For mackerel
limited access vessels, there would also be a fleet-wide cap of 10 slippages. Slippages due to
several exigent circumstances (safety, mechanical failure, and dogfish) would not count.

3: Many commenters recommended that the post-closure mackerel trip limit should be lowered
to ensure directed mackerel fishing totally ceases in the event a RH/S mortality cap closes the
fishery and/or that the monitoring requirements in the Amendment that are based on a directed
mackerel trip definition of 20,000 pounds apply instead to trips over 2,000 pounds.
The implementation of the cap will occur via the annual specifications, and the appropriate postclosure trip limits will be considered and implemented at that time. Directed trip definitions may
be altered via frameworks or annual specifications and fishery performance is reviewed each
year by Council and NMFS staff. The 20,000 pound trip definition accounts for nearly all
mackerel landings, and a 2,000 pound threshold would be out of the scope of the DEIS and
require a supplemental EIS and additional comment period.

4: Many commenters recommended that one observer be assigned to each vessel during pairtrawl operations. Comments were also received recommending that for the preferred alternative
3d (one observer on each pair-trawler), the "wherever/whenever possible" discretion be removed
because the majority of "unknown fish" records are associated with pair trawling when only one
observer is available.
The Council recommended 3d as the preferred alternative. The Council was informed by NMFS
that the observer program needed this discretion for occasional circumstances (e.g. one vessel is
definitely not taking fish) but that the standard protocol now in place is to have one observer on
each vessel if a pair-trawling operation is going to be observed.

5: Many commenters recommended a requirement to weight all catch.
The Council recommend this in the preferred alternatives (applies to directed mackerel and
longfin landings) but did provide an exemption that dealers who cannot weigh all catch could use
volumetric conversions and would have to describe "Why not?" in their dealer applications so
that the issue can continue to be analyzed. If dealers do not sort by species before weighing, they
would also have to document with each transaction how they determined the relative
composition of a mixed catch. The relevant documentations would enable further exploration of
dealer reporting issues in the future even if not used for immediate catch monitoring.

6: Comments were received regarding monitoring and catch control in the Atlantic Herring
fishery.
The Council does not manage Atlantic Herring, but Amendment 5 to that fishery management
plan is considering similar provisions.

7: Many comments expressed strong concern for the depleted status of RH/S stocks despite
inland restoration efforts, and the potential for negative impacts from trawling.
This concern was one of the reasons the Council began and acted on Amendment 14.
Amendment 14 will provide better data on the extent of impacts from trawling in the MSB
fisheries (which could assist future management) and the mortality caps will provide a
mechanism to directly limit the catch of RH/S in the mackerel fishery, which catches the vast
majority of RH/S in the MSB fisheries.

8: Many commenters requested that the Council consider the important role of RH/S in the
ecosystem (including role and value as forage fish).
The Council is aware of the important role of RH/S in the ecosystem and used the provisions in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act allowing conservation of non-target species while considering their
role in the ecosystem as part of the authority for the Council's actions.

9: Many commenters requested that the Council consider impacts on future generations.
The Council considers both short and long-term impacts when making decisions.

10: A comment was received to use a catch-share system to manage RH/S.
Catch share systems are part of a limited-access system, which does not currently exist for RH/S.

11: Various comments were received recommending no action on all alternatives and that
existing measures were sufficient to monitor RH/S catch and/or that various measures were
unaffordable or would put vessels out of business.
Analysis in the amendment suggested that the status-quo measures can result in imprecise RH/S
incidental catch estimates and the preferred alternatives are designed to improve those estimates
and allow the Council to directly control RH/S catch in the mackerel fishery. RH/S assessments
have identified at-sea catch as one issue among many likely contributing to RH/S stocks'
depleted status and at-sea catch is the only area where the Council currently has authority.
Several of the preferred alternatives were modified to mitigate fishery participant impacts (e.g.
$325 observer charge versus $800 or $1,200) and the overall suite of preferred alternatives is
designed to get good data and reduce RH/S catch.

12: Comments were received opposing and supporting 2b, which would require MSB dealers to
obtain vessel confirmations of SAFIS transactions for MSB species.
The Council did not select 2b as preferred. The mechanisms and procedures for reporting
confirmations were deemed insufficiently developed to make this alternative practicable.

13: Comments were received recommending that all mackerel and longfin landings be weighed
and reported daily (not just trips meeting directed trip definition).
This was not in the scope of actions considered in the DEIS but could be considered in a future
action.

14: Comments were received opposing 2g, which would allow dealers to use volume to weight
conversions.
The Council selected 2g as preferred to mitigate the high costs some dealers might incur if they
have to physically weigh all catch. Dealers would have to document their practices which would
allow further examination of the issue in the future.

15: Comments were received supporting requirements to reasonably assist observers.
These are included in the preferred alternatives.

16: Comments were received supporting requirements to require "released catch affidavits" from
captains when hauls are released/slipped prior to being observed and that it was important for
vessels to have the ability to slip due to exigent circumstances (safety, mechanical failure, and
dogfish)
These are included in the preferred alternatives.

17: Comments were received opposing measures to require all fish to be brought on board or to
require trip termination due to a slippage event because of safety issues.
The preferred alternative does include a slippage cap that can result in subsequent trip
terminations; however slippage due to certain to exigent circumstances (safety, mechanical
failure, and dogfish) would not count against the cap. "Operational discards" would also be an
exempted slippage circumstance

18: Comments were received that supported potential future actions based on the
SFC/SMAST/MA-DMF avoidance project but opposed other port-side monitoring requirements.
Comments were also received opposing total reliance on this voluntary project for RH/S catch
minimization.
This is the approach the Council took regarding port-side monitoring via the preferred
alternatives 4a and 4f, but the Council also included other alternatives to address RH/S catch in
other alternative sets.

19: Comments were received opposing industry-funded observer coverage in the longfin squid
fishery but endorsing industry funding of 100% observer coverage in the mackerel fishery up to
$325/day as long as the program was revisited after 2 years. The comments also noted that
waivers for situations when observers are not available are necessary to avoid missing trips due
to observer placement issues.
This is essentially the approach the Council took via the preferred alternatives 5b4, 5c4, 5f, and
5h. The Council specified that the lower tier mackerel vessels would have lower coverage
levels.

20: Comments were received opposing implementation of catch caps due to the inability to
quantitatively and causally link incidental catch levels with RH/S population trends.
The Council will consider a range of RH/S catch caps through the annual specifications process
so as to minimize catch to the extent practicable. While the RH/S assessments have not
identified fishing mortality reference points, they did conclude that ocean catch is one of a
number of factors that likely need to be addressed.

21: Comments were received opposing area-based restrictions.
The Council made area-based restrictions to conserve RH/S frameworkable but decided that
area-based restrictions were not appropriate given the currently available information.

22: Comments were received opposing adding RH/S as federally managed "stocks in a fishery."
The Council has moved consideration of this issue to Amendment 15 so that the complex issues
associated with Council/Federal RH/S management may be more fully explored and analyzed.

23: Comments were received that supported requiring all catch on mackerel and longfin squid
trips to be made available to observers unless exigent circumstances (emergencies like safety,
mechanical failure, dogfish) made such practices infeasible, and supported a slippage cap
whereby vessels would have to terminate a trip if they slipped for a non-emergency reason once
the cap had been reached fleet-wide.
This is the approach selected as preferred by the Council (3j and 3l) for mackerel. For longfin
squid trips, the same would apply except there would not be a cap. Slippage events would be
tracked and future actions could be taken if necessary in the longfin squid fishery.

24: Comments were received that supported requiring terminated trips to take an observer on
their next trip.
The Council determined that the trip termination provision was a sufficient deterrent against
slippage. If trip termination patterns suggest additional actions are necessary then future actions
could be considered.

25: Comments recommended that 100% of Tier 1 and Tier 2 mackerel vessels that use small
mesh bottom trawl gear be observed, that 25% of Tier 3 mackerel vessels that use small mesh
bottom trawl gear be observed, that 50% of longfin squid trips that use small mesh bottom trawl
gear be observed, and that vessels be required to pay for observer coverage that cannot be funded
directly by NMFS.
The Council selected a similar approach for mackerel except that 50% of Tier 2 vessels would be
observed to account for their more limited role in the mackerel fishery. Since recently higher
coverage levels in the longfin squid fishery (10%-15%) have continued to show relatively low
RH/S catches the Council did not include observer coverage measures directed at the longfin
squid fishery. The Council selected an industry funding amount of $325 per trip as being
practicable for industry, as supported by the trip cost analysis in the EIS.

26: Comments recommended several "hotspot" or area-based restrictions or that area-based
RH/S measures be consistent between the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery management
Councils.
The analysis in the EIS did not suggest area-based "hotspot" restrictions would likely be
effective but implementation of such caps was made frameworkable in case new information
becomes available that suggested such measures would be effective and practicable.

27: Comments requested that any increased observer coverage rates not "sunset" or expire at a
fixed point in time.
The preferred alternative (5h) specifies that the coverage rate will be reevaluated but changes
(down or up) would have to occur through a subsequent action.

28: Comments requested that larger area-based closures be made frameworkable.
Framework actions are used to adjust existing measures and large-scale area closures would not
be candidates for initial implementation via a framework action.

29: Comments requested that catch caps for RH/S be implemented in 2013 for the mackerel
fishery.
RH/S catch caps were selected as preferred alternatives but the timeline for implementation does
not allow for implementation before January 1, 2014.

30: Comments requested that observer coverage be increased to adequately cover gear types,
range, and seasonality of MSB fisheries to 100% monitoring for large vessels and below .3 CV
for SMBT. Combinations of observers, portside, and (ultimately) electronic monitoring should
be considered to provide the most statistically valid and cost-effective data.
Electronic monitoring was not within the scope of the DEIS but could be considered in the
future. The preferred alternatives recommend 100% at-sea monitoring for the larger mackerel
vessels and lower coverage rates for vessels that do not participate as much. Since recently
higher coverage levels in the longfin squid fishery (10%-15%) have continued to show relatively
low RH/S catches the Council did not include observer coverage measures directed at the longfin
squid fishery. The Council cannot specify CVs for overall gear types, but it is believed that the
preferred specifications will allow greatly increased precision of RH/S catch estimates.

31: Comments suggested that a fleet-area cap (e.g., midwater trawls in Mid-Atlantic) rather than
a cap that only uses the regulatory definition of a "Mackerel" or "Herring" trip to define vessels
that are subject to the cap would make the most sense.
The NEFMC has begun an action to add a RH/S cap to the Atlantic herring fishery and the
respective Council staffs will be investigating the possibilities for any cap to take the nature of
the overall fisheries (such as linkages between mackerel and Atlantic herring) into account.

32: Comments requested that that as many provisions as possible be frameworkable or handled
in specifications to allow for adaptive management to meet the goal of reducing catch and
increasing RH/S populations.
The Council made a number of actions frameworkable and the MSB FMP generally provides for
substantial regulatory flexibility via the annual specifications process.

33: One comment noted that the DEIS for Amendment 14 did not contain the latest river herring
stock assessment information, which was finalized after the DEIS was drafted.
The new river herring stock assessment information has been added to the FEIS.

34: Comments requested that the observer coverage level recommendations be modified such
that waivers would be prohibited and that states would have to receive full provider certification
in order to be providers.
Waivers would only be granted if an observer could not be obtained because of issues with
NMFS or an observer provider (i.e. through no fault of the vessel). If excessive waivers become
an issue then a framework adjustment could make any necessary changes. The DEIS states that
"NMFS could also authorize states as service providers if NMFS and the respective state have a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding the collection and handling of data." As the
implementing Agency with expertise in the matter, any MOA developed by NOAA should
sufficiently establish that state participation would be contingent on acceptable training related to
monitoring responsibilities.

35: Commenters noted that in contrast to at-sea observers, portside sampling only obtains
information for the catch that is retained, and therefore misses an important part of the equation.
The preferred alternatives focus on reporting and at-sea observing and do not include portside
measures.

36: Commenters recommended that 3j should clarify that consistent with the current CA1
sampling regulations, operational discards must be brought aboard for sampling.
The Council received input from industry that fully bringing a net aboard after each haul may not
be practical or safe for some vessels and received input from the observer program that
operational discards are very small quantities and that fishery participants have been helpful in
allowing observers visual access to the cod-end after pumping but before a net is released or redeployed. Accordingly, the Council selected to exempt minor operational discarding as an event
that would count against a slippage cap as long as visual access was provided. The observer
program will continue to monitor this issue and corrective action can be taken at a later date if
needed.

37: Commenters recommended that the implementing language of when various catch thresholds
trigger requirements should also be revised so that the measures apply to trips “fishing for,
catching, possessing, transferring, or landing” the specified amount of the target species to be
consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP.
That is consistent with expected implementing language.

38: Many commenters stressed the need to align requirements for mackerel and Atlantic herring
fishing given the overlapping nature of these fisheries.
The Council has worked closely with the New England Fishery Management Council and has
determined that the preferred measures align with measures proposed for the Atlantic herring
fishery to the extent practicable. The Councils will continue to work cooperatively with each
other and NMFS to ensure that alignment is achieved where appropriate and possible.

39: Comments were received that opposed VMS and VMS reporting for mackerel or longfin
squid boats unless money could be made available to the fleet for the purchase of the equipment
as was done by the PFMC several years ago.
Fleet analysis suggests that most mackerel and longfin squid permitted vessels already have
VMS requirements. While funding sources are scarce, the Council will investigate if funds to
cover the necessary vessels can be found.

40: Comments opposed additional observer coverage on the grounds that additional forced
sampling would have a certain and catastrophic net impact on the individual boats and their
communities.
The preferred alternatives recommended by the Council limit industry funding to the mackerel
fleet at a cost of $325/day. Mid-Water Trawl and Tier 1 mackerel vessels would have 100%
coverage, Tier 2 mackerel vessels would have 50% coverage, and Tier 3 mackerel vessels would
have 25% coverage. All of these observed vessels would pay $325/day. No additional coverage
(or industry funding) was proposed for the longfin squid fleet given its relatively low encounters
with RH/S.

41: Comments opposed a river herring cap on the grounds that there was less than one half of
one percent of catch of river herring compared to catch in the squid fishery.
No cap is being proposed for the longfin squid fishery (or Illex fishery). The preferred
alternatives do include a cap for RH/S for the mackerel fishery, which analysis in the amendment
identified as having substantial RH/S catch in at least some years.

42: Comments opposed industry-funded 3rd party port-side landings sampling programs for
mackerel and longfin squid vessels and volumetric vessel-hold certification for longfin squid
moratorium permits.
These alternatives were not selected as preferred.

43: Comments were received that supported 25% of mackerel trips to carry observers.
Due to the high-volume nature and patchy distribution of RH/S catch, the Council selected
preferred alternatives that would require higher levels of observer coverage for the mackerel
fishery with a reevaluation occurring once the higher coverage levels have been in place for two
years.

44: Comments were received that supported 100% observer coverage.
The Council selected preferred alternatives that would require 100% observer coverage for the
most active mackerel participants, which analysis suggested would account for most incidental
catch of RH/S. Lower levels of coverage were recommended for less active participants.

45: Comments were received that suggested everyone should have the same reporting
requirements.
For the fisheries that appear to catch RH/S mackerel and longfin squid that the Council
manages, the preferred alternatives should improve managers' abilities to accurately
estimate RH/S catches. The Council has also been coordinating with the New England
Fishery Management Council in order to align the mackerel and Atlantic herring fisheries
as much as is appropriate.

46: Comments were received that the data does not appear ready to support caps.
With the higher levels of observer coverage recommended, relatively precise estimates of RH/S
catch should be able to be made. However, it is true that linkages (if any) between RH/S catches
in the MSB fisheries and RH/S stock trends are not understood. Precision estimates will be
generated for the cap estimates regardless of the achieved level of observer coverage.
47: Comments were received that increased observer coverage needs to be considered relative to
costs.
The Council selected preferred alternatives that would require 100% observer coverage for the
most active mackerel participants, which analysis suggested would account for most incidental
catch of RH/S. Lower levels of coverage were recommended for less active participants and
$325 dollars would be paid by vessels toward observer costs.
48: Comments were received that recommended a 25‐miles buffer zone from the coast out (entire
coast).
Area-based management was generally not selected as preferred because of the difficult-topredict effort shifts that can occur (which can potentially lead to even greater bycatch). The
wide spring distributions of river herrings and American shad beyond 25 miles (see Figures 1416 in Appendix 1), and the frequent fishery interactions with RH/S beyond 25 miles (see figures
23-48 in Appendix 2) also do not support a 25-mile no-fishing zone as a solution to RH/S catch
issues. As implementation of Amendment 14 proceeds, RH/S catch will be monitored and
additional measures such as a buffer could be considered in the future if the best available
scientific information supports such measures.
49: Comments were received that suggested that direct Council/Federal management would
require 1000s of plans because each river & creek is its own stock and you will have to have a
plan for each river.
The Council will be examining the issues related to direct Council/Federal management of RH/S
via Amendment 15.
50: Comments were received that suggested that RH/S face major habitat impediments and this
should be the focus of recovery efforts, that a variety of state‐level of efforts are underway, and
that commercial fishermen are being blamed when there are other culprits.
The Council is aware that RH/S face a variety of challenges that are likely keeping them in a
depleted state, including habitat issues. The Council will be investigating the appropriateness of
getting more generally involved in RH/S management in Amendment 15, and in Amendment 14
the Council is trying to address getting good data on RH/S catch in the MSB fisheries and
minimizing RH/S catch in the MSB fisheries to the extent practicable.

51: Comments were received that the Council does not know the likely impacts of the actions,
that cormorant feeding is far surpassing fishing mortality of RH/S, that there is no information
about how much RH/S are taken out of rivers, and that since there is no incentive to catch RH/S
that a lot of the desired minimization has already taken place.
The Council is aware that RH/S face a variety of challenges that are likely keeping them in a
depleted state, including predation. While it may be true that there is minimal incentive to catch
RH/S, substantial amounts of RH/S have been observed in the MSB fisheries in at least some
years. Most states have moved to moratoriums on RH/S catch so in-river catch has been greatly
reduced. In Amendment 14 the Council is trying to address getting good data on RH/S catch in
the MSB fisheries and minimizing RH/S catch in the MSB fisheries to the extent practicable.

RECORD OF DECISION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AMENDMENT 14 TO THE ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Region

This document comprises the record of decision (ROD) for approval/disapproval of Amendment
14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP), as
prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the National
Envirorunental Policy Act (NEPA). The ROD is based on and incorporates, as described below,
the Amendment 14 Final Envirorunental Impact Statement (FEIS) and all other decision and
analytical documents prepared for this action.
Background
On June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32745), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council)
published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 14 to MSB FMP
(Amendment 14) to consider measures to: Implement catch share systems for the squid fisheries ;
increase fishery monitoring to determine the significance of river herring and shad incidental
catch in the MSB fisheries; and measures to minimize bycatch and/or incidental catch of river
herring and shad. The Council subsequently conducted scoping meetings during June 2010 to
gather public comments on these issues. Based on the comments submitted during scoping, the
Council removed consideration of catch shares for squids from Amendment 14 at its August
2010 meeting.
Following further development of Amendment 14, the Council published a Notice of
Availability (NOA) for the draft EIS (DEIS) on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23713), and conducted
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and NEP A public
hearings in April and May 2012. After the public comment period on the DEIS that ended on
June 4, 2012, the Council adopted Amendment 14 on June 14,2012. The Council submitted
Amendment 14 to NMFS for review on February 26, 2012. Following a series of revisions, the
Council submitted a revised version of Amendment 14 to NMFS on June 3, 2013.
An NOA for the FEIS was prepared for Amendment 14, as required by NEPA, and published on
August 16, 2013, (78 FR 50054). The comment period end date was incorrectly listed in the
initial notice, so a correction was published on August 23,2013 (78 FR 52524), amending the
comment period end date to September 16,2013. In addition, as required by the MSA, an NOA
for Amendment 14 was published in the Federal Register on August 12,2013 (78 FR 48852),
and a proposed rule was published on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53404). The comment period on
both the MSA NOA and the proposed rule ended on October 11,2013.

1

The following sections briefly describe the alternatives considered in Amendment 14 and the
measures adopted by the Council as part of Amendment 14. Additional discussion regarding the
environmentally preferred alternatives, the factors considered in making a decision on the final
action, and compliance with National Standards, are included in the following text.
Alternatives Considered in Amendment 14
The Council developed Amendment 14 to improve catch monitoring for the Atlantic mackerel,
squid, and butterfish fisheries and to address incidental catch of river herring and shad through
responsible management. The Amendment 14 FEIS described and analyzed alternatives to
address these issues. These alternatives are organized into sets, which are briefly summarized
below in the order in which they are discussed in the FEIS. See Section 5 of the FEIS for a
complete description of the alternatives and see Section 7 of the FEIS for a complete analysis of
the alternatives.

Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures
Vessel trip reporting requirements - Four alternatives were considered: (1) Institute weekly
vessel trip reporting (VTR) for mackerel permits; (2) institute weekly VTR for longfin
squidlButterfish permits; (3) institute weekly VTR for all MSB permits; and (4) maintain the
status quo VTR reporting requirement of monthly VTR submissions for all MSB permits except
for Tier 3 mackerel permits, which require weekly VTR reporting.
Pre-trip notification requirements - Three alternatives were considered: (1) Require a 48-hour
pre-trip notification to retain/possess/transfer over 20,000 lb mackerel; (2) require a 72-hour pre­
trip notification to retain/possess/transfer over 20,000 lb mackerel; and (3) maintain the status
quo requirement of no pre-trip notification requirement to retain/possess/transfer over 20,000 lb
mackerel.
Vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements - Three alternatives were considered: (1)
Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels ; (2) require VMS for longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium vessels; and (3) maintain status quo requirement of no VMS for either limited access
mackerel or longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium permits.
VMS catch reporting requirements - Three alternatives were considered: (1) Require daily VMS
reporting of catch by limited access mackerel vessels; (2) require daily VMS reporting of catch
by longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels; and (3) maintain status quo requirement of no
VMS catch reports for limited access mackerel or 10ngfin squidlbutterfish moratorium permits.
VMS pre-landing notification requirements - Three alternatives were considered: (1) Require 6
hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 20,000 lb of mackerel; (2) require 6
hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 2,500 lb of longfin squid; and (3)
maintain the status quo requirement of no VMS pre-landing report to land more than 20,000 lb of
mackerel or 2,500 lb longfin squid.

Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
2

Seven options were considered: (1) require dealers to obtain vessel confirmation of weight of
fish for mackerel landings over 20,000 lb, Illex landings over 10,000 lb, and longfin squid
landings over 2,500 lb; (2) require MSB dealers to weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 Ib and annually document methods used to determine relative species
composition; (3) require MSB dealers to weigh all landings related to mackerel transactions over
20,000 lb and document methods used to determine relative species composition with each
report; (4) require MSB dealers to weigh all landings related to longfin squid transactions over
2,500 lb and annually document methods used to determine relative species composition; (5)
require MSB dealers to weigh all landings related to longfin squid transactions over 2,500 lb and
document methods used to determine relative species composition with each report; (6) allow
dealers to use volume to weight conversions if they cannot weigh landings; and (7) maintain
existing requirement that dealers report the weight of fish.
Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures

At-Sea Sampling Requirements - Four options were considered: (1) Require limited access
mackerel and longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium vessels to provide reasonable assistance (safe
sampling station, help with measuring codends and holding bind, help with fish collection and
help with basket sampling) to observers completing their duties; (2) require limited access
mackerel and longfin squidJbutterfish vessels to notify observers when pumping/haulback
occurs; (3) require observers on each vessel fishing cooperatively; and (4) maintain status quo at­
sea sampling requirements, which do not require any reasonable assistance provisions, haul back
notice, or observers on both vessels fishing cooperatively.
Slippage (catch discarded before it is made available to an observer) Measures - Twelve options
were considered: (1) Require released catch affidavits for slippage events from limited access
mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish vessels; (2) prohibit slippage on limited access mackerel
vessels; (3) prohibit slippage on longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels; (4) require trip
termination after 1 slipped haul on limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium vessels; (5) require trip termination after 2 slipped hauls on limited access mackerel
and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels; (6) prohibit slippage on limited access mackerel
and longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium vessels, with exceptions for safety concerns, mechanical
failure, and spiny dogfish preventing catch from being pumped aboard the vessel; and require
completion of a released catch affidavit when slippage occurs; (7) require trip termination for
limited access mackerel vessels after 5 fleetwide slippage events; (8) require trip termination for
limited access mackerel vessels after 10 non-exempted fleetwide slippage events; (9) require trip
termination for longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium vessels after 5 fleetwide slippage events;

(10) require trip termination for longfin squidJbutterfish moratorium vessels after 10 fleetwide
slippage events; (11) require an observer on the next trip if the previous trip is terminated due to
slippage; (12) require individual slippage quotas with trip termination for limited access
mackerel and longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium vessels; and (13) maintain existing allowance
for slippage.
Alternative Set 4: Portside and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures

3

Portside Sampling Programs - Three alternatives were considered: (1) Require an industry
funded portside sampling program for mackerel landings over 20,000 lb; (2) require an industry
funding portside sampling program for longfin squid landings over 2,500 lb; and (3) maintain
status quo, which is no portside sampling program for mackerel or longfin squid landings.
Vessel hold certification requirements - Three alternatives were considered: (1) Require
volumetric vessel hold certification for Tier 3 limited access mackerel permits; (2) require
volumetric vessel hold certification for longfin squidJbutterfish moratorium permits; and (3)
maintain existing vessel hold certification requirements, which are only in place for Tier 1 and 2
limited access mackerel permit holders.
River herring avoidance measures - Two alternatives were considered: (1) support and evaluate
an existing research program investing river herring encounters in the herring fishery; and (2)
status quo, which means no Council commitment to support and evaluation of this research.

Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
Mackerel mid-water trawl observer coverage levels - Five options were considered for midwater
trawl trips intending to land over 20,000 lb mackerel: (1) Require 25-percent coverage; (2)
require 50-percent coverage; (3) require 75-percent coverage; (4) require 100-percent coverage;
and (5) maintain existing Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRNI) coverage levels,
subject to re-prioritization.
Mackerel small mesh bottom trawl observer coverage levels - Five options were considered for
small mesh bottom trawl trips intending to land over 20,000 lb mackerel: (1) Require 25-percent
coverage; (2) require 50-percent coverage; (3) require 75-percent coverage; (4) recommend 100­
percent coverage on Tier 1 limited access mackerel vessels, 50-percent coverage on Tier 2
vessels, and 25-percent coverage on Tier 3 vessels; and (5) maintain existing SBRNI coverage
levels, subject to re-prioritization.
Longfin squid small mesh bottom trawl observer coverage levels - Five options were considered
for trips by vessels intending to land over 2,500 lb longfin squid: (1) Require 25-percent
coverage; (2) require 50-percent coverage; (3) require 75-percent coverage; (4) require 100­
percent coverage; and (5) maintain existing SBRNI coverage levels, subject to re-prioritization.
Strata/fleet based observer coverage levels - Five options were considered to reach certain
coefficient of variation (CV) levels for alewife and blueback herring catch: (l) Require
allocation of seadays on midwater trawl trips to reach a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.3; (2)
require allocation of seadays on midwater trawl trips to reach a CV of 0.2; (3) require allocation
of seadays on small mesh bottom trawl trips to reach a CV of 0.3; (4) require allocation of
seadays on small mesh bottom trawl trips to reach a CV of 0.2; and (5) maintain existing SBRNI
coverage levels, subject to re-prioritization.
Funding for Observer Coverage Levels - Three options were considered: (1) Industry
contribution of $325 per seaday; (2) a 4-year phase-in of industry funding; and (3) maintain
existing Federal funding of all observer coverage.
4

Process for Review Observer Coverage Levels - Two options were considered: (1) Review in 2
years and (2) maintain existing review of coverage levels through SBRJvl process.

Alternative Set 6: Mortality Caps
Five options were considered: (1) Implement river herring catch caps for the mackerel fishery;
(2) implement shad catch caps for the mackerel fishery; (3) implement river herring catch caps
for the longfin squid fishery; (4) implement shad catch caps for the longfin squid fishery; (5) add
river herring and shad mortality caps to the list of measures that can be addressed in a framework
adjustment; and (5) maintain existing ability to consider river herring catch caps in a future
amendment.

Alternative Set 7: Restrictions in areas ofhigh River Herring/Shad catch
Seven alternatives were considered: (1) Close a mackerel river herring/shad management area to
directed mackerel fishing during quarter 1; (2) close a longfin squid river herring/shad
management area to directed longfin squid fishing year round; (3) require industry-funded
observers on directed mackerel trips in mackerel river herring/shad management area; (4) require
industry-funded observers on directed longfin squid trip in longfin squid river herring/shad
management area; (5) prohibit fishing or require observers only when a "trigger" is reached; (6)
update areas via specifications; (7) maintain existing areas related to MSB management, which
currently consists of the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Alternative Set 8: Hotspot Restrictions
Six alternatives were considered for River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance areas established
through this action: (1) Require industry-funded observers on directed mackerel; (2) require
industry-funded observers on directed longfin squid trips; (3) prohibit slippage on mackerel
vessels, with exceptions for safety concerns, mechanical failure, and spiny dogfish preventing
catch from being pumped aboard the vessel; (4) prohibit slippage on longfin squid vessels, with
the same exemptions; (5) make measures effective only when they are effective for Atlantic
herring vessels; and (6) maintain existing areas related to MSB management, which currently
consists of the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Four alternatives were considered for River Herring Protection areas established through this
action: (1) prohibit directed mackerel retention; (2) prohibit directed longfin squid retention; (2)
make measures effective only when they are effective for Atlantic herring vessels; and (4)
maintain existing areas related to MSB management, which currently consists of the Exclusive
Economic Zone.
Finally, two alternatives were considered that would: (1) allow time/area management related to
river herring and shad to be address via framework adjustment; and (2) maintain existing ability
to consider time/area management in a future amendment.

5

Other alternatives
Initially, the Council considered alternatives in Amendment 14 DEIS (labeled "Alternative Set
9") intended to add, in a future action, alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and/or hickory
shad as stocks in the MSB FMP. Instead, the Council decided that it would initiate a future
Council amendment that would consider adding these as stocks in the fishery and analyze all of
the MSA provisions (i.e., various management reference points, description and delineation of
essential fish habitat (EFH), etc.), and initiated Amendment 15 to MSB FMP to explore the need
for conservation and management of these species more thoroughly. Scoping for MSB
Amendment 15 began in October 2012 (77 FR 65867).
Based on NMFS guidance, the Council completed a white paper examining the costs and
benefits of Federal management for river herring and shad. After reviewing the discussion in the
white paper, the Council ultimately determined not to go forward with the development of
Amendment 15 at this time, and to re-evaluate Federal management in 3 years after a number of
other actions related to river herring and shad conservation have been implemented. NMFS is
currently reviewing the Council's decision to cease continuation of the development of a Federal
management plan for river herring and shad.
Measures Adopted by the Council
On June 14,2012, the Council adopted the following measures as part of Amendment 14, after
considering recommendations from the MSB Committee, MSB Advisory Panel, and public
comment received on the draft EIS.

Alternative Set J: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures
• Institute weekly VTR for all MSB permits to facilitate quota monitoring and cross­
checking with other data sources;
• Require 48-hour pre-trip notification to retain more than 20,000 lb of mackerel to

facilitate observer placement;

• Require VMS and daily catch reporting via VMS for limited access mackerel vessels to
facilitate monitoring and cross checking with other data sources;
• Require VMS and daily catch reporting via VMS for longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium
vessels to facilitate monitoring and cross checking with other data sources;
• Require 6-hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land over 20,000 lb mackerel to
facilitate monitoring, enforcement, and portside monitoring.
Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
• Require federally permitted MSB dealers to weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 lb and longfin squid transactions over 2,500 lb, and document
methods used to determine species composition with each report;
• Allow dealers to use volume to weight conversions if they cannot weigh landings.
Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
• Expand vessel requirements related to at-sea observer sampling to help ensure safe
sampling and improve data quality;
6

• Prohibit slippage on limited access mackerel and longfin squid trips, with exceptions for
safety concerns, mechanical failure, and spiny dogfish preventing catch from being
pumped aboard the vessel, and require a released catch affidavit to be completed for each
slippage event; and
• Establish a fleetwide cap of 10 slippage events for the mackerel fishery and require
vessels slipping catch after the cap has been reached to immediately stop fishing and
return to port.

Alternative Set 4: Portside and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
• Evaluate the existing river herring bycatch avoidance program to investigate providing
real-time, cost-effective information on river herring distribution and fishery encounters.
Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
• Recommend 1OO-percent observer coverage on midwater trawl and Tier 1 small mesh
bottom trawl trips intending to retain over 20,000 lb mackerel;
• Recommend 50-percent coverage on Tier 2 small mesh bottom trawl trips intending to
retain over 20,000 lb mackerel;
• Recommend 25-percent coverage on Tier 3 small mesh bottom trawl trips intending to
retain over 20,000 lb mackerel;
• Require an industry contribution of $325 per sea day;
• Re-evaluate observer coverage requirements 2 years after implementation.
Alternative Set 6: Mortality Caps
• Implement a mortality cap for river herring and shad in the mackerel fishery;
• Establish the ability to consider a river herring and shad catch cap in a future framework.
Alternative Set 8: Hotspot Restrictions
• Establish the ability to consider time/area management to mitigate bycatch of river
herring and shad in a future framework.

Factors Considered in Making a Decision on the Final Action
CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions ofNEPA require agencies to not
only state the outcome of the decisions, but also to discuss how the decision was affected by the
preferences among alternatives and to identify and discuss all factors that led to the decision. In
making a decision regarding approval of measures in Amendment 14, NMFS considered the
analysis of alternatives in the FEIS, associated environmental impacts, and the extent to which
the impacts could be mitigated. NMFS also considered the objectives of the final action as they
relate to the MSA and other applicable law and public comment.
The goal of the MSB FMP is to manage Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Jllex squid, and
butterfish fisheries at long-tenn sustainable levels consistent with the National Standards of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The objectives of the
MSB FMP are to :

7

• Prevent the exploitation of these resources from exceeding those levels which reduce the
probability of successful (i.e., the historic average) recruitment to the fisheries;
• Promote the growth of the U.S. commercial fishery, including the fishery for export;
• Provide the greatest degree of freedom and flexibility to all harvesters of these resources
consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of the FMP;
• Provide marine recreational fishing opportunities, recognizing the contribution of

recreational fishing to the national economy;

• Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fisheries; and
• Minimize harvesting conflicts among U.S. commercial, U.S. recreational, and foreign
fishermen.
The purposes of Amendment 14 are to improve catch monitoring for the Atlantic mackerel, squid
and butterfish fisheries, and to address incidental catch of river herring and shad through
responsible management.
When making a final decision on an action, NMFS must consider the relevance of the proposed
measures to the goals and objectives of both the MSB FMP and the purposes of Amendment 14,
and the effectiveness of each option in achieving such goals and objectives.
NMFS must consider the approval of an FMP amendment relative to the requirements of the
MSA. The MSA states that "Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation
promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the ...
National Standards for fishery conservation and management." As required, NMFS evaluated
Amendment 14 relative to the National Standards described in section 301 of the MSA, and
found the action to be consistent with these standards. A summary of the rationale for the
determination of compliance is in Section 9 of the FEIS.
In addition to the National Standards, section 303(a) of the MSA includes 15 required provisions
for FMPs. Any FMP prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery,
must comply with these requirements. Section 9.2 of the FEIS describes these requirements and
the basis for determining that the measures included in Amendment 14 comply with the required
provIsions.
Section 303(b) of the MSA also includes discretionary provisions for FMPs that the Council can
decide to include if it determines the provisions are necessary and appropriate for the
management of the fishery. Several discretionary provisions relevant to Amendment 14 are
described below.
Any FMP prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, may:
• Prohibit, limit, condition, or require the use of specified types and quantities of fishing
gear, fishing vessels, or equipment for such vessels, including devices which may be
required to facilitate enforcement of the provisions of this Act;
• Require that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States
engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting
data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery; except that such a
vessel shall not be required to carry an observer on board if the facilities of the vessel for
8

•
•

•
•

the quartering of an observer, or for carrying out observer functions, are so inadequate or
unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would
be jeopardized;
Assess and specify the effect which the conservation and management measures of the
plan will have on the stocks of naturally spawning anadromous fish in the region;
Include, consistent with the other provisions of this Act, conservation and management
measures that provide harvest incentives for participants within each gear group to
employ fishing practices that result in lower levels of bycatch or in lower levels of the
mortality of bycatch;
Include management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and
habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations; and
Prescribe such other measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are
determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the
fishery.

NMFS has determined that the measures developed in Amendment 14 comply with these MSA
discretionary provisions, as described in more detail below.
In addition to the MSA and NEPA, NMFS also considers other laws that relate to the
implementation of FMPs and FMP amendments. NMFS evaluated Amendment 14 relative to the
laws described below and has determined that the all of the approved Amendment 14 measures,
singly and combined, comply with the following laws and minimize impacts relevant to these
laws. The basis for NMFS's determination of compliance with these laws, and information to
meet the requirements relative to these laws, is provided in Section 10 of the FEIS and in the
NMFS Regional Administrator's (RA' s) decision memorandum included with this ROD for the
approval of Amendment 14.
Decision on the Final Action: Measures ApprovedlDisapproved in Amendment 14
NMFS approves all measures adopted by the Council in Amendment 14 and listed above, with
the following exceptions:
• Require federally permitted MSB dealers to weigh all landings related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 Ib and longfin squid transactions over 2,500 Ib, and document
methods used to determine species composition with each report;
• Allow dealers to use volume to weight conversions if they cannot weigh landings.
• Establish a fleetwide cap of 10 slippage events for the mackerel fishery and require
vessels slipping catch after the cap has been reached to immediately stop fishing and
return to port.
• Recommend 1OO-percent observer coverage on midwater trawl and Tier 1 small mesh
bottom trawl trips intending to retain over 20,000 lb mackerel;
• Recommend 50-percent coverage on Tier 2 small mesh bottom trawl trips intending to
retain over 20,000 lb mackerel;
• Recommend 25-percent coverage on Tier 3 small mesh bottom trawl trips intending to
retain over 20,000 Ib mackerel;
• Require an industry contribution of $325 per sea day;
• Re-evaluate observer coverage requirements 2 years after implementation.
9

The decision to partially approve Amendment 14 is based on the rationale contained in the
NMFS Regional Administrator's (RA's) decision memorandum that accompanies this ROD, the
analyses prepared for Amendment 14 and the FEIS, and all other analytical documents prepared
for this action during the course of its development. In making the decision to partially approve
Amendment 14, NMFS evaluated the proposed action relative to the MSA, including the national
standards, associated guidelines, and required and discretionary provisions, in addition to all
other applicable law listed above, and public comment.
The Council has spent several years developing this amendment, and it contains many measures
that would improve data collection, reduce catch of river herring and shad, and that can be
administered by NMFS. NMFS supports improvements to fishery dependent data collections,
either through increasing reporting requirements or expanding the at-sea monitoring of the MSB
fisheries. NMFS also shares the Council ' s concern for reducing bycatch and unnecessary
discarding.
However, the requirements for increased observer coverage for mackerel midwater trawl and
small mesh bottom trawl trips, coupled with an industry contribution of $325 per day, the
slippage cap, and the dealer reporting requirement lack adequate rationale or development by the
Council, and NMFS has utility and legal concerns about the implementation of these measures.
NMFS expressed its concerns about the implementation of these measures throughout the
development of this amendment. Additionally, NMFS articulated its concerns with these
measures in a comment letter on the draft EIS (dated June 5, 2012) that was provided to the
Council prior to the Council taking final action on Amendment 14 on June 14,2012. The
proposed rule for Amendment 14 described NMFS concern about these measures' consistency
with the MSA and other applicable law. After review of public comments received during the
NOA comment period for the amendment, NMFS made the determination to partially approve
Amendment 14.
Under the MSA, NMFS may only approve, disapprove, or partially approve an action submitted
by the Council; NMFS may not select other alternatives that were not adopted by the Council.
A summary of the rationale and justification for approving or disapproving the measures is
provided below.
Alternative Set 1: Additional Vessel Reporting Measures

VTR Frequency Requirements
Currently MSB permit holders are required to submit fishing vessel logs, known as VTRs, on a
monthly basis. Amendment 14 would implement a weekly VTR submission requirement for all
MSB permits. This measure requires that VTRs be postmarked or received by midnight of the
first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. If an MSB permit holder did not make a
trip during a given reporting week, a vessel representative is required to submit a report to
NMFS stating so by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. Any
fishing activity during a particular reporting week (i.e., starting a trip, landing, or offloading
catch) constitutes fishing during that reporting week and eliminates the need to submit a negative
10

fishing report to NMFS for that reporting week. For example, if a vessel began a fishing trip on
Wednesday, but returned to port and offloaded its catch on the following Thursday (i.e., after a
trip lasting 8 days), the VTR for the fishing trip would need to be submitted by midnight
Tuesday of the third week, but a negative report (i.e., a "did not fish" report) is not required for
either earlier week. The weekly VTR reporting requirement brings MSB reporting requirements
in line with other Northeast Region fisheries, improves monitoring of directed and incidental
catch, and facilitates cross-checking with other data sources.
Pre-Trip Notification in the Mackerel fishery
Amendment 14 requires a 48 -hr pre-trip notification for all vessels intending to retain, possess or
transfer 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) or more of Atlantic mackerel in order to facilitate observer
placement. Currently mackerel vessels have no pre-trip notifications. This measure assists
NMFS ' s scheduling and deployment of observers on directed mackerel trips, with minimal
additional burden on the industry, helping ensure that observer coverage target for the mackerel
fishery is met. If a vessel operator is required to notify NMFS to request an observer before
embarking on a fishing trip, but does not notify NMFS before beginning the fishing trip, that
vessel is prohibited from possessing, harvesting, or landing more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of
mackerel on that trip. If a fishing trip is cancelled, a vessel representative must notify NMFS of
the cancelled trip, even if the vessel is not selected to carry observers. All waivers or selection
notices for observer coverage will be issued by NMFS to the vessel via VMS so the vessel will
have an on-board verification of either the observer selection or waiver.
VMS Requirement, Daily Catch Reports and Pre-Landing notifications
Amendment 14 will implement VMS requirements for vessels with limited access mackerel
permits and longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium permits to improve monitoring of directed and
incidental catch. Currently, vessels with these permits are not required to have VMS , to submit
catch reports, or to submit pre-landing notifications, although many vessels already possess VMS
units due to requirements for other fisheries for which they hold permits.
Amendment 14 requires limited access mackerel and longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium permit
holders to purchase and maintain a VMS unit. Vessels are required to declare into the fishery for
trips targeting mackerel or longfin squid, and are required to transmit location information at
least every hour, 24 hours a day, throughout the year (see existing operating requirements at §
648.10(c)(1)(i)). Vessel owners may request a letter of exemption from the NMFS Regional
Administrator for permission to power down their VMS units if the vessel is out of the water for
more than 72 consecutive hours (see existing Power-down exemption regulations at §
648.10(c)(2)). Vessels that do not already have VMS units installed must confirm that their
VMS units were operational by notifying the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) (see
existing installation notification procedures at § 648.1 O(e)(1 )).
Amendment 14 requires daily VMS catch reporting for all limited access mackerel permits and
longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium permits. Daily VMS catch reports include: The VTR serial
number for the current trip; month and day mackerel and/or longfin squid were caught; and total
pounds retained. Daily mackerel and/or longfin squid VMS catch reports must be submitted in
11

24-hr intervals for each day by 0900 hr of the following day. Reports would be required even if
mackerel and/or longfin squid caught that day had not yet been landed.
Amendment 14 also requires that vessels landing more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel
submit a pre-landing notification, in which the vessel reports the time and place of offloading.
That notification must be submitted at least 6 hr prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on
their return trip to port, or, for a vessel that has not fished seaward of the VMS demarcation line,
at least 6 hr prior to landing.

Alternative Set 2: Additional Dealer Reporting Measures
During the development of Amendment 14, some stakeholders expressed concern that MSB
catch is not accounted for accurately and that there needs to be a standardized method to
determine catch. In an effort to address those concerns, Amendment 14 proposed that MSB
dealers accurately weigh all fish or use volume-to-weight conversions for all transactions with
over 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid or 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel. If catch is not sorted
by species, Amendment 14 proposed that dealers would be required to document for each
transaction how they estimate relative species composition.
During the development of Amendment 14, NMFS identified potential concerns with the utility
of this measure. Dealers are cUlTently required to accurately report the weight of fish, which is
obtained by scale weights and/or volumetric estimates. Because this proposed measure does not
specify how fish are to be weighed and still allows volumetric estimates, the proposed measure
may not change dealer behavior and, therefore, the requirement may not lead to any measureable
change in the accuracy of catch weights reported by dealers. Further, this measure does not
provide standards for estimating species composition. Without standards for estimating species
composition or for measuring the accuracy of the estimation method, NMFS may be unable to
evaluate the sufficiency of methods used to estimate species composition. For these reasons, the
requirement for dealers to document the methods used to estimate species composition may not
improve the accuracy of dealer reporting.
While the measure requiring dealers to document methods used to estimate species composition
may not have direct utility in monitoring catch in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, it may
still inform NMFS's and the Council's understanding of the methods used by dealers to
determine species weights. That information may aid in development of standardized methods
for purposes of future rulemaking. Furthermore, full and accurate reporting is a permit
requirement; failure to do so could render dealer permit renewals incomplete, precluding renewal
of the dealer' s permit. Therefore, there is incentive for dealers to make reasonable efforts to
document how they estimate relative species composition, which may increase the likelihood
that useful information will be obtained as a result of this requirement.
In light of the foregoing, NMFS evaluated whether the proposed measure has practical utility, as
required by the MSA and the Paperwork Reduction Act, that outweighs the additional reporting
and administrative burden on the dealers. In particular, NMFS considered whether and how the
proposed measure helps prevent overfishing, promotes the long-term health and stability of the

12

mackerel and longfin squid resources, monitors the fisheries , facilitates in-season management,
or judge performance of the management regime.
After reviewing the measure, NMFS determined that this measure would not measurably
improve the accuracy of dealer reporting or the management of the mackerel and longfin squid
resources. NMFS also determined that this measure does not comply with National Standard 7's
requirement to minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, and the Paperwork Reduction
Act's requirement for the utility of the measure to outweigh the additional reporting and
administrative burden on the dealers. Therefore, NMFS disapproves the dealer reporting
requirements. With the disapproval of this measure, NMFS approves the no action alternative
that maintains the existing requirement that dealers accurately report the weight of fish.

Alternative Set 3: Additional At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
Observer Assistance Requirements
Northeast fisheries regulations (found at 50 CFR part 648) specify requirements for vessels
carrying NMFS-approved observers, such as providing observers with food and accommodations
equivalent to those available to the crew; allowing observers to access the vessel's bridge, decks,
and spaces used to process fish; and allowing observers access to vessel communication and
navigations systems. Amendment 14 expands these requirements, such that vessels issued
limited access mackerel and longfin squidlbutterfish moratorium permits and carrying NMFS­
approved observers must provide observers with the following: (1) A safe sampling station
adjacent to the fish deck, and a safe method to obtain and store samples; (2) reasonable
assistance to allow observers to complete their duties; (3) advance notice when pumping or net
haulback will start and end and when sampling of the catch may begin; and (4) visual access to
netlcodend or purse seine and any of its contents after pumping has ended, including bringing the
codend and its contents aboard if possible. These measures are anticipated to help improve at­
sea catch monitoring in the mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish fisheries by enhancing the
observer's ability to collect quality data in a safe and efficient manner. Currently many vessels
already provide this assistance.
Measures to Address Slippage
Amendment 14 requires limited access mackerel and longfin squid moratorium vessels to bring
all catch aboard the vessel and make it available for sampling by an observer. This measure is
likely to improve the quality of at-sea monitoring data by reducing the discarding of unsampled
catch. If catch is discarded before it has been made available to the observer for sampling, that
catch is defined as slippage. Fish that cannot be pumped and remain in the net at the end of
pumping operations are considered operational discards and not slipped catch. Some
stakeholders believe that slippage is a serious problem in the mackerel and longfin squid
fisheries because releasing catch before an observer can estimate its species composition
undermines accurate catch accounting.
Amendment 14 allows catch to be slipped if: (1) Bringing catch aboard compromises the safety
of the vessel or crew; (2) mechanical failure prevents the catch from being brought aboard; or (3)
13

spiny dogfish prevents the catch from being pumped aboard. If catch is slipped, even for the
exempted reasons, the vessel operator would be required to complete a released catch affidavit
within 48 hr of the end of the fishing trip. The released catch affidavit would detail: (1) Why
catch was slipped; (2) an estimate of the quantity and species composition of the slipped catch
and any catch brought aboard during the haul; and (3) the time and location of the slipped catch.
Additionally, Amendment 14 proposed establishing slippage caps for the mackerel fishery. Once
there have been non-exempted 10 slippage events by limited access mackerel vessels that are
carrying an observer, limited access mackerel vessels that subsequently slip catch while carrying
an observer would be required to immediately return to port. NMFS would track slippage events
and notify the fleet once a slippage cap had been reached. The Council recommended these
slippage caps to discourage the inappropriate use of the slippage exceptions, and to allow for
some slippage, without unduly penalizing the fleet.
Throughout the development of Amendment 14, NMFS expressed concerns with the rationale
for, and legality of, the slippage caps for the Atlantic mackerel fleet. The need for, and threshold
for triggering, a slippage cap (10 slippage events for the entire fleet) does not have a strong
biological or operational basis. From 2006-2010 approximately 26 percent (73 of277 or 15 per
year) of hauls on observed mackerel trips (trips that caught 50 percent or more mackerel or at
least 100,000 lb (45.34 mt) of mackerel) had some unobserved catch. Hauls may be unobserved
for a variety of reasons-for example, transfer of catch to another vessel without an observer,
observers not being on deck to sample a given haul, or hauls released from the net while still in
the water. The estimate of 15 unobserved hauls per year would thus be an upper bound on
slippage events. Once a slippage cap has been met, vessels that slip catch with an observer
aboard for reasons other than safety, mechanical failure, or spiny dogfish in the pump would be
required to return to port. Vessels could continue fishing following slippage events 1 thorough
10, but must return to port following the 11 th slippage event, regardless of the vessel's role in the
first 10 slippage events. The Council's analysis noted that while documented slippage events are
relatively infrequent, increases above the estimated 15 unobserved hauls per year could
compromise observer data because large quantities of fish can be caught in a single tow.
However, the Council's analysis does not provide sufficient rationale for why it is biologically or
operationally acceptable to allow the fleet 10 un-exempted slippage events prior to triggering the
trip termination requirement.
The measures to minimize slippage are based on the sampling requirements for midwater trawl
vessels fishing in Groundfish Closed Area 1. However, there are important differences between
these measures. Under the Closed Area I requirements, midwater trawl vessels are allowed to
continue fishing if they slip catch, but they must leave Closed Area I for the remainder of that
trip. The requirement to leave Closed Area I is less punitive than the proposed requirement to
return to port. Additionally, because the consequences of slipping catch apply uniformly to all
vessels under the Closed Area I requirements, inequality among the fleet is not an issue for the
Closed Area I requirements, like it appears to be for the proposed slippage caps.
In 2010, the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) revised the training curriculum for
observers deployed in high volume fisheries in the Northeast like the mackerel and Atlantic
herring fisheries, to focus on effective sampling in these fisheries. NEFOP also developed a
14

discard log to collect detailed information on discards in the high-volume fisheries, including
slippage, such as why catch was discarded, the estimated amount of discarded catch and the
estimated composition of discarded catch. Recent slippage data collected by observ~rs indicate
that information about these events, and the amount and composition of fish that are slipped, has
improved, and that the number of slippage events has declined. Given NEFOP's recent training
changes and its addition of a discard log , NMFS believes that observer data on slipped catch,
rather than released catch affidavits, provide the best information to account for discards .
However, there is still a compliance benefit to requiring a released catch affidavit because it
would provide enforcement with a sworn statement regarding the operator' s decisions and may
help to understand why slippage occurs.
After careful evaluation, NMFS approves the measures to prohibit slippage, with exceptions for
safety, mechanical failure, and excessive spiny dogfish catch, and requires that a released catch
affidavit be completed for slippage events. These measures are separable from the slippage caps
and are expected to improve catch and bycatch data in the herring fishery, by ensuring all catch
is available for sampling by an observer, and provide information to help understand why
slippage occurs. Additionally, NMFS disapproves the slippage caps because, as described
above, NMFS believes the measure is inconsistent with the AP A and MSA National Standards 2.
Even though the slippage caps are disapproved, the prohibition on slippage, the released catch
affidavit, and the ongoing data collection by NEFOP still allow for improved monitoring in the
mackerel fishery, increased information regarding discards, and an incentive to minimize the
discarding of unsampled catch.
Alternative Set 4: Portside and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measures
Amendment 14 establishes a mechanism to develop, evaluate, and consider regulatory
requirements for a river herring bycatch avoidance strategy in small-mesh pelagic fisheries. The
river herring bycatch avoidance strategy would be developed and evaluated by the Council, in
cooperation with participants in the mackerel fishery, specifically the Sustainable Fisheries
Coalition (SFC); the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF); and the University
of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST). This
measure is based on the existing river herring bycatch avoidance program involving SFC, MA
DMF, and SMAST. This voluntary program seeks to reduce river herring and shad bycatch by
working within current fisheries management programs, without the need for additional
regulatory requirements. The river herring bycatch avoidance program includes portside
sampling, real-time communication with the SFC on river herring distribution and encounters in
the herring fishery, and data collection to evaluate if oceanographic features may predict high
rates of river herring encounters.
Amendment 14 requires that, within 6 months of completion of the existing SFC/MA
DMF/SMAST river herring bycatch avoidance project, the Council would review and evaluate
the results from the river herring bycatch avoidance project, and consider a framework
adjustment to the MSB FMP to establish river herring bycatch avoidance measures. Measures
that may be considered as part of the framework adjustment include: (1) Mechanisms to track
herring fleet activity, report bycatch events, and notify the herring fleet of encounters with river
15

herring; (2) the utility of test tows to determine the extent of river herring bycatch in a particular
area; (3) the threshold for river herring bycatch that would trigger the need for vessels to be
alerted and move out of a given area; and (4) the distance and/or time that vessels would be
required to move from an area.
Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements
Currently, observer coverage in the MSB fisheries is determined by the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, based on the SBRM, after consultations with the Council, and funded by NMFS.
In Amendment 14, the Council recommended increases in the observer coverage in the mackerel
fishery, specifically 100-percent observer coverage on all limited access mackerel vessels using
midwater trawl (i.e., Tiers 1,2 and 3) and Tier 1 mackerel vessels using small-mesh bottom
trawl, 'SO-percent coverage on Tier 2 mackerel vessels using small-mesh bottom trawl, and 25­
percent on Tier 3 mackerel vessels using small-mesh bottom trawl. Many stakeholders believe
that this measure is necessary to accurately determine the extent of incidental catch of river
herring and shad in the mackerel fishery . The Council recommended this measure to gather
more information on the mackerel fishery so that it may better eval uate and, if necessary, address
issues involving catch and discarding. The increased observer coverage recommendations are
coupled with a target maximum industry contribution of $325 per day. The at-sea costs
associated with an observer in the mackerel fishery are higher than $325 per day and, currently,
there is no mechanism to allow cost-sharing of at-sea costs between NMFS and the industry.
Throughout the development of Amendment 14, NMFS advised the Council that Amendment 14
must identify a funding source for increased observer coverage because NMFS ' s annual
appropriations for observer coverage are not guaranteed. Requiring 100-percent observer
coverage would amount to an unfunded mandate. Because Amendment 14 does not identify a
funding source to cover all of the increased costs of observer coverage, the proposed increase in
coverage levels many not be sufficiently developed to approve at this time. With the disapproval
of this measure, NMFS approves the no action alternative that maintains the existing SBRM
observer coverage levels and Federal observer funding for the mackerel fishery.
NMFS is working with both the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils
to address the funding challenges identified in Amendments 14 and other recent actions
concerning observer coverage in the Atlantic herring and Northeast multi species fisheries.
NMFS recently agreed to take the lead on an omnibus action to better define the costs of
observer coverage, create requirements for any fisheries that desire to increase observer coverage
using industry funding, and create a regional prioritization process to allocate available Federal
funding to achieve regional coverage goals. In addition, NMFS is working to identify a
mechanism to offset some of industry's costs, possibly through grants, when funding is available.
NFMS will present both Councils with an initial range of alternatives at their January and
February 2014 meetings.
Other measures in Amendment 14 would help improve monitoring in the mackerel fishery,
regardless of whether the increased observer coverage measure is approved at this time. These
measures include the requirement for vessels to contact NMFS at least 48 hr in advance of a
fishing trip to facilitate the placement of observers, and observer sample station and reasonable
16

assistance requirements to improve an observer's ability to collect quality data in a safe and
efficient manner.
The same measure that would require increased observer coverage, coupled with a maximum
$325 contribution by the industry, would also require that: (1) The increased observer coverage
requirement would be re-evaluated by the Council 2 years after implementation; (2) the
increased observer coverage requirement would be waived if no observers were available; and
(3) observer service provider requirements for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery would apply to
observer service providers for the mackerel fishery. Because these additional measures appear
inseparable from the increased observer coverage requirement, these measures must also be
disapproved. With the disapproval of these measures, NMFS approves the no action alternative
that maintains the existing waiver and observer service provider requirements.
Alternative Set 6: Mortality Caps and Alternative Set 8: Hotspot Restrictions

River herring and shad are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC) and individual states. According to the most recent ASMFC stock assessments for
river herring (May 2012) and shad (August 2007), river herring and shad populations have
declined from historic levels and many factors will need to be addressed to allow their recovery,
including fishing (in both state and Federal waters), river passageways, water quality, predation,
and climate change. In an effort to aid in the recovery of depleted or declining stocks, the
ASMFC, in cooperation with individual states, prohibited state waters commercial and
recreational fisheries that did not have approved sustainable fisheries management plans,
effective January 1, 2012 . NMFS recently completed a comprehensive review of the status of
river herring (but not shad) in response to a petition submitted by the Natural Resources Defense
Council requesting that we list alewife (A los a pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act throughout all or a significant portion
of their range or as specific distinct population segments identified in the petition. Based on the
best scientific and commercial information available, we determined that listing alewife as
threatened or endangered under the ESA is not warranted at this time (August 12,2013; 78 FR
48944).
Amendment 14 establishes a mortality cap on river herring and shad in the mackerel fishery,
where the mackerel fishery would close once it has been determined to cause a certain amount of
river herring and/or shad mortality. Based on the results of the ASMFC's assessments for river
herring and shad, data do not appear to be robust enough to determine a biologically based catch
cap for these species, and/or the potential effects on these populations if a catch cap is
implemented on a coast-wide scale, therefore a cap would have to be based on historical
estimates of river herring and shad catch in the mackerel fishery. Nevertheless, the Council
believes that capping the allowed level of river herring and shad catch in the mackerel fishery
would provide a strong incentive for the industry to avoid river herring and shad, and would help
to minimize encounters with these species.
The likelihood of a mackerel closure related to the river herring and shad cap would depend on
the value the Council proposes for the cap for a given year, the availability of mackerel for that
year, and the realized incidental catch of river herring and shad for that year. The analysis
17

presented in Amendment 14 estimated that total ocean fishing mortality (all gear types and
fisheries) ranged from 244 to 672 mt for both river herring species (2006-2010), and 47 to 70 mt
for both shad species (2007-2010). To qualitatively evaluate the biological and economic
impacts of a river herring and/or shad cap, Amendment 14 presented an analysis in which the cap
was set equal to 35 percent of total ocean fishing mortality for river herring, and 12 percent of
total ocean fishing mortality for shad. These percentages correspond to the estimated amount of
mid-water trawl mortality for these species in Quarter 1 of the fishing year, which largely
encompasses mackerel fishing activity. The proposed mortality cap on river herring and shad
would use a similar method to that used for the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid
fishery, where the ratio of river herring and shad caught to total catch on observed hauls would
be applied to all catch. The analysis in Amendment 14 applies this methodology to mimic low,
medium, and high rates of river herring and shad encounters on mackerel trips. lfthe mackerel
fishery had been able to harvest the entire 115,000-mt mackerel quota in any year from 2006 to
2010, a river herring cap equal to 35 percent of total river herring ocean catch would have
resulted in closures of the mackerel fishery in 3 of the years if there were low river herring
encounter rates, and all of the years if there were medium and high river herring encounter rates.
Similarly, a shad cap equal to 12 percent of the total shad ocean catch would not have caused a
closure of the mackerel fishery in any of the years if there were low shad encounter rates, but
would have resulted in a closure in all of the years with medium and high shad encounter rates.
The analysis concluded that, because river herring and shad catch vary substantially from year to
year, the realized combination of these factors may cause an early closure of the mackerel fishery
in some years, and in other years may not result in a closure at all.
While the concept of the cap and general methodology are analyzed in Amendment 14, the
Council's proposal deferred the establishment of the actual cap amount and other logistical
details of the cap (e.g., the closure threshold and post-closure possession limit) to the MSB
specifications process for the 2014 fishing year. The process for 2014 MSB specifications began
in May 2013 with a MSB Monitoring Committee meeting to develop technical recommendations
on the cap level and any necessary management measures. At its June 2013 meeting, the
Council selected a combined catch cap for river herring and shad of236 mt, a closure threshold
of95 percent, and a post-closure incidental trip limit of20,000 lb (9.07 mt). The Council is
finalizing its analysis of these measures and has submitted its final recommendation to NMFS as
part of the 2014 MSB specifications package. Secretarial approval of both Amendment 14 and
the 2014 MSB specifications are necessary for implementation of the river herring and shad caps
in the mackerel fishery, which is targeted for the start ofthe 2014 fishing year (January 1,2014).
One of the primary purposes of Amendment 14 is to address bycatch issues through responsible
management, consistent with the MSA National Standard 9 requirement to minimize bycatch and
mortality of unavoidable bycatch to the extent practicable. Amendment 14 considered other
measures to address river herring bycatch, including closed areas. Because the seasonal and
inter-annual distribution ofriver herring is highly variable in time and space, both the Council
and NMFS detennined that the most effective measures in Amendment 14 to address river
herring bycatch and bycatch mortality would be those that increase catch monitoring, bycatch
accounting, promote cooperative efforts with the industry, and reduce economic impacts to
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

18

In order to streamline the regulatory process necessary to adjust the river herring and shad
mortality caps, or enact time area management for river herring and shad, should scientific
information to support such management measures become available, the Council proposed that
Amendment 14 would add river herring and shad catch caps and time/area closures to the list of
measures that can be addressed via framework adjustment.
As required, NMFS evaluated Amendment 14 relative to the National Standards described in
section 301 of the MSA, and found the action, with the exception of the disapproved measures,
to be consistent with these standards. A summary of the rationale for the determination of
compliance is in Section 9 of the FEIS. NMFS's disapproval of measures considered in that
rationale does not change it conclusion. As noted in the discussions above, the disapproved
measures were the Council's attempts to improve monitoring and catch data for the MSB
fisheries while mitigating the economic costs of those measures. The measures were
disapproved, however, because they did not comply with the law and, thus, were impracticable.
The existing SBRM observer coverage levels and prohibition on slippage minimize bycatch and
bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, especially in combination with the suite of approved
measures in Amendment 14.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
As required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)'s NEPA regulations, NMFS shall
identify the "alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable
(40 CFR Part lS.0S.2(b))." The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that
causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment, and that best protects,
preserves and enhances historic, cultural and natural resources.
The Amendment 14 FEIS evaluates the biological impacts of the proposed measures and other
non-selected options considered on the herring resource, non-target and other fisheries, the
physical environment and essential fish habitat (EFH), and protected resources (i.e., marine
mammals and endangered species). Where sufficient information was available, the proposed
measures and other options were compared using quantitative criteria. 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. For example, the proposed measures to expand
vessel reporting and trip notification requirements both individually and collectively have
biological and economic impacts. Additionally, it is not always possible to quantify the impacts
of certain measures, such as measures to address river herring interactions, when there is limited
quantitative information regarding the possible impacts of the measures. As a result, most
proposed measures and options were analyzed through both quantitative and qualitative analysis,
as appropriate. See Section 7 of the FEIS for a complete analysis of the biological impacts of the
proposed measures and other non-selected options.
1. Impacts on the MSB Resource
The MSB fisheries are managed through hard quotas (longfin and lllex squid), and annual catch
limits (ACLs) (mackerel and butterfish) that are designed to prevent overfishing. Due to the
ongoing management of the MSB fisheries through hard quotas/ ACLs, selection of the proposed
19

measures versus other non-selected options considered in Amendment 14 are not likely to
directly impact the health of the MSB resource in the short-term. However, some of the indirect,
long-term benefits likely to result from the proposed measures under consideration in
Amendment 14 would not be realized if no action is taken.
The long-term benefits to the MSB resource from the proposed measures are relatively indirect,
but are based on improved catch monitoring. The proposed measures to increase observer
coverage, improve at-sea sampling conditions, and prohibit slippage may lead to better catch
data for Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid stock assessments. While the proposed measures to
adjust vessel and dealer reporting measures are not likely to directly impact the health of the
MSB resource in the short-term, there may be some indirect, long-term benefits to the MSB
species through improved catch reporting. Improved catch reporting and catch data could lead to
better information for stock assessments and, ultimately, more effective long-term management
of the MSB resource.
2. Impacts on Non-Target Species and Other Fisheries
In the Amendment 14 FEIS, non-target species refers to species other than Atlantic mackerel,
longfin squid, lllex squid, and butterfish that are caught and landed with these species, and other
fisheries refers to those fisheries directly affected by or related to the operation of the MSB
fisheries, such as Atlantic herring, and river herring (in state waters). When river herring and
shad are encountered in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, they are either discarded at sea
(bycatch) or, because they closely resemble Atlantic herring, they are retained and sold as part of
the herring catch (incidental catch). Because of these interactions, for the purposes of
Amendment 14, the terms bycatch and incidental catch are used interchangeably.
The proposed measures to increase observer coverage, improve at-sea sampling conditions, and
prohibit slippage may lead to better catch data on non-target species. Additionally, the proposed
measures to adjust the fishery management program (regulatory definitions, administrative
provisions, modifications to provisions for carrier vessels, increased trip notification
requirements, open access permit provisions) may also lead to better catch data on non-target
species through improved catch reporting.
Data on the bycatch of river herring and shad in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries is
limited and highly variable. The proposed measures to establish increased monitoring areas for
river herring and shad in Alternative Sets 7 and 8 and evaluate the existing, voluntary river
herring bycatch avoidance program are likely to generate valuable information on the frequency,
magnitude, and nature of river herring and shad encounters in the mackerel and longfin squid

fisheries. The Council did not adopt the options to establish closed areas proposed in Alternative
Sets 7 and 8 and prohibit fishing in those areas. While closing to fishing may reduce the bycatch
of river herring and shad in the short-term, available data is insufficient to determine if the
potential benefit of the reduction in bycatch would outweigh the potential reduction in mackerel
and longfin squid catch and industry income. A better understanding of the nature of river
herring and shad bycatch in the mackerel and longfin squid fisheries will assist with weighing
these factors in order to minimize river herring and shad bycatch to the extent practicable.
Additionally, the proposed measure to establish a river herring and shad catch cap in the
20

mackerel fishery is expected to complement the existing, voluntary river herring bycatch
avoidance program and may be an effective tool to minimize river herring and shad catch in the
mackerel fishery.
3. Impacts on the Physical Environment and EFH
Because Amendment 14 is focused on improving monitoring and addressing bycatch, none of the
proposed measures or other non-selected options are expected to greatly affect the amount or
location ofMSB fishing effort. The non-selected options to establish river herring and shad
closed areas in Alternative Sets 7 and 8 may have reduced the amount of fishing effort in those
areas. However, gear impacts of the MSB fisheries on the ocean floor from midwater trawl gear
have been determined to be minimal and temporary and impacts from bottom trawl gear has been
minimized by the establishment of habitat closed areas. Therefore, none of the proposed
measures or other non-selected options in Amendment 14 are expected to have direct impacts on
either the physical environment or EFH.
4. Impacts on Protected Resources
Because Amendment 5 is focused on improving monitoring and addressing bycatch, none of the
proposed measures or other non-selected options are expected to greatly affect the amount or
location ofMSB fishing effort. The proposed measures to increase observer coverage, improve
at-sea sampling conditions, and prohibit slippage may lead to better catch data on protected
species. The non-selected options to establish river herring and shad closed areas in Alternative
Sets 7 and 8 may have reduced the amount of fishing effort in those areas. However, interactions
between protected species and the MSB fisheries are dynamic, and it is difficult to predict
whether or not reducing fishing effort in those areas would minimize interactions. Therefore,
none of the proposed measures or other non-selected options in Amendment 14 are expected to
have direct impacts on protected species.
For the reasons described above, NMFS has determined that, overall, the measures adopted by
the Council and approved by NMFS represent the environmentally preferred alternative.
Mitigation
CEQ NEPA regulations require that agencies identify in the ROD whether all practical means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if
not, why. The regulations further state that a monitoring and enforcement program shall be
adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation. Mitigation measures are the
practical means to avoid, minimize, and reduce impacts, and to compensate for unavoidable
impacts.
No significant environmental harm is expected to result from the implementation of Amendment
14 relative to the continuation of no action alternatives or non-selected alternatives considered in
Amendment 14. Therefore, specific management measures to mitigate environmental impacts
are not necessary.

21

Response to Comments
NMFS published the NOA for the Amendment 14 FEIS was on August 16, 2013, with a
comment period ending September 16,2013. NMFS received one comment letter from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the FEIS NOA comment period.
In addition, NMFS published an NOA for Amendment 14 and a proposed rule under the MSA on
August 12,2013, and August 29,2013, respectively, with a comment period ending October 11,
2013, for both. NMFS received 5 comment letters on Amendment 14 from environmental
advocacy groups prior to the end of the Amendment 14 comment periods on October 11, 2013.
While not submitted during the FEIS NOA comment period ending on September 16, 2013,
these 5 comment letters addressed the FEIS, and the comments are therefore addressed below as
part of this Record of Decision. In making its final decision to partially approve Amendment 14,
NMFS has taken into account all comments on Amendment 14, as reflected in the documentation
accompanying this Record of Decision.
The following is a summary of those comments followed by NMFS's responses:
Comment 1: The EPA commented that, based on its review of the FEIS, it has no objections to
Amendment 14.
Response: NMFS concurs.
Comment 2: NMFS received numerous comments from environmental advocacy groups that the
analysis in the FEIS provides a reasonable basis for capping slippage events at 10 slippage
events.
Response: The FEIS notes that, from 2006-2010 approximately 26 percent (73 of 277 or 15 per
year) of hauls on observed mackerel trips (trips that caught 50 percent or more mackerel or at
least 100,000 lb (45.34 mt) of mackerel) had some unobserved catch. Hauls may be unobserved
for a variety of reasons-for example, transfer of catch to another vessel without an observer,
observers not being on deck to sample a given haul, or hauls released from the net while still in
the water. The FEIS discusses that, while documented slippage events are relatively infrequent,
increases above the estimated 15 unobserved hauls per year could compromise observer data
because "high-volume fisheries ... can catch large quantities of fish in a single tow." NMFS
agrees that unobserved hauls can compromise observer data, and that limiting the total number of
slippage events to 10 does reduce slippage events from the recent average of 15 unobserved
hauls on mackerel trips . However, the FEIS does not provide sufficient rationale for why it is
biologically or operationally acceptable to allow the fleet 10 un-exempted slippage events prior
to triggering the trip tennination requirement, as opposed to any other number. For example, if
the 10 slippage events allowed before the cap contributed significantly to river herring and shad
mortality, there is no biological justification for why the 10 vessels that released hauls prior to
the cap being attained were allowed to do so without penalty, while all vessels that released
subsequent hauls would be forced to return to port. For this reason, NMFS believes the FEIS
does not provide a strong operational basis for a slippage cap value.

22

Summary
After review of the proposed measures, the associated analyses, and public comment, NMFS is
partially approving Amendment 14 to the MSB FMP, as described above. This action is
intended to improve the catch monitoring program for the MSB fisheries and address bycatch
issues through responsible management. NMFS has determined that the measures being
approved represent the environmentally preferable alternative when considering the balance of
environmental and economic effects that might accrue from these measures within the context
and strictures of the MSA and other applicable law. In addition, NMFS has determined the
approved measures will promote the national environmental policy as discussed in Section 101
ofNEP A. NMFS also concludes that all practical and legally justifiable means to avoid,
minimize, or compensate for environmental harm from the final action have been adopted.
The Council and NMFS have considered all applicable public comments received on
Amendment 14. Responses to all comments on the Amendment 14 DEIS are available in
Appendices 8 and 9 of the FEIS, with comments received on the Amendment 14 FEIS, and
responses, listed in this ROD. Further, the accompanying documentation supporting NMFS's
decision includes a summary of all comments on the Amendment 14 MSA NOA and proposed
rule.
Further information concerning this Record of Decision may be obtained by contacting George
H. Darcy, NMFS Northeast Region, 55 Great RepUblic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 281­

9331~tll

{( ( 7111

S"?n;uel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Regulatory Programs, performing the functions
and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

23

Date