[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]






                           VS Department of Commerce
                           1q0AA Coastal Services Center Library
                           2214 south Hobson Pvenue
                           Charleston, SC 29405-2413



                                        SPINY DOGFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN


                           Uncludes Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Review)





                                                        August 1998





                                           Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council


                                                           and the


                                           New England Fishery Management Council

                                                    in cooperation with the


                                               National Marine Fisheries Service


                                                           and the


                                          South Atlantic Fishery Management Council




              Draft adopted by Councils: 11 August (NEFMC) and 17 August (MAFMC) 1998
              Final Adopted by Councils:
              Final approved by NOAA:





              A Publication of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmo-
              spheiie Administration A ward No. NA57FC0002



                SH
                351
                S76
                S65
                1998




           -22-S-e-p-te-m-5er 1998 Hearing Draft








                                            UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                            Office of the Under Secretary for
                                            Oceans and Atmosphere
                                            Washington. b.t. 20230    OCT    f9,%
          To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:

          Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental
          review has been performed on the following action.

          TITLE:     Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Spiny
                     Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP)

          LOCATION:  Spiny dogfish are a migratory species and range from
                     Labrador to Florida, but are most abundant from
                     Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras. Spiny dogfish are
                     considered a unit stock in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean

          SUMMARY:   With the decline of more traditional groundfish
                     resources in recent years, an increase in directed
                     fishing for spiny dogfish has resulted in a nearly
                     six-fold increase in landings in the last 7 years.
                     The lack of any regulations pertaining to the
                     harvest of this species led the Mid-Atlantic and
                     New England Fishery Management Councils to develop a
                     management plan for spiny dogfish. The FMP proposes
                     the following management measures to conserve the
                     resource: (1) Permit and reporting requirements for
                     commercial vessels, operators, and dealers; (2)
                     establishment of a Spiny Dogfish FMP Monitoring
                     Committee; (3) implementation of a framework
                     adjustment process; (4) a 10-year stock rebuilding
                     schedule; (5) a commercial quota; (6) seasonal
                     (semi-annual) allocation of the quota; (7)
                     prohibition on finning; and (8) a limit of 80 nets
                     (50 fathoms each) in the spiny dogfish gillnet
                     fishery.

          RESPONSIBLE   Hannah Goodale
          OFFICIAL:     Senior Fishery  Policy Analyst
                        Northeast Regional Office
                        One Blackburn Drive
                        Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
                        (978) 281=9315

          Any written comments or questions you may have should be
          submitted to the responsible official by November 23, 1998.
          Also, one copy of your comments should be sent to me in
          Room 5802, OP/SP, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
          20230.


                                               Sincerely,




                                               Susan'@'B. Fruchter
                                               Director, Office of Policy     DOM
                                                 and Strategic Planning
                                                                            6' 141 16





















                                         SPINY DOGFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN


                          (includes Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Review)





                                                         August 1998





                                            Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council


                                                           and the


                                           New England Fishery Management Council

                                                    in cooperation with the


                                                National Marine Fisheries Service


                                                           and the                    -


                                           South Atlantic Fishery Management Council




              Draft adopted by Councils: 11 August (NEFMC) and 17 August (MAFMC) 1998
              Final Adopted by Councils:
              Final approved by NOAA:





              A Publication of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmo-
              spheric Administration Award No. NA57FC0002











              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft








                                                            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


                The purpose of the proposed action is to initiate management of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) pursuant
                to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) of 1976 as amended by
                the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). For most of the first two decades of extended jurisdiction under the
                Magnuson Act, the spiny dogfish was considered to be an "under-utilized" species of relatively minor value
                to the domestic fisheries of the US East Coast. With the decline of more traditional groundfish resources in
                recent years, an increase in directed fishing for dogfish has resulted in a nearly six-fold increase in landings
                in the last seven years. Recent rapid expansion of the fishery has resulted in a dramatic increase in fishing
                mortality. Particularly troublesome is the fact that the fishery targets mature females due to their large
                size. The recent fishery expansion in combination with the removal of a large portion of the adult female
                stock has resulted in the species being designated as overfished by the National Marine Fisheries Service
                (NMFS). The SFA requires remedial action by the Councils for stocks designated as overfished and requires
                that a management program be developed within one year of the date of notification that a species is
                overfished. The lack of any regulations pertaining to the harvest of spiny dogfish in the US EEZ combined
                with the recent rapid expansion of the domestic fishery led the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Man-
                agement Councils (Councils) to develop a management plan for the species.

                The management unit for this FMP is defined as the entire spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) population
                along -the Atlantic coast of the United States.

                The overall goal of this FMP is to conserve spiny dogfish in order to achieve optimum yield from this re-
                source in the western Atlantic Ocean.


                To meet the overall goal, the following objectives are adopted:

                1. Reduce fishing mortality to ensure that overfishing does not occur.
                2. Promote compatible management regulations between state and Council jurisdictions and the US and
                Canada.
                3. Promote uniform and effective enforcement of regulations.
                4. Minimize regulations while achieving the management objectives stated above.
                5. Manage the spiny dogfish fishery so as to minimize the impact of the regulations on the prosecution of
                other fisheries, to the extent practicable.

                The fishing year for spiny dogfish is the twelve (112) month period beginning 1 May.

                Management Program for Spiny Dogfish

                The Councils are seeking public comment on the following management program adopted by the Council
                for public hearings:

                Management Strategy

                The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which reauthorized and amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Con-
                servation and Management Act, made a number of changes to the existing National Standards. With re-
                spect to National Standard 1, the SFA imposed new requirements concerning definitions of overfishing in
                fishery management plans. To comply with National Standard 1, the SFA requires that each Council FMP
                define overfishing as a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes a fishery's capacity to produce
                maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis.

                Each FMP must specify objective and measurable status determination criteria for identifying when stocks
                or'stock complexes covered by the FMP are overfished. To fulfill the requirements of the SFA, status
                determination criteria for spiny dogfish are comprised of two components: 1) a maximum fishing mortality
                threshold and 2) a minimum stock size threshold. The maximum F threshold for spiny dogfish is specified
                as F,s,. The minimum biomass threshold is specified as 1/2 B,sy. For spiny dogfish, the stock size that


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                         3








           would maximize average recruitment is known as the SSBm@. and is recommended as a proxy value for
           B,sy. This target value is currently estimated to be 440 million pounds (200,000 mt).

           An additional requirement of the SFA is that stocks which are identified as overfished (i.e., stock biomass
           is less than minimum biomass threshold) must be rebuilt to the level that will produce maximum sustainable
           yield (B,sy). The SFA guidelines advise that, in most cases, the stock rebuilding period may not exceed 10
           years. The most recent stock assessment data indicate that total adult spiny dogfish stock biomass is
           currently about 280 million lbs (1127,000 mt),which is well below the stock biomass target of 440 million
           lbs (200,000 mt). As a result, the Councils propose to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock to the B,,, level (as
           represented by the proxy of SSBm,,,,) over a ten year rebuilding period through the implementation of this
           FMP.


           The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock through a two step
           reduction in f ishing mortality rate. The f irst step allows f or a one year exit f ishery of 22 million lbs (10,000
           mt) to allow a phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impact of the
           rebuilding program on both the harvest and processing sectors of the industry. For the first year of the
           rebuilding plan (1999-2000), F will be reduced to 0. 2 and then will be reduced to F = 0.03 in the remaining
           nine years of the rebuilding plan (2000-2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the level which
           will support harvests at or near the SSBm@,. level in the year 2009.

           PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES


           Preferred Management Measures

           The Councils are proposing a number of preferred management measures to meet the objectives of the
           FMP (a complete description of these management measures is given in section 3.1). These preferred
           alternatives are as follows:


           1. Permit and reporting requirements for commercial vessels, operators and dealers.

           2. The establishment of a Spiny Dogfish FMP Monitoring Committee.

           3. The implementation of a framework adjustment process.

           4. A ten year stock rebuilding sched ule.


           5. A commercial quota.

           6. Seasonal (semi-annual) allocation of the quota.

           7. Prohibition on finning.

           8. A limit of 80 nets (50 fathoms each) in the spiny dogfish gillnet fishery.

           Alternatives to the Preferred Management Actions

           A number of alternatives to the proposed management rneasures have been identified by the Councils for
           consideration by the public (a complete description of these management measures is given in section 3.1).
           These non-preferred alternatives include:


           1. Take no action at this time.


           2. Alternative rebuilding schedules.


           3. A commercial quota with trip limits.


           22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    4







               4. A commercial quota with.alternative seasonal allocations.

               5. A commercial quota with alternative size limits including a slot size limit.

               6. Limited entry program for spiny dogfish commercial fishery.

               7. A target commercial quota.




















































               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      5










                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS



          COVER SHEET      .........................................................                             1


          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY         ...................................................                          3


          TABLE OF CONTENTS         ...................................................                          5


          1.0 INTRODUCTION       .....................................................                           8


          1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION             .......................................                    8


                1.1.1 History of FMP Development      .......................................                    8
                1.1.2 Problems for Resolution     ..........................................                     8
                1.1.3 Management Objectives      ..........................................                      9
                1.1.4 Management Unit       ..............................................                       9
                1.1.5 Management Strategy       ...........................................                      9


          1.2 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES                     .....................           10


                1.2.1 Proposed Management Measures        ...................................                  10
                1.2.2 Management Action Alternatives      ...................................                  11


          2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT               ..........................                 11


          2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK          ..........................................                     11


                2.1.1 Species Description and Distribution     ................................                11
                2.1.2 Abundance and Present Condition       ..................................                 11
                2.1.3 Ecological Relationships and Stock Characteristics      ......................           12
                2.1.4 Maximum Sustainable Yield       ......................................                   15
                2.1.5 Probable Future Condition     .......................................                    15


          2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT        ..........................................                         16


                2.2.1 Habitat Requirements by Life History Stage      ...........................              16
                2.2.2 Description and Identification of EFH (includes Habitat Areas of Particular Concern)     20
                2.2.3 Fishing Activities that May Adversely Affect EFH      .......................            27
                2.2.4 Options for Managing Adverse Effects from Fishing       ......................           33
                2.2.5 Identification of Non-Fishing Activities and Associated Conservation
                and Enhancement Recommendations (Includes Cumulative Impacts)           ...............        33
                2.2.6 Prey Species   .................................................                         66
                2.2.7 Research and Information Needs      ...................................                  66
                2.2.8 Review and Revision of EFH Components of FMP         ........................            67


          2.3 DESCRIPTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES          ....................................                  68


                2.3.1 Commercial Fishery     ............................................                      68
                2.3.2 Recreational Fishery    ...........................................                      69
                2.3.3 Foreign Fishing Activities   ........................................                    70
                2.3.4 Economic Characteristics of the Fishery     ..............................               71


          3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES                 ..........................             78


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        6








               3.1 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES           .........................................                   78


                    3.1.1 Preferred Measures to Attain Management Objectives      .....................          77
                    3.1.2 Alternatives to the Preferred Management Measures     ......................           85
                    3.1.3 The FMP Relative to the National Standards      ...........................            88
                    3.1.4 Analysis of the Proposed and Alternative Management Measures        .............      94


               4.0 DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW AND REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS                     ....  112


               4.1 INTRODUCTION      ...................................................                        112


               4.2 PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIVES         .........................................                    113


               4.3 METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS                  .........................            113


               4.4 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE AMENDMENT . . .                      113


                    4.4.1 Summary of Impacts of Proposed Actions       ............................             114
                    4.4.2 Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives to the FMP     .....................           117


               4.5 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTION               .....................           119


               4.6 REVIEW OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT                 ...........     120


                    4.6.1.1 Introduction   ...............................................                      120
                    4.6.1.2 Determination of Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial
                    Number of Small Entities    ............................................                    120
                    4.6.1.3 Analysis of Economic Impacts      ..................................                121

               5.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS         ...........................................                    122


               5.1 RELATION OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO EXISTING APPLICABLE
                  LAWS AND POLICIES        ...............................................                      122


                    15.1.1 FMPs    .....................................................                        122
                    5.1.2 Treaties or International Agreements     ...............................              122
                    5.11-3 Federal Law and Policies                                                             122
                    5.1.4 State, Local, and Other Applicable Law and Policies   .....................           127


               6.0 COUNCIL REVIEW AND MONITORING OF THE FMP               ..........................            128


               7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS      ................................................                      128


               8.0 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS            ......................................                 128


               9.0 REFERENCES      .....................................................                        129


               10.0 TABLES AND FIGURES        .............................................                     140


                                                               APPENDICES


               1. PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARIES         ............................................
               2. COMMENT LETTERS AND COUNCIL RESPONSE             .................................
               3. PROPOSED REGULATIONS          ............................................                    PR-1



               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       7









                                                        1. INTRODUCTION
          1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTI        ON


          1.1.1 HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN


          The purpose of the proposed action is to initiate management of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) pursuant
          to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFMCA) of 1976 as amended by
          the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). For most of the first two decades of extended jurisdiction under the
          Magnuson Act, the spiny dogfish was considered to be an "under-utilized" species of relatively minor value
          to the domestic fisheries of the US East Coast. With the decline of more traditional groundfish resources in
          recent years, an increase in directed fishing for dogfish has resulted in a nearly six-fold increase in landings
          in the last seven years. The lack of any regulations pertaining to the harvest of spiny dogfish in the US EEZ
          combined with the recent rapid expansion of the domestic fishery lead the Mid-Atlantic and New England
          Fishery Management Councils (Councils) to develop a management plan for the species.

          In addition, data and analyses in the most recent stock assessment (NMFS 1998) indicate that the spiny
          dogfish stock in the Northwest Atlantic has declined as a result of the recent increase in exploitation.
          Recent rapid expansion of the fishery has resulted in a dramatic increase in fishing mortality. Particularly
          troublesome is the fact that the fishery targets mature females due to their large size. The recent fishery
          expansion in combination with the removal of a large portion of the adult female stock has resulted in the
          species being designated as overfished (NMFS 1998). The SFA requires remedial action by the Councils for
          stocks designated as overfished. The SFA requires that a management program be developed immediately
          for this species and that targets and thresholds for stock size and fishing mortality be established.

          FMPs and amendments must meet the requirements of a number of federal laws and regulations. In
          addition to MSFCMA, these include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
          Marine Mammal Protection Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This document
          has been developed to meet these federal requirements and contains all elements of the FMP Act, Draft
          Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Fishery
          Impact Statement.


          1.1.2 PROBLEMS FOR RESOLUTION


          Based upon the NMFS 0 994) recommendations and concerns expressed by both industry and the general
          public, the Councils held scoping hearings in the New England,and Mid-Atlantic regions during the fall of
          1997 to begin the process of FMP development. The purpose of the scoping hearings was to determine the
          scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the significant issues and problems relating to management
          of spiny dogfish. This action was also necessary to comply with federal environmental documentation
          requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The following problems and issues were identified
          during the scoping hearings.

          1.1.2.1 Depletion of Mature Female Portion of the Spiny Dogfish Stock

          The spiny dogfish stock was recently designated as overfished. Under the new SFA requirements, a formal
          definition of overfishing needs to be developed. In addition to the need for a definition of overfishing, a
          minimum spawning stock threshold must be specified and the stock must be rebuilt a level which will
          produce maximum sustained yield in 10 years.

          1.1.2.2 High Discard Rates in the Non-Directed Fisheries

          Virtually all of the spiny dogfish taken as bycatch in the mixed- and multi-species gillnet and otter trawl
          fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean were discarded based on sea sample data from 1991-1993. The
          primary reason for discarding of dogfish taken in these fisheries is small size or lack of market. The result of
          this activity is to reduce the mean size/age of selection. Since these animals are discarded, they represent
          economic and biological waste.


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        8







              Any future harvest policy developed for spiny dogfish must take into account the background mortality that
              results from discarding of dogfish from these fisheries. The issue of discards is a particularly important
              issue in the management of spiny dogfish, especially given the new National Standard 7, which mandates
              that regulations within FMPs developed under the SFA must minimize the level of discards and the mortality
              of discards which are unavoidable.


              1.1.2.3 Spiny Dogfish Life History Makes Stock Vulnerable to Overfishing

              Spiny dogfish are long lived and slow growing (see Section 2.1.3.2). This life history strategy (long lived
              with low reproductive potential) makes the species particularly vulnerable to overfishing. Holden (11973)
              noted the limited ability of sharks and other elasmobranchs to maintain the levels of exploitation sustainable
              in fisheries for teleost or bony fish. This is because stock and recruitment are directly related and
              reductions in adult stock size result in reduced recruitment. In addition, the limited reproductive potential of
              spiny dogfish offers little flexibility in compensating for increased exploitation.

              1.1.2.4 Identification of Essential Habitat for Spiny dogfish

              Pursuant to the new requirements of the SFA, the Councils are required to identify essential habitat for
              spiny dogfish in the western Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, the Councils solicited comments from the public on
              the identification of and threats to essential habitat for spiny dogfish during the scoping progress.


              1, 1 .3 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES


              The overall goal of this FMP is to conserve spiny dogfish in order to achieve optimum yield from this
              resource in the western Atlantic Ocean.


              To meet the overall goal, the following objectives are adopted:

              1. Reduce fishing mortality to ensure that overfishing does not occur.

              2. Promote compatible management regulations between state and Council jurisdictions and the US and
              Canada.


              3. Promote uniform and effective enforcement of regulations.

              4. Minimize regulations while achieving the management objectives stated above.

              5. Manage the spiny dogfish fishery so as to minimize the impact of the regulations on the prosecution of
              other fisheries, to the extent practicable.


              1.1.4 MANAGEMENT UNIT


              The management unit for this FMP is defined as the entire spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) population
              along the Atlantic coast of the United States.

              1.1.5 Management Strategy

              The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which reauthorized and amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
              Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) made a number of changes to the existing
              National Standards. With respect to National Standard 1, the SFA imposed new requirements concerning
              definitions of overfishing in fishery management plans. To comply with National Standard 1, the SFA
              requires that each Council FMP define overfishing as a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes a
              fishery's capacity to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis.

              Each FMP must specify objective and measurable status determination criteria for identifying when stocks or


               22. September 1998 Hearing Draft                       9







         stock complexes covered by the FMP are overfished. To fulfill the requirements of the SFA, status
         determination criteria for spiny dogfish are comprised of two components: 1) a maximum fishing mortality
         threshold and 2) a minimum stock size threshold. The maximum F threshold for spiny dogfish is specified as
         .F,s,. The minimum biomass threshold is specified as Y2 B,sy. In addition, the SFA requires that a risk
         averse fishing mortality target be specified as well as a biomass target, which is the stock level associated
         with MSY (Bmsy). For spiny dogf ish, Applegate et aL 1998 recommended specifying the target fishing
         mortality rate as Fr.P with a pup-per-recruit ratio of 1.5, or the fishing mortality rate which allows for the
         production of 1. 5 f emale pups per female recruit (estimated to be F = 0.08 f or current size at f irst entry).
         The target stock biomass is B,sy.

         For spiny dogfish, MSY could not be reliably estimated from a surplus production model, like other stocks
         that have better catch and effort data. This approach also gives results that are conditioned on the
         exploitation pattern, which appears to be changing (the fishery has targeted smaller fish with time). In lieu
         of this approach, Applegate et aL 1998 and the Dogfish Technical Committee recommended using
         yield-per-recruit biological reference points that maximize yield and protect against declines in total
         recruitment. Yield-per-recruit analyses do not give any advice on the amount of recruitment or how it
         changes with stock size. To estimate a stock size that would maximize recruitment, a stock-recruitment
         model was fitted to spawning stock biomass and recruitment observations. The stock size that would
         maximize average recruitment is known as the SSBme,,, and was recommended as a proxy value for B,sy. This
         value is estimated to be 440 million pounds (200,000 mt) and was measured as a swept-area biomass
         index. As a proxy for Fmsy, Applegate et al. 1998 recommended using F,,p with a pup-per-recruit ratio of 1.0
         or the fishing mortality rate which allows for the production of 1.0 female pup per female recruit equals
         (i.e., the stock is replacing itself). This fishing mortality rate is currently estimated to be F=0.1 1.

         An additional requirement of the SFA is that stocks which are identified as overfished (i.e., stock biomass is
         less than minimum biomass threshold) must be rebuilt to the level that will produce maximum sustainable
         yield (Bmsy). The SFA guidelines advise that, in most cases, the stock rebuilding period may not exceed 10
         years. The most recent stock assessment data presented by NMFS (1998) and the Dogfish Technical
         Committee indicate that total adult spiny dogfish stock biomass is currently about 280 million lbs (127,000
         mt), well below the stock biomass target of 440 million lbs (200,000 mt). As a result, the Councils propose
         to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock to the Bmsy level (as represented by the proxy of SSBrz over a ten year
         rebuilding period through the implementation of this FMP.

         The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock through a two step
         reduction in fishing mortality rate. The first step allows for a one year exit fishery of 22 million lbs (10,000
         mt) to allow a phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impact of the
         rebuilding program on both the harvest and processing sectors of the industry. For the first year of the
         rebuilding plan (1999-2000), F will be reduced to 0. 2 and then will be reduced to F = 0.03 in the remaining
         nine years'of the rebuilding plan (2000-2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the level which
         will support harvests at or near the SSBm,,, level in the year 2009.

         1.2 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES


         1.2.1 Proposed Management Measures

         The Councils are proposing a number of management measures to meet the objectives of the FMP (a
         complete description of these management measures is given in section 3.1). These preferred alternatives
         are as follows:


         1. Permit and reporting requirements for commercial vessels, operators and dealers.

         2. The establishment of a Spiny Dogfish FMP Monitoring Committee.

         3. The implementation of a framework adjustment process.



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     10







             4. A ten year stock rebuilding schedule.


             5. A commercial quota.


             6. Seasonal (semi-annual) allocation of the quota.


             7. Prohibition on finning.

             8, A limit of 80 nets (50 fathoms each) in the spiny dogfish gillnet fishery.

             1.2.2 Alternatives to the Preferred Management Actions,

             A number of alternatives to the proposed management measures have been identified by the Councils for
             consideration by the public (a complete description of these management measures is given in section 3.1).
             These non-preferred alternatives include:


             1. Take no action at this time.


             2, Alternative rebuilding schedules.

             3. A commercial quota with trip limits.


             4. A commercial quota with alternative seasonal allocations.


             5. A commercial quota with alternative size limits including a slot size limit.


             6. Limited entry program for spiny dogfish commercial fishery.
             7. A target commercial quota. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

             2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK


             2.1.1 Species Description and Distribution

             Spiny dogfish and Squalus acanthias are the accepted common and scientific names for the species
             (American Fisheries Society 1980). Spiny dogfish are also known as dogfish, horn dog, piked dogfish, and
             grayfish (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Taxonomically, they-are classified as members of the Class
             Chondrichthyes, Order Squaliformes and Family Squalidae.

             The spiny dogfish body is a common small shark which inhabits the temperate and sub-arctic latitudes of
             the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. They can be easily recognized by the presence of two dorsal
             fins, each preceded by a sharp spine and by their lack of an anal fin. The upper surface of the spiny dogfish
             is slate grey or brownish in coloration with numerous white spots which extend the length of the body,
             while the lower surface of the body varies from white to grey (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Castro 1983).

             Spiny dogfish are distributed on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. In the Northwest Atlantic, they range
             from Labrador to Florida, but are most abundant from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras (Figure 1). They
             migrate seasonally, moving north in spring and summer and south in fall and winter. The preferred
             temperature range is 451 to 55' F. Canadian research surveys indicate that spiny dogfish are distributed
             throughout the Canadian Maritimes during the summer months. The stock is concentrated in US-waters
             during the fall through spring. Spiny dogfish are considered a unit stock in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
             (US and Canadian waters)




              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    11









         2.1.2 Abundance and Present Condition


         The status of the spiny dogfish stock in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean was most recently assessed at SAW-
         26 (NMFS 1998). The results of that assessment suggest that the spiny dogfish stock in the Northwest
         Atlantic has begun to decline as a result of the recent increase in exploitation. Swept-area estimates of
         fishable biomass (defined as dogfish > 31.5 in) increased six-fold from 1969 to 1989 but have since
         declined to less than 331 million pounds (150,000 mt). NMFS research survey data documented a steady
         rise in both abundance and biomass since the early 1970's but total biomass indices of large spiny dogfish
         have already declined from about 661 million pounds (300,000 mt) in 1990 to about 331 million pounds
         (150,000 mt) in 1997, approximately equal to levels observed in the early 1 970's. However, because the
         fishery targets mature females, the estimated biomass of mature females has declined more dramatically
         (NMFS 1998). In addition, length frequency data from both US commercial landings and research surveys
         indicate a pronounced decrease in the average size of females in recent years. For example, 75% of the
         females landed in the NEFSC spring trawl survey were below the length at 50% maturity (NMFS 1998). In
         addition, the mean length of female dogfish landed in the commercial fishery has declined from 38 inches
         (97 cm) in 1982 to 33 inches (84 cm) in 1996 (Table 1).


         Recent levels of fishing mortality have exceeded the replacement level of the stock. The removal of a large
         portion of the female spawning stock since 1989 has reversed the trend of increasing mature biomass since
         the late 1970's. The NEFSC spring survey biomass index fluctuated from 13 to 67 kg1tow during 1967 to
         1979 (Table 2). Since 1979, the biomass index has ranged between 39 kg/tow in 1983 and 150 in 1990.
         The biomass index for males has fluctuated between 61 kg per tow in 1990 and 38 kg/tow in 1997. The
         male biomass index was 59 kg/tow in 1996. The female biomass has shown a greater decline during the
         1990s, declining from 89 kg/tow in 1990 to 45 kg/tow in 1997.

         Minimum biomass estimates based on swept-area estimates from NEFSC springesurveys, segregated by
         sizes (representing immature and mature female dogfish) are given in Table 3. The swept area estimate of
         female biomass between 14 and 31 inches (36 and 79 cm) increased steadily from 37.5 million pounds
         (17,000 mt) in 1980 (the first year that dogf ish captured by the research survey were recorded by sex) to
         452 million pounds (205,000 mt) in 1997. Large, mature female biomass, was over 882 million pounds
         (400,000 mt) in 1982, 1988, and 1990. Since 1990, the estimate of mature female biomass declined to
         185 million pounds (84,000 mt), the second lowest value on record since 1980.


         2.1.3 ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND STOCK CHARACTERISTICS


         2.1.3.1 Spawning and Early Life History

         Like other members of the family Squalidae, the spiny dogfish is ovoviviparous (no placenta, live bearing).
         Female dogfish first reach sexual maturity at about 26 inches (approximate age of 8 years) while males are
         first sexually mature at 24 inches (approximate age of 6 years). Nammack et al. (1985) reported the length
         and age at 50% maturity of spiny dogfish in the Northwest Atlantic to be 23.4 (59.5 cm) and 6 years for
         males and 30.6 in (77.9 cm) and 12 years for females.

         Mating takes place during the winter months in the North Atlantic. Fertilized uterine eggs become
         encapsulated in a thin, horny transparent shell known as the candle. Newly fertilized eggs remain
         encapsulated in the oviduct for 4-6 months and then develop as yolk sac embryos for the ensuing 17-19
         months. Prior to fertilization, large ovarian eggs develop over the year concurrently with the second year of
         development of the previous litter (Nammack et aL 1985). The pups are delivered after the two year
         gestation period on the offshore wintering grounds. Pups measure 8-12 inches at birth (Castro 1983).

         Litter size ranges from 2 to 15 pups (average of 6) with fecundity increasing with length (Soldat 1979).
         About 40 % of the variability in pup production may attributable to size of the parent (Nammack et aL
         1985). Soldat (1979) reported that the mean fecundity of females increased from 6.2 to 6.8 pups per
         female as average female size increased from 30.7 in (78 cm) to 38.5 in (98 cm). Nammack et aL (1985)
         found a maximum litter size of 15, with an average of 6.5 pups per female for northwest Atlantic spiny


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      12







              dogfish.

              The relationship between stock and recruitment in spiny dogfish, like other elasmobranchs, is direct, owing
              to their reproductive strategy of low fecundity combined with few, well-developed offspring (Hoenig and
              Gruber 1990). Although Holden (11977) provides some evidence that fecundity of sharks can increase as
              stock size declines, size of the female body cavity and energy considerations combine to create an upper
              limit on pup production per adult female. As a result, recruitment to the stock in spiny dogfish is directly
              related to and dependent upon the number of adult females in the stock. The direct relationship between
              adult stock and recruitment is the most critical factor in the development of a rational strategy of
              exploitation of elasmobranch stocks (Hoenig and Gruber 1990), including spiny dogfish.

              2.1.3.2 Age and Growth

              Dorsal spine circuli (concentric rings) have been used to estimate age of spiny dogfish in the Northwest
              Atlantic as well as other regions. The spiny dogfish is a long lived, slow growing species. Nammack et aL
              (1985) reported maximum ages of in the Northwest Atlantic for males and females to be 35 and 40 years,
              respectively. Holden (1977) reported a maximum age of 25 years for the European population of spiny
              dogfish. In contrast, McFarlane and Beamish (1987) reported a maximum age of 70 years in the North
              Pacific. Holden and Meadows (1962) observed ages up to 21 years in the spiny dogfish from the Northeast
              Atlantic Ocean. Ketchen (11975) reported an age of 64 years and calculated growth parameters of
              K =0.048 and Lm.,, of 125.3 cm for female spiny dogfish in the Northeast Pacific. Nammack et aL (1985)
              reported calculated growth parameters of K = 0. 106 and Lmzx = 100. 5 cm for the Northwest Atlantic
              population of spiny dogfish.

              Sexually dimorphic growth in spiny dogfish is strongly apparent. Females attain a greater size than males,
              reaching maximum lengths up to 49 inches (125 cm) and weights up to 22 lbs (10 kg).

              2.1.3.3 Length-Weight Relationship

              NMFS (1994) reported the following length weight relationships for spiny dogfish

              Females: W = exp(-1 5.0251) * L  3-6069 and

              Males: W = exp(-13.002) * L3.097787

              wher e W equals weight in kg and L equal length in cm.


              2.1.3.4 Mortality

              The instantaneous natural mortality rate (M) is defined as annual losses experienced by adult spiny dogfish
              from all natural and anthropogenic factors except commercial and recreational fishing. As for most
              elasmobranchs, natural mortality rates for spiny dogf ish are poorly known. NMFS (1994) used several
              methods to estimate M for spiny dogfish. The first method was based on estimates of maximum longevity.
              Hoenig (1983) related published natural mortality rates (M) to the maximum age ftm,,j of 83 fish stocks,
              from which he developed the following predictive equation:

                    log. (M) = 1.46 - 1.01 log,@ (tmzj.

              Based on a maximum age (t,,,,) of 50 years for spiny dogfish results in M value of 0.083 based on the
              Hoenig method.

              An estimate of M was also derived using method of Holden (1974) who proposed, that the solution of the
              equation Z'=xe 'm would provide an estimate of M for an unfished stock, where x is the expected number
              of pups produced per female per lifetime and tr, is the average age at which maturity is reached. This
              method resulted in a value of M for spiny dogfish which was inconsistent with other aspects of their biology


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     13








        and was rejected (NMFS 1994). NMFS (1994) also derived estimates of M by considering the level of
        mortality necessary to reduce the recruited population to 1 % of its initial value for different assumed
        estimates of longevity. Assuming a maximum longevity of 50 years for spiny dogfish in the Northwest
        Atlantic yields an estimate of M of 0.092, which was the value assumed for spiny dogfish greater than  12
        inches (30 cm) in the NMFS 1994 and 1998 assessments and subsequent analyses conducted by the Spiny
        Dogfish Technical Committee. This value agrees well Wood et at 0 979) and with the empirical value of
        0.083 estimated from Hoenig's (1983) equation. The value of M assumed in the current analyses (0.092) is
        too high if spiny dogfish live longer than 50 years, which may be the case.

        2.1.3.5 Food and Feeding

        Bowman et at (11984) provided an extensive examination of the diet of spiny dogf ish collected from shelf
        waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean during the period 1969-1983. The area studied included
        continental shelf waters extending from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Browns bank, Nova Scotia. The
        stomach contents of 10, 167 spiny dogf ish were examined during this period (about 50% of the stomachs
        were empty). Fish comprised the single most important prey item in the diet of spiny dogfish. Herrings
        (several species), Atlantic mackerel, American sand lance, and codfishes, including species such as Atlantic
        cod, haddock, silver hake, red hake, white hake and spotted hake were some of most important prey items
        identified. Other important contributors to the diet of spiny dogfish included Lofigo and 111ex squid,
        ctenophores, crustaceans (principally decapod shrimp and crabs) and bivalves (principally scallop viscera).
        Bowman et at 0 984) observed a high degree of variability in the diet of spiny dogfish across seasons, areas
        and years. They considered this a reflection of their omnivorous nature and the high degree of temporal and
        spatial variability of both dogfish and their prey. Their diet appears broadly related to abundance trends in
        some of their major prey items. For example, when herring abundance was declining and mackerel
        abundance appeared to be at a peak during the period 1969-1972, Bowman et at (1984) found mackerel to
        predominate in the diet of spiny dogfish. Conversely, during 1973-1976 when mackerel abundance was
        declining the incidence of mackerel in the diet of spiny dogfish was substantially reduced. The incidence of
        Loligo and Illex squid in the diet of spiny dogfish was also shown to be related to their abundance. Another
        example of the opportunistic nature of spiny dogfish feeding was the appearance of scallop viscera in their
        diet after the increase in sea scalloping in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean beginning in 1978. Bowman et at
        (1984) reported that trends in the incidence of scallop viscera in the diet of spiny dogf ish closely followed
        trends in the level of sea scallop fishing effort in the study area.

        2.1.3.6. Predators and Competitors

        As noted in the previous section, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and Loligo and Illex squid are an
        important component of the diet of spiny dogfish when they are abundant and available. As a result,  spiny
        dogfish are competitors with virtually every marine predator within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
        ecosystem. These include a wide variety of predatory fish, marine -mammals and seabirds.

        For example, bluefish, sea ravens, and the Atlantic angel shark are known to be major Lofigo predators. The
        fourspot flounder, witch flounder, roughtail stingray, and white hake are also known to prey on Lofigo. In
        many cases, squid remains in the stomach of fish are only identified as "squid" without reference to
        species. It is likely that some of these are Loligo and there are at least 42 other species of "squid"- eating
        fish in addition to those identified above (Langton and Bowman 1977). Cetacean and seabird predation
        upon squid is substantial. Kenney et at (1985) estimated that between 154,000 mt and 224,000 mt of
        squid were consumed off the northeast US annually by whales and dolphins.

        Illex are a major source of food for marine carnivores. Adults are heavily preyed on by porpoises, whales,
        and numerous pelagic fishes (e.g., tuna and swordfish). Other known predators of filex are the iourspot
        flounder, goosefish, and bluefish. 111ex is probably eaten by a substantially greater number of fish, however,
        partially digested animals are often difficult to identify and are simply recorded as squid remains, with no
        reference to the species. There are at least 47 other species of fish that are known to eat "squid" (Langton
        and Bowman 1977). As noted above, squid comprise an important component of the diet of marine birds
        and mammals (Kenney et at 1985).


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    14







              Atlantic mackerel have been identified in the stomachs of numerous species fish. They are preyed upon
              heavily by whales, dolphins, silver hake, white hake, weakfish, goosefish, Atlantic cod, bluefish, and striped
              bass. They also comprise part of the diet of swordfish, red hake, Atlantic bonito, bluefin tuna, blue shark,
              porbeagle, sea lamprey, and shortfin, mako and thresher sharks (Langton and Bowman 1977).


              2.1.4. MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD


              Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) was estimated for the Northwest Atlantic stock of spiny dogfish at SAW-
              18 (NMFS 1994). MSY could not be reliably estimated directly from a surplus production model like other
              stocks that have better catch and effort data. This approach also gives results that are conditioned on the
              exploitation pattern, which appears to be changing (the fishery has targeted smaller fish with time). In lieu
              of this approach, Applegate et aL (1998) recommended using yield-per-recruit biological reference points
              that maximize yield and protect against declines in total recruitment. Yield-per-recruit analyses do not give
              any advice on the amount of recruitment or how it changes with stock size. To estimate a stock size that
              would maximize recruitment, a stock-recruitment model was fitted to spawning stock biomass and
              recruitment observations. The stock size that would maximize average recruitment is knows as the SSBm,,x
              and is recommended was a proxy value for Bmsy or the biomass which would produce maximum sustainable
              yield. This value is estimated to be 200,000 mt and was measured as a swept-area biomass index based on
              the NMFS spring trawl survey.

              As a m aximurn fishing mortality threshold that would serve as a proxy for Fmsy, Applegate et aL 1998
              recommended adopting the fishing mortality value estimated to stabilize the female population at SSBm,,@
              while maximizing yield per recruit, also referred to as F,ep* This corresponds to a fishing mortality rate that
              would produce an average of 1.0 pup-per-recruit. Based on the yield-per-recruit analysis conducted by
              SAW 26, the fishing mortality replacement threshold would be 0.011 with a size-at-entry in the fishery of
              27.5 in (70 cm). Analyses conducted by the Spiny Dogfish Committee estimated the long term potential
              yield for spiny dogfish at this fishing mortality rate (Frep=0.1 1) to be equal to 15.5 million pounds (7000
              mt). Long term potential yield would be higher at larger size-at entry.

              2.1.5. PROBABLE FUTURE CONDITION


              The Spiny Technical Committee evaluated a number of stock rebuilding options during the development of
              this FMP for spiny dogfish using a length-based stock projection model. Included in these analyses were
              projections of stock size and yields assuming maintenance of the status quo which would mean no action.
              Under the no action alternative, the Technical Committee assumed that fishing mortality would remain at
              recent levels (F=0.3) and the size at entry to the fishery would remain at 70 cm (27.5 in). Assuming
              maintenance of the status quo (assuming F remains at the recent level of 0.3), the spiny dogfish population
              is expected to decline rapidly and projected landings (yield) would be expected to decrease by 80% within 7
              years (to less than 11 million pounds or 5,000 mt) and then decline at a slower rate. Thereafter, landings
              would gradually decline to near zero over the next 20-25 years.

              The Technical Committee also examined a suite of management options which would involve reductions in
              fishing mortality over a period of ten years (see Section 3.1). These projections indicate that if fishing
              mortality is substantially reduced and maintained at low levels, then the spiny dogfish stock can be rebuilt
              to levels which will allow sustainable harvests within a ten year planning horizon. If fishing mortality is
              reduced, then the decline in the spiny dogfish stock will be arrested and stock rebuilding will occur relatively
              quickly, especially given the slow growth and low reproductive capacity of this stock. This rebuilding can
              occur relatively quickly due to the large biomass of spiny dogfish of intermediate size which currently exists.
              Husbandry of this intermediate size group currently in the population will allow the adult female portion of
              the stock to increase and allow for subsequent stock size increases overall through increased recruitment.








                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       15









                                              2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT


         2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT


         2.2.1 Inventory of Environmental and Fisheries Data

         According to section 600.815 (a)(2)(i)(A), an initial inventory of available environmental and fisheries data
         sources relevant to the managed species should be used in describing and identifying essential fish habitat
         (EFH).


         In section 600.815 (a) (2) (i) (B), in order to identify EFH, basic inf ormation is needed on current and historic
         stock size, the geographic range of the managed species, the habitat requirements by life history stage, and
         the distribution and characteristics of those habitats.


         2.2.1.1 Range

         The spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, is a coastal squaloid shark with a circumboreal distribution. in addition
         to being the most abundant shark in the western North Atlantic, they are also one of the most highly
         migratory species of the Atlantic coast (Bigelow and Schroeder 19 53). Rago et aL (1994) report that their
         general distribution in the Northwest Atlantic is between Labrador and Florida but are most abundant from
         Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Figure 1).

         Spiny dogfish school by size until they mature and then they school by both size and sex. (Templeman
         1944, Bigelow & Schroeder 1953, Saulson 1982, Nammack et al. 1985, Silva 1993, Rago et aL 1994).
         Schools are often composed of: (1) very large, mature females; (2) medium-sized individuals, either all
         mature males or all immature females; or (3) small immature individuals of both sexes in equal numbers
         (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).

         Seasonal migrations occur northward in the spring and summer and southward in the fall'and winter (Jensen
         1965). Fish that spend the summer north of Cape Cod move southward to Long Island in the fall, and as
         far south as North Carolina in the winter (Collette and MacPhee In prep.). Winter catches in waters south of
         North Carolina were reported by Bearden (1965) and Hess 0 966) and occurrences as far south as Cuba
         were reported by Bigelow and Schroeder (1953).

         Seasonal inshore-offshore movements and coastal migrations are thermally induced (Bigelow and Schroeder
         1953, Jensen 1965). Generally, spiny dogfish spend summers in inshore waters and overwinter in deeper
         offshore waters. They are usually epibenthic, but occur throughout the water column and are found in a
         depth range from nearshore shallows to offshore shelf waters approaching -900 m (Collette and McPhee In
         prep.)

         Climate, physiographic, and hydrographic differences separate the Atlantic ocean from the Gulf of 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. These differences result in major zoogeographic faunal changes
         at Cape Hatteras. The New England region from Nantucket Shoals to the Gulf of Maine includes Georges
         Bank, one of the worlds most productive fishing grounds. The Gulf of Maine is a deep cold water basin,
         partially sealed off from the open Atlantic by Georges and Browns Banks, which fall off sharply into the
         continental shelf.


         The New England-Middle Atlantic area is fairly uniform physically and is influenced by many large coastal
         rivers and estuarine areas including Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, Narragansett
         Bay, Long Island Sound, the Hudson River, Delaware Bay, and the nearly continuous band of estuaries
         behind the barrier beaches from southern Long Island to Virginia. The southern edge of the region includes
         the estuarine complex of Currituck, Albemarle, and Pamlico Sounds, a 2500 square mile system of large
         interconnecting sounds behind the Outer Banks of North Carolina.




         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    16







              The South Atlantic region is characterized by three long crescent shaped embayments, demarcated by four
              prominent points of land, Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, and Cape Fear in North Carolina, and Cape Romain
              in South Carolina. Low barrier islands occur along the coast south of Cape Hatteras with concomitant
              sounds that are only a mile or two wide. These barriers become a series of large irregularly shaped islands
              along the coast of Georgia and South Carolina, separated from the mainland by one of the largest coastal
              salt-water marsh areas in the world. Similarly, a series of islands border the Atlantic coast of Florida. These
              barriers are separated in the north by broad estuaries, which are usually deep and continuous with large
              coastal rivers, and in the south by narrow, shallow lagoons.

              The continental shelf (characterized by water less than 650 feet 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. South of Cape Hatteras, the shelf widens to 80 miles near the Georgia-Florida border, narrows to
              35 miles off Cape Canaveral, Florida, and is 10 miles or less off the southeast coast of Florida and the
              Florida Keys. The shelf is at its narrowest, reaching seaward only 1.5 miles, off West Palm Beach, Florida.

              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. There may be a shoreward component to this drift during the warm half of
              the year and an offshore component during the cold half. The direction of this drift, fundamentally the
              result of temperature-salinity distribution, is largely determined by the wind. A persistent bottom drift at
              speeds of tenths of nautical miles per day extends from beyond mid-shelf toward the coast and eventually
              into the estuaries.


              Water temperatures range from less than 33 IF in the New York Bight in February to over 80 IF off Cape
              Hatteras in August. The vertical thermal gradient is minimized during winter. In late April to early May, a
              thermocline develops in shelf waters except over Nantucket Shoals where storm surges retard thermocline
              development. The thermocline persists through the summer until surface waters begin to cool in early
              autumn. By mid-November, surface to bottom temperature along the shelf is nearly homogeneous.

              Coastwide, an annual salinity cycle occurs as the result of freshwater stream flow and the intrusion of slope
              water from offshore. Water salinities nearshore average 32 ppt, increase to 34-35 ppt along the shelf edge,
              and exceed 36.5 ppt along the main lines of the Gulf stream.


              2.2.1.2 Status of the stock


              The Spiny dogfish stock was recently assessed at the December 1997 SARC and are currently classified as
              overfished (NMFS 1998). Figure 2 presents spiny dogfish combined commercial landings and stratified
              mean catch from spring bottom trawl surveys conducted by NMFS, NEFSC. The combined commercial
              landings (1963 - 1996) include the U.S., Canada, foreign, and U.S. recreational catches. The U.S.
              recreational catch data are unknown prior to 1980.

              The increase in total commercial landings of spiny dogfish from 1968 through 1974 was due largely to the
              foreign fleet harvest, most notably the former USSR. This foreign pressure continued through 1977. With
              the advent of the Fishery Conservation Zone (the predecessor to the renamed Exclusive Economic Zone),
              the foreign harvest dwindled to a low in 1979, but landings by the U.S. and Canada have been steadily
              increasing since then. A sharp intensification of the U.S. commercial fishery began in 1990. Estimated
              landings for 1996, in excess of 61.5 million lbs (28,000 mt), represent the highest landings since 1962.

              2.2.1.3 Habitat Requirements by life history stage

              The following information on juveniles and adult dogfish habitat requirements is taken directly from the
              document "FMP EFH Source Document, Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias Linnaeus, 17511: life history, food
              habits, status of the stock, habitat characterization, and distribution and relative abundance" (McMillan and
              Morse 1998). It does not contain information on eggs and larvae because dogfish are oviviparous (no
              placenta, live birth). The McMillan and Morse 0 998) document is referred to hereafter as the dogf ish EFH


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     17







         background document. Most of the tables and figures from McMillan and Morse (1998) are included in this
         FMP. The McMillan and Morse (1998) dogfish EFH background document is currently being modified for
         publication by NMFS and can be obtained in its entirety from NMFS, Sandy Hook Laboratory, 74 McGruder
         Road, Highlands, New Jersey 07732.

         Habitat characteristics for juvenile and adult spiny dogfish are provided in Table 4. This table includes the
         particular study, investigator, geographic area, hydrographic preference, estuarine use, and prey/predator
         selection.


         For this analysis, McMillan and Morse 0 998) assumed 32.6 in. (83cm; females) and 23.6 in. (60 cm; males)
         are the median lengths at which 50% of the individuals are mature. Individuals are classified as either
         adults or juveniles; i.e. males and females for the particular life stage were combined for distribution and
         abundance plots.


         2.2.1.3.1 Juveniles


         Habitat requirements

         Catches of juvenile spiny dogfish and their relationship to bottom water temperatures and bottom depths
         observed on NMFS, NEFSC's spring and autumn bottom trawl surveys are provided in Figure 3. During the
         spring surveys, observed bottom temperatures ranged from 34-72 1 F (1 -22'C). Juvenile spiny dogf ish
         occurred in a bottom temperature range between 37-63 1 F (3-1 70C), while most were caught in waters with
         bottom temperatures between 46-55 OF (8-130C). Trawl stations occupied during the spring had a bottom
         depth range from 16 to 440 ft (5 to 439 m). Juveniles occurred in waters with a bottom depth range
         between 23 and 1280 ft (7 and 390 m), while most were caught in waters with bottom depths between
         164 and 492 ft (50 and 150 m).


         During the autumn surveys, observed bottom temperatures ranged from 41-82 OF (5-281C).
         Juvenile spiny dogf ish occurred in waters between 41-68 ' F (5-20'C), with the majority caught in waters
         between 50-59 ' F (10-1 50C). Trawl stations occupied during this season had bottom depths ranging from
         16 to 1578 ft (5 to 481m). Juvenile spiny dogfish occurred in waters with bottom temperatures ranging
         from 39 to 1,201 ft (2 to 366m), while most were caught in waters with bottom depths between 82 and
         246 ft (25 and 75 m).


         Distribution and Abundance


         The seasonal distribution and relative abundance of juvenile spiny dogfish from the NMFS, NEFSC research
         trawl surveys are shown in Figures 4-7. The data analyzed to describe the distribution and abundance
         patterns were limited to those surveys where the sex of spiny dogfish was determined.

         The winter distribution of juvenile spiny dogfish was widespread across the shelf from North Carolina (Figure
         4). Juveniles were absent in the western portions of Georges Bank and nearly absent on Nantucket Shoals.
         The Gulf of Maine was not adequately sampled to describe juvenile distribution during this season.

         The distribution and relative abundance of juvenile spiny dogfish caught during the spring surveys are shown
         in Figure 5. Juveniles were concentrated in offshore waters from North Carolina to the eastern edge of
         Georges Bank. The highest numbers occurred along the outer shelf (200-660 ft; 60-200m). Juveniles were
         nearly absent in the northwest portion of the Gulf of Maine.

         Due to inadequate sampling during the summer surveys (i.e. the number of surveys where sex was
         determined only encompassed the Gulf of Maine and were limited to 1993-1995) McMillan and Morse
         (1998) could not summarize distribution during this season for juveniles (Figure 6).

         Autumn distribution and relative abundance for juvenile spiny dogfish is provided in Figure 7. The highest
         numbers were evident: 1) around Nantucket Shoals; 2) on Georges Bank and; 3) in waters between Lurcher


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       18







              Shoal and German Bank off the coast of Nova Scotia. It should be noted that juveniles were widespread
              throughout the Gulf of Maine.


              2.2.1.3.2 Adults


              Habitat requirements

              Catches of adult spiny dogfish, and their relationship to bottom water temperatures and bottom depths
              observed on NMFS, NEFSC spring and autumn bottom trawl surveys, are provided in Figure 3. During the
              spring surveys, bottom temperature ranged from 34-72 * F 0 -220C). Adult spiny dogf ish occurred in waters
              with a bottom temperature range between 37-630 F (3-170C), while most were caught in waters with
              bottom temperatures between 45-52 1 F (7-11 OC). Trawl stations occupied during the spring had a bottom
              depth range from 16 to 1,440 ft (5 to 439 m). Adults occurred in waters with a bottom depth range
              between 23 to 1,440 ft (7 and 439 m), while most were caught in waters with bottom depths between
              164 and 489 ft (50 and 149m).


              During the autumn surveys, bottom temperature ranged from 41-82 1 F (5-28'C). Adult spiny dogf ish
              occurred in waters with a bottom temperature range between 41-66'F (5-19'C), with the majority being
              caught in waters with a bottom temperature range between 50 -59 0 F 0 0- 1 50C). Trawl stations occupied
              during this season had bottom depths ranging from 16-1,578 ft (5- 481 m). Adults occurred in waters with
              a bottom depth range between 39-1,128 ft (1 2-344m), while most were caught in waters with bottom
              depths between 32-161 ft (10-49m).


              Distribution and Abundance


              Winter distributiorf of adult spiny dogfish was very similar to that of winter juveniles (Figures 4 and 8).
              Distribution was widespread across the shelf from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the eastern edge of
              Georges Bank. Adults were nearly absent in the New York Bight, Nantucket Shoals, and completely absent
              on the western portion of Georges Bank.

              In the spring, the distribution and relative abundance of adults were somewhat similar to that of the
              juveniles (Figures 5 and 9). High numbers of abundance were seen along the outer shelf from North
              Carolina to the northeast peak of Georges Bank, continuing onto Browns Bank. Lesser numbers occurred
              inshore from Cape Hatteras to Long Island, the western portion of Georges, and central Gulf of Maine.

              Due to inadequate sampling during the summer surveys, i.e. the number of surveys where sex was
              determined only encompassed the Gulf of Maine and were limited to 1993-1995, McMillan and Morse
              0 998) could not accurately summarize distribution during this season for adults (Figure 10).

              The distribution and relative abundance of adult spiny dogfish captured during the autumn surveys is
              provided in Figure 11. Adults were absent across the shelf from North Carolina to the area just south of the
              Hudson Canyon. Low numbers occurred along the nearshore area of Long Island. The highest abundance
              was seen off Nantucket Shoals, then north along the eastern edge of Cape Cod, and into Cape Cod and
              Massachusetts bays. Another area of high abundance occurred just southwest of Nova Scotia. To a lesser
              degree than juveniles, adults were scattered throughout the Gulf of Maine and along the northwest edge of
              Georges Bank.

              2.2.1.4 Importance of dogfish in state waters

              The primary data source for dogfish in state waters is NOAA's Estuarine Living Marine Resources Program
              (ELMR; Tables 5 and 6); while not as quantitative as the NEFSC trawl data it does describe the dogfish
              spatial (Table 5) and temporal (Table 6) relative abundance by life stage and month in the various coastal
              estuaries (Figures 12 and 13). While dogfish may be important in other states' water, currently, the only
              state data available to NMFS in a consistent electronic format is Massachusetts Inshore Trawl Survey,
              Connecticut Trawl Survey - Long Island Sound, and the NMFS Trawl Survey - Hudson-Raritan



               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        19







         Estuary/Sandy-Hook Bay. These data will not be used to designate EFH within estuaries because the data
         are not currently available in a consistent electronic format for other states. Therefore, it will only be used
         to confirm ELMR data. These data generally agree with ELIVIR presence/absence data for these estuaries.
         Habitat along the coast is generally covered because the NEFSC trawl data are presented by 10 minute
         squares and, in general, cover the entire coastal area. Data collected from other states' seine and trawl
         surveys, as it becomes available, will be incorporated in future iterations of this FMP.

         2.2.2 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat

         2.2.2.1 Methodology for description and identification

         According to section 600.815 (a)(1), FMPS must describe EFH in text and with tables that provide
         information on the biological requirements for each life history stage of the species. These tables should
         summarize all available information on environmental and habitat variables that control or limit distribution,
         abundance, reproduction, growth, survival, and productivity of the managed species. The dogfish EFH
         background document (McMillan and Morse 1998) is considered the best scientific information available in
         order to meet National Standard 2 of the MSFCMA and will form the basis of this section.


         As defined in section 3 (10) of the MSFCMA, essential fish habitat is "those waters and substrate necessary
         to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity." NMFS interprets "waters" to include aquatic
         areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may
         include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard
         bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessary" means the
         habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy
         ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle.

         A matrix of habitat parameters (i.e. temperature, salinity, light, etc.) for dogfish was developed in the
         dogfish EFH background document and included in this FMP as Table 4. Also included from the EFH
         background document are the ELMR data by dogfish life stage in major Atlantic coast estuaries (Tables 5
         and 6 and Figure 12 for juveniles and 13 for adults). Researchers at Sandy Hook Laboratory are currently in
         the process of assembling numerous state survey data  that can be used to identify EFH more quantitatively
         than the somewhat subjective means of how the ELIVIR data were derived. Currently, the Massachusetts
         Inshore Trawl Survey, Connecticut Trawl Survey of Long Island Sound, and NMFS Trawl Survey of the
         Hudson-Raritan Estuary are the only state inshore survey data available in the consistent format being
         compiled by the personnel at Sandy Hook. Due to the strict time constraints of the October-Sustainable
         Fishery Act deadline, it is unlikely that all the state data will be incorporated in this Amendment. However,
         as these and other data and -information become available on dogfish, EFH designations can be
         reconsidered; and in fact, every FIVIP must be reviewed at least every five years. It is important to
         understand that this EFH is a "work in progress", and that the process will evolve. The identification and
         description of EFH is a frameworked management provision (section 2.2.8 for process description).

         Section 600.815 (a) (2) W (C) identif ies the four levels of data and the approach that should be used. All the
         dogfish data are either Level 1 (presence/absence) or perhaps, at best, Level 2 (habitat related densities).
         No dogfish data are yet at Level 3 (growth, reproduction, and survival rates within habitats) or Level 4
         (production rates by habitat types). The Council encourages NMFS and the scientific community to collect
         more habitat associated data and to strive towards assembling data that can be precisely used for the
         quantitative identification and description of EFH.

         In section 600.815 (a)(2)(ii)(A), the Councils are directed to "interpret this information in a risk-averse
         fashion". In the next section (B), it states, "if a species is overfished, and habitat loss or degradation may
         be contributing to the species being identified as overfished, all habitats currently used by the species
         should be considered essential in addition to certain historic habitats that are necessary to support rebuilding
         the fishery and for which restoration is technologically and economically feasible."





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     20







              The Council has interpreted the above direction of interpreting the information in a "risk-averse" fashion as
              the same as the NMFS policy on risk aversion as expressed by Schaefer (1995). Schaefer (11995) states
              that, although there is no formal agency (NMFS) definition of risk-averse decision making, it is discussed in
              several NMFS publications. A succinct agency statement regarding the rationale and objectives of this type
              of decision making was presented publicly in the Strategic Plan of the National Marine Fisheries Service --
              Goals and Objectives dated 10 June 1991. This statement, according to Schaefer (1995), still represents
              the formal agency position on this issue. Under Goal 2 -- Maintain Currently Productive Fisheries, there is a
              discussion of risk-prone and risk-averse decision making. This clearly explains that the agency advocates
              risk-averse fishery management decisions because they reduce the risk of overfishing and give the benefit of
              the doubt to conservation, particularly in the face of uncertainty about the effects of management actions
              on the managed fishery resources. Also, in Our Living Oceans, December 1993, page 24, NMFS indicates
              that risk-averse decision making is a key element in the development of any improved management system,
              and that this policy means that managers should err on the side of caution with respect to long-term
              resource health when making fishery management decisions. Making such decisions based on short-term
              objectives often places the resource's long-term health at risk.


              Currently, two data sets are available for determining dogfish EFH. These data sets are Level 1 or, at best,
              Level 2 data. The data sets are: 1) NEFSC trawl survey (Level 2) and 2) ELMR data (Level 1). The limited
              state data in the dogfish background document (McMillan and Morse 1998) were also evaluated and, in
              general, agree with the ELMR data. Again, the available state data will not be used to designate EFH
              because the same level of data is not available to NEFSC Sandy Hook for all of the states.


              To identify and describe EFH offshore, the Mid-Atlantic Council is relying primarily on data and information
              derived from the NMFS bottom trawl surveys. These surveys provide the best available information on the
              distribution and relative abundance of Council-managed species in offshore waters. Precise information on
              the distribution and relative abundance in inshore areas, especially in estuaries and embayments, has been
              sparse and incomplete in most cases.

              To identify and describe EFH in state water, NOAA's Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) data will be
              used. The ELMR program has been conducted jointly by the Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA)
              Division of NOAA's Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA), NMFS, and other
              agencies and institutions. The goal of this program is to develop a comprehensive information base on the
              life history, relative abundance, and distribution of fishes and invertebrates in estuaries throughout the
              nation. The nationwide ELMR database was completed in 1994 and includes information for 135 species
              found in 122 estuaries and coastal embayments. The Jury et al, (1994) report summarizes information on
              the distribution and abundance of 58 fish and invertebrate species in 11 North Atlantic estuaries and is the
              only volume that includes dogfish. The Stone et al. (1994) report summarizes information on the
              distribution and abundance of 61 fish and invertebrate species in 14 Mid-Atlantic estuaries. The Nelson et
              al. (1991) report covers 40 fish and invertebrate species in 20 estuaries between North Carolina and Florida.
              Until all the remaining state data are completely available in a uniform format, the ELMR data for adults and
              amended ELMR data for juveniles will be used to designate EFH in estuarine areas.

              Cross (11998) produced an appendix for all the species' habitat background documents produced by Sandy
              Hook Laboratory that describes the methods used in NEFSC, state, and other surveys. Data were collected
              in these surveys on distribution and abundance of all life stages and environmental variables. The Appendix
              document covers data set 1 as identified in the above paragraph, but does not describe the ELMR data.

              The NEFSC bottom trawl surveys have been conducted in the fall since 1963 and in the spring since 1968,
              with season surveys also being conducted in summer and winter on an intermittent basis. Distribution of
              juvenile and adult fish have been identified through trawl stations that were selected in a stratified random
              design that provides unbiased estimates of fish availability to the trawl gear in relation to the distribution of
              the species. Strata were defined based on water depth, latitude, and historical fishing patterns. Station
              allotments were approximately one station per 200 square nautical miles. At each station, the total catch
              was sorted by species, and the catch of each species was weighed and measured; very large catches were
              subsampled. Geographic range extends throughout the US Atlantic EEZ north of Cape Hatteras. Full details


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        21








          of this survey are described in Cross 0 998).

          The objective of NOAA's ELMR program is the development of a consistent data base on the distribution,
          abundance, and life history characteristics of important fishes and invertebrates in the Nation's estuaries.
          The Nation-wide data base is divided into five study regions, of which dogfish are included in one (North
          Atlantic) of the three (Mid-Atlantic and Southeast) Atlantic study regions. The data base contains the
          monthly relative abundance of each species' life stage by estuary for three salinity zones (seawater, mixing,
          and tidal fresh). Data collection was extensive, peer reviewed, evaluated relative to its reliability, but is also
          somewhat subjective. This subjectivity has generated some anxiety on the part of research scientists and is
          the main reason that, when the compilation of all the state data is completed in a consistent format, the
          quantitative state survey data will likely replace the ELMR data. However, at this time, ELIVIR data do meet
          National Standard 2 and are very important in describing essential dogfish habitat in the estuaries.

          Currently, there is almost no data on dogfish south of Cape Hatteras, although they range to Florida. The
          Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a NMFS-sponsored survey conducted by
          the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Data were collected from trawl surveys of coastal
          habitats between Cape Hatteras and Cape Canaveral from 1986 through 1996. Collections were made at
          randomly selected sites in predefined strata. During the 1986 through 1989 pilot phase of t     he survey, 19
          strata were sampled. In 1989, five additional strata were added to the southern end of the study area, and
          each of the 24 strata was divided into an inshore and offshore stratum. Much less effort is. expended and
          less data collected in this survey in comparison to the much longer time series NEFSC trawl surveys. Cross
          0 998) details the SEAMAP program. While this data set has not yet been analyzed for dogfish, dogfish
          have been caught by this survey in various years. This information will not be used to designate EFH at this
          time, only to confirm its presence south of Cape Hatteras.

          2.2.2.1.1 Five alternative approaches for describing EFH considered by the Mid-Atlantic Technical Team

          The Mid-Atlantic EFH Technical Team developed alternatives to designate EFH for consideration by the
          Council, as a result of a meeting with several ecologists at the Sandy Hook Laboratory in February 1998.
          The alternatives were initially developed for bluefish, because the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan was
          the first plan to be amended with the EFH requirements of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act.
          However, the same concepts will apply to all other Council-managed species. At this meeting, five
          alternatives for EFH identification recommendations were discussed for bluefish. These alternatives were to
          provide the basis for evaluation of the other Council managed species. These five bluefish alternatives
          were: 1) no action (NEPA requirement); 2) 100% of area where overfished resources occur; 3) the
          "bottleneck" concept as identified in the bluefish EFH background document where a critical area may
          restrict recruitment; 4) identification of EFH based on temperature or other key environmental requirement;
          and 5) objective criteria using some percentage of the distribution, i.e. 50%, 75%, 90%, or 100% (Cross
          1998). The following is a discussion for dogfish of the various alternatives and how they were approached
          with the Level 2 data (NEFSC trawl survey).

          1 .    The "no action" alternative is included in the FMP because it is required by NEPA (National
                 Environmental Policy Act), but it is not viewed by the Council as defensible. This alternative, or no
                 EFH designation, could not meet the Congressional mandate identified in the 1996 reauthorized
                 Magnuson-Stevens Act. With this alternative, there would be no stock improvement associated
                 with the conservation of essential fish habitat.


          2.     The second alternative (100% of the distribution) would conform with the 1997 proposed EFH rule's
                 criteria of listing all habitat where an overfished resource occurs as EFH. This alternative is
                 supportable under the Interim Final Rule (1998) with only Level I data (i.e. presence/absence);
                 however, there is Level 2 data available for dogfish. This alternative is also defensible if an
                 association between the overfished status of the resource and the loss of essential habitat can be
                 identified. However, no such association has been identified for dogfish.

          3.     The third alternative, identify bottlenecks in a history stage or to recruitment, is not applicable


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        22







                      because no such bottlenecks are identified in the dogfish EFH background document.

              4.      The alternative 4 approach of identifying EFH based on key environmental requirements is not
                      possible because of the lack of good quantitative habitat and environmental data corresponding to
                      relative abundance of dogfish.

              5.      Finally, the use of some objective criteria, e.g. identifying some distributional percentage of the
                      catches by area, seemed the only logically defensible position. For EFH designations based on Level
                      2 data, it is assumed that high value areas are those that support the highest density or relative
                      abundance. This approach is supported by the technical guidance manual when Level 2 data (e.g.,
                      NEFSC Atlantic trawl survey) are available (USDC 1998).


              2.2.2.1.2 Viable alternatives from the five alternatives identified above


              Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, above were eliminated by the Council from consideration. Alternative 1 simply
              because the no action alternative would not meet the Congressional mandate. Alternatives 3 and 4 may
              prove useful in the future but were presently eliminated because of the lack of data at the current time
              (McMillan and Morse 1998). While the public may comment on any of the above considered five
              alternatives, or any other means of identifying EFH, the Council considered only alternatives 2 and 5 viable.
              In actuality, alternative 2 (100% of the distribution) is one of the options under alternative 5.

              The Council seriously considered using Alternative 2 (100% of the distribution) because dogfish has been
              identified as overfished. When the initial EFH guidelines were proposed in 1997, EFH for overfished species
              was to be identified as wherever the resource occurred. The Council, commenting on those guidelines in
              1997, suggested that the Secretary should establish rules on how much of the total habitat should really be
              declared EFH. The relevant, nation-wide question is how much habitat is necessary to maintain a healthy
              stock. The Council also considered using 100% because of the language in section 600.815 (a)(2)(ii)(B),
              where it states, "if a species is overfished, and habitat loss or degradation may be contributing to the
              species being identified as overfished, all habitats currently used by the species should be considered
              essential in addition to certain historic habitats that are necessary to support rebuilding the fishery and for
              which restoration is technologically and economically feasible."

              The Council did not really want to identify all areas where dogfish are found as EFH; thus they endorsed the
              concept of the Technical Team to use some objective criteria of less than 100% (Alternative 5) when
              supported by Level 2 data. The Technical Team, after meeting with the bluefish experts, suggested that,
              for overfished species, 90% of the area where they occur be designated EFH, while, when the resource is
              fully utilized or under utilized, that 75% be designated as EFH.., Where only Level 1 (as in the South
              Atlantic) data are available, the Council has decided to identify 100% of the area in order to be risk averse.
              The Guidelines instruct that, when using Level 1 data, "EFH-can be inferred on the basis of distributions
              among habitats where the species has been found and on information on its habitat requirements and
              behavior."


              The Technical Team, Habitat Committee, Habitat Advisors, and Scientific and Statistical Committee all
              considered the five alternatives and concluded that the objective criteria (Alternative 5) was the most
              reasonable means for identifying and describing EFH for bluefish, and this same logic was applied to
              dogfish. The Council deems this approach to be reasonable until delineation with Level 3 and Level 4 data
              can be available. As more information is amassed, the EFH areas delineated can be increased or reduced, as
              necessary, since the description and identification provision of EFH is one of the provisions of the FMP that
              is frameworked (section 2.2.8).

              2.2.2.1.3 Options for calculation of EFH under the objective criteria -- alternative 5

              Options under Alternative 5, the preferred alternative, are based on the relative densities and areas of higher
              concentrations of shellfish. Maps of EFH designation options are provided for each gender and life history
              stage (juveniles and adults; Figures 14a-b and 1 5a-b). The maps presented display the distribution and



               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      23








         abundance data by ten minute squares. This is the most efficient and understandable spatial scale. The
         data can easily be compared to other data sets, information from the fishing industry, and existing
         management analyses. The New England Fishery Management Council is approaching the identification and
         description of EFH in a similar manner with the assistance of the NEFSC. Four options were considered for
         Level 2 data (offshore areas north of Cape Hatteras) using the objective criteria (Figures 14a-b and 1 5a-b):

         1. The top two quartiles (50% of the observations);

         2. The top three quartiles (75% of the observations);


         3. 90% of the observations; or


         4. 100% of the observations, or the entire observed range of the resource from the surveys.

         The "preferred" alternative for EFH designation using these data was chosen to be the highest 90% of the
         area where juvenile and adult dogfish were caught NEFSC trawl surveys. The CPUE and logged CPUE
         methods were not chosen because they tend to undervalue the area that is essential to dogfish.

         The Level 2 data that are summarized in the ten minute square maps came from the NEFSC trawl survey.
         Data were assigned to a ten minute square based on the location of the dredge tow sample. Only those
         squares that had more than four samples and one positive catch were selected (Cross pers. comm.). Catch
         data were transformed Un(catch + 1)], and the mean of the transformed data was calculated for each ten
         minute square. Initially, the catch data were explored three different ways: 1) as straight ranked CPUE; 2)
         as ranked In CPUE; and 3) as ranked In CPUE by area (Figure 16a-b for juveniles and adults).

         The ten minute squares were ranked from high to low based on the mean catch. A total abundance index
         was calculated for the entire data set by summing the mean catch for all squares. The cumulative
         proportion of the total abundance index was calculated for the ranked ten minute squares beginning with
         the lowest rank (equals highest catch). Cutoff points at 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100% of the total
         abundance index were identified, and the squares at each of these cutoff points for each life stage were
         mapped (Figures 14a-b and 15a-b). These groupings (50%, 75%, 90%, and 100%) represent areas of
         decreasing average density and increasing area.


         To create the EEZ maps, habitat-related density data (catch-per-unit-ef fort data, or CPUE) from the NEFSC
         trawl survey data were binned into squares, each square being 10 minutes of longitude by 10 minutes of
         latitude. Squares with less than 4 tows were dropped from further analyses. The CPUE data within the
         squares were log transformed [In (CPUE + 1)), and the mean was calculated for each 1 0-minute square.
         Based on this mean, the squares with at least one positive catch were ranked in descending order, and the
         number of squares cumulatively summed, with the assumption that areas (squares) of the highest value in
         regard to EFH contained the highest densities of fish. The 10-minute squares contained in the top 50%,
         75%, 90%, and 100% of this summation were then mapped separately onto the grid of squares to give
         percent of area occupied by dogfish for each of the cutoff points (Figures 14a-b and 1 5a-b).

         This approach is fraught with limitations and based on major assumptions, but it is a scientifically objective
         approach that is based on the best available information. The NEFSC trawl survey does not survey
         everywhere that dogfish range, and thus, this analyzes is constrained and significantly biased low. State
         and inshore surveys, for the most part, either do not exist or are not in format comparable currently to
         NMFS data. None of the surveys collect the habitat information that is most needed (habitat type,
         substrate, biological associations, etc.). Additional sources of information (fishermen, historical, etc.) are
         sparse, difficult to verify, and largely anecdotal. However, public involvement in identifying and describing
         EFH is also solicited during the public hearing process.


         However, even while faced with these limitations, we can be reasonably assured of where most of the
         dogfish tend to be and where they tend to occur in higher concentrations. This is the first step toward      a
         complete designation of EFH. Thus, for the current amendment process, the Council can designate EFH


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       24







              based on the limited information available and set the stage for gathering new and better information. This
              additional information will help us eliminate the limitations of the current process and either verify or
              discredit the assumptions used.

              One important thing to remember is that this is not the last step in the process, but that the public, Habitat
              Advisors, Habitat Committee, and the Council will have the opportunity to review and if necessary, modify
              these EFH designations. During the public hearing process, the public will be asked to comment on these
              designations and be able to provide additional available information. Following public review, the Council
              will have the opportunity to modify the EFH designations based on input gathered during this process.
              According to the Interim Final Rule, NMFS is required to provide their recommendation for the EFH
              designations, as well.

              The Council chose the preferred alternative to be the highest 90% of the area (ranked by CPUE, for the
              offshore Level 2 data, NEFSC) because it is the most inclusive and thus the most risk averse without going
              to 100% of the dogfish distribution. Remember that dogfish are significantly overfished. While there is
              Level 2 data for offshore areas north of Cape Hatteras from the NEFSC trawl survey, all of the problems
              identified above reflect the low survey bias; therefore, the offshore areas are likely a minimum designation
              for EFH. The Council made the decision on the description of EFH (the highest 90% of the area where
              dogfish were collected) with the above factors in mind at the June Council meeting. The Council also
              decided to use the highest 90% of the area for both juveniles and adults for the designation of EFH since
              there was no readily apparent significant differences by life stage. There is not current information to
              support that any life stage appears specifically limiting in terms of an ecological bottleneck-type habitat
              association, and to maintain consistency the Council concluded there was no justification for different
              percentages by life stage. The Council is soliciting comments from the public on the appropriate
              percentages used for describing EFH where Level 2 data are available. Maps of the juvenile and adult
              dogfish with the associated percentages of offshore EFH designation are in Figures 14a-b for juveniles, and
              1 5a-b for adults.


              The actual area (number of 10 minute squares) for each of the standardized percentage (50%, 75%, 90%,
              and 100%), as well as corresponding variable percentages with catch for both life stages (juveniles and
              adults), are presented in Tables 7a-b. For example, Table 7b shows that the highest 90% of the catch of
              adult dogfish were caught within 27% of the area (approximately 230 out of the 850 ten minute squares)
              where dogfish were caught, while the highest 90% of the area would encompass 765 out of the 850 ten
              minute squares where dogfish were caught. The logged catch analysis was not included in Tables 7a-b
              because its area is consistently between the area and catch analyses (Figure 1 6a-b for the two life stages).
              The guidelines [Section 600.815 (a)(2)(C)(2)] state that, "Density data should reflect habitat utilization, and
              the degree that a habitat is utilized is assumed to be indicative of that habitat value." The Technical
              Guidance manual (USDC 1997a) continues to explain that "EFH is the area of moderate to high abundance.
              However, under certain conditions, habitats of low to moderate abundance may contribute to enough of the
              overall species productivity (e.g., reduced population size, when current population size of the species or
              stock is below historic levels)." Again, the Council selected one of the more inclusive approaches in its
              designation of offshore EFH because the surveys are inherently biased low for dogfish, and it will require
              management measures to rebuild this resource in the mandated 10 year time frame.

              The only data presently available for dogfish south of Cape Hatteras are the SEAMAP data, which have not
              been summarized or analyzed in McMillan and Morse (1998). As mentioned earlier, the state data are now
              being put into a consistent, usable electronic format by the NEFSC and should be available for the next
              iteration of EFH amendments.- The guidelines instruct that when using Level 1 data, "EFH can be inferred
              on the basis of distributions among habitats where the species has been found and on information about its
              habitat requirements and behavior." Therefore, in an effort to be risk averse and to follow the guidelines for
              Level 1 data, all waters with the same habitat parameters that are important to dogfish north of Cape
              Hatteras (i.e., epibenthic waters with same depth, temperature, and salinity) from Cape Hatteras, North
              Carolina to Florida will be designated as EFH (Figure 17). The purpose of identifying a broad area south of
              Cape Hatteras as EFH is so that any project proponents should document the distribution and abundance of
              dogfish in the areas that may be impacted with their activities. The Council is eagerly soliciting public



               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       25








         comments on EFH designation in the South Atlantic because the offshore SEAMAP data are much less
         complete than offshore trawl data for the area north of Cape Hatteras.

         The best available data to identify EFH for juvenile and adult dogfish in estuarine areas are the ELIVIR data
         (Tables 5 and 6, and Figures 12 and 13; Jury et aL 1994). In order to continue its risk averse approach to
         EFH, the Council concluded that all estuaries where juvenile and adult dogfish are listed as "common" or
         "abundant" will be designated as EFH (Table "7). While dogfish are not estuarine dependent, the ELMR data
         do show that juveniles and adults are "common" and/or "abundant" in most New England estuaries, thus
         the "seawater" (defined by ELMR as>25 ppt) portion of the estuaries will be designated as EFH.

         Since it is an overfished species, and the fishery management unit extends south to Florida, but no offshore
         data are available south of Cape Hatteras, all waters with the same habitat parameters as north of Cape
         Hatteras, North Carolina will be designated as EFH. Since no estuarine data are available south of Cape Cod
         Bay, Massachusetts, but juveniles and adults and have been caught in the southern estuaries, all estuaries
         with the same habitat parameters as those north of Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts will be designated as
         dogfish EFH.

         2.2.2.2 Specific description and identification of dogfish essential fish habitat

         In general, EFH for dogfish is designated as those areas within federal waters (out to the offshore boundary
         of the EEZ) of the Atlantic Ocean north of Cape Hatteras that encompass the highest 90% of the area
         where juvenile and adult dogfish were collected in the NEFSC trawl survey (Figures 18 through 19), and
         100% of those areas south of Cape Hatteras (out to the offshore boundary of the EEZ) through Florida, with
         the same habitat parameters (temperature, salinity, etc.) as the areas designated north of Cape Hatteras
         (Figure 17), and the major estuaries where juvenile and adult dogfish are designated as "common" and
         "abundant" ELMR data (Table 8 and Figures 12 and13). Specifically, the Council preferred descriptions of
         EFH by life stage at this time are:

                Juveniles: EFH ranges from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina across the
                Continental Shelf in areas that encompass the highest 90% of the area where juvenile dogfish were
                collected in the NEFSC trawl surveys. South of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina through Florida , EFH
                is the Continental Shelf waters with the same habitat parameters as north of Cape Hatteras.
                Generally, dogfish are collected in depths between 33 ft and 1,280 ft and temperatures between
                37'F and 68'F. EFH is also the "seawater" portions of all the estuaries where dogfish are common
                or abundant on the Atlantic coast, from Passamaquaddy Bay, Maine to Cape Cod Bay,
                Massachusetts, generally in water temperatures ranging between 370F an   d 820F.

                Adults: EFH ranges from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina across the
                Continental Shelf in areas that encompass the highest 90% -of the area where adult dogf ish were
                collected in the NEFSC trawl surveys. South of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina through Florida , EFH
                is the Continental Shelf waters with the same habitat parameters as north of Cape Hatteras.
                Generally, dogfish are collected in depths between 33 ft and 1,476 and temperatures between 370F
                and 661F. EFH is also the "seawater" portions of all the estuaries where dogfish are common or
                abundant on the Atlantic coast, from Passamaquaddy Bay, Maine to Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts,
                generally in water temperatures ranging between 37'F and 82*F.

         Finally, the MAFMC solicits input from the public on where they perceive EFH for dogfish should be
         designated. (Figures 20 and 21 are blank and can be submitted to the Executive Director of the MAFMC at
         the address on the cover of this FMP.)


         2.2.2.2.1 Identification of habitat areas of particular concern

         According to section 600.815 (a)(9), FMPs should identify habitat areas of particular concern (HAPQ within
         EFH where one or more of the following criteria must be met: (i) ecological function, (ii) sensitive to human-
         induced environmental degradation, (iii) development activities stressing, or (iv) rarity of habitat.


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     26







              The MAFMC is not recommending any area as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern for dogfish at this time.
              The Council may designate HAPC as more data become available.

              2.2.3 Fishing Activities that May Adversely Affect EFH

              According to section 600.815 (a)(3), adverse effects from fishing may include physical, chemical, or
              biological alterations of the substrate, and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their
              habitat, and other components of the ecosystem. FMPs must include management measures that minimize
              adverse effects on EFH from fishing, to the extent practicable, and identify conservation and enhancement
              measures. Councils must act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing, to the
              extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing practice is having an identifiable adverse effect on EFH.

              The following is a summary of general impacts of mobile fishing gear from the report "Indirect Effects of
              Fishing" (Auster and Langton 1998).


              The discussion of the wide range of effects of fishing on EFH is based on the definition of EFH within the
              Act and the technical guidance produced by NMFS to implement the Act. The Act defines EFH as "those
              waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the
              purpose of interpreting the definition (and for defining the scope of this report), "waters" is interpreted by
              NMFS as "aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by
              fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate" and "substrate" is defined to include
              sediment, hard bottom, structures, and associated biological communities. These definitions provide
              substantial flexibility in defining EFH based on our knowledge of the different species, but also allows EFH
              to be interpreted within a broader ecosystem perspective. Disturbance has been defined as "any discrete
              event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure and changes resources, substrate
              availability, or the physical environment" (Pickett and White 1985). From an ecological perspective, fishing
              with fixed mobile gear is the most widespread form of direct disturbance in marine systems below depths
              which are affected by storms (Watling and Norse 1997). Disturbance can be caused by many natural
              processes such as currents, predation, iceberg scour (Hall 1994). Human caused disturbance can result
              from activities such as harbor dredging and fishing with mobile gear. Disturbance can be gauged by both
              intensity (as a measure of the force of disturbance) and severity (as a measure of impact on the biotic
              community). Table 9 summarizes the relative effects of the range of agents which produce disturbances in
              marine communities.


              One of the most difficult aspects of estimating the extent of impacts on EFH is the lack of high resolution
              data on the distribution of fishing effort. Fishers are often resistant to reporting effort based on locations of
              individual tows or sets (for the obvious reason of divulging productive locations to competitors and
              regulators). Effort data in many fisheries are apportioned to particular statistical areas for monitoring
              purposes. Using this type of data it, has been possible to obtain averages of effort, and subsequent
              extrapolations of area impacted, for larger regions.

              Trawling effort in the Middle Atlantic Bight off the northeast U.S. was summarized by Churchill (1989).
              Trawled area estimates were extrapolated from fishing effort data in 30 minute latitude x 30 minute
              longitude grids. The range of effort was quite variable, but the percent area impacted in some blocks off
              southern New England was over 200% with one block reaching 413%. Estimating the spatial impact of
              fixed gears is even more problematic. For example, during 1996 there were 2,690,856 lobster traps fished
              in the state of Maine (Maine Department of Marine Resources unpublished data). These traps were hauled
              on average every 4.5 d, or 81.4 times year-'. Assuming a 1 m' footprint for each trap, the area impacted
              was 219 kM2*    If each trap was dragged across an area three times the footprint during set and recovery,
              the area impacted was 657 kml. A lack of data on the extent of the area actually fished makes analysis of
              the impacts of fishing on EFH in those fisheries difficult.

              Auster and Langton (1998) summarize and interpret the current scientific literature on fishing impacts as
              they relate to fish habitat. These studies are discussed within three broad subject areas: effects on
              structural components of habitat, effects on benthic community structure, and effects on ecosystem level


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       27








         processes. The interpretation is based on commonalities and differences between studies. Fishing gear
         types are discussed as general categories (e.g., trawls, dredges, fixed gear). The necessity for these
         generalizations is based on two over-riding issues: (1) many studies do not specify the exact type and
         configuration of fishing gear used, and (2) each study reports on a limited range of habitat types. However,
         their interpretation of the wide range of studies is based on the type and direction of impacts, not absolute
         levels of impacts. Auster and Langton (1998) do not address the issues of bycatch (Alverson et aL 1994),
         mortality of gear escapees (Chopin and Arimoto 1995), or ghost fishing gear (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, p.
         11-12 and references therein), as these issues do not directly relate to fish habitat, and recent reviews have
         been published which address these subjects.

         Impacts of fishing on fish habitat Muster and Langton 1998) include the following:

         1. Effects on structural components of habitat;

         2. Effects on community structure; and


         3. Effects of ecosystem processes.


         2.2.3.1 Effects on structural components of habitat

         Habitat has been defined as "the structural component of the environment that attracts organisms and
         serves as a center of biological activity" (Peters and Cross 1992). Habitat in this case is defined as the
         range of sediment types (i.e., mud through boulders), bed forms (e.g., sand waves and ripples, flat mud), as
         well as the co-occurring biological structures (e.g., shell, burrows, sponges, seagrass, macroalgae, coral). A
         review of 22 studies (Table 10) all show measurable impacts of mobile gear on the structural components of
         habitat (e.g., sand waves, emergent epifauna, sponges, coral), when defining habitat at this spatial scale.
         Results of each of the studies show similar classes of impacts despite the wide geographic range of the
         studies (i.e., tropical to boreal). In summary, mobile fishing gear reduced habitat complexity by: (1) directly
         removing epifauna or damaging epifauna leading to mortality, (2) smoothing sedimentary bedforms and
         reducing bottom roughness, and (3) removing taxa which produce structure (i.e., taxa which produce
         burrows and pits). Studies which have addressed both acute and chronic impacts have shown the same
         types of effects.


         Some species with dernersal life history stages have obligate habitat requirements or recruitment
         bottlenecks (without the specific structural components populations of fishes with these habitat
         requirements would not persist). Few published accounts of the impacts of fixed gears on habitat have
         been written. Eno et aL (1996) studied the effects of crustacean traps in British and Irish waters. One
         experiment assessed the effects of setting and hauling pots on emergent epifaunal species (i.e., sea pens)
         on soft bottom. Both impacts from dragging pots across the bottom, and pots resting for extended periods
         on sea pens, showed the group was able to mostly recover from such disturbances. Limited qualitative
         observations of fish traps, longlines, and gill nets dragged across the seafloor during set and recovery
         showed results similar to mobile gear such that some types of epibenthos was dislodged, especially
         emergent species such as erect sponge and coral (High 1992, SAFMC 1991). While the area impacted per
         unit of effort is smaller for fixed gear than with mobile fishing gear, the types of damage to emergent
         benthos appear to be similar (but not necessarily equivalent per unit effort). Quantitative studies of fixed
         gear effects, based on acute and chronic impacts, have not been conducted.

         The issue of defining pelagic habitats and elucidating effects of fishing is difficult because these habitats are
         poorly described at the scales that allow for measurements of change based on gear use. While pelagic
         habitat can be defined based on temperature, light intensity, turbidity, oxygen concentration, currents,
         frontal boundaries, and a host of other oceanographic parameters and patterns, there are few published data
         that attempt to measure change in any of these types of parameters or conditions concurrently with fishing
         activity and associations of fishes. Kroger and Guthrie (11972) showed that menhaden (Brevoortia patronus
         and B. tyrannus) were subjected to greater predation pressure, at least from visual predators, in clear versus
         turbid water, suggesting that turbid habitats were a greater refuge from predation. This same type of


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       28







             pattern was found for menhaden in both naturally turbid waters and in the turbid plumes, generated by
             oyster shell dredging activities (Harper and Hopkins 1976). However, no work has been published that
             addresses the effects of variation in time and space of the plumes or the effects using turbid water refugia
             on feeding and growth. There are also examples of small scale aggregations of fishes with biologic
             structures in the water column and at the surface. Aggregations of fishes may have two effects on
             predation patterns by: (1) reducing the probability of predation on individuals within the aggregation, and (2)
             providing a focal point for the activities of predators (a cue that fishermen use to set gear). For example,
             small fishes aggregate under mats of Sargassum (e.g., Moser et al. 1998) where high density vessel traffic
             may dis-aggregate mats. Also, fishes have been observed to co-occur with aggregations of gelatinous
             zooplankton and pelagic crustaceans (Auster et aL 1992, Brodeur in press). Gelatinous zooplankton are
             greatly impacted as they pass through the mesh of either mobile or stationary gear (unpublished
             observations), which may reduce the size and number of aggregations and disperse associated fishes.
             These changes could reduce the value of aggregating, resulting in increased mortality or reduced feeding
             efficiency.

             Lack of information on the small scale distribution and timing of fishing make it difficult to ascribe the
             patterns of impacts observed in field studies to specific levels of fishing effort. Auster et al. 0 996)
             estimated that between 1976 and 1991, Georges Bank was impacted by mobile gear (i.e., otter trawl,
             roller-rigged trawl, scallop dredge) on average between 200-400% of its area on an annual basis and the
             Gulf of -Maine was impacted 100% annually. However, fishing effort was not homogeneous. Sea sampling
             data from NMFS observer coverage demonstrated that the distribution of tows was nonrandom. While
             these data represent less than 5% of overall fishing effort, they illustrated that the distribution of fishing
             gear impacts is quite variable.

             Recovery of the habitat following trawling is difficult to predict as well. Timing, severity, and frequency of
             the impacts all interact to mediate processes which lead to recovery (Watling and Norse 1997). For
             example, sand waves may not be reformed until storm energy is sufficient to produce bedform transport of
             coarse sand grains (Valentine and Schmuck 1995), and storms may not be common until a particular time of
             year or may infrequently reach a particular depth, perhaps only on decadal time scales. Sponges are
             particularly sensitive to disturbance because they recruit aperiodically and are slow growing in deeper
             waters (Reiswig 1973, Witman and Sebens 1985, Witman et aL 1993). However, many species such as
             hydroids and ampelescid amphipods reproduce once or twice annually, and their stalks and tubes provide
             cover for the early benthic phases of many fish species and their prey (e.g., Auster et al. 1996, 1997b).
             Where fishing effort is constrained within particular fishing grounds, and where data on fishing effort is
             available, studies which compare similar sites along a gradient of effort have produced the types of
             information on effort-impact that will be required for effective habitat management (e.g., Collie et aL 1996,
             1997; Thrush et aL in press).


             The role these impacts on habitat have on harvested populations is unknown in most cases. However, a
             growing body of empirical observations and modeling demonstrate that effects can be seen in population
             responses at particular population levels. For example, Lindholm et aL (1998) have modeled the effects of
             habitat alteration on the survival of 0-year cohorts of Atlantic cod. The model results indicate that a
             reduction in habitat complexity has measurable effects on population dynamics when the adult stock is at
             low levels (i.e., when spawning and larval survivorship does not produce sufficient recruits to saturate
             available habitats). At high adult population levels, when larval abundance may be high and settling
             juveniles would greatly exceed habitat availability, predation effects would not be mediated by habitat, and
             no effect in the response of the adult population to habitat change was found.

             Empirical studies that most directly link changes due to gear impacts changes on habitat structure to
             population responses are being carried out in Australia. Sainsbury 0 987,1988, and 199 1) and Sainsbury et
             aL (In press) have shown a very tight coupling between a loss of emergent epifauna and fish productivity
             along the north west continental shelf. In these studies, there was a documented decline in the bycatch of
             invertebrate epifauna, from 500 kg/hr to only a few kg/hr, and replacement of the most commercially
             desirable fish associated with the epifaunal communities by less valuable species associated with more open
             habitat. By restricting fishing, the decline in the fish population was reversed. This corresponded to an


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     29







         observed recovery in the epifaunal community,, albeit the recovery for the larger epifaunal invertebrates
         showed a considerable lag time after trawling ceased. This work is based on a management framework
         which was developed to test hypotheses regarding the habitat dependence of harvested species. The
         hypotheses, described in Sainsbury (1988 and 199 1), assessed whether population responses were the
         result of: (1) independent single-species (intraspecific) responses to fishing and natural variation, (2)
         interspecific interactions such that, as specific populations are reduced by fishing, non-harvested
         populations experienced a competitive release, (3) interspecific interactions such that, as non-harvested
         species increase from some external process, their population inhibits the population growth rate of the
         harvested species, and (4) habitat mediation of the carrying capacity for each species, such that gear
         induced habitat changes alter the carrying capacity of the area.

         2.2.3.2 Effects on community structure

         An immediate reduction in the density of non-target species is commonly reported following impact from
         mobile gear (Table 11). In assessing this effect, it is common to compare numbers and densities for each
         species before and after trawling and/or with an undisturbed reference site.

         Time series data sets that allow for a direct long-term comparison of before and after fishing are essentially
         nonexistent, primarily because the extent to which the worlds oceans are currently fished was not foreseen,
         or because time series data collection focused on the fish themselves rather than the impact of fishing on
         the environment. Nevertheless, there are several benthic data sets that allow for an examination of
         observational or correlative comparisons before and after fishing (Table 12). Long-term effects of fishing
         included reduced densities of certain types of macrobenthos including sponges, coelenterates, bivalves, as
         well as seagrass meadows and increases in taxa such as polychaete. Other shifts occurred; for example, a
         decline in sea urchins to an increase in brittle stars, a decline in deposit feeders and an increase in
         suspension feeders and carnivores, as well as a decline in animal size.

         Data sets on the order of months to a few years are more typical of the longer term studies on trawling
         impacts on benthic community structure. Otter trawl door marks were visible for 2 to 7 months with no
         sustained significant impact on the benthic community noted at high energy locations. In the lower energy
         muddy sand location, there was a loss in surficial sediments and lowered food quality of the sediments.
         The subsequent variable recovery of the benthic community over the following six months correlated with
         the sedimentary food quality which was measured as microbial populations, chlorophyll "a" and enzyme
         hydrolizable amino acids. While some taxa recolonized the impacted areas quickly, the abundances of some
         taxa (i.e., cumaceans, phoxocephalid and photid amphipods, nephtyid polychaetes) did not recover until
         food quality also recovered.

         The most consistent pattern in fishing impact studies at shallow depths is the resilience of the benthic
         community-to fishing. Most studies demonstrate that most taka recover from the effe    .cts of trawling within
         months to years. These taxa include worms, bivalves, sea grass, and crustacea. In the case of the most
         intense trawling, seagrass beds did not recover after two years. Sometimes the community may shift to
         less commercially desirable species. In experimentally closed areas, there has been a recovery of fish and
         an increase in the small benthos but, based on settlement and growth of larger epifaunal animals, it may
         take 15 years for a system to recover. Two studies in the intertidal, harvesting worms and clams using
         suction and mechanical harvesting gear demonstrated a substantial immediate effect on the macrofaunal
         community but from seven months to two years later, the study sites had recovered to pre-trawled
         conditions (Beukema 1995, Kaiser and Spencer 1996). In a South Carolina estuary, Van Dolah et aL (11991)
         found no long term effects of trawling on the benthic community. The study site was assessed prior to and
         after the commercial shrimp season and demonstrated variation over time, but no trawling effects per se.
         Other studies of pre and post impacts from mobile gear on sandy to hard bottoms have generally shown
         similar results (Currie and Parry 1996, Gibbs et aL 1980, MacKenzie 1982), with either no or minimal long
         term impact detectable.

         Clearly, the long-term effects of fishing on benthic community structure are not easily characterized. The
         pattern that does appear to be emerging from the available literature is that communities that are subject to


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      30







              variable environments, and are dominated by short-lived species, are fairly resilient. Depending on the
              intensity and frequency of fishing, the impact of such activity may well fall within the range of natural
              perturbations. In communities which are dominated by long-lived species in more stable environments, the
              impact of fishing can be substantial and longer term. In cases such as described in Auster and Langton
              (1998) for Strangf ord Loch and the Australian shelf, recovery from trawling will be on the order of decades.
              In many areas, these patterns correlate with shallow and deep environments. However, water depth is not
              the single variable that can be used to characterize trawling impacts.

              There are few studies that describe fishing impacts on soft muddy bottom communities or deep areas at the
              edge of the continental shelf. Such sites would be expected to be relatively low energy zones, similar to
              Strangford Loch, and might not recover rapidly from fishing disturbance. Studies in these relatively stable
              environments are required to pattern fishing impacts over the entire environmental range but, in anticipation
              of such results, it is suggested here that one should expect a tighter coupling between fish production and
              benthic community structure in the more stable marine environments.

              2.2.3.3 Effects on ecosystem processes

              A number of studies indicate that fishing has measurable effects on ecosystem processes. Disturbance by
              fishing gear in relatively shallow depths li.e,, 911 - 131 ft [30-40 ml depth) can reduce primary production by
              benthic-microalgae. Recent studies in several shallow continental shelf habitats have shown that primary
              production by a distinct benthic microflora can be a significant portion of overall primary production (i.e.,
              water column plus benthic primary production; Cahoon and Cooke 1992, Cahoon et aL 1990 and 1993).
              Benthic microalgal production supports a variety of consumers, including demersal zooplankton (animals that
              spend part of each day on or in the sediment and migrate regularly into the water; Cahoon and Tronzo
              1992). Demersal zooplankton include harpacticoid copepods, amphipods, mysids, and other animals that
              are eaten by planktivorous fishes and soft bottom foragers (Thomas and Cahoon 1993).

              The disturbances caused by fishing to benthic primary production and organic matter dynamics are difficult
              to predict. Semi-closed systems such as bays, estuaries, and fjords are subject to such effects at relatively
              small spatial scales. Open coastal and outer continental shelf systems can also experience perturbations in
              these processes. However, the relative rates of other processes may minimize the effects of such
              disturbances depending upon the level of fishing effort.

              Mayer et al. (199 1) discussed the implications of organic matter burial patterns in sediments versus soils.
              Their results are similar to organic matter patterns found in terrestrial soils. Sediments are essentially part of
              a burial system while soils are erosional. While gear disturbance can enhance remineralization rates by
              shifting from surficial fungal dominated communities to subsurface communities- with dominant bacterial
              decomposition processes, burial caused by gear disturbance might also enhance preservation if material is
              sequestered in anaerobic systems. Given the importance of the carbon-cycling in estuaries and on
              continental shelves to the global carbon budget, understanding the magnitude of effects caused by human
              disturbances on primary production and organic matter decomposition will require long term studies as have
              been conducted on land.


              2.2.3.1 Direct alteration of food web


              In heavily fished areas of the world, it is undebatable that there are ecosystem level effects (Gislason 1994,
              Fogarty and Murawski 1998) and that shifts in benthic community structure have occurred. The data to
              confirm that such shifts have taken place is limited at best (Riesen and Reise 1982) but the fact that it has
              been documented at all is highly significant. If he benthic communities change, what are the ecological
              processes that might bring about such change?

              One of these is an enhanced food supply, resulting from trawl damaged animals and discarding both
              nonharvested species and the offal from fish gutted at sea. The availability of this food source might affect
              animal behavior, and this energy source could influence survival and reproductive success. There are
              numerous reports of predatory fishes and invertebrate scavengers foraging in trawl tracks after a trawl


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        31








         passes through the area (Medcof and Caddy 1971, Caddy 1973, Kaiser and Spencer 1994, Ramsey et aZ
         1 997a-b). The prey available to scavengers is a function of the ability of animals to survive the capture
         process, either being discarded as unwanted by-catch or having been passed through or over by the gear
         (Meyer et al. 1981, Fonds 1994, Rumhor et al. 1994, Santbrink and Bergman 1994, Kaiser and Spencer
         1995). Stomach contents data demonstrate that fish not only feed on discarded or damaged animals, and
         often eat more than their conspecifics at control sites, they also consume animals that were not damaged
         but simply displaced by the trawling activity, or even those invertebrates that have themselves responded as
         scavengers (Kaiser and Spencer 1994, Santbrink and Bergman 1994).

         It is of interest to note that Kaiser and Spencer (1994) make the comment, as others have before them, that
         it is common practice for fishermen to re-fish recently fished areas to take advantage of the aggregations of
         animals attracted to the disturbed benthic community. The long term effect of opportunistic feeding
         following fishing disturbances is an area of speculation.

         Another process that can indirectly alter food webs is alteration of the predator community by removing
         keystone predators. In the northwest Atlantic, Witman and Sebens (1992) showed that onshore-offshore
         differences in cod and wolffish populations reduced predation pressure on cancrid crabs and other
         megafauna in deep coastal communities. They suggest that this regional difference in predation pressure is
         the result of intense harvesting of cod, a keystone predator, with cascading effects on populations of
         epibent-hos (e.g., mussels, barnacles, urchins), which are prey of crabs. Other processes (e.g., annual
         variation in physical processes effecting survivorship of recruits, climate change, El Nino, recruitment
         variability of component species caused by predator induced mortality) can also result in food web changes;
         while it is important to understand the underlying causes of such shifts, precautionary approaches should be
         considered, given the strong inference of human caused effects in the many cases where studies were
         focused on identifying causes.

         2.2.3.4 Summary

         This review of the literature by Auster and Langton (11998) indicates that fishing, using a wide range of
         gear, produces measurable impacts. However, most studies were conducted at small spatial scales, and it
         is difficult to apply such information at a regional levels where predictive capabilities would allow us to
         manage at an ecosystem scale (Jennings and Kaiser in press). Our current understanding of ecological
         processes related to the chronic disturbances caused by fishing make results difficult to predict (Auster and
         Langton 1998).

         The removal of fish for human consumption from the world's oceans has effects not only on the target
         species, but also on the associated benthic community. The size specific, and species specific, removal of
         fish can change the system structure, but, fortunately, the regions of the continental shelf which are
         normally fished appear to be fairly resilient. The difficulty for managers is defining the level of resilience, in
         the practical sense of time/area closures or mesh regulations or overall effort limits, that will allow for the
         harvest of selected species without causing human induced alterations of the ecosystem structure to the
         point that recovery is unduly retarded or community and ecosystem support services are shifted to an
         alternate state (Steele 1996). Natural variability forms a backdrop against which managers must make such
         decisions, and, unfortunately, natural variability can be both substantial and unpredictable (Auster and
         Langton 1998).

         2.2.3.6 Ghost fishing

         Stationery gear may also cause adverse impacts to fish habitat by becoming ghost fishing gear. This occurs
         when storms, mobile gear, or boats rip traps, gill nets, and pots from their lines. This lost gear cannot be
         retrieved and may continue to fish for years (Rhodes 1995). In addition, ghost gill nets, traps, and pots
         change the structural component of the habitat. This can be a problem with commercial and recreational
         gear. This problem is currently impossible to quantify and the ecosystem effects are difficult to predict.





          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    32







               2.2.3.7 Fishing gear used within the dogfish range

               Commercial fishing gear used in 1995 for all fisheries prosecuted from Maine to Virginia is characterized in
               Table 13 (based on unpublished NMFS weighout data). While total pounds of all species landed is not
               necessarily an indication of effort, it gives some indication of the relative use of the various fishing gears in
               both state and federal waters. Bottom gear used from Maine to Virginia include bottom otter trawls, clam
               dredges, sea scallop dredges, and other dredges. Fishing gear managed by the South Atlantic Council is
               presented in Table 14.

               2.2.3.8 Fishing impacts to dogfish EFH

               Dogfish are a predominantly epibenthic species, with no known associations to any particular substrate,
               submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), or any other structural habitat (McMillan and Morse 1998). However,
               because its life history does focus towards the ocean bottom, any mobile gear that comes in contact with
               the bottom  may potentially adversely impact habitat that is important to dogfish. Effort of mobile gear in
               federal and state waters throughout the entire dogfish range is unquantified. Therefore, it is difficult to
               predict the exact impact that mobile gear in contact with the bottom will have on dogfish habitat. Although
               there is no way to gauge the intensity and severity of mobile gear in contact with the bottom (bottom otter
               trawl, clam dredge, scallop dredge, and dredge-other), these gears are characterized as having a "potential
               adverse impact" on dogfish EFH (Table 15).

               2.2.4 Options for Managing Adverse Effects from Fishing

               According to section 600.815 (a)(4), fishery management options may include, but are not limited to: (i)
               fishing equipment restrictions, 00 time/area closures, and (iii) harvest limits.

               All mobile gear coming into contact with the seafloor within dogfish EFH is characterized as having a
               potential impact on their EFH. However, the effort of these bottom tending gears is largely unquantified
               from data that are presently collected by the NEFSC, as summarized by Auster and Langton (1998), and
               therefore, no management measures will be proposed at this time.

               2.2.5 Identification of Non-Fishing Activities and Associated Conservation and Enhancement
               Recommendations


               NOTE: Sections 600.815(a)(5), 600.815(a)(6), and 600.815(a)(7) are all combined here, in order to better
               clarify the cause and effect association of actions.

               According to section 600.815 (a)(5), FMPs must identify activities that have the potential to adversely
               affect EFH quantity or quality, or both. Broad categories of activities which can adversely affect EFFI
               include, but are not limited to: dredging, fill, excavation, mining, impoundment, discharge, water diversions,
               thermal additions, actions that contribute to non-point source pollution and sedimentation, introduction of
               potentially hazardous materials, introduction of exotic species, and the conversion of aquatic habitat that
               may eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the functions of EFH.

               Estuarine and coastal lands and waters are used for many purposes that often result in conflicts for space
               and resources (USDC 1985a). Some may result in the absolute loss or long-term degradation of the general
               aquatic environment or specific aquatic habitats, and pose theoretically significant, but as yet unquantified
               threats to biota and their associated habitats (USDC 1985a).


               Multiple-use issues are constantly changing, as are the impacts of certain activities on living marine
               resources (USDC 1985a). Activities that occur on estuarine and coastal lands and waters and offshore
               waters may affect living marine resources directly and/or indirectly through habitat loss and/or modification.
               These effects, combined with cumulative effects from other activities in the ecosystem, may contribute to
               the decline of some species (USDC 1997a). The following discussion identifies and describes each multiple
               use issue and the potential threats associated with that issue. The adverse effects to marine organisms and


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        33








         their habitats resulting from any given threat are demonstrable, but usually not completely quantifiable.
         Environmental and socio-economic issues remain to be satisfactorily resolved with regard to impacts on
         marine organisms and their habitats.

         The threats addressed in this section are germane to the entire Atlantic coast. All Mid-Atlantic Council
         managed species exist outside the geographic boundaries of Mid-Atlantic Council. Knowledgeable
         NMFS/Council individuals were asked to identify and prioritize non-fishing "perceived" threats. Once this list
         was complete, the resulting paper was distributed for review via mail, workshops, and conferences. The list
         is prioritized in regards to (1) perceived threats of habitat managers and others in the environmental
         community and (2) potential impact to dogfish habitat (Table 16). Information from the ASMFC workshop
         (Stephan and Beidler 1997) for habitat managers, which included a broad spectrum of constituents, was
         also used to identify threats.


         Measures for conservation and enhancement of EFH


         According to section 600.815 (a)(7), FMPs must describe options to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the
         adverse effects identified in the non-fishing threats section including cumulative impacts (section 2.2.5).
         The Councils are deeply concerned about the effects of marine and estuarine habitat degradation on fishery
         resources.


         The MSFCMA provides for the conservation and management of living marine resources (which by definition
         includes habitat), principally within the EEZ, although there is concern for management throughout the range
         of the resource. Additionally, the MSFCMA provides [305(b)(3)(A)l that "Each Council may comment on,
         and make recommendations to the Secretary and any federal agency concerning, any activity authorized,
         funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by any federal or state agency
         that, in the view of the Council, may affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat, of a fishery resource
         under its authority." [305(b)(4)(B)l "Within 30 days after receiving a comment under subparagraph (A), a
         federal agency shall provide a detailed response in writing to the Council commenting under paragraph (3)."

         The Councils have a responsibility under the MSFCMA to consider the impact of habitat degradation on
         dogfish. The following recommendations are made in light of that responsibility.

         The goal of the Council is to preserve all available or potential natural habitat for dogfish by encouraging
         management of conflicting uses to assure access by dogfish and maintenance of high water quality to
         protect dogfish migration, spawning, nursery, overwintering, and feeding areas. Non-water dependent
         actions should not be authorized in dogfish EFH, if they adversely affect that habitat. Those non-water
         dependent actions in adjacent upland areas, such as agriculture, should be managed to minimize detrimental
         effects. Water dependent activities that may adversely affect dogfish EFH, should be designed using
         environmentally sound engineering and best management practices to avoid or minimize those impacts.
         Regardless, the least environmentally damaging alternatives available should be employed to reduce
         impacts, both individually and cumulatively to dogfish EFH. Finally, compensatory mitigation should be
         provided for all unavoidable impacts to dogfish EFH.

         Also, in general, the EPA and States should review their water quality standards relative to dogfish EFH
         areas and make changes as needed in estuarine and coastal areas. The EPA should establish water quality
         standards for the EEZ sufficient to maintain edible dogfish. Finally, water quality standards in dogfish EFH
         should be enforced rigidly by state or local water quality management agencies, whose actions should be
         carefully monitored by the EPA. Where state or local management efforts (standards/enforcement) are
         deemed inadequate, EPA should take steps to assure improvement; if these efforts continue to be
         inadequate, EPA should assume authority, as necessary.

         Specific recommendations for the conservation and enhancement of dogfish EFH are found following
         discussion of individual habitat threats. The permitting/licensing authority should ensure that the project
         proponents adhere to the following recommendations.




          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       34







              2.2.5.1 Habitat threats prioritized for dogfish EFH

              Many anthropogenic (caused by man) actions threaten the integrity of dogfish EFH. These threats have
              been prioritized based on the following:

              Dogfish are epibenthic predators located across the Continental Shelf, into the estuaries (Figure 1, 4-7, 8-
              11). They are opportunistic feeders, however, some of their prey items, e.g., menhaden, are estuarine
              dependent. A total of 14 estuaries in the North Atlantic have been designated as dogfish EFH, and
              cumulative impacts from estuarine and land-based activities can have negative effects on dogfish EFH in
              nearshore and offshore waters.


              Based on these considerations, threats that impact estuaries, inshore areas, and water quality are priority
              concerns in dogfish EFH (Table 16). The threats may be primary, direct (e.g., physically removing habitat by
              dredging or filling) or secondary, indirect (e.g., water quality degradation caused by urban or agricultural
              runoff). Many of the threats associated with dogfish EFH result in both primary and secondary impacts
              (e.g., coastal development, dredging and spoil disposal). Collectively, these impacts are "cumulative,"
              which are often synergistic (i.e., the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). Some of the more
              challenging cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 2.2.5.14.

              A more-detailed discussion of the habitat threats affecting dogfish EFH and other Atlantic coast habitats
              follows. The described threats, and associated enhancement or mitigative recommendations, are related to
              both direct and indirect impacts. Again, their priority with respect to dogfish EFH is identified in Table 15.


              2.2.5.2 Coastal development

              Coastal development involves changes of land use; these activities include urban, suburban, commercial,
              and industrial, along with the construction of corresponding infrastructure. Coastal development also
              includes clearing of forestlands and filling of wetlands for agricultural use. Development first occurred in the
              coastal areas, and this historical trend continues. Approximately 80 percent of the Nation's population lives
              in coastal areas (USEPA 1993). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the 1997 world population to be 267.7
              million in the United States and 5.84 billion in the world (Zero Population Growth Reporter pers. comm.).
              The US population rose 85 percent within 50 miles of the coastlines between 1940 and 1980, compared to
              70 percent for the nation as a whole (Zero Population Growth Reporter 1994). The US Census Bureau
              projects that by the year 2000, the US population will reach 275 million, more than double its 1940
              population.

              Brouha (1994) points out our dilemma and states: "All our scientific work will be for naught if world human
              population growth and resource consumption are not stabilized soon. Unchecked growth, subsidies that
                pport unsustainable resource use, and natural resource policies focused on short-term economic gains
              have created a conundrum for the long-term economic integrity and productivity of global ecosystems."
              su


              However, Ehrlich (1990) may have stated the problem best: "No matter how distracted we may be by the
              number of problems now facing us, one issue remains fundamental: Overpopulation. The crowding of our
              cities, our nations, underlies all other problems."

              During development, vegetated and open forested areas are converted to land uses that usually have
              increased areas of impervious surface resulting in increased runoff volumes and pollutant loadings (USEPA
              1993). Eventually, changes to the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the watershed result.
              Vegetative cover is stripped from the land and cut-and-fill activities that enhance the development potential
              of the land occur. As population density increases, there is a corresponding increase in pollutant loadings
              generated from human activities (USEPA 1993).

              Everyday household activities also generate numerous pollutants that affect water quality, including (USEPA
              1993): improper disposal of used oil and antifreeze; frequent fertilization, pesticide application; improper
              disposal of yard trimmings; litter and debris; and pet droppings (USEPA 1993). Runoff from commercial
              land areas such as shopping centers, business districts, office parks, and large parking lots or garages may


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    35








          contain high hydrocarbon loadings and metal concentrations contributing more pollutants such as heavy
          metals, sediments, nutrients, and organics, including synthetic and petroleum hydrocarbons (USEPA 1993).

          In addition to habitat impacts associated with the primary effects of coastal development, such as wetland
          filling, forest clearing, land grading, and construction, many secondary impacts resulting from changes in
          land use and population growth may occur. For example, urban/suburban development in low lying coastal
          areas and floodplains often causes a need for flood control that results in channel relocation, channelization,
          and impoundment of streams, rivers, and wetlands. Loss of natural wildlife habitats lead to wildlife
          management practices that promote wetland impoundment and filling shallows for bird breeding islands that
          deleteriously affect living marine resources. As population growth continues, the demand for nuisance
          insect control, such as ditching of tidal marshes and the spraying of insecticides for mosquito abatement,
          also continues.


          Measures for conservation and enhancement


          A). Filling of wetlands and shallow coastal water habitat should not be permitted in or near dogfish EFH.
          Mitigating or compensating measures should be employed where filling is totally unavoidable. Project
          proponents must demonstrate that project implementation will not negatively affect dogfish, their habitat, or
          their food sources.


          B). Coastal development traditionally involved dredging and filling of shallows and wetlands, hardening of
          shorelines, clearing of riparian vegetation, and other activities that adversely affect the habitats of living
          marine resources. Mitigative measures are imperative for all development activities in and adjacent to
          dogfish EFH to prevent further degradation.

          C). Adverse impacts resulting from construction should be avoided whenever practicable alternatives are
          identified. For those impacts that cannot be avoided, minimization through implementation of best
          management practices should be employed. For those impacts that can neither be avoided nor minimized,
          compensation through replacement of equivalent functions and values should be required.

          D). Flood control projects in waterways draining into dogfish EFH should be designed to include mitigative
          measures and constructed using Best Management Practices (BMPs). For example, stream relocation and
          channelization should be avoided whenever practicable. However, should no practicable alternatives exist,
          relocated channels should be of comparable length and sinuosity as the natural channels they replace to
          maintain the quality of water entering receiving waters (i.e., dogfish EFH).

          E). Wildlife management projects should not adversely affect dogfish EFH. No impoundment of tidal
          wetlands or creation of islands should be authorized in dogfish EFH.

          F). Mosquito control in dogfish EFH should be implemented using BMPs. Ditching should be in accordance
          with the principles of Open Marsh Water Management (e.g., restricting ditching to only those areas that are
          actively breeding mosquitoes; using specialized equipment, such as the rotary ditcher that slurries marsh
          peat thereby eliminating spoil disposal problems). Insecticides that are used should be selected to minimize
          impacts to non-target species (e.g., Abate: a short-lived insecticide that inhibits mosquito larvae from
          pupating).


          2.2.5.2.1 Water withdrawal and diversion


          As residential, commercial, and industrial growth continues, the demand for potable, process, and cooling
          water, flow pattern disruption, waste water treatment and disposal, and electric power increases. As
          ground water resources become depleted or contaminated, greater demands are placed on surface water
          through activities such as dam and reservoir construction or some other method of freshwater diversion.
          The consumptive use or redistribution of significant volumes of surface freshwater causes reduced river flow
          that can affect salinity regimes as saline waters intrude further upstream.



          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      36







               Turek etaL (1987) identified numerous studies that have correlated freshwater inflows and fishery resource
               production. Salinity is a primary ecological factor regulating the distribution and survival of marine
               organisms. The amount of freshwater entering an estuary influences physicochemical variables (e.g.
               salinity, temperature, and turbidity) directly affecting physiological processes in organisms. Salinity is also a
               primary factor regulating estuarine primary production. In addition, salinity governs fish distribution by
               secondarily restricting predator distribution (Turek et aL 1987).

               Diversion of freshwater to other streams, reservoirs, industrial plants, power plants, and municipalities can
               change the salinity gradient downstream and displace spawning and nursery grounds. Patterns of estuarine
               circulation necessary for larval and planktonic transport can be modified. Such changes can expand the
               range of estuarine diseases and predators associated with higher salinities that affect commercial shellfish.


               Measures for conservation and enhancement


               A). Water withdrawals should be regulated to provide flows adequate to maintain the biological, chemical,
               and physical integrity of waters flowing into dogfish EFH. For example, under low flow conditions, flows
               should be maintained to prevent shifts in salinity regimes or changes in fish distribution.

               B). The transfer of water from one basin to another is discouraged. Interbasin transfers can cause
               hydrological imbalances in rivers flowing into estuaries that can adversely affect dogfish EFH.

               C). Dams constructed for reservoir development should not be sited in sensitive habitats. Dams that block
               anadromous rivers and streams (into which fish migrate from the sea) adversely affect dogfish directly by
               impairing prey production (e.g., river herrings) or indirectly by reducing flows that downstream salinity
               changes.


               2.2.5.2.2 Construction


               Constr uction activities within watersheds and in coastal marine areas often impact fish habitat, Some of
               these projects are of sufficient scope to singly cause significant, long term or permanent impacts to aquatic
               biota and habitat; however, most are small scale, causing losses or disruptions to organisms and
               environment. The significance of small scale projects lies in the cumulative effects resulting from the large
               number of these activities (USDC 1985a).


               Tremendous development pressures exist throughout the coastal area of the Northeast Region. More than
               2,000 permit applications are processed annually by the NMFS Northeast Region for commercial, industrial,
               and private marine construction proposals. The proposals range from generally innocuous, open pile
               structures, to objectionable fills that encroach into aquatic habitats, thereby eliminating their productive
               contribution to the marine ecosystem (USDC 1985a). The projects range from small scale recreational
               endeavors to large scale commercial ventures to revitalize urban waterfronts (USDC 1 985a).

               Runoff from construction sites is by far the largest source of sediment in urban areas under development
               (USEPA 1993). Eroded sediment from construction sites creates many problems in coastal areas, including
               adverse impacts on water quality, sensitive habitats, SAV beds, recreational activities, and navigation
               (USEPA 1993). Other potential pollutants associated with construction activities include: pesticides
               (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and rodenticides); fertilizers used for vegetative stabilization;
               petrochemicals (oils, gasoline, and asphalt degreasers); construction chemicals such as concrete products,
               sealers, and paints; wash water associated with these products; paper; wood; garbage; and sanitary wastes
               (USEPA 1993). The variety of pollutants present and the severity of their effects are dependent on a
               number of factors (USEPA 1993):


               1. The nature of the construction activity;

               2. The physical characteristics of the construction site; and




                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       37








        3. The proximity of surface waters to the nonpoint pollutant source.

        Construction impacts can also include hydrological changes and water quality changes. Hydrologic and
        hydraulic changes occur in response to site clearing, grading, and the addition of impervious surfaces and
        maintained landscapes (USEPA 1993).

        In addition, construction in and adjacent to waterways often involves dredging and/or fill activities which
        result in elevated suspended solids emanating from the project area. The distance the turbidity plume
        moves from the point of origin is dependent upon tides, currents, nature of the substrate, scope of work,
        and preventive measures employed by the contractor (USDC 1985a).

        Measures for conservation and enhancement


        The following measures were taken from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
        Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993).

        A). Watershed protection/site development should be encouraged. Comprehensive planning for
        development on a watershed scale and for small-scale site development, including planning and designing to
        protect sensitive ecological areas, minimize land disturbances and retain natural drainage and vegetation
        whenever possible.

        B). Pollution prevention activities, including techniques and activities to prevent nonpoint source pollutants
        from entering surface waters, should be implemented. Primary emphasis should be placed on public
        education to promote methods for proper disposal and/or recycling of hazardous chemicals, pet waste
        management strategies, management practices for lawns and gardens, onsite disposal systems (OSDSs),
        and commercial enterprises such as service stations and parking lots.

        Q. Construction erosion/sediment control measures should reduce erosion and transport of sediment from
        construction sites to surface water. A sediment and erosion control plan should be developed and approved
        prior to land disturbance for construction sites of less than 5 acres.

        D). Runoff from new development should be managed so as to meet two conditions: (1) The average
        annual total suspended solid (TSS) loadings after construction is completed are reduced, a) by 80 percent or
        b) so that they are no greater than pre-development loadings; and (2) To the extent practicable,
        post-development peak runoff rate and average volume are maintained at levels that are similar to
        pre-development levels.

        E). Construction site chemical control measures should address the    transport of toxic chemicals to surface
        water by limiting the application, generation, and migration of chemical contaminants (i.e., petrochemicals,
        pesticides, nutrients) and providing proper storage and disposal.

        F). Watershed management programs of existing developments should be developed that identify the
        sources, specify appropriate controls such as retrofitting or the establishment of buffer strips, and provide a
        schedule by which these controls are to be implemented.

        G). New onsite disposal systems should be built to reduce nutrient/pathogen loadings to surface water.
        OSDS are to be designed, installed and operated properly, and to be situated away from open waterbodies
        and sensitive resources such as wetlands, and floodplains. Protective separation between the OSDS and
        the groundwater table should be established. The OSDS unit should be designed to reduce nitrogen
        loadings in areas where surface waters may be adversely affected.

        H). Operating onsite disposal systems should prevent surface water discharge and reduce pollutant loadings
        to ground water. Inspection at regular intervals and repair or replacement of faulty systems should occur.





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      38








              2.2.5.2.3 Construction of infrastructure


              Construction activities of infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, and airports, can result in permanent
              loss or long-term disruption of habitat (USEPA 1993). For instance, highway construction often involves
              stream straightening or relocation. Dredging can degrade productive shallow water and destroy marsh
              habitat or resuspend pollutants, such as heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and other toxins. Concomitant
              with dredging is spoil disposal, which traditionally occurred on marshes or in water where the effects were
              temporary (both short- and long-term) or permanent in terms of its degradation or destruction. Shoreline
              stabilization can cause gross impacts when intertidal and sub-tidal habitats are filled, or when benthic
              habitats are scoured by reflective wave energy. Stabilization can also cause subtle effects that result in
              gradual elimination of the ecosystem between the shore and the water (USEPA 1993).

              Construction of bridges in coastal areas can cause significant erosion and sedimentation, resulting in the
              loss of wetlands and riparian areas (USEPA 1993). Additionally, since bridge pavements are extensions of
              the connecting highway, runoff waters from bridge decks also deliver loadings of heavy metals,
              hydrocarbons, toxic substances, and deicing chemicals to surface waters. Bridge maintenance can also
              contribute heavy loads of lead, rust particles, paint, abrasive, solvents, and cleaners into surface waters.
              Bridge structures should be located to avoid crossing over sensitive fisheries and shellfish-harvesting areas
              to prevent washing polluted runoff into the waters below. Also, bridge design should account for potential
              scour and erosion, which may affect shellfish beds and bottom sediments (USEPA 1993).

              Wetland and riparian areas will need special consideration if affected by highway and bridge construction,
              particularly in areas where construction involves depositing fill, dredging, or installing pilings (USEPA 1993).
              Highway development is most disruptive in wetlands because it may cause increased sediment loss,
              alteration of surface drainage patterns, changes in the subsurface water table, and loss of wetland habitat
              (USEPA 1993).


              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              The following measures were taken from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
              Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993).

              A). Roads, highways, bridges and airports should be situated away from areas that are sensitive ecosystems
              and susceptible to erosion and sediment loss. The siting of such structures should not adversely impact
              water quality, minimize land disturbances, and retain natural vegetation and drainage features.

              B). Construction projects of -roads, highways, bridges and airports should implement approved erosion and
              sediment control plans prior to construction, which would reduce erosion and improve retention of
              sediments onsile during and after construction.

              C). Construction site chemical control measures for roads, highways, and bridges should limit toxic and
              nutrient loadings at construction sites by ensuring the proper use, storage, and disposal of toxic materials to
              prevent significant chemical and nutrient runoff to surface water.

              D). Operation and maintenance should be developed for roads, highways, bridges, and airports to reduce
              pollutant loadings to receiving waters during operation and maintenance.

              E). Runoff systems should be developed for roads, highways, bridges, and airports to reduce pollutant
              concentrations in runoff from existing roads, highways, and bridges. Runoff management systems should
              identify priority pollutant reduction opportunities and schedule implementation of retrofit projects to protect
              impacted areas and threatened surface waters.

              F). The planning process for new and maintenance channel dredging projects should include an evaluation
              of the'potential effects on the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters and riparian habitat
              that may occur as a result of the proposed work and reduce undesirable impacts. The operation and


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       39








         maintenance programs for existing modified channels should identify and implement any available
         opportunities improve the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters in those channels.

         G). Bridges should be designed to include collection systems which convey surface water runoff to land-
         based sedimentation basins.


         2.2.5.2.4 Shoreline stabilization


         The erosion of shorelines and stream banks is a natural process that can have either beneficial or adverse
         impacts on the creation and maintenance of riparian habitat (USEPA 1993). Beaches are dynamic,
         ephemeral land forms that move back and forth onshore, offshore and along shore with changing wave
         conditions. Although bulkheads and seawalls protect the upland area against further land loss, they often
         create a local problem. Downward forces of water produced by waves striking a wall can produce a
         transfer of wave energy and rapidly move sand from the wall, causing scouring and undermining, and
         increased erosion downstream (USEPA 1993).


         Groins are structures that are built perpendicular to the shore and extend into the water (USEPA 1993).
         Jetties are structures that are built perpendicular to shore to stabilize a channel. Groins and jetties trap sand
         in littoral drift and halt longshore movement. Sand traps created by these structures often result in
         inadequate supply of sand to replace that which is carried away. The "downdrift" beaches are often sand
         depleted, and severe erosion results (USEPA 1993).

         Stabilization of eroding shorelines can be beneficial to living marine resources by reducing turbidity and
         subsequent sedimentation. However, some stabilization techniques can have secondary adverse impacts.
         Bulkheads harden shorelines, thereby eliminating the interaction between organisms and intertidal habitats
         during high tides. Wave energy reflecting off vertical bulkhead faces destabilize adjacent benthic habitats
         rendering them less productive. Additionally, bulkheads are often constructed with chemically treated
         timber which contain toxic compounds that leach into adjacent waters through time.


         Alternatives to vertical bulkheads are stone revetments (riprap) and vegetative stabilization. Unlike
         bulkheads, stone revetments are not vertical, and consequently, do not reflect wave energy. Also, the hard
         surfaces and interstitial spaces between the stones adds heterogeneity to local habitats. Vegetative
         stabilization provides the most natural means of erosion control, as well as, enhancing local habitats. Marsh
         creation and stream bank "bioengineering" are two methods of vegetative stabilization that have proven
         effective in many circumstances.

         Other types of shoreline stabilization, such as beach nourishment and groin fields, do not prevent erosion.
         Beach nourishment is the replacement of lost sediments with new sediments. Traditional beach
         nourishment is not structurally stabilized, but erosion abatement is accomplished through engineering design
         using appropriate grain-sized sand. Depending on the source of material for beach nourishment, ecological
         impacts are frequently greater at the borrow site than at the nourishment area.

         Groins are vertical structures constructed of rock or wood that are placed at equidistant intervals along
         eroding shorelines, perpendicular to the shore. Groin fields generally do not incorporate additional sediments
         to the system, but depend on the trapping of suspended sediments carried by longshore currents. Groins
         characteristically accrete sediments on the updrift side and become sediment starved on the downdrift side.
         This problem can be prevented by constructing low-profile groins (i.e., the top of the structure being
         constructed at an elevation between mean high and mean low tide) that allow sediments to accumulate on
         both sides of the structure. Jetties are structures similar to groins, but are used to stabilize inlets, not
         curtail erosion. However, the accretion/starvation sediment patterns displayed by groins are also
         demonstrated by jetties.







         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      40








              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              A). To stabilize eroding stream banks, vegetative methods such as marsh creation and vegetative bank
              stabilization ("bioengineering") are the preferred methods. Stream bank and shoreline features such as
              wetlands and riparian areas with the potential to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) pollution should be protected
              (USEPA 1993).

              B). Vegetative shoreline stabilization should be implemented in dogfish EFH whenever feasible.

              C). When wave energy is sufficient to preclude vegetative stabilization, stone revetments should be
              constructed in dogfish EFH. Revetments reduce reflected wave energy and provide habitat for benthic
              organisms.

              D). Bulkheads, or shoreline hardening structures, should not be constructed in dogfish EFH when
              practicable alternatives exist.

              E). Beach nourishment in dogfish EFH should only be considered when an acceptable source of borrow
              material is identified.


              F). When groin fields are considered acceptable for construction in dogfish EFH, low-profile design should
              be employed.

              G). When jetties intercept sediments in dogfish EFH, sand should be "by-passed". By-passing is the
              transfer of sediments from the accreted side of the jetties to the starved side thereby maintaining longshore
              sediment transport.


              2.2.5.3 Nonpoint source (NIPS) contamination

              Nonpoint pollution generally results from land runoff, atmospheric deposition, drainage, groundwater
              seepage, or hydrologic modification (USEPA 1993). Technically, the term "nonpoint source" is defined to
              mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of "point source" in section
              502(14) (40 CFR 122.2) of the Clean Water Act. That definition states:


                     The term "point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not
                     limited to any pipe, ditch, channel tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
                     concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or
                     may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural storm water discharges and return flows
                     from irrigated agriculture.

              Nonpoint pollution is the pollution of our nation's waters caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
              through the ground. Ground water is an important source of surface water and nutrients. The U.S.
              Geologic Survey (USGS) has determined that 50% of the water in streams comes from ground water. The
              amount of ground water varies according to the type of rock and sediment beneath the land surface (USGS
              1997). Up to one-half of the nitrogen entering the Chesapeake Bay travels through the ground water (USGS
              1997). It is possible that about 10% to 20% of the phosphorous entering the Chesapeake Bay also travels
              through ground water (USGS 1998). Atmospheric deposition transports about 9% of the nitrogen and 5%
              of the phosphorous loads to the Chesapeake Bay (Alliance for Chesapeake Bay 1993).

              As the runoff moves, it picks up and transports natural and anthropogenic pollutants, finally depositing them
              into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground waters. Major pollutants in runoff include
              pathogens, nutrients, sediments, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, road salts, hydrocarbons,
              and toxics. Acid precipitation from nonpoint sources are demonstrable problems in Atlantic coastal and
              estuarine waters (USEPA 1993, USDC 1985a). In addition, hydrologic modification is a form of nonpoint
              source pollution that often adversely affects the biological, physical and chemical integrity of surface waters
              (USEPA 1993). The alteration of natural hydrology due to urbanization, and the accompanying runoff


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     41








         diversion, channelization, and destruction of natural drainage systems, have resulted in riparian and tidal
         wetland degradation or destruction. Temperature changes result from increased flows, removal of vegetative
         cover, and increases in impervious surfaces. NPS can be divided into three components, each of which will
         be discussed separately. Conservation measures will be offered for each component.


         2.2.5.3.1 Urban NPS


         Urban construction is not limited to the shore but also includes inland development that can adversely
         impact aquatic areas. One of the major problems arising from urban development is the increase in nonpoint
         source contamination of estuarine and coastal waters. Highways, parking lots, and the reduction of
         terrestrial and wetland vegetation facilitate runoff loaded with soil particles, fertilizers, biocides, heavy
         metals, grease and oil products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other material deleterious to aquatic
         biota and their habitats. Atmospheric emissions resulting from certain industrial processes contain
         sulphurous and nitrogenous compounds that contribute to acid precipitation, a growing source of concern in
         some anadromous and fresh water sections of tidal streams. Nonpoint pollution is incorporated in water,
         sediments, and living marine resources (USDC 1985a).

         Cumulatively, the effects of this environmental insult may have far reaching implications for fisheries
         resources. Estuarine and riverine plumes entering coastal waters are influenced by global and other dynamic
         forces.- These plumes may remain as discrete water masses flowing close to the coast for hundreds of
         miles.


         The purpose of vegetated filter strips is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff and
         wastewater by filtration, deposition, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, decomposition, and volatilization,
         thereby reducing the amount of pollution entering adjacent waterbodies. The ability of a wetland to act as a
         sink for phosphorus and the ability to convert nitrate to nitrogen gas through de-nitrification are two
         examples of the important nonpoint source pollution abatement functions performed by constructed
         wetlands.


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         A). Watershed protection/site development should be encouraged. Comprehensive planning for
         development on a watershed scale and for small-scale site development, including planning and designing to
         protect sensitive ecological areas, minimize land disturbances and retain natural drainage and vegetation
         whenever possible.

         B). Pollution prevention activities, including techniques and activities to prevent nonpo   int source pollutants
         from entering surface waters, should be implemented. Primary emphasis should be placed on public
         education to promote methods for proper disposal and/or recycling of hazardous chemicals, pet waste
         management strategies, management practices for lawns and gardens, onsite disposal systems (OSDSs),
         and commercial enterprises such as service stations and parking lots.

         C). Watershed management programs of existing developments should be developed that identify the
         sources, specify appropriate controls, such as retrofitting or the establishment of buffer strips, and provide a
         schedule by which these controls are to be implemented.

         D). Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be employed during urban construction to minimize impacts
         to dogfish EFH. Numerous specific conservation measures are provided at the end of Section 2.2.5.2.2
         Construction.


         E). The release of harmful chemical contaminants should be sequestered at their source thereby preventing
         their entering the atmosphere and subsequently being deposited in dogfish EFH.

         F). BIVIPs should be implemented to manage stormwater to minimize the discharge of contaminants that
         degrade dogfish EFH or waters flowing into dogfish EFH. Stormwater should not be allowed to mix with


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        42







              sewage effluents (i.e., combined sewage/stormwater outfalls or CSOs). Where CSOs exist, the systems
              should be retrofitted to separate the two discharges.

              2.2.5.3.2 Agricultural NPS

              Agricultural development can affect fisheries habitat directly through physical alteration and indirectly
              through nutrient enrichment and chemical contamination. Fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and other
              chemicals are washed into the aquatic environment via uncontrolled nonpoint source runoff draining
              agricultural lands. These nutrients and chemicals can affect the growth of aquatic plants, which in turn
              affects fish, invertebrates, and the general ecological balance of the water body. Additionally, agricultural
              runoff transports animal wastes and sediments that can affect spawning areas, and degrade water quality
              and benthic substrate. One of the most serious consequences of erosional runoff is that the frequent
              dredging of navigational channels results in dredged material that requires disposal, often in areas important
              to living marine resources (USDC 1985a). Excessive uncontrolled or improper irrigation practices also
              contribute to nonpoint source pollution and often exacerbate the contaminant flushing, as well as deplete
              and contaminate ground water.

              Agricultural development can significantly affect wetlands. Common flood control measures in low lying
              coastal areas include: dikes, ditches, and stream channelizalion, Wetland drainage is practiced to increase
              tillable land acreage. Wildlife management techniques that also destroy or modify wetland habitat include
              the construction of dredged ponds, low level impoundments, and muskrat ditches and dikes (USDC 1985a).

              Animal waste (manure) includes fecal and urinary waste of livestock and poultry; process water (e.g., from
              a milking parlor); excess feed, bedding, litter, and soil (USEPA 1993). Pollutants associated with animal
              wastes include: oxygen-demanding substances; nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients; organic solids;
              bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms; salts; and sediments (USEPA 1993). Runoff transporting these
              wastes and pollutants may result in fish kills; dissolves oxygen depletion; unpleasant odors, taste and
              appearance; eutrophication; and shellfish contamination (USEPA 1993).

              Another source of nonpoint source pollution from livestock is atmospheric deposition. Recent analyses by
              Dr. Joe Rudek clearly demonstrate that more than two-thirds (65-90%) of nitrogen excreted by the huge
              swine concentration in coastal North Carolina is evaporated as ammonia and redeposited within about 65
              miles maximum - typically into nutrient sensitive waters, including the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico Sounds
              (Rader pers. com).

              Many agricultural fields are poorly drained. To facilitate crop planting and cultivation, elaborate systems of
              drainage ditches are excavated.   These drainage systems are frequently excavated through wetlands and
              ultimately discharged into natural waterways. Drainage systems serve as conduits transporting fertilizers,
              pesticides, sediment, and other contaminants that degrade habitat and -water quality,

              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              A). EPA and appropriate agencies should establish and approve criteria for vegetated buffer strips in
              agricultural areas adjacent to dogfish EFH to minimize pesticide, fertilizer, and sediment loads to these areas
              critical for dogfish survival. The effective width of these vegetated buffer strips should vary with slope of
              terrain and soil permeability.

              B). The Natural Resources Conservation Service and other concerned federal and state agencies should
              conduct programs and demonstration projects to educate farmers on improved agricultural practices that
              would minimize the wastage of pesticides, fertilizers, and top soil and reduce the adverse effects of these
              materials on dogfish EFH areas (MAFMC 1990a).

              The following measures were taken mainly from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
              Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993).




               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       43







         C). Delivery of sediment from agricultural lands to receiving waters should be minimized. Land owners
         have a choice of one of two approaches: (1) apply the erosion component of the U.S. Department of
         Agricultures Conservation Management System through such practices as conservation tillage, strip
         cropping, contour farming, and terracing, or (2) design and install a combination of practices to remove
         settleable solids and associated pollutants in runoff for all but the larger storms.

         D). New confined animal facilities and existing confined animal facilities over a certain size should be
         designed to limit discharges to waters of the U.S. by storing wastewater and runoff caused by all storms up
         to and including the 25-year frequency storms. For smaller existing facilities, the management systems that
         collect solids, reduce contaminant concentrations, and reduce runoff should be designed and implemented
         to minimize the discharge of contaminants in both facility wastewater and runoff caused by all storms up to
         and including 25-year frequency storms.

         E). Stored runoff and solids should be managed through proper waste utilization and use of disposal
         methods which minimize impacts to surface/ground water. Confined      'animal facilities required to obtain a
         discharge permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program should
         not be subject to these recommendations.

         R Development and implementation of comprehensive nutrient management plans should occur. The
         fundamentals of a comprehensive nutrient management plan include a nutrient budget for the crop,
         identification of the types and amounts of nutrients necessary to produce a crop based on realistic crop
         yield expectations, and an identification of the environmental hazards of the site. Other items include soil
         tests and other tests to determine crop nutrient needs and proper calibration of nutrient equipment.


         G). Pesticide and herbicide management should minimize water quality problems by reducing pesticide use,
         improving the timing and efficiency of application (not within 24 hours of expected rain or irrigation),
         preventing backflow of pesticides into water supplies, and improving calibration of pesticide spray
         equipment. Strategies such as integrated pest management (IPM) should be used. IPM strategies include
         evaluating current pest problems in relation to the cropping history, previous pest control measures, and
         applying pesticides only when an economic benefit to the producer will be achieved, i.e., application based
         on economic thresholds. If pesticide applications are necessary, pesticides should be selected based on
         consideration of their environmental impacts such as persistence, toxicity, and leaching potential.

         H). Livestock grazing should protect sensitive areas, including streambanks, wetlands, estuaries, ponds,
         lake shores, and riparian zones. Protection is to be achieved with improved grazing management that
         reduces the physical distance and direct loading of animal waste and sediment caused by livestock by
         restricting livestock access to sensitive areas through a range of options.

         1). Upland erosion is to be reduced by either: (1) applying the range and pasture components of a
         Conservation Management System, or (2) maintaining the land in accordance with the activity plans
         established by either the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. Such techniques include the
         restriction of livestock from sensitive areas through locating salt, shade, and alternative drinking sources
         away from sensitive areas, and providing livestock stream crossings.

         J). Irrigation systems that deliver necessary quantities of water, yet reduce nonpoint pollution to surface
         waters and groundwater, should be developed and implemented. To achieve this, uniform application of
         water based upon an accurate measurement of cropwater needs and the volume of irrigation water applied
         should be calculated. When applying chemicals through irrigation (a process known as chemigation), special
         additional precautions apply. In state waters, conflicting laws may take precedence. In no case should
         irrigation be practiced to the point that runoff occurs from the field.

         K). Best Management Practices should be implemented to minimize habitat impacts when agricultural
         ditches are excavated through wetlands that drain to dogfish EFH.





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      44







              Q. NPDES/ State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits in consultation with state fishery
              agency should be required for agricultural ditch systems that discharge into dogfish EFH.

              M). Acceptable swine waste treatment technologies should be developed to replace current practices which
              rely upon evaporation or movement through groundwater to dispose of nitrogen (Rader pers. comm.).

              N). Nitrogen reduction programs should account for airborne delivery (Rader pers. comm.).


              2,2.5,3.3 Silvicullural NPS


              Federal land management has allowed activities to occur which have degraded riparian and riverine habitat
              in the national forests, thereby contributing to the decline of marine and anadromous fishes (USDC 1997a).
              The impacts of forest activities conducted within the framework of these land use plans include effects on
              marine and anadromous species and significant habitat degradation from timber harvest, road construction,
              grazing, mining, outdoor recreation, small hydropower development, and water conveyance permitting.
              These actions have: reduced physical, biological and channel connectivity between streams and riparian
              areas, floodplains, and uplands; increased sediment yields (leading to pool filling and elimination of spawning
              and rearing habitat); reduced or eliminated large woody debris; reduced or eliminated the vegetative canopy
              (leading to increased temperature fluctuations); altered peak flow timing; increased water temperature;
              decreased dissolved oxygen; caused streams to become straighter, wider, and shallower; and degraded
              water quality by adding toxic chemicals through mining and pest control. These effects, combined with
              cumulative effects from activities on nonfederal lands, have contributed to the decline of marine and
              anadromous,fish species (USDC 1997a).

              Silvicultural contributions to water pollution has been recognized by all states with significant forestry
              activities (USEPA 1993).. On a national level, silviculture contributes approximately 3% to 9% of nonpoint
              source pollution to the nation's waters (USEPA 1993). Local impacts of timber harvesting and road
              construction on water quality can be severe, especially in smaller headwater streams. Studies on forest
              land erosion have concluded that surface erosion rates on roads often equaled or exceeded rates reported
              for severely eroding agricultural lands (USEPA 1993). These effects are of greatest concern where
              silvicultural activity occurs in high-quality watershed areas that provide municipal water supplies or support
              cold-water fisheries. The USEPA (1993) reported that 24 states have identified silviculture as a problem
              source contributing to nonpoint source pollution. Some states report up to 19% of their river miles
              impacted by silviculture. On federal lands, such as national forests, many water quality problems can be
              attributed to the effects of timber harvesting and related activities (USEPA 1993).

              Measures. for conservation and enhancement

              'The following measures were taken from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
              Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993).

              A). Preharvest planning should ensure that silvicultural activities take into account potential nonpoint source
              pollutant delivery to surface waters. Key aspects of forestry operations relevant to water quality protection
              that should be addressed include: the timing, location, and design of harvesting and road construction; the
              identification of sensitive areas or high-erosion-hazard areas; and the potential for additional cumulative
              contributions to existing water quality impairments.

              B). Strearnside management areas (SMA) should be established along dogfish EFH and should be managed
              to protect the water quality of the adjacent waterbody-


              C). Delivery of sediment from road construction or reconstruction should be reduced. This is to be
              accomplished by following the preharvest plan layouts.

              D). Existing roads should be managed to prevent sedimentation and pollution from ru noff-tra ns ported
              materials. Measures taken can include the use of inspections and maintenance actions to prevent erosion of


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       45








         road surfaces and ensure the continued effectiveness of stream crossing structures. Appropriate actions for
         closing roads that are no longer in use should also be taken.

         E). NPS pollution resulting from timber harvesting operations should be reduced by taking into account the
         location of landings, the operation of ground-skidding and cable yarding equipment, and preventing of
         pollution from petroleum products. Harvesting practices that protect water quality and soil productivity can
         also reduce total mileage of roads and skid trails, lower equipment maintenance costs, and provide better
         road protection and reduce road maintenance. Appropriate skid trail location and drainage, and proper
         harvesting in SMAs should be addressed.

         F). Impacts of mechanical site preparation and regeneration operations should be reduced, and on-site
         potential nonpoint source pollution should be confined. Measures such as keeping slash materials out of
         drainages, operating machinery on the contour, and protecting the ground cover in ephemeral drainages and
         SMAs should be implemented.

         G). Potential nonpoint source pollution and erosion resulting from prescribed fire for site preparation and
         from methods for suppression of wildfire should be reduced. Prescribed fires should be conducted under
         conditions to avoid the loss of litter and incorporated soil organic matter. Bladed firelines should be
         stabilized to prevent erosion, or practices such as handlines, firebreaks, or hose lays should be used where
         possible.

         H). Erosion and sedimentation by the rapid revegetation of areas of soil disturbance from harvesting and
         road construction should be reduced. The disturbed areas to be revegetated are those localized areas within
         harvest units or road systems where mineral soil is exposed or agitated such as road cuts, fill slopes, landing
         surfaces, cable corridors, or skid trails.

         1). Pesticide and herbicides should be managed to minimize water quality problems by reducing pesticide
         use, improving the timing and efficiency of application (not within 24 hours of expected rain or irrigation),
         preventing backflow into water supplies, and improving calibration of spray equipment.

         The following recommendations are taken from Murphy 0 995).

         J). Riparian buffer zones of appropriate size and design should be required on any forested land adjacent to
         waterways that include EFH. The buffers should provide all processes that create and maintain fish habitat,
         particularly shade, stream bank integrity, and recruitment of large woody debris.

         K). Enforcement of best forestry management practices for ensuring water quality standards at state and
         federal levels should be strongly encouraged.

         L). Watershed analysis and subsequent watershed planning at the local and state levels should be strongly
         encouraged.

         M). Upland habitat restoration should be encouraged. Restoration of upland habitat should include
         measures to control erosion, stabilize roads, upgrade culverts for fish passage, and manage watershed uses.

         N). Restoration of riparian areas should be encouraged. Restoration goals should restore functions of
         riparian vegetation by reestablishing mature conifers or other appropriate vegetation.

         0). Riparian areas should be revegetated with stable vegetation.

         2.2.5.4 Dredging and disposal of dredged material

         Dredging and disposal of dredged material can create significant impacts in aquatic ecosystems. The
         purpose of dredging in nearshore and offshore areas include: creation and maintenance for shipping and
         recreational boating, construction of infrastructure, and marine mining. During dredging operations, bottom


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       46







              sediments are removed, disturbed, and resuspended (Chytalo 1996). Historically, dredged material was
              disposed of by being discharged in designated open-water disposal areas near the dredging site. Because of
              concern about environmental damage, disposal of dredged material has begun to be tightly regulated
              (Chytalo 1996). Environmental impacts of dredging include:

              1. Direct removal/burial of organisms as a result of dredging and placement of dredged material;

              2. Turbid ity/s i Itati on effects, including increased light attenuation from turbidity, alteration of bottom type,
              and physical effects of suspended sediments on organisms;

              3. Contaminant release, and uptake, including nutrients, metals, and organics from interstitial water and the
              resuspended sediments;

              4. Release of oxygen-consuming substances, such as sulfides;

              5. Noise/disturbance to terrestrial organisms;


              6. Alterations to the hydrodynamic regime and physical habitat; and

              7. Loss7 of wetland, SAV beds, and riparian habitat.

              Excluding the potential of new work being authorized in sensitive habitats, the major problem associated
              with dredging is disposal of dredged material (spoil). Almost 60 per cent of the spoil generated nationally
              (approximately 310 thousand metric wet tons) is discharged into estuarine and marine habitats (OTA 1987).
              This volume can be anticipated to increase as the trend for deeper channels and port expansions escalate.

              Although alternatives to in-water disposal have been proposed, such as transporting spoil to inland areas to
              reclaim strip mines and use as a raw material for manufacturing bricks, only upland disposal in adjacent
              coastal areas has proven to be practicable. However, as the demand for coastal development increases, the
              amount of available uplands is diminishing, while the cost of those lands is increasing. Additionally,
              mounting evidence indicates that long-term use of upland spoil sites cause adverse impacts, such as salinity
              intrusion in shallow aquifers.

              Diked containment islands in estuaries have been effective, cost efficient methods to dispose of dredged
              material. However, these islands, such as Craney Island in Virginia and Hart-Miller Island in Maryland,
              require hundreds of acres each for construction. This is an irreversible commitment of estuarine habitat.
              Consequently, sensitive areas must be identified and avoided. Construction of spoil islands must be
              restricted to those areas that will have the least impact on estuarine and marine ecosystems. Compensatory
              mitigation to increase the carrying capacity within the affected estuaries to offset these impacts must also
              be a requirement of island construction.

              More recently, there has been a trend toward the "beneficial use" of dredged material. Some uses of
              dredged material can be truly beneficial, while some are merely a trade-off of one habitat type for another,
              usually at the expense of living marine resources. Some examples of true beneficial uses are by-passing
              sediments removed from natural littoral processes to down-drift, starved beaches, restoration of structure to
              depleted oyster reefs, and restoration of eroded wetlands to abate erosion. However, other proposed
              beneficial uses, such as creating bird breeding islands in shallow water habitats, only deplete valuable fish
              habitats (Goodger pers. com.).


              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              A). Filling of wetlands or coastal shallow water habitat should not be permitted in or near EFH areas.
              Mitigating or compensating measures should be employed where filling is totally unavoidable. Project
              proponents must demonstrate that project implementation will not negatively affect dogfish, their EFH, or
              their food sources.



              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      47




                                                                                                 I                           I
         B). No dredging or dredge spoil placement should take place in SAV beds.

         C). Best engineering and management practices (e.g., seasonal restrictions, dredging methods, disposal
         options, etc.) should be employed for all dredging and in-water construction projects. Such projects should
         be permitted only for water dependent purposes when no feasible alternatives are available. Mitigating or
         compensating measures should be employed where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable. Project
         proponents should demonstrate that project implementation will not negatively affect dogfish, their EFH, or
         their food sources.


         D). Construction of spoil containment islands should be avoided in dogfish EFH, except when no practicable
         alternatives are available. In those exceptional cases when island construction is necessary, sites should be
         selected that result in the least damaging impacts to dogfish EFH.


         E). "Beneficial Use" proposals in dogfish EFH should be compatible with existing uses by dogfish.
         Conflicting uses, such as construction of bird breeding islands, should not be authorized.

         The following measures were taken from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
         Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993).

         F). When projects are considered and in review for open water disposal permits for dredged material, state
         and federal permitting agencies should identify the direct and indirect impacts such projects may have on
         EFH.


         G). No unconfined disposal of contaminated dredge material, sewage sludge, or industrial waste should
         ever be allowed in EFH.


         H). Disposal sites should be located in uplands when possible.

         1). The creation of new habitat at the expense of another naturally functioning system (e.g. marsh creation
         with dredge material placed in shallow water habitat) should be fully justified and documented, given best
         available information, through a demonstrated net gain in EFH.

         2.2.5.5 Port development, utilization, and shipping

         Major ports along the Atlantic coast include those at Miami Florida, Jacksonville Florida, Savannah Georgia,
         Charleston South Carolina, Wilmington North Carolina, Norfolk Virginia, Baltimore Maryland, Wilmington
         Delaware, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, New York New York, Providence Rhode Island, Boston Massachusetts,
         Portsmouth New Hampshire, and Portland Maine. These ports handle primarily grains, coal, ores, and
         manufactured commodities. Some of these ports and many other ports along the Atlantic seaboard (e.g.
         Gloucester and New Bedford Massachusetts, Rockland Maine, Newport and Point Judith Rhode Island,
         Hampton-Norfolk Virginia, Ocean City Maryland) also support major commercial and recreational fisheries
         (USDC 1985a).


         All ports require shoreline infrastructure, mooring facilities, and adequate channel depth. Ports compete
         fiercely for limited national and international markets and continually strive to upgrade their facilities.
         Dredging and dredged material disposal, filling of aquatic habitats to create fast land for port improvement
         or expansion, and degradation of water quality are the most serious perturbations arising from port
         development. All have well recognized adverse impacts to living marine resources and habitat.

         The introduction of exotic species and contaminated materials through ballast water release and exchange is
         an impact of port utilization. Ballast water is used by most ships for stability and maneuverability (Moyle
         1991). The water is typically pumped into separate tanks used just for ballast or in empty cargo tanks
         when departing from port, and discharged when the ship takes on a cargo at another port. Evidence shows
         that hundreds of species of invertebrates have become established in exotic locales after being transported


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    48







              in ballast water (Moyle 1991). An infamous Atlantic coast example of a ballast water introduction is the
              zebra mussel (Orreissena polymorha).


              Another hazard of port utilization is the potential for shipping accidents. Transportation of fossil fuels and
              other materials may result in major spills of oils and other hazardous materials (Hill 1996). Tributyl-tin, used
              in commercial anti-fouling paints, was formerly a major concern and has been largely banned, with the
              notable exception of aluminum hauled vessels (Foerster pers. comm.).

              Construction activities associated with port development result in a loss of habitat diversity along the
              water's edge. Bulkheading, filling, and construction of port features result in general water quality
              degradation that reduces biotic diversity of important productive areas (USIDC 1 985a). Habitat types that
              are destroyed by construction of port infrastructure include: shallow bay bottom; shoreline wetlands;
              seagrass meadows; and intertidal wetlands (Fearing 1983). The effect of loss of these habitats include loss
              of nursery area, reduction in water clarity, and shifts in primary productivity (Fearing 1983).


              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              The impacts of port development and utilization are caused by a need for infrastructure (i.e. filling of
              wetlands) and adequate channel depths (i.e. dredging and shoreline stabilization). Recommendations to
              minimize these impacts are located in sections 2.2.5.2.3, 2.2.5.2.4., and 2.2.5.3, respectively.

              Impacts that are a result of shipping are addressed in the following recommendations:

              A). To avoid introducing exotic species and toxic materials, ballast water.should be exchanged beyond 200
              miles or treated with chlorine or other toxicants. Procedures should be developed for monitoring ballast
              water. Factors controlling introduced species should be studied in species' native ecosystems (Moyle
              1991).


              B). All vessels transporting fuels and other hazardous materials should be required to carry equipment to
              contain and retrieve the spill.

              Q. Dispersants should not be used to clean up fuels and hazardous materials unless approved by the
              EPA/Coast Guard after consultation with fisheries agencies.

              2.2.5.6 Marinas and recreational boating

              As residential and commercial use of coastal lands increase, so does the recreational use of coastal waters.
              Marinas, public access landings, private piers, and boat ramps all vie for space. Boating requires
              navigational space, a place to berth for some boat owners, and boat yards for repair-and storage.

              Based on an annual average of 40 hours of cruising, the 10 million outboard and inboard/outboard powered
              pleasure boats in the U.S. impact as much water, fish eggs, larval and juvenile fish, and shellfish, as 800
              nuclear and fossil fueled generating stations would in a year. Unfortunately, boating activity is concentrated
              in a short boating season that also occurs during the period of maximum biological activity in many estuaries
              (Stolpe 1997).

              Marinas and recreational boating are increasingly popular uses of coastal areas. The growth of recreational
              boating, along with the growth of coastal development in general, has led to a growing awareness of the
              need to protect waterways. In the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, Congress
              declared that state coastal management programs provide for public access to the coasts for recreational
              purposes. Clearly, boating and adjunct activities (e.g., marinas) are an important means of public access.
              When these facilities are poorly planned or poorly managed, however, they may pose a threat to the health
              of aquatic systems (and may pose other environmental hazards; USEPA 1993). Since marinas are located
              right at the water's edge, there is often no buffering of the release of pollutants to waterways. Adverse
              environmental impacts may result from the following sources of pollution and activities associated with



               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       49








          marinas and recreational boating (USEPA 1993):

          1. Poorly flushed waterways where dissolved oxygen deficiencies exist;

          2. Pollutants discharged from boats;

          3. Pollutants transported in storm water runoff from parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces;

          4. The physical alteration o'r destruction of wetlands and of shellfish and other bottom communities during
          the construction of marinas, ramps, and related facilities; and

          5. Pollutants generated from boat maintenance activities on land and in the water.

          Impacts on the ecosystem that are caused by marinas include lowered dissolved oxygen, increased
          temperature, bioaccumulation of pollutants by organisms, water contamination, sediment contamination,
          resuspension of sediments, loss of SAV and estuarine vegetation, change in photosynthesis activity, change
          in the nature and type of sediment, loss of benthic organisms, eutrophication, change in circulation patterns,
          shoaling and shoreline erosion. Pollutants that result from marinas include nutrients, metals, petroleum
          hydrocarbons, pathogens, and PCBs (USEPA 1993). Other contaminants introduced into surface waters
          originate from chemically treated timber used for piers and bulkheads. Commonly used chemicals are
          creosote and CCA (copper, chromium, and arsenic salts).

          Other impacts of recreational boating are a result of improper sewage disposal, fish waste, fuel and oil
          spillage, cleaning fluids, and boat operation and maintenance (USEPA 1993).

          According to the 1989 American Red Cross Boating Survey, there were approximately 19 million
          recreational boats in the United States (USEPA 1993). About 95 percent of these boats were less than 26
          feet in length. A very large number of these boats used a portable toilet, rather than a larger holding tank.
          Given the large percentage of smaller boats, facilities for the dumping of portable toilet waste should be
          provided at marinas that service significant numbers of boats under 26 feet in length (USEPA 1993).

          The propellers from boats can also impact fish and fish habitat by direct damage to multiple life stages of
          organisms, including eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults, as well as submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g., prop
          scarring); de-stratification (temperature and density which is characteristic of some estuaries; e.g., Pamlico
          Sound, North Carolina); elevated heat; and resuspension of sediments increasing turbidity (Stolpe 1997,
          Goldsborough 1997). The resuspension of bottom sediment can result in the reintroduction of toxic
          substances into the water column. This may lead to an increased turbidity, which can affect photosynthetic
          activity of algae and submerged aquatic vegetation (USEPA 1993).    The SAV provides habitat for fish,
          shellfish, and waterfowl and plays an important role in maintaining water quality through assimilating
          nutrients. It also reduces wave energy, protecting shorelines and bottom habitats from erosion (USEPA
          1993).


          Fish waste can result in water quality problems at marinas with large numbers of fish landings or at marinas
          that have limited fish landings but poor flushing (USEPA 1993). The amount of fish waste disposed of into a
          small area such as a marina can exceed that existing naturally in the water at any one time. As fish waste
          decomposes, it requires oxygen, thus sufficient quantities of disposed fish waste can be a cause of
          dissolved oxygen depression, as well as odor problems (USEPA 1993).

          Fuel and oil are commonly released into surface waters during fueling operations through the fuel tank air
          vents, during bilge pumping, and from spills directly into surface waters and into boats during fueling. Oil
          and grease from the operation and maintenance of inboard engines are a source of petroleum in bilges
          (USEPA 1993).


          Marina employees and boat owners use a variety of boat cleaners, such as teak cleaners, fiberglass
          polishers, and detergents (USEPA 1993). Boats are cleaned over the water or onshore adjacent to the


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     50







              water. This results in a high probability of some of the cleaning material entering the water. Copper-based
              antifouling paint is released into marina waters when boat bottoms are cleaned in the water (USEPA 1993).

              A workshop on the environmental impacts of boating held at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
              December 1994, summarizes the substantiated impacts of boating activity. These include: sediment and
              contaminant resuspension and resultant turbidity; laceration of aquatic vegetation with loss of faunal habitat
              and substrate stability; toxic effects of chemical emissions of boat engines; increased turbulence; shearing
              of plankton; shorebird disturbance; and the biological effects of chemically treated wood used in dock and
              bulkhead construction, Many of these issues and concerns remain inadequately described. Sufficient hard
              data was referred to or presented at the workshop, that recreational and commercial motor boat operation is
              far from a benign influence on aquatic and marine environments. This is particularly so in temperate climes
              due to the unfortunate synchrony, with only a few exceptions, of vertebrates and invertebrates in estuaries
              and coastal waters. Therefore, the chance of plants and organisms being affected by power boat operation
              ought to be regarded as privilege which requires due consideration of environmental impacts, and should be
              conducted and managed in such a manner.
              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              The following mea sures were taken mainly from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
              Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993), unless otherwise specified.

              A). Marina siting and design should allow for maximum flushing of the water supply for the site. Adequate
              flushing reduces the potential for the stagnation of water in a marina, helps to maintain the biological
              productivity, and reduces the potential for toxic accumulation in bottom sediment.

              B). Water quality must be considered in the siting and design of both new and expanding marinas.

              C). Marinas should be designed and located so as to protect against adverse impacts on shellfish resources,
              wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and other important habitat areas as designated by local, state, or
              federal governments.

              D). Where shoreline erosion is a nonpoint source pollution problem, shorelines should be stabilized.
              Vegetative methods are strongly preferred.

              E). Runoff control strategies, which include the use of pollution prevention activities and the proper design
              of hull maintenance areas, should be implemented at marina sites. At least 80% of suspended solids must
              be removed from stormwater runoff coming from the hull maintenance areas. Marinas which obtain a
              NPDES permit for their hull maintenance areas are not required to conform to this hull maintenance area
              provision.

              F). Fueling stations should be located and designed so that, in the case of an accident, spill contaminants
              can be contained in a limited area. Fueling stations should have fuel containment equipment, as well as a
              spill contingency plan.

              G). To prevent the discharge of sewage directly to coastal waters, new and expanding marinas should
              install pumpout, pump station, and restroom facilities where needed.

              H). Solid wastes produced by the operation, cleaning, maintenance, and repair of boats should be properly
              disposed of to limit their entry to surface waters.

              1). Sound fish waste management should be promoted through a combination of fish cleaning restrictions,
              public education, and proper disposal.

              J). Appropriate storage, transfer, containment, and disposal facilities for liquid materials commonly used in
              boat maintenance, along with the encouragement of recycling of these materials, should be required.



              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       51







         K). The amount of fuel and oil leakage from fuel tank air vents should be reduced.

         Q. Potentially harmful hull cleaners and bottom paints, and their release to marinas and coastal waters,
         should be minimized.


         M). Public education/outreach/training programs should be instituted for boaters, as well as marina
         operators, to prevent improper disposal of polluting materials.

         N). Pumpout facilities should be maintained in operational condition, and their use should be encouraged to
         reduce untreated sewage discharges to surface waters.

         0). In shallow areas, intense boating activities may contribute to shoreline erosion. Increased turbidity and
         physical destruction of shallow-water habitat resulting from boating activities should be minimized.



         P). Emissions from outboard motors should be monitored, and emissions standards should be enforced
         (Stolpe 1997).

         Q). Dry stack storage marinas are recommended, as opposed to wet marinas, in dogfish EFH. Unlike wet
         marinas that require extensive dredging and other physical disruptions to physical habitats, dry stack storage
         facilities are located on uplands thereby minimizing the need for dredging and dependence on the use of
         timber treated with toxic chemicals. Additionally, land storage allows the use of polymer-based bottom
         paints, eliminating the need for toxic treatments containing copper or tributyl tin.

         2.2.5.7 Energy production and transport

         Energy production facilities are widespread along Atlantic coastal areas. Electric power is generated by
         various methods, including land based nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants, and fossil fuel stations.
         These facilities compete for space along the coastal zone and require water for cooling. The impacts on the
         marine and estuarine environment resulting from the various types of power plants include water
         consumption, heated water and reverse thermal shock, entrainment and impingement of organisms,
         discharge of heavy metals and biocides in blow down water, destruction and elimination of habitat, and
         disposal of dredged materials and fly ash (USDC 1985a).

         2.2.5.7.1 Hydroelectric

         Hydropower plants may after the following characteristics of water bodies:

         1. Dissolved oxygen concentrations and temperature;


         2. Create artificial destratification;


         3. Withdraw or divert water;


         4. Change sediment load;

         5. Change channel morphology;

         6. Accelerate eutrophication;


         7. Change nutrient cycling; and


         8. Contaminate water and sediment (Hill 1996).





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     52







              Water quality contaminants of major concern include mercury, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides. Dams
              and the need for altered flows may substantially affect anadromous fish runs and/or restoration programs
              (Hill 1996). In addition, impingement of juvenile and adult fish may occur on trash racks that protect
              turbines from mechanical damage and turbine entrainment causes mortality of eggs and juvenile fishes.
              Altered dissolved oxygen levels can cause gas bubble disease to fishes (Hill 1996).

              Habitat alterations include dams, which create reservoirs and tailwaters. Tailwaters can scour substrate and
              benthic organisms, as well as fish and fish eggs, create bank erosion, displace sediment downstream, and
              limit the establishment of riparian vegetation. In addition, clearing for hydropower projects requires
              disruption of wetlands and riparian habitat and control of some aquatic vegetation (Hill 1996).


              2.2.5.7.2 Nuclear


              A major adverse impact of nuclear power plants is water withdrawal and thermal pollution, due to the use of
              cooling water (Hill 1996). Once-through cooling which requires withdrawal of large volumes of water
              causes significant impingement of juveniles and larger size classes, and entrainment of eggs and larvae.
              Reverse thermal shock can also occur when plant operation ceases, causing fish mortality to organisms that
              are adapted to the warmer outflow. As an alternative to once-through large-water volume usage, cooling
              lowers can be constructed which reduce both impingement/entrainment and thermal pollution. Incidental
              use of biocides to reduce biofouling also introduces pollutants to the surface waters. Another problem is
              storage and disposal of nuclear wastes which will last centuries.


              2.2.5.7.3 Fossil fuels


              Coal- and oil-fired plants and shore based refineries are served by various sized vessels, which transport
              those fuels. Additional navigational channels may be required, which could result in habitat disruption
              initially and periodically, and the need to find appropriate sites for placement of dredged materials (USDC
              1985a). Transportation of fossil fuels may risk the chance of major oil spills or release of other hazardous
              materials, increases in automotive emissions, and habitat loss from construction of pipelines (Hill 1996).
              Coal fired plants generate voluminous amounts of fly ash, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,
              and traces of mercury contributing to acid rain (USDC 1 985a, Hill 1996). The excavation of fossil fuels may
              have adverse effects on biota, as well (Hill 1996). Mining can contribute to acid mine drainage, human
              health impacts, vegetation and associated wildlife losses, erosion and stream sediments (Hill 1996). In
              addition, water withdrawal and diversion may cause impingement and entrainment of fish, as well as
              thermal pollution (Hill 1996).

              2.2.5.7.4 Offshore oil and gas operations

              The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploratory and production drilling and transport may affect biota and
              their habitats through the deposition of drilling muds and cuttings. Oil spills resulting from well blowouts,
              pipeline breaks, and tanker accidents are of major concern. Seismic testing operations can interfere with
              fishing operations and damage or destroy fishing gear. Contaminants from oil exploration include mostly
              petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Effects of hydrocarbon contamination in the water column and
              sediments may include: mortality of larval fish; mortality from predation due to slower avoidance behavior;
              bioaccumulation in fish; migration interference for salmon and other anadromous species; and slower
              maturation of larvae (Howarth 1991). Sublethal effects can cause a decrease in recruitment, as well as
              complex ecological interactions (Howarth 1991). Cumulative effects of oil on ecosystems include changes
              in benthic community structure and possible changes in planktonic community structure (Howarth 1991).
              Oil and gas exploration in the Mineral Management Service's (MMS) Mid-Atlantic, North Atlantic, and South
              Atlantic lease areas may result in loss or degradation of benthic habitat from the deposition of discharged
              drilling muds and cuttings. Should production of oil and gas occur in these areas, the transport of the
              products to onshore storage and processing facilities would pose additional threats to coastal zone and
              estuarine ecosystems (USDC 1985a).





               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      53









          Measures for conservation and enhancement


          A). Appropriate measures should be taken to reduce acid precipitation and runoff into estuaries and
          nearshore waters.


          B). Prior to pipeline construction, less damaging, alternative modes of oil and gas transportation should be
          explored (Penkal and Phillips 1984).

          C). State natural resource agencies should be involved in the preliminary pipeline planning process to
          prevent violations of water quality and habitat protection laws and to minimize impact of pipeline
          construction and operation on aquatic resources (Penkal and Phillips 1984).

          D). Potential effects of proposed and existing tidal power projects should be estimated; state and federal
          agencies, regardless of their regulatory jurisdiction, should become involved in this process (Rulifson et al,
          1986).


          E). All vessels transporting fuels and other hazardous materials should be required to carry equipment to
          contain and retrieve the spill. Dispersants shall not be used to clean up fuels and hazardous materials unless
          approved by the EPA/Coast Guard and fishery agencies.

          F). NPDES permit conditions, such as those relating to dissolved oxygen, temperature, impingement and
          entrainment, under the Clean Water Act, should be monitored and strictly enforced in dogfish EFH.

          G). NPDES permits should be reviewed every five years for all energy production facilities.

          H). Offshore oil and gas leasing, exploration, and production should be strictly limited and controlled, so as
          not to degrade dogfish EFH. Onshore facilities assisting offshore oil and gas exploration and development,
          and secondary development stimulated by OCS development, should not degrade dogfish EFH. Seismic
          work should not be carried out with explosives (air bursts only) in dogfish EFH.

          The following measures were taken from Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
          Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA 1993) and apply to dams 25 feet or more in height and greater
          than 15 acre-feet in capacity, or to dams six feet or more in height and greater that 50 acre-feet in
          capacity. They also apply only to those projects and activities that fall outside of existing jurisdiction of the
          NPIDES permit program.

          1). Erosion should be reduced and sediment retained onsite, to the extent practicable, during and after
          construction of dams. An approved erosion and sediment control plan, or similar administrative document
          that contains erosion and sediment control provisions, should be prepared and implemented prior to land
          disturbance.


          J). Proper storage and disposal of certain chemicals, substances, and other materials that are used in
          construction or maintenance activities at dams, should be implemented. These include construction
          chemicals such as concrete additives, petrochemicals, solid wastes, cement washout, pesticides and
          fertilizers. Application, generation, and migration of toxic substances should be limited and properly stored
          and disposed of. This measure also ensures that nutrients are applied at rates necessary to establish and
          maintain vegetation without causing significant nutrient runoff to surface waters.

          K). Operation of dams should be assessed for impacts to surface water quality and instrearn and riparian
          habitat, and that the potential for improvement should be evaluated. Significant nonpoint source pollution
          problems that exist from excessive surface water withdrawals should also be assessed and evaluated.







          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       54







              2.2.5.8 Sewage treatment and disposal

              The Atlantic Ocean off the northeastern United States has been used in the past for the disposal of solid
              wastes and sewage sludge. Some waste treatment methods, such as chlorination, pose additional problems
              to aquatic species. Habitats and associated organisms have been degraded by long-term ocean disposal,
              particularly of sewage wastes. Sewage pollution causes closure of shellfish beds, and occasionally, of
              public swimming areas because of high fecal coliform counts. Dumping of sewage sludge in the Atlantic
              coastal waters is regulated under Section 102 of the Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act, while the
              discharge of treated sewage effluent is permitted under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

              Organic loading of estuarine and coastal waters is an emerging problem. Ocean disposal of sewage sludge
              degrades water quality and associated habitats. Symptoms of elevated levels include excessive algae
              blooms, shifts in abundance of algal species, increased biological oxygen demand (BOD) in sediments of
              heavily affected sites, and anoxic events in coastal waters. Changes in biological components are
              frequently a consequence of long-term ocean disposal. Harmful human pathogens and parasites can be
              found in biota and sediments in the vicinity of ocean dump sites. In 1995, 4.9 million acres of shellfish-
              growing waters was harvest- limited due to water quality (USDC 1997c). The top five pollution sources
              reported as contributing were urban runoff (40%), upstream sources (39%), wildlife (38%), individual
              wastewater treatment systems (32%), wastewater treatment plants (24%), and unknown (6%; USDC
              1997a).


              The Chesapeake Bay and the Hudson-Raritan Estuary are two of the three estuaries with the largest number
              of point discharges in the US (USDC 1993a). Most of the point sources of nutrient loading into the Hudson-
              Raritan Estuary are sewage treatment plants. In 1988, it was estimated that 6.8 million gallons per day of
              raw sewage were discharged into this estuary, mainly from Manhattan, Staten Island, and Brooklyn,
              contributing to most of the 50,000 tons of total nitrogen and 32,000 tons of total phosphorus added to the
              region per year. Wastewater treatment plants contributed 43% of the total nitrogen and 90% of the total
              phosphorus to the New York Bight (USDC 1993a). Toxics metals were added at a rate of 35,700 tons per
              year. Contributing io this loading was urban runoff (31 %), wastewater treatment plants (19 %), direct
              industrial discharge (114%), and various other sources.

              Sewage treatment effluent produces changes in biological components as a result of chlorination and
              increased contaminant loading. Sewage treatment plants constructed where the soils are highly saturated
              often allow suburban expansion in areas that would have otherwise remained undeveloped, thereby
              exacerbating already severe pollution problems in some areas. Sewage treatment pollutant components
              include solids, phosphorus, and pathogens (USEPA 1993). Eutrophication in surface waters has also been
              attributed to the low nitrogen reductions provided by conventional onsite-di-sposal system.

              Poorly designed or operating onsite disposal systems can cause ponding of partially treated sewage on the
              ground that can reach surface water through runoff. In addition to oxygen-demanding organics and
              nutrients, these surface sources contain bacteria and viruses that present problems to human health. Viral
              organisms can persist in temperatures as low as -20 0 F, suggesting that they may survive over winter in
              contaminated ice, later becoming available to ground water in the form of snowmelt (USEPA 1993).
              Although ground-water contamination from toxic substances is more often life-threatening, the majority of
              ground-water-related health complaints are associated with pathogens from septic tank systems (USEPA
              1993).


              While a variety of other wastes have been disposed of in coastal waters of the New York Bight for over 50
              years, sewage sludge has only been dumped offshore of the New York Bight over the last 20 years (Chang
              1993). Species abundances of silver and red hakes (Merluccius bilinearis and Urophycis chuss), summer
              flounder (Parafichthys dentatus), goosefish (Lophius americanus), and black sea bass (Centropristis striata)
              declined significantly over temporal and spatial scales during the disposal of contamination laden sewage
              sludge at the deepwater 106-Mile Dump Site (Chang 1993). There was also a decline in the array of all
              aggregated species (Chang 1993).




               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      55








         Congress requested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to assess the status of waste disposal in
         marine environments (OTA 1987). In general, OTA determined that estuarine and coastal waters were
         severely degraded across the nation and that "many of the adverse impacts on marine waters and
         organisms are caused by the introduction of pollutants through the disposal of wastes." These wastes
         include municipal sewage sludge, industrial wastes, dredged materials, industrial and municipal effluents,
         and urban and agricultural runoff. Based on their assessment, OTA concluded:

         1. "Estuaries and coastal waters around the country receive the vast majority of pollutants introduced into
         marine environments. As a result, many of these waters have exhibited a variety of adverse impacts, and
         their overall health is declining or threatened;"

         2. "In the absence of additional measures, new or continued degradation will occur in many estuaries and
         some coastal waters around the country during the next few decades (even in some areas that exhibited
         improvements in the past);"

         3. "In contrast, the health of the open ocean generally appears to be better than that of estuaries and
         coastal waters. Relatively few impacts from waste disposal have been observed, partly because the open
         ocean has been subject to relatively little waste disposal and because wastes are typically dispersed and
         diluted. Uncertainty exists, however, about the ability to discern impacts in the open ocean". (Note,
         however, that studies which would detect these impacts in the open ocean have not been conducted.)

         OTA (1987) determined that municipal and industrial discharges, sewage sludge, and dredged material
         accounted for most of the pollutants found in estuary and coastal waters along the Atlantic coast. OTA
         (1987) identified Buzzard's Bay, Boston Harbor, Narragansett Bay, Long,lsland Sound, the New York Bight,
         and Chesapeake Bay as specific areas that were severely polluted or degraded. Contaminated sediments,
         containing excessive concentrations of organic chemicals, metals and pathogens have been identified in
         Boston Harbor, New Bedford Harbor, the New York Bight, Raritan Bay, Hudson River Estuary, the Patapsco
         River around Baltimore, and the James River Estuary. Contaminated water and sediments in the North
         Atlantic have had adverse impacts on marine organisms. Fish kills, increases in fish diseases and
         abnormalities, and restrictions on commercial and recreational harvest of both finfish and shellfish have
         occurred as the result of this pollution (OTA 1987).

         The dumping of sewage sludge is no longer allowed in the Atlantic Ocean. Historically, municipal sewage
         sludge and industrial waste were dumped in two areas along the North Atlantic coast: the New York Bight
         and deep water sites 100 miles east of Delaware Bay (OTA 1987). In 1985, approximately 7 million wet
         metric tons (15.4 million pounds) of municipal sewage sludge, several billion gallons of raw sewage, and 8
         million wet metric tons (17*'6 million pounds) of dredge spoils were dumped in the New York Bight. Routine
         dumping of municipal sewage sludge and dredge spoils probably contributed to the depletion of oxygen in
         the New York Bight during the summer and early autumn of 1976. Near anoxic and, in places, anoxic water
         was located approximately 4 miles off New Jersey and covered an area about 100 miles long and 40 miles
         wide during the most critical phases of oxygen depletion (Sharp 1976). The most commercially important
         species affected by the anoxia were surfclams, red hake, lobsters and crabs. Finfish were observed to be
         driven to inshore areas to escape the anoxia, or were trapped in water with concomitant high levels of
         hydrogen sulfide (Steimle 1976). Oxygen levels in 1985, in some areas of the Bight, approached the low
         values observed in 1976 (OTA 1987).


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         A). All sewage should go through tertiary treatment (i.e., nutrient removal) when discharged in dogfish
         EFH.


         B). Dechlorination facilities or lagoon effluent holding facilities should be used to destroy chlorine at sewage
         treatment plants and power plants.





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    56







             C). All NPDES permits of public owned treatment works (POTWs) should be reviewed and strictly enforced
             in dogfish EFH.


             2.2.5.9 Industrial wastewater and solid waste


             Industrial wastewater effluent is regulated by USEPA through the NPDES/SPDES permitting program. This
             program provides for issuance of waste discharge permits as a means of identifying, defining, and
             controlling virtually all point source discharges. However, many problems remain due to inadequate
             monitoring and enforcement. It is not possible presently to estimate the singular, combined, and synergistic
             effects on the ecosystem impacted by industrial (and domestic) wastewater.

             Point source discharges can potentially alter the following properties of communities and ecosystems:
             diversity, nutrient and energy transfer, productivity, biomass, density, stability, connectivity, species
             richness, and eveness (Cairns 1980). Additionally, point source discharges may alter the following
             characteristics of fish, shellfish, and related organisms: longevity; fecundity; growth; visual acuity;
             swimming speed; equilibrium; flavor; feeding rate; response time to stimuli; predation rate; photosynthetic
             rate; spawning season; migration route; and resistance to parasites. Contamination of water quality is
             generally due to organics and heavy metals, though other characteristics such as flow, pH, hardness,
             dissolved oxygen may also be altered lCairns 191101,

             Non-point discharges and solid wastes associated with industrial processes also contribute chemical
             contaminants to dogfish EFH. Chemicals can leak from storage facilities and [each from wastewater lagoons
             contaminating groundwater that ultimately discharge to rivers and estuaries. Solid wastes historically have
             been indiscriminately buried and, likewise, have contaminated groundwater with chemical leachates.
             Although regulatory programs have been enacted to preclude similar actions from occurring today, accidents
             still occur, and many areas are contaminated from past operations. Consequently, fish that inhabit waters
             adjacent to these sites, even seasonally, often bioaccumulate contaminants making them unfit for human
             consumption. Federal and state programs (e.g., Superfund) are designed to remediate hazardous waste
             sites, thereby reducing the bioavailability of contaminants to fish and other aquatic organisms,
             Unfortunately, remedial actions sometimes physically modify affected areas so completely that they are       no
             longer suitable habitats for aquatic organisms.

             Sediments and biota in specific areas along the Atlantic coast contain elevated levels of PCBs (OOMA
             1987). Although PCBs are suspected carcinogens to humans, comprehensive research has not yet been
             done on the significance of elevated body burdens on the fish themselves, or on reproduction processes and
             subsequent recruitment of larval, juvenile, and pre-recruits to adult stocks. Whereas laboratory and field
             effects of a range of organic contaminants have been measured, there is little understanding of how
             contaminants such as PCBs affect the behavior, biochemistry, genetics, or physiology of these fish at either
             the lethal or sublethal level. It is significant that where elevated levels of PCBs have been reported in the
             marine environment they have generally been associated with elevated levels of toxic heavy metals,
             petroleum hydrocarbons, and other contaminants.


             Measures for conservation and enhancement


             A). No toxic substances in concentrations harmful (synergistically or otherwise) to humans, fish, wildlife,
             and aquatic life should be discharged. The EPA's Water Quality Criteria Series should be used as guidelines
             for determining harmful concentration levels. Use of the best available technology to control industrial
             waste water discharges should be required in areas essential for the survival of dogfish. Any new potential
             discharge into dogfish EIH must be shown not to have a harmful effect on logfish.

             B). The siting of industries requiring water diversion and large volume water withdrawals should be avoided
             in dogfish EFH. Project proponents should demonstrate that project implementation will not negatively
             affect dogfish, its EFH, or its food supply. Where such facilities currently exist, best management practices
             must be employed to minimize adverse effects on the environment.




               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       57








         Q. All NPIDES permits should be reviewed and strictly enforced in dogfish EFH.

         D). Hazardous waste sites should be cleaned up (i.e., remediated) to prevent contaminants from entering
         aquatic food chains.

         E). Remedial actions affecting aquatic and wetland habitats should be designed to facilitate restoration of
         ecological functions and values.

         2.2.5.10 Marine mining

         Mining for sand, gravel, shell stock, and beach nourishment projects in coastal and estuarine waters can
         result in the loss of infaunal benthic organisms, modifications of substrate, changes in circulation patterns,
         and decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations at deeply excavated sites, where flushing is minimal IUSDC
         1997a). Marine mining elevates suspended materials at mining sites and turbidity plumes may move several
         miles from individual sites. Resuspended sediments may contain contaminants such as heavy metals,
         pesticides, herbicides, and other toxins. Mining also results in changes in sediment type or sediment
         quality, often over areas measurable in square miles. Deep borrow pits created by mining may become
         seasonally or permanently anaerobic. Finfish appear to seek out these warmer pockets in the late fall,
         possibly as a result of declining water temperatures in surrounding area (Ludwig and Gould 1988). It may
         be important for beach nourishment projects to avoid areas that are rich in clam shells or near other "reef"
         habitats (Steimle pers. comm.).

         Consumption of sand from offshore shoals is occurring on al large scale along the U.S. Atlantic coast.
         Although the offshore shoals are actively being modified by waves and currents, they are relict features
         which formed at times of lower sea level. As such, once lost, they are not expected to be replaced by
         natural processes. Cumulative environmental impacts to finfish are expected to since loss of offshore
         shoals will reduce habitat diversity on the U.S. inner continental shelf.


         Deep ocean extraction of mineral nodules is a possibility for some non@renewable minerals now facing
         depletion on land. Such operations are proposed for the deep ocean proper, where nodules are bedded on
         oceanic oozes. Resuspension of these oceanic oozes can affect water clarity over wide areas and, if roiled
         to the near-surface, could also affect photosynthetic activity. Nodule concentrations have been located
         along the slope/ocean deep zone in Georgia and the Carolinas (Ludwig and Gould 1988). Such mining
         activities could potentially affect benthic organisms and their habitats, as well as pelagic eggs and larvae
         (USDC 1985a).


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         A). Sand mining and beach nourishment should not be allowed in dogfish EFH during seasons when dogfish
         are utilizing the area.

         The following are applicable to freshwater situations and are recommendations taken from the NMFS
         National Gravel Extraction Policy (1996).

         B). Gravel extraction operations should be managed to avoid or minimize impacts to bathymetric structure
         in estuarine and nearshore areas.


         Q. The cumulative impacts of gravel and sand extraction should be addressed by federal and state resource
         management and permitting agencies and considered in the permitting process.

         D). An integrated environmental assessment, management, and monitoring program should be a part of any
         gravel or sand extraction operation, and encouraged at federal and state levels.

         E). Plan and design mining activities to avoid significant resource areas (such as consolidated sand ledges,
         sand dollar beds, or algae beds).



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       58







             F). Plan and design mining activities with minimum area and depth to minimize recolonization times (deep
             holes should be avoided).


             G). Mitigation and restoration should be an integral part of the management of gravel and sand extraction
             policies.

             H). Remove unlike material as part of the mining operation to help restore natural bottom characteristics.


             1). Remove material from areas where accumulation is caused by human activities.


             2.2.5.11 Aquaculture

             Aquaculture is an expanding industry in the US. The annual commercial harvest is over 700 million lbs
             round weight with a value to producers of nearly $600 million (Robinette et at 1991). The commercial
             culture of channel catfish, salmonids, and crayfish is very successful, and the potential commercial culture
             of other species is being explored. Most aquaculture facilities are located in farmland, tidal, intertidal, and
             coastal areas (Robinette et at 199 1). Major potential adverse impacts of aquaculture include disease,
             genetic pollution of wild stock, escape of exotic species, water contamination, and eutrophication
             (Robinette et at 1991). Also, the use of low-head dams, weirs, and other obstructions may impede the
             natural -movement of estuarine species (Robinette et at 1991).

             Escape of exotic species may result in a restructuring of the native ecosystem through such pathways as
             gene pool deterioration, trophic alteration, introduction of pathogens and disease, and displacement of
             native species through competition (these impacts of exotic species are discussed separately in section
             2.2.5.12; Robinette et at 199 1). Cultured species may be genetically altered and/or have a less genetically
             diverse background than wild species. The release of the reared stock may have an adverse impact to the
             wild stock. For example, a reared stock may be less resistant to a disease than a wild stock. When the
             two stocks begin to mix it may lower the resistance of the native stock to the disease (Sindermann 1992).


             Measures for conservatio n and enhancement


             The following recommendations are taken from The American Fisheries Society (AFS) Position Statement of
             Commercial Aquaculture (Robinette et at 1991).

             A). Federal and state agencies should cooperatively promulgate and enforce regulations to ensure both the
             health of the aquatic organism and quality of the food products. Animals that are to be moved from one
             biogeographic area to another or to natural waters should be quarantined to prevent disease transmission.

             B). To prevent disruption of natural aquatic communities, cultured organisms should not be allowed to
             escape, and the use of organisms native to each facility's region is strongly encouraged.

             C). When commercially cultured fish are considered for stocking in natural waters, every consideration
             should be given to protecting the genetic integrity of native fishes.

             D). Aquaculture facilities should meet prevailing environmental standards for wastewater treatment and
             sludge control.


             2.2.5.12 Ocean disposal

             Ocean disposal of industrial waste products, dredged material, and radioactive wastes degrades water
             quality and associated habitats. Concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, insecticides, petroleum
             products, and other toxic contaminants contribute significantly to degradation of waters off the Atlantic
             coast. Changes in biological components are a consequence of long-term ocean disposal. Harmful human
             pathogens and parasites can be found in biota and sediments in the vicinity of ocean dump sites. In
             addition, shellfish harvesting grounds have been closed because of excessive concentrations of pathogenic


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     59








         and indicator species of bacteria.

         Many of the above issues and concerns may also be germane to the dumping of fish and shellfish waste in
         the ocean. The closure of land based processing plants because of the inability to meet NPDES/SPDES
         effluent requirements encourages the attempts for at sea disposal. While fishery byproducts may be
         nutritive in value, problems of biological oxygen demand (BOD) increase excessive algal blooms, and
         concentrations of pathogenic bacteria, may all be associated with ocean disposal of fisheries products.


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         Note: this threat was a major concern to NIVIFS habitat researchers and the Council members in the mid to
         the late 1 980s. Through concerted efforts of numerous individuals and agencies, ocean disposal has
         presently ceased; however, discussions still persist relative to resuming dumping. Should ocean disposal
         ever become viable again, the Council policy (MAFMC 1990b) should be reviewed.


         A). Under no circumstances should there be disposal of contaminated material in EFH (section 2.2.5.4.D).
         All of the other recommendations for dredging and disposal of dredged materials (section 2.2.5.4) apply
         here as well.


         B). Ocean disposal of fresh fish waste (i.e., scallop shells and bodies, fish racks, etc.) shall be permitted in
         areas that are not environmentally at risk. Monitoring of the disposal area will be the responsibility of the
         discharger if there is credible scientific information that suggest the area is being negatively impacted by the
         discharge.

         2.2.5.13 Introduced species


         Over the past two decades there has been an increase in introductions of exotic species into aquatic
         habitats (Kohler and Courtenay 1988). Introductions can be intentional (e.g., for purpose of stocking or
         pest control) or unintentional (e.g., fouling organisms). Five types of negative impacts generally occur due
         to species introductions: (1) habitat alteration; (2) trophic alteration; (3) gene pool. alteration; (4) spatial
         alteration; and (5) introduction of diseases. Habitat alteration includes the excessive vegetation of
         introduced aquatic plants (e.g. hydrilla, watermilfoil, and alligator weed (Kohler and Courtenay 1988). This
         overgrowth interferes with swimming and fishing activities, upsets predator-prey relationships, and causes
         water quality problems. The introduction of exotic species may alter community structure by predation on
         native species (e.g. brown trout on brook trout) or by population explosions of the introduced species (e.g.
         tilapias). Spatial alteration occurs when territorial introduced species compete with native species (e.g.
         displacement of brook trout by brown trout). Although hybridization is rare, gene pool deterioration may
         occur between native and introduced species (e.g. brown trout and brook trout). One of the most severe
         threats to a native fish community is the bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can be introduced w,ith exotic
         species (Kohler and Courtenay 1988).

         Escape of exotic species may result in a restructuring of the native ecosystem through such pathways as
         gene pool deterioration, trophic alteration, introduction of pathogens and disease, and displacement of
         native species through competition (Robinette et aL 1991). Cultured species may be genetically altered
         and/or have a less genetically diverse background than wild species. The release of the reared stock may
         have an adverse impact to the wild stock. For example, a reared stock may be less resistant to a disease
         than a wild stock. When the two stocks begin to mix it may lower the resistance of the native stock to the
         disease (Sindermann 1992).


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         The following recommendations are taken from the AFS Position Statement on Introductions of Aquatic
         Species (Kohler and Courtenay 1986).





          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       60







             A). Fish importers, farmers, dealers, and hobbyists should prevent and discourage the accidental or
             purposeful introduction of aquatic species into their local ecosystems.

             B). City, county, state or federal agencies should not introduce species into any waters within its
             "jurisdiction which might contaminate any waters outside its jurisdiction.

             C). Only ornamental aquarium fish dealers should be permitted to import such fishes for sale or distribution
             to hobbyists.

             D). The importation of fishes for purposes of research not involving introduction into a natural ecosystem
             should be made with the responsible government agencies.

             E). All species that are considered for release should be prohibited and considered undesirable for any
             purpose of introduction into any ecosystem unless found to be desirable by federal fisheries agencies, as
             well as neighboring state agencies .

             2.2.5.14 Cumulative impact analysis

             According to section 600.815 (a)(6), to the extent feasible and practicable, FMPs should analyze how
             fishing -and non-fishing activities influence habitat function on an ecosystem or watershed scale.

             "Cumulative impacts to the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to
             other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes such actions."
             Several examples of cumulative impacts from non-fishing and fishing threats include wetland losses, nutrient
             enrichment, eutrophication, toxic algal blooms, and global climate change. These cumulative impacts
             generally occur in estuarine and inshore areas; the multiple effects can result in adverse impacts to dogfish
             EFH.


             Estuaries provide the nation with highly productive habitats and important living resources. Intensive use of
             these ecosystems for industrial, residential, and recreational activities has had cumulative adverse effects on
             many estuarine resources. Fourteen estuaries have been designated as dogfish EFH (Table 7).

             The Mid-Atlantic region extends from New York through North Carolina. However, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
             Management Council manages species throughout their range, which for dogfish includes the entire U.S.
             Atlantic coast. The National Estuarine Inventory defines 15 estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic States including
             Gardiner's Bay, Long Island Sound, Great South Bay, Hudson-Raritan Bay, Barnegat Bay, New Jersey Inland
             Bays, Delaware Bay, Delaware Inland Bays, Chincoteague Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Albernarele Sound, Pamlico
             Sound, Bogue Sound, New River, and Cape Fear River (LISDC 1990). Mid-Atlantic estuaries account for
             44% of the total freshwater discharge to coastal waters along the Atlantic coast. Yearly precipitation
             amounts to 40 to 48 inches per year. However, peak freshwater flow is a result of spring snow melt (USDC
             1990).


             Human use of estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic is extensive and described earlier in section 2.2.5. These
             problems have begun to be addressed. However, conclusions about the cumulative effects of contaminants
             is lacking on the ecosystem and the 14 estuaries (Table 8 and Figures 12 and 13) that were established as
             dogfish EFH, along with much of the inshore area of the Atlantic coast (Figures 17-19). Some of the dogfish
             prey species are estuarine dependent. Unquantified cumulative impacts to estuarine and inshore areas have
             potential impacts to the sustainability of the dogfish fishery.

             2.2.5.14.1 Nutrient Loading

             Land use intensification threatens efficient nutrient cycling in many watersheds. Excess nutrients from land
             based activities accumulate in the soil, pollute the atmosphere, pollute ground water, or move into streams.
             Healthy w atersheds have a reasonable balance of nutrient imports and exports (Aschman et aL 1997). '
             Physical characteristics and nutrient loadings of eight of the major mid-Atlantic estuaries are summarized in


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      61








         Table 17. Five of eight of these estuaries have medium to high nutrient loadings. Nutrient inputs include a
         combination of urban and industrial sources (Mid-Atlantic Regional Research Program 1994). Nutrient to
         these mid-Atlantic estuaries include sewage input (septic systems and wastewater treatment), industrial
         wastewater, urban input, agricultural sources, and atmospheric inputs.

         Of course while nutrient overloading is a significant problem in many areas, nutrients are necessary for
         overall productivity. It is speculated by some that chemosynthesis from deep sea trenches is perhaps the
         largest input of nutrients into the marine system. (Fletcher pers.comm.). While worldwide, chemosynthesis
         may be very important in the oceans' productivity, it does not appear that significant nutrients are
         contributed from deep sea trenches to areas currently designated as dogfish EFH.


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         Nutrient loading is a cumulative impact that results from the individual threats of coastal development,
         nonpoint source pollution, marinas and recreational boating, sewage treatment and disposal, industrial
         wastewater and solid wastes, ocean disposal and aquaculture. Please refer to the above sections for
         individual measures for conservation and enhancement.


         2.2.5.14.2 Eutrophication

         Nutrient inputs are known to have a direct effect on water quality. For example, in extreme conditions
         excess nutrients can stimulate excessive algal blooms that can lead to increased metabolism and turbidity,
         decreased dissolved oxygen, and changes in community structure, a condition called eutrophication (USDC
         1997d-f). Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) initiated the Estuarine
         Eutrophication Survey in 1992 to comprehensively assess the scale and scope of nutrient enrichment and
         eutrophication in the National Estuarine Inventory estuaries. Table 18 illustrates the results of the
         eutrophication survey for the Atlantic coast, collected through a series of surveys, interviews, and regional
         workshops. The surveys describe existing conditions and trends of 17 parameters that characterize nutrient
         enrichment (USDC 1997d-f).


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         Eutrophication is a cumulative impact that results from the individual threats of coastal development,
         nonpoint source pollution, marinas and recreational boating, sewage treatment and disposal, industrial
         wastewater and solid wastes, ocean disposal and aquaculture. Please refer to the above sections for
         individual measures for conservation and enhancement.


         2.2.5.14.3 Harmful algal blooms

         It is believed that nutrient enrichment of estuarine waters has lead to blooms of noxious dinoflagellates and
         algae (Mid-Atlantic Regional Marine Research Program 1994). Examples of such dinoflagellates or algae
         include Gynodinium breve, the dinoflagellate that causes neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, dinoflagellates of
         the genus Alexandrium, which cause paralytic shellfish poisoning, Aureococcus anophagefferens, the algae
         which causes "Brown tide", and diatoms of the genus Pseudo-nitzschia, which cause amnesic shellfish
         poisoning (Boesch et aL 1997).

         Brown tide has been a recurrent problem in Peconic/Flanders and South Shore Bays of Long Island, since
         1985 (Suffolk County DOHS 1997). It has also occurred in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Barnegat
         Bay, New Jersey. Among finfish and shellfish that have been impacted by brown tide, the scallop
         population in the Peconic Estuary has virtually eradicated (Suffolk County DOHS 1997). The causes of the
         impact of brown tide are still unknown and may be attributed to toxic, mechanical, and/or nutritional
         aspects of the organism. However, when brown tide blooms exist at concentrations greater than 200,000
         to 250,000 cells per 0.06 cu. in. 0 ml), it reduces light penetration, adversely impacting eelgrass beds
         which are of critical importance to finfish and shellfish (Suffolk County DOHS 1997). Although macro-
         nutrients do not cause blooms, they may provide optimum conditions for it.


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      62









              Pfiesteria piscicida is a ecen,ly-desc,ibed toxic dinollagellale that was originally isolated from No    rth Carolina
              waters (FDE  'P 1998). It has been documented in the water column in Delaware, Maryland, and North
              Carolina. Another Pfiesteria-like organism has been documented in St. John's River, Florida. P. piscicida
              has been associated with fish kills in North Carolina and Maryland (FDEP 1997, Hughes Commission 1997).
              Although Pfiesteria has been documented in Maryland waters, and fish with lesions were found in those
              same waters, etiologies of those lesions is still unknown, and is currently being studied by state, federal,
              and university pathologists (Driscoll pers. comm.). Additionally, the role of nutrient runoff and other
              possible causes are being investigated (Driscoll pers. comm).

              The role of nutrients in algal blooms around the world is well documented (Hughes Commission 1997).
              Pfiesteria has a complicated life cycle (Figure 22), and the role that nutrients play in that life cycle is still
              unknown. Dr. Joanne Burkholder, who is credited with the discovery of Pfiesteria, has demonstrated in the
              laboratory that the growth of non-toxic stages of Pfiesteria can be stimulated by the addition of inorganic
              and organic nutrients. Field studies conducted by Burkholder have demonstrated a correlation between
              phosphorous-rich waste outfalls and high concentrations of non-toxic Pfiesteria (Hughes Commission Report
              1997). It is important to note that not all outbreaks of Pfiesteria occurred in nutrient-enriched waters.
              Currently, it is not known what triggers Pfiesteria to a toxic stage. High nutrient concentrations are not
              required for Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates to turn toxic. In fact, if suitable concentrations are
              present, toxic outbreaks can occur even if nutrient concentrations are relatively low. It appears that
              excessive nutrient loadings can help to create an environment rich in microbial prey and organic matter that
              Pfiesteria uses as a food supply (Hughes Commission 1997). Some scientists hypothesize that the primary
              stimuli for the transformation of the dinoflagellate into toxic stages are chemical cues secreted or excreted
              by the fish. In other words, fish must be present for a toxic outbreak to occur (Hughes Commission 1997).


              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              A). Federal and state agencies should address the issue of harmful algal blooms and Pflesteria-like toxins
              which cause adverse effects in dogfish EFH-


              2.2.5.14.4 Welland Loss


              In the late 1970's and early 1980's the country was      losing wetlands at an estimated rate of 300,000 acres
              per year. The Clean Water Act and state wetland protection programs have helped to decrease wetland
              losses to 117,000 acres per year, between 1985 and 1995 (Dahl et al. 1997). Estimates of wetlands loss
              differ according. to agency. USDA estimates attributes 57% wetland loss to development, 20% to
              agriculture, 13% to deepwater habitat, and 10% to forest land, rangeland, and other uses (USDA 1995).
              Of the wetlands lost to uplands between 1985 and 1995, USFWS estimates that 79% wetlands were lost
              to upland agriculture. Urban development and "other" types of land-use activities were responsible for 6%
              and 15%, respectively (Dahl et aL 1997). Strong wetland protection must continue to be a national priority;
              otherwise, fisheries that support more than a million jobs and contribute billions of dollars to the national
              economy are at risk (Stedman and Hanson 1997).

              Despite the urbanized nature of the mid-Atlantic, it contains more than 3,500 square miles of wetlands
              (Stedman and Hanson 1997). The Chesapeake and Delaware Bays have the first and second highest areas
              of wetlands in the region, respectively. Forested wetlands are the most common type of wetland,
              accounting for nearly 58% of the region's wetlands, followed by salt marsh (28%; Stedman and Hanson
              1997).


              Measures for conservation and enhancement


              Wetland loss is a cumulative impact that results from the individual threats of coastal development, dredging
              and dredge spoil placement, port development, marinas and recreational boating, sewage treatment and
              disposal, industrial wastewater and solid wastes, ocean disposal, marine mining, and aquaculture. Please
              refer to the above sections for individual measures for conservation and enhancement.




               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                         63








         2.2.5.14.5 Global climate change

         Global warming, an indirect impact of population growth, is an accumulation of carbon dioxide and other
         gases, such as methane, that trap solar infrared light in the atmosphere causing a warming trend. These
         gases originate from industrial and residential sources. Although the issue of global warming is
         controversial, all models predict some warming, especially in the higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere
         (Thorne-Miller and Catena 1991).


         While the rise of the ocean temperature may not be as dramatic or as fast as the atmosphere, only a degree
         or two can have a dramatic effect on biological communities (Thorne-Miller and Catena 1991). Another
         potential affect will be sea level rise caused by the melting of the Arctic tundra and ice cap. Among the
         possible effects on sea life are: (1) a significant loss of coral reefs, salt marshes, and mangrove swamps
         unable to keep up with a rapid rise in sea level; (2) loss of species whose temperature tolerance range is
         exceeded (perhaps an even greater threat to corals than sea-level rise); (3) effects from Tundra runoff
         including runoff of nutrients and suspended sediments; and (4) saltwater intrusion that wreaks havoc with
         freshwater ecosystems, including rivers, freshwater marshes, and coastal lowland farm acreage (Thorne-
         Miller and Catena 1991). Other effects that may result from the melting of the Arctic tundra, include: (1)
         warmer water species would invade formerly cooler habitats confining cooler habitat species farther north;
         and (2) physical changes in the Arctic Seas that may have repercussions through oceans worldwide by
         altering the patterns of circulation, food chains that include valuable fisheries, and climate in other part of
         the world (Thorne-Miller and Catena 1991).


         The Department of Commerce reports that human-generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations
         have combined with natural forces to cause unprecedented warming in the Arctic in the 20th century, a
         phenomenon that could lead to significant changes in the earth's natural environment (USDC 1997b).
         Between 1840 and the mid-20th century, the Arctic warmed to the highest levels of the past four centuries,
         causing dramatic retreats of glaciers, thawing of permafrost and sea ice, and changes in terrestrial and lake
         ecosystems (USDC 1997b). Significant warming in the Arctic, particularly after 1920, may also be related
         to increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and factors internal to the climate system (USDC
         1997b).


         As a result of changing meteorological conditions and sea level rise, fish habitats, fishery yields, and the
         industry's shoreline infrastructure could change dramatically (Bigford 1991). The projected average range of
         global sea level rise over the next century has been adjusted down since the mid-1 980's, but still ranges
         from about 20 to 78 in. (50 to 200 cm). At least three factors will determine the severity of impacts from
         sea-level rise on natural resources and their habitat: (1) physical obstruction to inland habitat shifts from
         natural or human barriers; (2) resilience of species to withstand new environmental conditions during periods
         of erosion-induced transition; and (3) the rate of environmental change (Bigford 1991). Also sea-level rise
         could affect species distributions and abundance, particularly for estuarine-dependent or wetland dependent
         species.


         Measures for conservation and enhancement


         While the following recommendations made by Bigford (1991) would improve the prospects of dealing
         effectively with global warming and sea level rise, they may also apply to climatic fluctuations as well.

         A). Resource and land use planners should include physical, ecological, and economic impacts of rising
         waters with respect to fish habitat and the fishing industry on a short-term and long-term basis.

         B). Local, regional, state, and federal agencies should accommodate sea level rise in decisions related to
         permits and federal support.

         Q. All fishing industry sectors should familiarize themselves with the potential of sea level rise and possible
         impacts to their financial survival.




         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        64







             D). Responsible agencies should conduct studies, including engineering and ecological, on the implications
             of a range of sea levels on coastal ports and habitats.

             2.2.5.15 Legislation and regulations that currently address habitat issues

             Many federal laws are designed to regulate activities that have the potential to adversely affect the
             environment. Frequently, state programs complement those of the federal government. However, it is not
             the intent of this discussion to provide a comprehensive description of all these programs, but rather focus
             attention on hose that most directly affect fisheries resources and their associated habitats. Those
             programs in which NMFS participate are emphasized because NMFS is specifically charged with conserving,
             enhancing, and managing living marine resources and, in concert with the Councils, implementing provisions
             of the MSFCMA.


             Consultative authority is conferred to NMFS by several laws [e.g., Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
             (FWCA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the
             Endangered Species Act (ESA)I. These laws require federal agencies to consult with NMFS when proposing
             to construct, operate, authorize, or fund any activity that may affect resources within the purview of NMFS
             (e.g., fisheries resources, some marine mammals and endangered species, and their respective habitats).
             These mandates are essential to NMFS when reviewing proposals requiring permits to modify estuarine and
             marine -habitats, such as those regulated by the Section 10/404 program.

             Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to regulate
             activities in navigable waters (to mean high water shoreline). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
             as amended, authorizes COE to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United
             States, including wetlands. EPA exercises oversight of the corps through establishment of guidelines under
             Section 404(b)(1) and the ability to veto permit decisions under section 404(c). The COE must consult with
             NMFS, and consider any recommendation made by them, before making a permit decision. It is through
             these recommendations that NMFS has the opportunity to alleviate potential adverse impacts associated
             with project implementation.

             NMFS may also use its consultative authorities when reviewing other activities that can affect aquatic
             habitats. For example, Section 402 of CWA authorizes EPA, or delegated states with approved programs,
             to regulate the discharge of all industrial and municipal wastes (i.e., point source discharges). The EPA and
             COE also share regulatory responsibilities under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
             (MPRSA) for the discharge of wastes into ocean waters. The COE specifically regulates the discharge of
             dredged materials, while EPA regulates other discharges (e.g., municipal sewage sludge, industrial wastes).
             MPRSA also directs NOAA to conduct research and establish marine sanctuaries, which have habitat
             applications, as do elements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

             Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) requires states with
             approved Coastal Zone Management Programs to address nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. States must
             submit Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs for approval to both the EPA and the NOAA. EPA
             published "Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters"
             to assist states to achieve compliance with CZARA. States failing to comply with Section 6217 may lose
             part of their federal funding under Section 306 of CZMA and Section 319 of CWA.

             Other provisions of CWA enable NMFS to exercise its consultative authorities to conserve and enhance
             living marine resources and habitat. For example, Section 316 (a) and (b) require power plants to address
             and abate thermal pollution, and entrainment and impingement of organisms, respectively, and Section 303
             requires states to address water quality holistically by watershed. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
             have been established for key pollutants (e.g., some heavy metals, nutrients) under Section 303. Stream
             segments within each watershed are then monitored, and abatement plans are developed so that each
             watershed can be brought into compliance with TMDLs.





              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      65








         Section 320 of the CWA authorizes the National Estuary Program (NEP). Currently, 28 estuaries are
         included in the NEP nationally; 8 in the Mid-Atlantic. Habitat loss and modification and eutrophication have
         been identified as major problems affecting Mid-Atlantic estuaries. Comprehensive Conservation and
         Management Plans (CCMPs) have been developed that address the problems affecting these estuaries,
         describe measures needed to resolve these problems, and provide implementation strategies. Plans are also
         developed to monitor the success of plan implementation. NMFS participates on the Scientific and
         Technical Committees (STACs) and Living Resources Subcommittees (LRSCs) of many of these estuaries
         recommending research needed to understand estuarine processes and problems, assisting in the
         development of CCMPs, and facilitating their implementation.

         Some laws, such as the Federal Power Act, as amended, provide NMFS with the authority to prescribe
         mitigative measures (e.g., construction of fish passage facilities) for projects licensed by the Federal Energy
         Regulatory Commission. In the northeast, prescriptive authority is primarily used to retrofit facilities that
         injured resources resulting from past actions, such as requiring construction of fishways on existing
         hydroelectric plants during relicensing evaluations. Other legislation mandating NMFS to mitigate resource
         injuries through restoration orreplacement of equivalent services are found in the Comprehensive
         Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) and Oil Pollution Act.

         Additionally, NMFS is involved in programs (e.g., Saltonstall-Kennedy, Anadromous Fish Act) that provide
         grants for the implementation of studies that contribute to the conservation of fish and habitats, or improve
         fisheries management.                                I

         The MSFCMA interim final rule requires consultation between NMFS and other state and federal agencies
         regarding EFH. Federal agencies are required to respond to NMFS and Council comments on federal
         activities, including those that are federally authorized or funded. State and federal agencies are
         encouraged to coordinate with NMFS and the Council in the early stages of actions to identify potential
         impacts to EFH.

         Other pertinent legislation affecting the protection, conservation, enhancement, and management of living
         marine resources and habitat can be found in A Plan to Strengthen the National Marine Fisheries Service's
         National Habitat Program (USDC 1996b).

         2.2.6 Prey Species

         According to section 600.815 (a)(8), actions that reduce the availability of a major Prey species, either
         through direct harm or capture, or through adverse impacts to the prey species' habitat that are known to
         cause a reduction in the population -of the prey species may be considered adverse effects on a managed
         species and its EFH. The bulk of this information can be found, in section 2.1.3.5 Food and Feeding.

         In summary, d ogfish are non-selective predators, however some of their prey items are estuarine dependent.
         Conservation and enhancement recommendations (section 2.2.5) address degradation in estuarine areas for
         dogfish and their food sources.


         2.2.7 Research and Information Needs


         From section 600.815 (a) (10), it states that each FMP should contain recommendations for research efforts
         that the Councils and NMFS view as necessary for carrying out their EFH management mandate. There are
         two sets of recommendations included in this section.


         In general, there is a necessity to review the unpublished "grey" literature from organizations such as Sea
         Grant, state and federal agencies, educational institutions, consulting firms, etc. where significant research
         has been performed on fisheries related contaminant data. However, the time frame imposed by Congress
         did not permit for a complete this data. Review of existing information should provide a logical first step for
         management and better define and prioritize research needs.




         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      66







             The two sets of recommendations in this section are simply a compilation of all existing data needs. The
             Council stands ready to work with NMFS to prioritize these needs on a coastwide basis. The Council is
             soliciting input from the public during the hearing process as to their view of prioritization.

             The first set of recommendations comes from McMillan and Morse (1998) where it is stated that the
             following information is lacking on the biology of dogfish. For a more detailed register of research needs see
             NEFSC reference document 94-22 and the update, revised November 1997.

             1. Update age and growth estimates;

             2. Update length at maturity estimates;

             3. Updatelinvestigate food habits of young-of-year (<35cm) and recruits (>35cm);

             4. Improve estimates of discards by non-directed fisheries;

             5. Investigate potential databases from coastal states regarding estuarine use, particularly the ELMR mid-
             Atlantic region; and

             6. Increase the frequency of sex determination for all surveys and seasons.

             The second list comes from Auster and Langton 0 998). A number of areas where primary data are lacking,
             which would allow better monitoring and improved experimentation, ultimately leading to improved
             predictive capabilities, are:

             1. The spatial extent of fishing induced disturbance. While many observer programs collect data at the
             scale of single tows or sets, the fisheries reporting systems often lack this level of spatial resolution. The
             available data makes it difficult to make observations, along a gradient of fishing effort, in order to assess
             the effects of fishing effort on habitat, community, and ecosystem level processes.

             2. The effects of specific gear types, along a gradient of effort, on specific habitat types. These data are
             the first order needs to allow an assessment of how much effort produces a measurable level of change in
             structural habitat components and the associated communities. Second order data should assess the
             effects of fishing disturbance in a gradient of type 1 and type 2 disturbance treatments.

             3. The role of seafloor habitats on the population dynamics of harvested demersal species. While there is
             often good time series data on late-juvenile and adult populations, and larval abundance, there is a general
             lack of empirical information (except in coral reef, kelp bed, and for seagrass fishes) on linkages between
             EFH and survival, which would allow modeling and experimentation to -predict outcomes of various levels of
             disturbance.


             These data, and any resulting studies, should allow managers to regulate where, when, and how much
             fishing will be sustainable in regards to EFH. Conservation engineering should also play a large role in
             developing fishing gears which are both economical to operate and minimize impacts to environmental
             support functions.

             2.2.8 Review and Revision of EFH Components of FMP

             In section 600.815 (a)(11 1), it states that Councils and NMFS should periodically review the EFH
             components of FMPs, including an update of the fishing equipment assessment. Each EFH FMP amendment
             should include a provision requiring review and update of EFH information and preparation of a revised FMP
             amendment if new information becomes available.


             The Council will amend its FMPs at least every five years as called for in this section, but is also including a
             habitat framework adjustment provision that can be included in each FMP. Due to the very rapid time


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       67








        constraints of meeting the October-MSFMCA deadline mandated by Congress (with very limited additional
        funds), it was impossible to include much of the state survey data that will be available in the future, as
        well as, much of the unpublished literature on contaminants etc. It is important to understand that this EFH
        is a "work in progress" and that the process will evolve. This framework provision is envisioned to work
        along the existing framework provisions established for the New England Multispecies FMP by the NEFMC.
        A similar process is proposed in this FMP for other non-EFH management measures.

        The FMP contains definitions of essential fish habitat, estimates of gear impacts on essential fish habitat,
        and contains recommendations that describe options to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the adverse
        effects and promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. In some cases those definitions, estimates,
        and recommendations are made in general terms because the necessary work on, for example, the specific
        content and concentrations of organic and inorganic (nutrient) compounds which have not as yet been
        compiled and/or specified by regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and
        Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and/or appropriate state agencies. The purpose of this
        framework provision is to incorporate such specifics into the definitions, estimates, and recommendations as
        specifics are developed via existing data not available when the FMP was adopted. The framework
        provision is not to be used to add or delete the conservation and enhancement recommendations, but only
        to adjust definitions of EFH (boundaries) and revise gear management measures (such as degradable panels
        and lines).


        The Council envisions creating a Habitat Monitoring Committee (HMQ made up of at least staff
        representatives from the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Northeast Regional Office
        Management and Habitat Sections, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and Chaired by the
        Council Executive Director or his/her designee. The HMC will meet at the call of the HMC Chair, to develop
        options for MAFMC consideration on any adjustment or elaboration of any FMP EFH definition or gear
        impacts of EFH recommendations necessary to achieve the habitat goals and objectives. Based on this
        review, the HMC will recommend specific measures to revise EFH definitions, revise gear specifications.

        The MAFMC, through its Habitat Committee, will review the recommendations of the HMC and all of the
        options developed by the HMC and other relevant information, consider public comment, and develop a
        recommendation to meet the FMP's habitat goals and objectives. If the MAFMC does not submit a
        recommendation that meets the FMP's habitat goals and objectives and is consistent with other applicable
        law, the Regional Administrator may adopt by regulatory change any option developed by the HMC, unless
        rejected by the MAFMC or tabled by the MAFMC for additional consideration, provided the option meets the
        FMP's habitat goals and objective and is consisten't with other applicable law. The frameworked process for
        developing EFH and/or gear impacts will follow the same overall process as that for other non-EFH
        management measures.


                                        2.3. DESCRIPTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES


        2.3.1 COMMERCIAL FISHERY


        United States fishermen have been landing spiny dogfish along the Northeastern coast of the US since the
        1880's (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). The early domestic fishery utilized long lines and otter trawls but
        was of relatively minor importance to the US fishery due to low market demand. In fact, spiny dogfish were
        generally avoided by US fishermen and remained lightly exploited during the late 19th and most of the 20th
        century. However, spiny dogfish have been a popular foodfish in various European markets and have also
        been the target of the foreign fishing fleets throughout the world (chiefly for reduction), including the east
        coast of North America (Soldat 1979).


        The history of the US commercial fishery for spiny dogfish can be divided into three more or less distinct
        phases. In the first phase, prior to the passage of the Magnuson Act, reported US commercial landings of
        spiny dogfish were very small. Historical records dating back to 1931 indicate that US commercial landings
        of spiny dogfish were relatively minor, with less than 0.25 million pounds (1100 mt) per year reported landed
        prior to 1960 (NMFS 1998). There was a modest increase in dogfish landings from 1962-1966, when an


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     68







              average of 1.2 million pounds was landed by US fishermen. The annual US domestic spiny dogfish landings
              from Maine to North Carolina averaged roughly 0.7 million pounds (359 mt) from 1962-1978 (Ta6le 19).
              Following the passage of the Magnuson Act, a second phase characterized by moderate US spiny dogfish
              landings began, as reported landings increased with the cessation of foreign fishing for dogfish in the US
              EEZ . During 1979-1989, US commercial spiny dogfish landings ranged from 9-15 million pounds (4,000-
              6,800 mt). US commercial landings averaged 11.7 million pounds (5,300 mt) during this phase of moderate
              landings.

              Beginning in 1990, the US commercial fishery for spiny dogfish began to expand dramatically. Landings
              increased six-fold from roughly 10 million pounds (4,500 mt) in 1989 to 60 million pounds (27,000 mt) in
              1996. Spiny dogfish commercial landings declined to 45.2 million pounds (20,500 mt) in 1997. During this
              third phase of rapid fishery expansion (1990-1997), US commercial landings averaged about 40 million
              pounds (18,000 mt). Cumulative removals during this eight year period was roughly 340 million pounds
              (154,000 mt). In contrast, cumulative US landings for the period 1962-1989 (i.e., the previous 28 years)
              were only 118.6 million pounds (54,000 mt). Foreign landings during the during the period 1965-1977
              were about 345 million pounds (11 56,000.mt). Thus, since 1990, the recently expanded US fishery has
              landed roughly the same weight of spiny dogfish in eight years that the foreign fishery removed in the 13
              years prior to the passage of the Magnuson Act. However, although the reported weight of landings were
              similar, the recent US fishery generated significant discards and the landings were comprised almost
              exclusively of mature females. In contrast, the foreign fishery was prosecuted on all sizes of spiny dogfish
              with minimal discarding (NMFS 1998).

              Spiny dogfish are landed in every state from Maine to North Carolina (Tables 20). However, prior to 1990,
              Massachusetts was responsible for the vast majority of commercial spiny dogfish landings. Beginning in
              1989 (as the US fishery expansion began), the states of New Jersey, Maryland and Maine began to .
              increase in importance. By 1996, the expansion of the spiny dogfish fishery had occurred in virtually every
              state, especially in North Carolina since 1992. Overall, Massachusetts and North Carolina recorded the
              highest landings of spiny dogfish during the period 1988-1997, followed, by Maryland, Maine, New Jersey,
              Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Virginia (Table 21).

              Numerous gear types are reported as taking spiny dogfish based on NMFS weighout data (Table 22).
              However, two principal gear types, trawls and gill nets, accounted for the majority of spiny dogfish
              commercial landings historically (Table 22). From 1988-1990, roughly equal amounts of spiny dogfish
              were landed by trawls and gill nets. As the fishery expanded in the early 1990's, gill nets increased
              dramatically in importance (Table 23). In 1991, gill nets accounted for greater than 60% of the dogfish
              landed and increased to 75% of the landings by 1993. In 1996, gill nets accounted for greater than 80%
              of the 60 million pounds of spiny dogfish landed in that year. Thus, the dramatic increase in spiny dogfish
              landings in recent years is due to largely to an increase in gill net activity within the fishery. In addition,
              there has been a recent increase in dogfish landings by longline (Table 22). The landings of spiny dogfish
              by gear type by state, for the period 1988-1997, are given in Table 24.

              Spiny dogfish are landed in all months of the year (Table 25) and throughout a broad area along the Atlantic
              coast, principally from Maine to North Carolina. However, the distribution of those landings vary by area
              and season. During the fall and winter months, spiny dogfish are landed principally in Mid-Atlantic waters
              and southward from New Jersey to North Carolina. During the spring and summer months, spiny dogfish
              are landed mainly in northern waters from New York to Maine (Table 25).


              2.3.2 RECREATIONAL FISHERY


              Estimates of recreational catch and landings of dogfish were obtained from the NMFS Marine Recreational
              Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Recreational catch data have been collected in a consistent fashion
              since 1981. Methodological differences between the current survey and intermittent surveys before 1981
              preclude the use of the earlier data. The MRFSS consists of two complementary surveys of anglers*via on-
              site interviews and households via telephone. The angler-intercept survey provides catch data and biological
              samples while the telephone survey provides a measure of overall effort. Surveys are stratified by state,


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        69








         type of fishing (mode), and sequential two-month periods (waves). Annual catches pooled over all waves
         and modes and grouped by subregion (Maine to Connecticut, New York to Virginia and North Carolina to
         Florida) were examined.


         Catches are partitioned into three categories: A, B1 and B2. Type A catches represent landed fish
         enumerated by the interviewer, while BI are landed catches reported by the angler. Type B2 catches are
         those fish caught and returned to the water. Inasmuch as dogfish are generally caught with live bait and
         are often mishandled by anglers, NMFS (1998) assumed 100% discard mortality. The MRFSS provides
         estimates of landings in terms of numbers of fish. Biological information on dogfish is generally poor,
         resulting in wide annual fluctuations in mean lengths and weights. As a result, to compute total catch in
         weight NMFS (1998) assumed an average weight of 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg) per fish for all years. This
         assumption was used to produce the estimates of recreational catch in weight in Table 19.

         Excluding the recreational estimate for 1981, total recreational catches increased from about 150,000
         pounds (70 mt) in 1982-83 to greater than 900,000 pounds in 1989 (Table 19). Since then the estimates
         of spiny dogfish recreational catch in weight have declined. The 1693 estimate was about 265,000 pounds
         (120 mt). Total catch in weight declined to less than 80,000 pounds (37 mt) in 1996, but increased to
         146,000 pounds (66 mt) in 1997.

         Total catches in number (Type A + 131 + 132) increased nearly five fold from 1982-1989 (Table 26). In the
         North Atlantic subregion (Maine-Connecticut), catches peaked in 1988 at nearly 400,000 fish and declined
         to fewer than 250,000 in 1993 (Table 27). Peak catches of nearly 500,000 fish occurred in the Mid-
         Atlantic states (New York-Virginia) in 1990. The number caught in 1993 declined to about 250,000.
         Catches of spiny dogfish from North Carolina to Florida increased dramatically after 1979, but are an order
         of magnitude lower than observed in the Mid-Atlantic and New England states. Historically, less than 4 %
         of the spiny dogfish catch comes from North Carolina to Florida. Most dogfish are released after capture
         (Type 132) and the B2 proportion of the catch has increased to more than 90% in recent years. Most of the
         recreational spiny dogfish catch is taken from party/charter and private/ rental boats (Table 28) and in ocean
         waters >3 miles from shore (Table 29).


         NMFS 0 998) considered the possibility that recreational catches may simply reflect increased reporting by
         anglers. If so, there should be no relation between catch and fishery-independent indices of abundance.
         The log of total catch was signif icantly correlated (r = 0. 62, P = 0.015) with the log of average weight per
         tow from the NEFSC spring research vessel survey. Thus, increases in recreational catches roughly parallel
         increases in abundance and the hypothesis of an increased reporting rate was not supported (NMFS 1998).

         Even if all of the Type B2 catch is assumed to die after release, recreational catches have constituted only
         about 8% of the total landings. Therefore, any imprecision in the estimation   -_ of recreational landings is
         inconsequential relative to the commercial landings and discards, especially in recent years.

         2.3.3. FOREIGN FISHING ACTIVITIES


         As noted above, spiny dogfish were generally by avoided US fishermen and remained lightly exploited during
         the late 1 9th and most of the 20th century. However, spiny dogfish have been a popular foodfish in
         various European markets and have also been the target of the foreign fishing fleets throughout the world
         (chiefly for reduction), including the east coast of North America (Soldat 1979). Significant fishing effort
         directed at the spiny dogfish began in 1965 by vessels from the former Soviet Republic (USSR). By 1970,
         Poland, the former German Democratic Republic, Japan and Canada had also entered the fishery. Most of
         the foreign landings during the 1970's were attributable to vessels from the former USSR and originated
         from waters which later became regulated under the Magnuson Act (NAFO Areas 5 and 6). Reported foreign
         landings of spiny dogfish in NAFO Areas 2-6 (Figure 23) increased from about 0.5 million pounds (207 mt)
         in 1965 to a peak of 54.1 million pounds (24,549 mt) in 1974 (Table 19). Foreign spiny dogfish landings
         averaged 29.6 million pounds (12,059 mt) for the period 1965-1977. Cumulative landings for the same
         period were 346.5 million pounds (157,000 mt).




         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        70







              Foreign fishing for spiny dogfish began to be regulated with the advent of extended fishery jurisdiction in
              the US under the Magnuson Act in 1977. US 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 bycatch of non-target species. The result of
              these restrictions was an immediate reduction in the foreign landings of spiny dogfish from 37.4 million
              pounds (16,971 mt) in 1976 to 1.6 million pounds (706 mt) in 1978. Foreign landings from the US EEZ
              have remained sharply curtailed since the period of fishery expansion during the 1970's.

              2.3.4 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY


              As described above, spiny dogfish has become an increasingly important species to the commercial fishing
              sector from North Carolina to Maine over the past decade, while the recreational fishery for spiny dogfish is
              of little or no importance to the Atlantic coast recreational fisheries. For example, only 150,000 pounds (67
              mt) of spiny dogfish was landed (catch type A + B1) by anglers in 1997 while the commercial landings in
              that same year was about 45 million pounds (20,000 mt). Thus, it is evident that dogfish play a much
              greater role in the commercial fishery than the recreational fishery.

              The individual firms engaged in the commercial harvesting and marketing of spiny dogfish make
              expenditures and generate employment in the course of business activities. When considering the relative
              benefits of spiny dogfish between commercial and recreational fishing sectors, it is difficult to juxtapose the
              value and impacts of each sector. Recreational values are not easily measured and too often, economic
              impacts of recreational fishing are erroneously contrasted with ex-vessel value in the commercial sector.


              2.3.4.1 COMMERCIAL FISHERY


              In general, the commercial fishery is divided into three parts: producers, processors, and marketing. The
              following section examines these three components of the commercial spiny dogfish fishery in order to
              better understand this fishery.


              Ex-vessel value and price for 1988-1997 is given in Table 30. The commercial landings in       'creased almost
              tenfold from about 6 million pounds in 1987 to greater than 60 million pounds in 1996. Notably, the
              average ex-vessel price for spiny dogfish also increased 300% between 1988 and 1996. The combination of
              the increase in price and landings resulted in an increase in nominal ex-vessel value from $0.48 million in
              1988 to $10.9 million in 1996.


              Spiny dogfish are landed primarily from Maine to North Carolina. However, several states land the majority
              of spiny dogfish. Average landings for each-state during 1987-1996 are broken down as follows:
              Massachusetts 55%, North Carolina 16%, Maryland and Maine with 7% each, and New Jersey with 5%.
             -In total, these states landed 90% of the spiny dogfish from 1987-1996. Furthermore, there are several
              ports which landed a disproportionate amount of spiny dogfish in 1996. Notably, four ports comprise 44%
              of the 1996 spiny dogfish landings: Chatham, MA--1 4%; Plymouth, MA--1 2%; Ocean City, MD--1 2%;
              Gloucester, MA--6%. The ex-vessel value by state and year is given in Table 31.

              At present, no permit is required for commercial fishing vessels landing spiny dogfish. As such, information
              on the total number of vessels landing spiny dogfish is can only be estimated. NMFS weighout data can be
              used to estimate the number of vessels involved in the spiny dogfish fishery, but these data do not
              constitute a complete census. Unpublished NMFS weighout data indicate that 642 vessels landed spiny
              dogfish in 1996 (using primarily gill nets and otter trawls). It is likely that most of the vessels that qualify
              for spiny dogfish permits (which will be required, under the current FMP) will apply for them for two reasons:
              to maintain flexibility in the complex of species they fish and second, since the current management
              alternatives involve greatly reducing landing after the first year, there is little incentive not to fish in the first
              year of the FMP.

              Based on the number of trips landing spiny dogf ish in 1996 (13,632), the average ex-vessel value per trip
              was $807 (obtained by dividing the total 1996 ex-vessel value by the total number of trips landing spiny


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        71







         dogfish in 1996). This would indicate that the fishery is a mixed fishery where participants fish a complex
         of species. This is reinforced by the number of other permits vessels landing spiny dogfish hold. Table 32
         contains the number of different permits held by the 642 vessels which landed spiny dogfish in 1996 (based
         on NMFS weighout data).

         2.3.4.2 Recreational Fishery

         In the recreational fishing sector, value and impacts are usually conceptualized as expenditures and
         revenues associated with fishing trips rather than the value of landings. Impacts and value for a particular
         species is best thought of in terms of expenditures and concomitant revenues derived from trips targeting
         that species of fish. The 1994 Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) indicated that of the
         33,279 intercept surveys conducted in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 4 anglers were targeting spiny
         dogfish as their "primary" species. Although this number is not expanded to represent all anglers making
         trips during that year, it suggests that there a very limited directed recreational fishery for spiny dogfish.

         Most of the catch of spiny dogfish in the recreational fishing sector appears to be incidental in the targeting
         of other species. Thus the value of spiny dogfish in the recreational fishing sector in terms of angler
         expenditures and revenues derived from those expenditures in the targeting of this species appears to be
         fairly low. Although a recreational demand curve for spiny dogfish is unavailable, based on the low level of
         interviewed anglers targeting spiny dogfish in recent years, there is likely to be very little lessening of
         demand for marine recreational fishing trips as a result of this catch restrictions on spiny dogfish.

         2.3.4.3 FOREIGN MARKETS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE


         The increase in landings as well as the noticeable increase in average ex-vessel price in reportedly due to the
         development of export markets for spiny dogfish. In Great Britain and France, the portion of the fish
         commonly called the "back" is used in fish and chips. The market price depends largely on the availability
         of a competing product from Scotland. Belly flaps are used in Germany and France for a cured product
         called schillerlocken. Backs and bellies are commonly sold in two sizes, medium and large. These sizes are
         further divided into fresh and frozen categories. Fresh fish is air-freighted to awaiting European markets
         while frozen product is more apt to be sent by ship. In general, the fresh bellies and backs garner higher
         prices than frozen product.

         Tails and fins (excluding the dorsal fin which is not exported and currently has no market) are exported
         primarily to Pacific Rim nations. Spiny dogfish skins are used in the production of "shark skin" products and
         the head is used in two ways: (1) it is sold as bait for other fisheries or the cartilage isdried and pulverized
         to service a market for medicinal uses (primarily exported to Pacific Rim nations).

         2.3.4.4 Port and Community Description

         The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council commissioned a report to describe the people and
         communities involved in the region's fisheries in the early 1990's. The report titled "Part 2, Phase 1, Fishery
         Impact Statement Project, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council" by McCay et al. (1993) was
         developed to assist in describing the potential effects of management actions on the people and
         communities involved in fisheries throughout the region in the early 1990's. The results of McCay et al.
         1993 and more recent NMFS weighout data for 1997 provide recent historical and current description of the
         reliance of various ports along the Atlantic coast on spiny dogfish.

         The principal approaches employed to compile the information presented in McCay et al. (1993) were open-
         ended phone interviews, port visits, data analysis, and interviews of people involved in different aspects of
         the fishing industry. The report prepared by McCay et al. (1993), identified ports that appeared in the top
         l 0, in terms of landed value, for any of the species that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery33 Management Council
         has full or shared responsibility for the preparation of Fishery Management Plans (tilefish, scup, black sea
         bass, summer flounder, clogfish, Atlantic mackerel, Loligo squid, Illex squid, butterfish, weakfish, bluefish,
         and angler or monkfish). The ports identified as relevant in the report covered ports from Chatham,


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     72







              Massachusetts, to Wanchese, North Carolina. Landing statistics and values were from the National Marine
              Fisheries Service weighout data. Information about the ports is from interviews with key informants and
              from earlier studies conducted by McCay's research team (McCay et at 1993). The results of McCay et al.
              1993 can be contrasted with more recent 1997 NMFS weighout data

              The descriptive information that follows is excerpted and paraphrased from a report prepared for the Council
              by McCay et al. 1993 and is based on interviews conducted in the respective ports as described above:


              Wanchese, North Carolina


              "Wanchese has traditionally been a fishing community with commercial fishing operations since the late
              1800s. Many of the current residents of Wanchese are descendants of people who settled here in the late
              1600s and early 1 700s." Many of the fishers are small, independent owner operators. "Informants have
              estimated that fifty percent of the men in Wanchese are in a marine related career." Wanchese has never
              developed the strong tourism sector seen in nearby areas. Because of the periodic shallowness of Oregon
              Inlet, many of its larger trawlers stay in Hampton, Virginia or New Bedford, Massachusetts during the
              winter. "Wanchese is also the site of the Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park WSIP) which was developed in
              the 1970s to be a major site for seafood processing activities. However, because of the uncertain nature of
              Oregon Inlet and the general decline in fisheries since the 1970s, very few businesses actually operate in
              WSIP. -The catch is either sold at retail markets locally or it is packed in ice and sent to other markets. At
              least one of the Wanchese commercial fishing and packing operations has expanded to other ports such as
              Hampton, Virginia and New Bedford, Massachusetts." In recent years, some New Bedford vessels have
              moved south to base in Wanchese in response to shortages of groundfish and scallops in New England.


              Much of the ocean fishing occurs in the winter months (November-April). However, the boats in Wanchese
              fish all year round. Bluefish is predominantly caught with ocean gill nets which fish up to ten miles offshore
              and fish the area of Ocracoke to Currituck Light. Other species include weakfish, dogfish and Atlantic
              croaker between the first of November and the end of April. There are a half dozen fish houses and other
              marine-related businesses that handle species other than crabs, and a couple that handle crabs exclusively.
              McCay et at (11993) reported that summer flounder (21 %) was the most important species in Dare County
              in terms of landed value in 1991. The value of all species landed in Dare County was over $11 million in
              1991. Blue crabs (hard) are second in importance (11 %), followed by weakfish (9%). Other species of
              volume in Dare County in 1991 were bluefish (4.02%), sea basses (3.41 W, dogfish (1.00%), tilefish
              (0.53%), scup (0.41%), butterfish (0.31%), squid (0.29%), and Atlantic mackerel (0.12%).


              Generally, the boats that are owned by local companies are operated by hired captains. However, these
              boats may be operated by a relative in some instances. Independent boats are usually owner-operated, with
              family members often serving as crew. "The crew on these vessels are mostly local; 75-80 percent are
              from within the area. All are paid with some variation of a share system." The crews are mostly 18 to 40
              years of age; captains are usually older, with some over 65. Most crew members are white, though there
              are some black fishers including black captains. Sometimes, members of a family will own boats and fish
              houses. In the fish houses, most of the work force is black women, except for the crab houses where
              Latino workers are more common."


              "Recreational fishers use the inshore, offshore, and sound waters around Wanchese and Dare Counties."
              Those fishing from boats do not predominantly target bluefish. Bluefish are targeted by pier and surf
              fishers, who are primarily local residents and residents of nearby counties. Other species targeted by pier
              and surf fishers are: flounder, Kingfish or sea mullet, triggers, puffers, skates, rays, spot, pigfish, and
              pinfish.


              Hampton/Hampton Roads, Virginia


              The area in Virginia containing Hampton, Newport News, Seaford, and Virginia Beach is know as Hampton
              Roads. It is difficult to describe fishing in Hampton apart from the rest of the area. These ports have
              historically been fishing communities. The Hampton Roads area included five of the six major offloading


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      73








         ports in Virginia. However, the fishing industry is but one of the many industries in the Hampton Roads
         area. While Hampton itself is not a big tourist spot, the town is trying to emphasize its waterfront area and
         its tourism potential. There is an Air and Space Museum, a marina for pleasure boats, a number of military
         installations, and a large coal port in addition to other shipping."

         Much of the landed fish in Virginia by weight is accounted for by menhaden, but other species are also
         important. Dogfish accounted for less than 0.01 % of the total landed value in Hampton Roads in 1992,
         100% of which was landed by sink gill nets. Overall, the fishers in this area are very opportunistic,
         targeting whatever is available and marketable.

         Family ties are important in choosing crew members on the smaller vessels. These boats tend to have very
         stable crews. Larger vessels, especially scallopers have a much higher turnover rate among crew. Crew are
         paid on a share system. Most of the captains and some of the crew have been fishing for most of their
         lives. Educational levels vary. "There is a mix of age groups in commercial fishing in Hampton Roads. One
         informant said that for a while, there was concern that there were no younger people getting into this
         industry. A few younger people have joined fishing recently with the recession and the scale down in the
         military." There is a small but growing contingent of Vietnamese-owned boats, which is generating some
         resentment from longtime resident fishers. There are also a small number of Mexican-American fishers,
         most of whom are members of a single extended family.


         "Trawlers unload at packing houses and these fish houses often serve as the wholesale buyer and
         distributor. One of the fish houses has government contracts and supplies the navy with all of its seafood.
         Bluefish are shipped north to Philadelphia or New York City. Two of the companies in Hampton own their
         own trucks and one of these is also a secondary buyer."

         "Hampton Roads also has a large recreational fishery. Virginia Beach has a sports fishing center like Ocean
         City, Maryland but not as big as Oregon Inlet, North Carolina." Summer flounder is an important
         recreational species with hook and line, with the highest recreational landings in the spring near
         Chincoteague (eastern shore). Headboats go out for black sea bass, and some recreational fishers target
         scup. Other recreational species include bluefish and weakfish, with dogfish being an incidental catch.
         "Bluefish are a recreational fish in the early summer in inshore waters."

         Ocean City, MarvIand


         "The principal ocean port in Maryland is Ocean City. Ocean City is a commercial fishing community with
         families that have been involved in fishing for at least sixty years. In the last [twenty] years, Ocean City
         has grown into its current status as a summer resort area. However, new development is not taking place
         at the same levels as it did in the past. In fact, fishers are also finding it hard to go into other industries
         such as crabbing or construction because these are depressed as well." Surf clams and ocean quahogs are
         the two most important species, but summer flounder, black sea bass, sea scallops, bigeye tuna, swordfish,
         spiny dogfish, and yellowfin tuna are also species of interest.

         Draggers take a variety of species, but primarily summer flounder and spiny dogfish. They trawl year round
         for summer flounder, black sea bass, and scup. From April through September they target summer flounder
         almost exclusively. Black sea bass are important species for inshore handfine fishers. There has also been a
         significant sea bass pot fishery, with black sea bass landed value being second only to summer flounder in
         many years though it has seen some decline recently. The black sea bass pot fishery runs from April to
         September. The top ten species by value (1992) landed in Ocean City are: surf clam (34.09%), ocean
         quahog (28.04), summer flounder (4.83%), black sea bass (4.69%), sea scallop (4.07%), bigeye tuna
         (3.94%) swordfish (3.780/o), spiny dogfish (3.66%), yellowfin tuna (3.62%), and lobster (1.51 %@. Bluefish
         ranked 29th in importance, accounting for 0.10% of the total landed value in this port.

         "Most of the vessels in Ocean City are owner-operated but a few hire captains. Most owners pay their
         crew by the share system. A few African-Americans are in the crews and at least one boat had an African-
         American captain." Captains range from age 23 and up.


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      74







              "Businesses that serviced the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery such as trucking, fuel and ice have
              declined tremendously. There are unloading areas in Ocean City as well as local buyers. Fluke [summer
              founder] and black sea bass are taken to New York or Norfolk to bigger fish houses. During the summer,
              more summer flounder is sold locally and in Baltimore. Big-eye tuna and the best yellowfins go to Japan and
              bring a lot of money per pound."

              "Ocean City is a well known recreational fishing port with many offshore charter boats." Pelagic boats
              target white marlin, as also tuna, bluefins and big eyes. Atlantic mackerel are also popular targets.

              Belford/Pleasant Point/Barnegat Light/Long Beach, New Jersey


              Belford's fleet is mostly in the 40-60 foot range and most vessels are older. This is a family based fishing
              port, with draggers, pound netters and lobster potters predominating. Most of the fish are handled by a
              local cooperative, with other firms handling lobster and shellfish. There is little or no tourism. Point
              Pleasant is more diverse and larger. It is less dominated by family businesses. There are half a dozen fish
              houses, including a cooperative. There are also a lot of marine-related industries and a strong tourist sector.
              Barnegat Light is heavily tourism oriented in the summer but becomes more dependant on fishing in the
              winter.


              Most boats in these ports are owner-operated, and there are no freezer boats. Whiting is an important
              species, as are surf clams and ocean quahogs. There is a bluefish poundnet fishery in Sandy Hook Bay. In
              Belford, bluefish accounted for less than 2% of the total landed value for all species in 1992. In Belford,
              there is a sink gill-net fishery, which accounted for 0.6% of the total landed value in 1992. It is dominated
              by weakfish (50%) and bluefish (39%), and also includes butterfish, summer flounder,     bluefish, black sea
              bass, and scup. Run-around gill nets are sometimes used for bluefish. In Point Pleasant, bluefish accounted
              for less than 1 % of the total landed value by all species in 1992. In Point Pleasant, weakfish, bluefish,
              mackerel, little tunny, and scup are major species landed by gill net boats. Some bluefish are also landed by
              hand line gear. In Barnegat Light/Long Beach Island, bluefish accounted for less than 2% of the total landed
              value by all species in 1992. Captains tend to be aged 40-60. "Belford is a place where fishers have little
              other skilled work experience and thus are particularly dependent on fishing."

              There is a charter boat fleet in Barnegat Light which targets mostly bluefish, summer flounder and tuna.


              Cape MaytWildwood, New Jersey


              Cape May "is noted for its tremendous tourist and beach economy during the summer. While there are
              marinas in town there is little conflict for space with commercial fishers because the commercial docks are
              separated from the rest of the community." The general outline of the area fisheries indicate that dogfish
              are caught by gill netters and they are a bVcatch for draggers. There are only a few-gill netters; in Cape
              May. For the Cape May/Wildwood area the sink gill net fishery accounted for 0.69% of the total landed
              value in 1992. However, the gi)l-netters are almost totally dependent on few species: dogfish (41 % landed
              value), weakfish (27%), and bluefish (111 %) in 1992. Other species caught included angler, summer
              flounder, scup, Atlantic mackerel, and butterfish. The draggers are generally 50-75 feet long, steel hulled,
              and specialize in scup and summer flounder. "In addition to local boats, a large number of transient boats
              from North Carolina, Virginia and some northern states land here." The number of boats has been fairly
              stable recently, however, perhaps due to the great diversity of species landed here.


              Brooklyn/Freeport, New York


              Vessels originating from these ports are primarily draggers fishing for whiting, summer flounder, winter
              flounder, Lofigo squid, and scup. There are also lobster boats in these ports. Most are day boats who take
              an occasional 48 hour trip for squid. Most boats are owner-operated. "According to one informant, he gill
              netters; target bluefish, weakfish, butterfish, and mackerel." Pay is by the share system. There is also a
              substantial amount of tourism, with numerous charter boats based in Freeport.




              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       75









         Stonington, Connecticut


         Species of importance in the area include lobster, quahog, summer flounder, winter flounder, and squid.
         Menhaden, bluefish, black sea bass, alewife, and weakfish are important components of the drift gill net
         fishery. The number of boats in Stonington is stable. Most fishers are of Portuguese descent. The share
         system is typically used. There are several fish dealers who sell to markets in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston
         and New York, or directly to local fish markets.


         Newport/Other Washincrton County, Rhode Island


         "Three ports make up the bulk of the landings in Rhode Island: Point Judith, Quonset Point, and Newport.
         Point Judith is generally a "wetfish" port, where the fish is most often landed on ice and packaged at port.
         Newport is similar. Quonset Point is strictly a large factory freezer vessel port. Newport traditionally landed
         groundfish and lobster, but in the early 1990s began targeting squid, mackerel, butterfish, scup and
         dogfish."

         "Groundfishing boats, a few scallopers, gill-netters, and draggers make up the range of boats in Newport.
         While Newport's fish potters rely almost entirely on scup, they also catch a little tautog, small amounts of
         black sea bass, bluefish, and summer flounder, among other species"

         "Newport's small gill-net fishery relies heavily on anglers, as well as its traditional cod, tautog, and bluefish
         catches. Newport's gill-netters also land the majority of spiny clogfish. They also land large amounts of
         weakfish and small amounts of Loligo squid." Newport's floating trap fishery targets among others: scup     ,
         bluefish, summer flounder, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, and Loligo squid.

         Point Judith harbors some minor fisheries. Pot fisheries, besides lobster, are heavily reliant on scup, and
         pots catch a small percentage of black sea bass, as well as tautog, conger eel, and small amounts of
         bluefish. Point Judith's small gill net fishery depends heavily on angler, as well as cod, dogfish, tautog, and
         other species. Bluefish, Atlantic mackerel, summer flounder, black sea bass, weakfish, and butterfish in
         small quantities are landed in the gill-net fishery. Angler are caught predominantly by draggers, accounting
         for the bulk of the total landed value for the dragger fishery in 1992. Bluefish, butterfish, summer flounder,
         scup, black sea bass, squids and weakfish, are also landed by draggers.

         Newport has several commercial fish packing and distributing firms, but is also heavily oriented to yachting
         and tourism. Few non-fishing jobs are available, however. Point Judith is almost exclusively a fishing town,
         though there is some summer tourism, mostly related to Block Island. The Point     Judith coop employed
         some local labor as well, but is now closed.


         New Bedford, Massachusetts


         "The dominant gear types in new Bedford are scallop dredges and otter trawls." Angler, summer flounder,
         spiny dogfish, Lofigo squid, and scup are among the most important species landed in New Bedford. Some
         bluefish is landed by draggers and gill netters.


         Chatham, Massa husetts


         "Chatham is a seasonal resort community. It is a wealthy community and property values are very high.
         Sportfishing and commercial fishing are important to the community. However they do not seem to be the
         mainstays of the community's economy. Chatham's fishing community is divided between two ports,
         Chatham Harbor on the east coast of town, and Stage Harbor on the south side of town. Scup, fluke, sea
         bass, mackerel, butterfish, weakfish and bluefish are caught as miscellaneous fish by Chatham Harbor
         boats. Chatham boats are all under 50 feet and are owner-operated. Most crew are paid by the share
         system and others are paid by the day Or are wage workers."





          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      76








             Other North Carolina locations


             In the work conducted by McCay et al. (1993), the only port described in North Caro    lina was Wanchese.
             This section further describes the general characteristics of fishing activities in North Carolina. The
             descriptive information that follows is excerpted and paraphrased from a report prepared by Griffith (1996),
             and is based on visits to fishing centers around the state, surveys, and in depth-interviews.

             The information presented in this section is based on the following visited locations: Swan Quarter,
             Englehard, Rose Bay, Germantown, and Ocracoke in Hyde County; Belhaven, and Aurora in Beaufort
             County; Hatteras, Wanchese, and Alligator River in Dare County; Atlantic, Stacey, Beaufort and Salter Path
             in Carteret County; Vandamere and Paradise in Pamlico County; Sneads Ferry, and Hampstead in Oslow
             County; and Varnumtown in Brunswich County.

             "First, most obviously, the busiest fishing season for almost all sites visited begins in the spring and lasts
             through summer, with December through February being relatively quiet in most locations. Exceptions to
             this are the fisheries of the Outer Banks, which tend to be net-based and to target winter species. Second,
             despite the fact that we find a number of extremely large vessels in the state, crews on most vessels tend
             to be small (<45'). Most crews consist of between one and three fishermen and many interviewed
             fishermen fish alone. The menhaden fishery, of course, is an exception to this (Garrite-Blake 1995). Third,
             relatively few sites we visited specialize in only one species, one type of gear, or one type of vessel. Crab
             pots and shrimp or otter trawls rank high among the principal gears used in the state, but others tend to be
             found in use alongside these either by the same fishermen or by others using the same docking and other
             facilities. Fourth, few full-time, owner-operator North Carolina fishermen rely on a single species or single
             gear for their livelihood, and many operate from more than one vessel; indeed, this diversity and flexibility
             constitutes one of the central defining characteristics of a full-time fishermen in North Carolina. Small crew
             sizes, especially those based on family and community relations, are adaptive under these conditions, where
             shifting among fishing gears and locations does not depend on mobilizing large numbers of crewmen. Fifth,
             this diversity and flexibility has some implications for managing the fisheries of the state. Although
             fishermen tend to be defined by the primary species they target and gear they use to capture those species,
             such as shrimpers using otter trawls or crabbers using crab pots, North Carolina fishermen become more
             alike one another, often, in the secondary species they target and, in particular, the gears they use for those
             species. Sixth, North Carolina fisheries are highly localized. Those sites with access to both inland and off-
             shore waters, such as fishermen based in Wanchese or the Outer Banks or Carteret County, have more
             options available to them to switch among fisheries and even between recreational and commercial sectors
             (such as operating as charter boat fishermen) than fishermen based along the Pamlico River or Albemarle
             Sound. Some fishermen, recognizing the advantages to these different locations, dock boats at more than
             one location or utilize more than one launching facility. However, several fishermen we interviewed had
             little or no idea about the character of fisheries fewer than fifty to sixty miles away. Seventh, regional
             differences occur among the fisheries as we move from North to South, yet are more pronounced as we
             move from East to West. For example, those fishermen who fish in the Albemarle Sound are more like
             fishermen of the Pamlico River than they are like those who operate out of Wanchese. Urban and rural
             distinctions also figure into these differences, fishing strategies of around the Nags Head/Manteo are more
             similar to Morehead City and Wilmington fishing strategies than they are toward those of Eastern Dare
             further down the Outer Banks. Finally, with the exception of crab processing plants, most shore sites are
             staffed by relatively few people on land; most of the work of off-loading, icing, and other handling of the
             catch is done by fishermen."

             Regarding the present aspects of the fishery in the area, it was found that "North Carolina's principal
             fisheries have change considerably through time, yet certain historical continuities thread through the fishing
             lifestyles we find on the coast from prehisto ric and colonial times to the present," Some families in the
             Tidewater area (Hyde County) still depend on combining commercial crabbing, eeling, gill net fishing,
             trapping, hunting, and hiring out as guides to hunters and sportfishermen. Individuals around the upper
             reaches of the Albemarle Sound still string together seasonal work in the herring fishery, hunting, logging,
             and from time to time, farming. "Two of the earliest fisheries in North Carolina provided an organizational
             template for fisheries that continue, in altered form, today. The early herring fisheries on the Chowan River



              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      77








         and the Albemarle Sound were highly capitalized fisheries in which harvesting and processing were as
         tightly integrated as today's menhaden fishery."


         According to the most recent weighout data (1997), several ports are extremely dependent on the spiny
         dogfish fishery and derived a large percent of landings value from spiny dogfish, as compared to the
         combined value of all other species landed in that port. For example, In Plymouth, MA, spiny dogfish
         accounted for 96% of the total pounds and 74% of the total value of all fish landed in this port. This
         phenomenon also manifests in several other ports. In Wachapreague, VA, spiny dogfish accounted for 90%
         of the total pounds and 76% of the total value of all fish landed in that port; in Scituate, MA, spiny dogfish
         accounted for 74% of the total pounds and 21 % of the total value of all fish landed in this port; in
         Chatham, MA, spiny dogfish accounted for 47% of the total pounds and 14% of the total value of all fish
         landed in this port; in Ocean City, MD, spiny dogfish accounted for 32% of the total pounds and 11 % of
         the total value of all fish landed in this port; and, in Dare County, NC, spiny dogfish accounted for 30% of
         the total pounds and 11 % of the total value of all fish landed in this port (Table 32).

         Clearly these ports are very dependent upon spiny dogfish landings and will be disproportionately affected
         by any proposed regulatory action. The extent to which local communities will be affected "materially" is
         unknown, but it is likely that some of the local businesses which support the commercial fishing industry in
         these areas will be adversely impacted by this FMP in the short-term.


         3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES


         3.1 Management Alternatives

         3.1.1 Preferred Measures to Attain Management Objectives

         3.1.1.1 Specification of OY, DAH, DAP, JVP, and TALFF

         Section 600.310 (b) states that the determination of OY is a decisional mechanism for resolving the
         Magnuson-Stevens Act's multiple purposes and policies, implementing an FMP's objectives, and balancing
         the various interests that comprise the national welfare. OY is to be based on MSY, or on MSY as it may be
         reduced for social, economic, or ecological reasons. The most important limitation on the specification of
         OY is that the choice of OY and the conservation and management measures proposed to achieve it must
         prevent overfishing.

         OY is all spiny dogfish harvested pursuant to this FMP as determined by the overfishing definition and
         rebuilding schedule detailed in this FMP. OY will change as the fishing mortality rate target varies and is
         dependent on the level of adult stock biomass.

         The Council has concluded that U.S. vessels have the capacity to, and will, harvest the OY on an annual
         basis, so DAH equals OY. The Council has also concluded that U.S. fish processors, on an annual basis,
         will process that portion of the OY that will be harvested by U.S. commercial fishing vessels, so DAP equals
         DAH and JVP equals zero. Since U.S. fishing vessels have the capacity and intent to harvest the entire OY,
         there is no portion of the OY that can be made available for foreign fishing, so TALFF also equals zero.

         3.1.1.2. Rebuilding Schedule

         The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) requires the Councils to set the overfishing definition to meet a new
         standard (Fmsy) or a suitable proxy . In addition, the resource must be rebuilt to the biomass associated with
         MSY, Bmsy or a suitable proxy in as short a period as possible. The rebuilding period is not to exceed 10
         years, except where biology, environmental conditions or international agreements dictate otherwise.

         In the most recent assessment for spiny dogfish, NMFS (1998) found that current fishing mortality for spiny
         dogfish exceeds the threshold fishing mortality rate (F,p , proxy for Fmy). In addition, total adult stock
         biomass of spiny dogfish is currently 67% of the target biomass (SSB,,., proxy for B,s,). Thus, the spiny


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      78







             dogfish stock is considered overfished according to the new SFA overfishing guidelines and requires
             rebuilding. This FMP addresses the overfishing problem and plans to rebuild the resource to meet SFA
             requirements over a ten year planning horizon.

             An additional requirement of the SFA is that stocks which are identified as overfished (i.e., stock biomass is
             less than minimum biomass threshold) must be rebuilt to the level that will produce maximum sustainable
             yield (Bmsy). The SFA guidelines advise that, in most cases, the stock rebuilding period may not exceed 10
             years. The most recent stock assessment data presented by NMFS (11998) and the Dogfish Technical
             Committee indicate that total adult spiny dogfish stock biomass is currently about 280 million lbs (127,000
             mt), well below the minimum adult stock biomass target of 440 million lbs (200,000 mt). As a result, the
             Councils propose to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock to the Bmsy level over a ten year rebuilding period
             through the implementation of this FMP.

             The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock through a two step
             reduction in fishing mortality rate. The first step allows for a one year exit fishery of 22 million pounds
             (10,000 mt) to allow a phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impact
             of the rebuilding program on both the harvest and processing sectors of the industry. For the first year of
             the rebuilding plan (11999-2000), F will be reduced to 0.2 and then F will be reduced to F = 0.03 in the
             remaining nine years of the rebuilding plan (2000-2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the
             level which will support harvests at or near the MSY level in the year 2009.

             3.1.1.3 Permit requirements for commercial vessels

             Any owner of a vessel desiring to fish for spiny dogfish within the US EEZ for sale, or transport or deliver for
             sale, any spiny dogfish taken within the EEZ must obtain a federal commercial vessel permit from NMFS for
             that purpose.

             The federal costs of implementing an annual permit system for the sale of spiny dogfish shall be charged to
             permit holders as authorized by section 303(b) (1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In establishing the annual
             fee, the NMFS Regional Administrator will ensure that the fee does not exceed the administrative costs
             incurred in issuing the permit, as required by section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

             3.1.1.4 Dealer permits and fees

             Any dealer of spiny dogfish must have a permit. A dealer of spiny dogfish is defined as a person or firm
             that receives spiny dogfish for a commercial purpose from a vessel possessing a commercial spiny dogfish
             permit pursuant to this FMP for other than transport.

             An applicant must apply for a federal dealer permit in writing to the Regional Administrator. The application
             must be signed by the applicant and submitted to the Regional Administrator at least 30 days before the
             date upon which the applicant desires to have the permit made effective. Applications must contain the
             name, principal place of business, mailing address and telephone number of the applicant. The Regional
             Administrator will notify the applicant of any deficiency in the application. If the applicant fails to correct
             the deficiency within 15 days following the date of notification, the application will be considered
             abandoned. Except as provided in Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904, the Regional Administrator will issue a
             permit within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application.

             A permit expires on 31 December of each year or if the ownership or the dealer changes. Any permit issued
             under this section remains valid until it expires, is suspended, is revoked, or ownership changes. Any permit
             which is altered, erased, or mutilated is invalid. The Regional Administrator may issue replacement permits.
             Any application for a replacement permit shall be considered a new permit.

             A permit is not transferable or assignable. It is valid only for the dealer to whom it is issued.

             The permit must be displayed for inspection upon request by an authorized officer or any employee of NMFS


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       79








         designated by the Regional Administrator.

         The Regional Administrator may suspend, revoke, or modify, any permit issued or sought under this section.
         Procedures governing permit sanctions or denials are found at Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904. The Regional
         Administrator may, after publication of a notice in the Federal Register, charge a permit fee. Within 15 days
         after the change in the information contained in an application submitted under this section, the dealer
         issued the permit must report the change in writing to the Regional Administrator.

         3.1.1.5 Operator permit and fees

         Any individual who operates a vessel for the purpose of fishing commercially for spiny dogfish (i.e.,
         possesses a valid commercial vessel permit spiny dogfish must obtain an operators permit. Any vessel
         fishing commercially for spiny dogfish must have on board at least one operator who holds an operators
         permit. That operator may be held accountable for violations of the fishing regulations and may be subject
         to a permit sanction. During the permit sanction period, the individual operator may not work in any
         capacity aboard a federally permitted fishing vessel.

         The federal permit program has the following requirements:

         1 . Any -operator of a commercial vessel f ishing f or spiny dogf ish must have an operator's permit issued by
         the NMFS Regional Administrator.

         2. An operator is defined as the master or other individual on board a vessel who is in charge of that vessel
         (see 50 CFR 620.2).


         3. The operator is required to submit an application, supplied by the Regional Administrator, for an
         Operator's Permit. The permit will be issued for a period of up to three years.

         4. The applicant would provide his/her name, mailing address, telephone number, date of birth and physical
         characteristics (height, weight, hair and eye color, etc.) on the application. In addition to this information,
         the applicant must provide two passport-size color photos.

         5. The permit is not transferable.

         6. Permit holders would be required to carry their permit aboard the fishing vessel during fishing and off-
         loading operations and must have it available for inspection upon request by an authorized officer.

         7. The Regional Administrator may, after publication in the Federal Register, charge a permit fee.

         3.1.1.6S piny dogfish FMP Monitoring Committee

         The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee is a joint committee made up of staff representatives of the Mid-
         Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, the Northeast Regional Office, the Northeast
         Fisheries Center, and state representatives. The state representatives will include any individual designated
         by an interested state from Maine to North Carolina. The Mid-Atlantic Council Executive Director or his
         designee will chair the Committee.

         The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will annually review the best available data including, but not
         limited to, commercial and recreational catch/landing statistics, current estimates of fishing mortality, stock
         status, the most recent estimates of recruitment, VPA results or length-based stock projection models,
         target mortality levels, beneficial impacts of size/mesh regulations, as well as the level of noncompliance by
         fishermen or states and recommend to the Councils' Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee commercial and
         recreational measures designed to assure that the target mortality level for spiny dogfish is not exceeded.
         The Committee will also review the gear used to catch spiny dogfish to determine whether gear other than
         otter trawls and gill nets need to be regulated to help ensure attainment of the fishing mortality rate target


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      80







               and propose such regulations as appropriate.

               The Councils will receive the report of the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee as well as appropriate public
               input. The Councils will consider this information and jointly determine the quota and framework
               adjustments for the following year. Next, the Councils will make its recommendations to the Regional
               Administrator. The Regional Administrator will receive the report of the Councils and publish a report in the
               Federal Register for public comment by the date specified in the regulations, which provides the Councils
               sufficient time to implement quotas and other management measures. Following the review period, the
               Regional Administrator will set the final quota and other management measure adjustments for the year. If
               each option has been rejected by one or the other Council, then the Regional Administrator may select any
               option that has not been rejected by both Councils.

               In summary, the steps from the Monitoring Committee to action by the Councils and Regional Administrator
               are:


               1. The Monitoring Committee reviews the data and makes recommendations to the Joint Spiny Dogfish
               Committee.


               2. The Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee considers the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee in
               determining the annual quota and framework adjustments and makes recommendations to the Councils.

               3. The Councils consider the recommendations of the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee and make their
               recommendations to the Regional Administrator.

               4. The Regional Administrator considers the recommendations of the Councils decision and publishes
               proposed measures in the Federal Register. If each option is rejected by one or the other Council, then the
               Regional Administrator may select any option that has not been rejected by both Councils.


               3.1.1.7 Framework Adjustment Process


               In addition to the annual review and modifications to management measures detailed in section 3.1.1.6, the
               Councils could add or modify management measures through a framework adjustment procedure. This
               adjustment procedure allows the Councils to add or modify management measures through a streamlined
               public review process. As such, management measures that have been iden                 tified in the plan could be
               implemented or adjusted at any time during the year.

               The following management measures could be implemented or modified through framework adjustment
               procedures:


               1. Minimum fish size.
               2. Maximum fish size.
               3.  Gear requirements, restrictions or prohibitions (including, but not limited to, mesh size restrictions and
               net limits).
               4.  Regional gear restrictions.
               5.  Permitting restrictions and reporting requirements.
               6.  Recreational fishery measures including possession and size limits and season and area restrictions.
               7.  Commercial season and area restrictions.
               8.  Commercial trip or possession limits.
               9.  Fin weight to spiny dogfish landing weight restrictions.
               10. Onboard observer requirements.
               11. Commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides
               to mitigate bycatch.
               12. Recreational harvest limit.
               13. Annual quota specification process.
               14. FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process.


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                             81








            15..  Designation of essential fish habitat.
            16.   Overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets.
            17.   Regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons).
            18.   Restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower.
            19.   Target quotas.
            20.   Measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions.
            21.   Any other management measures currently included in the FMP.
            22.   Any other commercial or recreational management measures.

            The adjustment procedure would involve the following steps. If the Councils determine that an adjustment
            to management measures is necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the Spiny Dogfish FMP, it will
            recommend, develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council
            meetings. The Councils will provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the
            recommendation, the appropriate justifications and economic and biological analyses, and opportunity to
            comment on the proposed adjustments prior to and at the second Council meeting. After developing
            management actions and receiving public testimony, the Councils will then submit the recommendation to
            the Regional Administrator. The Councils recommendation to the Regional Administrator must include
            supporting rationale, an analysis of impacts, and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator on
            whether to publish the management measures as a final rule.


            If the Councils recommend that the management measures should be published as a final rule, the Councils
            must consider at least the following factors and provide support and analysis for each factor considered:

            1. Whether the availability of data on which the recommended management measures are based allows for
            adequate time to publish a proposed rule.

            2. Whether regulations have to be in place for an entire harvest/fishing season.

            3. Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public and members of
            the affected industry in the development of the Councils recommended management measures.

            4. Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.

            5. Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management measures adopted following their
            promulgation as a final rule.

            If, after reviewing the Councils recommendation and supporting information:

            1. The Regional Administrator concurs with the Councils recommended management measures and
            determines that the recommended management measures may be published as a final rule, then the action
            will be published in the Federal Register as a final rule; or

            2. The Regional Administrator concurs with the Councils recommendation and determines that the
            recommended measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the action will be published as a
            proposed rule in the Federal Register. After additional public comment, if the Regional Administrator
            concurs with the Council recommendation, the action will be published as a final rule in the Federal Register;
            or

            3. The Regional Administrator does not concur, the Councils will be notified, in writing, of the reason for
            non-concurrence.


            4. Framework actions can be taken only in the case where both Councils approve the proposed measure.






             22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                                      82







            3.1.1.8 Commercial management measures

            3.1 - 1.8.1 Commercial quota

            The process used to set the quota is specified in 3.1.1.6. A quota would be allocated to the commercial
            fishery to control fishing mortality. The quota would be based on projected stock size estimates for that
            year as derived from the latest stock assessment information. Estimates of stock size coupled with the
            target fishing mortality rate would allow for a calculation of total allowable landings (TAL). The quota will be
            specified for the fishing year which will be defined as May 1- April 30.

            During the first year of the FMP, the quota will be set at 22 million pounds (10,000 mt) to allow a phase out
            of the directed fishery. This on year "exit" approach was chosen to minimize the impact of the rebuilding
            program on both the harvest and processing sectors of the industry. For the first year of the rebuilding plan
            (1999-2000), F will be reduced to 0.2 and then F will be reduced to F=0.03 in the remaining nine years of
            the rebuilding plan (2000-2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the level which will support
            harvests at or near the MSY level in the year 2009. Assuming that F does not exceed 0.2 in year 1, The
            TALs in the remaining 9 years would of the rebuilding program are specified in Table 33.

            A system to distribute and manage the annual commercial quota on a seasonal basis within the fishing year
            would be implemented by the Councils. Quotas would be distributed between seasons based on the
            percentage of commercial landings for the each semi-annual period during the years 1990-1997. These
            season specific quotas are specified in Table 34. The specification of the seasonal allocation may change
            under the framework procedure described in section 3.1.1.7.

            After year one of the management program the annual commercial quota will be set at a range of between
            0 and the maximum allowed by the adopted fishing mortality rate reduction strategy. The commercial quota
            includes all landings for sale by any gear. If a person or vessel does not have a commercial spiny dogfish
            permit, the fish may not be sold and any recreational rules on size, possession, and season apply.

            The annual commercial quota would be based on the recommendations of the Spiny Dogfish FMP
            Monitoring Committee to the Councils. The commercial quota may change annually, if appropriate,
            following the Spiny dogfish Monitoring Committee process set forth in 3.1.1.6. However, the quota may be
            specified for a period of up to three years.

            The quota will apply throughout the management unit, that is, in both state and federal waters. All spiny
            dogfish landed for sale in a state would be applied against commercial quota regardless of where the spiny
            dogf ish were harvested. Using data collected through this FMP (section 3. 1. 1.11), NMFS will monitor the
            fishery to determine when a quota will be reached. The Regional Administrator shall prohibit landings of
            spiny dogfish by vessels with federal spiny dogfish permits when the quota has been landed. In addition,
            each state is encouraged to close state waters to take of spiny dogfish when the quota is landed.

            3.1.1.9 Prohibition of finning

            Finning, the act of removing the fins of spiny dogfish and discarding the carcass, will be prohibited. Vessels
            which land spiny dogfish must land fins in proportion to carcasses, with a maximum of three fins per
            carcass. Fins may not be stored aboard a vessel after the first point of landing.


            3.1.1.10 Gill net limitations


            Commercial gill net vessels fishing for spiny dogfish will be prohibited from fishing more than a total of 80
            nets (50 fathoms each).







             22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    83









         3. 1. 1.11 Other measures


         Only persons with a dealer permit may buy spiny dogfish at the point of first sale landed by an individual
         that has a commercial spiny dogfish permit issued pursuant to this FMP. Only persons with a dealer permit
         may buy spiny dogfish landed by a vessel or individual that has a commercial permit issued pursuant to this
         FMP.


         Individuals and owner/operators with commercial permits may sell spiny dogfish at the point of first sale
         only to a dealer that has a dealer permit issued pursuant to this FMP.

         The amount of spiny dogfish on board a vessel using mesh sizes smaller than those specified fo  r trawl or gill
         net gear may not exceed the minimum threshold as specified.

         All spiny dogfish on vessels fishing with a mesh smaller than the legal minimum size (if one is specified)
         must have any spiny dogfish on board boxed in a manner that will facilitate enforcement personnel knowing
         whether the vessel has more than the level specified of spiny dogfish on board to meet the minimum mesh
         size criterion. Any unboxed spiny dogfish on board a vessel fishing with a net smaller that the legal
         minimum is considered a violation of this FMP. A box holds 100 lbs of spiny dogfish and is approximately
         36" long, 15" wide, and 12" high (approximately 3.75 cubic feet).

         The Regional Administrator may place sea samplers aboard vessels if he determines a voluntary sea
         sampling system is not giving a representative sample from the spiny dogfish fishery.

         No foreign fishing vessel shall conduct a fishery for or retain any spiny dogfish. Foreign nations catching
         spiny dogfish shall be subject to the incidental catch regulations set forth in 50 CFR 611.13, 611.14, and
         611.50.


         The Regional Administrator, in consultation with the Executive Directors, may exempt any person or vessel
         from the requirements of this FMP for the conduct of experimental fishing beneficial to the management of
         the spiny dogfish resource or fishery.

         The Regional Administrator may not grant such exemption unless it is determined that the purpose, design,
         and administration of the exemption is consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the provisions of the
         Magnuson Act, and other applicable law, and that granting the exemption will not:

                1. have a detrimental effect on the spiny dogfish resource and/or fishery or cause any quota to be
                exceeded; or


                2. create significant enforcement problems.

         Each vessel participating in any exempted experimental fishing activity is subject to all provisions of this
         FMP except those necessarily relating to the purpose and nature of the exemption. The exemption will be
         specified in a letter issued by the Regional Administrator to each vessel participating in the exempted
         activity. This letter must be carried aboard the vessel seeking the benefit of such exemption.

         All experimental activities must be consistent with the harvest rates in the FMP.

         It is the Councils intention that experimental fisheries are short-term fisheries to answer specific
         management questions and are not to be used to resolve short-comings in existing fishery management
         plans.








          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     84







             3.1.1.12 Specification and sources of pertinent fishery data

             3.1.1.12.1 Domestic and foreign fisheries

             Section 303(a)(5) of the MSFCMA requires that Council specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted
             to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, and charter/party fishing in the fishery, including,
             but not limited to, information regar ding 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 actual processing capacity utilized by, United States fish
             processors. In order to achieve the objectives of this FIVIP and to manage the fishery for the maximum
             benefit of the U.S., it is necessary that, at a minimum, the Secretary collect on a continuing basis and make
             available to the Councils: (1) spiny dogfish catch, effort, and exvessel value and the catch and exvessel
             value of those species caught in conjunction with spiny dogfish for the commercial fishery provided in a
             form that analysis can be performed at the trip, water area, gear, month, year, principal (normal) landing
             port, landing port for trip, and state levels of aggregation; (2) catch, effort and discards for the recreational
             fishery; (3) biological (e.g., length, weight, age, and sex) samples from both the commercial and recreational
             fisheries; and (4) annual and fully comparable NMFS bottom trawl surveys for analyses of both CPUE and
             age/size frequency. The Secretary may implement necessary data collection procedures through
             amendments to the regulations. It is mandatory that these data be collected for the entire management unit
             on a compatible and comparable basis.

             Commercial logbooks must be submitted on a monthly basis by federal commercial permit holders in order to
             monitor the fishery.

             It is intended that the reports required by this section are the same as the reports required by the Summer
             Flounder FIVIP, the Northeast Multispecies FMP, and the Atlantic Sea Scallop FIVIP. That is, fishermen need
             to submit one logbook report, not one report for each FIVIP.

             Foreign fishermen are subject to the reporting and record keeping requirements in 50 CFR 611.


             3.1.1.12.2 Dealers


             In order to monitor the fishery and enable the Regional Administrator and the states to forecast when a
             closure will be needed, dealers with permits issued pursuant to this FMP must submit weekly reports
             showing at least the quantity of spiny dogfish purchased (in pounds), and the name and permit number of
             the individuals from whom the spiny dogfish was purchased. Dealers having state permits are required to
             report to the state or NMFS all spiny dogfish purchased. States would report state landings weekly to
             NMFS.


             Buyers that do not purchase directly from vessels are not required to submit reports under this provision.
             Dealers should report only those purchases from vessels with commercial permits for spiny dogfish.


             3.1.1.12.3 Processors


             Section 303(a)(5) of the MSFCMA requires that at least estimated processing capacity of, and the actual
             processing capacity utilized by U.S. fish processors, must be submitted to the Secretary. The Secretary may
             implement necessary data collection procedures through amendments to the regulations.

             3.1.2 Alternatives to the Preferred Management Measures


             3.1.2.1 Take no action at this time


             This would mean that the spiny dogfish fishery would remain unregulated.





              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        85








         3.1.2.2 Alternative rebuilding schedules

         3.1.2.2.1 Reduce fishing mortality to F = 0.04 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in ten years
         to rebuild to biomass target (Bms,)

         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F = 0.04 in years 1 -10 and would allow for stock
         rebuilding over a 10 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. Total allowable landings (TAL) or
         quota would have to be reduced to 5.1 million pounds (2,300 mt) during the first three years of the
         management program (1999-2003). TAL would increase slightly towards the end of the rebuilding program
         (Table 33) .


         3.1.2.2.2 Reduce fishing mortality in year 1 half way between F,,,,., and F,,.,,,.Id, in year 2 reduce fishing
         mortality to Fh,.,h.ld and in year 3 reduce IF to level required to rebuild stock in remaining 8 years of the
         rebuilding program.

         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F = 0.204 in year 1 (half way between F,ur,en, and
         Fth,eshold), in year 2 f ishing mortality would be reduced to Fth,.h.ld or F = 0. 11 . Under this scenario, even if F
         was reduced to F = 0.026 in ensuing eight years, the stock would not rebuild to the target SSB by the tenth
         year. In year 1 the TAL would be 22.5 million pounds (10, 186 mt), in year 2 TAL would equal 11. 3 million
         pounds- (5,130 mt) and in the eight remaining years TAL would range from 2.8 - 3.4 million pounds (1,262 -
         1,558 mt). This option would not meet the requirements of the SFA.

         3.1.2.2.3 Reduce fishing mortality in year 1 to allow a harvest of 13.2 million pounds (6,000 mt) and in
         year 2 reduce F to allow for harvest of 8.8 million pounds (4,000 mt) then reduce F to the level required to
         rebuild stock in remaining 8 years of the rebuilding program.

         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality in year 1 to allow a harvest of 13.2 million pounds
         (6,000 mt) and in year 2 to allow for a harvest of 8.8 million pounds (4,000 mt), F would then be reduced
         to F = 0.028 to rebuild the stock in the remaining 8 years of the rebuilding program. In the last eight years
         of the rebuilding program, TAL would range from 3.3 - 3.7 million pounds (1,509 - 1,685 mt).

         3.1.2.2.4 Reduce fishing mortality to F=0.072 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in 15 years
         to rebuild to biomass target (B,s,)

         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F=0.072 in years 1-15 and would allow for
         stock rebuilding over a 15 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. This option would not mee           t
         the requirements of the SFA.

         3.1.2.2.5 Reduce fishing mortality to F=0.078 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in 20 years
         to rebuild to biomass target (Bmsy)

         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F = 0.078 in years 1-20 and would allow for
         stock rebuilding over a 20 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. This option would not meet
         the requirements of the SFA.

         3.1.2.2.5 Reduce fishing mortality to F = 0.088 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in 30 years
         to rebuild to biomass target (Bmsy)

         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F=0.088 in years 1-30 and would allow for
         stock rebuilding over a 30 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. This option would not meet
         the requirements of the SFA.







          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                         86







             3.1.2.3. Establish a coastwide trip limit

             This alternative would establish a system of uniform trip limits established on a coastwide basis in
             conjunction with the quota system. To estimate allowable trip limits under any of the scenarios requires an
             estimation of the number of trips likely to be taken during each year of the management program. For
             example, there are roughly 5,000 vessels which currently possess permits to fish in the EEZ from ME to NC.
             Assuming that each vessel makes 100 trips per year, and that half of those trips could land spiny dogfish,
             yields an estimate of 250,000 trips. If the annual TAL was 1,316 mt in the year 2000, the associated trip
             limit would be about 12 lbs. This analysis suggests that any trip limit specified on an annual basis would be
             very low. A trip limit could be specified for a limited season which might allow for a higher trip limit,


             3.1.2.4 Minimum size limits


             3.1.2.4.1 Establish a minimum size which corresponds to the length at which 50% of female spiny dogfish
             are sexually mature

             This alternative would establish a minimum size for spiny dogfish which corresponds to the length at which
             50% of female spiny dogfish are sexually mature. This would require a minimum size of 32 inches (80 cm).

             3.1.2.4.2 Establish a minimum size which corresponds to the length at which 100% of female spiny
             dogfish are sexually mature

             This alternative would establish a minimum size for spiny dogfish which corresponds to the length at which
             100% of female spiny dogfish are sexually mature. This would require a minimum size of 36 inches (91
             cm).


             3.1.2.4.3 Establish minimum a size of 27.5 in (70 cm)


             This alternative would establish a minimum size of 27.5 in, which is the current effective minimum size at
             capture for spiny dogfish in the commercial fishery.

             3.1.2.4.4 Establish a slot size limit of 27.5 in to 32 in (70-80 cm)


             Each of the stock rebuilding strategies which meet the SFA requirements could be implemented with a slot
             size limit of 27.5 in to 32 in (70-81 cm). This alternative would require that the F applied in any given year
             be applied fully to a slot limit of 27.5 in to 32 in (70-80 cm) and that a partial recruitment vector of 0.5 of
             that F was applied to dogfish greater than 80 cm. Under these scenarios only fish from 27-32 in (70-79
             cm) could be retained, and it was assumed that fish greater than 32 in (80 cm) would continue to be caught
             and discarded, with an effective mortality rate of 50% of those landed in the slot. The results indicate that
             this strategy would result in lower yields and would not alter the rebuilding time frame.

             3.1,2,5 Alternative seasonal allocation of the commercial quota

             3.1.2.5.1 Allocate commercial quota on a quarterly basis

             The process used to set the quota is specified in 3.1.1.6. A quota would be allocated to the commercial
             fishery to control fishing mortality. The quota would be based on projected stock size estimates for that
             year as derived from the latest stock assessment information. Estimates of stock size coupled with the
             target fishing mortality rate would allow for a calculation of total allowable landings (TAL).

             A system to distribute and manage the annual commercial quota on a seasonal basis would be implemented
             by the Councils. Quotas would be distributed between seasons based on the percentage of commercial
             landings for the each quarterly period during the years 1990-1997. These season specific quotas are
             specified in Table 34.




              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    87








         3.1.2.5.2 Allocate commercial quota on a bi-monthly basis

         The process used to set the quota is specified in 3.1.1.6. A quota would be allocated to the commercial
         fishery to control fishing mortality. The quota would be based on projected stock size estimates for that
         year as derived from the latest stock assessment information. Estimates of stock size coupled with the
         target fishing mortality rate would allow for a calculation of total allowable landings (TAL).

         A system to distribute and manage the annual commercial quota on a seasonal basis would be implemented
         by the Councils. Quotas would be distributed between seasons based on the percentage of commercial
         landings for the each bi-monthly period during the years 1990-1997. These season specific quotas are
         specified in Table 34.

         3.1.2.6 Limit entry into the spiny dogfish fisheries

         Under this alternative, vessels would have to qualify for a limited access commercial permit for spiny
         dogfish. The qualifying criteria would be based on historical performance in the fishery at a level specified
         by the Councils. The intent of this action would be to limit the number of participants in the commercial
         fishery for spiny dogfish.

         3.1.2.7 Specify a target commercial quota

         Under this alternative, the Councils would specify a target commercial quota in place of the "hard" or fixed
         quota specified in the preferred alternative. This approach to managing the commercial fishery would
         require additional management measures which would control fishing effort (i.e., input controls). Under this
         system an annual target quota would be specified and a suite of effort controls would be specified such that
         the landings under the effort control system would be expected to approximate the target quota. The
         fishery*would not necessarily be closed if the target quota is reached or exceeded. This system depends on
         fishing effort limitations primarily through limitations on the number of days that vessels may fish during the
         quota period.

         3.1.3 The FIVIP Relative to the National Standards


         3.1.3 The Amendment Relative to the National Standards


         Section 301 (a) of the MSFCMA states: "Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation
         promulgated to implement such plan pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the following national
         standards for fishery conservation and management." The following is a discussion of the standards and
         how this amendment meets them:


         3.1.3.1 Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuous
         basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

         The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which reauthorized and amended the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery
         Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) made a number of changes to the existing
         National Standards. With respect to National Standard 1, the SFA imposed new requirements concerning
         definitions of overfishing in fishery management plans. To comply with National Standard 1, the SFA
         requires that each Council FMP define overfishing as a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes a
         fisheries capacity to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis.

         Each FMP must specify objective and measurable status determination criteria for identifying when stocks or
         stock complexes covered by the FMP are overfished. To fulfill the requirements of the SFA, status
         determination criteria for spiny dogfish are comprised of two components: 1) a maximum fishing mortality
         threshold and 2) a minimum stock size threshold. The maximum F threshold for spiny dogfish is specified as
         F,sy. The minimum biomass threshold is specified as 1/2 Bmsy.



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       88







              For spiny dogfish, MSY could not be reliably estimated from a surplus production model, like other stocks
              that have better catch and effort data. This approach also gives results that are conditioned on the
              exploitation pattern, which appears to be changing (the fishery has targeted smaller fish with time). In lieu
              of this approach, the Dogfish technical Committee and Overfishing Definition Panel recommended using
              yield-per-recruit biological reference points that maximize yield and protect against declines in total
              recruitment. Yield-per-recruit analyses do not give any advice on the amount of recruitment or how it
              changes with stock size. To estimate a stock size that would maximize recruitment, a stock-recruitment
              model was fitted to spawning stock biomass and recruitment observations. The stock size that would
              maximize average recruitment is knows as the SSBm,,. and was recommended as a proxy value for BAsy. This
              value is estimated to be 440 million pounds (200,000 mt) and was measured as a swept-area biomass
              index.


              A length-based projection model, using the fitted Ricker stock-recruitment equation, estimated the fishing
              mortality rate that would allow the stock biomass to fluctuate around the SSBmax value to be equal to
              0. 11. As a maximum fishing mortality threshold that would serve as a proxy for Fmsy, Applegate et aL 1998
              this fishing mortality value, which was estimated to stabilize the female population at SSB,,,x while
              maximizing yield per recruit. To set a risk adverse fishing mortality target that ensures adequate recruitment
              while maximizing yield-per-recruit, Applegate et aL 1998 recommended a fishing mortality rate target that
              would produce an average of 1.5 pups-per-recruit. Based on the yield-per-recruit analysis conducted by
              SAW 26, the fishing mortality target would be 0.082 with a size-at-entry in the fishery of 27.5 in (70 cm)
              and 0.118 at 32 in (80 cm).


              Recommended biological reference points that would define overfishing and overfished conditions for spiny
              dogfish (from Applegate et al. 1998).


                Reference point                        Basis                                   Estimated value

                Biomass target                         SSB,,,,, (the spawning stock            440 million pounds (200,000 mt)
                                                       biomass calculated to produce           spawning stock biomass
                                                       maximum recruitment on the
                                                       Ricker S/R function).

                Biomass threshold                      1 /2 SSBm@x - defines a 10 year         220 million pounds (100,000 mt)
                                                       rebuilding program when SSB >           spawning stock biomass.
                                                       1/2 SSB,.,, and a 5 year rebuilding
                                                       program when SSB < 1/2 SSBmax*

                Total swept-area adult female          Status quo value.                       279 million pounds (1127,000 mt)
                biomass - 1995-1997                                                            (64% of the biomass target).

                Fishing mortality target               Defined by the fishing mortality        0.082 with a 27.5 in (70 cm)
                                                       rate that would allow stock             size-at-entry to the fishery and
                                                       production at 1.5 pups per              0.118 at 80 cm.
                                                       recruit.

                Fishing mortality threshold            The fishing mortality rate that         0. 11 (51 percent of current
                                                       stabilizes the population at the        fishing mortality).
                                                       SSBr,. when recruitment @ 70
                                                     I M.                                    I

                Current fishing mortality - three-     Status quo value.                       0.297
              11 year smoothed average.

              The female spawning stock, SSBm. is the point on the Ricker stock-recruitment curve that would produce
              the highest average recruitment over time, if spawning stock biomass remains constant. Applegate et aL
              0 998) recommended using this total female biomass level as a proxy for Bmsy, because it maximizes


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        89







         average recruitment. The reader is cautioned that this does not represent the maximum level of female
         biomass observed for spiny dogfish. When a fishing mortality rate that maximizes yield-per-recruit is
         applied, this biomass approximates a level that would maximize total yield. Using a swept-area method for
         calculating total biomass from a survey index, the Ricker equation gives a SSBm@,, value of 200,000 mt.

         Whenever biomass is low, potentially jeopardizing recruitment success, management should take immediate
         and significant steps to reduce mortality and rebuild spawning biomass as quickly as possible. Applegate et
         aL (1998) and the Spiny Dogf ish Technical Committee panel used a length projection model to estimate
         rebuilding potential from equilibrium conditions.@ Since spiny dogfish appear to be less resilient than other
         fish, a more aggressive rebuilding strategy was recommended for a control law, or fishing mortality
         management strategy. In general, slower growth rates and lower fecundity make elasmobranchs, like spiny
         dogfish, less resilient than teleost fish and rebuilding times are much longer for equivalent biomass levels.

         Due to this low resiliency and the long rebuilding times needed for recovery, Applegate et aL (11998)
         recommended using 1/2 of the SSBm,,, as a minimum biomass threshold. If total female biomass is above the
         minimum biomass threshold, then the Councils should not permit mortality to exceed levels that would
         require rebuilding to SSB,,,,,,, over periods greater than 10 years. When total female biomass is below 1/2 of
         the SSB,,,,, then fishing mortality should not exceed a rate that would allow rebuilding to the SSBm,, in five
         years. If female biomass is between 1/2 of the SSBra. and the SSBm,,@ values, fishing mortality rates that
         would allow recovery to the biomass target within 10 years would define overf ishing. Whenever biomass is
         less than 1/2 of the SSB,a,, value, fishing mortality above a level that is would allow rebuilding in 5 years
         would define overfishing. If female biomass is above the target level, then the fishing mortality rate that
         would allow the stock to fluctuate around SSBmax would define overfishing.

         The SFA requires that stocks which are identified as overfished (i.e., stock biomass is less than minimum
         biomass threshold) must rebuilt to the level that will produce maximum sustainable yield (B,s,). The SFA
         guidelines advise that, in most cases, the stock rebuilding period may not exceed 10 years. The most
         recent stock assessment data presented by NMFS (1998) and the Dogfish Technical Committee indicate
         that total adult spiny dogfish stock biomass is currently about 280 million lbs (127,000 mt), well below the
         minimum stock biomass target of 440 million lbs (200,000 mt). As a result, the Councils propose to rebuild
         the spiny dogfish stock to the Bmsy level (as represented by the proxy of SSB,,,,) over a ten year rebuilding
         period through the implementation of this FMP.

         The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock through a two step
         reduction in fishing mortality rate. The first step allows for a one year exit fishery of 22 million lbs (10,000
         mt) to allow a phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impact of the
         rebuilding program on both the harvest and processing sectors of the industry. For the first year of the
         rebuilding plan (1999-2000), F will be reduced to 0.2 and then will be reduced to F=0.03 in the remaining
         nine years of the rebuilding plan (2000-2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the level which
         will support harvests at or near the SSB,,, level in the year 2009.

         3.1.3.2 Conservation andmanagement measures shall be based upon the best scientific information
         available.


         This Amendment is based on the best and most recent scientific information available. Future dogfish
         research should be devoted toward both data collection and analysis in order to evaluate the effectiveness
         of this FMP. Future research to determine the level of post-release mortality of spiny dogfish discarded in
         non-directed fisheries by gear type is of particular importance. This species should be reviewed periodically
         by the NEFSC Stock Assessment Workshop process.

         3.1.3.3 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 FMP's management unit is spiny dogfish throughout their range on the Atlantic coast from Maine
         through Florida, including the EEZ, territorial sea, and internal waters. This specification is consistent with


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        90








             National Standard 3.


             3.1.3.4 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; (8) reasonably calculated to
             promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or
             other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.

             The FMP does not discriminate among residents of different states. It does not differentiate among U.S.
             citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or corporations on the basis of their state of residence. It does not
             incorporate or rely on a state statute or regulation that discriminates against residents of another state.

             Since the quota is based on stock size and will be determined annually to assure that the target mortality
             rate is not exceeded, National Standard 4B is met.


             In the commercial fishery, the commercial quota will be applied coastwide. In addition, any recreational
             measures would be applied coastwide. These provisions are, therefore, "fair and equitable to all fishermen."
             The management measures included in this FMP are all specified so they may be adjusted annually following
             procedures set forth in Section 3.1.1.7 to assure that the fishing mortality target is achieved. These
             provisions are, therefore, "reasonably calculated to promote conservation."

             3.1.3.5 Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the
             utilization of the fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole
             purpose.


             The management regime is intended to allow the fishery to operate at the lowest possible cost (e.g., fishing
             effort, administration, and enforcement) given the FMP's objectives. The objectives focus on the issue of
             administrative and enforcement costs. The FMP places no restrictions on processing or marketing.

             3.1.3.6 Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among,
             and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

             The management measures in this FMP are all specified so that they may be adjusted annually following
             procedures set forth in the FMP to assure that the fishing mortality reduction strategy is followed. The
             definition of overfishing is based upon a fishing mortality rate strategy. As such, the annual quota will
             fluctuate to reflect changes in spiny dogfish stock conditions.

             3.1.3.7 Conservatio n and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid
             unnecessary duplication.

             The FMP is consistent with and complements, but does not duplicate, management measures contained in
             other FMPs and PMPs.


             3.1.3.8 Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the
             Magnuson -Stevens 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 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which reauthorized and amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
             Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) made a number of changes to the existing
             National Standards, as well as to definitions and other provisions an the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In regard
             to National Standard 8, the SFA requires that the importance of the fishery resources to fishing communities
             must be taken into account when implementing conservation and management measures.




              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     91








        One area which may be significantly affected is employment. Several industry advisors have indicated that
        due to the low TALs mandated by the plan, and the iabor-intensive nature of hand-processing spiny dogfish,
        employment reductions in the processing sector may be needed. The extent of these employment
        reductions will most likely be determined by whether or not processors can find an alternative species which
        requires hand processing. If this does not occur, it is likely that seasonal or permanent reductions in
        employment may occur as a result of this action. However, specific data needed to quantify the extent of
        these potential reductions are unavailable.

        Another area of concern is the preferred alternatives affect on certain ports. According to the most recent
        NMFS weighout data (1997), several ports are extremely dependent on the spiny dogfish fishery and derived
        a large percent of landings value from spiny dogfish, as compared to the combined value of all other species
        landed in that port. For example, In Plymouth, MA, spiny dogfish accounted for 96% of the total pounds
        and 74% of the total value of all fish landed in this port.

        This phenomenon also manifests in several other ports. In Wachapreague, VA, spiny dogfish accounted for
        90% of the total pounds and 76% of the total value of all fish landed in that port; in Scituate, MA, spiny
        dogfish accounted for 74% of the total pounds and 21 % of the total value of all fish landed in this port; in
        Chatham, MA, spiny dogfish accounted for 47% of the total pounds and 14% of the total value of all fish
        landed in this port; in Ocean City, MD, spiny dogfish accounted for 32% of the total pounds and 11 % of
        the total value of all fish landed in this port; and, in Dare County, NC, spiny dogfish accounted for 30% of
        the total pounds and 11 % of the total value of all fish landed in this port (Table 35).

        Clearly these ports are very dependent upon spiny dogfish landings and will be disproportionately affected
        by the proposed regulatory action. The extent to which local communities will be affected "materially" is
        unknown, but it is likely that local businesses which support the commercial fishing industry will be
        adversely impacted by this FMP.

        The proper management of the spiny dogfish stock through implementation of the management measures
        described above will be beneficial to the commercial and recreational fishing communities of the Atlantic
        coast in long term once the stock is rebuilt. By preventing overfishing and allowing stock rebuilding,
        benefits to the fishing communities will be realized through increased spiny abundance and subsequent
        harvests at sustainable levels. However, to meet the conservation objectives embodied in National Standard
        1 of the SFA, short term reductions in catch and revenue from the spiny dogfish fisheries are necessary and
        unavoidable.


        3.1.3.9 Conservation and management measures shall, to the extend practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and
        (B) to the extent byeatch cannot be -avoided, minimize the mortality of such byeatch.

        The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which reauthorized and amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
        Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) made a number of changes to the existing
        National Standards, as well as to definitions and other provisions an the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In regard
        to National Standard 9, the SFA requires that bycatch issues must be considered when implementing
        conservation and management measures.

        This national standard requires Councils to consider the bycatch effects of existing and planned
        conservation and management measures. Bycatch can, in two ways, impede efforts to protect marine
        ecosystems and achieve sustainable fisheries and the full benefits they can provide to the Nation. First,
        bycatch can increase substantially the uncertainty concerning total fishing-related mortality, which makes it
        more difficult to assess the status of stocks, to set the appropriate optimal yield (OY) and define overfishing
        levels, and to ensure that OYs are attained and overfishing levels are not exceeded. Second, bycatch may
        also preclude other more productive uses of fishery resources.

        The term "bycatch" means fish that are harvested in a fishery, but that are not sold or kept for personal
        use. Bycatch includes the discard of whole fish at sea or elsewhere, including economic discards and
        regulatory discards, and fishing mortality due to an encounter with fishing gear that does not result in


        22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     92







             capture of fish (i.e., unobserved fishing mortality). Bycatch does not include any fish that legally are
             retained in a fishery and kept for personal, tribal, or cultural use, or that enter commerce through sale,
             barter, or trade. Bycatch does not include fish released alive under a recreational c atc h-and-rel ease fishery
             management program. A catch-and-release fishery management program is one in which the retention of a
             particular species is prohibited. In such a program, those fish released alive would not be considered
             bycatch.


             Virtually all of the spiny dogfish taken as bycatch in the mixed- and multi-species gillnet and otter trawl
             fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean were discarded based on sea sample data from 1991-1993 (NMFS
             1998). The primary reason for discarding of dogfish taken in these fisheries is small size or lack of market.
             The result of this activity is to reduce the mean size/age of selection. Since these animals are discarded,
             they represent economic and biological waste.


             Any future harvest policy developed for spiny dogfish must take into account the background mortality that
             results from discarding of dogfish from these fisheries. The issue of discards is a particularly important
             issue in the management of spiny dogfish, especially given the new National Standard 7, which mandates
             that regulations within FMPs developed under the SFA must minimize the level of discards and the mortality
             of discards which are unavoidable.


             Estimates of discards of spiny dogfish were updated by the Spiny Dogfish Technical Committee using the
             Domestic Sea Sampling Program (DSSP) database for 1989-1997. The data were pooled across years to
             increase the number of observations in each cell. For each trip observed, the primary species caught (>
             50% of the total pounds on board) and the number of pounds of spiny dogfish discarded were calculated.
             These were summed over all trips grouped by primary species caught. A discard rate was calculated by
             dividing the total pounds of dogfish subsampled by the total pounds of the primary species. To calculate
             total dogfish discarded by year, these rates were multiplied by the pounds of the primary species caught
             from the NEFSC weighout database where the primary species comprised more than 50% of the trip.

             The results of the analysis are provide in Tables 36a-c. The major fisheries which discard dogfish are the
             cod, goosefish, flatfish, mackerel, scup, butterfish, silver hake, Lofigo, skate and spiny dogfish otter trawl
             directed fisheries and groundfish and spiny dogfish sink gill net fisheries. The total amount of dogfish
             discarded over the time period varied from a low of 15.4 million pounds (7,000 mt) in 1995 to a high of
             25.6 million pounds (11,600 mt) in 1989. Discard mortality was assumed to be 50% for otter trawls and
             75% for sink gill nets.


             During the development of this FMP, the Joint Dogfish Committee requested that the Technical Committee
             re-evaluate the discard mortality estimates by gear provided by SARC 26. During the evaluation of this
             assumption, the Technical Committee discussed the apparent mismatch between the predicted yield from
             the swept area estimates of biomass and the observed yields in the fishery. The Technical Committee
             contacted researchers conducting tagging studies on spiny dogfish in recent years. The committee was
             unable to obtain any data to address the issue of discard mortality. In addition, the committee contacted
             the NC Division of Marine Fisheries, whose biologists have been obtaining sea sample data from the spiny
             dogfish fishery off the state of North Carolina. No data were made available to the Technical Committee.
             None of the other committee members were aware of any additional data relative to discard mortality of
             spiny dogfish. During discussions about post release mortality of spiny dogfish, it was noted that there
             appears to be some portion of total mortality of spiny dogfish not currently being accounted for in the
             analysis. Two possible sources of this uncertainty include unreported catch and discard mortality. Since
             the bulk of the spiny dogfish landings are handled by a small number of processors which are adequately
             covered in the weighout data system, the committee concluded that the most likely source would be that
             losses due to discarding are underestimated in the current analysis. This would imply that the current
             estimates of discard mortality are realistic. If discard mortality was low, then we would, be over-estimating
             mortality, which does not appear to be the case. The committee concluded that there is no basis to change
             the SARC assumptions about discard mortality at the current time, especially lacking any new information.





              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       93








        The Technical Committee also considered the issue of what the level of losses due to discards are expected
        to be during the recovery period (after the year one exit fishery occurs). The question is, will expected
        losses due to discards exceed the levels assumed under the rebuilding plan? The answer to that question
        depends on how fishermen will adapt to a fishery closure. The Technical Committee concluded that given
        the current inability to predict the behavior of the fishing fleet of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, they were
        unable to predict the absolute level of discard mortality of spiny dogfish in the future. The Committee
        decided on another approach, which was to consider a range of possible achievable reductions in F. These
        scenarios were developed to allow the Councils to compare the various stock rebuilding options relative to
        one another. That is, the alternatives presented can be compared in a relative sense. Once the rebuilding
        program is implemented, the stock will have to be monitored to determine the sources and magnitude of
        fishing mortality for spiny dogfish. All of the stock rebuilding scenarios considered by the Technical
        Committee and presented in this FMP assume that current levels of background discard mortality losses will
        continue in the future.


        The discard mortality issue is significant. The Technical Committee recommended that the fisheries which
        take dogfish as bycatch be monitored through collection of sea sample data after the plan goes into effect.
        Research into the post release survivorship by gear type should also be conducted. With respect to
        increased levels of bycatch of spiny dogfish, any of the proposed management measures will likely result in
        the discard of spiny dogfish which could otherwise be kept under current regulations. These measures
        include-quotas, trip limits, size limits, season or area closures and recreational measures. The FMP includes
        framework provisions to deal with future discard problems. Specifically, if a discard problems become so
        severe as to compromise the conservation objectives of the FMP, then gear, season and area restrictions
        could be implemented to reduce discard mortality. All of these factors will result in the minimization of
        bycatch and discard mortality of spiny dogfish in the commercial fishery, to the extent practicable.
        Therefore, National Standard 9 is satisfied, to the extent practicable.


        3.1.3.10 Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of
        human life at sea.


        The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which reauthorized and amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
        Conservation and Management Act. (Magnuson-Stevens Act), made a number of changes to the existing
        National Standards, as well as to definitions and other provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In regard
        to National Standard 10, the SFA requires that the safety of human life at sea must be promoted when
        implementing conservation and management measures.

        National Standard 10 recognizes that fishery regulations by definition place constraints on fishing that would
        not otherwise exist. It's purpose is to ensure that fishery regulations do not create pressures on fishermen
        to fish under conditions they would otherwise avoid. None of the management measures in this amendment
        will promote or result in increased levels of unsafe behavior at sea relative to the status quo.

        The management measures in this FMP should not alter the behavior or fishing practices of fishermen to
        extent that they would engage in fishing practices that they would otherwise avoid. None of the measures
        should affect the vessel operating environment or gear loading requirements. In order to minimize the
        creation of derby style fisheries, the Councils are implementing the commercial quota on a seasonal basis.
        The Council developed this FMP in consultation with industry advisors to help ensure that this was the case.
        In summary, the Council has concluded that the proposed amendment will not impact or affect the safety of
        human life at sea. Therefore, National Standard 10 is met.


        3.1.4 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed and Alternative Management Measures

        3.1.4.1 Analysis of the Proposed Management Measures

        This section presents an analysis of the impacts of the preferred management measurers considered by the
        Council on the environment. These actions were described in section 3.1.1 above. In this section each
        management measure is be analyzed in terms of biological, economic, and social impacts, and its effects to



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      94







              marine mammals, turtles, and sea birds.

              3.1.4.1.1. Rebuilding Schedule and Commercial Quota Management Strategy

              The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) requires the Councils to se  t the overfishing definition to meet a new
              standard (F,,,) or a suitable proxy . In addition, the resource must be rebuilt to the biomass associated with
              IVISY, B,,,y, or a suitable proxy in as short a period as possible. The rebuilding period is not to exceed 10
              years, except where biology, environmental conditions, or international agreements dictate otherwise.

              In the most recent assessment for spiny dogfish, NIVIFS (1998) found that current fishing mortality for spiny
              dogfish exceeds the threshold fishing mortality rate (Frep , proxy for Fm@y). In addition, total adult stock
              biomass of spiny dogfish is currently 67% of the target biomass (SSBm.x, proxy for B,,y). Thus, the spiny
              dogfish stock is considered overfished according to the new SFA overfishing guidelines and requires
              rebuilding. This FIVIP addresses the overfishing problem and plans to rebuild the resource to meet SFA
              requirements over a ten year planning horizon.

              An additional requirement of the SFA is that stocks which are identified as overfished (i.e., stock biomass is
              less than minimum biomass threshold) must be rebuilt to the level that will produce maximum sustainable
              yield (Bmsy). The SFA guidelines advise that, in most cases, the stock rebuilding period may not exceed 10
              years. The most recent stock assessment data presented by NIVIFS (1998) and the Dogfish Technical
              Committee indicate that total adult spiny dogfish stock biomass is currently about 280 million lbs (127,000
              mt), well below the minimum adult stock biomass target of 440 million lbs (200,000 mt). As a result, the
              Councils propose to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock to the B,,, level over a ten year rebuilding period
              through the implementation of this FIVIP.


              Biological Impacts


              Spiny dogfish are long lived and slow growing (see Section 2.1.3.2). This life history strategy (long lived
              with low reproductive potential) makes the species particularly vulnerable to overf ishing. Holden (11973)
              noted the limited ability of sharks and other elasmobranchs to maintain the levels of exploitation sustainable
              in fisheries for teleost or bony fish. This is because stock and recruitment are directly related and
              reductions in adult stock size result in reduced recruitment. In addition, the limited reproductive potential of
              spiny dogfish offers little flexibility in compensating for increased exploitation.

              The relationship between stock and recruitment in spiny dogfish, like other elasmobranchs, is direct, owing
              to their reproductive strategy of low fecundity combined with few, well-developed offspring (Hoenig and
              Gruber 1990). Although Holden 0 977) provides some evidence that fecundity of sharks can increase as
              stock size declines, size of the female body cavity and energy considerations combine to create an upper
              limit on pup production per adult female. As a result, recruitment to the stock in spiny dogfish is directly
              related to and dependent upon the number of adult females in the stock. The direct relationship between
              adult stock and recruitment is the most critical factor in the development of a rational strategy of
              exploitation of elasmobranch stocks (Hoenig and Gruber 1990), including spiny dogfish.

              The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock through a two step
              reduction in fishing mortality rate. The first step allows for a one year exit fishery of 22 million pounds
              0 0,000 mt) to allow a phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impact
              of the rebuilding program on both the harvest and processing sectors of the industry. For the first year of
              the rebuilding plan (1999-2000), F will be reduced to 0.2, and then F will be reduced to F=0.03 in the
              remaining nine years of the rebuilding plan (2000-2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the
              level which will support harvests at or near the IVISY level in the year 2009.

              The rebuilding plan proposed in this FIVIP recognizes the unique biological characteristics of spiny dogfish
              relative to other marine species subject to exploitation U.e, the marine teleosts). The primary goal of the
              rebuilding plan is to allow the adult female biomass of spiny dogfish to a level that will maximize average
              recruitment and in turn allow sustainable harvests. Thus, the biological impacts of the management


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       95







         program in general, and the rebuilding strategy in particular, will be positive.

         Economic impacts

         The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock while allowing a one
         year "exit fishery". This step allows for a one year fishery of 22 million pounds (10,006 mt) to allow a
         phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impacts of the rebuilding
         program on both the harvesting and processing sectors of the industry. Landings will be reduced to 3.0
         million pounds (1316 mt) in year 2 and be maintained at under 4.5 million ponds (2000 mt) for the duration
         of the rebuilding period. This alternative is expected to rebuild spiny dogfish stocks in the shortest possible
         time while still meeting the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. In 1999, commercial landings
         would be reduced by 37,992,279 pounds ($6,838,610.20) relative to 1996 landings levels.

         Based upon projected status quo total landings (i.e. total predicted landings if no management measures
         were imposed) this reduction would be 9,234,540 pounds ($1,662,217) in 1999. Based upon projected
         status quo total landings in relation to proposed TALs, ex-vessel gross revenue declines reach a high of
         $4,1184,576.28 in year two as landings are reduced to 2,901,780 lbs 0 316 metric tons) (Tables 37 and
         38). Pack-out facility gross revenue declines reach a high of $1,015,170.98 in year two (Table 39). Gross
         revenue losses decline from this point as projected landings increase.

         The cumulative discounted impacts of this action are illustrated in Figure 25 (see Figure 24 for non-
         discounted impacts). Notably, the discounted projected impacts of the preferred management action and its
         alternatives do not reach status quo levels (the x axis) within the shown 30 year time-frame (Figure 25).
         The discounted loss of gross ex-vessel revenues is fairly dramatic until the year 2009 when the benefits of
         harvest reductions begin to be realized as projected TALs increase dramatically. This characterization,
         however, has several shortcomings, the greatest of which is that it does not account for elasticity of
         demand. Potentially, price could increase as supply declines causing these curves to rise (i.e., toward the x
         axis). This characterization also does not account for changes in costs and introductions of new, potentially
         more efficient harvest technologies.

         An additional area of uncertainty are the effects of low TALs upon markets. Processors have indicated that
         the ability to process spiny dogfish in a cost-effective manner is dependent upon volume. The proposed low
         TAIL may cause processors to cease processing spiny dogfish and thus cause established U.S. based
         markets for this species to collapse. Since currently, most spiny dogfish are processed and exported, the
         implications of management upon both foreign and domestic markets are hard to predict. Two scenarios
         are: 1) the demand for spiny dogfish by foreign markets may decline as this species is replaced by a more
         readily available alternative; and conversely, 2) the lessening of supply in light of a static demand could
         cause price to rise and allow for a modified fishery to exist while landings remain at low levels.

         These scenarios would also affect harvesters: if markets for spiny dogfish cease, there will not be an outlet
         to sell their catch. Conversely, if prices rise, harvesters will be able to receive greater ex-vessel prices for
         spiny dogfish (assuming a market exists). Even if prices increase, however, due to the extremely low TALs,
         this would probably do little to mitigate the economic impacts caused by the pr        eferred alternative (this is
         true for both harvesters and processors).

         The preferred alternative is not likely to affect the recreational fishery for spiny clogfish. The 1996 landings
         of spiny dogfish by the recreational fishing sector was 14,408 lbs (catch type A + 131), and discards were
         estimated at 143,130 lbs (catch type 132). The 1994 MRFSS survey indicated that of the 33,27!D intercept
         surveys conducted in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 4 anglers were targeting spiny dogfish as their
         "primary" species. Although this number is not expanded to represent all anglers making trips during that
         year, it suggests that there is not a substantial directed recreational fishery for spiny dogfish. In light of
         this, there is expected to be no lessening of demand for recreational fishing trips due to this proposed
         action.






         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                          96








              Social Impacts


              The proposed rebuilding schedule will achieve the total biomass target (Bmsy) in nine years while allowing for
              stability in projected yields during the recovery period. Furthermore, it provides the industry with an
              adjustment period during the early years of the recovery program which will minimize social impacts.

              Long-term benefits should be realized though a sustainable spiny dogfish fishery which can continue to
              capitalize on existing markets or take advantage of new markets. One caveat to this is that if the U.S.
              based export market does cease for the duration of the rebuilding plan, the level of demand for a product
              that has been unavailable for many year may be adversely affected.

              The commercial quota is allocated between two six month seasons based on the seasonal distribution of
              landings during the period 1990-1997. This is intended to preserve the traditional distribution of landings,
              both geographically and seasonally. By allocating the quota on a seasonal basis, the Councils are
              attempting to ensure that the harvest is allocated in a fair and equitable manner. This should have positive
              benefits for the communities that have traditionally depended on spiny doglish for employment and income.

              Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Sgabirds

              Activities conducted under this FMP have not yet been considered for their impacts on endangered species
              in order to do a Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation. NMFS will be performing a Section
              7 consultation while the FMP is out for public review during the next few months. The Fish and Wildlife
              Service may also perform a Section 7 consultation on any seabirds that may be impacted by this FMP. The
              following background information is provided to facilitate evaluations of the alternatives relative to the order
              of magnitude these spiny dogfish fisheries may have on these threatened or endangered species.

              Numerous species of marine mammals and sea turtles occur in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. The most
              recent comprehensive survey in this region was done from 1979-1982 by the Cetacean and Turtle
              Assessment Program (CETAP) at the University of Rhode Island (University of Rhode Island 1982) under
              contract to the Minerals Management Service (MMS), Department of the Interior. The following is a
              summary of the information gathered in that study, which covered the area from Cape Sable, Nova Scotia,
              to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, from the coastline to 5 nautical miles seaward of the 1000 fathom
              isobath.


              Four hundred and seventy one large whale sightings, 1,547 small whale sightings and 1, 172 sea turtles
              were encountered in the surveys. The "estimated minimum population number" for each mammal and turtle
              in the area, as well as those species currently included under the Endangered Species Act, were also
              tabulated.


              CETAP concluded that both large and small cetaceans were widely distributed throughout the study area in
              all four seasons and grouped the 13 most commonly seen species into three categories based on
              geographical distribution. The first group contained only the harbor porpoise, which is distributed only over
              the shelf and throughout the Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod, and Georges Bank, but probably not southwest of
              Nantucket. The second group contained the most frequently encountered baleen whales (fin, humpback,
              minke, and right whales) and the white-sided dolphin. These were found in the same areas as the harbor
              porpoise and also occasionally over he shell a, least to Cape Hatteras or out to the shelf edge. The third
              group indicated a "strong tendency for association with the shelf edge" and included the grampus, striped,
              spotted, saddleback, and bottlenose dolphins, and the sperm and pilot whales.

              Loggerhead turtles were found throughout the study area, but appeared to migrate north to about
              Massachusetts in summer and south in winter. Leatherbacks appeared to have had a more northerly
              distribution. CETAP hypothesized a northward migration of both species in the Gulf Stream with a
              southward return in continental shelf waters nearer to shore. Both species usually were found over the
              shoreward half of the slope and in depths less than 200 feet. The northwest Atlantic may be important for
              sea turtle feeding or migrations, but the nesting areas for these species generally are in the South Atlantic


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       97









        and Gulf of Mexico.


        This problem may become acute when climatic conditions result in concentration of turtles and fish in the
        same area at the same time. These conditions apparently are met when temperatures are cool in October
        but then remain moderate into mid-December and result in a concentration of turtles between Oregon Inlet
        and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In most years sea turtles leave Chesapeake Bay and filter through the
        area a few weeks before the bluefish becomes concentrated. Efforts are currently under way (by VIMS and
        the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges at Back Bay, Virginia, and Pea Island, North Carolina) to more
        closely monitor these mortalities due to trawls. Fishermen are encouraged to carefully release turtles
        captured incidentally and to attempt resuscitation of unconscious turtles as recommended in the 1981
        Federal Register (pages 43976 and 43977).

        The only endangered species of fish occurring in the northwest Atlantic is the shortnose sturgeon
        (Acipenser brevirostrum). The Councils urge fishermen to report any incidental catches of this species to
        the Regional Administrator, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930, who will
        forward the information to persons responsible for the active sturgeon data base.

        The range of spiny dogfish and the above mentioned marine mammals and endangered species overlap and
        there always exists a potential for an incidental kill. Under the proposed recovery schedule and the resultant
        decline-in fishing effort for spiny dogfish, such accidental catches should have a negligible impact on marine
        mammal or abundances of endangered species, and the Councils believe that implementation of this FMP
        will have a positive impact upon these populations.

        Attempts were made to put these fisheries/sea turtle interaction into perspective of other sources of
        mortality for these endangered turtle species. The Congressionally mandated report Decline of the Sea
        Turtles: Causes and Prevention (NRC 1990) states that "Of all the known factors, by far the most
        important source of deaths was the incidental capture of turtles (especially loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys)
        in shrimp trawling. This factor acts on the life stages with the greatest reproductive value for the recovery
        of sea turtle populations."

        Mortality associated with other fisheries and with lost or discarded fishing gear is much more difficult to
        estimate than that associated with shrimp trawling, and there is a need to improve these estimates (NRC
        1990). This report identified possible turtle losses from the winter trawl fishery north of Cape Hatteras
        (about 50-200 turtles per year), the historical Atlantic sturgeon fishery, now closed, off the Carolinas (about
        200 to 800 turtles per year), and the Chesapeake Bay passive-gear fisheries (about 25 turtles per year).
        Considering the large numbers of fisheries from Maine to Texas that have not been evaluated and the
        problems of estimating the numbers of turtles entangled in the 135,000 metric tons of plastic nets, lines,
        and buoys lost or discarded annually, it seems likely that more than 500 loggerheads and 50 Kemp's ridleys
        are killed annually by nonshrimp fisheries (NRC 1990). These other fishery operations, lost fishing gear, and
        marine debris are known to kill sea turtles, but the reported deaths are only about 10% of those caused by
        shrimp trawling. Dredging, entrainment in power-plants intake pipes, collisions with boats, and the effects
        of petroleum-platform removal all are potentially and locally serious causes of sea turtle deaths. However
        these collectively amount to less than 5% of the mortality caused by shrimp trawling (NRC 1990).

        The NRC report (11990) concludes that all species of marine turtles need increased protection under the
        Endangered Species Act and other relevant legislation. While the report does not recommend specific
        conservation measures for these fisheries, the recommendations for the shrimp trawling are germane. The
        NRC report (1990) recommended TEDs, 60 minute winter tow-time limits, and limited time/area closure for
        turtle "hot spots". Currently, there are 5 sea turtle recovery plans in place these include plans for the
        loggerhead (1199 1), the green sea turtle (199 1), the leatherback (1992), the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (1992),
        and the hawksbill sea turtle (1993). Of the six "Actions Needed" that are identified by the Recovery Plan
        to achieve recovery of loggerheads is item 5: "minimize mortality from commercial fisheries."

        Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is an additional endangered species that may be caught
        incidentally in trawl fisheries. Sturgeon will be included in the Incidental Take Statement of the pending


        22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       98







             Biological Opinion. As shortnose sturgeon are generally associated with the estuarine environment, rather
             than the truly marine environment, it is anticipated that the gear and fishing locations of these dogfish
             fisheries will rarely encounter shortnose sturgeon.

             Marine mammals are managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered
             Species Act of 1973, Marine mammals have been historically important in the U.S. both as targets for
             commercial harvests and in ecological interactions with commercial fisheries. An excellent description of
             the historical importance of marine mammals is described in USDC 1993b.


             The results of this earlier work were addressed in 1979 when the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission
             sponsored a workshop to help define research needed for the study of marine mammals on the U.S..east
             and Gulf coasts and in 1989 at a NMFS-sponsored workshop on Gulf of Mexico marine mammal research
             needs (USDC 1993b). These workshops set a research agenda that was immediately addressed by agencies
             such as the Minerals Management Service and NMFS. During the 1980's, several institutions in the
             northeast developed active research programs which have resulted in a body of knowledge that is being
             drawn upon in developing management approaches for several critical marine mammal issues in the region.
             In the 1990's, increased attention has been focused on the characterization of marine mammal fauna of the
             U.S. Gulf of Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic Bight (USDC 1993b).

             Thirty-five species of marine mammals range the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters (32 whales,
             dolphins and porpoises, two seal species, and one manatee). Their status, in general, is poorly known, but
             some, like the right whale, Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin, and harbor porpoise, are under stresses
             that may affect their survival (USDC 1993b).

             The gears managed under this FMP are under several categories listed for the final List of Fisheries for 1997
             for the taking of marine mammals by commercial fishing operations under section 114 of the Marine
             Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. Section 114 of the MMPA establishes an interim exemption for
             the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations and requires NMFS to publish and
             annually update the List of Fisheries, along with the marine mammals and the number of vessels or persons
             involved in each fishery, arranging them according to categories, as follows:

             1. A fishery that has a frequent incidental taking of marine mammals;

             2. A fishery that has an occasional incidental taking of marine mammals; or

             3. A fishery that has a remote likelihood, or no known incidental taking, of marine mammals.

             In Category 1, there is documented information indicating a "frequent" incidental taking of marine mammals
             in the fishery. "Frequent" means that it is highly likely that more than one marine mammal will be
             incidentally taken by a randomly selected vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period. Some of the spiny
             dogfish gill net fisheries are in this category. With the mandatory reductions in spiny dogfish fishing
             mortality in the preferred alternative, there should be an overwhelming beneficial impact from the preferred
             alternative management measures on the marine mammal populations of the east coast.

             In Category 11, there is documented information indicating an "occasional" incidental taking of marine
             mammals 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 a likelihood of at least an "occasional" incidental taking in the fishery. "Occasional"
             means that there is some likelihood that one marine mammal will be incidentally taken by a randomly
             selected vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period, but that there is little likelihood that more than one
             marine mammal will be incidentally taken. Some of the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are in this category.

             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


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    99








        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 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. The spiny dogfish trawl and demersal longline
        fisheries are considered Category III fisheries. With the mandatory reductions in spiny dogfish fishing
        mortality in the preferred alternative, there should be an overwhelming beneficial impact from the preferred
        alternative management measures on the marine mammal populations of the *east coast.

        The 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) require the preparation and
        implementation of Take Reduction Plans (TLP's) for strategic marine mammal stocks that interact with
        Category I or 11 fisheries. The 1996 Stock Assessment Report (SAR) (Waring et al., 1997) states that
        harbor porpoise bycatch has been observed by the NMFS Sea Sampling program in the following fisheries:
        (1) the Northeast (NE) multispecies sink gillnet, (2) the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet, (3) the Atlantic drift
        gillnet, (4) the North Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, and (5) the Canadian Bay of Fundy sink gillnet fishery.
        The fisheries of greatest concern, and the subject of this TRP, are the NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery
        (Category 1), and the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery (Category 11).

        The NMFS recently announced in 50 CFR 229, the availability of a proposed harbor porpoise take reduction
        plan (HPTRP) to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in gillnet fisheries throughout
        the stock's U.S. range, NMFS also proposes regulations to implement the HPTRP. The proposed plan,
        including a discussion of the recommendations of the Gulf of Maine Take Reduction Team (GOMTRT) and
        the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team (MATRT). The potential biological removal (PBR) level for Gulf of
        Maine harbor porpoise throughout their range is 483 animals (62 FR 3005, January 21, 1997). The
        incidental bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries exceeds
        the PBR level. The proposed HPTRP would use a wide range of management measures to reduce the
        byeatch and mortality of harbor porpoise. In the GOM, the HPTRP proposes time and area closures and
        time/area periods during which pinger use would be required in the Northeast, Mid-coast, Massachusetts
        Bay, Cape Cod South and Offshore Closure Areas. In the Mid-Atlantic area, the HPTRP proposes time/area
        closures and modifications to gear characteristics, including floatline length, twine size, tie downs, and
        number of nets, in the large mesh and small mesh fisheries.

        As noted above, the stock recovery schedule in this FMP specifies mandatory reductions in spiny dogfish
        fishing mortality which will result in reductions in fishing effort directed at spiny dogfish in excess of 90%
        of current levels in years 2-10 of the rebuilding period through elimination of the directed fishery. As a
        result, there should be an overwhelming beneficial impact from the preferred alternative management
        measures on certain marine mammal populations of the east coast.

        Pelagic seabirds are not likely to come into contact with spiny dogfish fisheries. Most of the following
        information is taken from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Marine Research Program (1994) and Peterson 0 963).
        Fulmars occur as far south as Virginia in late winter and early spring. Shearwaters, storm petrels (both
        Leach's and Wilson's), jaegers, skuas, and some terns pass through this region in their annual migrations.
        Gannets and phalaropes occur in the Mid-Atlantic during winter months. Eight gulls breed in eastern North
        America and occur in shelf waters off the northeastern U.S. These gulls include: glaucous, Iceland, great
        black-backed, herring, laughing, ring-billed, Bonaparte's and Sabine's gulls, and black-legged caduceus.
        Royal and sandwich terns are coastal inhabitants from Chesapeake Bay south to the Gulf of Mexico. The
        Roseate tern is listed as endangered under the ESA, while the Least tern is considered threatened (Salina
        pers. comm.). Of course, our national symbol, the bald eagle is listed as endangered under the ESA and is a
        bird of aquatic ecosystems. Literally translated, its Latin name, Hafiaeetus leucocephalus, means white-
        headed sea eagle (Federal Register 1994, 35584).

        Spiny dogfish are not important prey for the Common and Roseate terns (Salina 1987, Salina et al. 1988,
        and Salina et al. 1990). Sal ina et aL (1988) note that f ew other seabird studies have measured ambient
        food levels among foraging birds, but many studies which have examined food provisioning to chicks and
        reproductive performance in seabirds have found results similar to theirs. Laying dates, clutch sizes,


        22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    100







             growth, and fledgling success of seabirds have been linked to food availability by a number of workers.
             Safina et al. 0 988) recorded that prey fish were more abundant in 1984 than it was in 1985 and noted that
             reproductive productivity of terns was greater in 1984 for most parameters measured. Although they
             studied productivity for only two seasons, the results suggest that prey population fluctuations may limit
             reproductive success in the terns they studied.


             Safina et al, (11990) noted that observing prey deliveries at nests cannot address the question of how
             foraging birds select prey or foraging habitat from the range of possibilities. However, the variability they
             found shows that either prey availability or birds' selection criteria changes, and that prey availability or
             selection varies differently between the two tern species, Common and Roseate, they studied. Some prey
             species may have their own consistent internal rhythms (or influencing factors) which make them
             differentially susceptible to tern predation on a daily time scale.

             The stock recovery schedule proposed in this amendment will reduce fishing mortality over a ten year
             period. As such, these reductions in fishing mortality will result in reduced fishing effort that in turn will
             reduce interactions with marine mammals, sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds. Preventing
             overfishing of spiny dogfish thus will be beneficial to some seabirds and certain species of marine mammals.

             3.1.4.1.2 Impacts of Permit and Reporting Requirements Under the Preferred Alternative

             Biological Impacts


             Actions two through four implement permit requirements for commercial vessels, dealers, and operators.
             Given the current status of the stocks and the uncertainties regarding discard rates for spiny clogfish,
             mechanisms which account for all activities in the fishery are necessary to enforce provisions of the FIVIP
             and ensure overfishing is prevented. Permits issued to all sectors which harvest, process, or sell spiny
             dogfish provide the foundation for effective monitoring and enforcement of regulations.

             There are no direct biological impacts associated with the implementation of this management alternative.
             However, this alternative will help track the quota and therefore reduce the chance that the quota is
             exceeded, and as such, reduce the chance of overfishing. A commercial permit to sell is essential for a
             quota based management system. The dealer permitting and reporting requirements are also very important
             in tracking the quota and forecasting necessary closures.

             Economic Impacts


             It is estimated that 642 vessels landed spiny dogfish in 1996 along the Atlantic coast. Under the preferred
             alternative, any vessel desiring to fish commercially for spiny dogfish must obtain a federal vessel spiny
             dogfish permit. It is estimated that 87% of commercial vessels landing spiny dogfish in 1996 possess a
             NIVIFS vessel permit for'at least one or more fisheries. Therefore, approximately 83 new applicants would
             be required to apply for a federal spiny dogfish permit using the initial application form. The remainder
             would use the renewal form and would not likely incur an additional burden. It is estimated that
             owner/operators of all 83 vessels would apply for a spiny dogfish permit. The total burden cost associated
             with public requirements is $623 ($7.50 per vessel) and the total burden cost associated with federal
             requirements is estimated at $2,739.

             The calculation of public and federal costs applies to the new respondents only. It is highly unlikely that
             under the preferred management alternative, there will be any new applicants for dealer permits. If there
             were new dealer permits issued, the total burden costs associated with the public requirement for new
             applicants is $1.25 per applicant. Thereafter, the public annual estimate of submitting weekly reports will
             be $26 per dealer per year. Thereafter, the annual estimate of processing weekly reports for the NM'FS will
             be $43 per dealer.

             Licensed commercial vessels pursuant to this Amendment must submit monthly logbooks. It was estimated
             that 87% of all commercial vessels participating in the spiny dogfish fishery hold one or more permits for


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     101








         fisheries that require logbook submission (e.g., multispecies, summer flounder, black sea bass, scup,
         snapper grouper complex, etc.). As such, the only 83 additional vessels would be required to submit a
         report to meet the reporting requirements for the spiny dogfish fishery. The total burden cost associated
         with public requirements is $1,660 ($20 per vessel).


         Social Impacts


         The issuance of permits and reporting requirements are essential ingredients in the management of fishery
         resources. Section 303(b)(1) of the MSFCMA specifically recognized the need for permit issuance. Almost
         every international, federal, state, and local fishery management authority recognizes the value of permits
         and uses permits as part of their management systems. The purpose and use of permits is to: 1) register
         fishermen, fishing vessels, fish dealers and processors, 2) list the characteristics of fishing vessels and/or
         dealer/processor operations, 3) exercise influence over compliance (e.g., withhold issuance pending
         collection of unpaid penalties), 4) provide a mailing list for the dissemination of important information to the
         industry, and 5) provide a universe for data collection purposes.

         Commercial fishing permit information can be used by enforcement officials to check for regulatory
         infractions and by NOAA scientists and economists as a basis for analysis. The commercial fishing permit
         requirement ensures more complete reporting from the fishery. Commercial fishing permits will increase
         compliance with commercial quota management. With the implen@entation of a commercial fishing permit,
         the quota system should be tracked more accurately. Therefore, permit requirements will enhance
         enforcement.


         Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


         The various permitting processes preferred for this FMP for the commercial fishery, dealers, and operators
         will not have any significant impact on marine mammals, sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds.

         3.1.4.1.3 Prohibition of finning

         Finning, the act of removing the fins of spiny dogfish and discarding the carcass, will be prohibited. Vessels
         which land spiny dogfish must land fins in proportion to carcasses, with a maximum of three fins per
         carcass. Fins may not be stored aboard a vessel after the first point of landing.

         Biological Impacts


        -This management measure is intended to eliminate the wasteful practice of finning. The Councils intend to
         ensure that, to the extent practical, the entire fish be utilized when harves ted. This will have positive
         biological impacts for the spiny dogfish stock by reducing the wasteful discard of spiny dogfish carcasses.


         Economic Impacts


         During the course of development of this FMP, the issue of finning and discard of the carcass at sea of
         spiny dogfish has been discussed. Industry advisors testified that this practice occurs only on a very limited
         basis. Therefore, no negative economic impacts as a result of this management measure are expected.


         Social Impacts


         As noted above, during the course of development of this FMP, the issue of finning and discard of the
         carcass at sea of spiny dogfish has been discussed. The response of the public and industry was
         overwhelmingly in favor of a prohibition on the practice of finning. Because of its universal acceptance by
         the public, this measure is not expected to have any negative social consequences.






          22 September   1998 Hearing Draft                    102








               Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


               This measure will not have any significant impact on marine mammals, sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and
               seabirds.


               3.1.4.1.4 Gill net limitations


               Biological Impacts


               Commercial gill net vessels fishing for spiny dogfish will be prohibited from fishing more than a total of 80
               nets (50 fathoms each). The purpose of this measure is to attempt to cap overall fishing effort during the
               first year exit fishery. It is intended to prevent a derby style fishery during the first year when a directed
               fishery will be prosecuted. This measure should have positive biological impacts since it will place an overall
               limitation on gill nets in the directed spiny dogfish fishery, thereby reducing the chance that the quota will
               be exceeded.


               Economic Impacts

               Since no regulations specific to the spiny dogfish gill net fishery currently exist, little or no information exits
               on the amount of fishing effort in the directed fishery. However, anecdotal reports from industry indicate
               few if any spiny dogfish gill netters fish in excess of the proposed net limit. As a result, there are no
               economic impacts expected from this measure.


               Social Impacts


               Since no regulations specific to the spiny dogfish gill net fishery currently exist, little or no information exits
               on fishing effort in the directed fishery. However, anecdotal reports from industry indicate few if any spiny
               dogfish gill netters fish in excess of the proposed net limit. As a result, there are no social impacts
               expected from this measure.


               Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


               The effect of this measure is to place an overall cap on fishing effort in the spiny dogfish gill net fishery.
               Since these are classified as Category 1 fisheries, this measure is may have a positive impact on marine
               mammals since it will limit the amount of fishing gear that can be used to take spiny dogfish.

               3.1.5 Analysis of the Alternatives to the Preferred Management Measures

               3.1.5.1 Take no action at this time


               Biological Impacts


               With the implementation of this alternative, the spiny dogfish fishery would remain unregulated. The no
               action alternative would not address the problems and objectives identified in sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3,
               respectively. Overfishing would continue to occur and the stock would be expected to continue to decline.

               Economic impacts

               The implementation of this alternative would not reduce overfishing or rebuild the stock. As a result,
               economic benefits will not accrue in the long-term.

               Social Impacts


               With the implementation of this alternative, the Council will not address the requirements of the Magnuson-
               Stevens Act. A sustainable spiny dogfish fishery will not be developed, and negative social and economic


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        103








        impacts may develop if the stock is not rebuilt.

        Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


        No action may jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened or endangered species mentioned above
        because there will be uncontrolled, unlimited fishing pressures on the species managed by the FIVIP. As
        noted earlier, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. The reductions in
        fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
        effort. This will be beneficial to certain species of marine mammals.

        3.1.5.2 Alternative rebuilding schedules

        3.1.5.2.1 Reduce fishing mortality to F=0.04 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in ten years
        to rebuild to biomass target (B,s,)

        Biological Impacts


        This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F = 0.04 in years 1 -10 and would allow for stock
        rebuilding over a 10 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. Total allowable landings (TAL) or
        quota would have to be reduced to 5.1 million pounds (2300 mt) during the first three years of the
        management program (1999-2003). TAL would increase slightly towards the end of the rebuilding program
        (Table 33) .                                                                                                           I
        Spiny dogfish are long lived and slow growing (see Section 2.1.3.2). This life history strategy (long lived
        with low reproductive potential) makes the species particularly vulnerable to overfishing. Holden 0 973)
        noted the limited ability of sharks and other elasmobranchs to maintain the levels of exploitation sustainable
        in fisheries for teleost or bony fish. This is because stock and recruitment are directly related and
        reductions in adult stock size result in reduced recruitment. In addition, the limited reproductive potential of
        spiny dogfish offers little flexibilityin compensating for increased exploitation.

        The relationship between stock and recruitment in spiny dogfish, like other elasmobranchs, is direct, owing
        to their reproductive strategy of low fecundity combined with few, well-developed offspring (Hoenig and
        Gruber 1990). Although Holden 0 977) provides some evidence that fecundity of sharks can increase as
        stock size declines, size of the female body cavity and energy considerations combine to create an upper
        limit on pup production per adult female. As a result, recruitment to the stock in spiny dogfish is directly
        related to and dependent upon the number of adult females in the stock. The direct relationship between
        adult stock and recruitment is the most critical factor in the development of a rational strategy of
        exploitation of elasmobranch stocks (Hoenig and Gruber 1990), including spiny dogfish.

        This alternative would el iminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock through a one step reduction
        in fishing mortality rate. F would be reduced to F = 0.04 for the ten years of the rebuilding plan (1999-
        2009). This schedule allows for stock rebuilding to the level which will support harvests at or near the MSY
        level in the year 2009.

        This rebuilding plan recognizes the unique biological characteristics of spiny dogfish relative to other marine
        species subject to exploitation (i.e, the marine teleosts). The primary goal of the rebuilding plan is to allow
        the adult female biomass of spiny dogfish to a level that will maximize average recruitment and in turn allow
        sustainable harvests. Thus, the biological impacts of this rebuilding strategy will be positive.

        Economic Impacts


        This alternative would reduce landings to 2,162 metric tons in year one and maintain mortality at under
        3,000 metric tons to allow the stock to rebuild in 10 years. This alternative will reduce gross ex-vessel
        revenues by $4,921,202.40 in year one (1999), and this impact will decrease as expected TALs increase.
        Successive revenue losses are projected to continue until 2009, although at a decreasing rate (Table 37).


        22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     104







               Figure 24 shows that cumulative gross revenues (not discounted) exceed status quo levels in 2221. Pack-
               out facilities will see gross revenues decline in year one (11999) by $1,193,875.20 (See Table 39).


               Social Impacts


               This alternative reduces landings to a consistent level of approximately 5.5 million pounds (2500 mt) over
               ten years. Although this will reduce gross revenues for all sectors, the reduction of supply in light of
               demand may cause prices for spiny dogfish to increase. This point is complicated, however, by the low
               allowable landings. At approximately 5.5 million pounds (2500 mt), a directed fishery for spiny dogfish is
               unlikely, and the affect that a by-catch fishery may have on markets is currently unknown.
               This alternative is likely to have greater negative social consequences than the preferred alternative since
               the directed dogfish fishery and associated processing sector would be eliminated immediately in year one
               of the management program. This would have negative social consequences, especially during the first year
               of the management program.


               Effects on Marine Mammals,       Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


               As noted earlier, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. The reductions
               in fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
               effort. -These reductions in gill net fishing effort would be very beneficial to certain species of marine
               mammals.


               3.1.5.2.2 Reduce fishing mortality in year 1 half way between Fewren, and Fthesh.111 in year 2 reduce fishing
               mortality to Fh,,,,., and in year 3 reduce F to level required to rebuild stock in remaining 8 years of the
               rebuilding program

               Biological Impacts

               This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F = 0.204 in year 1 (half way between F.             nt and
               F,,,,                                                                   or [email protected] 1. Under this scenario, even if F
                          in year 2 fishing mortality would be reduced to Fthreshoid
               was reduced to F = 0.026 in ensuing eight years, the stock would not rebuild to the target SSI3 by the tenth
               year. In year 1, the TAL would be 22.5 million pounds (10,186 mt) in year 2 TAL would equal 11.3 million
               pounds (5,130 mt), and in the eight remaining years TAL would range from 2.8 - 3.4 million pounds (1,262
               - 1,558 mt). This option would not meet the requirements of the SFA. As a result, negative biological
               consequences are expected because the stock will not be rebuilt in 10 years.


               Economic Impacts


               The third non-preferred management alternative would reduce landings by over one-third in year one (1999),
               by 75% in year two (2000), and then limit landings to a level which would ensure the rebuilding of the
               stocks within a ten year time-frame. Gross revenue declines reach a high of $3,436,497.89 in year three
               (2001;Table 37). Figure 24 shows that cumulative gross revenues exceed status quo levels in 2221.
               Similarly, gross revenue declines for pack-out facilities reach a high of $833,688.45 in year three (2001)
               (Table 39). Impacts decline from this point as projected landings decline. This alternative, however, fails to
               meet the requirement of the SFA.


               Social Impacts


               Both non-preferred management alternatives two and three allow for landings at slightly more than one-third
               of current landings rates for year one followed by large reductions in landing necessary to rebuild stocks.
               Like the preferred alternative, the graduated reduction in landings should allow producers and processors to
               transition to other fisheries in light of the low allowable landings in years two through eight. However, the
               benefits of these alternatives do not exceed the preferred alternative which allows for the largest TAIL exit
               fishery.




                 22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                          105









         Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


         As noted above, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. The reductions
         in fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
         effort. These reductions in gill net fishing effort would be very beneficial to certain species of marine
         mammals.


         3.1.5.2.3 Reduce fishing mortality in year 1 to allow a harvest of 13.2 million pounds (6,000 mt) and in
         year 2 reduce IF to allow for harvest of 8.8 million pounds (4,000 mt) then reduce IF to the level required to
         rebuild stock in remaining 8 years of the rebuilding program


         Biological Impacts


         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality in year 1 to allow a harvest of 13.2 million pounds
         (6,000 mt) and in year 2 to allow for a harvest of 8.8 million pounds (4,000 mt), F would then be reduced
         to F = 0.028 to rebuild the stock in the remaining 8 years of the rebuilding program. In the last eight years
         of the rebuilding program, TAL would range from 3.3 - 3.7 million pounds (1,509 - 1,685 mt).

         Economic Impacts


         This alternative allows for a graduated reduction in landings in years one and two. Landings for the
         remaining 8 years are reduced to such a level as to allow the stock to be rebuilt in the required 10 year
         time-frame. Year one gross ex-vessel revenue declines are $3,254,079.65 (Table 37). Pack-out facility
         gross revenue declines are $789,434.10 in year one (Table 39). These impacts will decline throughout the
         time-span of the management plan as projected landings decline. This option consists of a graduated
         restriction of landings.


         Social Impacts


         This alternative allows for gradually reduced landings for years one and two followed by large reductions in
         landing necessary to rebuild stocks. Like the preferred alternative, the graduated reduction in landings
         should allow producers and processors to transition to other fisheries in light of the low allowable landings
         in years three through ten. However, the benefits of these alternatives do not exceed the preferred
         alternative which allows for the largest TAL exit fishery

         Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


         As noted above, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. Thereductions
         in fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
         effort. These reductions in gill net fishing effort would be very beneficial to certain species of marine
         mammals.


         3.1.5.2.4 Reduce fishing mortality to IF = 0.072 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in 15 years
         to rebuild to biomass target (Bmsy)


         Biological Impacts


         This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F = 0.072 in years 1-15 and would allow for
         stock rebuilding over a 15 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. This option would not meet
         the requirements of the SFA. As a result, negative biological consequences are expected because the stock
         will not be rebuilt in 10 years.







         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       106








              Economic   Impacts


              These options may spread economic impacts over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements
              of the SFA.


              Social Impacts


              These options may spread social impacts over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements of
              the SFA,


              Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


              As noted above, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. The reductions in
              fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
              effort. These reductions in gill net fishing effort would be very beneficial to certain species of marine
              mammals.


              3.1.5.2.5 Reduce fishing mortality to IF = 0.078 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in 20 years
              to rebu ild to biomass target (Bmsy)

              Biological Impacts


              This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F=0.078 in years 1-20 and would allow for
              stock rebuilding over a 20 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. This option would not meet
              the requirements of the SFA. As a result, negative biological consequences are expected because the stock
              will not be rebuilt in 10 years.


              Economic Impacts


              These options may spread economic impacts over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements
              of the SFA.


              Social Impacts


              These options may spread social impacts over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements of
              the SFA.


              Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


              As noted above, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. The reductions
              in fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
              effort. These reductions in gill net fishing effort would be very beneficial to certain species of marine
              mammals.


              3.1.5.2.6 Reduce fishing mortality to IF = 0.088 in year 1 and maintain to allow stock rebuilding in 30 years
              to rebuild to biomass target (B,sy)

              Bioloctical Impacts


              This option would require a reduction in fishing mortality to F=0.088 in years 1-30 and would allow for
              stock rebuilding over a 30 year planning horizon by maintaining a constant F. This option would not meet
              the requirements of the SFA. As a result, negative biological consequences are expected because the stock
              will not be rebuilt in 10 years.





               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     107









        Economic Impacts


        These options may spread economic impacts over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements
        of the SFA.


        Social Impacts


        These options may spread social impacts     over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements of
        the,SFA.


        Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles,     and Seabirds


        As noted above, the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are designated as Category 1 fisheries. The reductions
        in fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock will require significant reductions in fishing
        effort. These reductions in gill net fishing effort would be very beneficial to certain species of marine
        mammals.


        3.1.5.3. Establish a coastwide trip limit


        Biological Impacts


        This alternative would establish a system of uniform trip limits established on a coastwide basis in
        conjunction with the quota system. To estimate allowable trip limits under any of the scenarios requires an
        estimation of the number of trips likely to be taken during each year of the management program. For
        example, there are roughly 5,000 vessels which currently possess permits to fish in the EEZ from ME to NC.
        Assuming that each vessel makes 100 trips per year, and that half of those trips could land spiny dogfish,
        yields an estimate of 250,000 trips. If the annual TAL was 1,316 mt in the year 2000, the associated trip
        limit would be about 12 lbs. This analysis suggests that any trip limit specified on an annual basis would be
        very low. A trip limit could be specified for a limited season which might allow for a higher trip limit.
        The biological impacts would be the same as those identified in the sections describing the commercial
        quota.


        Economic Impacts

        Under this alternative, the Councils may establish trip limits and seasons to insure that the annual quota is
        not exceeded. Thus, the Councils would be required to implement a uniform trip limit which would apply
        coastwide. A coastwide uniform trip limit system will not likely ensure equitable distribution for all areas,
        gears, and seasons.

        This alternative would establish a system of uniform trip limits in conjunction with the quota system.
        Section 3.1.3 of this document describes the low projected trip limits per vessel, potentially as low as 12
        lbs. per trip. This would seem to preclude any targeted fishery for spiny dogfish and would create mostly a
        by-catch fishery. Given that the average commercial fishing trip in 1996 landed 4,405 lbs, this low trip limit
        would preclude a viable directed fishery. Conceivably, there would be fewer participants involved in the
        commercial spiny dogfish fishery which may allow larger trip limits. However, a uniform trip limit system
        may not ensure an equitable distribution for all areas, gears, and seasons (if implemented). Therefore,
        positive long-term benefits may be fettered by this management option. Table 40 illustrates the potential
        affects of trip limits under the preferred and non-preferred management alternatives.

        Social Impacts


        The advantage of this alternative is that a uniform trip limit would be relatively easy to enforce because all
        individuals would be subject to the same trip limit regardless of origin or location of fishing. The drawback
        to this alternative is that a uniform trip limit would not be appropriate for all areas, gears, and seasons.



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       108








              Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


              The trip limit options considered in this Amendment would not have any significant impact on marine
              mammals, sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds.


              3.1.5.4 Minimum size limits


              3.1.5.4.1 Establish a minimum size which corresponds to the length at which 50% of female spiny dogfish
              are sexually mature

              This alternative would establish a minimum size for spiny dogfish which corresponds to the length at which
              50% of female spiny dogfish are sexually mature. This would require a minimum size of 32 inches (80 cm).

              3.1.5.4.2 Establish a minimum size which corresponds to the length at which 100% of female spiny
              dogfish are sexually mature

              This alternative would establish a minimum size for spiny dogfish which corresponds to the length at which
              100% of female spiny dogfish are sexually mature. This would require a minimum size of 36 inches (91
              cm).


              3.1.5.4.3 Establish minimum a size of 27.5 in (70 cm)


              This alternative would establish a minimum size of 27.5 in, which is the current effective minimum size at
              capture for spiny dogfish in the commercial fishery.


              3.1.5.4.4 Establish a slot size limit of 27.5 in to 32 in (70-80 cm)


              Each of the stock rebuilding strategies which meet the SFA requirements could be implemented with a slot
              size limit of 27.5 in to 32 in (70-81 cm). This alternative would require that the F applied in any given year
              be applied fully to a slot limit of 27.5 in to 32 in (70-80 cm), and that a partial recruitment vector of 0.5 of
              that F was applied to dogfish greater than 80 cm. Under these scenarios, only fish from 27-32 in (70-79
              cm) could be retained, and it was assumed that fish greater than 32 in (80 cm) would continue to be caught
              and discarded, with an effective mortality rate of.50% of those landed in the slot. The results indicate that
              this strategy would result in lower yields and would not alter the rebuilding time frame.


              Biological Impacts


              Assuming that undersized fish are not caught and discarded, minimum size regulations would have positive
              impacts on the stock. In general, because minimum sizes increase the size at full recruitment, yields are
              increased as fishermen catch larger, heavier fish. In addition, minimum size regulations can increase the
              resilience of the stock to overfishing, i.e., the biological reference points (F,s,) can increase. Finally,
              minimum size regulations can increase spawning stock biomass by allowing more fish to spawn.

              However, negative biological consequences of minimum and slot size restrictions in the spiny dogfish fishery
              would result from increased discarding. It is unlikely that spiny dogfish fishermen could avoid catching sub-
              legal fish, and, as a result, increased levels of discards are expected given the current size composition of
              the stock.


              Economic Impacts


              The economic impact on the commercial sector from the implementation of these alternatives would vary
              between regions and gears employed. In general terms, reduction in revenues in the short-term would be
              expected. The degree of long term economic consequences would depend on the level and extent of
              discarding as the stock rebuilds.




               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      109







         Overall, these alternatives are expected to have a significant adverse economic effect on the spiny dogfish
         fishery, at least in the short term. However, benefits of a size restrictions in the fishery could result from
         increased catches of fish in future years. Gains will accrue to fishermen through protecting small fish until
         they reach legal size. This management measure will result in a short-term reduction in the marketable
         catch and long-term benefits as more fish mature and increase the size of the spawning stock. In addition,
         a reduction in the mortality of small fish will allow for an increase in yield or harvest as small fish that were
         previously killed grow larger and add weight to the stock.

         Social Impacts

         The proposed commercial fish size limitations would reduce the commercial catch and increase discards. If
         commercial fishermen can substitute the potential income loss by landing another species without additional
         effort then they may see no negative impact. However, if this is not possible, short-term impacts could
         occur. Nevertheless, given the analysis conducted under economic impacts above, it is not anticipated that
         commercial fishermen will be faced with substantial income loss as the result of the minimum size limit.


         Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles and Seabirds


         Size restrictions in the spiny dogfish fishery will not have any significant impact on marine mammals, sea
         turtles,,shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds.

         3.1.5.5 Alternative seasonal allocation of the commercial quota

         3.1.5.5.1 Allocate commercial quota on a quarterly basis

         The process used to set the quota is specified in 3.1.1.6. A quota would be allocated to the commercial
         fishery to control fishing mortality. The quota would be based on projected stock size estimates for that
         year as derived from the latest stock assessment information. Estimates of stock size coupled with the
         target fishing mortality rate would allow for a calculation of total allowable landings (TAL).

         A system to distribute and manage the annual commercial quota on a seasonal basis would be implemented
         by the Councils. Quotas would be distributed between seasons based on the percentage of commercial
         landings for the each quarterly period during the years 1990-1997. These season specific quotas are
         specified in Table 34.

         3.1.5.5.2 Allocate commercial quota on a bi-monthly basis

         The process used to set the quota is specified in 3.1.1.6. A quota would be allocated to the commercial
         fishery to control fishing mortality. The quota would be based on projected stock size estimates for that
         year as derived from the latest stock assessment information. Estimates of stock size coupled with the
         target fishing mortality rate would allow for a calculation of total allowable landings (TAL).

         A system to distribute and manage the annual commercial quota on a seasonal basis would be implemented
         by the Councils. Quotas would be distributed between seasons based on the percentage of commercial
         landings for the each bi-monthly period during the years 1990-1997. These season specific quotas are
         specified in Table 34.


         Biological Impacts


         The alternative seasonal allocations described above could be expected to have positive or negative
         biological impacts for the spiny dogfish stock, depending on fishermen behavior in reaction to the imposition
         of various seasons. In general, the shorter the season, the greater the assurance that the quota will be
         taken throughout the year. However, increased discarding could occur once the seasonal quota is reached,
         resulting in negative biological consequences for the stock.



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       110








              Economic Impacts


              These alternatives would establish an annual quota distributed seasonally and bi-monthly, as implemented
              by the Councils. The effects of these alternatives would depend largely upon the distributional system set
              up by the Councils. Quotas should be allocated so as to ensure an equitable distribution of the TAL based
              on historical landing data. Since there is a northern and southern fishery, consideration should be given to
              reducing economic impacts associated with seasonal price variations for spiny dogfish. An equitable
              allocation of quotas should ensure the maximization of long-term benefits through a rebuilt spiny dogfish
              fishery.


              Social Impacts


              As noted above, seasonal quota allocations of quotas should ensure the maximization of long-term benefits
              through a rebuilt spiny dogfish fishery. Quotas should be allocated so as to ensure an equitable distribution
              of the TAL based on historical landing data. The effects of these alternatives would depend largely upon
              the distributional system set up by the Councils.

              Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


              Alternative seasonal allocations of the quota in the spiny dogfish fishery will not have any significant impact
              on marine mammals, sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds.

              3.1.5.6 Limit entry into the spiny dogfish fisheries

              Biological Impacts


              Under this alternative, vessels would have to qualify for a limited access commercial permit for spiny
              dogfish. The qualifying criteria would be based on historical performance in the fishery at a level specified
              by the Councils. The intent of this action would be to limit the number of participants in the commercial
              fishery for spiny dogfish. As such, this measure would not be expected to have and biological impacts.

              Economic Impacts


              The level of economic impacts of this alternative would depend on the qualifying criteria that the Councils
              choose to obtain a limited ace--- @@s permit. The stricter the requirements, the fewer the number of vessels
              that would qualify for a limited access permit. The economic consequences of any limited access program
              would have to be evaluated based on the requirements of the program. -However, in general the economic
              consequences would be positive for the historical participants who qualify since they will be assured of the
              economic benefits derived from the stock rebuilding program.


              Social Impacts


              The level of social impact of this alternative would depend on the qualifying criteria that the Councils
              choose to obtain a limited access permit. The stricter the requirements, the fewer the number of vessels
              that would qualify for a limited access permit. The social consequences of any limited access program
              would have to be evaluated based on the requirements of the program. However, in general the social
              consequences would be positive for the historical participants who qualify since they will be assured of the
              benefits derived from the stock rebuilding program.


              Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


              Limiting entry into the spiny dogfish fishery will not have any significant impact on marine mammals, sea
              turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds.





               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft








         3.1.5.7 Specify a target commercial quota


         Biological Impacts


         Under this alternative, the Councils would specify a target commercial quota in place of the "hard" or fixed
         quota specified in the preferred alternative. This approach to managing the commercial fishery would
         require additional management measures which would control fishing effort (i.e., input controls). Under this
         system an annual target quota would be specified and a suite of effort controls would be specified such that
         the landings under the effort control system would be expected to approximate the target quota. The
         fishery would not necessarily be closed if the target quota is reached or exceeded. This system depends on
         fishing effort limitations primarily through limitations on the number of days that vessels may fish during the
         quota period.

         Spiny dogfish are long lived and slow growing (see Section 2.1.3.2). This life history strategy (long lived
         with low reproductive potential) makes the species particularly vulnerable to overf ishing. Holden (1973)
         noted the limited ability of sharks and other elasmobranchs to maintain the levels of exploitation sustainable
         in fisheries for teleost or bony fish. This is because stock and recruitment are directly related and
         reductions in adult stock size result in reduced recruitment. In addition, the limited reproductive potential of
         spiny dogfish offers little flexibility in compensating for increased exploitation.

         Given the vulnerability of this species to overfishing, this system of management could have negative
         biological consequences if it fails to dramatically reduce fishing mortality. The spiny dogfish stock is
         designated as overfished and under the SFA the stock must be rebuilt in ten years. If an effort control
         system fails to end overfishing and allow stock rebuilding, yield would be foregone and thus optimum yield.
         would not be obtained.


         Economic Impacts


         If an effort control system fails to end overfishing and allow stock rebuilding, yield would be foregone and
         thus, optimum yield would not be obtained. As a result, economic inefficiency and lost revenue to the spiny
         dogfish fishery, in terms of both the harvesting and processing sector, would be expected.


         Social Impacts


         If effort controls fail to end overfishing, the resulting economic inefficiency and lost revenue to the spiny
         dogfish fishery, in terms of both the harvesting and processing sector, would be expected to have negative
         social impacts. These impacts would be especially acute in the ports and the associated communities which
         depend heavily on spiny dogfish.

         Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds


         The impact of this measure on marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds would depend on the degree to
         which the measures implemented would reduce fishing effort in the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries.
         Assuming that the effort control program was successful in reducing effort in these gill net fisheries, then
         they would be expected to have a positive impact on some species of riiarine mammals.


         4.0 DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW AND REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY                ANALYSIS


         4.1 INTRODUCTION


         The National Marine Fisheries Service requires the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all
         regulatory actions that either implement a new Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or significantly amend an
         existing plan. The RIR is prepared by the Regional Fishery Management Councils with assistance from the
         National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as necessary. The RIR is part of the process of preparing and
         reviewing FMPs and provides a comprehensive review of the economic impacts associated with proposed


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    112







              regulatory actions.

              The National Marine Fisheries Service requires a RIR for all regulatory actions that are part of the "public
              interest." The RIR does three things: 1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of
              economic impacts associated with proposed regulatory actions; 2) it provides a review of the problems and
              policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could
              be used to meet these objectives; and, (3) it ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and
              comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most
              efficient and cost effective manner,


              The RIR addresses many items in the regulatory philosophy and principles of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
              The RIR also serves as the basis for determining whether any proposed regulation is a "significant regulatory
              action" under certain criteria provided in E.O. 12866. The RIR also determines whether the proposed
              regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in compliance
              with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 as amended by Public Law 104-121. The purpose of the
              RFA is to relieve small businesses, small organization, and small government agencies from burdensome
              regulations and record-keeping requirements, to the extent possible.


              4*2 PR  OBLEMS AND OBJECTIVES


              The description of the spiny dogfish fishery can be found in section 2.3 of this document. The problems for
              resolution and management objectives are outlined in sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of this document,
              respectively.


              4.3 METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS


              The basic approach adopted in the RIR is an assessment of management measures from the standpoint of
              determining the resulting changes in costs and benefits to society. The net effects should be stated in
              terms of producer and consumer surplus for the harvesting, processor/dealer sectors, and for consumers.
              Ideally, the expected present value of net yield streams over time associated with different management
              alternatives should be compared in evaluating the benefits. However, lack of data precludes this type of
              analysis. The approach taken in analyzing the alternative management actions is to describe and/or quantify
              to the extent possible the changes in net benefits by looking at changes in gross revenues for different
              industry sectors.


              4.4 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES


              Changes in gross revenues were estimated relative to the projected status quo levels for ea    ch alternative.
              Impacts were calculated using the projected status quo landings by taking the average 1996 ex-vessel price
              for spiny dogfish (per pound) and multiplying this value by the proposed change in landings (per pound
              prices are from 1996 weighout data). It is important to note that the ex-vessel price for spiny clogfish,
              given the proposed reductions in landings, would depend on the elasticity of demand for this species. Since
              no studies have determined a demand function for spiny dogfish, revenue changes which account for
              varying levels of demand could not be calculated. In addition, changes in costs and market trends are not
              reflected in the analysis due to lack of data.

              Pack-out facilities are usually compensated based on the number of pounds off-loaded and prepared for
              transport. Many different types of arrangement exist; for example, in some instances the pack-out facility
              only packs the fish in ice and prepares it for transport, In other situations the pack-out facility may act as a
              broker between the producers and processors. Since no formal database is maintained on this sector,
              primary information from pack-out businesses was used to determine the economic impacts of the proposed
              management alternatives. These individuals generally receive 4-5 cents per pound of fish handled. For all
              management options it was assumed that 100% of spiny dogf ish landed was dealt with by a pack-out
              facility at 4.5 cents per pound. This assumption represents the upper bound for this sector since it could be
              argued that not all dogfish are handled in this manner. This assumption is based on the desire to include the


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       113








         dea ler/tra ns port sector as part of the spiny dogfish fisheries system.

         No formal database on the gross revenues of processors is maintained; therefore the losses of gross
         revenues for this sector could not be calculated. Information on the percent of spiny dogfish revenues to
         total gross revenues was obtained to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Analysis (see Section
         4.6.3).


         4.4.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS


         4.4.1.2 Preferred Alternative


         The preferred alternative will eliminate overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock while allowing a one
         year "exit fishery." This step allows for a one year fishery of 22 million pounds (10,006 mt) to allow a
         phase out of the directed fishery. This approach was chosen to minimize the impacts of the rebuilding
         program on both the harvesting and processing sectors of the industry. Landings will be reduced to 3.0
         million pounds 0 316 mt) in year 2 and be maintained at under 4.5 million ponds (2000 mt) for the duration
         of the rebuilding period.

         4.4.1.3 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative on Commercial Fishing, Processors, and Pack-out Facilities

         This alternative is expected to rebuild spiny dogfish stocks in the shortest possible time while still meeting
         the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. In 1999, commercial landings would be reduced by
         37,992,279 pounds ($6,838,610.20) relative to 1996 landings levels.

         Based upon projected status quo total landings (i.e. total predicted landings if no management measures
         were imposed) this reduction would be 9,234,540 pounds ($1,662,217) in 1999. Based upon projected
         status quo total landings in relation to proposed TALs, ex-vessel gross revenue declines reach a high of
         $4,1184,576.28 in year two as landings are reduced to 2,901,780 lbs (1316 metric tons) (Tables 37 and
         38). Pack-out facility gross revenue declines reach a high of $1,015,170.98 in year two (Table 39). Gross
         revenue losses decline from this point as projected landings increase.

         The cumulative discounted impacts of this action are illustrated in Figure 25 (see Figure 24 for non-
         discounted impacts). Notably, the discounted projected impacts of the preferred management action and its
         alternatives do not reach status quo levels (the x axis) within the shown 30 year time-frame (Figure 25).
         The discounted loss of gross ex-vessel revenues is fairly dramatic until the year 2009 when the benefits of
         harvest reductions begin to be realized as projected TALs increase dramatically. This characterization,
         however, has several shortcomings, -the greatest of which is that it does not account for elasticity of
         demand. Potentially, price could increase as supply declines causing these curves to rise (i.e., toward the x
         axis). This characterization also does not account for changes in costs and introductions of new, potentially
         more efficient harvest technologies.

         An additional area of uncertainty are the effects of low TALs upon markets. Processors have indicated that
         the ability to process spiny dogfish in a cost-effective manner is dependent upon volume. The proposed low
         TAL may cause processors to cease processing spiny dogfish and thus cause established U.S. based
         markets for this species to collapse. Since currently, most spiny dogfish are processed and exported, the
         implications of management upon both foreign and domestic markets are hard to predict. Two scenarios
         are: 1) the demand for spiny dogfish by foreign markets may decline as this species is replaced by a more
         readily available alternative; and conversely, 2) the lessening of supply in light of a static demand could
         cause price to rise and allow for a modified fishery to exist while landings remain at low levels.

         These scenarios would also affect harvesters: if markets for spiny dogfish cease, there will not be an outlet
         to sell their catch. Conversely, if prices rise, harvesters will be able to receive greater ex-vessel prices for
         spiny dogfish (assuming a market exists). Even if prices increase, however, due to the extremely low TALS,
         this would probably do little to mitigate the economic impacts caused by the preferred alternative (this is
         true for both harvesters and processors).



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      114







               Long-term benefits should be realized though a sustainable spiny dogfish fishery which can continue to
               capitalize on existing markets or take advantage of new markets. One caveat to this is that if the U.S.
               based export market does cease for the duration of the rebuilding plan, the level of demand for a product
               that has been unavailable for many year may be adversely affected.

               4.4.1.4 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative on Recreational Fishing

               The preferred alternative is not likely to affect the recreational fishery for spiny dogfish. The 1,996 landings
               of spiny dogfish by the recreational fishing sector was 14,408 lbs (catch type A + 131) and discards were
               estimated at 143,130 lbs (catch type 132). The 1994 MRFSS survey indicated that of the 33,279 intercept
               surveys conducted in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 4 anglers were targeting spiny dogfish as their
               .1 primary" species. Although this number is not expanded to represent all anglers making trips during that
               year, it suggests that there is not a substantial directed recreational fishery for spiny dogfish. In light of
               this, there is expected to be no lessening of demand for recreational fishing trips due to this proposed
               action.


               4.4.1.5 Impacts of Permit and Reporting Requirements Under the Preferred Alternative

               Actions two through four implement permit requirements for commercial vessels, dealers, and operators.
               Given the current status of the stocks and the uncertainties regarding discard rates for spiny dogfish,
               mechanisms which account for all activities in the fishery are necessary to enforce provisions of the FMP
               and ensure overfishing is prevented. Permits issued to all sectors which harvest, process, or sell spiny
               dogfish provides the foundation for effective monitoring and enforcement of regulations.

               It is estimated that 642 vessels landed spiny dogfish in 1996 along the Atlantic coast. Under the all of the
               alternatives, any vessel desiring to fish commercially for spiny dogfish must obtain a federal vessel/owner
               spiny dogfish permit. It is estimated that 87% of commercial vessels landing spiny dogfish in 1996 possess
               a NMFS permit for at least one or more fisheries. Therefore, approximately 83 new applicants would be'
               required to apply for a federal spiny dogfish permit using the initial application form. The remainder would
               use the renewal form and would not likely incur an additional burden. It is estimated that owner/operators
               of all 83 vessels would apply for a spiny dogfish permit. The total burden cost associated with public
               requirements is $623 ($7.50 per vessel) and the total burden cost associated with federal requirements is
               estimated at $2,739.


               The calculation of public and federal costs applies to the new respondents only. It is highly unlikely that
               under the preferred management alternative there will be any new applicants for dealer permits. If there
               were new dealer permits issued, the total burden costs associated with the public requirement for new
               applicants is $1.25 per applicant. Thereafter the public annual estimate of submitting weekly reports will be
               $26 per dealer per year. Thereafter, the annual estimate of processing weekly reports for the NMFS will be
               $43 per dealer.

               4.4.1.6 Impacts of Framework Adjustment Measures Under the Preferred Alternative

               The next regulatory action establishes the framework adjustment process which enables the modification of
               management measures through a framework adjustment procedure. This adjustment procedure allows the
               Councils to add or modify management measure through a streamlined public review process.

               The following management measures could be implemented or modified through framework adjustment
               procedures.


               1. Minimum fish size.
               2. Maximum fish size.
               3. Gear requirements, restrictions or prohibitions (including, but not limited to, mesh size restrictions and
               net limits).
               4. Regional gear restrictions.


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     115








         5. Permitting restrictions and reporting requirements.
         6. Recreational fishery measures including possession and size limits and season and area restrictions.
         7. Commercial season and area restrictions.
         8. Commercial trip or possession limits.
         9. Fin weight to spiny dogfish landing weight restrictions.
         10. Onboard observer requirements.
         11. Commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides
         to mitigate bycatch.
         12. Recreational harvest limit.
         13. Annual quota specification process.
         14. FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process.
         15. Designation of essential fish habitat.
         16. Overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets.
         17. Regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons).
         18. Restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower.
         19. Target quotas.
         20. Measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions.
         21. Any other management measures currently included in the FMP.
         22. Any other commercial or recreational management measures.

         The framework adjustment procedures listed above may be used to modify the FMP to ensure the objective
         of rebuilding spiny dogfish stocks. The maximum and minimum size limit would likely do little to constrain
         the harvesting of spiny dogfish beyond the proposed restrictions. These provisions may add flexibility to the
         method of managing spiny dogfish as well as ensuring the timely rebuilding of fish stocks (refer to section
         3.1.4.5 for a discussion of slot limits). Section 3.1.4.4 discusses gear restrictions and minimum mesh sizes
         and permitting requirements are discussed in section 4.4.1. As previously stated, there is no known
         directed recreational fishery for spiny dogfish and, as such, neither possession and size limits, nor seasons is
         likely to have a significant impact on the demand for recreational fishing trips. Section 3.1.5.1 discusses
         season and area restrictions. A prohibition on finning (removing the fins at sea and disposing of the
         carcass) is likely to have no economic impact as industry advisors have indicated that this practice is very
         rare. Similarly, fin weight to spiny dogfish landing weight restrictions are likely to have no economic
         impacts as this has historically not been an issue in the spiny dogfish fishery. Trip and/or possession limits
         are discussed in section 4.4.2. The likely impacts of onboard observer requirements and measures to
         mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions are hard to predict. These measures may be
         necessary to ensure adherence to the FMP and other laws, respectively. The impact of all of the framework
         measures listed above will be evaluated at the time that they are considered for impleme ritation

         4.4.1.7 Impacts of Commercial Quotas Under the Preferred Alternative

         The next regulatory action would establish a seasonally allocated commercial fi shing quota. The quota
         would be based on projected stock size estimates for that year as derived by the latest stock assessment
         information. The annual commercial quota would be distributed between seasons based on the percentage
         of commercial landings for each semi-annual period during the years 1990-1997. This quota should
         succeed in reducing mortality rates to the point where spiny dogfish stocks can be rebuilt within the legally
         mandated 10 year time-frame.

         A seasonally allocated commercial fishing quota would also likely ensure that spiny dogfish landings are
         equitably distributed between northern and southern areas. Figures 24 and 25 as well as Tables 37 and 38
         illustrated the likely impacts on gross ex-vessel revenues of the preferred option as well as the alternative
         rebuilding strategies. The benefits of this action will be realized at the terminus of the management plan
         through a productive spiny dogfish fishery.







         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    116







              4.4.1.8 Impacts of Prohibition on Finning

              Finning, the act of removing the fins of spiny dogfish and discarding the carcass, will be prohibited. Vessels
              which land spiny dogfish must land fins in proportion to carcasses, with a maximum of three fins per
              carcass. Fins may not be stored aboard a vessel after the first point of landing. As noted above, a
              prohibition on finning (removing the fin at sea and disposing of the carcass) is likely to have no economic
              impact as industry advisors have indicated that this practice is very rare.


              4,4*1,9 Gill net limitations


              Commercial gill net vessels fishing for spiny dogfish will be prohibited from fishing more than a total of 80
              nets (50 fathoms each). Since no regulations specific to the spiny dogfish gill net fishery currently exist,
              little or no information exits on fishing effort in the directed fishery. However, anecdotal reports from
              industry indicate few if any spiny dogfish gill netters fish in excess of the proposed net limit. As a result,
              there are no economic impacts expected from this measure.


              4.4.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES


              4.4.2.1 Alternative 1 (non-preferred)

              Non-pre ferred alternative 1 (take no action or status quo) will not allow for the problems identified in section
              1.1.2 of this document to be solved. The implementation of this alternative is projected to cause landings
              to decline precipitously: by the year 2001 landing would be less than half of what they were in 1997. This
              alternative would not meet the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act nor capture long-term
              economic benefits of rebuilt spiny dogfish stocks.

              4.4.2.2 Alternative 2 (non-preferred)

              The second non-preferred alternative would reduce landings to 2,1162 metric tons in year one and maintain
              mortality at under 3,000 metric tons to allow the stock to rebuild in 10 years. This alternative will reduce
              gross ex-vessel revenues by $4,921,202.40 in year one (1999) and this impact will decrease as expected
              TALs increase. Successive *revenue losses are projected to continue until 2009, although at a decreasing
              rate (Table 37). Figure 24 shows that cumulative gross revenues (not discounted) exceed status quo levels
              in 2221. Pack-out facilities will see gross revenues decline in year one (1999) by $1,193,875.20 (See
              Table 39).


              This alternative reduces landings to a consistent level of approximately 5.5 million pounds (2500 mt) over
              ten years. Although this will reduce gross revenues for all sectors, the reduction of supply in light of
              demand may cause prices for spiny dogfish to increase. This point is complicated, however, by the low
              allowable landings. At approximately 5.5 million pounds (2,500 mt), a directed fishery for spiny dogfish is
              unlikely and the affect that a by-catch fishery may have on markets is currently unknown.

              4.4.2.3 Alternative 3 (non-preferred)

              The third non-preferred management alternative would reduce landings by over one-third in year one (1999),
              by 75% in year two (2000), and then limit landings to a level which would ensure the rebuilding of the
              stocks within a ten year time-frame. Gross revenue declines reach a high of $3,436,497.89 in year three
              (2001) (Table 37). Figure 24 shows that cumulative gross revenues exceed status quo levels in 2221.
              Similarly, gross revenue declines for pack-out facilities reach a high of $833,688.45 in year three (2001)
              (Table 39). Impacts decline from this point as projected landings decline. This alternative, however, fails to
              meet the requirement of the SFA

              Both non-preferred management alternatives two and three allow for landings at slightly more than one-third
              of current landings rates for year one followed by large reductions in landing necessary to rebuild stocks.
              Like the preferred alternative, the graduated reduction in landings should allow producers and processors to


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                       117








        transition to other fisheries in light of the low allowable landings in years two through eight. However, the
        benefits of these alternatives do not exceed the preferred alternative which allows for the largest TAL exit
        fishery.

        4.4.2.4 Alternative 4 (non-preferred)


        Non-preferred alternative four allows for a reduction to 13.8 million pounds (6238 mt) and 9.0 million
        pounds (4117 mt) in years one and two. Landings for the remaining 8 years are reduced to such a level as
        to allow the stock to be rebuilt in the required 10 year time-f rame. Year one gross ex-vessel revenue
        declines are $3,254,079.65 (Table 37). Pack-out facility gross revenue declines are V89,434.10 in year
        one (Table 39). These impacts will decline throughout the time-span of the management plan as projected
        landings decline. This option consists of a graduated restriction of landings.

        4.4.2.5 Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 (non-preferred)

        Alternatives five, six, and seven all reduce mortality to levels that are necessary to rebuild
        spiny dogfish stocks within a 15, 20, and 30 year time frame, respectively. These options may spread
        economic impacts over a greater time period, but do not meet the requirements of the SFA.

        4.4.2.6 Alternative 8 (non-preferred)

        Alternative eight would establish a system of uniform trip limits in conjunction with the quota system.
        Section 3.1.3 of this document describes the low projected trip limits per vessel, potentially as low as 12
        lbs. per trip. This would seem to preclude any targeted fishery for spiny dogfish and would create mostly a
        by-catch fishery. Given that the average commercial fishing trip in 1996 landed 4,405 lbs, this low trip limit
        would preclude a viable directed fishery. Conceivably, there would be fewer participants involved in the
        commercial spiny dogfish fishery which may allow larger trip limits. However, a uniform trip limit system
        may not ensure an equitable distribution for all areas, gears, and seasons (if implemented). Therefore
        positive long-term benefits may be fettered by this management option. Table 40 illustrates the potential
        affects of trip limits under the preferred and non-preferred management alternatives.

        4.4.2.7 Alternatives 9 and 10 (non-preferred)

        Alternative nine and ten would establish a minimum size limit for spiny dogfish which corresponds to the
        length at which 50% of female spiny dogfish are sexually mature (32 inches) and the length at which 100%
        of female spiny dogfish are sexually mature (36 inches), respectively. This is likely to have little economic
        impact on recreational fishing. There are likely to be negative short-term economic impacts on the
        commercial harvesting sector, which will correspondingly be incurred by processors and dealers. Any short-
        term losses should be off-set by long-term benefits of a productive fishery comprised of more abundant,
        larger spiny dogfish.

        4.4.2.8 Alternative 11 (non-preferred)

        Alternative eleven would establish a slot size limit of 27.5 inches to 32 inches. The results of projected TAL
        under this scenario indicate that this strategy would result in lower overall yields and not quicken the pace
        of the rebuilding period. Thus the potential benefits under this scenario, are less than the preferred
        alternative in the same time-frame.


        4.4.2.9 Alternatives 12 and 13 (non-preferred)

        The twelve and thirteen alternatives would establish an annual quota distributed seasonally and bi-monthly,
        as implemented by the councils. The effects of these alternatives would depend largely upon the
        distributional system set up by the council. Quotas should be allocated so as to ensure an equitable
        distribution of the TAL based on historical lending data. Since there is a northern and southern fishery,
        consideration should be given to reducing economic impacts associated with seasonal price variations for


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    118







               spiny dogfish. An equitable allocation of quotas should ensure the maximization of long-term benefits
               through a rebuilt spiny dogfish fishery.

               4.4.2.10 Alternative 14 (non-preferred)

               Under this alternative, the Councils would specify a target commercial quota in place of the "hard" or fixed
               quota specified in the preferred alternative. This approach to managing the commercial fishery would
               require additional management measures which would control fishing effort (i.e., input controls). Under this
               system an annual target quota would be specified and a suite of effort controls would be specified such that
               the landings under the effort control system would be expected to approximate the target quota. The
               fishery would not necessarily be closed if the target quota is reached or exceeded. This system depends on
               fishing effort limitations primarily through limitations on the number of days that vessels may fish during the
               quota period.

               Given the vulnerability of this species to overfishing, this system of management could have negative
               consequences if it fails to dramatically reduce fishing mortality. The spiny dogfish stock is designated as
               overfished and under the SFA the stock must be rebuilt in ten years. If an effort cdntrol system fails to end
               overfishing and allow stock rebuilding, yield would be foregone and thus optimum yield would not be
               obtained. As a result, economic inefficiency and lost revenue to the spiny dogfish fishery, in terms of both
               the harvesting and processing sector, would be expected.


               4.5 DETERMINANTS OF A SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTION


               Pursuant to E.O. 12866 a regulation is considered a "significant regulatory action" if it is likely to: (1) have
               an annual effect on the economy of $100 million dollars or more or adversely affect 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; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
               interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
               entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or, (4)
               raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
               forth in E.O. 12866.


               In 1996, the commercial harvesting sector landed spiny dogfish valued at just above 11 million dollars and
               therefore it is unlikely that the proposed rule will result in an annual economic effect of 100 million dollars.

               One area which may be significantly affected is employment. Several industry advisors have indicated that
               due to the low TALs mandated by the plan, and the labor-intensive nature of hand-processing spiny dogfish,
               employment reductions in the processing sector may be needed. The extent of these employment
               reductions will most likely be determined by whether or not processors can find an alternative species which
               requires hand processing. If this does not occur, it is likely that seasonal or permanent reductions in
               employment may occur as a result of this action. However, specific data needed to quantify the extent of
               these potential reductions are unavailable.

               Another area of concern is the preferred alternatives affect on certain ports. According to the most recent
               weighout data (11997), several ports are extremely dependent on the spiny dogf ish fishery and derived a
               large percent of landings value from spiny dogfish, as compared to the combined value of all other species
               landed in that port. For example, In Plymouth, MA, spiny dogfish accounted for 96% of the total pounds
               and 74% of the total value of all fish landed in this port.

               This phenomenon also manifests in several other ports. In Wachapreague, VA, spiny dogfish accounted for
               90% of the total pounds and 76% of the total value of all fish landed in that port; in Scituate, IVIA, spiny
               dogfish accounted for 74% of the total pounds and 21 % of the total value of all fish landed in this port; in
               Chatham, IVIA, spiny dogfish accounted for 47% of the total pounds and 14% of the total value of all fish
               landed in this port; in Ocean City, IVID, spiny dogfish accounted for 32% of the total pounds and 11 % of
               the total value of all fish landed in this port; and, in Dare County, NC, spiny dogfish accounted for 30% of


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                        119








         the total pounds and 11 % of the total value of all fish landed in this port (See Table 35).

         Clearly these ports are very dependent upon spiny dogfish landings and will be disproportionately affected
         by the proposed regulatory action. The extent to which local communities will be affected "materially" is
         unknown, but it is likely that local businesses which support the commercial fishing industry will be
         adversely impacted by this FMP.

         It is unlikely that this regulatory action will create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
         action taken or planned by another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
         user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or, raise novel legal or policy
         issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
                                                                                                                                IF
         Although the annual effect on the economy is unlikely to near the 100 million dollar mark, the expected
         affects upon employment and the disproportionate impacts upon certain ports require further consideration.
         Since data needed to assess the extent of affects on employment and certain ports are currently
         unavailable, based upon the preceding information and the impacts on entities directly impacted by the
         proposed action, it is concluded that this regulation, if enacted, would not likely constitute a "significant
         regulatory action."


         4.6 REVIEW OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT


         4.6.1 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


         4.6.1.1 Introduction


         The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to minimize the adverse impacts from burdensome
         regulations and record keeping requirements on small businesses, small organizations, and small government
         entities. The category of small entities likely to be affected by the proposed plan is that of commercial
         entities harvesting spiny dogfish and entities processing spiny clogfish. The following discussion of impacts
         centers specifically on the effects of the proposed actions on the mentioned small business entities.

         4.6.1.2 Determination of a Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial number of Small Entities

         The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers any business a small business if it is independently
         owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operations and if it has annual receipts not in excess of
         $3,000,000. For related industries (processing) involved in canned and cured fish and seafood or prepared
         fish or frozen fish and seafoods, a small business is one that employs 500 employees or less. In the spiny
         dogfish fishery, the 642 boats and 5 major processors are small business entities (the number and size of
         pack-out facilities is currently unknown).

         According to the guidelines on regulatory analysis of fishery management actions, a "substantial number" of
         small entities is more that 20 percent of those small entities engaged in the fishery. Since the proposed
         action will directly and indirectly affect most of the vessels and processors involved in the spiny dogfish
         fishery, the "substantial number" criterion will be met.

         The 20 percent is calculated by dividing the number of small entities affected by the regulations by the total
         number of small entities in a particular industry or segment of that industry. If the effects fall primarily on a
         distinct segment, or portion thereof, of the industry that segment would be considered the class for the
         purposes of this determination.

         Economic impacts on small business entities are considered to be "significant" if the proposed action would
         result in any of the following: a) a reduction in annual gross revenues by more that 5 percent; b) an increase
         in total costs of production by more than 5 percent as a result of an increase in compliance costs; c) an
         increase in compliance costs as a percent of sales for large entities; d) capital internal cash flow and
         external financing capabilities; or e) 2 percent of small business entities being forced to cease business


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    120








               operations.

               4.6.1.3 Analysis of Economic Impacts


               (a) Does this action result in a reduction in annual gross revenues by more that 5 percent for more than 20
               percent of small entities:


               The projected reductions in landings is expected to cause substantial ex-vessel declines for harvesters.
               Notably, 26% of the vessels landing spiny dogfish in 1996 (167) landed 42% of total pounds. This
               suggests that certain boats are dependent upon harvesting spiny dogfish. What is not known is the percent
               of gross revenues derived from spiny dogfish in comparison to other species of fish that these boats landed.
               Permit files show that vessels landing spiny dogfish in 1996 possess an array of permits allowing them to
               harvest other, usually more valuable species of fish. Therefore it appears that spiny dogfish fulfill a role
               within the targeting of an array of other species. Whether or not increased fishing for alternative species
               can compensate for the loss of ex-vessel revenues caused by this management plan is unknown. However,
               given the declines in many other species of fish, whether or not an alternative species of fish could be a
               viable alternative to spiny dogfish is questionable. It seems unlikely, however, that for the harvesting sector
               the proposed rule will meet this threshold

               The entities that are most likely to, be affected in the greatest number are the processors. There are known
               to be less then six major processors of spiny dogfish (representing a "distinct segment"). The percent of
               gross revenues that these processors derive from spiny dogfish ranges from 10-60%. Given the proposed
               75% reduction in the TAL in 1999 (relative to the most recent 1997 landings data) it is estimated that 80%
               of the processors will incur a lessening of gross revenues of greater than 5%. This is determined by
               considering the reductions in landings in relation to reductions in gross revenues derived from dogfish, as a
               percent of total revenues. This is calculated by the following:

                                                                    X--V1 =z
                                                                      X



               Where x = % of total gross revenues derived from spiny dogfish.
                      y = % of gross revenues that, when exceeded, constitutes a significant regulatory action
                   (6% was used because the law states "greater than 5% of total gross revenues").
                      z = % decline in landing that will lead to the exceeding of this threshold for processors
                  (multiply by 100 for percent).

               lor example, if a processor derived 25% of their gross revenues from dogfish, a proposed 24% reduction in
               landings would most likely meet this threshold. The proposed 75% reductions of landings in year 1 (relative
               to 1997) and further restrictions in following years combined with dependence of several processors on
               spiny dogfish, will have a significant economic impact. Even if using the difference between projected 1999
               status quo landings and the 1999 proposed TAIL (a 30% reduction in landings) this threshold is still met.

               (b) Does this action result in an increase in compliance costs (annualized capital, operating, reporting, etc.)
               of greater than 5 percent for 20 percent or more of the participants:


               Compliance costs for participants were described in section 4.4.1. The total burden cost associated with
               public requirements is $1,868 and the total burden cost associated with federal requirements is estimated at
               $8,217. It is highly unlikely that under the preferred management alternative there will be any new
               applicants for dealer permits. If there were new dealer permits issued, the total burden costs associated
               with the public requirement for new applicants is $1.25 per applicant. Thereafter the public annual estimate
               of submitting weekly reports will be $26 per dealer per year. Thereafter, the annual estimate of processing
               weekly reports for the NMFS will be $43 per dealer. It in not expected that these burden costs will
               substantially increase compliance costs for the affected entities. Thus, it is likely that this threshold is not


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      121










         met.


         (c) Does this action result in 2 percent of the entities ceasing operations:


         It is not known whether this management plan will cause 2% of the small entities to cease operation. It
         appears that a certain portion of the vessels landing spiny dogfish in 1996 are dependent upon this species.
         Therefore, some may go out of business as a result of this management action. Whether this number will
         reach 2%, however, is unknown.


         Given that most processors devote a large amount of processing capacity to spiny dogfish, it is likely that
         one or more will cease business operations as a result of this actions. Thus this threshold will most likely be
         met.


         Based upon th 'e preceding information it is concluded that this regulation, if enacted, would have a
         significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.


         5.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS


         5.1 RELATION OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO EXISTING APPLICABLE LAWS AND POLICIES


         5.1.1 FMPs


         This FMP is related to other plans to the extent that all fisheries of the northwest Atlantic are part of the
         same general geophysical, biological, social, and economic setting. U.S. fishermen usually are active in more
         than a single fishery. Thus regulations implemented to govern harvesting of one species or a group of
         related species may impact on other fisheries by causing transfers of fishing effort.

         5.1.2 Treaties or International Agreements

         No treaties or international agreements, other than GIFAs entered into pursuant to the MSFCMA, relate to
         this fishery.


         5.1.3 Federal Law and Policies


         5.1.3.1 Marine mammals and endangered species

         Activities conducted under this FMP have not yet been considered for their impacts on endangered species
         in order to do a Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation. NMFS will be performing a Section
         7 consultation while the FMP is out for public review during the next few months. The Fish and Wildlife
         Service may also perform a Section 7 consultation on any seabirds that may be impacted by this FMP. The
         following background information is provided to facilitate evaluations of the alternatives relative to the order
         of magnitude these spiny dogfish fisheries may have on these threatened or endangered species.

         Numerous species of marine mammals and sea turtles occur in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. The most
         recent comprehensive survey in this region was done from 1979-1982 by the Cetacean and Turtle
         Assessment Program (CETAP) at the University of Rhode Island (University of Rhode Island 1982) under
         contract to the Minerals Management Service (MMS), Department of the Interior. The following is a
         summary of the information gathered in that study, which covered the area from Cape Sable, Nova Scotia,
         to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, from the coastline to 5 nautical miles seaward of the 1000 fathom
         isobath.


         Four hundred and seventy one large whale sightings, 1,547 small whale sightings and 1, 172 sea turtles
         were encountered in the surveys. The "estimated minimum population number" for each mammal and turtle
         in the area, as well as those species currently included under the Endangered Species Act, were also
         tabulated.



         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      122







               CETAP concluded that both large and small cetaceans were widely distributed throughout the study area in
               all four seasons and grouped the 13 most commonly seen species into three categories based on
               geographical distribution. The first group contained only the harbor porpoise, which is distributed only over
               the shelf and throughout the Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod, and Georges Bank, but probably not southwest of
               Nantucket. The second group contained the most frequently encountered baleen whales (fin, humpback,
               minke, and right whales) and the white-sided dolphin. These were found in the same areas as the harbor
               porpoise and also occasionally over the shelf at least to Cape Hatteras or out to the shelf edge. The third
               group indicated a "strong tendency for association with the shelf edge" and included the grampus, striped,
               spotted, saddleback, and bottlenose dolphins, and the sperm and pilot whales   ,

               Loggerhead turtles were found throughout the study area, but appeared to migrate north to about
               Massachusetts in summer and south in winter. Leatherbacks appeared to have had a more northerly
               distribution. CETAP hypothesized a northward migration of both species in the Gulf Stream with a
               southward return in continental shelf waters nearer to shore. Both species usually were found over the
               shoreward half of the slope and in depths less than 200 feet. The northwest Atlantic may be important for
               sea turtle feeding or migrations, but the nesting areas for these species generally are in the South Atlantic
               and Gulf of Mexico.


               This problem may become acute when climatic conditions result in concentration of turtles and fish in the
               same area at the same time. These conditions apparently are met when temperatures are cool in October
               but then remain moderate into mid-December and result in a concentration of turtles between Oregon Inlet
               and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In most years sea turtles leave Chesapeake Bay and filter through the
               area a few weeks before the bluefish becomes concentrated. Efforts are currently under way (by VIMS and
               the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges at Back Bay, Virginia, and Pea Island, North Carolina) to more
               closely monitor these mortalities due to trawls. Fishermen are encouraged to carefully release turtles
               captured incidentally and to attempt resuscitation of unconscious turtles as recommended in the 1981
               Federal Register (pages 43976 and 43977).

               The only endangered species of fish occurring in he northwest Atlantic is the shortnose sturgeon
               (Acipenser brevirostrum). The Councils urge fishermen to report any incidental catches of this species to
               the Regional Administrator, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930, who will
               forward the information to persons responsible for the active sturgeon data base.

               The range of spiny dogfish and the above mentioned marine mammals and endangered species overlap and
               there always exists a potential for an incidental kill. Under the proposed recovery schedule and the resultant
               decline in fishing effort for spiny dogfish, such accidental catches should have a negligible impact on marine
               mammal or abundances of endangered species, and the Councils believe that implementation of this FMP
               will have a positive impact upon these populations.

               Attempts were made to put these fisheries/sea turtle interaction into perspective of other sources of
               mortality for these endangered turtle species. The Congressionally mandated report Decline of the Sea
               Turtles: Causes and Prevention (NRC 1990) states that "Of all the known factors, by far the most
               important source of deaths was the incidental capture of turtles (especially loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys)
               in shrimp trawling. This factor acts on the life stages with the greatest reproductive value for the recovery
               of sea turtle populations."

               Mortality associated with other fisheries and with lost or discarded fishing gear is much more difficult to
               estimate than that associated with shrimp trawling, and there is a need to improve these estimates (NRC
               1990). This report identified possible turtle losses from the winter trawl fishery north of Cape Hatteras
               (about 50-200 turtles per year), the historical Atlantic sturgeon fishery, now closed, off the Carolinas (about
               200 to 800 turtles per year), and the Chesapeake Bay passive-gear fisheries (about 25 turtles per year).
               Considering the large numbers of fisheries from Maine to Texas that have not been evaluated and the
               problems of estimating the numbers of turtles entangled in the 135,000 metric tons of plastic nets, lines,
               and buoys lost or discarded annually, it seems likely that more than 500 loggerheads and 50 Kemp's ridleys
               are killed annually by nonshrimp fisheries (NRC 1990). These other fishery operations, lost fishing gear, and


               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      123








         marine debris are known to kill sea turtles, but the reported deaths are only about 10% of those caused by
         shrimp trawling. Dredging, entrainment in power-plants intake pipes, collisions with boats, and the effects
         of petroleum-platform removal all are potentially and locally serious causes of sea turtle deaths. However
         these collectively amount to less than 5% of the mortality caused by shrimp trawling (NRC 1990).

         The NRC report (1990) concludes that all species of marine turtles need increased protection under the
         Endangered Species Act and other relevant legislation. While the report does not recommend specific
         conservation measures for these fisheries, the recommendations for the shrimp trawling are germane. The
         NRC report (1990) recommended TEDs, 60 minute winter tow-time limits, and limited time/area closure for
         turtle "hot spots". Currently, there are 5 sea turtle recovery plans in place these include plans for the
         loggerhead (199 1), the green sea turtle (199 1), the leatherback (1992), the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (1992),
         and the hawksbill sea turtle (11993). Of the six "Actions Needed" that are identified by the Recovery Plan
         to achieve recovery of loggerheads is item 5: "minimize mortality from commercial fisheries."

         Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is an additional endangered species that may be caught
         incidentally in trawl fisheries. Sturgeon will be included in the Incidental Take Statement of the pending
         Biological Opinion. As shortnose sturgeon are generally associated with the estuarine environment, rather
         than the truly marine environment, it is anticipated that the gear and fishing locations of these dogfish
         fisheries will rarely encounter shortnose sturgeon.

         Marine mammals are managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered
         Species Act of 1973. Marine mammals have been historically important in the U.S. both as targets for
         commercial harvests and in ecological interactions with commercial fisheries. An excellent description of
         the historical importance of marine mammals is described in USDC 1993b.


         The results of this earlier work were addressed in 1979 when the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission
         sponsored a workshop to help define research needed for the study of marine mammals on the U.S. east
         and Gulf coasts and in 1989 at a NMFS-sponsored workshop on Gulf of Mexico marine mammal research
         needs (USDC 1993b). These workshops set a research agenda that was immediately addressed by agencies
         such as the Minerals Management Service and NMFS. During the 1980's, several institutions in the
         northeast developed active research programs which have resulted in a body of knowledge that is being
         drawn upon in developing management approaches for several critical marine mammal issues in the region.
         In the 1990's, increased attention has been focused on the characterization of marine mammal fauna of the
         U.S. Gulf of Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic Bight (USDC 1993b).

         Thirty-five species of marine mammals range the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters (32 whales,
         dolphins and porpoises, two seal species, and one manatee). Their status, in general, is poorly known, but
         some, like the right whale, Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin, and harbor porpoise, areunder stresses
         that may affect their survival (USDC 1 993b).

         The gears managed under this FMP are under several categories listed for the final List of Fisheries for 1997
         for the taking of marine mammals by commercial fishing operations under section 114 of the Marine
         Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. Section 114 of the MMPA establishes an interim exemption for
         the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations and requires NMFS to publish and
         annually update the List of Fisheries, along with the marine mammals and the number of vessels or persons
         involved in each fishery, arranging them according to categories, as follows:

         1. A fishery that has a frequent incidental taking of marine mammals;

         2. A fishery that has an occasional incidental taking of marine mammals; or

         3. A fishery that has a remote likelihood, or no known incidental taking, of marine mammals.

         In Category 1, there is documented information indicating a "frequent" incidental taking of marine mammals
         in the fishery. "Frequent" means that it is highly likely that more than one marine mammal will be


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      124







              incidentally taken by a randomly selected vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period. Some of the spiny
              dogfish gill net fisheries are in this category. With the mandatory reductions in spiny dogfish fishing
              mortality in the preferred alternative, there should be an overwhelming beneficial impact from the preferred
              alternative management measures on the marine mammal populations of the east coast.

              In Category 11, there is documented information indicating an "occasional" incidental taking of marine
              mammals 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 a likelihood of at least an "occasional" incidental taking in the fishery. "Occasional"
              means that there is some likelihood that one marine mammal will be incidentally taken by a randomly
              selected vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period, but that there is little likelihood that more than one
              marine mammal will be incidentally taken. Some of the spiny dogfish gill net fisheries are in this category.

              In Category 111, 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 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. The spiny dogfish trawl and demersal longline
              fisheries are considered Category III fisheries. With the mandatory reductions in spiny dogfish fishing
              mortality in the preferred alternative, there should be an overwhelming beneficial impact from the preferred
              alternative management measures on the marine mammal populations of the east coast.

              The 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) require the preparation and
              implementation of Take Reduction Plans (TLP's) for strategic marine mammal stocks that interact with
              Category I or 11 fisheries. The 1996 Stock Assessment Report (SAR) (Waring et al., 1997) states that
              harbor porpoise bycatch has been observed by the NMFS Sea Sampling program in the following fisheries:
              (1) the Northeast (NE) multispecies sink gillnet, (2) the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet, (3) the Atlantic drift
              gillnet, (4) the North Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, and (5) the Canadian Bay of Fundy sink gillnet fishery.
              The fisheries of greatest concern, and the subject of this TRP, are the NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery
              (Category 1), and the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery (Category 11).

              The NMFS recently announced in 50 CFR 229, the availability of a proposed harbor porpoise take reduction
              plan (HPTRP) to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in gillnet fisheries throughout
              the stock's U.S. range. NMFS also proposes regulations to implement the HPTRP.     'The proposed plan,
              including a discussion of the recommendations of the Gulf of Maine Take Reduction'Team (GOMTRT) and
              the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team (MATRT). The potential biological removal (PBR) level for Gulf of
              Maine harbor porpoise throughout their range is 483 animals (62 FR 3005, January 21, 1997). The
              incidental bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries exceeds
              the PBR level. The proposed HPTRP would use a wide range of management measures to reduce the
              bycatch and mortality of harbor porpoise. In the GOM, the HPTRP proposes time and area closures and
              time/area periods during which pinger use would be required in the Northeast, Mid-coast, Massachusetts
              Bay, Cape Cod South and Offshore Closure Areas. In the Mid-Atlantic area, the HPTRP proposes time/area
              closures and modifications to gear characteristics, including floatline length, twine size, tie downs, and
              number of nets, in the large mesh and small mesh fisheries.

              As noted above, the stock recovery schedule in this FMP specifies mandatory reductions in spiny dogfish
              fishing mortality which will result in reductions in fishing effort directed at spiny dogfish in excess of 90%
              of current levels in years 2-10 of the rebuilding period through elimination of the directed fishery. As a
              result, there should be an overwhelming beneficial impact from the preferred alternative management
              measures on certain marine mammal populations of the east coast.





               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    125








         The stock recovery schedule proposed in this amendment will reduce fishing mortality over a ten year
         period. As such, these reductions in fishing mortality will result in reduced fishing effort that in turn will
         reduce interactions with marine mammals, sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and seabirds. Preventing
         overfishing of spiny dogfish thus will be beneficial to certain species of marine mammals.


         5.1.3.2 Marine sanctuaries


         National marine sanctuaries are allowed to be established under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of
         1973. Currently there are 12 designated marine sanctuaries that creates a system that protects over
         14,000 square miles (National Marine Sanctuary Program 1993).

         There are four designated national marine sanctuaries in the area covered by the FMP: the Monitor National
         Marine Sanctuary off North Carolina, and the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off
         Massachusetts, Gray's Reef off Georgia and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary . There is currently
         one additional proposed sanctuary on the east coast, the Norfolk Canyon.

         The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary was designated on 30 January 1975, under Title III of the Marine
         Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). Implementing regulations (15 CFR 924)
         prohibit deploying any equipment in the Sanctuary, fishing activities which involve "anchoring in any
         manner, stopping, remaining, or drifting without power at any time" (924.3 (a)), and "trawling" (924.3 (h)).
         The Sanctuary is clearly designated on all National Ocean Service (NOS) charts by the caption "protected
         area." This minimizes the potential for damage to the Sanctuary by fishing operations. Correspondence for
         this sanctuary should be addressed to: Monitor NMS, NOAA, Building 1519, Fort Ousts, Virginia 23604.

         Gray's Reef was designated a National Marine Sanctuary in January 1981. Located 17 miles off the coast
         of Georgia, Gray's Reef is one of the largest nearshore sandstone reefs in the southeastern United States.
         The sanctuary encompasses 17 nml of live-bottom habitat. Implementing regulations (15 CFR 922.90)
         permit recreational fishing and commercial fishing is restricted. Specifically, wire fish traps and bottom
         tending fishing gears (dredges, trawls etc.) are prohibited. Correspondence for this sanctuary should be
         addressed to: Gray's Reef Sanctuary Manager, 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, Georgia 31411.

         NOAA/NOS issued a proposed rule on 8 February 1991 (56 FR 5282) proposing designation under MPRSA
         of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, in federal waters between Cape Cod and Cape May,
         Massachusetts. On 4 November 1992, the Sanctuary was Congressionally designated. Implementing
         regulations (15 CFR 940) became effective March 1994. Commercial fishing is not specifically regulated by
         Stellwagen Bank regulations. The regulations do however call for consultation between federal agencies
         and the Secretary of Commerce on proposed agency actions in the vicinity of the Sanctuary that "may
         affect" sanctuary resources. The process for consultation is currently (late 1995) being worked out between
         the Regional office of NMFS, the Sanctuary, and NEFMC for Amendment 7 to groundfish. Correspondence
         for this sanctuary should be addressed to: Stellwagen Bank NMS, 14 Union Street, Plymouth,
         Massachusetts 02360.


         The United States Congress passed the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
         designating the Florida Keys a National Marine Sanctuary. The act required NOAA to develop a
         comprehensive management plan with implementing regulations to govern the overall management of the
         Sanctuary and to protect and conserve it's resources. The Sanctuary consists of 2,800 nml of coastal and
         oceanic waters, and the associated submerged lands surrounding the Florida Keys, extending westward to
         include the Dry Tortugas, but excluding the Dry Tortugas National Park. The sanctuary prohibits the taking
         of coral or live rock, except as permitted by the NMFS or the state of Florida. The sanctuary contains
         designated Sanctuary Preservation Areas and Replenishment Reserves where the taking or disturbance of
         sanctuary resources is prohibited. Fishing is prohibited in these non-consumptive areas. Correspondence
         for this sanctuary should be addressed to Superintendent, NOAA/Florida Keys National, Marine Sanctuary,
         P.O. Box 500368, Marathon, Florida 33050.





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                   126







              Details on sanctuary regulations may be obtained from the Chief, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
              (SSMC4) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver
              Spring, Maryland 20910.

              5.1.3.3 Indian treaty fishing rights

              No Indian treaty fishing rights are known to exist in the fishery.

              5*1"3,4 Oil, gas, mineral, and deep water port development

              While Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development plans may involve areas overlapping those contemplated
              for offshore fishery management, no major conflicts have been identified to date. The Councils, through
              involvement in the Intergovernmental Planning Program of the MMS, monitor OCS activities and have
              opportunity to comment and to advise MMS of the Councils' activities. Certainly, the potential for conflict
              exists if communication between interests is not maintained or appreciation of each other's efforts is
              lacking. Potential conflicts include, from a fishery management position: (1) exclusion areas, (2) adverse
              impacts to sensitive biologically important areas, (3) oil contamination, (4) substrate hazards to conventional
              fishing gear, and (5) competition for crews and harbor space. The Councils are unaware of pending deep
              water port plans which would directly impact offshore fishery management goals in the areas under
              consideration, and are unaware of potential effects of offshore FMPs upon future development of deep
              water port facilities.

              5.1.3.5 Paper work reduction act of 1995

              The Paperwork Reduction Act concerns the collection of information. The intent of the 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.

              Since this FMP proposes new reporting requirements which solicit facts from " 10 or more persons," the
              collection will have to be cleared through the Office of Management and Budget. The sponsor agency
              (NMFS) must submit an information collection budget, containing a listing of all new information collections
              planned for the upcoming fiscal year.

              5.1.3.6 Impacts of the plan relative to federalism

              The Amendment does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
              federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612.


              5.1.4 Slate, Local, and Other Applicable Law and Policies

              5.1.4.1 State management activities

              This plan will apply to all states from Florida to Maine. This includes Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North
              Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
              New Hampshire, and Maine. There are currently no state management activities specific to spiny dogfish.

              5.1.4.2 Impact of federal regulations on state management activities

              There are currently no state management activities specific to spiny dogfish

              5.1.4.3 Coastal zone management program consistency

              The CZM Act of 1972, as amended, provides measures for ensuring stability of productive fishery habitat
              while striving to balance development pressures with social, economic, cultural, and other impacts on the
              coastal zone. It is recognized that responsible management of both coastal zones and fish stocks must



               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     127








        involve mutually supportive goals.

        The Council must determine whether the FMP will affect a state's coastal zone. If it will, the FMP must be
        evaluated relative to the state's approved CZM program to determine whether it is consistent to the
        maximum extent practicable. The states have 45 days in which to agree or disagree with the Councils'
        evaluation. If a state fails to respond within 45 days, the state's agreement may be presumed. If a state
        disagrees, the issue may be resolved through negotiation or, if that fails, by the Secretary.

        The FMP was reviewed relative to CZM programs of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
        Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
        Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Letters will be sent to all of the states listed along with a hearing draft of
        the FMP. The letters to all of the states will state that the Council concluded that the FMP would not affect
        the state's coastal zone and was consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the state's CZM
        program as understood by the Council.


        6.0 COUNCIL REVIEW AND MONITORING OF THE FMP


        The Councils and Commission will monitor the fishery using the best available data, including that specified
        in section 3. 1. 1.11. The commercial, recreational, biological, and survey data specified in section 3. 1. 1.11
        are critical to the evaluation of the management measures adjustment mechanism. It is necessary that
        NMFS incorporate all of the above data types from all spiny dogfish fisheries into the overall NEFSC data
        bases. Additionally, improved stock assessments are necessary for FMP monitoring. As a result of that
        monitoring, the Councils will determine whether it is necessary to amend the FMP.

        The primary organization in the review and monitoring process will be the Spiny Dogfish FMP Monitoring
        Committee (section 3.1.1.6).


        7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS


        This Amendment was prepared by the following members of the MAFMC staff - Dr. Christopher M.        Moore,
        Richard J. Seagraves, Dr. Thomas B. Hoff, and Valerie M. Whalon- and Timothy Goodger (NMFS) and
        Jonathan O'Neil (Rutgers University Ecopolicy Center),


        8.0 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS


        In preparing the Amendment, the Councils consulted with the NMFS, the South Atlantic Fishery
        Management Council, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of State, and the States of Maine, New
        Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
        Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina through their membership on the Council and the following
        committees - Mid-Atlantic EFH Technical Committee, Northeast Region Steering Committee, MAFMC Habitat
        Committee, MAFMC Habitat Advisory Panel and the Joint MAFMC and NEFMC Dogfish Committee. In
        addition to the states that are members of the Councils, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida were also
        consulted through the Coastal Zone Management Program consistency process.
















         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    128








              9.0 References


              Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1993. Nutrients and the Chesapeake: Refining the Bay cleanup effort.
              10 pp.


              Alverson_ D.L., M.H. Freeberg, J.G. Pope, and S.A. Murawski. 1994. A global assessment of fisheries
              bycatch and discards. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 339:1-233.

              American Fisheries Society (AFS). 1970. Common and Scientific names of fishes from the United States and
              Canada. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 6, Bethesda, MD.

              Applegate, A.J., S. Cadrin, J. Hoenig, C. Moore, S. Murawski, and E. Pikitch. 1998. Evaluation of existing
              overfishing definitions and recommendations for new overfishing definitions to comply with the Sustainable
              Fisheries Act. Overfishing Definition Review Panel. 179 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. NIOZ Rapport 1994-11, Netherlands Institute of Fisheries Research,
              Texel.

              Aschman, S.G., b. Anderson, and R.J. Croft. 1997. Challenges for Sustainable Nutrient Cycling in
              Watersheds. Presented at the 89' Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, October 26-30, 1997,
              Anaheim, CA.


              Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1992. Reef Material Criteria Handbook. Artificial
              Reef Advisory Committee. Washington, D.C.

              ASMFC. 1997. Atlantic Coastal Wetlands Losses and the Economic Value of Fisheries: A State by State
              Review.


              ASMFC. 1993. Resolution 11: 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.

              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. Walling, 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
              40:185-202.


              Bearden, C.M. 1965. Occurrence of spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, and other elasmobranchs in South
              Carolina coastal waters. COPEIA, No. 3. Ichthyological Notes. p. 378.

              Bergman, M.J.N. and M. Hup. 1992. Direct effects of bearntrawling on macrofauna in a sandy sediment in
              the southern North Sea. ICES J. mar. Sci. 49:5-11.


              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. 33:219-227.

              Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U. S. Fish and Wildlf. Serv., Fish.
              Bull. 53(74): 47-51.




               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    129







         Bigford, T.E. 1991. Sea-level rise, nearshore fisheries, and the fishing industry. Coastal Management
         19:417-437


         Boesch, D.F. D.A. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shurnway, P.A. Tester, 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.

         Bowman, R., R.,Eppi and M. Grosslein. 1984. Diet and Consumption of Spiny Dogfish in the Northwest
         Atlantic. NOAA, NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole, MA. 16 pp.

         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 if the passage of a trawl over the seabed. ICES C.M. 1970/13:10 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. 1972/13:7. 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.

         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. 11 p.

         Brylinsky, M., J. Gibson, and D.C. Gordon Jre. 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.

         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.

         Cahoon, L.B., and C.R. Tronzo. 1992. Quantitative estimates of dernersal zooplankton abundance in
         Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 87:197-200.

         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.

         Cairns, J. Coping with point source discharges. Fisheries 5(6):3.

         Castro, J.1. 1983. The sharks of North American waters. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
         180 P.

         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.





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                  130







             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, X. 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.

             Collette, B.B. and G.K. McPhee (Eds) In Prep. Revision of Bigelow and Schroeder=s AFishes of the Gulf of
             Maine@. Smithsonian Institution Press.

             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.

             Cross, J. 1998. Appendix 1, Methods used in NEFSC,    State and Other Surveys (Draft). NMFS, NEFSC,
             Highlands, NJ.

             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 usin   g
             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 large-scale
             experimental study. Mar. Ecol. Prog, Ser. 134:131-150.

             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.

             DeAlteris, J.T. and D.M. Riefsteck. 1993. Escapement and survival of fish from the codend of a dernersal
             trawl. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196:128-131.

             De Groot, S.J. 1984.   The impact of bottom trawling on benthic fauna of the North Sea. Ocean
             Management 9:177-190.

             Driscoll, C. 1998. Personal Communication - April 1998. NMFS, Oxford, MD.

             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.

             Engel, J. and R. Kvitek. MS 1997. 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.

             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.





              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    131








        Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1998. Pfiesteria Summary. Prepared by Karen
        Steidinger and Jan Landsberg. Need URL

        Foerster. 1998. Personal communication - April 1998. Department of Naval Research.

        Fogarty, M.J. and S.A. Murawski. 1998. Large-scale disturbance and the st   ructure 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. NIOZ Rapport 1994-11, Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, Texel.

        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.


        Freese, L., J. Hiefetz, B. Wing, and P. Auster. In prep. The impacts of trawling on seafloor habitat in the
        Gulf of Alaska: 1. Changes in habitat structure and associated invertebrate taxa.

        Gaspar, M.B., C.A. Richardson and C.C. Monteiro. 19  94. The effects of dredging on shell formation in the
        razor clam Ensis siliqua from Barrinha, Southern Portugal. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 74:927-938.

        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 SAV - 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.

        Griffith, D. 1996. Impacts of new regulations on North Carolina fisherman: a classificatory analysis. North
        Carolina Sea Grant College Program, Publication Number: UNC-SG-96-07

        Guill6n, J.E., A.A. Ramos, L.Martfnez and J. S6nchez 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.


        Hall, S.J. 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments.
        Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual review 32:179-239.

        Hess, W.N. 1966. The hated dogfish. Sea Frontiers. International Oceanographic Foundation. Vol. 12, No.
        2. 166-122.


        High, W.L. MS1992. A scientist/diver's marine science and technology observations. Alaska Fisheries
        Science Center, NIVIFS, Seattle.


        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.

        Hoenig, J.M. 1983. Empirical use of longevity data to estimate mortality rates. Fish. Bull. U.S. 81:898-903.

        Hoenig, J.M. and S.H. Gruber. 1990. Life-history patterns in the elasmobranchs: implications for fisheries
        management. In: Elasmobranchs as Living Resources- Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics, and


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    132







              the Status of the Fisheries (H.L. Pratt, Jr., S.H. Gruber, and T. Taniuchi, eds.). U.S. Dep. of Commer.,
              NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS. 90:1-16.

              Holden, M.J. 1973. Are long-term sustainable fisheries for elasmobranchs possible? In: Fish, Stocks and
              Recruitment (F.R. Harden-Jones, ed.) Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 164:360-367.

              Holden, M.J. 1974. Problems in the rational exploitation of elasmobranch populations and some suggested
              solutions. In: Sea Fisheries Research (F. R. Harden-Jones, ed.). pp. 117-137. Halsted Press, New York.

              Holden, M.J. 1977. Elasmobranchs. In: Fish Population Dynamics (J.A. Gulland, ed.). John Wiley and Sons,
              New York. 187-215.


              Holden, M.J. and P.S. Meadows. 1962. The structure of the spine of the spur dofish (Squalus acanthias L.)
              and its use for age determination. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK. 42:179-197.

              Holme, N.A. 1983. Fluctuations in the benthos of the western English Channel. Oceanol. Acta, Procedings
              17 1h European Maine Biology Symposium, Brest, France, 27 Set.-1 Oct., 1982, pp.121-124.

              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.

              Hughes Commission Report. 1997. Blue Ribbon Citizens Pfiesteria Action Commission. Final Report.
              Governor Harry R. Hughes Commission Chairman.

              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.

              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:ln
              press.


              Jensen, A.C. 1965. Life history of the spiny dogfish. U. S. Fish and Wildif. Serv., Fish. Bull. 65: 527-554.

              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. ELMR Rep. No. 13. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental
              Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 221 p.

              Kaiser, M. 1996. Starfish damage as an indicator of trawling intensity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 134:303-307.

              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. 65:346-358.


              Kaiser, M.J., D.B. Edwards and B.E. Spencer. 1996. Infaunal community changes as a result of commercial
              clam cultivation and harvesting. Aquat. Living Resour. 9:57-63.





               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                     133








        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).

        Kenny, R.D., M.A.M. Hyman, and H.E. Winn. 1985 Calculation of standing stocks and energetic
        requirements of the cetaceans of the northeast United States outer continental shelf. NOAA Tech. Mem.
        NMFS-F/NEC-41. 99 p.


        Ketchen, K.S. 1975. Age and growth of dogfish Squalus acanthias in British Columbia waters. J. Fish. Res.
        Board Can. 32:43-59.


        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.


        Langton, R.W., and R.E. Bowman. 1977. An abridged account of predator - prey interactions from some
        northwest Atlantic species of fish and squid. NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 77-17.

        Lindholm, J., M. Ruth, L. Kaufman, and P. Auster. 1998. A modeling approach to the design of marine
        refugia -for fishery management. In: Linking Protected Areas With Working Landscapes. Science and
        Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. In press.

        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.

        MacKenzie, C.L., Jr., 1982. Compatibility of invertebrate populations and commercial fishing for ocean
        quahogs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:270-275.

        Magorrian, 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.

        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.

        McCay, B.J., B. Blinkoff, R. Blinkoff, and D. Bart. 1993. Report, part 2, phase 1, fishery impact management
        project, to the MAFMC. Dept. of Human Ecology, Cook College, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. 179 p.

        McFarlane, G.A. and R.J. Beamish. 1987. Validation of the dorsal spine method of age determination for
        spiny dogfish. In: The age and growth of fish (R.C. Summerfelt and G.E. Hall, eds.). pp. 287-300. Iowa
        State Univ. Press, Ames.


        McMilan, D.G. and W.W. Morse. 1998. FMP EFH source document, spiny dogfish (spurdog), Squalus
        acanthias Linnaeus, 1758: life history, food habits, status of the stock, habitat characterization, and
        distribution and relative abundance.


        Medcof, J.C. and J.F. Caddy. 1971. Underwater observations on the performance of clam dredges of
        three types. ICES C.M. 1971/13:10

        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). 1990b. Ocean Disposal Policy. Dover, DE.

        Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1995. Artificial reef policy. Dover, DE. 2 p.


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                  134







             Mid-Atlantic Regional Marine Research Program (MARMPP). 1994. Mid-Atlantic Research Plan. University of
             MD. College Park, MD. 163 p.

             Moser, M.L., P.J. Auster and J.B. Bichy. 1998. Effects of mat morphology on large Sargassum-associated
             fishes: observations from a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and free-floating video camcorders. Env. Biol.
             Fish. 51:391-398.


             Moyle, P.B. 1991. AFS Position Statement - Ballast Water Introductions. Fisheries 16(l):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.

             Murphy. 1995.

             Nammack, M.F., J.A. Musick and J.A. Colvocoresses. 1985. Life history of spiny dogfish off the
             northeastern United States. Transactions of the Amer. Fish. Society 114: 367-376.

             National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Report to Congress; Status of fisheries of the United
             Slates. 39 p,

             Nelson, D.M. and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Southeast
             estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 9. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
             167 p.

             Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 1994. Report of the 18" Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
             Workshop: Stock Assessment Review Committee Consensus Summary of Assessments. NEFSC Ref. Doc.
             94-22.

             Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 1998. Report of the 26 1h Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
             Workshop: Stock Assessment Review Committee Consensus Summary of Assessments. NEFSC Ref. Doc.
             98-03.


             OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments. OTA Pub. OTA-0-335.

             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.


             Peters, D.S. and F.A. Cross. 1992. What is coastal fish habitat? p. 17-22. In: R.H. Stroud led.),
             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. Surnmerson 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. Surnmerson 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.







              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                  135








        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, J.P., K. Sosebee, J. Brodziak, and E.D. Anderson. 1994. Distribution and dynamics of northwest
        Atlantic spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Woods Hole, MA: NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC. Ref. Doc. 94-19.

        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)

        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. 23:191-226.

        Riesen W. and K. Reise. 1982. Macrobenthos of the subtidal Wadden Sea: revisited after 55 years.
        Heigol5nder Meersunters. 35:409-423.

        Robinette, H.R., J. Hynes, N.C. Parker, R. Putz, R.E. Stevens, and R. Stickney. 1991. Commercial
        aquaculture. Fisheries 160):18-22.

        Rulifson, R.A., M.J. Dadaswell, and G.K. Mahoney. 1986. Tidal power development and estuarine and
        marine environments. Fisheries 11 (406-39


        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 int.he German Bight. p. 75-86. NIOZ Rapport 1994-11, Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research,
        Texel.


        Sainsbury, K.J. 1987. Assessment and management of the dernersal 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
        dernersal fishery in tropical Australia. pp. 349-382. In: Fish Population Dynamics, 2nd edition. W.A.
        Gulland, Ed.). London: John Wiley and Sons.

        Sainsbury, K.J. 1991. Application of an experimental approach to management of a dernersal 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.





         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                  136







             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. NIOZ Rapport 1994-11, Netherlands Institute for
             Fisheries Research, Texel.


             Saulson, T.P. 1982. Growth, maturation, and fecundity of the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthies, in the
             northwestern Atlantic. State University of New York at Stony Brook. Ph.D. thesis, 97 pp.

             Schaefer, R.H. 1995. Memorandum on NMFS Policy of Risk Aversion in Face of Uncertainty.

             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. NSF Contract No. OCE 7700465.

             Silva, H.G.M.. 1993. Population dynamics of spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, in the NW Atlantic.
             University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ph.D. thesis, 238 pp.

             Sindermann, C.J. 1992. Disease risks associated with importation of nonindigenous marine animals.
             Marine Fisheries Review 54(3):1-9.


             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, NX 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.

             SAFMC. 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.

             Soldat, V.T. 1979. Biology, Distribution, and abundance of the spiny dogfish in the Northwest Atlantic.
             ICNAF Res. Doc. 79NI/1 02. Serial No. 5467:9 pp.

             South-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 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.


             Stedman, S. and J. Hanson. 1997. Wetlands fisheries and economics in the mid-Atlantic coastal states of
             Habitat Conservation. Habitat Connections 1(5):1-4.


             Steele, J.H. 1996, Regime shifts n fisheries management. Fish. Res. 25:19-23.


             Steimle, F. 1976. A sum


             Steimle, F. Personal communication. NMFS, Sandy Hook, N.J.


             Stephan, C.D. and K. Beidler. 1997. Management of Atlantic Coastal Marine Habitat: Proceedings of a
             Workshop for Habitat Managers. ASMFC Management Series #2.

             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. ELMR
             Rep. No. 12. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 280 p.


             Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1998. Brown Tide Fact Sheet. Office of Ecology.


              22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                  137








         Templeman, W. 1944. The Life history of the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias and the vitamin A values of
         dogfish liver oil. Newfoundland Dept. Nat. Resour. Res. Bull. No. 15 (Fisheries).

         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

         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 mari'ne 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.

         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. Department of Commerce (USDQ. 1985a. Regional action plan: northeast regional office and
         northeast fisheries center. In: NOAA. NMFS. Tech. memo. F/NEC-37. 20 p.

         USDC. 1985b. National Artificial Reef Plan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OF-6. Washington, D.C.

         USDC. 1990. Estuaries of the Untied States. NOAA, NOS, Ocean Assessment Division, Strategic
         Assessment Branch. Washington, D.C.

         USDC. 1993. Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and Coastal New
         Jersey Area. National Status and Trends Program. Silver Spring, MD.

         USDC. 1996a. NMFS Gravel Extraction Policy. Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, MD.

         USDC. 1996b. NMFS Habitat Conservation Program. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

         USDC.  1997a.   Technical guidance manual for implementation of essential fish habitat.

         -USDC. 1997b.   Four hundred years of Arctic data provide insight into climate change. 2 p.

         USDC.  1997c.   National shellfish register nothing to clam up about. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD. 2 p.

         USDC.  1997d.   NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication Survey, Volume 1: South Atlantic Region. NOAA,      NOS,
         Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.

         USDC. 1997e. NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication Survey, Volume 2: Mid-Atlantic Region. NOAA, NOS,
         Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.

         USDC. 1997f.    NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication Survey, Volume 3: North Atlantic Region. NOAA, NOS,
         Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.

         USDC. 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 (USEPA). 1993. Guidance for specifying management measures for
         sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Office of Water. 840-B-92-002. 500+ p.


         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                    138







              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.

              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 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      '


              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.

              Watling L., R.H. Findlay, L.M. Mayer, and D.F. Schick. 1997. Impact of scallop dragging on a shallow
              subtidal marine benthic community.

              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).

              Witbaard, R. and R. Klein. 1994. Long-term trends on the effects of the southern North Sea beantrawl
              fishery on the bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica L. (Mollusca, bivalvia). ICES J. mar. Sci. 51: 99-105.

              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
              Insitution Press, Washington, D.C.

              Wood, C.C., K.S. Ketchen and R.J. Beamish. 1979. Population dynamics of spiny dogfish (Squalus
              acanthias) in British Columbia waters. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:747-656.



































               22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                      139






              Table 1. Biological characteristics of US commercial landings of spiny dogfish, 1982 - 1996.

                                   Commercial landings (million Ibs.)                        Mean Weight (kg)                        Total Number Caught                         Mean Length (cm)
                Year    I    Total I    Females  I      Males J  Feale-/.T Male%              Fema7ls       Males        Females            Males      Fernale%      Male%        Females       Males
                1982         11.9          11.7          0.2      98.30%          1.70%         4.44        2.17       1,199,204         42,325        96.59%        3.41%          97.0        84.8
                1983         10.8          10.8             -     100.0%                -       4.09             -     1,197,182                 -    100.00%        0.00%          94.7             -
                1984          9.8           9.8         <0.1      99.76%          0.24%         4.42        1.76       1,004,315            6,030      99.40%        0.60%          96.7        79.4
                1985          8.9           8.8         <0.1      99.48%          0.52%         4.10        1.68         976,479         12,375        98.75%        1.25%          94.8        78.1
                1986          6.0           5.9          0.1      97.82%          2.18%         4.01        1.63         670,564         36,838        94.79%        5.21%          93.7        77.6
                1987          6.0           5.9         <0.1      99.31%          0.69%         3.78        1.70         711,085         11,022        98.47%        1.53%          92.3        78.8
                1988          6.8           6.8         <0.1      99-80%          0.20%         4.29        2.11         722,972            2,869      99.60%        0.40%          96.0        84.6
                1989          9.9           9.8          0.1      98.79%          1.21%         4.02        1.93       1,103,734         28,095        97.52%        2.48%          94.2        82.0
                1990         32.5          32.4          0.1      99.62%          0.38%         4.00        1.77       3,669,820         31,268        99.16%        0.84%          94.1        79.8
                1991         29.0          28.9          0.2      99.36%          0.64%         3.90        1.08       3,354,707         77,348        97.75%        2.25%          93.4        77.9
                1992         37.2          37.1         <0. 1     99.82%          0.18%         3.82        1.86       4,402,269         16,576        99.62%        0.38%          92.9        81.1
                1993         45.5          45.2          0.4      99.22%          0.78%         3.58        1.87       5,721,367         86,687        98.51%        1.49%          91.5        81.2
                1994         41.4          40.9          0.6      98.71%          1.29%         3.17        1.84       5,846,452         131,350       97.80%        2.20%          881         80.9
                1995         50.1          49.8          0.3      99.42%          0.58%         2.95        1.55       7,662,456         84,537        98.91%        1.09%          86.3        76.4
                1996         60.1          50.0         10.1      83.22%         16.78%         2.65        1.56       8,567,153      2,933,039        74.50%       25.50%          84.1        76.4










              Table 2. Weight per tow Obs.) indices for spiny dogfish from NEFSC spring 11968-1997) and autumn
              (1967-1996) bottom trawl surveys (offshore strata 1-30, 33-40, 61-76; Footnotes A-C).


                                                          Spring                                                      Autumn
                Year                Unsexed           Male          Female           Total        Unsexed           Male          Female            Total

                1967                       -              -                               -          76.8                                           76.8

                1968                   56.8               -                          56.8            49.3                                           49.3

                1969                   35.4               -                          35.4           121.7                                          121.7

                1970                   29.3               -                          29.3            52.4                                           52.4

                1971                   52.8               -                          52.8            34.1                                           34.1

                1972                 107.8                -                         107.8            35.4                                           35.4

                1973                 125.6                -                         125.6            47.7                                           47.7

                1974                 147.4                -                         147.4            17.8                                -          17.8

                1975                 100.3                -                         100.3            46.0                                -          46.0

                1976                   81.4               -                          81.4            43.6                                -          43.6

                1977                   53.0               -                          53.0            35.4                                -          35.4

                1978                   79.9               -                          79.9            42.5                                -          42.5

                1979                   29.5               -               -          29.5            58.5                -               -          58.5

                1980                   29.5           75.2            3.52          108.0                -             8.8          33.2,           42.0

                1981                     1.3          44.9          106.0           152.2                           27.9            76.8           104.7

                1982                       -          68.4          189.2           257.4                           11.4            21.3            32.8

                1983                                  46.4            38.9           85.6                           30.1            48.6            78.8

                1984                                  42.5            50.6           93.3                           19.1            30.6            49.5

                1985                                 220.9          146.7           367.6                           32.1            55.0            87.3

                1986                       -          12.8            85.8           98.8                           29.5            52.1            81.6

                1987                       -          89.3          135.7           225.1                           23.3            24.6            48.0

                1988                       -          59.2          170.3           229.7                           33.7            53.5            87.1

                1989                       -          76.6            94.8          171.2                           13.4            12.1            25.3

                1990                       -         133.3          196.2           329.6                           32.8            32.8            65.6

                1991                       -          80.3          116.6           196.9                           54.1            58.7           112.9

                1992                       -          98.6          154.2           252.8                           31.0            91.5           122.5
                1993                       -          78.5          114.8           193.4                           .11.2             4.6           15.8
                1994                       -         109.8          77.66           187.2                           40.7            32.2            72.2
                1995                       -          76.6            88.0          164.6                           36.7            25.1            61.6
                1996                       -         129.8          133.1           262.9                           31.7            58.7            90.4

                1997                       -          82.5          98.78           181.3                                -               -               -


              A. During 1963-1984, BMV oval doors were used in the spring and autumn surveys; since 1985, Portuguese polyvalent doors have
              been used in both surveys. No adjustments have been made because no significant difference was found between the two types of
              doors for spiny dogfish (NEFSC 1991).


              B. Spring surveys from 1973-1981 were accomplished with a '41 Yankee' trawl; in all other years, spring surveys were accomplished
              with a '36 Yankee' trawl. A factor of 0.69 was applied to all tows in these years (Sissenwine and Bowman, 1978).

              C. During the fall of 1970, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, an 1993 and the springs of
              1973, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1994, the Delaware H was used entirely or in part to
              conduct the survey. All other years, the Albatross IV was the only vessel used for the survey. A factor of 0.81 was applied to all
              Delaware //tows (NEFSC 199 1).













                                                                                    141










       Table 3. Minimum biomass estimates (millions of lbs.) based on area swept by NEFSC trawl during spring
       surveys.


                              Lengths 1 80 cm                         Lengths 36-79 cm                       Lengths !@ 35 c
         Year          Females                        otal    Females        Males         Total      Females        Males         Total     All Lengths
         1968                                        91.3                                 243.4                                      3.4           338.0
         1969                                        60.4                                 152.8              -                       1.5           214.5

         1970                                        80.9                                  72.8              -                       7.0           160.7

         1971                 -                   228.8                                    60.8              -                       6.1           295.9

         1972                 -                   279.1                                   321.7              -                       3.4           604.3

         1973                 -                   394.0                                   364.4              -                       5.7           763.9
         1974                 -                   489.2                                   395.9              -                       5.9           890.9

         1975                 -                   231.7                                   275.6              -                       8.8           515.9
         1976                 -                   212.3                                   266.3              -                       2.6           481.3

         1977                 -                   170.4                                   149.9              -                       1.2           321.7

         1978                 -                   192.7                                   289.2              -                       2.7           484.6

         1979                 -                   115.3                                    41.0              -             -         4.0           160.3
         1980           230.8         33.7        370.6         37.0         159.2        272.3           0.7          0.9           1.9           644.6

         1981           587.5         53.8        647.7         56.2         165.6        221.8           4.7          6.2         11.2            880.7
         1982         1,000.9         76.3      1,077.2        135.8         315.9        451.7           1.1          1.5           2.6        1,531.3
         1983           171.3         66.4        237.7         80.9         217.2        298.3           6.8          8.7         15.5            551.4
         1984           254.9         60.6        315.5         73.6         194.0        267.6           0.3          0.5           0.8           584.0

         1985           698.9         276.7       975.8        226.0       1,107.8      1,333.8           8.8          11.2        20.1         2,329.6
         1986           421.7            7.7      429.5        114.4           65.3       179.7           1.9          2.4           4.3           613.3
         1987           483.0         199.5       682.5        135.6         378.5        513.9           5.4          10.5        15.9         1,212.5
         1988           954.8         57.8      1,012.8        205.7         338.6        544.5           2.0          2.4           4.4        1,561.7
         1989           357.4         89.3        446.7        221.3         348.8        570.1           2.5          3.4           5.9        1,022.7
         1990           882.5         155.9     1,038.4        360.5         668.2      1,028.7           1.5          2.3           3.8        2,070.8
         1991           485.9         66.1        551.8        239.0         410.7        649.7           2.2          3.2           5.3        1,206.8
         1992           618.4         92.4        710.8        396.6         511.2        907.9           1.6          2.2           3.8        1,622.4
         1993           517.2         61.3        578.7        229.5         437.6        667.1           1.2          1.4           2.7        1,248.5
         1994           232.1         81.8        313.9        238.8         560.4        799.2           9.4          12.2        21.6         1,134.9
         1995           225.8         65.0        290.8        339.5         384.7        724.2           0.6          0.8           1.3        1,016.1
         1996           433.2         73.6        506.8        444.7         738.1      1,182.6           2.2          -1.5          4.7        1,694.2
         1997           184.5         38.6        223.1        452.4         461.0        913.4           0.1          0.1           0.2        1,136.5


       Notes: Total equals sum of males and females plus unsexed dogfish. Data for dogfish prior to 1980 are currently not available by sex.
























                                                                                142










                     Table 4. Distribution and habitat use for spiny dogfish.


                      Study            Area            Spatial & Temporal Distribution                     Bottom Temp                 Salinity        Bottom Depth (m)                          Estuarine       Prey/Predator
                                                                                                           100                         1ppt)           Bottom Type                               Use

                      Biglow &         Gulf of Maine   Seasonally transient. Cape Cod to Cape Sable.       Appear coastally when                       Occur at depths anywhere from             See spatial     Prey: Mostly fish, in particular,
                      Schroeder                        Common on offshore banks as well as along           temperature warms to                        surface to bottom. Deep water             column          herrings and mackerel. Practically all
                      1953                             the coast. As early as mid May in Penobscot         6% and disappear when                       preferred in winter, moving to schoaler                   species of Gulf of Maine fish smaller
                                                       Bay. Autumnal departure by October-                 tamp increases to 15*.                      water summer-fall.                                        than themselves. Squid among regula
                                                       November.                                           Preferred range on                                                                                    article found in stomachs. Also
                                                                                                           offshore wintering                                                                                    known to eat worms, shrimps, and
                                                                                                           grounds seems to be 6*                                                                                crabs. Upon May arrival in Woods
                                                                                                           to 11                                                                                                 Hole, often found full of Ctenophores.

                      Jensen, et at    Northwest       Coastal waters from Cape Lookout, NC.               Prefer 7.2* - 12,8*                         Deep water in winter, shallower water                     Prey: Primarily a fish eater but will
                      1961, 1965       Atlantic        northward around Nova Scotia, along both the        range.                                      in summer. Average depth at which                         also feed on invertebrates, both
                                                       northern and southern shores of the Gulf of                                                     100 + doglish per haul obtained Jan-                      swimming and bottom-dwelling forms.
                                                       Lawrence, past the Strait of Belle Isle to                                                      Jun 1948-1960 = 137 m. Avg.                               Clupeoids are important part of diet,
                                                       southeast Labrador. Appear early on Georges                                                     Depth for Jul-Dec same period       87                    but undoubtedly feeds on whatever
                                                       Bank (Mar-Apr), New Jersey (Mar). Spring and                                                    M.                                                        species are abundant and not too
                                                       autumn transients in their southern range, from                                                                                                           difficult to capture.
                                                       New York to North Carolina. General migration
                                                       northward in spring, moving south in fall.                                                                                                                Predator: Sharks (Mackerel, Great
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 White, Tiger, Blue), Bamdoor skate,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Lancetfish, Bluefin tuna, Tilefish,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Goosefish.

                      Cohen, 1982      Northwest       Labrador to Florida, most abundant from Nova        In Mid-Atlantic and New                                                                               Prey; Voracious, opportunistic feeders.
       .P.                             Atlantic        Scotia to Cape Hatteras, NC. As far south as        England areas inhabit                                                                                 Most species of fish smaller than
                                                       Florida in winter, chiefly north of Cape Cod in     waters with bottom tamp                                                                               themselves, primarily mackerel,
                                                       summer. Begin southward migration in                ranging from 4* to 18*.                                                                               herring, scup, flatfish, cod haddock,
                                                       October,  begin returning north in spring.          Preferred temp range                                                                                  shrimp, crabs, squid, siphonophores,
                                                                                                           seems to be between                                                                                   and sipunculid Worms, ctenophores.
                                                                                                           7.2* and 12.8*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Predator: Shark (other)

                      Nammack, at      Northwest       Gfeetand to Southern Florida and Cuba; more
                      at 1985          Altantic        typically from Newfoundland to Georgia.
                                                       Offshore and south in the winter.

                      Silva, 1993      Northwest       Exhibit extensive seasonal migrations between       7* to 13'.                                  1968-1990. Juveniles prin. found
                                       Atlantic        winter pupping/mating grounds (Cape Hatteras                                                    along 100m contour, adult fem.
                                                       to New Jersey) and summer feeding grounds                                                       shallower and inwards from 100m in
                                                       (Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank to                                                              south, deeper water in north. Adult
                                      I                Newfoundland).                                                                                  males sim. to adult females.
                      Rago,etat        Northwest       Mid-Atlantic waters in winter and spring.           7.2* to 12.8* (Jensen,                                                                See spatial     Prey: Herring, Atlantic mackerel, and
                      1994             Atlantic        Summer movement towards Canadian waters             1965)                                                                                 column          squid.
                                                       including bays and estuaries. Autumnal
                                                       migration to the south.
                      Wilk, et at      Hudson-         Nov.-Dec. 1994-1997. Found on Romer                 Occurred at:                Occurred at: Occurred at:                                 See             Prey: Crabs American eel, small fish
                      1997             Raritan         Shoals, East Bank, and in Ambrose Channel.          range 7.1     11.3%         tango 30.7 - range 12 - 18 m.                             Appendix #1
                                       Estuary,  NJ                                                                                    32.2 ppt







                 Table 4. (continued)            Distribution and habitat use for spiny dogfish.


                  Study           Area           Spatial & Temporal Distribution                   Bottom Temp               Salinity       Bottom Depth (m)                         Estuarine      Prey/Pfedator
                                                                                                   VC)                       (Ppt)          Bottom Type                              Use
                  NMFS, NEFC      Northwest      Winter: Across shelf from North Carolina to       OR= observed range                       Spring      OR; 5 - 439                                 Major pTedalOtS on some
                  Juveniles (see  Atlantic       Georges Bank (GB). Spring: Across shelf           OA= occurred at                                      AR: 7-390                                   commercially important species,
                  Figures 5-8                    from NC to GB, more abundant offshore.            PH =preferred    range                               PH. 50- 150                                 mainly herring, AtI. Mackerel, and
                  for season                     Summer: Inadequate sampling. Autumn:              Spring     OR.   1 -22                                                                           squid, and to a lesser extent,
                  and dates)                     Nantucket Is., Georges Bank, between                         OA;   3-17                    Autumn      OR: 5 - 481                                 haddock and cod.
                                                 Lucher Shoal and German Bank.                                PH: 8 - 13                                AR: 12 - 366
                                                                                                                                                        PH: 25 - 75
                                                                                                   Autumn     OR: 5 - 28
                                                                                                              OA:   5-20
                                                                                                              PH:   10- 15

                  NMFS, NEFC      Northwest      Winter: Across shelf from NC to GB.               Spring:    OR:   1 -22                   Spring:     OR: 5 - 439                                 See Above
                  Adults (see     Atlantic       Spring:  Outer shelf from MC to northeast                    OA:   3- 17                               AR: 7-439
                  Figures 13-16                  peak of 68, Browns Bank. Summer:                             PH:   7- 11                               PH: 50-149
                  for season                     Inadequate sampling. Autumn: Nantucket
                  and dates)                     Shoals, eastern C. Cop, Cape Cod & Mass.          Autumn:    OR: 5 - 28                    Autumn: OR:     5-481
                                                 Bays.                                                        OA:   5-19                                AR: 12 - 344
                                                                                                              PH:   10- 15                              PH: 10-49

                  Mass. Inshore Inshore from     Spring: SW Martha's V.. Southern                  'Spring:   OR:   1 -15                   Spring:     OR: 5 - 82
                  trawl survey    Vineyard       Nantucket I., NE Cape Cod, No. Cape Cod                      OA:   2-14                                AR: 7-64
     4h.          1980-1996       Sound to       Bay. Autumn: NE Nantucket I., Cape Cod                       PH:   7-10                                PH: 10-44
                  Juveniles       Cape Ann       and C. Cod Bay, Cape Ann
                                                                                                   Autumn:    OR: 4 - 23                    Autumn:     OR: 4 - 82
                                                                                                              OA: 4 - 20                                AR: 8 - 82
                                                                                                              PH: 8 - 10*                               PH: 15 - 34
                                                                                                                    13 - 16*
                                                                                                   *Bimodal preference

                  Mass. Inshore   Inshore from Springi So. Nantucket I., NE Cape Co, C.            Spring:    OR: 1    15                   Spring:     OR: 4 - 82
                  trawl survey    Vineyard       Cod Bay, Absent in GOM. Autumn: Eastern                      AR: 1    14                               AR: 6 - 64
                  1980-1996       Sound to       C. Cod, No. C. Cod, C. Cod Bay, Cape Ann,                    PH: 6 - 12                                PH; @ 45
                  Adults          Cape Ann       Ipswich Bay, Plum 1.
                                                                                                   Autumn:    OR: 4 - 23                    Autumn:     OR: 4 - 82
                                                                                                              AR: 4 - 20                                AR: 6 - 82
                                                                                                              PR@ 9 -  15                               PH; 10 - 34

                  Gottschall, et  Long Island    Enter the Sound in May and June and depart                                                 May-June:   Prefer waters     27m,
                  aL In review.   Sound          by early August.                                                                           and sand to transitional bottom type
                  Connecticut
                  Bur. Maine                     Return in September-November with highest                                                  September-November: Prefer waters
                  Resources                      numbers in November.                                                                       @ 27m, and mud to transitional
                  Apr-Jun                                                                                                                   bottom.
                  1984-1994
                  Jul-Aug
                  1984-1990









                      Table 4. (continued) Distribution and habitat use for spiny dogfish.


                      Study          Area              Spatial & Temporal Distribution                Bottom Temp                Salinity       Bottom Depth (m)                         Estuarine Prey/Predator
                                                                                                      (0c)                       (Ppt)          Bottom Type                              Use

                      Scott, 1982    Scotian Shelf     Summer intruder to Bay of Fundy and            Temp range      3 -  11    Sal range=     Depth range= 37 - 363
                      (two           & Say of Fundy    Fundian channel. Occas large catches on                                   31 -34
                      publications)                    the Scotian Shelf. Always associated with      Pfeter Temp     7 - 9                     Prefer ranges= 20 - 29
                                                       warm water.                                                               Prefer sal                       70-79
                                                                                                                                 31 -34                           90-99
                                                                                                                                                pref. 1 Wor Scotian Shelf drift;
                                                                                                                                                glacial till 2)Sambro basin sand
                                                                                                                                                3)Emerald basin salt 4)LaHave basin
                                                                                                                                                clay 5)Sable is. sand & gravel
                      Schwartz,      Isle of Wight,    April-June: S. Dogfish from 70 to 96 can       Range during summer:       Sal range=     Inlet= 7- 10m                            See "Area"
                      1964           Assawoman,        occur in the harbor and inlet area of Ocean                               26-32          BaVs = 2 - 3 rn
                                     Sinepauxent, &    City, MID                                      Says: 20 - 38
                                     Chincoteague                                                     Inlet: 23 - 24                            Assawoman: western 3/4 =mud
                                     Boys, Ocean                                                                                                               eastern 1/4= sand
                                     City, MID
                      Sameoto, eti Nova Scotia         Emerald and LaHave basins, more                Emerald basin              Emer. Bas.     Emerald and LaHave        200            n/a            Prey: Zooplankton, namely Calanus
                      aL, 1994       Shelf             abundant in June than October.                 June: 8.3, October: 8.6    June: 34.3                                                             finmarchicus & Meganyctiphanes
                                     I                                                                                                                                                                  norvegica.
                      Azarovitz, et  Middle Atlantic   Spring: Larger catches offshore, inshore       Inhabit waters                                                                                    See Bigelow & Schroeder, 1953
       4h.            a/.,1980       Bight             south of Delaware Bay but have not             4- 18
       M
                                                       reaches coastal NJ or NY. Autumn:
                                                       Southern movement from the northern            prefer waters
                                                       (summer) grounds has begun.                    7.2 - 12.8

                                                       Young of the Year (:5 32 cm) rarely occur
                                                       inshore. Pupping is an exclusive offshore
                                                       event.

                      Woodhead,      Frenchman Bay     Early June: 89% 9 caught Flanders Bay.                                                   All sets made in 16 - 32 m on            See spatial    Bait used     aged salted herring
                      at aL, 1976    and               Late June/Early July: 95 % or caught off                                                 muddy or sandy bottoms.
                                     surrounding       Stave Island. Late July/EarIV Aug.: Males
                                     waters, ME        plentiful around Ironbound Island. Late
                                                       August: Mostly males caught in Bar
                                                       Harbor.

                      Soldat,        Northwest         Migratory, thermally induced. Dense            Overall range: 4 - 17                     Winter: 200 - 300, as well as 40 -                      Feeds mainly on fish, with squid
                      1979           Atlantic          aggreg during winter off Norfolk, VA,          prefer: 6 - 14                            80. Summer: 60 - 150 on Georges                         being an important prey item also.
                                                       Nantucket 1, and southern slopes Georges.      Winter: 7 - 10
                                                       Diurnal vertical migrations.                   Summer: 8 - 12














          Table 5. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of dogfish in North Atlantic estuaries.


                                                              North Atlantic Estuaries
                              Passama-       Englishman       Narraguagus       Blue Hill       Penobscot        Muscongus
                               quoddy          Machias           Bay               Bay              Bay             Bay
                               Bay               Bays
             Life Stage    T MI I       S   T I M I      S  T M         S    T M       I S_ T M           S    T M      I S
                       A                M                0              E          0     N          0     E         0     0
                       M                na               na             na               na               na              na


                       p                na               na             na               na               na              na
                           Damariscotta      Sheepscot        Kennebec/          Casco              Saco          Wells
                               River            River        Androscoggin          Bay              Bay           Harbor
                                                                Rivers
             Life Stage    T M          S  T M I         S  T M I S          T M       I S    T     M     S         M S
                       A        0       0        0       0        0     0          V     0          V     0
                       M                na               na             na
                       1        0                0                0     0          V     0          V     0
                       P                na               na             na ,                                                                       I
                              Great          Merrimack      Massachusetts        Boston             Cape
                               Bay              River            Bay             Harbor             Cod
                                                                                                    Bay
             Life Stage    T    M       S   T    M                      S          M     S          M
                       A                                                a          V V              V
                       M                                                na                                na
                       i                                                a          V     V          V     E                                        I
                       P                                                na                                na


                   Relative Abundance                    Salinity Zone                              Life stage


                   A - Highly Abundant                   T - Tidal Fresh                            A - Adults
                   0 - Abundant                          MI - Mixing                                M - Mating
                   0 - Common                            S - Seawater                               J - Juveniles
                   V - Rare                                Salinity Zone not present                P - Parturition
                   Blank - Not present



















          Source: Jury et aL 1994.




                                                                    146










                  Table 6. Temporal distribution and relative abundance of dogfish in North Atlantic estuaries.


                                                                               North Atlantic estuaries
                                 Estuary           Passamaquoddy Say         Englishman / Machias Bays           Narraguagus Say
                                  Month        JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJAsbN[)                                    jFMAMJJASON-ff
                  Life Stage                A               CCCAA                        CCAAAR                        CCAAAC
                                            M               n a                          n a                           n a
                                            i               CCCAA                        CCAAAR                        CCAAAC
                                            P               n a                          n a                           n a
                                 Estuary               Blue Hill Say                Penobscot Bay                Muscongus Bay
                                  Month        JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOiq-D
                  Life Stage                A               CCAAAC                       CAACCR                     RCCCCRR
                                            M               n a                          n a                           n a
                                            i               CCAAAC                       CCCCCR                     RCCCCRR
                                            P               n a                          n a                           n a
                                                                                                            Kennebec / Androscoggin
                                 Estuary            Damariscotta River             Sheepscot River                    Rivers
                                  Month        JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON-6
                  Life Stage                A            RCCCCRR                       RCCCCRR                      RCCCCRR
                                            M               n  a                         n a                           n a
                                            i            RCCCCRR                       RCCCCRR                      RCCCCRR
                                            P               n  a                         n   a                         n a
                                 Estuary                 Casco Bay                     Saco Say                    Wells Harbor
                                  Month        JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND
                  Life Stage                A            RCCCCCR                       RCCCCCRR
                                            M
                                            i            RCCCCCR                       RCCCCCRR


                                 Estuary                 Great Bay                 Merrimack River             Massachusetts Bay
                                  Month        JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND
                  Life Stage                A                                                                       RCAAACR
                                            M                                                                          n a
                                                                                                                    RCAAACR
                                            P                                                                          n a
                                 Estuary              Boston Harbor                 Cape Cod Bay
                                  Month        JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND
                  Life Stage                A            RRRRRRR                       RCAAAAR
                                            M                                            n a
                                            i            RRRRRRR                       RCCAAAR
                                            P                               I          @ n a


                  Relative Abundance                              Life Stage


                  H - Highly Abundant                             A - Adults
                  A - Abundant                                    M - Mating
                  C - Common                                      J - Juveniles
                  R - Rare                                        P - Parturition
                  Blank - Not Present
                  na - No data available









                  Source: Jury et al. 1994




                                                                             147











         Table 7a. Approximate area (percent and number of 10 minute squares) for the dogfish catch and
         area EFH alternatives, for male and female juvenile dogfish caught in the NEFSC bottom trawl
         survey. The logged catch alternative was not presented because the percent area and number of
         squares consistently fall between the catch and area alternatives. The preferred alternative is 90%
         of the area.


         Female juvenile dogfish
                      % Area                             0/6 Catch              Number of 10" squares

                         0                                   0                             0


                         4                                   50                            40


                         12                                  75                            117

                         30                                  90                            293

                         50                                  92                            488

                         75                                  95                            731


                         90                                  98                            878

                         100               1                 100               1           850
         Male juvenile dogfish

                      % Area                             % Catch                Number of 10" squares

                         0                                   0                             0

                         2                                   50                            15

                         7                                   75                            50


                         17                                  90                            131

                         50                                  93                            363

                         75                                  96                            544

                         90                                  99                            653

                         100                                 100                           725






















                                                      148











              Table 7b. Approximate area (percent and number of 10 minute squares) for dog    fish catch and area
              EFH alternatives, for male and female dogfish caught in the NEFSC trawl survey. The logged catch
              alternative was not presented because the percent area and number of squares consistently fall
              between the catch and area alternatives. The preferred alternative is 90% of the area.


              Female adult dogfish
                            % Area                               % Catch                 Number of 10" squares

                               0                                    0                               0

                               6                                    50                              50

                               12                                   75                              102


                               28                                   90                              238


                               50                                   93                              425


                               75                                   96                              638


                               90                                   98                              765


                               100                                  100                             850

              Male adult dogfish

                            % Area                               % Catch                 Number of 10" squares

                               0                                    0                               0


                               6                                    50                              50


                               15                                   75                              125


                               28                                   90                              238


                               50                                   92                              425


                               75                                   95                              638


                               90                                   98                              765


                               100                                  100                             850

























                                                               149











         Table 8. Estuaries designated as essential fish habitat for juvenile and adult dogfish (seawater
         portions only).


          Estuaries                                     Adults                      Juveniles

          Passamaquoddy Bay                                x                           x

          Englishman / Machias Bays                        x                           x

          Narraguagus Bay                                  x                           x

          Blue Hill Bay                                    x                           x

          Penobscot Bay                                    x                           x

          Muscongus Bay                                    x                           x

          Damariscotta Bay                                 x                           x

          Sheepscot Bay                                    x                           x

          Kennebec / Androscoggin Rivers                   x                           x

          Casco Bay                                        x                           x

          Saco Bay                                         x                           x

          Massachusetts Bay                                x                           x

          Cape Cod Bay                                     x                           x
































                                                      150










                  Table 9. Comparisons of intensity and severity of various sources of physical disturbance to the
                  seafloor (based on Hall 1994, Watling and Norse IVIS1997). Intensity is a measure of the force of
                  physical disturbance and severity is the impact on the benthic community.


                    Source                                   Intensity                               Severity

                    ABIOTIC
                    Waves                                    Low during long temporal periods        Low over long temporal periods
                                                             but high during storm events (to        since taxa adapted to these
                                                             70-80 m depth)                          events but high locally depending
                                                                                                     on storm behavior

                    Currents                                 Low since bed shear normally            Low since benthic stages rarely
                                                             lower than critical velocities for      lost due to currents
                                                             large volume and rapid sediment
                                                             movement


                    Iceberg Scour                            High locally since scouring results     High locally due to high mortality
                                                             in significant sediment movement        of animals but low regionally
                                                             but low regionally

                    BIOTIC
                    Bioturbation                             Low since sediment movement             Low since infauna have time to
                                                             rates are small                         repair tubes and burrows

                    Predation                                Low on a regional scale but high        Low on a regional scale but high
                                                             locally due to patchy foraging          locally due to small spatial scales
                                                                                                     of high mortality

                    HUMAN
                    Dredging                                 Low on a regional scale but high        Low an a regional scale but high
                                                             locally due to large volumes of         locally due to high mortality of
                                                             sediment removal                        animals

                    Land Alteration                          Low since sediment laden runoff         Low on a regional scale but high
                    (Causing silt laden runoff)              per se does not exert a strong          locally where siltation over
                                                             physical force                          coarser sediments causes shifts in
                                                                                                     associated-c-ommunities

                    Fishing                                  High due to region wide fishing         Hi gh due to region wide
                                                             eff ort                                 disturbance of most types of
                                                                                                     habitat




















                  Source: Auster and Langton 1998.




                                                                              151







                Table 10. Studies of the impacts of fishing gear on the structural components of fish habitat.


                   Habitat            Gear           Location         Results                                                                                                   Reference(s)
                                      Type

                   Eelgrass           Scallop        North            Comparison of reference quadrats with treatments of 15 and 30 dredgings in hard                           Fonesca et al.
                                      dredge         Carolina         sand and soft mud substrates within eelgrass meadows. Eelgrass biomass was                                (1984)
                                                                      significantly greater in hard sand than soft mud sites, Increased dredging resulted               in
                                                                      significant reductions in eelgrass biomass and number of shoots.

                   Eelgrass and       Clam           North            Comparison of effect of two fishing methods. Raking and "light" clam kicking                              Peterson et al.
                   shoalgrass         rake and       Carolina'        treatments, biomass of seagrass was reduced approximately 25% below reference                             (1987)
                                      ..clam                          sites but recovered within one year. In "intense" clam kicking treatments, biomass of
                                      kicking"                        seagrass declined approximately 65% below reference sites. Recovery did not begin
                                                                      until more than 2 years after impact and biomass was still 35% below the level
                                                                      predicted from controls to show no effect.

                   Eelgrass. and      Clam           North            Compared impacts of two clam rake types on removal of seagrass biomass. The bull                          Peterson et al.
                   shoalgrass         rakes          Carolina         rake removed 89% of shoots and 83% of roots and rhizomes in a completely raked 1                          (1983)
                                      (pea                            m2 area. The pea digger removed 55% of shoots and 37% of roots and rhizomes.
                                      digger
                                      and bull
    N)                                rake)

                   Seagrass           Trawl          western          Noted loss of Posidonia meadows due to trawling; 45% of study area. Monitored                             Guillen et al.
                                                     Mediter-         recovery of the meadows after installing artificial reefs to stop trawling. After 3 years                 (1994)
                                                     ranean           plant density has increased by a factor of 6.

                   Sponge-coral       Roller-        off Georgia      Assessed effect of single tow. Damage to all species of sponge and coral observed;                        Van Dolah et al.
                   hard-bottom        rigged         coast            31.7% of sponges, 30.4% of stony corals, and 3.9% of octocorals. Only density of                          (1987)
                                      trawl                           barrel sponges (Cliona spp.) significantly reduced. Percent of stony coral damage high
                                                                      because of low abundance. Damage to other sponges, octocorals, and hard corals
                                                                      varied but changes in density not significantly different. No significant differences
                                                                      between trawled and reference sites after 12 months.

                   Sponge-coral       roller-        Biscayne         Damage to approximately 50% of sponges, 80% of stony corals, and 38% of soft                              Tilmant (1979)
                   hard-bottom        frame          Bay,             corals.                                                                                                   (cited in Van
                                      shrimp         Florida                                                                                                                    Dolah et al. 1987)
                                      trawl

                   Source: Auster and Langton 1998.










                    Table 10 (continued). Studies of the impacts of fishing gear on the structural components of fish habitat.


                    Habitat            Gear          Location         Results                                                                                                Reference(s)
                                       Type

                    Various            Trawl         North West       Catch rates of all fish and large and small benthos show that in closed areas fish and                 Sainsbury et al.
                    tropical                         Shelf,           small benthos abundance increased over 5 years while large benthos (> 25 cm) stayed                    (In press)
                    emergent                         Australia        the same or increased slightly. In trawled areas all groups of animals declined. Found
                    benthos                                           that settlement rate and growth to 25 cm was on the order of 15 years for the
                                                                      benthos.

                    Gravel             Scallop       Georges          Assessed cumulative impact of fishing. Undredged sites had significantly higher                        Collie et al.
                    pavement           dredge        Bank             percent cover of the tube-dwelling polychaete Filograna implexa and other emergent                     (1996, 1997)
                                                                      epifauna than dredged sites. Undredged sites had higher numbers of organisms,
                                                                      biomass, species richness, and species diversity than dredged sites. Undredged sites
                                                                      were characterized by bushy epifauna (bryozoans, hydroids, worm tubes) while
                                                                      dredged sites were dominated by hard-shelled molluscs, crabs, and echinoderms.

                    Gravel-            Assumed       Gulf of          Comparison of site surveyed in 1987 and revisited in 1993. Initially mud draped                        Auster et al.
                    boulder            roller-       Maine            boulders and high density patches of diverse sponge fauna, In 1993, evidence of                        (1996)
                                       rigged                         moved boulders, reduced densities of epifauna and extreme truncation of high density
      Ca                               trawl                          patches.

                    Cobble-shell       Assumed       Gulf of          Comparison of fished site and adjacent closed area. Statistically significant reduction                Auster et al.
                                       trawl and     Maine            in cover provided by emergent epifauna (e.g., hydroids, bryozoans, sponges, serpulid                   (1996)
                                       scallop                        worms) and sea cucumbers.
                                       dredge

                    Gravel             Beam          Irish Sea        An experimental area was towed 10 times. Density of epif auna (e.g., hydroids; soft                    Kaiser and
                                       trawl                          corals, Alcyonium digitatum) was decreased approximately 50%.                                          Spencer 0 996a)

                    Boulder-           Roller-       Gulf of          Comparisons of single tow trawled lane with adjacent reference lane. Significant                       Freese et al. (In
                    Gravel             rigged        Alaska           reductions in density of structural components of habitat (two types of large sponges                  prep.)
                                       trawl                          and anthozoans). No significant differences in densities of a small sponge and mobile
                                                                      invertebrate fauna. 20. 1 % boulders moved or dragged. 25 % of ophiuroids
                                                                      (Amphiophiura ponderosa) in trawled lanes were crushed or damaged compared to 2%
                                                                      in reference lanes.

                    Gravel over        Scallop       Gulf of St.      Assessed effects of single tows. Suspended fine sediments and buried gravel below                      Caddy (1973)
                    sand               dredge        Lawrence         the sediment-water interface. Overturns boulders.

                    Source: Auster and Langton 1998.







                  Table 10 (continued). Studies of the impacts of fishing gear on the structural components of fish habitat.


                  Habitat           Gear          Location        Results                                                                                             Reference(s)
                                    Type

                  Bryozoan          Otter         New             Qualitative comparison of closed and open areas. Two bryozoans produce "coral-like"                 Bradstock and
                  beds(on           trawl and     Zealand         forms and provide shelter for fishes and their prey. Comparisons of fished site with                Gordon 0 983)
                  sand and          roller-                       reference sites and prior observations from fishers show reduced density and size of
                  cobble)           rigged                        colonies.
                                    trawl

                  Mussel   bed      Otter         Strangford      Comparison of characteristics of trawled and untrawled Modiolus modiolus beds as pre                Magorrian (1995)
                                    trawl         Lough,          and post impacts of a trawl. Trawled areas, confirmed with sidescan sonar, showed
                                                  Northern        mussel beds disconnected with reductions in attached epibenthos. The most impacted
                                                  Ireland         sites were characterized by few or no intact clumps, mostly shell debris, and sparse
                                                                  epifauna. Trawling resulted in a gradient of complexity with flattened regions at the
                                                                  extreme. Immigration of Nephrops into areas previously dominated by Modiolus may
                                                                  result in burial of new recruits due to burrowing activities; precluding a return to a
                                                                  functional mussel bed habitat.

                  Sand-mud          Trawl         Hauraki         Comparisons of 18 sites along a gradient of fishing effort (i.e., heavily fished sites              Thrush et al. (in
    Cn
                                    and           Gulf, New       through unfished reference sites). A gradient of increasing large epifaunal cover                   press)
                                    scallop       Zealand         correlated with decreasing fishing effort.
                                    dredge

                  Soft              Scallop       Port P 'hillip  Compared reference and experimentally towed sites in BACI designed experiment.                      Currie and Parry
                  sediment          dredge        Bay,            Bedforms consisted of cone shaped callianasid mounds and depressions prior to                       (1996)
                                                  Australia       impact. Depressions often contained detached seagrasses and macroalgae. Only
                                                                  dredged plot changed after dredging. Eight days after dredging the area was
                                                                  flattened; mounds were removed and depressions filled. Most callianasids survived
                                                                  and density did not change in 3 mo following dredging. One month post impact,
                                                                  seafloor remained flat and dredge tracks distinguishable. Six months post impact
                                                                  mounds and depressions were present but only at 11 months did the impacted plot
                                                                  return to control plot conditions.

                  Sand              Beam          North Sea       Observations of effects of gear. As pertains to habitat, trawl removed high numbers                 DeGroot 0 984)
                                    trawl                         of the hydroid Tubularia.

                  Source: Auster and Langton        1998.










                   Table 10 (continued). Studies of the impacts of fishing gear on the structural components of fish habitat.


                   Habitat           Gear          Location       Results                                                                                           Reference(s)
                                     Type

                   Gravel-sand-      Trawl         Monterey       Comparison of heavily trawled (HT) and lightly trawled (LT) sites. The seafloor in the            Engel and Kvitek
                   mud                             Bay            HT area had significantly higher densities of trawl tracks while the LT area had                  (MS1 997)
                                                                  significantly greater densities of rocks > 5 cm and mounds. The HT area had shell
                                                                  debris on the surface while the LT area had a cover of flocculent material. Emergent
                                                                  epifauna density was significantly higher for all taxa (anenomes, sea pens, sea whips)
                                                                  in the LT area.

                   Sand              Otter         North Sea      Observations of direct effects of gear. Well buried boulders removed and displaced                Bridger (1970,
                                     trawl                        from sediment. Trawl doors smoothed sand waves. Penetrated seabed 0-40 mm                         1972)
                                                                  (sand and mud).

                   Sand-shell        Assumed       Gulf of        Comparison of fished site and adjacent closed area. Statically significant reduction of           Auster et al.
                                     trawl and     Maine          habitat complexity based on reduced cover provided by biogenic depressions and sea                (1996)
                                     scallop                      cucumbers. Observations at another site showed multiple scallop dredge paths
                                     dredge                       resulting in smoothed bedforms. Scallop dredge paths removed cover provided by
                                                                  hydrozoans which reduced local densities of associated shrimp species. Evidence of
     (n
     Cn                                                           shell aggregates dispersed by scallop dredge.

                   Sand-silt to      Otter         Long Island    Diver observations showed doors produced continuous furrows. Chain gear in wing                   Smith et al. 1985
                   mud               trawl         Sound          areas disrupted amphipod tube mats and bounced on bottom around mouth of net,
                                     with                         leaving small scoured depressions. In areas with drifting macroalgae, the algae draped
                                     chain                        over grounder of net during tows and buffered effects on the seailoor. Roller gear also
                                     sweep                        created scoured depressions. Spacers between discs lessened impacts.
                                     and roller
                                     gear

                   Source: Auster and Langton 1998.







                 Table 11. Studies of short-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                    Taxa                 Gear and              Region           Results                                                                                                     Reference(s)
                                         Sediment
                                         Type

                    Infauna              beam trawl;           Irish Sea,       Assessed at the immediate effects of beam trawling and found a reduction in                                 Kaiser and
                                         megaripples           U. K.            diversity and abundance of some taxa in the more stable sediments of the                                    Spencer (1 996a)
                                         and flat                               northeast sector of their experimental site but could not find similar effects                in the
                                         substrate                              more mobile sediments. Out of the top 20 species 19 had lower abundance levels
                                                                                at the fished site and nine showed a statistically significant decrease. Coefficient
                                                                                of variation for numbers and abundance was higher in the fished area of the NW
                                                                                sector supporting the hypothesis that heterogeneity increases with physical
                                                                                disturbance. Measured a 58% decrease in mean abundance and a 50% reduction
                                                                                in the mean number of species per sample in the sector resulting from removal of
                                                                                the most common species. Less dramatic change in the sector where sediments
                                                                                are more mobile.

                    Starfish             beam trawl;           Irish Sea,       Evaluated damage to starfish at three sites in the Irish sea that experienced                               Kaiser (1996)
                                         coarse sand,          U. K.            different degrees of trawling intensity. Used ICES data to select sites and used
                                         gravel and                             side scan to confirm trawling intensity. Found a significant correlation between
    M                                    shell, muddy                           starfish damage (arm regeneration) and trawling intensity.
    0)                                   sand, mud

                    Horse mussels        otter trawl;          Strangford       Used video/rov, side scan and benthic grabs to characterize the effect of otter                             Industrial
                                         horse mussel          Lough; N.        trawling and scallop dredging on the benthic community. There was special                                   Science Division.
                                         beds,                 Ireland          concern over the impact on Modiolus beds in the Lough. Plotted the known fishing                            (1990)
                                                                                areas and graded impacts based on a subjective 6 point scale; found significant
                                                                                trawl impacts. Side scan supported video observations and showed areas of
                                                                                greatest impact. Found that in otter trawl areas that the otter boards did the most
                                                                                damage. Side scan suggested that sediment characteristics had changed in heavily
                                                                                trawled areas.

                    Benthic fauna        beam trawl;           Irish Sea,       Sampled trawled areas 24 hours after trawling and 6 months later. On stable                                 Kaiser et al IVIS
                                         mobile                U. K.            sediment found significant difference immediately after trawling. Reduction in                              1997
                                         megaripples                            polychaetes but increase in hermit crabs. After six months there was no
                                         structure and                          detectable impact. On megaripples substrate no significant differences were
                                         stable                                 observed immediately after trawling or 6 months later.
                                         uniform
                                         sediment


                    Source: Auster and Langton 1998.










                    Table 11 (continued). Studies of short-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                    Taxa                Gear and            Region           Results                                                                                               Reference(s)
                                        Sediment
                                        Type

                    Bivalves, sea       scallop             Mid-             Submersible study of bivalve harvest operations. Scallops harvested on soft                           Murawski and
                    scallop, surf       dredge,             Atlantic         sediment (sand or mud) had low dredge induced mortality for uncaught animals                          Serchuck (11989)
                    clams, ocean        hydraulic           Bight, USA       (<5%). Culling mortality (discarded bycatch) was low, approx. 10%. Over 90%
                    quahog              clam dredge;                         of the quahogs that were discarded reburrowed and survived whereas 50% of the
                                        various                              surf clams died. Predators crabs, starfish, fish and skates, moved in on the
                                        substrate                            quahogs and clams in the predator density 10 items control area levels within 8
                                        types                                hours post dredging. Noted numerous "minute" predators feeding in trawl tracks.
                                                                             Non-harvested animals, sand dollars, crustaceans and worms significantly
                                                                             disrupted but sand dollars suffered little apparent mortality.

                    Ocean quahog        hydraulic           Long             Evaluated clam dredge efficiency over a transect and changed up to 24 hours later.                    Meyer et al.
                                        clam dredge;        Island,          After dredge f ills it creates a "windrow of clams". Dredge penetrates up to 30 cm                    (1981)
                                                            N.Y., USA        and pushes sediment into track shoulders. After 24 hours track looks like a
                                                                             shallow depression. Clams can be cut or crushed by dredge with mortality ranging
                                                                             from 7 to 92 %, being dependent on size and location along dredge path. Smaller
       4                                                                     clams survive better and are capable of reburrowing in a few minutes. Predators,
                                                                             crabs, starfish and snails, move in rapidly and depart within 24 hours.

                    Macro-              scallop             Mercury          Bqnthic community composed of small short-lived animals at two experimental                           Thrush et al.
                    benthos             dredge;             Bay, New         and adjacent. control sites. Sampling before and after dredging and three months                      (1995)
                                        coarse sand         Zealand          later. Dredging caused an immediate decrease in density of common macrofauna.
                                                                             Three months later some populations had not recovered. Immediate post-trawling
                                                                             snails, hermit crabs and starfish were feeding on damaged and exposed animals

                    Scallops and        scallop             Port Phillip     Sampled twice before dredging and three times afterwards, up to 88 days later.                        Currie and Parry
                    associated          dredge; '.Soft      Bay,             The mean difference in species number increased from 3 to 18 after trawling. The                      (1994)
                    fauna               sediment"           Australia        total number of individuals increased over the sampling time on both experimental
                                                                             and control primarily as a result of amphipod recruitment, but the number of
                                                                             individuals at the dredged sites were always lower than the control. Dissimilarity
                                                                             increased significantly, as a result of dredging, because of a decrease in species
                                                                             numbers and abundance.


                    Source: Auster and Langton 1998.







                 Table 11 (continued). Studies of short-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                 Taxa               Gear and          Region         Results                                                                                       Reference(s)
                                    Sediment
                                    Type
                 Sea Scallops       otter trawl       Gulf of St.    Observed physical change to sea floor from otter doors and scallop dredge and                 Caddy(1973)
                 and                and scallop       Lawrence,      lethal and nonlethal damage to the scallops. Noted an increase in the most active
                 associated         dredge;           Canada         predators within the trawl tracks compared to outside; winter flounder, sculpins
                 fauna              gravel and                       and rock crabs. No increase in starfish or other sedentary forms within in an hour
                                    sand                             of dredging.
                 Macrofauna         beam trawl;       North Sea,     Sampling before and after beam trawling I* hrs, 16 hrs and 2 weeks) showed                    Bergman and
                                    hard-sandy        coast of       species specific changes in macrofaunal abundance. Decreasing density ranged                  Hup(1992)
                                    substrate         Holland        from 10 to 65% for species of echinoderms (starfish and sea urchins but not brittle
                                                                     stars ), tube dwelling polychaetes and molluscs at the two week sampling period.
                                                                     Density of some animals did not change others increased but these were not
                                                                     significant after 2 weeks.

                 Benthic fauna      beam trawl        North Sea,     Preliminary report using video and photographs comparing trawled and untrawled                Rumhor et al.
                                    and shrimp        German         areas. Presence and density of brittle stars, hermit crabs, other "large" crustaceans         (1994)
    00                              trawl; hard       coast          and flatfish was higher in the controls than the beam trawl site. Difference in sand
                                    sandy                            ripple formation in trawled areas was also noted, looking disturbed not round and
                                    bottom, shell                    well developed. Found a positive correlation with damage to benthic animals and
                                    debris and                       individual animal size. Found less impact with the shrimp trawl, diver observations
                                    sandy-mud                        confirmed low level of impact although the net was "festooned" with worms.
                                                                     Noted large megafauna, mainly crabs, in trawl tracks.

                 Soft bottom        beam trawl;       North Sea,     Compared animal densities before and after trawling and looked at fish stomach                Santbrink and
                 macrofauna         very fine         Dutch          contents. Found that total mortality due to trawling varied between species and               Bergman (1994)
                                    sand              Sector         size class of fish, ranging from 4 to 139% of pretrawling values. (values> 100%
                                                                     indicate animals moving into the trawled area). Mortality for echinoderms was
                                                                     low, 3 to 19%, undetectable for some molluscs, esp. solid shells or small animals,
                                                                     while larger molluscs had a 12 to 85% mortality. Burrowing crustaceans had low
                                                                     mortality but epifaunal crustaceans approximated 30 % but ranged as high as
                                                                     74%. Annelids were generally unaffected except for Pectinaria, a tube building
                                                                     animal. Generally mortality increased with number of times the area was trawled
                                                                     (once or twice). Dab were found to be the major savager, immigrating into the
                                                                     area and eating damaged animals.

                 Source: Auster and Langton 1998.










                    Table 11 (continued). Studies of short-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.



                    Taxa               Gear and           Region          Results                                                                                            Reference(s)
                                       Sediment
                                       Type

                    Hermit Crabs       beam trawl         Irish Sea,      Compared the catch and diet of two species of hermit crab on trawled and control                   Ramsey et al.
                                                          U. K.           sites. Found significant increases in abundance on the trawl lines two to four days                (1996)
                                                                          after trawling for both species but also no change for one species on one of two
                                                                          dates. Found a general size shift towards larger animals after trawling. Stomach
                                                                          contents weight was higher post-trawling for one species. Diets of the crabs were
                                                                          similar but proportions differed.
                    Sand               scallop            Irish Sea       Compared experimental treatments based frequency of tows ji.e., 2,4,12,25).                        Eleftheriou and
                    macrofauna         dredge                             Bottom topography changes did not change grain size distribution, organic carbon,                  Robertson
                    and infauna                                           or chlorophyll content. Bivalve molluscs and peracarid crustaceans did not show                    (1992)
                                                                          significant changes in abundance or biomass. Polychaetes and urchins showed
                                                                          significant declines. Large molluscs, crustaceans and sand eels were also
                                                                          damaged. In general, there was selective elimination of fragile and sedentary
                                                                          components of the infauna as well as large epifaunal taxa.
      Ch
                    Source: Auster and Langton 1998.







                 Table 12. Studies of long-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                   Habitat Type and                  Time          Location        Effect                                                                                    Reference
                   Taxa Present                      Period
                   Sand; macrobenthos and            2-7           Bay of          Experimental trawling in high energy area. Otter trawl doors dug up to 5                  Brylinsky et al.
                   meiofauna                         months        Fundy           cm deep and marks were visible for 2 to 7 months. Initial significant                     (1994)
                                                                                   effects on benthic diatoms and nematodes but no significant impact on
                                                                                   macrofauna. No significant longterm effects.
                   Quartz sand; benthic              5months       South           Compared benthic community in two areas, one open to trawling one                         Van Dolah et al.
                   infauna                                         Carolina        closed, before and after shrimp season, Found variation with time but no                  (1991)
                                                                   Estuary         relationship between variations and trawling per se.
                   Sandy;  ocean quahogs             ----          Western         Observed otter board damage to bivalves, especially ocean quahogs, and                    Rumhor and
                                                                   Baltic          found an inverse relation between shell thickness and damage and a                        Krost (1991)
                                                                                   positive correlation between shell length and damage.
                   Subtidal shallows and             100 years     Wadden          Reviewed changes in benthic community documented over 100 years.                          Reise (1982)
                   channel; macrobenthos                           Sea             Considered 101species. No long term trends in changing abundance for
                                                                                   42 common species, with 11 showing considerable variation. Sponges,
                                                                                   coelenterates and bivalves suffered greatest losses while polychaetes
                                                                                   showed the largest gains. Decrease subtidally for common species from
                                                                                   53 to 44 and increase intertidally from 24 to 38.
    C)             Intertidal sand; lug worms        4 years       Wadden          Studied impact of lugworm harvesting versus control site. Machine digs                    Beukema (1995)
                                                                   Sea             40 cm gullies. Immediate impact is a reduction in several benthic species
                                                                                   and slow recovery for some the larger long-lived species like soft shelled
                                                                                   clams. With one exception, a polychaete, the shorter-lived macrobenthic
                                                                                   animals showed no decline. It took several years for the area to recover
                                                                                   to prefishing conditions.
                   Various habitat types; all        ---           North Sea       Review of fishing effects on the North Sea based primarily on ICES North                  Gislason (1994)
                   species                                                         Sea Task Force reports. Starfish, sea urchins and several polychaetes
                                                                                   showed a 40 to 60 % reduction in density after beam trawling but some
                                                                                   less abundant animals showed no change and one polychaete increased.
                                                                                   At the scale of the North Sea the effect of trawling on the benth6s is
                                                                                   unclear.

                   Source: Auster and Langton 1998.










                     Table 12 (continued). Studies of long-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                     Habitat Type and                 Time           Location       Effect                                                                                   Reference
                     Taxa Present                     Period
                     Sand; macrofauna                 73 years       Kattegatt      Compared benthic surveys form 1911-1912 with 1984. Community                             Pearson et al.
                                                                                    composition has changed with only approximately 30% similarity                           (1985)
                                                                                    between years at most stations. Primary change was a decrease in sea
                                                                                    urchins and increase in brittle stars. Animals were also smaller in 1984.
                                                                                    Deposit feeders have decreased while suspension feeders and carnivores
                                                                                    have increased.
                     Subtidal shallows and            55 years       Wadden         Documented increase in mussel beds and associated species such as                        Riesen and Reise
                     channels; Macrofauna                            Sea,           polychaetes and barnacles when comparing benthic survey data. Noted                      (1982)
                                                                     Germany        loss of oyster banks, Sabellaria reefs and subtidal sea grass beds. Oysters
                                                                                    were overexploited and replaced by mussels; Zostera lost to disease.
                                                                                    Conclude that major habitat shifts are the result of human influence.
                     146 stations; Ocean                             Southern       Arctica valves were collected from 146 stations in 1991 and the scars on                 Witbaard and
                     Quahogs                                         North Sea,     the valve surface were dated, using internal growth bands, as an indicator               Klein (1994)
                                                                     Europe         of the frequency of beam trawl damage between 1959 and 1991.
                                                                                    Numbers of scars varied regionally and temporally and correlated with
                                                                                    fishing.
                     Various habitats;                85 years       Western        Discusses change and causes of change observed in benthic community                      Holme (1983)
                     Macrofauna                                      English;       based on historic records and collections.        Discusses effects of fishing
                                                                     Channel,       gear on dislodging hydroid and bryozoan colonies, and speculates that
                                                                     UK             effects reduce settlement sites for queen scallops.
                     Gravel/sand;                     3 years        Central        Compared heavily trawled area with lightly trawled (closed) area using                   Engel and Kvitek
                     Macrofauna                                      California,    Smith Maclntyre grab samples and video transect data collected over                      (MS 1997)
                                                                     USA            three years. Trawl tracks and shell debris were more numerous in heavily
                                                                                    trawled area, as were amphinomid polychaetes and oligochaetes in most
                                                                                    years. Rocks, mounds and flocculent material were more numerous at the
                                                                                    lightly trawled station. Commercial fish were more common in the lightly
                                                                                    trawled area as were epifaunal invertebrates. No significant differences
                                                                                    were found between stations in term of biomass of most other
                                                                                    invertebrates.
                     Fine sand; razor clam            ----           Barrinha,      Evaluated disturbance lines in shell matrix of the razor clam and found an               Gaspar et al.
                                                                     Southern       increase in number of disturbance lines with length and age of the clams.                (1994)
                                                                     Portugal       Sand grains were often incorporated into the shell suggestive of a major
                                                                                    disturbance , such as trawling damage, and subsequent recovery and
                                                                                    repair of the shell.
                     Source: Auster and Langton 1998.







                   Table 12 (continued). Studies of long-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                   Habitat Type and                  Time           Location         Effect                                                                                     Reference
                   Taxa Present                      Period
                   Fine to medium sand;              ----           Southern         Compared areas unfished, recently fished and currently fished for ocean                    MacKenzie
                   ocean.quahogs                                    New              quahogs using hydraulic dredges. Sampled invertebrates with a Smith                        (1982)
                                                                    Jersey,          MacIntyre grab. Few significant differences in numbers of individuals or
                                                                    USA              species were noted, no pattern suggesting any relationship to dredging.
                   Gravel, shell debris and          8 years        Strangford       Review paper of effects of queen scallop fishery on the horse mussel                       Brown (11989)
                   fine mud; Horse mussel                           Lough,           community. Compared benthic survey from the 1975-80 period with
                   community                                        Northern         work in 1988. Scallop fishery began in 1980. Modiblus community has
                                                                    Ireland          remained unchanged essentially from 1857 to 1980. The scallop fishery
                                                                                     has a large benthic fauna( bycatch, including horse mussels. Changes in
                                                                                     the horse mussel community are directly related to the initiation of the
                                                                                     scallop fishery and there is concern about the extended period it will take
                                                                                     for this community to recover.
                   Shallow muddy sand;               6 months       Maine,           Sampled site before, immediately after and up to 6 months after trawling.                  Watling et al.
                   scallops                                         USA              Loss of surficial sediments and lowered food quality of sediments,                         (MS 1997)
                                                                                     measured as microbial populations, enzyme hydrolyzable amino acids and
                                                                                     chlorophyll a, was observed. Variable recovery by benthic community.
    0)
                                                                                     Correlation with returning fauna and food quality of sediment.
                   Sand and seagrass; hard           4 years        North            Evaluated effects of clam raking and mechanical harvesting on hard clams,                  Peterson et al.
                   shelled clams and bay                            Carolina,        bay scallops, macroinvertebrates and seagrass biomass. In sand,                            (1987)
                   scallops                                         USA              harvesting adults showed no clear pattern of effect. With light harvesting
                                                                                     seagrass biomass dropped 25% immediately but recovered in a year. In
                                                                                     heavy harvesting seagrass biomass fell 65% and recovery did not start for
                                                                                     > 2 years and did not recover up to 4 years later. Clam harvesting
                                                                                     showed no effect on macroinvertebrates. Scallop densities correlated
                                                                                     with seagrass biomass.
                   Gravel pavement; benthic          Not            Northern         Used side scan, video and naturalist dredge sampling to characterize                       Collie et al.
                   magafauna                         known          Georges          disturbed and undisturbed sites based on fishing activity records.                         (1997)
                                                                    Bank, USA        Documented a gradient of community structure from deep, undisturbed to
                                                                                     shallow disturbed sites. Undisturbed sites had more individual organisms,
                                                                                     greater biomass, greater species richness and diversity and were
                                                                                     characterized by an abundant bushy epiiauna. Disturbed sites were
                                                                                     dominated by hard-shelled molluscs, crabs and echinoderms.
                   Source: Auster and Langton 1998.










                    Table 12 (continued). Studies of long-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                    Habitat Type and                   Time           Location        Effect                                                                                     Reference
                    Taxa Present                       Period

                    Sand; epifauna                     3 year         Grand           Experimentally trawled site 12 times each year within 31 to 34 hours for                   Prena et al. (MS
                                                                      Banks,          three years. Total invertebrate bycatch biomass declined over the three                    1997)
                                                                      Canada          year study in trawls. Epibenthic sled samples showed lower biomass,
                                                                                      averaging 25%, in trawled areas than reference sites. Scavenging crabs
                                                                                      were observed in trawl tracks after first 6 hours and trawl damage to
                                                                                      brittle stars and sea urchins was noted. No significant effects of trawling
                                                                                      were found for four dominant species of mollusc.
                    Sand, shrimp and                   7 months       New             Sampled macrofauna, pretrawling, after trawling and after commercial                       Gibbs et al.
                    macrobenthos                                      South           shrimp season using Smith McIntyre grab at experimental and control                        (1980)
                                                                      Wales,          sites. Under water observation of trawl gear were also made. No
                                                                      Australia       detectable changes in macrobenthos was found or observed.
                    Soft sediment;    scallops         17             Port Phillip    Sampled 3 months before trawling and 14 months after trawling. Most                        Currie and Parry
                    and associated    fauna            months         Bay,            species showed a 20 to 30% decrease in abundance immediately after                         (1996)
                                                                      Australia       trawling. Dredging effects generally were not detectable following the
                                                                                      next recruitment within 6 months but some animals had not returned to
                                                                                      the trawling site 14 months post trawling.
      a)
                    Bryozoans; fish   and              ----           Tasman          Review of ecology of the coral-like bryozoan community and changes in                      Bradstock and
                    associated fauna                                  Bay, New        fishing gear and practices since the 1950s. Points out the                                 Gordon 0 9831
                                                                      Zealand         interdependence of fish with this benthic community and that the area
                                                                                      was closed to fishing in 1980 because gear had developed which could
                                                                                      fish in and destroy the benthic community thereby destroying the fishery.


                    Various habitat types;             5 + years,     North           Describes a habitat dependent fishery and an adaptive management                           Sainsbury et al.
                    diverse tropical fauna             ongoing        West            approach to sustaining the fishery. Catch rates of all fish and large and                  (In press)
                                                                      Shelf,          small benthos show that in closed areas fish and small benthos abundance
                                                                      Australia       increased over 5 years while large benthos (> 25 cm) stayed the same or
                                                                                      increased slightly. In trawled areas all groups of animals declined. Found
                                                                                      that settlement rate and growth to 25 cm was on the order of 15 years
                                                                                      for the benthos.

                    Source: Auster and Langton 1998.







                 Table 12 (continued). Studies of long-term impacts of fishing on benthic communities.


                 Habitat Type and               Time          Location       Effect                                                                             Reference
                 Taxa Present                   Period
                 Mudflat; commercial clam       7 months      South-east     Sampled benthic community on a commercial clam culture site and control            Kaiser et al.
                 cultivation and benthos                      England        area at the end of a two year growing period, immediately after sampling,          0 996a)
                                                                             and again 7 months later. Infaunal abundance was greatest under the
                                                                             clam culture protective netting but species composition was similar to
                                                                             controls. Harvesting with a suction dredge changed the sediment
                                                                             characteristics and reduced the numbers of individual animals and species.
                                                                             Seven months later the site had essentially returned to the unharvested
                                                                             condition.
                 Sand; razor clam and           40 days       Loch           Compared control and experimentally harvested areas using a hydraulic              Hall et al. 11990)
                 benthos                                      Gairloch,      dredge at 1 day and 40 days after dredging. On day one a non-selective
                                                              Scotland       reduction in the total numbers of all infaunal species was apparent but no
                                                                             differences were observed after forty days.
                 Sand and muddy areas;          3years;       German         Investigated macro-zoobenthos communities around a sunken ship that                Arntz et al.
                 Macro-zoobenthos               ongoing       Bite,          had been "closed" to fishing for three years. Compared this site with a            (1994)
                                                              Germany        heavily fished area. Preliminary results show an increase in polychaetes
                                                                             and the bivalve Tellina in the fished, sandy, area. The data does not yet
                                                                             allow for a firm conclusion regarding the unfished area but there is some
                                                                             (nonsignificant) increase in species numbers and some delicate, sensitive
                                                                             species occurred within the protected zone.
                 Source: Auster and Langton 1998.













             Table 13. Total commercial landings in millions of pounds by gear type from Maine to Virginia, in
              1995.


                  GEAR TYPE                       X 106 POUNDS     % OF TOTAL


                  PURSE SEINE, MENHADEN                 739            44.90%
                  TRAWL, OTTER, BOTTOM                  249            15.12%
                  UNKNOWN                               142            8.60%
                  DREDGE, CLAM                          118            7.17%
                  PURSE SEINE, HERRING                  76             4.63%
                  POT/TRAP, LOBSTER                     71             4.32%
                  TRAWL, OTTER, MIDWATER                69             4.25%
                  GILL NET, SINK, OTHER                 58             3.55%
                  DIVING GEAR                           28             1.70%
                  DREDGE, SCALLOP, SEA                  22             1.32%
                  POTS + TRAPS, OTHER                   21             1.28%
                  DREDGE,OTHER                          17             1.02%
                  OTHER                                 14             0.82%
                  LONGLINE, BOTTOM                      10             0.62%
                  LONGLINE, PELAGIC                     6              0.36%
                  GILL NET, OTHER                       3              0.19%
                  POUND NET                             2              0.13%
                  PURSE SEINE, OTHER                    1              0.04%
                  GRAND TOTAL                           1650          100.00%



























             Source: USDC weighout file 1995.





                                                          165











            Table 14. Fishing gear managed by South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.


            Gear Impacts and Council Action
            Gear Used in Fisheries Under South Atlantic Council Fishery Management Plans

                     The following is a list of gear currently in use (or regulated) in fisheries managed under the South Atlantic Council
            fishery management plans. In general, if gear is not listed, it is prohibited or not commonly used in the fishery:

            Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan
            1 .Vertical hook-and-line gear, including hand-held rod and manual or electric reel or "bandit gear" with manual, electric or
               hydraulic reel (recreational and commercial).

            2. Spear fishing gear including powerheads (recreational and commercial).

            3. Bottom longlines (commercial).
                Prohibited south of a line running east of St. Lucie Inlet, Florida and in depths less than 50 fathoms north of that line.
                May not be used to fish for wreckfish.

            4. Sea bass pots lcommercial).
                May not be used or possessed in multiple configurations.
                Pot'size, wire mesh size and construction restrictions.
                May not be used in the EEZ south of a line running due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building, Cape Canaveral,
                Fforida.


            5. Special Management Zones (created under the Snapper Grouper FMP).
                Sea bass pots are prohibited in all Special Management Zones.
                Fishing may only be conducted with hand-held hook-and-line gear (including manual, electric, or hydraulic rod and reel)
                and spearfishing gear in specified Special Management Zones, however, and other specified Special Management Zones
                a hydraulic or electric real that is permanent affixed to a vessel ("bandit gear") and or spear fishing gear (or only
                powerheads) are prohibited.

            Shrimp Fishery Management Plan
            1. Shrimp trawls -- wide-ranging types including otter trawls, mongoose trawls, rock shrimp trawls, etc. (commercial).
               - Specified areas are closed to trawling for rock shrimp.

            Red Drum Fishery Management Plan
            1. No harvest or possession is allowed in or from the EEZ (no gear specified).

            Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan
            1. Crab traps (commercial).
               - May not be fished in water depths less than 900 feet in the northern zone and 700 feet in the middle and southern
                zones.
               - Trap size, wire mesh size, and construction restrictions.


            Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat
            1. Hand harvest only for allowable species (recreational and commercial).
            2. Oculina Bank Habitat Area of particular concern.
                Fishing with bottom longlines, bottom trawls, dredges, ports, or traps is prohibited.
                Fishing vessels may not anchor, use and anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain.

            Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resource Fishery Management Plan
            1. Hook-and-line gear, usually rod and reel or bandit gear, hand lines, flat lines, etc. (recreational and commercial).
            2. Run-around gillnets or sink nets (commercial).
                A gillnet must have a float line less than 1,000 yards in length to fish for coastal migratory pelagic species.
                Gillnets must be at least 4-3/4 inch stretch mesh.
            3. Purse seines for other coastal migratory species (commercial) with an incedental catch allowance for Spanish mackerel
               (10%) and king mackerel 0 %).
            4. Surface longlines primarily for dolphin.














                                                                        166












             Table 15. Proposed impact of fishing gear on dogfish EFH.



             GEAR TYPE                 KNOWN     POTENTIAL NO EXPECTED


             PURSE SEINE, MENHADEN                                 X
             TRAWL, OTTER, BOTTOM                    X
             UNKNOWN                                               X
             DREDGE,CLAM                             X
             PURSE SEINE, HERRING                                  X
             POT/TRAP, LOBSTER                       X
             TRAWL, OTTER, MIDWATER                                X
             GILL NET, SINK, OTHER                   X
             DIVING GEAR                                           X
             DREDGE, SCALLOP, SEA                    X
             POTS + TRAPS, OTHER                     X
             DREDGE,OTHER                            X
             OTHER                                                 X
             LONGLINE, BOTTOM                                      X
             LONGLINE, PELAGIC                                     X
             GILL NET, OTHER                         X
             POUND NET                                             X
             PURSE SEINE, OTHER                                    X




































                                                       167







            Table 16. Matrix of prioritized threats in regards to their potential impact to dogfish EFH along the Atlantic coast.


                                                                                             IMPACTS




                                                                                                   E
                                                                                 a)
                                                                                        C      ca                       E
                                                                                 E      L-
                                                                                                                        Lo
                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                               -C
                                                                                               6-                   E                 R
                                                                                               0         C                 C:             Q-
                                                                                                         0       0  Ln     0
                                                                             Ch  4)
                                                    CL                                                C:                0                 L)
                                                                                    0   0          C
                                                                                                      0                            (D CL
                                                                         0   W   -  "   =                               0  [2      0
                                                                                               W   >'            0  2)     0   C   W  0)  0
                                                                                 cc                   M  E       0- 0   a) -C  0   4) 46  X
                                                           0                 E                     Ch
                                                    0                                   :1     0)                       0) (D             CD
                                                                                 OL E                    M
                                                    a                               =                            0  u   M  -              4-
                                                    0   0  [2                    E  W       0  -So =0 E  -C                           r-  0
                                                        0)                                                       0      E  0   2
                                                           Q                                   M   CL M                    "a  0      0
                                                        M  =   ><                                        0              ca
                                                    .C     Co     .9-        (D         C      0   C  C          a) d)  -0 0          E   6
                                                                  L-         'a                                  r- M      0          a)
                                                    0      -0                           a)     -      8                            0) U
                                                           C          C  CM  C   W      M      a   0) 2  a)      CL C      CL  0
                                                    CY)    Cc     0   0      (1) CD CD      X  W   CD                                 -2
                                                                         C                  0         4) E                     :E
                                                                  U)  *@iM   CL  C  q   C             -  :Ei a)  0             ca- 4-: 0-
                                                        wwwwo.rcnm
                                                    -C          0 0          =   =
                                                               -j -j  W" 0   U)  C)     0   M  Z             5      0              CL in  C
                                                                                                                      I (L
                                                                                                                                      X
              Threat                                    C6 (j  .6 Uj  L@                    -j                                        >1
              1.0 Coastal Development
   OD
              2.0 Nonpoint Source Pollution

              3.0 Dredging and Dredge Spoil Placement

              4.0 Port Development, Utilization, and Shipping

              5.0 Marinas and Recreational Boating

              6.0 Energy Production and Transport

              7.0 Sewage Treatment and Disposal

              8.0 Industrial Wastewater and Solid Wastes

              9.0 Marine Mining

              10.0 Aquaculture

              11.0 Ocean Disposal

              12.0 Introduced Species










                  Table 17. Physical characteristics and nutrient loadings             for eight major Mid-Atlantic estuaries.


                   Location                             Volume        Surface       Average          Total          Estimated Estimated
                                                      (cubic ft.)        Area          Daily       Drainage         Nitrogen   Phosphoru
                                                                     (sq. mi.)       Inflow           Area          Loadings   s Loadings
                                                                                       (cfs)       (sq. mi.)        (tons/yr.)  (tons/yr.)
                   Delaware Bay                         4.48 x           768         19,800         13,450          50,199        13,109
                                                          1011                                                      (High)        (High)
                                                        3.85 x                                                      1,425           82
                   Delaware Inland Bays*                  109            33.3          300             292          Wed-          Wed.)
                                                                                                                    High)
                   Chincoteague Bay                     2.25 x           137           400            300           292             84
                                                          1010                                                      (Low)         (Low)

                                                        2.59 x                                                      119,929       16,813
                   Chesapeake Bay                         1o12         3,830        85,800         69,280           (High)        (High)
                   Albemarle-Pamlico Sound              1.08 x        2,949         46,000         29,574           28,224        3,565
                                                          1012                                                      (High)        (High)
                   Bogue Sound                          1.31 x           102         1,300            680           710             56
                                                          1010                                                      (Low)         (Low)
                   New River                            5.18 x           32            800            470           616            112
                                                          109                                                       (Low)         Wed.)
                   Cape Fear River                      1.22 x           38          10,100         9,090           8,102         1,486
                                                          1010                                                      Wed.)         (High)







                 Source: Cooper and Lipton 1994






















                                                                              169







                         Table 18. Recent trends In selected parameters characterizing eutropication, by estuary.




                                                                                              M
                                                                                              C0

                                                                                              0
                                                                                              8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     DID
                                                                                                                                                                                            2                                         8                    0
                                                                                                                  Go                                   01
                                                                                                                                            cu
                                                                                                                                                       ca                                                                             _e                   W                             to
                                                                                                                             cc             co                                 DO                                                     M                              a)       -e         ca
                                                                                                        M         0)         DO                                                                                                                                               M
                                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                        E                                                                      8                                 M         M
                                                                                                                                                       0)                                                                                       M          M                             0
                                                                                                                                                                                                          DO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ca        DO                              M
                                                                                              2         U)                                                                     CIL                                                    CL        E                    cc
                                                                                                                                                       8         M                                                                                         E
                                                                                                                                            0                                                                                                   '2
                                                                                                                                            C                    E             4)           C             (a                          E                                                  CL
                                                                                                                  M          0              W                    M                          4)            M      M         4")        (a        0          :3        M        0          W
                                                                                              U)        W         Z          FM             a.                   C3            (A           y             L)     W         0          M         2          a:        2        in         ()
                                                                                              M         M     S   M   S      M   S     T    M   S      M    S    M S      T    M   S   T    M   S         MS     M  S      M S    _-@-S         -,I        M S       S        M   S      S
                         CHLOROPHYLL A (pg/11                                                 0   0     ?     ?   ?          ?   0     7    ?   7      7    0    ?        ?    0   0   ?    7             00     0  a
                         TURBIDITY                                                            V,  0     ?     A   ?          ?   *     ?    ?   ?      ?    ?    ?        6    0   0   7    ?   :         VI     ?  ?        *0       1? '?         1?                        0?
                         NUISANCE ALGAE                                           event duration0 0     ?     ?   7   ?      ?   ?     ?    0   0      ?    ?    ?        0    0   0   ?    ?   7         a0     0  0        0        0  0          ?      0 0       0        ?   7      0
                                                                  ............................
                                                             re   uency of occurrence         0   0     ?     ?              7   ?     ?    0   0                0        0    0   0   ?    7   7         0a     0  0        0        0  0      ?   ?

                         TOXIC ALGAE                                              event duration0 0     ?                                                        7 0      0    0   0   ?    ?   ?         0*     0  0      0 0        0  0      ?   7      * 0       0        ?   ?      0
                                                         ...................................
                                                             frequency of occurrence          0   0     ?     0              ?   a     7    0   0                0 0      0    0   0   ?    ?   ?         00     0  0      * 0        *  0      ?   ?      0 0       0        ?   7      0
                         MACROALGAL                                                           A         ?     A   ?   ?      ?   e     ?    ?                                      *   ?    ?   ?         *A-    ?  ?      A-A-       *  *      ?   ?      ?         A        ?   A-     A

                         EPIPHYTE ABUNDANCE                                                   7   0     ?     ?   ?          ?   ?     ?    ?   ?      46   0    0 0      a    0   0   ?    ?   ?         00     ?  ?                           ?   ?                0        ?   ?
                         NITROGEN (mg/1)                                                      &   e     ?     e   ?   ?      e   *     ?    V-  *      ?    *    * *      e    9   9   ?    ?   ?         oe     e                    ?  ?      ?   ?        9       *        ?   *      A-
                         PHOSPHORUS Jmg/1)                                                    *   0     ?     ?   ?   ?      0   0     0    a   0           0    0 a      0    0   0   ?    ?   ?         00     0         V          ?  ?      ?   ?        0       0        ?   0      *
                         BOTTOM DO (mg/1)                                                     A   e     ?         ?   ?      *   *     A    A                             A- ?     9   ?    ?   ?         AA     A                    ?  ?      ?   ?        e       e        ?   *      V-
                         ANOXIA                                                   event duration? 0     ?     ?   ?   ?      0         V    V                             ?    ?   0            7         ?V     ?  ?                 ?  ?      ?   ?        0       0        ?   ?      0
                                                             ... .. .. .. ... .....
                                                             Are qu en cy         of occurren ce? 0     ?     ?   ?   ?      0         V    V                             ?    ?   ?            ?         ?V     ?  ?                 ?  ?      ?   ?        0       0        ?   0      4
                                                                     .... . . .. ......
                                                                     spa          IiaIcov erage?  0     ?     ?   ?   ?      0         V    V                             ?    ?   0            ?         ?V     7  ?      0 0        ?  ?      ?   ?      0 0                ?   0      0
                         HYPOXIA                                                  event duration? 0     ?     ?   ?   ?      0         V    V   0      9.   ?    0 0      ?    ?   0   ?    ?   ?         VV     ?  ?      0          ?  ?      ?   ?                         ?   7      0
                                                             ... .. .. .. ... .. ..
                                                             fre qu an cy         of oc curran ce?0     ?     ?   ?   ?      *         V    V   0                                           ?             VV     ?  ?      0          ?  ?      ?   ?                         ?   0      0
                                                                     s            pa tiaIcov erage?0    ?         ?   ?                V    V   0      0.   ?    0 0      ?    ?   0   ?    ?             VV     ?  ?                 ?
                         BIOLOGICAL STRESS                                        event duration? 0     ?         ?   ?                V    V   0      9.                              ?    ?   ?         VV     7  ?      0          ?  ?      ?   ?      0 0       0        ?          0
                                                             tre.qu.an.cy'of'occu'rr*en'ce*"  ?   0     ?                              V    V   0      0.                              ?    ?   ?         ?V     ?  ?      0          ?  ?      ?   ?      9 0       *        ?          0
                                                                     . .. . . .........
                                                                     s            patiacoverage                   ?                    V    V               ?    0        ?    ?   0            ?         VV     ?  ?      *          ?  ?      ?   ?      0 0       0        ?          0

                         PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY                                                                     ?                    ?    ?               ?    0*            0   0        0*            ??     ?  ?      0          ?  ?      ?   ?      0 0       0        ?          0

                         PLANKTONIC COMMUNITY                                                 ?   0     ?         ?                    ?    ?               ?    0             0   0   0.0.               ?0     ?  ?      ?          ?  ?      ?   ?      0 0       0        ?          0
                         BENTHIC COMMUNITY                                                    ?   0     ?         ?   ?      ?   0     7    0   0      ?    ?    * 6      0    0   0   0.0.               00     ?  ?      0 0        ?  ?      ?   ?      0 0       G)           (2)    0
                         SAV (spatial coverage)                                               *   A I   ?     7 1 ?   ?      0   0 1   ?    ?   ?      ?    71* **l       ?    ?   7   1 e, **   I        eV 1?     7 A      A I*        e I    ?   V      * *       V            V      V
                         ? - unknown          V - decreasing trend                     speculative response           0  -no trend or shift            A-   increasing    trend        (D - shift from annelids                 shift from a    mixture of annelids  and
                         Source: USDC 1997d                                                                                                                                                     to diverse                        and crustaceans to crustaceans to crustaceans









                                     Table 18 (continued). Recent trends in selected parameters characterizing eutropication, by estuary.









                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      to                                  to



                                                                                                                  M S             TM     S     M    S     T    M   S       T  M        M    S     T    M     S     iM    S IM                T    M    S           IMSI   M S         S I     T   M    S  IT         1A 17      M           TM IT       M  IT        M IT       M     T  M    I   T    M
                                     CHLOROPHYLL A (pg/I I                                                        I    A-         ee,                                                                                                 A- A-                        te*    V- a        I,      e   *    III,          Ae    a    V           A A    A    A      A     A                            A A
                                     TURBIDITY (concentration)                                                    ?                                            V"                      00   00               ?     I     ?            ?      0    0    0           00     a    1      0       0   0    0             00    0    V           0      0                                     V             V
                                     NUISANCE ALGAE                                             event duration    ?    ?          A A A        *    ?     ?    A   A       ?                                                          A-                                              ?       e   *    *             9?    V
                                                                               fireq,  tumc     y ofoccurre,  nce 7    ?          A A A        *    ?          A   A                                                                  A-                                              ?                                    V    V                                               ?

                                     TOXIC ALGAE                                                event duration    ?    ?          ?                                                    0    0     ?    0*    el                       0      a    0    0           ??     ?                   0   0    0                   0    0           0a     0    0      0     0     ?    ?     0  0             0
                                                                           ... i,.
                                                                               W    .....................
                                                                                     ncy of occurrence            ?    ?          ??                ?     0    0   0            7      0    0     ?    ?     ?     0     0            00     a    a    0           ?      ?           ?       0   0    0             ?7    0    0           0      0    a      0     0     ?    1,    9  0             0
                                     MACROALGAL ABUNDANCE                                                              ?          A A    ?     A    V          A           ?    ?                 ?    ?     ?     I     ?            ?I,    e    III  *           ?      ?                       *    *             **    V    III         *      o    *      o     *     ?          9  e             A
                                     EPIPHYTE ABUNDANCE                                                                ?          ??     I     ?    I          A           ?    ?                 7    ?     ?     ?     ?            ??     9    *    *           a      ?    ?                  ?    o             7?    ?    ?           e      *    rif    *     all,  ?          e  V        ?    A
                                     NITROGEN (.g1l)                                                              7    A-         ee *         *    V     re A-e,          9    1,     9    9     V e        III,        ?            I      V    V    V                  V- ?        V-      e   A-   9             VV    *    III,        ee     o    e      o     o     *          *  *        ?    V
                                     PHOSPHORUS(.g/1)                                                             ?    ?          00 0         o    V     e A      *       *    ?      *    e     9 V        V                        ?      A    A A              9      V    e      V-      III, V-  *             VV    V    *           Ae     A    a      *     *     e,   e     fillV       I,   V
                                     BOTTOM DO (.911)                                                             ?               A A    *     *    *     A A      V       ?    ?      III  III,  ?    A     V     ?                  I      A    A er             o      &    e      a       e   9    e             Ao    A    e           V      e    e      e     V          III   III,        *    o
                                     ANOXIA                                                     aventitu'stita                    VV     fir   9          fe   9   A       ?    ?      e               V     III,  ?     ?            irI    V    V 9              ?                  ?       e   9                        9                ?      e                 ?          111,  9           e    a
                                                                                                ..;..............
                                                                                                4 0occurrence     ?               V.V.?        ?                   A                                   V     I     ?     ?            ??     ?    ?    ?           ?                  ?                                                                        ?     ?                   A
                                                                                                .. .... ......
                                                                                                spa list co, ve,age?   I          V V                              A                                   V                                          V    9           1      e    9      ?           A                  9     ?                ?7     Is          III,  ?          9        o        a
                                     HYPOXIA                                                    eveniduradon      7    ?          V V                              A       V    ?                      V     A     ?                         V    V    o           9*     III ?       ?       e   a                  o     9                77                                        o  e,       *    o
                                                                               . . .... .. .. ........
                                                                               ffeq  uenc       yo toccurier,ce   ?    ?          V- V- V-     ?          ?        A       ?                ?     ?    V     ?     ?                         ?    ?    ?           ??     ?    ?      ?                                         0           ??     ?    ?      ?     ?                   A
                                                                                                .. .... .. ...
                                                                                                spa tial co voistle?   7          V V 0             0     0        A       V ?         9               V     a     ?     ?            ??     9    V                all,        all    ?           A    9                   A    e           ??     e    9      a     ?     e    a     9
                                     BIOLOGICAL STRESS                                          event duration    ?    ?          V V 9                            A       ?    ?      III,            V                 ?            ??     V    V    e                       e      ?       e   o                  V     o    9           e?     9    o            I,    a    e        e        e
                                                                           .............................
                                                                               frequency of occurrence            ?    7          V- V- V-                         A       7    ?      ?               ?                 ?            ??     ?    ?    ?                  ?    ?      ?                                         V           ??     ?    ?            ?     e,            A        o
                                                                           ..............................
                                                                                                ,p,,,,Icovefage   ?    ?          V V o                            A       ?    ?      0    0     ?    V                 ?            ?      V    V                                               A                  V     V                ?

                                     PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY                                                         ?    Q          ? IF ?                  ?                ?    ?      0    a     ?    (1) a       It    ?            01     a    a    0           00     1    ?      1       0   0    ?             7     7    ?           ??     ?    7      ?     7     ?                      ?    ?

                                     PLANKTONIC COMMUNITY                                                              ?          @ 0 (D                       0           7    ?      0    0     ?    0     0     01    4111-        0*     0    a (D             (D0    0    0      ?       0   0    *             00    a    0           09     0    *      0     0     ?    0

                                     BENTHIC COMMUNITY                                                                 I          (D * 0       ?    ?     *    *           ?    ?      0    0     1*   (V          W     *I           ?      ?    ? 2)             0 0         0      ?       0   0    0             00    0    0           00     0    0      0     0     0    0
                                     SAV (spatial coverage)                                                       V    V          0 0 a        A    A     V    V V         ?    ?      V    V     ? V V            ?     ?            ? 1    9    0 0              0 0         ?      A       9   A    A I           A*I   A    A           *A     *    9            A          A
                                     ? - unknown           V - decreasing trend                      speculative response                A     increasing trend            shift to diverse mixture          M - shift to annelids and crustaceans                 0  shift to pelagic        (D-shiftto diatoms (D -shift to mollusks

                                     Source: USOC 1997a







                             Table 18 (continued). Recent trends in selected parameters characterizing eutropication, by estuary.






                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           c
                                                                                                                                                                                                       t
                                                                                                                                                     t
                                                                                                                                      t
                                                                                                 E
                                                                                                                                                                                  Z                             0S        00                V)                                             Z01       of                0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              S  IT         M- S rT      M S                      TMS      ITMS  IM     S  IT          MS    I S IM    S
                                                                                                 TM  S      M I  T   M I   M    S I M    S  I        TM  S        TM S   I        TM IT     M   S  IM     S     IM  S  IM                                            t;-s         I
                             CHLOROPHYLL A lpil/1)                                               7?  *-     A                   0     ?  ?           ?1  0        ?? 0            ?7        77  ?      7  ?     7   ?     ?   7             7?                                    ?        ?  7                              A,   e
                             TUR1310ITY (concentrations)                                         V?  ?      ?                   0     ?              A7  ?        AA o            VV        A   A      A  A     as  ?     A   o             Ae?   ?      1                        0           ?      ?  7                    0    &    V
                             NUISANCE ALGAE                             eventofutation           70  1      7    V   A     o    o     ?              ??  ?        WOle-           411-W     0   410-   ?  ?     ?   ?     ?   ?             ?04a         00          0            0        0  *      e                 e0    0    0-0-
                                                                 ;..........................
                                                                 equency of occurrence           ?0              V   A     o    e                                 0' 0* **        0* 0*     0   W      I        I   ?     ?   ?             00                                    41       ?a 41     0  0     0        00    0    010,
                             TOXIC ALGAE                                eventoruration           ?0              V   A     e    ?                                 0* W            0*        0                             ?   7             00           a0          a0           700      70 *      0  0     0        00    *    0* 0*
                                                            .... .........................
                                                                 frequency of occurrence         ?0         1    V   A     @    aa    ?  ?                                        0*            a,     ?  7     ?   7     7   ?             *a           *0          00           ?0*      ?0 0      0  0     0        00    0    4111" 0*
                             MACROALGAL ABUNDANCE                                                V               ?   0     ?    0                    0   0                                  A?  ?      o  It    7         ?   r             aa*          ?           00           70*      00 0      0  0     0        00    0    0    0

        -4                   EPIPHYTE ABUNDANCE                                                  ??  ?      ?    ?   0     ?    ?                    0   0                                  1   7      0  0     7         7   7             00    ?      ?1          00           ?00      00 0      0  0     0        00    1    0    0
                             NITROGEN (.g1l)                                                     70         aa   A A       o    a        7           71  ?        V V V           VV        VV V       V  ?     V         a   ?             000   0      0           A- ?         V V?     A- A- ?   *  ?     9        ao    o-   V A
                             PHOSPHORUS (mgl U                                                   ?0         V    0   a     0    0        ?           ?   ?        VV     V        VV        VV  V      V  V     0         0                 000   0      0           A-?          oo?      A- A- ?   e  ?     aa       ao    o-   o    V
                             BOTTOM DO (mgl I)                                                   ??         V    V V       0-0        ?  ?           I   ?        r?              ??        ?I  I      ?  ?     ?         ?                 ?A    ?      ?           ??           ???      ?? ?      ?  ?     0        00    0    V    V
                             ANOXIA                                     event duradort           ?7  1      e    ?   A     e 9        ?  ?           ?I  I        ??              ??        ?7  ?      7  ?     ?   7         ?             ??    ?      ?           1            7??      ??                 0        00    0    0    0
                                                                 ..........................
                                                                 fequency of occurrence          ?7  ?      e    ?   A     9 #        ?  I           17  ?        77              ??        ??  ?                                                 ?      ?                        ???      ?? ?      ?  ?     0        00    0    0    0
                                                            ..............................
                                                                        Spatial coverage             ?      9    A A       o,o                       I                            ?I        ?I  ?      ?  1     7   7         ?             ??7   ?      ?7          7                     7  1      1        0        00    0    0    0
                             HYPOXIA                                    event duratfon                           A A       9    9                    1   1                        ??        ?             ?     ?   ?                       ?            ??          ?            ???      ?? ?      ?        0        a0    0    0    0
                                                                    .. ...................
                                                                 te ency of occuffence           ?7         9    A   A     e    9     ?  ?           ??  I                        ??        ?7  ?      ?  ?     ?   ?                                    I?          ??           7??      I? 7      ?        0        a0    0    0    0
                                                            ............                                         A   A                   ?           7            ?
                                                                        s                                                                                                         ??        ??  ?      ?  ?     7   ?                       ?A ?  ?      ?           I            1                           0        00    0    0    0

                             BIOLOGICAL STRESS                          event duration           7               A   A     e          ?  7                                        7                                                                                  0'           WW ?     W 0* ?    0*       0        00    0         0
                                                                 ;..........................
                                                                 equency of occurrence           ??         0    A   A     9    e     ?              ?                   ?                                      ?                           7            ?           0'           0        0* 0* ?   0*       0        00    0         0
                                                            ............                         ??  ?           A   A                ?              ??           ?      ?        ?         ?          ?  ?                                 ?A?
                                                                        s                                                                                                                                       ?         ?   ?                   ?      ?           *I?          W410.    *1        0* ?     0'       00    0    0    0

                             PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY                                                0?  7           0*0            ?     ?              ??  ?        I?     0        ?         ?I  ?      ?  7     a         7   7             ??7   7      ?           ??           ??       ?         ?  ?     7        ??    W    ?    0

                             PLANKTONIC COMMUNITY                                                07  ?      0    (1) 0     0    0     ?              ??  ?        7?     *        ?         0?  ?      ?  ?     7   7     ?   ?             ???   ?      ?           ??           ?        I         ?  7     0        00              0

                             BENTHIC COMMUNITY                                                   ??  ?      ?    7   ?     ?    0.    7              ??  ?        ?7     0        77        ?a  0      0  0     ?   ?     ?   ?             ?0?   ?      ?           ??           ??       1         7  ?     0        9 0             0
                             SAV (spatial coverage)                                              V V ?      V    0   V     ? ?        ?              ??  ?        ??     0        ??        ?A ?       a  *     ?   ?     ?   r             r*o   I      17          00           ?aa      0  0      a  a     V        V0    V-        A
                             WETLANDS Ispatial coverage)                                         00 ?       0    0   0     0    0     7              ?7  1        0      0        90        ?0  0      0  0 141     0 1   e   0 1           7V. V.7      ?           I?? 1        7?? 1    7  ?         ?     ?              V.   V    V
                             ? - unknown             V - decreasing trend                        speculative response             0 - no trend       or shift            A - increasing     trend         (1) - shift from annelids                      - shift     from a       mixture of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                to diverse mixture                       annelids and             crustaceans
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     to crustaceans
                             Source:     USDC 1997f










                  Table 19. Landings of spiny dogfish (pounds) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean based on NMFS
                  weighout data, NMFS South Atlantic General Canvas Data and SAW-26.


                    YEAR       CANADA        US COMM            US REC         US TOTAL                USSR          OTHER             TOTAL
                                                                                                                                       (Stock)
                     1962                0       5111,081                0        518,0111                   0               0         518,081
                     1963                0     1,344,806                 0      1,644,806                    0          2,205       1,347,011
                     1964                0     1,609,358                 0      1,609,358                    0        35,274        1,644,632
                     1965         19,841       1,075,845                 0      1,075,845             41,465          22,046        1,532,197
                     1966         85,979       1,274,259                 0      1,274,259        20,698,989                  0    22,059,228
                     1967                0       612,879                 0        612,879         5,370,406                  0      5,983,284
                     1968                0         38,327                0        348,327         9,709,058                  0    10,057,385
                     1969                0       249,120                 0        249,120        19,460,004          800,270      20,509,394
                     1970         41,887         233,688                 0        233,688        10,855,450        1,578,494      12,709,519
                     1971          8,818         160,936                 0        160,936        23,814,089        1,684,314      25,668,158
                     1972          6,1314        112,117                 0        152,117        51,371,5119       1,5111,969     53,049,290
                     1973-        44,092         196,209                 0        196,209        31,347,207       10,083,840      41,671,349
                     1974         79,366         279,984                 0        279,984        45,070,842        8,970,517      54,400,710
                     1975          2,205         324,076                 0        324,076        49,230,923          423,283      49,980,487
                     1976          6,614       1,212,530                 0      1,212,530        36,774,933          235,892      38,229,969
                     1977          2,205       2,052,483                 0      2,052,483        15,304,333          566,582      17,925,603
                     1978        185,186       1,825,409                 0      1,825,409         1,272,054           99,207        3,381,856
                     1979      2,934,323     10,597,112                  0     10,597,512           231,4113         180,777      13,944,095
                     1980      1,477,082       9,027,837                 0      9,027,837           773,815          546,741      11,825,474
                     1981      1,243,394     15,282,287        3,284,837       18,567,124         1,137,574        1,009,707      21,957,799
                     1982      2,100,984     11,929,091         154,946        12,084,037             59,524         742,950      14,987,495
                     1983                0   10,795,926         147,565        10,943,491           791,451          231,483      11,966,426
                     1984          8,818       9,810,470        200,888        10,011,358           641,539          220,460        1,082,175
                     1985         28,660       8,880,129        196,174         9,076,303         1,529,992          701,063      11,336,018
                     1986         46,297       6,058,241        403,073         6,461,314           471,7114         339,508        7,318,903
                     1987        617,288       5,959,034        673,514         6,632,548           255,734           50,706        7,556,275
                     1988                0     6,845,283        792,385         7,637,668         1,265,440          160,936        9,064,044
                     1989        365,964       9,903,063        921,481        10,824,544           372,577          191,800      11,754,885
                     1990      2,901,254     32,475,963         392,750        32,868,713           844,362           22,046      36,636,374
                     1991        643,743     29,050,014         287,892        29,337,906           480,603           35,274      30,497,526
                     1992      1,827,613     37,165,147         534,798        37,699,945             57,320          90,389      39,675,266
                     1993      3,156,987     45,509,558         263,373        45,772 ' 931                  0               0    48,929,918
                     1994      4,010,167     41,446,480         340,692        41,787,172                    0               0    45,797,339
                     1995      2,107,598     50,068,671         141,818        50,210,489                    0               0    52,318,086
                     1996        950,183     60,055,509           79,244       60,134,753                    0               0    61,084,935
                     1997               na   45,188,361         145,976        45,334,337                    0               0    45,334,337

























                                                                               173







            Table 20. Commercial landings of Spiny Dogfish by'year and state.

                                                                             YEAR


                                1988        1989        1990       1991        1992         1993        1994        1995         1996        1997


                                1000        1000        1000       1000        1000         1000        1000        1000         1000        100,0

                                 LBS         LBS         LBS          LBS        LBS          LBS        LBS          LBS          LBS        LBS



            STATE
            ME                   481      4,879,       6,365       2,016       1,719        3,524       1,813       1,663          911        448
            NH                                            185                    402        1,641       2,375       2,106        1,079       1,009
            MA                 5,827       4,924      17,806      14,488       18,375      26,830      23,214      28,760       26,959      21,820
            RI                                  4       1,300      3,160       2,027        1,924        530          573        1,128       1,013
            CT                                             24           8          22            9       170          293          705        347
            NY                    86          48           18          77        155           95        237          934        1,327        487
            NJ                    10           22      4,543       2,715       2,534          770       1,129       2,388        4,635       3,950
            DE                                                          5                                               62
            MD                    23            3       2,181      4,939       3,063        1,795       1,428       -3,117       7,151       4,227
            VA                      3          19           6         173        229          106        457          809        2,483       4,274
            NC                   301                       41      1,463       8,634        8,806       9,877       7,174       13,210       7,608













            Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.











              Table 21   Commercial landings Spiny Doglish average annual landing's by 'State, 1988 - 1997.




                                        State             1000 lbs       Percent
                                        ME                   2,382             6
                                        NH                    879              2
                                        MA                  18,900            53
                                        Rl                   1,166             3
                                        CT                    158              -
                                        NY                    346              -
                                        NJ                   2,270             6
                                        DE                        6            -
                                        MD                   2,793             7
                                        VA                    856              2
                                        NC                   5,711            16
                                        ALL STATES          35,473          100




































              Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.




                                                             175











          Table 22. Spiny Dogfish commercial landings by gear, Maine to Florida, 1988 - 1997 combined.


                             Gear                                         1000 Pounds        Percent


                             Haul Seines, Beach                                      67
                             Haul Seines, Long                                          6
                             Danish Seine                                               -
                             Purse Seines, Menhaden
                             Otter Trawl Bottom, Crab                                   -           -
                             Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish                            76,367            21
                             Otter Trawl Bottom, Scallop                                8           -
                             Otter Trawl Bottom, Shrimp                                 7           -
                             Otter Trawl Bottom, Other                               73             -
                             Trawl Midwater, Paired                                 444             -
                             Trawl Bottom, Paired                                       -           -
                             Scottish Seine                                          68             -
                             Pound Nets, Fish                                        65             -
                             Pound Nets, Other                                          4           -
                             Floating Traps (Shallow)                                   7           -
                             Fyke and Hoop Nets, Fish                                   -           -
                             Pots and Traps, Crab, Blue
                             Pots and Traps, Fish                                       1
                             Pots and Traps, Lobster Inshore                         40
                             Pots and Traps, Lobster, Offshore                          -
                             Gill Nets, Set, Salmon                                     -
                             Gill Nets, Sea Bass                                        9           -
                             Gill Nets, Other                                   55,585            15
                             Gill Nets, Sink, Other                            202,945            57
                             Gill Net, Shad
                             Gill Nets, Drift, Other                              6,528             1
                             Gill Nets, Drift, Runaround                             47             -
                             Gill Nets, Stake                                           -           -
                             Trammel Nets                                               4           -
                             Lines Hand, Other                                      166             -
                             Lines Troll, Other                                         -           -
                             Lines Long Set with Hooks                          10,690              3
                             Unk. Combined Gears                                  1,572             -
                             Dredge, Surf Clam                                          1
                             Dredges Scallop, Sea                                       4
                             Dredge, Urchin                                             1           -
                             ALL GEAR                                          354,731           100



         Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.






                                                              176









                    Table 23. Spiny Dogfish commercial landings by year and gear type, Maine to Florida.

                                                              1988 % of     1989 % of      1990 % of     1991 % of       1992 % of       1993 % of      1994 % of      1995 % of    1996 % of      1997 % of
                    Gear                                             Total          Total         Total          Total          Total           Total          Total          Total        Total          Total
                    Haul Seines, Beach                                              0.0            0.0           0.0              0.0                           0.1            0.0           0.0           0.0
                    Haul Seines, Long                                                                            0.0                                            0.0                          0.0
                    Danish Seine                                                                                                                                               0.0
                    Purse Seines, Menhaden                                                                                                                                     0.0
                    Otter Trawl Bottom, Crab                                                                                                                                   0.0
                    Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish                         50.6           10.8          47.6           39.5           28.4            24.7           15.6           12.1         11.8            8.7
                    Otter Trawl Bottom, Scallop                                                                                                   0.0           0.0            0.0
                    Otter Trawl Bottom, Shrimp                        0.0           0.0                          0.0              0.0                           0.0            0.0           0.0
                    Otter Trawl Bottom, Other                                                                                                                                  0.0           0.1
                    Trawl Midwater, Paired                                                                                        1.2
                    Trawl Bottom, Paired                                                                         0.0              0.0
                    Scottish Seine                                                                                                                0.0           0.0            0.0           0.0           0.1
                    Pound Nets, Fish                                  0.0           0.0            0.0           0.0              0.0             0.0           0.0            0.0           0.0           0.0
                    Pound Nets, Other                                                                                                             0.0                          0.0
                    Floating Traps (Shallow)                                                       0.0                            0.0             0.0           0.0            0.0           0.0           0.0
                    Fyke and Hoop Nets, Fish                                                                                                                                                 0.0
                    Pots and Traps, Crab, Blue                                                                                                                  0.0            0.0
                    Pots and Traps, Fish                                            0.0            0.0           0.0                                            0.0                          0.0           0.0
                    Pots and Traps, Lobster Inshore                                                              0.1                              0.0                          0.0
                    Pots and Traps, Lobster, Offshore                                                                                                           0.0            0.0           0.0
      -4            Gill Nets, Set, Salmon                                                                                                                                     0.0
       4            Gill Nets, Sea Bass                                                                                                                         0.0
                    Gill Nets, Other                                  0.0           0.0            0.1           4.4            22.8            18.8           23.4           14.9         21.7            16.7
                    Gill Nets, Sink, Other                           48.7           85.5           52.1          54.8           46.3            55.1           57.0           62.9         56.3            64.0
                    Gill Not, Shad                                                                                                                                                           0.0
                    Gill Nets, Drift, Other                           0.2           0.2            0.1           0.8              1.0             0.0           0.1            1.6           4.7           5.0
                    Gill Nets, Drift, Runaround                       0.2           0.3            0.0           0.0                              0.0
                    Gill Nets, Stake                                                                                                                                                         0.0           0.0
                    Trammel Nets                                                                                                                  0.0
                    Lines Hand, Other                                 0.0           0.1            0.0           0.0              0.1             0.0           0.0            0.1           0.0           0.1
                    Lines Troll, Other                                                                                                                          0.0            0.0           0.0           0.0
                    Lines Long Set with Hooks                         0.2           3.1            0.1           0.2              0.1             1.2           2.6            6.9           4.9           5.3
                    Unk. Combined Gears                                                                                           0.1             0.0           1.3            1.5           0.3           0.1
                    Dredge, Surf Clam                                                                                                                                                        0.0           0.0
                    Dredges Scallop, Sea                                                                                          0.0                                                        0.0
                    Dredne, Urchin                                                                                                                0.0
                    ALL GEAR                                        100.0          100.0         100.0          100.0           100.0           100.0         100.0          100.0         100.0         100.0






                    Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.






                  Table 24. Spiny Dogfish commercial landings by state and gear type,                              1988 - 1997 combined.

                                                             ME % of       NH % of       MA % of          RI % of       CT % of       NY % of      NJ % of       DE % of     MD % of       VA % of      NC % of
                  Gear                                            Total         Total          Total          Total          Total        Total         Total         Total       Total         Total        Total
                  Haul Seines, Beach                                                                                                       0.0                                                   0.1
                  Haul Seines, Long                                                                                                                                                                           0.1
                  Danish Seine                                                                  0.0                                                                                                           0.0
                  Purse Seines, Menhaden                                                                                                                 0.0
                  Otter Trawl Bottom, Crab
                  Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish                         1.5           5.9           22.6           18.3           61.9          84.2         56.3                       38.0          24.6         0.0
                  Otter Trawl Bottom, Scallop                                                                                                            0.0                                     0.0          2.3
                  Otter Trawl Bottom, Shrimp                       0.0                          0.0
                  Otter Trawl Bottom, Other                                                                                                                                         0.3                       0.0
                  Trawl Midwater, Paired                                                        0.2
                  Trawl Bottom, Paired                                                                         0.0                         0.0
                  Scottish Seine                                                                0.0
                  Pound Nets, Fish                                                                                            0.1          1.6           0.0                                     0.0
                  Pound Nets, Other                                                                                                        0.1                                                                   .0
                  Floating Traps fShallow)                                                                     0.1
                  Fyke and Hoop Nets, Fish                                                                                                 0.0
                  Pots and Traps, Crab, Blue
                  Pots and Traps, Fish                                                          0.0                                        0.0           0.0                        0.0                       0.0
                  Pots and Traps, Lobster Inshore                                0.0            0.0            0.0                                       0.2                                                  0.0
                  Pots and Traps, Lobster, Offshore                              0.0                                          0.0                        0.0
     -4           Gill Nets, Set, Salmon                                                                                                   0.0
     OD           Gill Nets, Sea Bass                                                           0.0
                  Gill Nets, Other                                                                                            0.1                                     22.6
                  Gill Nets, Sink, Other                           96.6         93.5           71.7           81.2            5.1          9.7          17.7                       59.5          67.1        97.3
                  Gill Net, Shad                                                                                                                                                    0.0
                  Gill Nets, Drift, Other                                                       0.0                                        0.3          24.6          77.4          1.9          4.0
                  Gill Nets, Drift, Runaround                                                   0.0                                                      0.1
                  Gill Nets, Stake                                                                                            0.0
                  Trammel Nets                                                                                                                           0.0
                  Lines Hand, Other                                0.1           0.2            0.1            0.0                         0.3           0.0                        0.0          0.1          0.0
                  Lines Troll, Other                                                                                                                                                                          0.0
                  Lines Long Set with Hooks                        1.9           0.4            5.2            0.0            2-.9         3.7           0.6                        0.2                       0.1
                  Link. Combined Gears                                                          0.3            0.4           29.9                        0.4                                     4.2          0.2
                  Dredge, Surf Clam                                                                                                                      0.0
                  Dredges Scallop, Sea                                                          0.0            0.0                                       0.0
                  Dreclue, Urchin                                                               0.0                              -             -
                  ALL GEAR                                       -iooo         100.0          100.0          100.0          100.0        100.0         100.0         100.0       100.0         100.0        100.0




                  Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.









             Table 25. Commercial landings of Spiny Dogfish by state and month, 1988 - 1997 combined.


                                                                        MONTH


                           JAN      FEB    MARCH     APRIL     MAY      JUNE     JULY      AUG       SEP     OCT      NOV      DEC       ALL

                           1000     1000     1000     1000     1000     1000     1000     1000      1000     1000     1000     1000     1000
             STATE         LBS      LBS      LBS      LBS       LBS     LBS       LBS       LBS      LBS      LBS     LBS      LBS       LBS

             ME                         2        1      34       83     542       731       568      307      99       10              2,382
             NH                                           5      15     199       303       241       68      39         6               879
             MA              99       24       27     338      1,268    2,667   4,443     3,738    2,733    2,100     916      359    18,718
             RI            241        22       28       78       62     104        41        21        9      142     191      221     1,166
             CT                9        5        8      15         7       15        9        3        8      22       23          5     134
             NY              23        17       16      23       16       27        15       11       12      56       60        61      342
             NJ            240      183      186      168        54        15        5        6       12      172     686      538     2,270
             DE
             MD            722      439      580      325          4        8                                         229      481     2,793
             VA            224      105      139        53       11         1                                   1      59      240       836
             NC           1,370    1,809    1,390     209          2                                            -                      5,711
                                                                 --    -                                               41    - 886
             ALL          2,932    2,609    2,380    1,252    1,@26    3,582     5,551   4,592     3,152    2,634    2,225    2,796   35,236














             Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.











         Table 26. Spiny dogfish recreational catch, landings and discards based on NMFS MRFSS data,
         1981-1997.


                                                 Catch      Landings         Discards
                                Year   (A +  B1 + B2)       (A + B1)              (B2)


                              1981            715,683       597,243          118,440
                              1982            167,902        28,172          139,730
                              1983            242,803        26,830          215,973
                              1984            206,099        36,525          169,574
                              1985            421,412        35,668          385,745
                              1986            548,216        73,286          474,930
                              1987            544,844       122,457          422,387
                              1988            494,480       144,070          350,410
                              1989            707,273       167,542          539,731
                              1990            539,494        71,409          468,085
                              1991            592,227        52,344          539,883
                              1992            504,721          9,236         407,485
                              1993            491,963        47,886          444,077
                              1994            449,218        61,944          387,274
                              1995            276,922        25,785          251,137
                              1996            157,538        14,408          143,130
                              1997            363,459        26,541          336,918






































                                                          180










               Table 27. Spiny dogfish recreational catch (number) by sub-region, based on NIVIFS IVIRFSS data,
               1981-1997.


                                                             REGION
                                 Year    North Atlantic     Mid-Atlantic  South Atlantic


                               1981            77,564         638,119                   -
                               1982            57,322         110,580                   -
                               1983            58,732         184,071                   -
                               1984           105,940         100,159                   -
                               1985           239,651         169,657            12,104
                               1986           305,614         242,246               356
                               1987           304,740         238,866             1,238
                               1988           368,514         125,373               594
                               1989           261,193         299,969            146,110
                               1990            79,968         442,243            17,284
                               1991           121,137         44t,591            22,499
                               1992           228,611         230,215            45,895
                               1993           246,488         244,493               982
                               1994           151,856         296,592               771
                               1995           143,611         131,659             1,652
                               1996           100,102            55,728           1,708
                               1997            137079         223,882             2,498




































                                                               181











         Table 28. Spiny dogfish recreational catch (number) by mode based an NMFS MRFSS data, 1981-
         1997.


                     Year      Man Made        Beach/Bank           Shore     Party/Charter Private Rental


                   1981           11,955         14,506                 -       115,318          573,907
                   1982                 -               -               -       140,126           27,776
                   1983            1,825          6,667                 -       171,929           62,382
                   1984             409           4,611                 -          57,833        143,247
                   1985           13,408          3,451                 -       387,255           17,298
                   1986                 -               -          5,615        245,549          297,052
                   1987                                            3,454        367,400          173,990
                   1988                 -               -          1,539        232,669          260,272
                   1989             709          138,533           9,465        162,761          395,805
                   1990            3,058         13,856           11,254        358,819          152,507
                   1991            1,139         15,070           62,715        139,937          373,366
                   1992            2,459         21,291           11,268        216,659          252,839
                   1993             511              264          21,826        210,052          259,273
                   1994             343              428          21,003        124,467          302,977
                   1995                 -         1,539            5,658        144,036          125,576
                   1996             289              909           9,940          63,429          82,971
                   1997                 -               -          5,317        174,672          183,471





































                                                        182










             Table 29. Spiny dogfish recreational catch (number) by area based on NMFS MRFSS data, 1981-
             1997.


                                             Area
                   Year    Ocean :@ 3 m i. Ocean >. 3 mi.           Inland


                  1981           24,264         673,742           17,677
                  1982           62,427           96,457            9,018
                  1983           28,195         179,610           34,997
                  1984             7,896        187,768           10,435
                  1985           16,607         398,392             6,413
                  1986          112,669         336,658           98,889
                  1987          206,544         276,364           61,936
                  1988           67,130         386,593           40,757
                  1989          183,651         418,097           105,525
                  1990           63,044         403,039           73,411
                  1991          240,587         256,437           95,203
                  1992          126,871         290,597           87,253
                  1993          187,960         232,035           71,968
                  1994          109,850         240,145           99,223
                  1995           62,988         163,050           50,384
                  1996           46,961           71,104          39,472
                  1997          111,991         195,740           55,728






































                                                          183















         Table 30. Exvessel value of Spiny Dogfish commercial landings value by year, Maine - Florida.



                     Year         Nominal Value        Nominal Price       1997 Adjusted
                                         ($1000)               (Mean)              (Mean)
                     1988                    483                0.07                0.06
                     1989                    860                0.09                0.07
                     1990                 3,313                 0.10                0.09
                     1991                 2,692                 0.09                0.09
                     1992                 3,943                 0.11                0.10
                     1993                 5,567                 0.12                0.12
                     1994                 5,588                 0.14                0.13
                     1995                 9,138                 0.19                0.19
                     1996                 10,921                0.18                0.18
                     1997                 6,807                 0,15                0.15






































         Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.




                                                        184









              Table 31. Commercial landings of Spiny Dogfish value by year and state.



                                                                               YEAR


                                  1988        1989        1990        1991         1992        1993        1994        1995         1996        1997



                                   VAL         VAL         VAL         VAL         VAL         VAL          VAL         VAL         VAL          VAL
                                1000$       1000$       1000$        1000$       1000$       1000$       1000$        1000$       1000$       1000$



              STATE
              ME                     59        430         745         188         203         509          264         338         169            67
              NH                                             21                      50        252          365         397         189          145
              MA                   359         405        1,597       1,145       2,186       3,541       3,394        5,413       4,934        3,119
              Rl                                           115         292         226         213           68         109         211          141
              CT                                             2                         1           1         10           19        133            47
     CO
              NY                     21          14          3           16          27          24          64         187         257            96
              NJ                      1           2        582         428         243           90         174         502         939          696
              DE                                                          4                                               12
              MD                      4           1        238         476         294         188          192         883        1,539         781
              VA                      1           6          2           17          19            9         40         125         400          725
              NC                     36                      3         122         691         735         1,011       1,147       2,145         984











              Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.












         Table 32. Commercial Fishing Permits Held by Vessels Landing Spiny Dogfish in 1996.




                         Type of Permit                          Number

                         Multispecies permit                     562

                         Limited access multispecies permit      487

                         Summer flounder permit                  295

                         Squid, mackerel, butterfish permits     527

                         Lobster permit                          448

                         Scallop permits                         40

                         Tuna permits                            542















































                                                          186









               Table 33. Estimated total allowable landings (thousands of lbs.) of spiny dogfish under preferred
               alternative.


                              Year                      TAIL       %SSB


                              1999-2000            22,059.2        69.2
                              2000-2001            2,901.3         69.0
                              2001-2002            3,148.2         74.9
                              2002-2003            3,198.9         80.2
                              2003-2004            3,176.8         92.1
                              2004-2005            3,192.3         92.7
                              2005-2006            3,262.8         91.4
                              2006-2007            3,395.1         89.5
                              2007-2008            3,556.1         94.3
                              2008-2009            3,734.6         99.5
                              Total                51,625.2














































                                                                 187











            Table 34. Estimated total allowable landings of spiny dogfish in 1999 under preferred stock
            rebuilding alternative for semi-annual, quarterly, and bimonthly quota periods. Seasonal quota
            allocations based on seasonal distribution of spiny dogfish landings from NMFS weighout data,
            1990-1997.




                       Period                                      1999 TAL                    1997       1990-1997
                                                                 (million lbs.)       (million lbs.)    (million lbs.)
                       May-Oct.                                            12.8                22.8              194.3
                       Nov.-April                                           9.3                22.4              141.5


                       Period                                      1999 TAIL                   1997       1990-1997
                                                                 (million lbs.)       (million lbs.)    (million lbs.)
                       Quarter 1 (May - July)                               6.5                13.7              98.6
                       Quarter 2 (Aug. - Oct.)                              6.3                 9.1              95.7
                       Quarter 3 (Nov. - Jan.)                              5.2                11.5              79.4
                       Quarter 4 (Feb. - Apr.)                              4.1                10.9              62.0


                       Period                                      1999 TAL                    1997       1990-1997
                                                                 (million lbs.)       (million Ibs.)    (million lbs.)
                       Jan. - Feb.                                          3.6                11.5              55.2
                       March - April                                        2.4                 5.8              36.2
                       May - June                                           3.0                 7.8              45.8
                       July - Aug.                                          6.3                10.2              95.5
                       Sept. - Oct.                                         3.5                 4.8              52.9
                       Nov.     Dec.                                        3.3                 5.1              50.1






































                                                                         188










                Table 35. Percent of total for spiny dogfish and value, by port for 1997.



                         Port                                  Percent of                Percent of
                                                    Total  $ from Dogfish    Total lbs. from Dogfish
                         Wachapreague, VA                  76%                       91%
                         Plymouth, MA                      74%                       96%
                         Scituate, MA                      21%                       74%
                         Chatham, MA                       14%                       47%
                         Ocean City, MD                    11 %                      32%
                         Other Dare, NC                    11 %                      30%
                         Marblehead, VA                    10%                       48%
                         Chincoteague, VA                  6%                        27%
                         Norfolk, VA                       5%                        22%
                         Long Beach, NJ                    3%                        26%
                         Camp Ellis, ME                    3%                        16%
                         Gloucester, MA                    3%                         8%
                         Rye, NH                           3%                        27%
                         Newport News, VA                  3%                        34%



































               Source: Unpublished NMFS Weighout Data.




                                                                 189











          Table 36a. Estimates of spiny dogfish discards and mortality (thousands of lbs.) based on 1989-
          1997 NMFS Sea sampling data.



          Year                       OT            GN          Total           OTD           GND    Total Dead
          1989               12,619.1        4,900.8      17,520.0        6,309.6       3,675.1        9,984.6
          1990               21,016.5        4,623.0      25,641.7        10,509.3      3,467.8       13,977.2
          1991               18,452.5        3,970.5      22,423.0        9,226.3       2,978.4       12,202.5
          1992               16,307.4        4,069.7      20,374.9        8,152.6       3,051.2      11,2056.0
          1993               16,166.3        4,131.4      20,297.8        8,084.3       3,097.5       11,181.7
          1994               12,367.8        3,582.5      15,950.3        6,183.9       2,687.4        8,871.3
          1995               11,014.2        4,261.5      15,275.7        5,507.1       3,196.7        8,703.8
          1996               14,995.7        4,506.2      19,499.7        7,497.8       3,379.7       10,877.5
          1997               12,894.7        4,649.5      17,544.2        6,446.3       3,487.7        9,933.9



          OTD - Otter Trawl  Dead
          GND - Gill Net Dead























































                                                           190








                   Table 36b. Estimates of spiny dogfish discards for otter trawl by                         primary species landed.


                                                                                                                           Dogfish Discards (Thousands of lbs)
                   Species                             Number        Discard          1989            1990          1991           1992           1993          1994           1995           1996          1997
                                                      of Trips           Rate
                   Goosefish                                31       0.0579           140.8           60.1         279.5         311.4          337.4           309.3        468.7          589.5          594.2
                   Butterfish                               12       0.1580           153.3         145.7          231.8         224.9          822.0           569.0        220.1          402.3          357.2
                   Cod                                    101        0.1631       1,429.5         2,673.3        1,630.7         788.4          633.6           486.3        209.4          395.4          290.9
                   Atlantic Croaker                           8      0.0000    < 1,000 lbs               0               0              0 < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs
                   Blueback Herring                           1      0.0151               0            0.2               0           9.2             0            0.2  < 1,000 lbs                0           1.4
                   Winter Flounder                          26       0.3248           510.3         539.4          618.9         484.4          282.3           308.8        645.5          798.9       1,239.9
                   Summer Flounder                        116        0.5445           704.0         273.3          383.1         632.2          637.6           888.4      1,002.4        1,010.1       1,463.8
                   Witch Flounder                             1      4.5455           321.9           11.0          34.3         406.7          278.0           250.4        301.4          411.9          268.8
                   Yellowtail Flounder                      46       0.1779           511.0       2,206.2          606.9         405.1          145.1           332.8          80.9         140.4          312.7
                   American Plaice                          11       0.0376            3.5             1.1            5.3          11.4            4.8            5.5           5.5            8.2            7.7
                   Windowpane Flounder                        2      0.0141           21.1             7.2          43.7           13.4           11.9            1.3           9.8           75.1            2.4
                   Other Flounders                            1      2.7348           105.2           40.7          87.5         112.8            85.7          16.4            0.6            4.5            7.8
                   Haddock                                    1      0.0026    < 1,000 lbs             0.2            0.4            1.1           0.1  < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs             0.1
                   Red Hake                                 12       0.0095            4.2             3.9            3.7            5.4           4 .4           7.5           2.2            7.1            5.5
                   White Hake                                 1      0.3570           29.0          187.1          231.0         345.1          114.0             8.6          32.1           39.7            4.6
                   Atlantic Herring                         19       0.0235           25.2            33.9          81.5         211.3          110.5           141.0        121.5          109.5           67.2
                   Atlantic Mackerel                        '19      0.0628           914.8       1,062.0        1,925.2       1,045.2          273.8           862.3        912.3        1,248.6          825.6
                   Ocean Pout                                 3      0.1585           345.5         360.6          371.4           60.8           41.2          43.4            5.4           11.3            4.5
                   Pollock                                    7      0.0321           114.2         100.0           52.4           33.4           12.5            4.9           6.5            8.3          16.6
                   Scup                                     15       0.4152           402.5         239.1          902.9         806.9          741.4           569.2        362.1          574.0          636.4
                   Black Sea Bass                             1      1.8766           36.8            90.8          24.6             1.2        115.3           152.4           5.8         236.2           69.4
                   Weakfish                                 17       0.0340           30.7            35.3            6.2          12.&            5.7            5.7          19.3           15.7          17.2
                   Spiny Dogfish                            32       0.3979           308.9       5,903.8        4,191.4       3,459.9        3,952.0       2,286.8        2,037.0        2,409.0       1,263.3
                   Skates                                   26       0.1192       1,431.1         2,350.3        2,184.5       2,466.7        2,353.0       1,342.1        1,062.2        2,922.2       1,659.7
                   Little Skates                            18       0.2682               0              0            0.3               0            0               0         77.8               0              0
                   Tautog                                     7      0.0011    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs             0.1  < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs
                   Silver Hake                            219        0.1001       2,857.3         3,350.4        2,418.6       2,237.5        2,631.2       1,656.7        1,739.5        2,643.0       2,286.6
                   Other Groundfish                           1      0.0459               0   < 1,000 lbs                0           0.2             0               0             0              0              0
                   664                                        1      1.4577               0              0                              0            0               0             0              0              0
                   Unclassified Crab                          2      0.0004               0              0               0              0            0  < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs   <1,000 lbs
                   Horseshoe Crab                           51       0.0010            0.7             0.5            0.6            0.8           1.5            0.7           0.7            1.1            0.8
                   Northern Shrimp                        476        0.0006            4.3             5.3            4.0            3.9           2.8            4.4           8.3           11.5            7.8
                   Conchs                                     2      0.0080            1.5             1.4            0.7            0.1           1.2            2.5           0.5            0.4            0.6
                   Loligo                                 147        0.0692       2,193.7         1,243.7        1,999.1       1,795.4        2,445.7       2,047.2        1,602.0          885.5       1,438.9
                   Illex                                    30       0.0009           13.1            21.5          22.8           34.1           34.4          33.5           26.1           28.2          24.2
                   Unclassified Squid                         7      0.0561            3.7            69.2         109.1           96.1           87.8          30.5           48.1            7.5          18.7





                 Table 36c. Estimates of spiny dogfish discards for sink gill not by primary species landed.

                                                                                                                        Dogfish Discards (Thousands of lbs)
                 Species                            Number       Discard           1989           1990           1991          1992           1993-         1994          1995           1996          1997
                                                   of Trips          Rate
                 Goosefish                             611       0.0385             0.5             0.8          21.3          64.9         120.5         193.1           310.2          268.2        292.0
                 Bluefish                              114       0.1157            103.2          143.8        100.5           159.4        156.4         184.7           110.9          118.4        257.8
                 Bonito                                    8     0.0047                 0             0               0          0.1  < 1,000 lbs            0.1            0.1  < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs
                 Cod                                   2200      0.3015         1,908.5         1,620.9       1,606.5        1,028.0        759.7         860.9           884.2          921.5        481.5
                 Atlantic Croaker                      170       0.0022             0.2    < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs            0.5           3.8           4.5            4.2           5.8            2.5
                 Red Drum                                  1     0.3333                 0             0   < 1,000 lbs            0.2           1.0   < 1,000 lbs            0.2           0.1               0
                 Winter Flounder                       118       0.0151             1.0             0.8           0.5            0.9           0.9           0.5            1.4           0.6            0.7
                 Witch Flounder                          10      1.5964             0.9             0.8           3.2            0.3               0         0.2            0.1           0.2            0.7
                 Yellowtail Flounder                   148       0.0067             0.1             0.5           0.7            0.5           0.2           0.4            1.7           1.4            0.8
                 White Hake                            269       0.5741           999.8           739.3        326.7         1,123.1        589.7         146.4           267.4          173.0         84.9
                 Hickory Shad                              2     0.0888                 0             0               0 < 1,000 lbs            0.1   < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs             2.6
                 King Mackerel                             5     0.0025                 0             0               0 < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs             0.1
                 Atlantic Mackerel                       37      0.0660             3.5           19.1            6.4          10.5            2.8           4.9            6.5          18.0            9.3
                 Menhaden                                23      0.0054             0.7             1.9           3.7            0.6           6.1           6.0            2.0           2.1            0.9
                 Pollock                               470       0.1773         1,113.3           596.0        252.9          212.9         256.6         104.6           95.5           63.7          96.5
                 Scup                                      1     0.3529                 0             0               0          0.1           0.4           0.5            2.3           2.7            0.9
                 Sea Robins                                1     0.0716                 0             0               0             0 < 1,000 lbs                0          5.6  < 1,000 lbs             0.1
                 Weakfish                                80      0.1262             15.8          20.0           24.2          10.9           47.1          53.6          33.4           48.7          42.6
                 American Shad                           10      0.0068             5.7             4.6           3.2            4.2           4.0           3.2            1.7           3.9            0.6
                 Smooth Dogfish                          85      0.0020                 0             0           0.5            1.3           0.9           0.8            0.9           1.5            1.0
                 Spiny Dogfish                         1399      0.0853           741.1         1,400.0       1,323.1       1,395.8       2,149.9        1,969.8       2,479.2        2,737.9       2,463.0
                 Skates                                  12      0.0123    < 1,000 lbs     < 1,000 lbs            0.5            1.7           9.8          14.5            6.4          12.1          27.2
                 Little Skates                             8     0.0152                 0             0               0             0              0             0          0.2             0               0
                 Winter Skates                           25      0.0002                 0             0               0             0              0             0             0            0               0
                 Striped Bass                              7     0.0561                 0         15.4           11.4          20.7           16.2          18.7          26.0           90.9            9.7
                 Atlantic Sturgeon                         1     0.3763                 0             0               0             0              0 < 1,000 lbs            0.1           0.1               0
                 Tautog                                  36      0.0613             0.7             1.9           3.9            4.7           1.1           2.1            1.2           1.4            0.3
                 Little Tuna                               6     0.0006                 0             0               0 < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs    < 1,000 lbs
                 Porbeagle Shark                           3     0.0940                 0             0           0.1               0 < 1,000  lbs               0 < 1,000 lbs              0            0.1
                 Wolffish                                  1   125.0000             6.0           57.8         280.5           27.8            4.5          23.9          21.8           34.3         869.4
                 660                                       2     0.6308                 0             0               0             0              0             0             0            0               0
                 Horseshoe Crab                            2     0.0796                 0             0               0             0              0         0.1            1.5           1.3            5.1
                 American Lobster                        14      0.0012    < 1,000 lbs                0               0 < 1,000 lbs   < 1,000 lbs < 1,000 lbs < 1,000 lbs                 0.1 <1,0001bs












                Table 37. Projected gross exvessel revenues for status quo and management options (not
                discounted).


                 Year Status quo (NP-        NP-alt. 2         NP-alt. 3        Preferred         NP-alt. 4
                            aft. 1)
                 1999    $5,805,480.96       $884,278.56     $4,166,170.85    $4,092,549.14       $2,551,401.31
                 2000    $4,722,832.79       $930,087.62     $2,098,218.78      $538,256.51       $1,683,892.14
                 2001    $3,952,667.89       $980,804.80       $516,170.00      $584,065.58         $617,195.35
                 2002    $3,123,196.60       $977,123.71       $526,804.25      $593,472.80         $625,375.54'
                 2003    $2,428,289.45       $953,401.16       $525,168.21      $589,382.70         $619,649.40
                 2004    $1,986,968.19       $940,721.87       $530,485.33      $592,245.77         $621,285.44
                 2005    $1,753,423.76       $942,766.92       $545,618.68      $605,334.07         $633,555.73
                 2006    $1,688,391.25       $962,399.37       $572,613.31      $629,874.64         $658,096.30
                 2007.   $1,684,710.16       $994,711.12       $604,107.04      $659,732.34         $689,181.02
                 2008    $1,667,531.76     $1,038,066.13       $637,236.81      $692,862.11         $725,173.86
                 2009    $1,617,223.59     $2,195,563.04     $2,067,134.05    $2,163,251.29       $2,186,564.83
                 2010    $1,528,468.53     $2,230,737.86     $2,069,997.12    $2,170,613.46       $2,198,426.11
                 2011    $1,407,810.73     $2,278,591.97     $2,064,721.46    $2,193,517.99       $2,224,602.71
                 2012    $1,267,111.46     $2,334,217.26     $2,111,716.09    $2,229,510.83       $2,262,231.59
                 20131   $1,116,186.951    $2,388,615.531    $2,143,618.831   $2,270,411.781      $2,303,541.55
                 20141      $968,125.511   $2,436,878.651    $2,178,384.641   $2,312,539.761 _"$2,345,260.52

























                                                                   193













          Table 38. Projected gross exvessel revenues for status quo and management options (7%
          discount rate).


           Year Status quo (NP-       NP-alt. 2        NP-alt. 3         Pref erred         NP-alt. 4
                      alt. 1)
           1999    $5,425,683.14      $826,428.56     $3,893,617.62     $3,824,812.00       $2,384,487.00
           2000    $4,125,105.07      $812,374.55     $1,832,665.54      $470,134.10        $1,470,777.00
           2001    $3,226,554.40      $800,628.88      $421,348.47       $476,771.50          $503,815.30
           2002    $2,382,671.74      $745,443.00      $401,896.44       $452,757.60          $477,096.00
           2003    $1,731,336.82      $679,761.85      $374,437.67       $420,221.70          $441,801.50
           2004    $1,324,000.80      $626,842.70      $353,484.78       $394,638.40          $413,988.70
           2005    $1,091,944.20      $587,107.85      $339,783.89       $376,971.60          $394,546.70
           2006      $982,659.08      $560,125.20      $333,266.16       $366,592.80          $383,018.00
           2007-     $916,370.70      $541,056.94      $328,594.21       $358,850.70          $374,868.80
           2008      $847,688.59      $527,700.18      $323,938.88       $352,216.00          $368,641.60
           2009      $768,331.28     $1,043,096.18     $982,080.50      $1,027,745.00       $1,038,821.00
           2010      $678,658.31      $990,474.29      $919,103.48       $963,778.30          $976,127.50
           2011      $584,191.40      $945,534.66      $865,085.29       $910,232.00          $923,131.00
           2012      $491,407.67      $905,249.70      $818,959.91       $864,642.70          $877,332.40
           20131     $404,557.521     $865,744.191     $776,946.11       $822,901.701         $834,909.50
           20141     $327,937.601     $825,455.111     $737,894.241      $783,337.201         $794,420.90'


















                                                             194












              Table 39. Projected pack-out facility gross revenues for management options and
              status quo (not discounted).


                Year  Status quo (NP-     NP-alt. 2      NP-alt. 3      Preferred        NP-alt. 4
                           alt. 1)
                1999   $1,408,399.65    $214,524.45   $1,010,705.85    $992,845.35     $618,965.55
                2000   $1,145,751 *08   $225,637,65     509,024*25     1130,5110,10    14011,509*33
                2001    $958,910.40     $237,941.55     125,221.95     $141,693.30     $149,730.53
                2002    $757,682.10     $237,048.53     127,801.80     $143,975.48     $151,715.03
                2003    $589,098.83     $231,293.48     127,404.90     $142,983.23     $150,325.88
                2004    $482,035.05     $228,217.50     128,694.83     $143,677.80     $150,722.78
                2005    $425,377.58     $228,713.63     132,366.15     $146,853.00     $153,699.53
                2006    $409,600*80     $233,476,43     138,915*00     $152,806*50     $159,653*03
                2007  - $408,707.78     $241,315.20     146,555.33     $160,049.93     $167,194.13
                2008    $404,540.33     $251,833.05     154,592.55     $168,087.15     $175,925.93
                2009    $392,335.65     $532,639.80     501,483.15     $524,801.03     $530,456.85
                2010    $370,803.83     $541,173.15     502,177.73     $526,587.08     $533,334.38
                2011    $341,532.45     $552,782.48     505,749.83     $532,143.68     $539,684.78
                2012    $307,399.05     $566,277.08     512,298.68     $540,875.48     $548,813.48
                2013,   $270,785.03    ,$579,474.00  ,  520,038.23   1 $550,797.98     $558,835.20
                20141   $234,865.58    1$591,182.55_1   528,472.35   1 $561,018.15     $568,956.15





























                                                                195







                  Table 40. Projected gross exvessel value under trip limits scenario (price per lb, based on 1996 weighout data).

                                                       Preferred action                                                  Non-preferred alt. 4
                      Year        Thousand          Per trip     Per trip lbs. Nominal       per     Thousand       Per trip lbs.    Per trip lbs.      Nominal per
                                      lbs.            lbs.      (Disc = 7%)           trip $            lbs.                        (Disc = 7%)             trip $
                      1999         2,217.8            1618           $272             $291           13,752.3          1009              $170               $182
                      2000         2,901.3            213             $36              $38           9,076.3           666               $112               $120
                      2001         3,148.2            231      1      $39              $42           3,326.7           244                $41                 $44
                      2002         3,198.9            235             $39              $42           3,370.8           247                $42                 $45
                      2003         3,176.8            233             $39              $42           3,340.0           245                $41                 $44
                      2004         3,192.3            234             $39              $42           3,348.8           246                $41                 $44
                      2005         3,262.8            239             $40              $43           3,414.9           251                $42                 $45
                      2006         3,395.1            249             $42              $45           3,547.2           260                $44                 $47
                      2007         3,556.0            261             $44              $47           3,714.8           273                $46                 $49
                      2008                            274             $46              $49           3,908.8           287                $48                 $52
    CO                2009        11,660.1            856            $144             $164           11,785.8          865               $145               $156
    0)
                      2010        11,699.8            858            $144             $155           11,849.7          869               $146               $156
                      2011        11,823.3            867            $146             $156           11,990.8          880               $148               $158
                      2012        12,017.3            882            $148             $159           12,193.6          895               $151               $161
                      2013        12,337.7            898            $151             $162           12,416.3          911               $153               $164
                      2014        12,464.8            915            $154,            $165           12,641.2          927               $156               $167











                    Table 40 (continued). Projected gross exvessel value under trip limits scenario (price per lb based on 1996 weighout data).


                                       Non-preferred alt. 1 (SQ)                               Non-preferred alt. 2                               Non-preferred alt. 3
                     Year      Thousand        Per       Per trip     Nominal      Thousand       Per       Per trip     Nominal Thousand             Per      Per trip      Nominal
                                  lbs.         trip     lbs. (Disc    per trip $   !  lbs.        trip    lbs. (Disc        per           lbs.        trip    lbs. (Disc        per
                                               lbs.      = 7%)                                    lbs.         7%)          trip $                    lbs.      = 7%)          trip $
                     1999      31,292.1        2243     $377.40       $403.81      14,766.3       350         $59           $63       122,456.1       1648       $277          $297
                     2000      25,456.5        1825     $307.02       $328.51      5,013.3        368         $62           $66     -11,309.61        830        $140          $149
                     2001      21,305.3        1527     $256.95       $274.94      .5,286.6       388         $65           $70        2,782.2        204         $34           $37
                     2002      17,495.7        1207     $203.03       $217.24      5,266.8        386         $65           $70        2,839.5        208         $35           $38
                     2003      13,088.7        938      $157.86       $168.91      5,138.9        377         $63           $68        2,830.7        208         $35           $37
                     2004      10,709.9        768      $129.17       $138.21      5,070.6        372         $63           $67        2,859.4        210         $35           $38
                     2005      9,451.1         678      $113.98       $121.96      5,081.6        373         $63           $67        2,940.9        216         $36           $39
                     2006      9,100.6         652      $109.76       $117.44      5,187.4        381         $64           $69        3,086.4        226         $38           $41
                     2007      9,080.7         651      $109.52       $117.18      5,361.6        393         $66           $71        3,256.2        239         $40           $43
                     2008      8,988.2         644      $108.40       $115.99      5,595.3        411         $69           $74        3,434.8        252         $42           $45
                     2009      8,717.0         625      $105.13       $112.49      11,834.3       868        $146           $156       11,142.0       817        $138          $147
                     2010      8,238.6         591       $99.36       $106.32      12,023.9       882        $148           $159       11,157.5       819        $138          $147
                     2011      7,588.2         544       $91.52       $97.92       12,281.8       901        $152           $162       11,236.8       824        $139          $148
                     2012      6,829.9         490       $82.37       1 $88.14     112,581.71     923    1   $155      1    $166       11,382.31      835        $140          $150
                     2013      6,016.4         431       $72.56       1$77.64      112,874.91     945    1   $159     +$170           111,554.31      848    1   $143      1   $153
                     2014      5,218.3         374       $62.93       1$67.34      113,135.01     964    1   $162           $173      111,741.71      861    1   $145      1   $155








         East Coast of North America Strategic Assessment Project
                       Distribution of Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias)




                                                              



                     





















             


                                                         Tow Statistics









                                                                Projection:Lanbert Conformal Conic

                                           Science Sector,
                            Department of Fisheries and 0ceans (Canada)
                      Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,
                       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)



       Figure 1. Distribution and relative abundance of spiny dogfish in the northwest Atlantic Ocean,
       1975 - 1994, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO Canada) and the National Oceanic
       & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA USA).
       Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.




                                                    198
 







                      30                                Spiny Dogfish
                                   Commercial landings (mt)
                             ----- Spring survey index (kg)
                                  Smoothed survey index (kg)
                                                                                                         150



                  C)
                  C)  20-

                  X
                                                                                                                W
                                                                                                       -100


                                                                                                                CO
                  0)
                                                                                                                E
                      10-
                  C13                                                                                    :)u
                                                                                                                CIS





                       0                        .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
                        1960      1965     1970     1975      1980      1985     1990      1995     2000

                                                             Year









              Figure 2. Commercial landings (US, Foreign, US Recreational) and NIVIFS bottom trawl data
              (stratified mean catch/tow) of spiny dogfish, 1963 - 1996.
              Note: 1,000 metric tons = 2.205 million lbs.
              Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.




                                                                 199






                                                                                    Spiny Dogfish
                                                                                                                                                          Stations
                                                                       Nlass. Inshore Trawl Surveys
                                                    Juveniles                                                              Adults
                            40-,                                                                     30-1
                            30                                               Spring                                                            Spring
                            20i                                                                      20
                            10                                                                       10

                                                                                                     0-
                                     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           '   ' --r-                                                          i @ I I .                                        I
                                 1   3    5    7    9   11   13 15 1@ 191        21 23               1   3    5     7   9   11 13 15 17 19 21 23
                                             Bottom Temperature (C) -                                          Bottom Temperature (C)


                            40,                                                                      20
                            30-                                              Autumn                  16                                          Autumn
                                                                                                     12
                            20-
                            10-                                                                      41

                                                                                                     0       . I . . . . . . . .
                            0
                                 1   3' 5' -7' 9 11' 13' 1i 1@               14  2 1' @3             1  3    5      7  9    11 13 15 17 19 21 23
                                           Bottom Temperature (C)                                             Bottom Temperature (C)




                            40-                                                                      30-


                            30-                                      Spring                                                              Spring
                                                                                                     20


                            20--

                                                                                                     10-
                            10-



                                                                                                     0--
                            0-                                                                                                                   71 7 .
                                                                      C,  CS -3      7               -                                    C, :%

                                               Bottom Depth (m)                                                     Bottom Depth (m)

                            30-                                                                      25-


                                                                                                     20--
                            20--                                  Auturnn                            15-                               Auturtm

                                                                                                     10-
                            10-
                                                                                                     5-
                                                                                                     07
                            0-

                                                 C      C      C
                                              Bottom Depth (m)                                                      Bottom Depth (m)
             Figure 3. Percent frequencies for spring and autumn bottom temperature and bottom depth
                                          iLi                                                                @Iin









             intervals for all stations sampled and for stations weighted by the number of spiny dogfish captured
             from NMFS, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys.
             Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.




                                                                                        200










                      Spinv Do-ufish
                   NMFS Trawl Surveys
                  Winter 1981, 1992 - 97
                 Juvenile Female (<83cm)                                                          IrN
                  Juvenile Male (<60cm)

                        x =:Absent
                             Present






                                                                                      4k

                                                                                      X0
                                   4ork                                          0    x
                                                              e
                                                10
                                             0
                                       40





                                  46
                                      'W
                                      .w










                  Oe













             Figure 4. Distribution of stations sampled and stations where spiny dogfish were captured from
             NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys.
             Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.





                                                           201











                 Spiny I?ogfish
              NMFS Tra'wl Surveys
                 S
                    n
                  p ing   1982-97
           Juvenile Females = <83cm
            Juven*le Males       <60cm










                                                                                       A
                                                                                  *e

                                                      4








                    A






                                                                              Number/Tow

                                                                                I to <100

                                                                                100 to <200

                                                                            0   200 to <500
                                                                            0   500 to <2000

                                                                                2000 to <5825






        Figure 5. Distribution and relative abundance of spiny dogfish from NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl
        surveys.
        Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.





                                                      202










                      Spiny Docrfish
                   NMFS Trawl Surveys
                     Summer 1993 - 95
                 Juvenile Female (<83cm)                                                             Aj
                                                                                                    .7
                  Juvenile Male (<60cm)

                       X = -Absent
                        0 = Present



































             Figure 6. Distribution of stations sampled and stations where spiny dogfish were captured from
             NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys.
             Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.





                                                            203










                Spiny Doofish
       I     NMFS Trawl Surveys
               Autumn 1982 - 97
          Juvenile Females = <83cm
            Juvenile Males     <60cm












                                      .0,              awl,


                                                              JL  IC















                                                                         Number/Tow

                                                                           0 to <50

                                                                           50 to <250

                                                                           250 to <500
                                                                           500 to <2000
                                                                           2000 to <4393






       Figure 7. Distribution and relative abundance of spiny dogfish from NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl
       surveys.
       Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.






                                                   204










                     Spiny Dogfish
                   NMFS Trawl Surveys
                  Winter 1981,1992 - 97
                 Adult Female (>=83cm)
                   Adult Male (>=60cm)

                        x =Absent
                        0 =Present






                                                 0 x




                                                                           x4v






                                  4%

                            %



                        .0 0-10

                        0%
                         O's


















             Figure 8. Distribution of stations sampled and stations where spiny dogfish were captured from
             NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys.
             Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.






                                                            205










                 Spiny Dogfish
              NMFS Trawl Surveys
                 Spring 1982 - 97
            Adult Females = >=83cm
             Adult Males        >=60cm
                                                                                    or. -
                                                                                      9 .
                                                                  o,
                                                                                           ..of


                                                                                               z





                                              -So
                                                                               *0

                                                                 No


                            %
















               oft

                                                                                 Number/Tow'.

                                                                                   I to <100

                                                                                   100 to <250
                                                                                   250 to <500

                                                                                   500 to <2000

                                                                                   2000 to <9013






        Figure 9. Distribution and relative abundance of spiny dogfish from NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl
        surveys.
        Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.




                                                       206









                       Spiny Dogfish
                    NMFS Trawl Surveys
                      Summer 1993 - 95
                   Adult Female (>=83cm)
                    Adult Male (>=60cm)

                         x =,Absent
                         0     Present





































              Figure 10. Distribution of stations sampled and stations where spiny dogfish were captured from
              NIVIFS, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys.
              Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.





                                                             207










                 Spiny Dogfish
              NMFS Trawl Surveys
                Autumn 1982 - 97
            Adult Females = >=83cm
             Adult Males      >=60cm

                                                                                P



























                                                                            Number/Tow

                                                                              0 to <100

                                                                              100 to <250

                                                                              250 to <500

                                                                              500 to <2000

                                                                              2000 to <3749






        Figure 11. Distribution and relative abundance of spiny dogfish f rom- NMFS, NEFSC bottom trawl
        Surveys.
        Source: McMillan and Morse 1998.




                                                    208














                                                                             K'
                                                                                                           hf:D      .is  4fribu-tion
                                             s ua               6-a'n              M     Daym          ,e
                                        E t "'         r1h ':
                                        New England Regi6i"n""
                                                                                                                                                                                        'I Passamaquoddy
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Bay
                                        tspiny
                                              talu'@acahthias'-..'
                                                                                                                                           Crouldboros
                                        'A"d'utts                                                                                              Pay
                                                                                                                                                                      Englishma'l-
                                                                                                                                                                      Afachias Bays
                                                                                                                                                        Narragaugus
                                                                                                                                                            B
                                                                       K,\.                                                                                   ay
                                                                                                                                         -French
                                                                                                                                        6           an*
                                                                          r!W09F n                                                              Bay
                                                                         'Riv
                                                                                                                                       Blue Hillo
                                                                                                                                          B4Y
                                                                                                                Penobscot Bay
                                                                                                   A   scongus
                                                                                                       Bay
                                                                                               namariscoaa
                                                                          Casco    Sheepscot       Myer
                                                                           Bay        Day
                                                                  Saco
                                                                   Bay

                                                            Wells
                                                          Harbor
                                                      Grea( Bay                                                                                                       Relative Abundance
                                                 Merrimack                                                                                                                 Hlohly AbUndant
                                                    Riyer                                                                                                                  AbLindant
                                                                                                                                                                           COMmon
                                                                                                                                                                      El   Rare

                                                      Massachusetts
                                                            Bay                                                                                                       Ffl' Not Present
                                       Boston             Cape Cod                                                                                                    El   No Data
                                      IIarbD .r               Ba                                                                                                      Vii9hest annual abundance shown.
                                                                                                                                                                      Relative abundance data were not
                                                                                                                                                                      developed for otite(BILIO 11111 Bay,
                                                                                                                                                                      Frenchman Bay and Gotlldboro Bay,

                                                                                                                                                                               Prepared for the New England and
                                                                                                                                                                      Mid-Atlantic FiMlery Management Councils
                                                                                                                                                                                           NOAAISEA ()Ivision
                                                                                                                                                                                                  M.'ch 1998


                     Figure 12. Relative abundance and distribution of juvenile dogfish in Atlantic coast estuaries. Those estuaries in which juvenile dogfish
                     are classified as abundant or COmMon are designated as EFH.
                     Source: ELIVIR data.





                                                parit                               m, ayfhbnt D"                                  'butio"
                                                                                        'b"                                                        6'.
                                              't             ie'an&I                                               -'18tri
                                                      11 @.dlz'x                                                                                                                                 I Passantaquoddy
                                                                     gi
                                       NeW,
                                            W.Fhg ari             le
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Bay
                                                                              N@'
                                     ISpiny
                                      -squalus acaiithias                                                                                        ClouldbaroO
                                                                                                                                                     Bay
                                         Uvenile                                                                                                                             Englishinatil'
                                                                                                                                                                             Afachlas Bays
                                                                                                                                                               Narragaugus
                                                                                                                                                                   Bay
                                                                                                                                             131"
                                                                        ke nn" e @e                                                                en  hman
                                                                       A
                                                                         ji@. @'   n
                                                                        ndi ;ci@                                                                     Bay
                                                                                                                                            Blue IBII*
                                                                                                                                               Bay
                                                                                                                   Penobscot Bay

                                                                                                       fuscongus
                                                                                                          Bay
                                                                                                 Dantariscolta
                                                                           Casco     Sheepsco,
                                                                                                     Riyer
                                                                             Bay        Bay
                                                                   Saco
                                                                    Bay

                                                          Well,
                                                         Ilarbor
                                                                                                                                                                             Relative Abundance
                                                      Great Bay
                                                                                                                                                                                  Highly Abundant

                                                Aferrintack                                                                                                                       AbLindant
                                    7              Rlyer
                                                                                                                                                                                  Common
                                                                                                                                                                             ILI  Rare

                                                                                                                                                                                  Not Present
                                                      Massachusetts
                                                           Bay
                                                                                                                                                                             F1   No Data
                                                          C e Cod                                                                                                            Highest annual abundance shown.
                                    IIarbor                 ap
                                                             Ba
                                                                                                                                                                             *Relative abundance data were not
                                                                                                                                                                             developed for outer Blue Hill Bay,
                                                                                                                                                                             Frenchman Bay and Gouldboro Bay.

                                                                                                                                                                                       Prepared fat the New England and
                                                                                                                                                                              Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
                                                                                                                                                                                                    NOAA/SEA Division
                                                                                                                                                                                                           March 1998


                    Figure 13.        Relative abundance             and    distribution -of adult dogfish in Atlantic coast estuaries. Those estuaries in which adult dogfish are
                    classified as abundant or common are designated as EFH.
                    Source: ELMR data.







                          76'       74*        72'       70'        68.       66'              76*        74'       72-        70-        68'       66*
                                                                                                              ty


                  44                                                                    44-







                  42-'------,           ----------                                      42ok- -------



                                                                                                                                 A&I

                                                    460" ;&H,
                  40-1                                                                  40-L


                     L
                                                                                    7



                                                                                        38'      e-'4
                                                                                            N@i

                     7


                  36"-.                                                                 360--





                                                                                        34'r---



                       SoIny DogW Femw.'L"mWe (Spring 2M Fag) - Ania Using MOM NaUV Log - 50 Percant Spry Cogtish Feinsie juvemim @Siinng and Fall) - Ama Using MW NaVW Log - 7S PercOnt

                        76*        74*        72*       70'        68*       66'               76*        74*       72*        70*        68.       660



                  44*t'                                                                 440;:
                                                                             Llr@

                                                                                                                           V
                                        -------------
                     Ir

                                                                                        42*
                  42'@ ----------                                                                            I--------


                                                                                            7



                                                                                                                                  -,auxam
                  40                                                                    4()-L                              bl'" 4um                       7:



                  38-N                                                                  38*
                                                                                   7        1






                  36*11,                                                                36*



                                                                                   7


                  34*
                                                                                        34*




                       Sony 00ofish - ;:enuw juleriies (Swing am raH) - Ama Using mean Naturw Log - go Peicent Sony 009fth - Fermile J mAlas (Spring and Falo - Area Using Mean NaftwW Log - 100 Percent
                     Figure 14a. Four options for designating EFH for female juvenile dogfish under Alternative 5, the
                     preferred alternative: 1) the top 50% of the area, 2) the top 75% of the area, 3) the top 90%, and
                     4) the top 100% of the area where juvenile dogfish were found in the N EFSC trawl survey.
                     Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                                                     211







                 76*        741       72*        70*         68*       66*              76*        74*        72'       70-        68*        66*



            we                                                                   W-






                                                            A  -C M
                                                                                 42*@ --------1         -------
         42




                                                                                     IF
         40"-                                                                    40"

                                                                                     Ir

                                                                                       5@1

                                                                                 38*



            L










         34*
                                                                                              z



              sowtv oocizA - maie4uvensw (Sonng and Fall) - Area usav mean Natural Lou - so Percent Sony Dogftsh - mass imenies @Sonno and Fall) - Area Uwv Mean Natural Loa - 75 Percent

                76*        741        72-       70'         68,       66*               76'        74*        72-       700        680       66'



         44-                                                                     44-
                                                                          INZ





                              L -------                                          42--




                                                                                                                                                   7


         40-L                                                                    400


                                                                                     L

                                                                                                                                                   -q
         3Er                                                                     38'     W



                                                                                     Ir                                                            7

                                                                                 36*L



                                                                                                                                                   7


         34'
                                                                                 34',




             SOMY 009fth - Male Juvandes JSwing and FAH) - Area UMV Mean Natural Log go pe,cen, Sainy Dogr4h - Male jwenaw (spnng ana Fam) - Arm uun, mean Naturai LW 100 pecent.
           Figure 14b. Four options for designating EFH for male juvenile dogfish under Alternative 5, the
           preferred alternative: 1) the top 50% of the are, 2) the top 75% of the area, 3) the top 90%, and
           4) the top 100% of the area where juvenile dogfish were found in the NEFSC trawl survey.
           Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                                             212





                              76'           74*           72'           70-          a.            66*                        76*          74*           72-          70'           68*          66*


                    4-4-t- -





                                                                                  M. IX.

                    42                                                                                              42o@- -------


                                                                                     0.



                    4()---                                                                                          40-'-






                                                                                                                    38*







                              J



                    34'--'                                                                                          34--



                           SOOV 009fish - Ffflx" Adults I$Qnng aw Falo - Ama usir4 Mean NaUM Log - 50 PWCON             1@           F@Ie AduaS (Sanno ana Fan) Area UsuV mean N2k= LOO - 7S Perc@@,

                                76'           74*           72*          70'           68.           66*                   76*          74*           72*          70-           68*           66*



                        44'                                                                                      44-Z                                                       C.







                        42' - -------                ------                                                      42'




                                                                    . . . . . . . . . . . .







                        38*     i.w                                                                        7     38-:
                                                                                                                                                                                                     7



                        36.i
                                                                                                                 360






                        34*                                                                                      34'





                            SOny DOW15ft - FemaJe Adun (SpmV and Fall) - Am UwV Mw Nau" LN - 90 Percem                SMY 009fth - Feffwale AdUA3 (Sanng ana Fai4 - Area UsinQ mean NatUral Log - 100 Percem
                        Figure 15a. Four options for designating EFH for female adult dogfish under Alternative 5, the
                        preferred alternative: 1) the top 50% of the are, 2) the top 75% of the area, 3) the top 90%, and
                        4) the top 100% of the area where adult dogfish were found in the NEFSC trawl survey.
                        Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                                                                            213







                             76'             74*            72*            70o            68'             66*                    76*             74'            72'            70*             68*            66*

                                                                                                                                                                                                   P.

                  40@                                                                                                 44-5
                                                  4,
                         L

                         L



                  42'                                                                                                                                  -- ------
                                                                                                                                                                                 @60, 0:4           @7:

                         L
                                    T
                  410oL                                                                                               40"    -                                         'M  A :4




                                                                                                                      38



                                                                                                                             5.



                  36*1-



                  34*                                                                                                 34.@@
                                                                                                                             =zï¿½-



                         Spoy OogfLsh - Maie Aduas (Sonng and FaU) - Am Using Mwn NaftxW LOG - SO POrcent                    SOMY 000fish - Male AduR3 ISQnna and Faill - Area UsoV Mean Nani Log - 75 pement

                            76'            74*            72o            70*             68.            66*                      76'            74*            72*            70'              68o           66*


                  44'!ff' 1                                                                                           44'@




                  42ol   --------               I--------                                                             42-@   ---------





                  400L                                                                                                40-L


                                                                                                                             IL

                  38'                                                                                                 38*@@




                  36' -                                                                                               36*-
                                                                                                                 ji




                  34.                                                                                                 34*@'


                         P_


                         Spiny oaofm - Maio Aduas (SWTV am FOA -Area UwV mean Nmurai Log - 90 Percent                        Spiny DoWish - Mam Aduft (Spnng am FaJo - Am Using MWn Nan= LW - 100 Pefem
                  Figure 15b. Four options for designating EFH for male adult dogfish under Alternative 5, the
                  preferred alternative: 1) the top 50% of the are, 2) the top 75% of the area, 3) the top 90%, and
                  4) the top 100% of the area where adult dogfish were found in the NEFSC trawl survey.
                  Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                                                                               214







                                                          Spiny Dogfish Juvenile Males


                                     100 -
                                               --o- Mean CPUE - Catch                                         700
                                                0 - Mean In CPUE - Catch
                                               -w- Mean CPUE -Area                                            600
                                      80
                                 a)                                                                                cz
                                 <
                                                                                                              500

                                      60
                                 cn                                                                           400
                                 0

                                      40                                                                      300

                                                                                                                   a)
                                                                                                              200  2
                                      20                                                                           z
                                                                                                              100


                                        0                                                                     0
                                          0           20           40          60           80           100

                                                               Percent (CPUE or Area)

                                                         Spiny Dogfish Juvenile Females


                                                                                                              1000
                                     100 -
                                                   Mean CPUE -Catch                                           900
                                              ..0 MeanInCPUE-Catch
                                              -w- Mean CPUE -Area                                             800
                                      80  -                                                 "I
                                                                                                                    Cz
                                 <
                                                                                                              700

                                      60                                                                      600
                                                                                                                    C
                                 0                                                                            500
                                                                                                                    C)
                                 0                                                                            400
                                      40                                                                            2
                                                                                                              300

                                                                                                                    z
                                      20                                                                      200

                                                                                                              100


                                        0                                                                     0
                                          0           20           40           60          80           100

                                                               Percent (CPUE or Area)




               Figure 16a. Graphical representation of percent area and numbers of 10 minute squares
               encompassed in the a) area analysis, b) logged CPUE analysis, and c) CPUE of female and male
               juvenile dogfish.
               Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                                 215








                                                       Spiny Dogfish Adult Males

                                                                                                         900
                               100 -
                                         --4- Mean CPUE -Catch                                           800
                                              Mean In CPUE - Catch
                                              Mean CPUE -Area                                                  (n
                                                                                                         700
                                 80

                                                                                                               Cr
                                                                                                         600
                            (?-  60                                                           .0
                            D                                                                            500


                                                                                                         400
                            0
                                 40
                                                                                                         300
                                                                                                               E
                                                                                                         200   =
                                 20                                                                            z

                                                                                                         100


                                  0                                                                      0
                                    0           20           40           60            80          1 0@0

                                                          Percent (CPUE or Area)

                                                     Spiny Dogfish Adult Females

                               100 -          Mean CPUE -Catch                                           800
                                          0   Mean in CPUE - Catch
                                        ---w- Mean CPUE- Area                                            700
                            CU   80

                            <
                                                                                                         600   cr
                                                                                                               U)

                                 60                                                           0
                                                                                                         500

                            0                                                                            400
                            0
                            Z   .40
                                                                                     ci
                                                                                                         300   Q8
                            a.                                                                                 E
                                                                                                         200   =
                                 20-                                                                           z
                                                                                                         100
                                          .......... "0
                                  0                                                                      0
                                   0            20           40           60           80           100

                                                          Percent (CPUE or Area)




         Figure 16b. Graphical representation of percent area and numbers of 10 minute squares
         encompassed in the a) area analysis, b) logged CPUE analysis, and c) CPUE of female and male
         aduft dogfish.
         Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                          216













                                                                              r-T7=              I D  I I I I  Ii      I I I I I I F_    I I I I I I I Q
                                                                                                    I I I I I  rI      I I I I I I I   _.
                                                                                                   4  1 1 1 1  11      1 1 1 1 1 1 1
                                                                                                                                                                35N

                                                                                           I I        I I      IF          I I I I I










                                        r




                                                                                                                       7






                                                                                                                                                                30N
















                                                                                                                                                               25N





                  BnW%c E=a, k ZDre                                                                 N
                 Ten Mixte fi6d                                                                    A


                     Figure 17. EFH for juvenile and adult dogfish south of Cape Hatteras, 100% of the epibenthic
                     waters over the Continental Shelf (from the offshore boundary of the EEZ) through Florida.
                     Source: Cross pers. comm.




                                                                                            217





                            760              74*              720             700              680             660                                                 760              740             720              700              680              660
                                                                       J                                                                                                                                     a



                                                                                                                                                       440
                 44*





                 42*  --------                                                                                                                         42o  -------                      -------





                 400-                                                                                                                                  40*





                                                                                                                                                       380
                 360





     OD
                 360                                                                                                                                   36*





                 34*                                                                                                                                   340
                       -T            0                                                                                                                                     0



                         Spiny Dogfish - FeInal8 Juveniles (Spring wW Fall) Area Using Mean Natural Log    90 Percent                                         Spiny Doglish - Male Juveniles (Spring and Fall) Area Using Mean Natural Log - 90 Percent






                    Figure 18. EFH for juvenile dogfish, areas which encompasses the top 90% of the areas where female and male juvenile dogfish were
                    collected by the NEFSC trawl survey between 1963 and 1966.
                    Source: Cross pers. comm.








                    760        740        720       .700       680        660                              76*       74*        72*        70*        68*        660



             44                                                                                    44*






                                                                                                   42* ----------         -------






             400-                                                                                  400-







             36*                                                                                   380




    CC)

             36" -                                                                                 360-






             346 ---                                                                               340
                         0
                                                                                                               0




                 Spiny Dogflsh - Famle Adults (Spft and FaIQ Area Using Mean Natural Log - 90 Percent  Spiny Doglish - Male Adults (Spring and Faill Area Using Moan Natural Log 90 Percent







               Figure 19. EFH for adult dogfish, areas that encompass the top 90% of the areas where female and male adult dogfish were collected by
               the NEFSC trawl survey between 1963 and 1996.
               Source: Cross pers. comm.





                                                                                             ozz





                                                                                                                                                             *14:13
                                   Lis!;Bop uo oilqnd 94t Aq indui JO; ON 'seJGUeH ade3 10 4;JOu lp!jB olnuiLu OL )luele '0Z ejnB!d





                                                                                                                                                        A 1    1 I-o

                                                                                                                                                     r
                                                                                                                                                   ril-

















                                                                                                               7;74'-

                                                                                             I`7@  -r-,r               I     I I I   I   1 1'-.











                                                                I11    L.4 1 1  L      I


                                    L                           I4-@  I I  I 11 T1.,-( N
                                L./r        1-71     71 -1. FT                           hj    I
                                        N I I
                                                      1 1 , 1

                                                                    if     @o

                                                                         lpi  i I




                                                      1 164     A-TT I   I I 'I"
                                                                                   Er, T'Q-W   I

                                                                                       F_j j











                                                                                                 35N


                                                                            I  1    11  1 ILJ
                                                                            I  I        I I!
                                                                                        I R

                                                    II If




                              I _n  fill    I       I         I




                109H 1



            It     fill-
                    44    -
                                                                                                 3ON


















                                                                                                 25N





           ExWve Economic Zore                               N
           Coast fine
           Ten Mnute Gdd                                    A



             Figure 21. Blank 10 minute grid, south of Cape Hatteras, NC for input by the public on dogfish
             EFH.
                                             LZ I I














































                                                        221



























                                                              P0111-118"
                                                                     .4 Im -
                                                                   0XIq
                              TFVCs
            WATER                                                 ($'x



                                            GAMETES
                                         C)              5
                                                       T CYST?
             STAR       ED I i-t
                                        AMOEBOID GAMETES
            (TOXIC)
                          p EIICYSTIHG
                        . 4                   1    - - - -                  'Ti
                        -  AMOEBOID                                 STAR LARGE"AMOEBA
                        tp C-)/    ZOOSPORE                             (TOXIC`@
                  --ZOOSPORE                        VICYSTING ANIOEBOID
                                                  SMALL C/
                              IR:                  AMOEO;

             AMOEBA       NEW CYST
                           (TOXIC)

                                                        r+

                !::,@rAMOEBA G
                                 CYST     SM        CYSTS             LARGE LOROHE
                                                                               OXIC
                                (TOXIC) @,AMOEBA   (TOXIC ?)                 (T
                                                                      AMOEBA
                          CYST
           SED114ENT
                                  -CYST ?                                          (TOXIC?)
                                 IT







                                            ALL











       Figure 22. Diagrammatic life history of Pfiesteda piscicida.
       Source: NCSU 1998.




                                                  222












                                                     7W                  10.                 6cr                  55.
                                                                           -,        , -     -r----v                                                                                 65.
                                                                                 It I                  j    Ic       \

                                                 GA"1M ISLAND
                                                                                                                           'I      GREENLAND
                                                                                                                                                                   G...



                                                                                       06
                                                                                                          IPA
                                                                                                                      1E
                                                     %
                                                                                                                                CAN




                                                                                                                                                    one room"
                                                                                              2G
                                                                                                                       %
                                                                                                                                             IF


                                Oft..WV 0 ft@ A- 0-
                                          001 C@               ......                                                    %

                                                                                                             2H
                                                 .........................                                                                                 ..... . .....
                                ubftw "O"Gow-1 COMOO       .............
                                      #W" "M "W=-V       ...............         It%
                                nw@ P.-M Z@            C@        .....           %
                                    am."" a 5.0@     ...................         I
                                Sto - fW vm@..                                   LABRADOR                            1%%
                                               -&.." a                                                                            2J




                                                                                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                vim 0'"     OW 4" - M-.& 9. 3WO 4.

                                                 QUEBEC                                                          -r
                                                                                                                                                  3K
                                C A N A D A
                                                 ft. On. MGM                        ---4S /4i'

                                                                                                     NEWOUNDLIAND


                                                                                 41
                                                                                                   Pv                               3L

                                                                                                                               Grow GW*
                                                                                                       M@ 04@ L
                                                                W=CK                                                                                               Cap
                                                                                                 4Vn          3Ps
                                                                                                        1,                 30                                                        45-
                                    U     S,, A
                                                                                                                                                              3M

                                MW
                                VOOK
                                                        SY                                                                                   3 N
                                                                           4X          4W                      4VS                         A T L A N T I C
                                                 Sze,      801@-                                                                                  0     1C E A N
                         4W                              -Sze




                                                             so            I        SE                  6F                  SG                        SH
                                       6C

                         3W


                                7W


                        Figure 23. NAFO statistical areas used to report commercial landings in the Northwest Atlantic.



                                                                                                      223









                     M


                                                                                                                        Value

                                                                                                                                                        4A      in
                                                                                                                               Got
                                                                                                              CA               ch      0
                                                                                                      '0      '0                                        0       0
                                                                                                                                               0        0       0
                                                                                                                                               p        p       p
                                                                                                                               0       0       In       0       a
                                                                                     0        0       0       0        4A      0       0       0        0       0
                                                                                                                       a




                                                                                                                  2001


                     0
                                                                                                                  2003

                     0
                                                                                                                  2W5



                                                                                                                  2007
                     CA

                                                                                                                  2009
                     f4


                                                                                                                  2011

                     0
                                                                                                                  2013


                     C                                                                                            20`15


                                                                                                                  2017



                     0                                                                                              019-



                                                                                                                  20
                     0
                     c
                     m
                                                                                                                  2023



                                                                                                                  2025



                                                                                                                  2027



                                                                                                                  2029                                   K




                                                                                                                       z  'o  z z





                                                                                                                       r-     r r













                      c                                                                                  Value
                      q
                      (D


                                                                                                            00
                                                                                C)       0
                                                                                         0                                     C)
                                                                                                                     0         p        p
                                                                                cl                                             0        0
                                                                                0        0         C)       0        0         a        0
                                                                                0        0         C@       0        0         a        0         0




                                                                                                                                             2001



                                                                                                                                             2003

                      0
                      0
                      ffi                                                                                                                    2005..



                                                                                                                                             2007


                      pf,
                                                                                                                                             2009
                      c
                      IA
                      .0
                      c                                                                                                                      2011


                                                                                                                                             2013
                      c
                      3
                      C
                                                                                                                                             2015-



                                                                                                                                             2017



                                                                                                                                             2M

                      -4

                                                                                                                                             2021



                                                                                                                                             2023



                                                                                                                                             2025



                                                                                                                                             2027



                                                                                                                                             902_q_




                                                                                               > z     -0   >z   > z
                                                                                               r- 0         r,0  r, 0












                                              APPENDIX 3. PROPOSED REGULATIONS



                50 CFR PART 648


                Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan

                1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

                2. The following would be added to Section 648.2 (Definitions):

                        Spiny dogfish means Squalus acanthias.

                        Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee means a committee made up of staff representatives
                of the MAFMC, NEFMC, the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, the Northeast Fisheries Science
                Center, and the states. The MAFMC Executive Director or a designee chairs the committee.

                3. Add to Section 648.4 (commercial vessel permits):

                        (8) spiny dogfish vessels - Any commercial vessel of the United States must have been
                issued and carry on board a valid vessel permit to fish for, possess, or land spiny dogfish for sale in
                or from the EEZ.


                4. Section 648.4 (Vessel and commercial permits), paragraph b, is revised to read as follows:

                        (b) Permit conditions. Any person who applies for a fishing permit under this section must
                agree as a condition of the permit that the vessel and the vessel's fishing activity, catch, and
                pertinent gear (without regard to whether such fishing occurs in the EEZ or landward of the EEZ,
                and without regard to where such fish or gear are possessed, taken or landed), are subject to all
                requirements of this part, unless exempted from such requirements under this part. All such fishing
                activities, catch, and gear will remain subject to all applicable state requirements. Except as
                otherwise provided in this part, if a requirement of this part and a management measure required by
                a state or local law differ, any vessel owner permitted to fish in the EEZ for any species managed
                under this part must comply with the more restrictive requirement. Owners and operators of vessels
                fishing under the terms of a summer flounder moratorium, scup moratorium, black sea bass
                moratorium permit or bluefish vessel permit or spiny dogfish vessel permit must also agree not to
                land summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, or spiny dogfish respectively, in any state
                after NMFS has published a notification in the Federal Register stating that the commercial quota
                for that state or period has been harvested and that no commercial quota is available for the
                respective species. A state not receiving an allocation of summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, or
                bluefish either directly or through a coastwide allocation, is deemed to have no commercial quota
                available. Owners or operators fishing for surf clams and ocean quahogs within waters under the
                jurisdiction of any state that requires cage tags are not subject to any conflicting Federal minimum
                size or tagging requirements. If a surf clam and ocean quahog requirement of this part differs from
                a surf clam and ocean quahog management measure required by a state that does not require cage
                tagging, any vessel owners or operators permitted to fish in the EEZ for surf clams and ocean
                quahogs must comply with the more restrictive requirement while fishing in state waters. However,
                surrender of a surf clam and ocean quahog vessel permit by the owner by certified mail addressed
                to the Regional Administrator allows an individual to comply with the less restrictive state minimum


                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                  PR - 1











         size requirement, as long as fishing is conducted exclusively within state waters. If the commercial
         black sea bass quota for a period is harvested and the coast is closed to the possession of black
         sea bass north of 35 deg. 15.3' N. lat., any vessel owners that hold valid commercial permits for
         both the black sea bass and the NMFS Southeast Region Snapper-Grouper fisheries may surrender
         their moratorium Black Sea Bass permit by certified mail addressed to the Regional Administrator
         and fish pursuant to their Snapper-Grouper permit, as long as fishing is conducted exclusively in
         waters, and landings are made, south of 35 deg. 15.3' N. lat. A moratorium permit for the black sea
         bass fishery that is voluntarily relinquished or surrendered will be reissued upon the receipt of the
         vessel owner's written request after a minimum period of 6 months from the date of cancellation.


         5. Spiny dogfish would be added to the species identified in section 648.5 (Operator permits),
         paragraph (a).

         6. Spiny dogfish would be added to the species identified in section 648.6 (Dealer/processor
         permits), paragraph (a).


         7. Spiny dogfish dealers would be added to section 648.7 (Record keeping and reporting
         requirements), paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i).

         8. Vessel owners with a commercial vessel permit for spiny dogfish would be added to section
         648.7 (Record keeping and reporting requirements), paragraph (b)(1)(i).

         9. Spiny dogfish would be added to the species identified in section 648.7 (Record keeping and
         reporting requirements), paragraph (c) (3).

         10. Spiny dogfish would be added to the species identified in section 648.11 (At-sea sea sampler
         /observer coverage) (a) and W.

         11. Section 648.12 (Experimental Fishing) is revised to read as follows:


                The Regional Administrator may exempt any person or vessel from the requirements of
         subparts B (Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish), D (sea scallop), E (surf clam and ocean
         quahog), F (NE multispecies), G (summer flounder), H (scup), I (black sea bass), J (bluefish) or K
         (spiny dogfish) of this part for the conduct of experimental fishing beneficial to the management of
         the resources or fishery managed under that subpart. The Regional Administrator shall consult with
         the Executive Director of the Council regarding such exemptions for the Atlantic mackerel, squid,
         and butterfish, the summer flounder, the scup, the black sea bass, the bluefish and spiny dogfish
         f isheries.


         12. The following would be added to section 648.14 (prohibition of finning):

                 Finning, the act of removing the fins of spiny dogfish and discarding the carcass, will be
         prohibited. Vessels which land spiny dogfish must land fins in proportion to carcasses, with a
         maximum of three fins per carcass. Fins may not be stored aboard a vessel after the first point of
         landing.









         22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                PR - 2










                13. Subpart k (Management measures for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery) would be added as follows:

                ï¿½ 648.200 Catch quotas and other restrictions.

                       (a) Annual review. The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will review the following data,
                subject to availability, on or before February 15 of each year to determine the total allowable level
                of landings (TAL) and other restrictions necessary to achieve a target fishing mortality rate (F) of
                0.2 in 1999-2000; a target F of 0.03 in 2000-2009; and a target F of 0.11 thereafter: Commercial
                and recreational catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of
                recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual
                states; impact of size/mesh regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls
                and gill nets on the mortality of spiny clogfish; and any other relevant information.

                       (b) Recommended measures. Based on this review, the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
                Committee shall recommend to the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee of the MAFMC and NEFMC the
                following measures to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be
                exceeded:


                       (1) A TAIL set from a range of 0 to the maximum allowed to achieve the specified F.
                       (2) Restrictions on quantity of gill nets.

                       (c) Seasonal allocation of quota. The fishing year shall be defined as May 1 - April 30. The
                annual quota specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall be allocated into two semi-annual quota
                periods as follows: May 1 -October 30 (57.9 %) and November 1 -April 30 (42.1 %).



                       (d) Annual fishing measures. The Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall review the
                recommendations of the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations
                and any public comment, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC and
                NEFIVIC (Councils) measures necessary to assure that the applicable specified F will not be
                exceeded. The Councils shall review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations
                and any public comment, recommend to the Regional Administrator measures necessary to assure
                that the applicable specified F will not be exceeded. The Councils recommendations must include
                supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental and economic impacts of
                the recommendations. The Regional Administrator shall review these recommendations. After such
                review, the Regional Administrator will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register by February
                15 to implement a coastwide commercial quota for the commercial fishery. After considering
                public comment, the Regional Administrator will publish a final rule in the Federal Register to
                implement the measures necessary to assure that the applicable specified F will not be exceeded.


                ï¿½ 648.201 Closures.


                       (a) EEZ closure. The Regional Administrator shall close the EEZ to fishing for spiny dogfish
                by commercial vessels for the remainder of the semi-annual fishing year by publishing notification in
                the Federal Register if he/she determines that the specified quota is expected to be exceeded.


                ï¿½ 648.202 Gear restrictions.


                Commercial gill net vessels fishing for spiny dogfish will be prohibited from fishing more than a total
                of 80 nets (50 fathoms each).




                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                 PR - 3











          ï¿½ 648.203 Framework specifications.

                 (a) Within season management action. The Councils may, at any time, initiate action to add
          or adjust management measures if it finds that action is necessary to meet or be consistent with
          the goals and objectives of the Spiny Dogfish FMP.
                 (1) Adjustment process. After a management action has been initiated, the Councils shall
          develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council
          meetings. The Councils shall provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the
          proposals and the analysis and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the second Council
          meeting. The Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to management measures
          must come from one or more of the following categories; Minimum fish size, maximum fish size,
          gear requirements, restrictions or prohibitions (including, but not limited to, mesh size restrictions
          and net limits), regional gear restrictions, permitting restrictions and reporting requirements,
          recreational fishery measures including possession and size limits and season and area restrictions,
          commercial season and area restrictions, commercial trip or possession limits, fin weight to spiny
          dogfish landing weight restrictions, onboard observer requirements, commercial quota system
          including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch,
          recreational harvest limit, annual quota specification process, FMP Monitoring Committee
          composition and process, designation of essential fish habitat, overfishing definition and related
          thresholds and targets, regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons), restrictions
          on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower, target quotas, measures to mitigate marine
          mammal entanglements and interactions, any other management measures currently included in the
          FMP, and any other commercial or recreational management measures.

                 (2) MAFMC and NEFMC recommendation. After developing management actions and
          receiving public testimony, the Councils shall make a recommendation to the Regional
          Administrator. The Council's recommendation must include supporting rationale and, if
          management measures are recommended, an analysis of impacts and a recommendation to the
          Regional Administrator on whether to issue the management measures as a final rule. If the
          Councils recommend that the management measures should be issued as a final rule, they must
          consider at least the following factors and provide support and analysis for each factor considered:
                 W Whether the availability of data on which the recommended management measures are
          based allows for adequate time to publish a proposed rule, and whether regulations have to be in
          place for an entire harvest/fishing season.
                 00 Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public
          and members of the affected industry in the development of the Councils recommended
          management measures.
                 (iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.
                 (iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management measures adopted
          following their implementation as a final rule.
                 (3) Regional Administrator action. If the Councils recommendation includes adjustments or
          additions to management measures and, after reviewing the Councils recommendation and
          supporting information:
                 (i) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the Councils recommended management
          measures and determines that the recommended management measures should be issued as a final
          rule based on the factors specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the measures will be issued
          as a final rule in the Federal Register.
                 (ii) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the Councils recommendation and determines
          that the recommended management measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the
          measures will be published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register. After additional public
          comment, if the Regional Administrator concurs with the Councils recommendation, the measures


          22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                PR - 4










                will be issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
                        (iii) If the Regional Administrator does not concur, the Councils will be notified in writing of
                the reasons for the non-concurrence.


                        (b) Emergency action. Nothing in this section is meant to derogate from the authority of the
                Secretary to tale emergency action under section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.























































                22 September 1998 Hearing Draft                PR   5
































































                                                                 3 6668 14100 5217