[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18794-18798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9082]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18795]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 625

[I.D. 032295A]


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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council (Council) intends to prepare an SEIS for proposed Amendment 7 
to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS informs the 
public herewith of the opportunity to participate in the further 
development of Amendment 7 to the FMP. All persons affected by, or 
otherwise interested in, the proposed amendment are invited to 
participate in determining the scope of significant issues to be 
considered in the SEIS by submitting written comments. The scoping 
process also will identify issues that are not significant and will 
eliminate them from detailed study.

DATES: Written comments must be received by April 14, 1995.
    The hearings are scheduled as follows:
    1. April 10, 1995, 7 p.m., Manteo, NC;
    2. April 10, 1995, 7 p.m., Galilee, RI;
    3. April 10, 1995, 7:30 p.m., Ronkonkoma, NY; and
    4. April 12, 1995, 7 p.m., Cape May Courthouse, NJ.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the scoping process and scope of 
the SEIS to David R. Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South New Street, 
Dover, DE 19904-6790; telephone: 302-674-2331; FAX: 302-674-5399.
    The hearings will be held at the following locations:
    1. Manteo--North Carolina State Aquarium, Airport Road, Roanoke 
Island, Manteo, NC 27954;
    2. Galilee--Dutch Inn, 307 Great Island Rd., Galilee, RI 02882;
    3. Ronkonkoma--Holiday Inn, 3845 Veterans Memorial Highway, 
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779; and
    4. Cape May Courthouse--Cape May County Extension Office, 
Dennisville Rd., Route 657, Cape May Courthouse, NJ 08210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Keifer, Executive Director, 
302-674-2331; FAX: 302-674-5399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Problems to be Discussed for This Amendment

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

    A moratorium on entry of additional vessels Into the summer 
flounder commercial fishery was implemented with Amendment 2. The 
moratorium automatically expires in 1997. Given the large number of 
unemployed and underemployed fishing vessels in the Northwest Atlantic 
and the overfished nature of the summer flounder resource, serious 
consideration should be given to continuing the moratorium.
    Extension of the moratorium will provide an opportunity for 
participants in the fishery to benefit as the resource continues to 
rebuild as a result of the fishing mortality reduction program. If the 
moratorium is allowed to lapse, the fishery will revert to open access 
and new vessels will enter the fishery. This would tend to dissipate 
any chances of profitability. More likely, the problems experienced by 
the existing participants in the fishery would be increased in 
magnitude; more fishermen would be attempting to catch the same 
quantity of fish, thereby increasing costs and decreasing income.

2. Moratorium Permits

    Vessels with documented landings of summer flounder for sale 
between January 26, 1985, and January 26, 1990, qualify for a 
moratorium permit to land and sell summer flounder under this 
moratorium program. The FMP provides that, if a commercial vessel fails 
to land any summer flounder within any 52-week period, its moratorium 
permit expires. The theory behind this provision is that the FMP had 
very liberal qualification rules for a moratorium permit, so a 
retirement provision was needed to reduce harvesting capacity over 
time. Another view of this issue is that the retirement rule could 
force fishermen to participate in the summer flounder fishery only to 
keep their eligibility, thereby increasing effort to the fishery each 
year.

3. Vessel Replacement Criteria

    The New England Council has requested that the Mid-Atlantic Council 
adopt the replacement language of the Multispecies FMP in the Summer 
Flounder FMP.
    The Summer Flounder FMP prohibits vessel replacement unless the 
vessel sinks, burns, or is declared unseaworthy by the Coast Guard. The 
rule was implemented to prevent increases in fishing power. The New 
England Council's Northeast Multispecies FMP also contains a vessel 
moratorium. The Multispecies FMP allows vessel replacement, as long as 
the horsepower does not increase by more than 20 percent and the 
length, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage do not increase by 
more than 10 percent.
    The Multispecies FMP also provides that the moratorium permits 
issued for a given vessel may not be divided between two vessels. 
Therefore, under the Multispecies FMP rules, if the owner of a vessel 
with multispecies and summer flounder permits wants to build a 
replacement vessel, the owner would not be able to transfer the summer 
flounder permit to the replacement vessel.
    Many vessels are permitted under both FMPs. Of the 4,516 vessels 
that have commercial multispecies permits, and of the 1,206 vessels 
that have commercial summer flounder permits, 1,032 vessels have 
permits under both FMPs.

4. Recreational Catch Limitation Adjustment System

    The Summer Flounder FMP provides that, if a state exceeds its 
commercial quota, the excess is deducted from the next year's quota. 
There is no parallel system if the coastwide harvest limit for the 
recreational fishery is exceeded. If the recreational fishery were to 
exceed its target, it is possible that the overall quota (commercial 
quota and recreational harvest limit) would need to be reduced for the 
next year. In other words, the commercial fishery quota may be reduced 
because the recreational target was exceeded. Some people in the 
industry believe that this situation presents an equity problem that 
should be addressed.
    If the coastwide recreational management system continues, one 
management alternative would be to deduct any recreational overage from 
the harvest target for the following year.

5. Commercial Quota System

    When Amendment 2 was being developed, many quota management systems 
were considered, including a coastwide quota, regional, and state-by-
state quotas. A simple coastwide system was not feasible, due to the 
migratory patterns of summer flounder. Fishermen at the southern end of 
the range could possibly catch all the quota before fishermen at the 
northern end of the range had access to the summer flounder.

[[Page 18796]]

    To mitigate this inequity, the Council adopted a state-by-state 
quota system. The states are responsible for managing their quotas, and 
NMFS retains an oversight role to assure that the state quotas are not 
exceeded. Since then, the FMP has been amended to allow the states to 
combine or trade quotas.
    Some industry representatives would like the Council to consider 
alternative quota allocation systems. Many of the states have divided 
their annual quotas into quotas for shorter time periods, e.g., 
quarterly, and have instituted trip limit systems to reduce the chances 
of closure. The trip limits may be adequate for resident fishermen, but 
may be too small to support transient vessels that traditionally have 
landed in a number of states from Massachusetts to North Carolina.
    Another problem with state-by-state quotas is differing trip limits 
in adjacent states. Vessels will land in the state with the highest 
trip limit. This problem occurred in Connecticut, where trip limits 
were considered unnecessary and thus were not imposed. However, in 
response to a reduction in the Massachusetts trip limit, many vessels 
landed in Connecticut and filled Connecticut's quota in a few days--
before preventative action could be implemented.
    In general, any alternative to a state-by-state quota system would 
have to allow for an equitable allocation of the commercial quota 
between northern and southern participants, as well as between the 
smaller day boats and larger offshore vessels. Due to the seasonal 
nature of the summer flounder fishery, the quota also would have to be 
divided into smaller temporal units to allow for a fair distribution. 
One possible approach is a bimonthly quota allocation system. To 
minimize effects on traditional landings patterns, the allocation to 
each period would be based on past landings instead of a system that 
divided the quota equally over the six periods. For example, based on 
1992 data, 23 percent would be allocated to period 1 (January-February) 
and only 6 percent to period 3 (May-June)(Table 1.).

 Table 1.--The Percent of the Total Summer Flounder Landed Commercially 
                     in 1992 for Each 2-Month Period                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Period                              Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan-Feb......................................................      22.68
Mar-Apr......................................................      13.78
May-Jun......................................................       5.97
Jul-Aug......................................................       8.29
Sep-Oct......................................................      28.13
Nov-Dec......................................................     21.14 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS Weighout Data.                                             

    A coastwide bimonthly quota allocation system would allow fishermen 
to land in any port along the coast. All commercial landings during a 
bimonthly period would count toward the quota for that period. When the 
quota had been landed for a bimonthly period, fishing for and/or 
landing summer flounder would be prohibited for the remainder of the 
period. Landings in excess of the allocation for the period would be 
subtracted from the following year's quota for the same period.
    However, bimonthly allocations without trip limits would encourage 
derby-style fishing practices that would allow the quota to be landed 
by larger, more mobile vessels at the beginning of each period. 
Supplies of summer flounder would be discontinuous and smaller boats 
would be disadvantaged. Therefore, trip limits would be necessary to 
ensure a safer and more equitable fishery.
    The trip limits could be established and modified throughout the 2-
month period to allow for a continuous supply of product and equitable 
distribution of flounder to fishermen using both small and large 
vessels. For example, a 3,000-lb (1,360.78 kg) trip limit could be 
established for the beginning of period 1. The limit would decrease to 
1,000 lb (453.59 kg) when 50 percent of the allocation was reached, to 
500 lb (226.8 kg) when 75 percent of the quota was taken, and to 100 lb 
(45.36 kg) when 90 percent of the landings were reached. Different trip 
limit systems could be designed for each period to ensure equitable 
distribution over each 2-month period.
    Unlike the current management program that allows states to design 
their own systems, NMFS would be responsible for implementing trip 
limits for each period. Therefore, NMFS will need significant resources 
to design and implement such a system.

6. Management of the Recreational Fishery

    During the development of Amendment 2, much debate arose over 
whether the recreational fishery should be managed on a state-by-state 
basis (the same as the commercial fishery), on a regional basis, or 
coastwide. The final decision was to manage on a coastwide basis.
    The recreational fishery is now managed with a combination of 
minimum fish size limits, possession limits, and seasons that apply 
coastwide. However, recreational landings are not equally distributed 
along the coast. For example, summer flounder landings are considerably 
higher in New York and New Jersey than they are in North Carolina. 
Coastwide management results in the fishing mortality reduction 
measures effectively being averaged across all of the states. To ensure 
greater equity between northern and southern states, the Council has 
been asked to consider regional or state-by-state management of the 
recreational fishery.
    Regional management could require that different measures be 
implemented in the three regions along the coast. As an example, the 
fishing mortality reduction strategy in Amendment 2 called for a 
reduction of 47 percent in the first 3 years of implementation. The 
resulting coastwide management measures included a 14-inch (35.6-cm) 
minimum fish size, a 3-fish possession limit and no closed season on a 
coastwide basis. Had the fishing mortality reduction strategy been 
implemented in subregions with the same size limit and season, the 
possession limit would have been two from Maine to Connecticut, two in 
the states from New York to Delaware, and six from Maryland to North 
Carolina.
    A state-by-state system would allocate recreational quota to each 
state. Each state would then be required to develop management measures 
to ensure that the harvest limit would not be exceeded for that state.

7. Summer Flounder Bycatch in the Sea Scallop Fishery

    Although scallop dredges account for approximately 1 percent of the 
summer flounder landings, they are the second most important gear in 
the commercial summer flounder fishery (after otter trawls). The 
scallop fishery is currently managed under the Atlantic Sea Scallop 
FMP, which placed a moratorium on the entry of additional vessels into 
the sea scallop fishery and imposed an effort limitation system.
    Under the Summer Flounder FMP, sea scallop fishermen, if they 
qualify for a permit, may land all the summer flounder they catch, as 
long as they meet the minimum fish size limit and comply with the 
applicable state trip limits or closures. However, the summer flounder 
FMP and implementing regulations provide that when a state's commercial 
quota has been taken, no 

[[Page 18797]]
commercial vessels may land summer flounder. The issue arises then, of 
whether sea scallop fishermen should be allowed to land their bycatch 
without regard to state summer flounder trip limits or closures, so 
long as the flounder meet the minimum fish size limit.

8. Bycatch Allowance

    The summer flounder FMP provides that only vessels with moratorium 
permits may land summer flounder for sale. All other vessels must 
comply with the recreational seasons, size limits, and possession 
limits. The issue for scoping is whether commercial vessels that did 
not qualify for moratorium permits should be allowed to land for sale a 
specified amount of summer flounder caught as bycatch in fisheries 
directed at other species.

9. De Minimis Status for States

    The Summer Flounder FMP is a joint plan prepared under both the 
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended, 
and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA). 
Under ACFCMA, if a state does not implement measures required by an 
FMP, the Federal Government may impose a moratorium on landing the 
species covered by the FMP in that state.
    In the case of summer flounder, several states, e.g., Maine, New 
Hampshire, and Delaware, had historically very small, or de minimis, 
commercial fisheries and, therefore, received very small quota 
allocations. A question for resolution under Amendment 7 is whether 
these states should be required to impose a full array of management 
measures for what could be a bycatch fishery.
    This issue is essentially an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission (ASMFC) concern, because the Director, Northeast Region, 
NMFS, must ensure no landing of summer flounder by federally permitted 
vessels once a state's quota has been landed. The Federal minimum fish 
size limit would apply to summer flounder in commerce. Federally 
permitted vessels would be required to use the appropriate minimum cod 
end on otter trawl nets, which is the management measure established by 
the FMP.
    Several states also have de minimis landings in the recreational 
sector. It must be determined whether adequate conservation reasons 
exist to incur the governmental costs associated with preparing and 
implementing regulations. The state-by-state distribution of the 1989 
summer flounder recreational catch is shown in Table 2 below.

 Table 2.--Estimated Total Recreational Catch of All Species and Summer 
              Flounder (SF), Maine to North Carolina, 1989              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Total catch     SF catch    State SF   State SF
                      -----------------------------  catch as   catch as
                                                     percent    percent 
                                                     of coast   of state
        State                                        SF catch    total  
                            (lb)           (lb)    -----------   catch  
                                                              ----------
                                                        %          %    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME...................       2,206,420  ...........  .........  .........
NH...................       1,765,093        6,360        0.2        0.4
MA...................      14,137,658       26,122        0.9        0.2
RI...................       4,984,989      120,842        4.3        2.4
CT...................       5,908,942       33,875        1.2        0.6
NY...................      20,114,161      449,865       16.0        2.2
NJ...................      17,176,916      651,288       23.2        3.8
DE...................       4,371,203      143,750        5.1        3.3
MD...................      12,791,667      471,839       16.8        3.7
VA...................      20,127,089      527,566       18.8        2.6
NC...................      16,852,753      372,652       13.3       2.2 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Unpublished NMFS Data.                                          
(Table originally appeared as Table 42 in Amendment 2 to the Summer     
  Flounder Fishery Management Plan)                                     

10. Summer Flounder Landings by Vessels Without Federal Summer Flounder 
Permits

    A better reporting system must be developed for summer flounder 
caught in state waters. Currently, vessels that land summer flounder 
caught in state waters are not required to have Federal permits, and 
therefore, are not required to file Federal logbook reports. In 
addition, some dealers handle only summer flounder caught in state 
waters and are thus also not subject to the Federal permitting and 
reporting requirements.
    The commercial quota, however, applies to all summer flounder 
caught for sale, regardless of where caught. The states must, 
therefore, implement a reporting system to account for the summer 
flounder caught in state waters.

11. In-Season Quota Adjustments

    The summer flounder FMP allows quotas to be set once a year and to 
take effect January 1. It may be desirable to change quotas during the 
year as new information becomes available. This may create uncertainty 
in the industry, however, and further complicate the quota setting 
process.

12. Quota Setting Process

    The annual quota setting process would be more clearly defined 
under the alternative proposed in Amendment 7. The summer flounder FMP 
contains fishing mortality rate targets, factors to be considered in 
setting the quotas, and a process for the Council to follow in setting 
the quotas. The FMP does not discuss the limits that may be placed on 
the Council's discretion in setting the quotas, specifically the 
probability of achieving the target fishing mortality rates. This 
alternative would establish guidelines to be used by the Council when 
it sets annual quotas.

13. Fishing Mortality Rate Reduction Strategy

    The current fishing mortality rate reduction strategy, incorporated 
in Amendment 2, called for a reduction in fishing mortality (F) to 0.53 
during the first year that Amendment 2 was in 

[[Page 18798]]
effect (1993). That rate was to remain constant for a total of three 
years (1993-95). In 1996, the fishing mortality rate will be reduced to 
Fmax (F = 0.23) and remain constant at that level.
    Although the fishing mortality reduction program has had some 
success, the poor 1993 year class will significantly reduce the 
allowable catch in 1996 in order to meet the fishing mortality rate 
target. This reduction may have significant negative impact on the 
fisheries. Therefore, it might be appropriate to readjust the fishing 
mortality rate reduction strategy in order to reduce the severity of 
the 1996 reduction.
    For example, an alternative strategy could set the fishing 
mortality rate for 1996 at 0.38, which is halfway between the 1995 
target F (0.53) and 0.23. Based on the information provided by the 
latest stock assessment, this intermediate reduction could allow for a 
1996 quota that was approximately 50 percent larger than the one 
associated with the current strategy (i.e., an F of 0.23). However, 
this increase in quota would have a slight affect on the spawning 
stock; stock numbers would only be reduced by 10 percent in 1997 
relative to the stock size associated with the current reduction 
strategy.
    Current Management Objectives. (Part of scoping is the possible 
reevaluation of the existing objectives). The objectives of the FMP are 
to:
    1. Reduce fishing mortality in the summer flounder fishery to 
assure that overfishing does not occur.
    2. Reduce fishing mortality on immature summer flounder to increase 
spawning stock biomass.
    3. Improve the yield from the fishery.
    4. Promote compatible management regulations between state and 
Federal jurisdictions.
    5. Promote uniform and effective enforcement of regulations.
    6. Minimize regulations to achieve the management objectives stated 
above.
    Commercial Fishery Management Measures. Possible management 
measures for the commercial fishery include: Minimum and/or maximum 
fish size, minimum mesh size, closed seasons, quotas (including 
adjustment among states), moratorium on vessels, ITQs, trip limits, 
permit limits, and gear restrictions and limits.
    Recreational Fishery Management Measures. Possible management 
measures for the summer flounder recreational fishery include: Minimum 
and/or maximum fish size, maximum possession limit, closed seasons, 
closed areas, gear restrictions and limits, quotas (including 
adjustments among states), and restrictions on the ability to sell 
recreationally caught fish.
    Possible management measures for the summer flounder fishery that 
carries recreational fishermen for hire include: Minimum and/or maximum 
fish size, maximum possession limit, closed seasons, closed areas, gear 
restrictions and limits, quotas (including adjustment among states), 
and restrictions on the ability to sell recreationally caught fish.
    Any measures that are implemented under Amendment 7 would most 
likely be included in the summer flounder framework. The framework 
allows the Monitoring Committee, made up of representatives of the 
three Councils, ASMFC, and NMFS, to review annually the condition of 
the resource and fishery and recommend adjustments to the measures 
(e.g., possession limit, quota, etc.) to achieve the desired goals.
    Permitting and Reporting. It is not anticipated that the permitting 
and reporting provisions of the current FMP will be changed as a result 
of this Amendment.

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

    Dated: April 7, 1995.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director of Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-9082 Filed 4-10-95; 9:16 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W