[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12314-12316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XO02


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Atlantic Mackerel, 
Butterfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Spiny Dogfish, Summer Flounder, Scup, 
Black Sea Bass, Tilefish, Surfclam, and Ocean Quahog Annual Catch 
Limits and Accountability Measures Omnibus Amendment; Scoping Process

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

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS); notice of public scoping meetings; requests for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) 
announces its intention to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, an EIS in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to assess 
potential effects on the human environment of alternative measures to 
address the new Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability 
measures (AMs) in an Omnibus Amendment to the fishery management plans 
(FMPs) for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny 
dogfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, tilefish, surfclams, 
and ocean quahogs. Loligo and Illex squid are exempt from these new 
requirements because they have annual life cycles and not subject to 
overfishing.
    This notice announces a public process for determining the scope of 
issues to be addressed, and for identifying the significant issues 
related to the implementation of ACLs and AMs for these fisheries. This 
notice is to alert the interested public of the scoping process, the 
development of the Draft EIS, and to provide for public participation 
in that process.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on 
May 15, 2009. Three public scoping meetings will be held during this 
comment period. See Supplementary Information for dates, times, and 
locations.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent by any of the following 
methods:
     E-mail to the following address: [email protected];
     Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T. Furlong, Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal 
Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, Delaware 19904-6790. Mark the 
outside of the envelope ``Omnibus Amendment: National Standard 1 
Requirements Scoping Comments''; or
     Fax to (302) 674-5399.
    The scoping document may also be obtained from the Council office 
at the previously provided address, or by request to the Council by 
telephone (302) 674-2331, or via the Internet at http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/comments/comments.htm.
    Comments may also be provided verbally at any of the three public 
scoping meetings. See Supplementary Information for dates, times, and 
locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel T. Furlong, Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 S. New St., 
Dover, DE 19904-6790, (telephone 302-674-2331).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The management units for Atlantic mackerel, 
butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup, 
black sea bass, tilefish, surfclams, and ocean quahogs vary, but span 
the range from the eastern coast of Florida in the

[[Page 12315]]

western Atlantic Ocean northward to the U.S.-Canadian border. The 
specific management units for each species, are contained in the 
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic Bluefish; Spiny 
Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; Tilefish, and 
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMPs.

Meetings

    Three scoping meetings to facilitate public comment will be held on 
the following dates and locations:
    1. April 14, 2009, 7:00 p.m., The Sanderling Resort and Spa, 1461 
Duck Rd., Duck, NC 27949;
    2. April 21, 2009, 7:00 p.m., NYSDEC Marine Resources, 205 N. Belle 
Mead Rd, Ste 1 East Setauket, NY 11733.
    3. May 4, 2009, 7:00 p.m., Crowne Plaza Old Town Alexandria, 901 N. 
Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314;

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to M. Jan Bryan (302-674-2331 ext 18) at least 5 days prior 
to the meeting date.

Issues Identified for Discussion Under this Amendment

Various Methods for Calculating Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)

    In an effort to be compliant with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
National Standard 1(NS 1), and Guidelines (50 CFR 600.310), the Council 
will seek to develop formulaic approaches, known as control rules, that 
can be consistently applied to derive ABC relative to the status of the 
stock and the level of scientific uncertainty surrounding the stock 
status estimate. The following are examples of ABC control rules that 
the Council may further develop for use in managing the aforementioned 
species. However, the Council may deviate from these examples and 
develop additional ABC control rule approaches, consistent with their 
description in the NS 1 Guidance. The Council will rely heavily on its 
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) during development and 
implementation of ABC control rules and it will be the SSC that is 
responsible for application of the final control rules to recommend 
either annual or multi-year ABCs for target species stocks.
    For example, ABC for all of the target stocks could be prescribed 
through a set of tiers designed to classify each stock based on the 
amount or level of information available, type of stock assessment 
conducted, current stock status, and/or other relevant factors. Within 
each tier, a pre-defined set of control rules would be used to 
calculate the overfishing level (OFL) and ABC. In addition to an 
overarching tiered approach, species-specific approaches to developing 
control rules could be applied to one, some, or all of the stocks in 
the fisheries. For example, a probability-based ABC control rule could 
be applied where ABC is reduced from OFL based on a higher likelihood 
of achieving the target fishing mortality rate of FMSY, or 
FREBUILD if the stock is under a rebuilding plan. An ABC 
control rule based on a fixed percentage could also be applied. For 
example, ABC could be set at 75 percent of the OFL (ABC = 0.75 OFL) or 
some other fixed percentage value. An approach based on maintaining 
some specified level of maximum spawning potential (MSP) of a stock 
could also be applied.

Various Methods for Establishing ACLs

    The Council will seek to develop control rules that can be 
consistently applied to derive ACLs relative to the status of the stock 
and the level of management uncertainty or implementation error 
surrounding the stock status estimate. The following are examples of 
ACL control rules that the Council may further develop for use in 
managing the aforementioned stocks in the fisheries. ACLs may be 
established at the fishery level, sector level, or sub sector level. 
The Council may deviate from these examples and develop other ACL 
control rule approaches, consistent with the NS 1 Guidelines. 
Approaches to developing ACL control rules could be applied to one, 
some, or all the stocks in the fisheries. For example, a probability-
based ACL control rule could be applied where ACL is reduced from ABC 
based on a higher likelihood of achieving the target fishing mortality 
rate of FMSY, or FREBUILD if the stock is under a 
rebuilding plan. An ACL control rule based on a fixed percentage could 
also be applied. For example, ACL could be set at 75 percent of the ABC 
(ACL = 0.75 ABC) or some other fixed percentage value. An approach 
based on maintaining some level of MSP of a stock could also be 
applied.

Various Approaches to Establishing AMs

    The Council will develop AMs that are designed to prevent ACLs from 
being exceeded, in the case of proactive AMs, and AMs that are 
triggered when an ACL is exceeded, in the case of reactive AMs. The 
Council may also consider development of annual catch target (ACT) 
control rules, which are proactive AMs, to establish catch targets that 
further insure that the ACL has a low likelihood of being exceeded and, 
thus, that reactive AMs will be triggered. The following are examples 
of the type of measures that may be considered by the Council. The 
Council has considerable latitude in developing the specific measures 
that will be considered in the Omnibus Amendment.
    For one, some, or all of the stocks in the fisheries with 
recreational measures under Council management jurisdiction (i.e. 
summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic bluefish, tilefish, and 
Atlantic mackerel) the Council will consider reactive AMs that would be 
triggered if the ACL is exceeded or proactive AMs which are designed to 
prevent exceeding the ACL, or both. The recreational catch limit is the 
sum of the recreational catch limit and recreational discards. Reactive 
AMs could include the deduction of all or some of the prior year 
overage to reduce the subsequent year's recreational catch limit. 
Proactive AMs for the recreational fishery could include the setting of 
an ACT that is less than the ACL and designed to buffer against 
exceeding the ACL. This may be useful in the recreational fishery, 
where timely inseason management is typically not possible. Percentage-
based or probability-based approaches similar to those described above 
for ABC and ACL could be utilized as a mechanism to set ACTs. Methods 
that directly account for the frequency ACLs could be exceeded 
(performance-based), will also be considered, to ensure that ACLs are 
only rarely exceeded. Inseason fishery closures could also be 
considered. While most recreational data are insufficient to 
informatively predict when a closure may be appropriate, the current 
regulations for most recreational fisheries under the Council's 
jurisdiction do not provide the ability to close the season during the 
fishing year, even if an overage has occurred or is projected to occur 
if the fishery remains open. While it is not expected that projections 
would be utilized to close recreational fisheries inseason, being able 
to reduce the magnitude of an overage may be a tool considered by the 
Council.
    For one, some, or all of the stocks in the fisheries with 
commercial measures under Council management jurisdiction, the Council 
will consider reactive AMs which that would be triggered if the ACL is 
exceeded, or proactive AMs that are designed to prevent exceeding the 
ACLs. While some stocks have these measures in their FMPs, others do 
not. The commercial catch limit is the sum of the commercial quota and 
commercial discards. Reactive AMs for

[[Page 12316]]

the commercial fishery could include deducting all or some of the prior 
year commercial overage (in weight) from the subsequent year's 
commercial catch limit.
    Proactive AMs for the commercial fishery could include adjustable 
trip limits, as a method to prevent ACLs from being exceeded. When a 
given percent of the commercial catch limit (in weight) is reached, 
trips limits in the fishery for that species could be decreased until 
the total commercial catch limit is reached. The fixed percentage at 
which trip limits would drop would vary depending on which species the 
limit applies to, and the trip limits themselves would be species-
specific. Other proactive AMs could include inseason closures when 
quotas are projected to be attained. Many Council-managed species 
already have in place such measures; however, the Council may consider 
additional approaches or modification of existing reporting 
requirements in support of improving inseason fishery management.

Other Considerations

    The Council could consider establishing a periodic formal review by 
the SSC, which would provide the opportunity to revise ABC control 
rules every few years after a control rule has been implemented. For 
example, a 5-year time period could be used. The Council may also 
identify a broader approach to inclusion of species in its FMPs that 
may or may not require conservation or management, but that may be 
relevant in trying to further ecosystem management in the fishery. 
While not required, the Council could identify and include non-target 
stocks and/or ecosystem components in its FMPs. The Council may also 
consider ecosystem issues in the development of the catch limit 
framework for any of the stocks in the fisheries. Any allocation issues 
relating to the development of ABC, ACL, or AMs could also be 
considered by the Council.
    The Council may deviate from these examples and develop additional 
approaches, consistent with their description in the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, NS1, and the NS 1 Guidelines. The above issues under consideration 
are described in greater detail in the scoping document itself; copies 
may be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at 
http://www.mafmc.org.mid-atlantic/comments/comments.htm.

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

    Dated: March 19, 2009
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-6468 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S