# 2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass  {#summer-flounder-scup-and-black-sea-bass .Style1}

# Recreational Specifications {#recreational-specifications .Style1}

#  {#section .Style1}

#  {#section-1 .Style1}

# *Environmental Assessment,* {#environmental-assessment .Style1}

# *Regulatory Impact Review, and* {#regulatory-impact-review-and .Style1}

# *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis* {#initial-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .Style1}

#  {#section-2 .Style1}

#  {#section-3 .Style1}

# January 2008 {#january-2008 .Style1}

#  {#section-4 .Style1}

# *Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council* {#mid-atlantic-fishery-management-council .Style1}

# *in cooperation with the* {#in-cooperation-with-the .Style1}

# *National Marine Fisheries Service* {#national-marine-fisheries-service .Style1}

#  {#section-5 .Style1}

#  {#section-6 .Style1}

#  {#section-7 .Style1}

#  {#section-8 .Style1}

# Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council {#mid-atlantic-fishery-management-council-1 .Style1}

# Room 2115, Federal Building {#room-2115-federal-building .Style1}

# 300 South New Street {#south-new-street .Style1}

# Dover, Delaware 19904-6790 {#dover-delaware-19904-6790 .Style1}

# Tel. 302-674-2331 {#tel.-302-674-2331 .Style1}

# FAX 302-674-539 {#fax-302-674-539 .Style1}

**1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

# The proposed action would implement recreational fishery management measures to achieve the recreational harvest limits for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. These management measures would be designed to achieve the recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, as published in the [Federal]{.underline} [Register]{.underline} (72 FR 74197; December 31, 2007) as part of the 2008 annual quota specification. This Environmental Assessment analyzes the possession, size, and/or seasonal limits that will most likely achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limits for the three species. {#the-proposed-action-would-implement-recreational-fishery-management-measures-to-achieve-the-recreational-harvest-limits-for-the-summer-flounder-scup-and-black-sea-bass-fisheries.-these-management-measures-would-be-designed-to-achieve-the-recreational-harvest-limits-for-summer-flounder-scup-and-black-sea-bass-as-published-in-the-federal-register-72-fr-74197-december-31-2007-as-part-of-the-2008-annual-quota-specification.-this-environmental-assessment-analyzes-the-possession-size-andor-seasonal-limits-that-will-most-likely-achieve-the-2008-recreational-harvest-limits-for-the-three-species. .Style1}

# *Summer Flounder Alternatives* {#summer-flounder-alternatives .Style1}

# For the summer flounder fishery, the preferred alternative (status quo alternative 1) would implement conservation equivalency, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council or MAFMC) and the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). Conservation equivalency requires the states to develop state-specific or regional management measures (i.e. possession limits, fish size limits, and seasons) to achieve state-specific or regional harvest limits. Under this approach, each state or region may implement unique management measures appropriate to that state or region, so long as they are determined by the Commission to provide equivalent conservation as coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit. Also, as required under the conservation equivalency guidelines, the Council recommended precautionary default measures of an 20-inch total length (TL) minimum fish size, a 2-fish possession limit, and season from May 23 to September 1 for 2008; these measures would apply to Federal permit holders landing summer flounder in states that do not implement conservation equivalency measures or for which conservation equivalency measures are not approved by the Board. *These measures were subsequently modified by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to be* *a 20-inch total length (TL) minimum fish size, a 2-fish possession limit, and season from July4 to September 1 for 2008.* In addition, the Council and Commission adopted a non-preferred coastwide alternative (no action alternative 2) to be implemented in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; 3-200 miles) if conservation equivalency is not implemented. These measures include a 19-inch TL minimum fish size, a 3-fish per person possession limit, and season from May 23 to September 1 for 2008. *These measures were also modified by NMFS to be a 19-inch TL minimum fish size, a 2-fish per person possession limit, and season from May 23 to September 1 for 2008. For more information and analysis of the modified alternatives, please refer to the attached supplement to the EA for 2008 summer flounder recreational specifications.*  {#for-the-summer-flounder-fishery-the-preferred-alternative-status-quo-alternative-1-would-implement-conservation-equivalency-as-recommended-by-the-mid-atlantic-fishery-management-council-council-or-mafmc-and-the-summer-flounder-scup-and-black-sea-bass-management-board-board-of-the-atlantic-states-marine-fisheries-commission-commission.-conservation-equivalency-requires-the-states-to-develop-state-specific-or-regional-management-measures-i.e.-possession-limits-fish-size-limits-and-seasons-to-achieve-state-specific-or-regional-harvest-limits.-under-this-approach-each-state-or-region-may-implement-unique-management-measures-appropriate-to-that-state-or-region-so-long-as-they-are-determined-by-the-commission-to-provide-equivalent-conservation-as-coastwide-measures-developed-to-achieve-the-overall-recreational-harvest-limit.-also-as-required-under-the-conservation-equivalency-guidelines-the-council-recommended-precautionary-default-measures-of-an-20-inch-total-length-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-2-fish-possession-limit-and-season-from-may-23-to-september-1-for-2008-these-measures-would-apply-to-federal-permit-holders-landing-summer-flounder-in-states-that-do-not-implement-conservation-equivalency-measures-or-for-which-conservation-equivalency-measures-are-not-approved-by-the-board.-these-measures-were-subsequently-modified-by-noaas-national-marine-fisheries-service-nmfs-to-be-a-20-inch-total-length-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-2-fish-possession-limit-and-season-from-july4-to-september-1-for-2008.-in-addition-the-council-and-commission-adopted-a-non-preferred-coastwide-alternative-no-action-alternative-2-to-be-implemented-in-the-exclusive-economic-zone-eez-3-200-miles-if-conservation-equivalency-is-not-implemented.-these-measures-include-a-19-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-3-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-season-from-may-23-to-september-1-for-2008.-these-measures-were-also-modified-by-nmfs-to-be-a-19-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-2-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-season-from-may-23-to-september-1-for-2008.-for-more-information-and-analysis-of-the-modified-alternatives-please-refer-to-the-attached-supplement-to-the-ea-for-2008-summer-flounder-recreational-specifications. .Style1}

# There were no habitat or protected resources impacts associated with alternatives 1 and 2. However, the conservation equivalency measures under alternative 1 are expected to have positive socioeconomic impacts relative to the no action alternative (alternative 2). The biological impacts associated with both alternatives are expected to be neutral to positive (alternative 1 and 2). Conservation equivalency recreational management measures under alternative 1 would require each state or region to develop specific recreational measures to allow the fishery to operate in each state or region during critical fishing periods while still achieving conservation goals. This would enable the summer flounder fishery to operate in a way that dissipates potential adverse economic effects in specific states.  {#there-were-no-habitat-or-protected-resources-impacts-associated-with-alternatives-1-and-2.-however-the-conservation-equivalency-measures-under-alternative-1-are-expected-to-have-positive-socioeconomic-impacts-relative-to-the-no-action-alternative-alternative-2.-the-biological-impacts-associated-with-both-alternatives-are-expected-to-be-neutral-to-positive-alternative-1-and-2.-conservation-equivalency-recreational-management-measures-under-alternative-1-would-require-each-state-or-region-to-develop-specific-recreational-measures-to-allow-the-fishery-to-operate-in-each-state-or-region-during-critical-fishing-periods-while-still-achieving-conservation-goals.-this-would-enable-the-summer-flounder-fishery-to-operate-in-a-way-that-dissipates-potential-adverse-economic-effects-in-specific-states. .Style1}

# *Scup Alternatives* {#scup-alternatives .Style1}

# For scup, the Council and Commission evaluated three alternatives. The preferred alternative (alternative 1) would implement a 10.5-inch TL minimum fish size, a 15-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October 31 for 2008. There were no habitat or protected resources impacts associated with this alternative or alternatives 2 and 3. The preferred alternative is expected to result in positive biological impacts and neutral to negative social and economic impacts when compared to the no action alternative. Alternative 2 includes 10.5-inch TL minimum fish size, a 15-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October 15. This alternative is also expected to result in positive biological impacts and neutral to negative social and economic impacts, and the magnitude of these impacts may be slightly greater than those under alternative 1. Alternative 3 (status quo/no action) includes a 10-inch TL minimum fish size, a 50-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 29 and September 18 through November 30. This alternative is expected to result in negative biological impacts when compared to 2007. Alternative 3 is expected to result in neutral to positive economic impacts and neutral to negative social impacts when compared to 2007.  {#for-scup-the-council-and-commission-evaluated-three-alternatives.-the-preferred-alternative-alternative-1-would-implement-a-10.5-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-15-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-open-seasons-of-january-1-through-february-29-and-october-1-through-october-31-for-2008.-there-were-no-habitat-or-protected-resources-impacts-associated-with-this-alternative-or-alternatives-2-and-3.-the-preferred-alternative-is-expected-to-result-in-positive-biological-impacts-and-neutral-to-negative-social-and-economic-impacts-when-compared-to-the-no-action-alternative.-alternative-2-includes-10.5-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-15-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-open-seasons-of-january-1-through-february-29-and-october-1-through-october-15.-this-alternative-is-also-expected-to-result-in-positive-biological-impacts-and-neutral-to-negative-social-and-economic-impacts-and-the-magnitude-of-these-impacts-may-be-slightly-greater-than-those-under-alternative-1.-alternative-3-status-quono-action-includes-a-10-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-50-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-open-seasons-of-january-1-through-february-29-and-september-18-through-november-30.-this-alternative-is-expected-to-result-in-negative-biological-impacts-when-compared-to-2007.-alternative-3-is-expected-to-result-in-neutral-to-positive-economic-impacts-and-neutral-to-negative-social-impacts-when-compared-to-2007. .Style1}

# In addition, the Board adopted state-by-state conservation equivalency measures for scup in 2008 and directed the Commission staff to develop a draft addendum for conservation equivalency using the same parameters that were approved in Addendum VII to the Commission's Interstate Scup Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for scup conservation equivalency and states will be adopting their own unique measures, it is likely that Federal and state recreational scup measures will differ for the 2008 season. As such, the Federal measures would only apply to party/charter boats fishing in Federal waters with Federal permits. {#in-addition-the-board-adopted-state-by-state-conservation-equivalency-measures-for-scup-in-2008-and-directed-the-commission-staff-to-develop-a-draft-addendum-for-conservation-equivalency-using-the-same-parameters-that-were-approved-in-addendum-vii-to-the-commissions-interstate-scup-fishery-management-plan-fmp.-because-the-federal-fmp-does-not-contain-provisions-for-scup-conservation-equivalency-and-states-will-be-adopting-their-own-unique-measures-it-is-likely-that-federal-and-state-recreational-scup-measures-will-differ-for-the-2008-season.-as-such-the-federal-measures-would-only-apply-to-partycharter-boats-fishing-in-federal-waters-with-federal-permits. .Style1}

# *Black Sea Bass Alternatives* {#black-sea-bass-alternatives .Style1}

# For black sea bass, the Council and Commission evaluated three alternatives. The preferred alternative (no action alternative 1) would implement a 12-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31 for the 2008 recreational fishery. Alternative 1 is the status quo alternative, and there are no biological, socioeconomic, habitat, or protected resources impacts associated with this alternative. Alternative 2 includes a coastwide 11.5-inch TL minimum fish size, 25-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through December 31. Alternative 3 includes a 12.5-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31 for the 2008 recreational fishery. There are no habitat, protected resources, or economic impacts associated with alternatives 2 and 3 in 2008, when compared to the status quo alternative (alternative 1). However, there may be slight positive biological impacts associated with alternative 3 and slight negative biological impacts with alternative 2.  {#for-black-sea-bass-the-council-and-commission-evaluated-three-alternatives.-the-preferred-alternative-no-action-alternative-1-would-implement-a-12-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-25-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-an-open-season-of-january-1-through-december-31-for-the-2008-recreational-fishery.-alternative-1-is-the-status-quo-alternative-and-there-are-no-biological-socioeconomic-habitat-or-protected-resources-impacts-associated-with-this-alternative.-alternative-2-includes-a-coastwide-11.5-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-25-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-open-seasons-of-january-1-through-december-31.-alternative-3-includes-a-12.5-inch-tl-minimum-fish-size-a-25-fish-per-person-possession-limit-and-an-open-season-of-january-1-through-december-31-for-the-2008-recreational-fishery.-there-are-no-habitat-protected-resources-or-economic-impacts-associated-with-alternatives-2-and-3-in-2008-when-compared-to-the-status-quo-alternative-alternative-1.-however-there-may-be-slight-positive-biological-impacts-associated-with-alternative-3-and-slight-negative-biological-impacts-with-alternative-2. .Style1}

# Table ES-1 presents a qualitative summary of the impacts of the various alternatives. The environmental impacts of the proposed measures were analyzed and the anticipated level of significance of these impacts is discussed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6. Because none of the preferred action alternatives are associated with significant impacts to the biological, social or economic, or physical environment, a "Finding of No Significant Impact" is determined. {#table-es-1-presents-a-qualitative-summary-of-the-impacts-of-the-various-alternatives.-the-environmental-impacts-of-the-proposed-measures-were-analyzed-and-the-anticipated-level-of-significance-of-these-impacts-is-discussed-in-accordance-with-the-national-environmental-policy-act-nepa-and-national-oceanic-and-atmospheric-administration-administrative-order-nao-216-6.-because-none-of-the-preferred-action-alternatives-are-associated-with-significant-impacts-to-the-biological-social-or-economic-or-physical-environment-a-finding-of-no-significant-impact-is-determined. .Style1}

# The measures are expected to achieve the levels of recreational landings for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass for 2008 as implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For each species, the Council analyzed the biological, social, and economic impacts of the preferred alternatives and one or two other alternatives. The proposed action is not expected to result in significant social or economic impacts or significant natural or physical environmental effects.  {#the-measures-are-expected-to-achieve-the-levels-of-recreational-landings-for-summer-flounder-scup-and-black-sea-bass-for-2008-as-implemented-by-the-national-marine-fisheries-service-nmfs.-for-each-species-the-council-analyzed-the-biological-social-and-economic-impacts-of-the-preferred-alternatives-and-one-or-two-other-alternatives.-the-proposed-action-is-not-expected-to-result-in-significant-social-or-economic-impacts-or-significant-natural-or-physical-environmental-effects. .Style1}

# Table ES-1. Overall qualitative summary of expected impacts from various alternatives considered in this document. A minus sign signifies an expected negative impact, a plus sign signifies a positive impact, zero is used for null impact, and (?) indicates uncertainty associated with a given impact. (S=short-term; L=long-term). {#table-es-1.-overall-qualitative-summary-of-expected-impacts-from-various-alternatives-considered-in-this-document.-a-minus-sign-signifies-an-expected-negative-impact-a-plus-sign-signifies-a-positive-impact-zero-is-used-for-null-impact-and-indicates-uncertainty-associated-with-a-given-impact.-sshort-term-llong-term. .Style1}

# ![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in" height="4.509722222222222in"} {#section-9 .Style1}

# 2.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS {#list-of-acronyms .Style1}

*ALWTRP* Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

*ASMFC* Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

*B* Biomass

*CEQ* Council on Environmental Quality

*CFR* Code of Federal Regulations

*CZMA* Coastal Zone Management Act

*EA* Environmental Assessment

*EEZ* Exclusive Economic Zone

*EFH* Essential Fish Habitat

*EIS* Environmental Impact Statement

*E.O.* Executive Order

*ESA* Endangered Species Act of 1973

*F* Fishing Mortality Rate

*FR* [Federal Register]{.underline}

*FRFA* Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

*FMP* Fishery Management Plan

*GRA* Gear Restricted Area

*HPTRP* Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

*I/O* Input/Output

*IRFA* Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

*LTPC* Long-term Potential Catch

*M* Natural Mortality Rate

*MA* Mid-Atlantic

*MAFMC* Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

*MMPA* Marine Mammal Protection Act

*MRFSS* Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey

*MSFCMA* Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

*MSY* Maximum Sustainable Yield

*mt* metric tons

*NAO* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative
Order

*NE* New England

*NEFSC* Northeast Fisheries Science Center

*NEPA* National Environmental Policy Act

*NMFS* National Marine Fisheries Service

*NOAA* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

*OY* Optimal Yield

*PRA* Paperwork Reduction Act

*PREE* Preliminary Regulatory Economic Evaluation

*PSE* Percent Standard Error

*RIR* Regulatory Impact Review

*RFA* Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

*RFF* Reasonably Foreseeable Future

*RSA* Research Set-Aside

*SARC* Stock Assessment Review Committee

*SAW* Stock Assessment Workshop

*SDWG* Southern Demersal Working Group

*SFA* Sustainable Fisheries Act

*SSB* Spawning Stock Biomass

*TAL* Total Allowable Landings

*TEDs* Turtle Excluder Devices

*TL* Total Length

*VMS* Vessel Monitoring System

*VPA* Virtual Population Analysis

*VTR* Vessel Trip Report

# 3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS {#table-of-contents .Style1}

[2.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS iii](#list-of-acronyms)

[3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5](#table-of-contents)

[3.1 List of Tables and Figures 6](#__RefHeading___Toc192469631)

[*ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT* 11](#__RefHeading___Toc192469632)

[4.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF SPECIFICATION PROCESS
11](#__RefHeading___Toc192469633)

[**4.1 Purpose and Need of the Action**
11](#__RefHeading___Toc192469634)

[**4.2 Management Objective of the FMP** 14](#OLE_LINK10)

[**4.3 Methods of Analysis** 14](#__RefHeading___Toc192469636)

[5.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 15](#__RefHeading___Toc192469637)

[**5.1 Summer Flounder** 16](#__RefHeading___Toc192469638)

[**5.1.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred: Status Quo Conservation
Equivalency)** 16](#__RefHeading___Toc192469639)

[**5.1.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure/No Action)**
18](#__RefHeading___Toc192469640)

[**5.2 Scup** 18](#__RefHeading___Toc192469641)

[**5.2.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
18](#__RefHeading___Toc192469642)

[**5.2.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
19](#__RefHeading___Toc192469643)

[**5.2.3 Alternative 3 (Non-preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No
Action)** 19](#__RefHeading___Toc192469644)

[**5.3 Black Sea Bass** 19](#__RefHeading___Toc192469645)

[**5.3.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No
Action)** 19](#__RefHeading___Toc192469646)

[**5.3.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
20](#OLE_LINK11)

[**5.3.3 Alternative 3 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
20](#__RefHeading___Toc192469648)

[6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND FISHERIES
20](#__RefHeading___Toc192469649)

[**6.1 Description of the Manages Resource**
20](#__RefHeading___Toc192469650)

[**6.1.1 Description of the Fisheries (Including Review of Past
Management Measures)** 20](#__RefHeading___Toc192469651)

[**6.1.2 Description of the Stock (Including Status, Stock
Characteristics, and Ecological Relationships)**
22](#__RefHeading___Toc192469652)

[**6.1.3 Non-target Species** 27](#__RefHeading___Toc192469653)

[**6.2 Habitat (Including Essential Fish Habitat)**
27](#__RefHeading___Toc192469654)

[**6.2.1 Summer Flounder** 27](#__RefHeading___Toc192469655)

[**6.2.2 Scup** 28](#__RefHeading___Toc192469656)

[**6.2.3 Black Sea Bass** 29](#__RefHeading___Toc192469657)

[**6.3 Endangered and Protected Species**
31](#__RefHeading___Toc192469658)

[**6.4 Fishery and Socioeconomic Environment**
34](#__RefHeading___Toc192469659)

[**6.4.1 Economic and Social Environment**
34](#__RefHeading___Toc192469660)

[**6.5 Human Communities** 34](#__RefHeading___Toc192469661)

[**6.5.1 Port and Community Description**
34](#__RefHeading___Toc192469662)

[**6.5.2 Analysis of Permit Data** 35](#__RefHeading___Toc192469663)

[**6.6 Marine Recreational Descriptive Statistics**
36](#__RefHeading___Toc192469664)

[**6.7 Vessel Trip Report (VTR) Data** 39](#__RefHeading___Toc192469665)

[7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND REGULATORY ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES 40](#__RefHeading___Toc192469666)

[**7.1 Summer Flounder Alternatives** 40](#__RefHeading___Toc192469667)

[**7.1.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred: Status Quo Conservation
Equivalency)** 40](#__RefHeading___Toc192469668)

[**7.1.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure/No Action)**
44](#__RefHeading___Toc192469669)

[**7.2 Scup Alternatives** 46](#__RefHeading___Toc192469670)

[**7.2.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
46](#__RefHeading___Toc192469671)

[**7.2.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
48](#__RefHeading___Toc192469672)

[**7.2.3 Alternative 3 (Non-preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No
Action)** 50](#__RefHeading___Toc192469673)

[**7.3 Black Sea Bass Alternatives** 51](#__RefHeading___Toc192469674)

[**7.3.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No
Action)** 51](#__RefHeading___Toc192469675)

[**7.3.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
54](#__RefHeading___Toc192469676)

[**7.3.3 Alternative 3 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**
55](#__RefHeading___Toc192469677)

[**7.5 Cumulative Impacts of Preferred Alternatives**
57](#__RefHeading___Toc192469678)

[**7.5.1 Introduction; Definition of Cumulative Effects**
57](#__RefHeading___Toc192469679)

[**7.5.2 Targeted Fishery Resources** 60](#__RefHeading___Toc192469680)

[**7.5.3 Non-Target Species or Bycatch**
61](#__RefHeading___Toc192469681)

[**7.5.4 Protected Species** 63](#__RefHeading___Toc192469682)

[**7.5.5 Habitat (Including EFH)** 64](#__RefHeading___Toc192469683)

[**7.5.6 Socioeconomic** 64](#__RefHeading___Toc192469684)

[**7.5.7 Conclusions** 74](#__RefHeading___Toc192469685)

[8.0 APPLICABLE LAWS 74](#__RefHeading___Toc192469686)

[**8.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)**
74](#__RefHeading___Toc192469687)

[**8.1.1 National Standards** 74](#__RefHeading___Toc192469688)

[**8.2 NEPA (FONSI)** 75](#__RefHeading___Toc192469689)

[**8.3 Endangered Species Act** 79](#__RefHeading___Toc192469690)

[**8.4 Marine Mammal Protection Act** 80](#__RefHeading___Toc192469691)

[**8.5 Coastal Zone Management Act** 80](#__RefHeading___Toc192469692)

[**8.6 Administrative Procedure Act** 80](#__RefHeading___Toc192469693)

[**8.7 Section 515 (Data Quality Act)**
80](#__RefHeading___Toc192469694)

[**8.8 Paperwork Reduction Act** 82](#__RefHeading___Toc192469695)

[**8.9 Impacts of the Plan Relative to Federalism/EO 13132**
82](#__RefHeading___Toc192469696)

[**8.10 Environmental Justice/EO 12898**
82](#__RefHeading___Toc192469697)

[9.0 LITERATURE CITED 82](#__RefHeading___Toc192469698)

[10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
89](#__RefHeading___Toc192469699)

[11.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
89](#__RefHeading___Toc192469700)

[*REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS*
90](#__RefHeading___Toc192469701)

[1.0 Introduction 90](#__RefHeading___Toc192469702)

[2.0 Evaluation of EO 12866 Significance
90](#__RefHeading___Toc192469703)

[**2.1 Description of the Management Objectives**
90](#__RefHeading___Toc192469704)

[**2.2 Description of the Fishery** 90](#__RefHeading___Toc192469705)

[**2.3 A Statement of the Problem** 90](#__RefHeading___Toc192469706)

[**2.4 A Description of Each Alternative**
91](#__RefHeading___Toc192469707)

[**2.5 RIR Impacts** 91](#__RefHeading___Toc192469708)

[3.0 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 93](#__RefHeading___Toc192469709)

[4.0 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
93](#__RefHeading___Toc192469710)

[**4.1 Impacts on Small Entities** 93](#__RefHeading___Toc192469711)

[**4.2 Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule**
94](#__RefHeading___Toc192469712)

[**4.3 General Fishing Trends** 95](#__RefHeading___Toc192469713)

[5.0 Analysis of Impacts of Proposed Measures
97](#__RefHeading___Toc192469714)

[TABLES 100](#__RefHeading___Toc192469715)

[FIGURES 170](#__RefHeading___Toc192469716)

[GLOSSARY 172](#__RefHeading___Toc192469717)

[APPENDIX A 176](#__RefHeading___Toc192469718)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469631 .anchor}**3.1 List of Tables and
Figures**

[Table 1. Summer flounder landings (number in thousands) by state for
1998, the 2007 target (number in thousands), and the 2007 projected
landings. The percent reduction necessary to achieve the 2008
recreational harvest limit relative to 2007 landings is also presented.
100](#__RefHeading___Toc189554140)

[Table 2. Procedures for establishing summer flounder recreational
management measures, modified to include voluntary multi-state
conservation equivalency (changes underlined).
101](#__RefHeading___Toc189554141)

[Table 3. The effect of various size and possession limits on 2007 scup
recreational landings. The tables contain the proportional reduction in
number of scup landed assuming regulations are 100% effective (Table A)
and adjusting for the effectiveness of the 2007 management measures
(Table B). 102](#__RefHeading___Toc189554142)

[Table 4. a) Average percent of scup landed (in number) by wave, based
on 1996-2000 MRFSS landings data and b) projected reduction in scup
landings (in number) associated with closing one day per wave, based on
1996-2000 MRFSS landings data. 103](#__RefHeading___Toc189554143)

[Table 5. a) Average percent of black sea bass landed (in number) by
wave, 1996-2000, based on 1996-2000 MRFSS landings data and b) projected
reduction in black sea bass landings (in number) associated with closing
one day per wave, based on 1996-2000 MRFSS landings data.
104](#__RefHeading___Toc189554144)

[Table 6. The effect of various size and possession limits on 2007 black
sea bass recreational landings. The tables contain the proportional
reduction in number of black sea bass landed assuming the regulations
were 100% effective in 2007 (Table A) and adjusting for the
effectiveness of 2007 management measures (Table B).
105](#__RefHeading___Toc189554145)

[Table 7. Summary of federal management measures for the summer flounder
recreational fishery, 1993-2007. 106](#__RefHeading___Toc189554146)

[Table 8. Summer flounder recreational management measures by state,
2005. 107](#__RefHeading___Toc189554147)

[Table 9. Summer flounder recreational management measures by state,
2006. 108](#__RefHeading___Toc189554148)

[Table 10. Summer flounder recreational management measures by state,
2007. 109](#__RefHeading___Toc189554149)

[Table 11. Projected summer flounder recreational landings (number in
thousands) relative to targets, by state for 2007.
110](#__RefHeading___Toc189554150)

[Table 12. Summary of management measures for the scup recreational
fishery, 1997-2007. 111](#__RefHeading___Toc189554151)

[Table 13. Scup recreational management measures by state, 2005.
112](#__RefHeading___Toc189554152)

[Table 14. Scup recreational management measures by state, 2006.
113](#__RefHeading___Toc189554153)

[Table 15. Scup recreational management measures by state, 2007.
114](#__RefHeading___Toc189554154)

[Table 16. Summary of management measures for the black sea bass
recreational fishery, 1996-2007. 115](#__RefHeading___Toc189554155)

[Table 17. Black sea bass recreational management measures by state,
2005. 116](#__RefHeading___Toc189554156)

[Table 18. Black sea bass recreational management measures by state,
2006. 117](#__RefHeading___Toc189554157)

[Table 19. Black sea bass recreational management measures by state,
2007. 118](#__RefHeading___Toc189554158)

[Table 20. The number of summer flounder landed from Maine through North
Carolina by mode, 1981-2006. 119](#__RefHeading___Toc189554159)

[Table 21. The number of scup landed from Maine through North Carolina
by mode, 1981-2006. 120](#__RefHeading___Toc189554160)

[Table 22. The number of black sea bass landed from Maine through North
Carolina by mode, 1981-2006. 121](#__RefHeading___Toc189554161)

[Table 23. State contribution (as a percentage) to total recreational
landings of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass (MRFSS Type A+B1
in number of fish), from Maine through North Carolina, 2006.
122](#__RefHeading___Toc189554162)

[Table 24. The percentage (%) contribution of summer flounder to the
total catch of all species from party/charter vessels by state,
1996-2005. 123](#__RefHeading___Toc189554163)

[Table 25. The percentage (%) contribution of scup to the total catch of
all species from party/charter vessels by state, 1996 - 2005.
124](#__RefHeading___Toc189554164)

[Table 26. The percentage (%) contribution of black sea bass to the
total catch of all species from party/charter vessels by state, 1996 -
2005. 125](#__RefHeading___Toc189554165)

[Table 27. Recreational anglers' ratings (mean) of reasons for marine
fishing, by subregion. 126](#__RefHeading___Toc189554166)

[Table 28. Recreational anglers' ratings (mean) of fishing regulation
methods, by subregion. 127](#__RefHeading___Toc189554167)

[Table 29. Recreational anglers' ratings (mean) of fishing regulation
methods, by mode. 127](#__RefHeading___Toc189554168)

[Table 30. Party and charter vessel trip report (VTR) data for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass, 1996-2005.
128](#__RefHeading___Toc189554169)

[Table 31. Percentage of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
recreational landings (MRFSS Type A+B1 in number of fish) by year and
area, Maine through North Carolina. 129](#__RefHeading___Toc189554170)

[Table 32. Projected^1^ total estimated angler effort (fishing trips) by
state, in 2007. 130](#__RefHeading___Toc189554171)

[Table 33. Projected 2008 effort effects of individual management
measures in isolation, by mode (2007 catch and effort estimates were
used to project 2008 effects). 131](#__RefHeading___Toc189554172)

[Table 34. The percent of successful anglers landing 1 to 9 summer
flounder (MRFSS Type A fish) per trip, waves 1-4, 2007.
132](#__RefHeading___Toc189554173)

[Table 35. The percent of successful anglers landing 1 to 30 summer
flounder (MRFSS Type A fish) per trip, 1992.
133](#__RefHeading___Toc189554174)

[Table 36. The percent of measured summer flounder (MRFSS Type A fish)
less than 15\" TL (1999), 15.5\" TL (2000), and state specific size
limits (2001 through 2007). The number in parentheses is sample size
(N). 134](#__RefHeading___Toc189554175)

[Table 37. Percent of summer flounder landings for each wave, 1994-1998.
136](#__RefHeading___Toc189554176)

[Table 38. The percent of measured scup (MRFSS Type A fish) relative to
state specific and coastal size limits from 2002 through 2007. The
number in parentheses is sample size. 137](#__RefHeading___Toc189554177)

[Table 39. The effect of various size and possession limits on 2007 scup
recreational landings. The tables contain the proportional reduction in
number of scup landed assuming regulations are 100% effective (Table A)
and adjusting for the effectiveness of the 2007 management measures
(Table B). 138](#__RefHeading___Toc189554178)

[Table 40. The percent of successful anglers landing 1 to 75 scup (MRFSS
Type A fish) per trip, waves 1-4, 2007.
139](#__RefHeading___Toc189554179)

[Table 41. The percent of successful anglers landing 1 to 75 scup (MRFSS
Type A fish) per trip, waves 1-4, 2006.
140](#__RefHeading___Toc189554180)

[Table 42. The percent of successful anglers landing 1 to 29 black sea
bass (MRFSS Type A fish) per trip, waves 1-4, 2007.
141](#__RefHeading___Toc189554181)

[Table 43. The percent of successful anglers landing 1 to 31 black sea
bass (MRFSS Type A fish) per trip, waves 1-4, 2006.
142](#__RefHeading___Toc189554182)

[Table 44. Measured black sea bass (MRFSS Type A fish) less than 10
inches TL (1994-1999), 11 inches (2000-2001), 11.5 inches (2002), and 12
inches (2003-2007), by state and year.
143](#__RefHeading___Toc189554183)

[Table 45. Projected 2008 Effort Effects of Combined Management
Measures, by Mode (2007 catch and effort estimates were used to project
2008 effects). 144](#__RefHeading___Toc189554184)

[Table 46. Average daily trip expenditures by recreational fishermen in
the Northeast region by mode, in 1998.
145](#__RefHeading___Toc189554185)

[Table 47. Regional Economic Impacts of Combined Management Measures
Assuming a 25% Reduction in the Number of Affected Trips (2008 \$'s).
146](#__RefHeading___Toc189554186)

[Table 48. Regional Economic Impacts of Combined Management Measures
Assuming a 50% Reduction in the Number of Affected Trips (2008 \$'s).
147](#__RefHeading___Toc189554187)

[Table 49. Summary of Landings Combinations by Vessels Reporting
Party/Charter Trips (Calendar Year 2006VTR Data).
148](#__RefHeading___Toc189554188)

[Table 50. Number of summer flounder recreational fishing trips,
recreational harvest limit, and recreational landings from 1991 to 2008.
149](#__RefHeading___Toc189554189)

[Table 51. Number of scup recreational fishing trips, recreational
harvest limit, and recreational landings from 1991 to 2008.
150](#__RefHeading___Toc189554190)

[Table 52. Number of black sea bass recreational fishing trips,
recreational harvest limit, and recreational landings from 1991 to 2008.
151](#__RefHeading___Toc189554191)

[Table 53. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 1
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
152](#__RefHeading___Toc189554192)

[Table 54. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 2
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
153](#__RefHeading___Toc189554193)

[Table 55. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 3
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
154](#__RefHeading___Toc189554194)

[Table 56. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 1
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the estimated
gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in
each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
155](#__RefHeading___Toc189554195)

[Table 57. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 2
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
156](#__RefHeading___Toc189554196)

[Table 58. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 3
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
157](#__RefHeading___Toc189554197)

[Table 59. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 1
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
158](#__RefHeading___Toc189554198)

[Table 60. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 2
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
159](#__RefHeading___Toc189554199)

[Table 61. Combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default
measures, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 3
management measures - affected party/charter effort and the average
estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel (federally
permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).
160](#__RefHeading___Toc189554200)

[Table 62. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 1 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 161](#__RefHeading___Toc189554201)

[Table 63. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 2 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 162](#__RefHeading___Toc189554202)

[Table 64. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 3 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 163](#__RefHeading___Toc189554203)

[Table 65. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 1 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 164](#__RefHeading___Toc189554204)

[Table 66. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 2 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 165](#__RefHeading___Toc189554205)

[Table 67. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 3 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 166](#__RefHeading___Toc189554206)

[Table 68. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 1 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 167](#__RefHeading___Toc189554207)

[Table 69. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 2 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC). 168](#__RefHeading___Toc189554208)

[[Table 70. Combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup
alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 3 management measures -
affected party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue
loss per party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).
169]{.smallcaps}](#__RefHeading___Toc189554209)

[Figure 1. Summer flounder recreational catch (A+B1+B2) and landings
(A+B1), 1981-2006. (MRFSS/NMFS/FSO, pers. comm.)
170](#__RefHeading___Toc187821412)

[Figure 2. Scup recreational catch (A+B1+B2) and landings (A+B1),
1981-2006. (MRFSS/NMFS/FSO, pers. comm.)
170](#__RefHeading___Toc187821413)

[Figure 3. Black sea bass recreational catch (A+B1+B2) and landings
(A+B1), 1981-2006. (MRFSS/NMFS/FSO, pers. comm.)
171](#__RefHeading___Toc187821414)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469632 .anchor}***ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT***

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469633 .anchor}**4.0 INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND OF SPECIFICATION PROCESS**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469634 .anchor}**4.1 Purpose and Need of the
Action**

This action is needed to establish management measures for the 2008
fishing year that will achieve recreational harvest limits for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass in Federal waters and for vessels in
possession of a Federal fisheries permit. The purpose of this action is
to propose measures (i.e. recreational size limits, possession limits,
and fishing seasons) that would constrain recreational landings in 2008
to the annual recreational harvest limit. In addition, specific to the
summer flounder fishery, the purpose of this document is to provide an
alternative whereby states may determine and implement appropriate
management measures to achieve their recreational harvest limits. The
combined effect of these state management measures must achieve the same
level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to
adhere to the overall recreational harvest limit.

*Background of Specification Process*

Comprehensive measures enacted by Amendment 2 of the Summer Flounder
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and modified in Amendments 3 through 7
were designed to rebuild the severely depleted summer flounder stock.
Amendments 8 and 9 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP
implemented recovery strategies to rebuild the scup and black sea bass
stocks, respectively. The management programs for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass were examined in detail in the Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) prepared for each of the fisheries in Amendment 2 (for
summer flounder), Amendment 8 (for scup), and Amendment 9 (for black sea
bass). Those analyses considered the impacts of the overall management
measures including rebuilding schedules and annual exploitation rates on
the environment (biological, socioeconomic, essential fish habitat, and
protected resources). Those EISs were updated in Amendment 13 (approved
on March 4, 2003; 68 FR 10181; MAFMC 2002). A summary of the management
actions taken in the FMP, Amendments, and framework adjustments to the
FMP (frameworks) is given in Box 4.1.

+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Box.  |            |             |                                  |
| 4.1   |            |             |                                  |
| Su    |            |             |                                  |
| mmary |            |             |                                  |
| of    |            |             |                                  |
| the   |            |             |                                  |
| hi    |            |             |                                  |
| story |            |             |                                  |
| of    |            |             |                                  |
| the   |            |             |                                  |
| S     |            |             |                                  |
| ummer |            |             |                                  |
| Flou  |            |             |                                  |
| nder, |            |             |                                  |
| Scup, |            |             |                                  |
| and   |            |             |                                  |
| Black |            |             |                                  |
| Sea   |            |             |                                  |
| Bass  |            |             |                                  |
| FMP.  |            |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Year  | Document   | Plan        | Management Action                |
|       |            | Species     |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | **Original | **summer    | **- Established management plan  |
| 988** | FMP**      | flounder**  | for summer flounder**            |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Established an overfishing   |
| 991** | *Amendment | flounder**  | definition for summer flounder** |
|       | 1**        |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Established rebuilding       |
| 993** | *Amendment | flounder**  | schedule, commercial quotas,     |
|       | 2**        |             | recreational harvest limits,     |
|       |            |             | size limits, gear restrictions,  |
|       |            |             | permits, and reporting           |
|       |            |             | requirements for summer          |
|       |            |             | flounder**                       |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            |             | **- Created the Summer Flounder  |
|       |            |             | Monitoring Committee**           |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Revised the exempted fishery |
| 993** | *Amendment | flounder**  | line**                           |
|       | 3**        |             |                                  |
|       |            |             | **- Increased the large mesh net |
|       |            |             | threshold**                      |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            |             | **- Established otter trawl      |
|       |            |             | retentions requirements for      |
|       |            |             | large mesh use**                 |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Revised state-specific       |
| 993** | *Amendment | flounder**  | shares for summer flounder quota |
|       | 4**        |             | allocation**                     |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Allowed states to combine or |
| 993** | *Amendment | flounder**  | transfer summer flounder quota** |
|       | 5**        |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Set criteria for allowance   |
| 994** | *Amendment | flounder**  | of multiple nets on board        |
|       | 6**        |             | commercial vessels for summer    |
|       |            |             | flounder**                       |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            |             | **- Established deadline for     |
|       |            |             | publishing catch limits,         |
|       |            |             | commercial mgmt. measures for    |
|       |            |             | summer flounder**                |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Revised the F reduction      |
| 995** | *Amendment | flounder**  | schedule for summer flounder**   |
|       | 7**        |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Incorporated Scup FMP into   |
| 996** | *Amendment | flounder    | Summer Flounder FMP and          |
|       | 8**        | and scup**  | established scup measures        |
|       |            |             | including commercial quotas,     |
|       |            |             | recreational harvest limits,     |
|       |            |             | size limits, gear restrictions,  |
|       |            |             | permits, and reporting           |
|       |            |             | requirements**                   |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Incorporated Black Sea Bass  |
| 996** | *Amendment | flounder    | FMP into Summer Flounder FMP and |
|       | 9**        | and**       | established black sea bass       |
|       |            |             | measures including commercial    |
|       |            | **black sea | quotas, recreational harvest     |
|       |            | bass**      | limits, size limits, gear        |
|       |            |             | restrictions, permits, and       |
|       |            |             | reporting requirements**         |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Modified commercial minimum  |
| 997** | *Amendment | flounder,   | mesh requirements, continued     |
|       | 10**       | scup, and** | commercial vessel moratorium,    |
|       |            |             | prohibited transfer of fish at   |
|       |            | **black sea | sea, and established special     |
|       |            | bass**      | permit for party/charter sector  |
|       |            |             | for summer flounder**            |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Modified certain provisions  |
| 998** | *Amendment | flounder,   | related to vessel replacement    |
|       | 11**       | scup, and** | and upgrading, permit history    |
|       |            |             | transfer, splitting, and permit  |
|       |            | **black sea | renewal regulations**            |
|       |            | bass**      |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **1   | *          | **summer    | **- Revised FMP to comply with   |
| 999** | *Amendment | flounder,   | the SFA and established          |
|       | 12**       | scup, and** | framework adjustment process**   |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            | **black sea |                                  |
|       |            | bass**      |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+

+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Box.  |            |             |                                  |
| 4.1   |            |             |                                  |
| Cont. |            |             |                                  |
| Su    |            |             |                                  |
| mmary |            |             |                                  |
| of    |            |             |                                  |
| the   |            |             |                                  |
| hi    |            |             |                                  |
| story |            |             |                                  |
| of    |            |             |                                  |
| the   |            |             |                                  |
| S     |            |             |                                  |
| ummer |            |             |                                  |
| Flou  |            |             |                                  |
| nder, |            |             |                                  |
| Scup, |            |             |                                  |
| and   |            |             |                                  |
| Black |            |             |                                  |
| Sea   |            |             |                                  |
| Bass  |            |             |                                  |
| FMP.  |            |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Year  | Document   | Plan        | Management Action                |
|       |            | Species     |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **summer    | **-Established quota set-aside   |
| 001** | *Framework | flounder,   | for research for all three       |
|       | 1**        | scup, and** | species**                        |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            | **black sea |                                  |
|       |            | bass**      |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **summer    | **- Established state-specific   |
| 001** | *Framework | flounder**  | conservation equivalency         |
|       | 2**        |             | measures for summer flounder**   |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **summer    | **- Addressed disapproved        |
| 003** | *Amendment | flounder,   | sections of Amendment 12 and     |
|       | 13**       | scup, and** | included new EIS**               |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            | **black sea |                                  |
|       |            | bass**      |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **scup**    | **- Allowed the rollover of      |
| 003** | *Framework |             | winter scup quota**              |
|       | 3**        |             |                                  |
|       |            |             | **- Revised start date for       |
|       |            |             | summer quota period**            |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            |             | **for scup fishery**             |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **scup**    | **- Established system to        |
| 003** | *Framework |             | transfer scup at sea**           |
|       | 4**        |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **summer    | **- Established multi-year       |
| 004** | *Framework | flounder,   | specification setting of quota   |
|       | 5**        | scup, and** | for all three species**          |
|       |            |             |                                  |
|       |            | **black sea |                                  |
|       |            | bass**      |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **summer    | **- Established region-specific  |
| 006** | *Framework | flounder**  | conservation equivalency         |
|       | 6**        |             | measures for summer flounder**   |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **scup**    | **- Established rebuilding       |
| 007** | *Amendment |             | schedule for scup**              |
|       | 14**       |             |                                  |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **2   | *          | **summer    | **- Built flexibility into       |
| 007** | *Framework | flounder,   | process to define and update     |
|       | 7**        | scup, and** | status determination criteria    |
|       |            |             | for each plan species**          |
|       |            | **black sea |                                  |
|       |            | bass**      | **- Scup GRAs made modifiable    |
|       |            |             | through framework adjustment     |
|       |            |             | process**                        |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------------------------+

Amendments 2, 8, and 9 established Monitoring Committees which meet
annually to review the best available scientific data and make
recommendations regarding the total allowable landings (TAL) and other
management measures in the plan. The Committee makes recommendations
that achieve the target mortality rates established in the amendments to
reduce overfishing. The Committee bases its recommendations on the
following information that may be relevant: (1) commercial and
recreational catch data; (2) current estimates of fishing mortality; (3)
stock status; (4) recent estimates of recruitment; (5) population
assessment models; (6) target mortality levels; (7) levels of regulatory
noncompliance by fishers or individual states; (8) impact of fish size
and net mesh regulations; (9) sea sampling data; (10) impact of gear
other than otter trawls on the mortality of each species; and (11) other
relevant information.

The Council met jointly with the Board in August 2007 to consider the
2008 commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Monitoring Committees made
recommendations to the Council which, in turn, made recommendations to
the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator reviewed the
recommendations to ensure that the FMP objectives were achieved. The
2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications, which
were submitted to NMFS by the Council in September 2007, described the
environmental, economic, and social impacts of the 2008 commercial
quotas and recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass, as well as the impacts of commercial measures aimed at
achieving the commercial quotas. NMFS implemented summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits for
2008, on January 1, 2008 (72 FR 74197; December 31, 2007).

The Council and Commission met again in December 2007 to recommend
specific measures to attain the recreational harvest limits that had
been specified in August 2007. In this specifications package, all
recreational management alternatives (possession, sizes, and seasonal
limits) are evaluated for the 2008 fishing year for summer flounder,
scup, scup, and black sea bass as outlined in the December 31, 2007
final rule. The Council and Commission considered the recommendations of
the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees and
information provided by Council staff, advisors, and the public in the
development of their recommendations for these recreational fisheries.

[]{#OLE_LINK10 .anchor}

**4.2 Management Objective of the FMP**

The management objectives of the FMP are as follows:

**1)** reduce fishing mortality in the summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass fisheries to ensure that overfishing does not occur;

**2)** reduce fishing mortality on immature summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass 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; and

**6)** minimize regulations to achieve the management objectives stated
above.

To attain these management objectives, the FMP states the following
measures including commercial quotas, minimum sizes, gear regulations,
recreational harvest limits, recreational possession limits, seasons,
and no-sale provisions may be specified annually. The proposed action is
intended to meet the objectives stated above by setting the minimum fish
size, possession limits, and fishing seasons for the 2008 summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469636 .anchor}**4.3 Methods of Analysis**

This EA analyzes the possession, size, and/or seasonal limits that will
most likely achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limits for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass. It is an assessment of the impact of
various alternatives on the environment relative to the no action
alternative, as required by NEPA. A full description of each
alternative, including a discussion of a no action alternative, is given
in section 5.0 of the EA. The following discussion details the changes
in management measures, if any, that will most likely be required to
achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass.

The 2008 summer flounder recreational harvest limit is 6.21 million lb
(2.82 million kg), as published in final rule (72 FR 74197; December 31,
2007). The recreational harvest limit implemented for 2008 is
approximately 8% less than the 2007 recreational harvest limit of 6.75
million lb (3.06 million kg). Based on MRFSS 2007 waves 1-5 and the
proportions of landings by wave in 2006, projected landings are 9.30
million lb (4.22 million kg). Under conservation equivalency, states
will develop state-specific or regional measures that meet
state-specific or regional recreational harvest targets and any required
reductions.

The 2008 quota specifications for scup implemented a recreational
harvest limit of 1.83 million lb (0.83 million kg), which is lower than
the 2007 recreational harvest limit of 2.74 million lb (1.24 million
kg). Based on 2007 waves 1-5 and the proportions of landings by wave in
2006, projected landings in 2007 are expected to be 3.80 million lb
(1.72 million kg). Assuming the same level of fishing effort in 2008 as
in 2007, a coastwide reduction in landings of 51.8% would be required to
achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limit for scup.

The black sea bass recreational harvest limit for 2008 is 2.11 million
lb (0.96 million kg), which is 14.6% less than the 2007 recreational
harvest limit of 2.47 million lb (1.12 million kg). Based on 2007 waves
1-5 and the proportions of landings by wave in 2006, projected landings
are 1.97 million lb (0.89 million kg). Assuming the same level of
fishing effort in 2008 when compared to 2007, no coastwide reductions in
landings would be required to achieve the recreational harvest limit for
black sea bass in 2008.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469637 .anchor}**5.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES**

This section provides a description of all considered management
alternatives. Further discussion and evaluation of these alternatives is
found in section 7.0 of the EA. Please note that for summer flounder,
the preferred alternative (alternative 1) is the status quo alternative,
which is compared to the no action alternative; alternative 2. Under the
management programs for scup and black sea bass, as detailed in the FMP,
the status quo alternative is considered the "no action" alternative.
Therefore, for purposes of comparing impacts throughout this document,
the proposed alternatives for scup and black sea bass (alternatives 1
and 2) are compared to alternative 3, which is the status quo
alternative (No Action) as opposed to the "true" no action alternative.

The status quo management for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea
bass fisheries each involve a set of indefinite (i.e., in force until
otherwise changed) management measures, such as minimum allowable sizes,
bag limits, and reporting requirements. These measures will continue as
they are even if the proposed specifications are not implemented.
However, the current management program includes TALs that are specific
to the 2007 fishing year. In the case of scup, a TAC is also specified.
There are no "roll-over" provisions currently for these three fisheries
provided for in the FMP. Thus, if the proposed 2008 summer flounder,
scup, or black sea bass specifications are not implemented for one or
all of these fisheries by January 1, 2008, that fishery/or fisheries
will operate without an identified cap on allowable landings. Thus, if
the action that results in setting the proposed specifications for
any/or all of these fisheries is not taken, some current measures will
remain in place, but the overall management program for those fisheries
will not be identical to that of 2007.

The implications of the no action alternatives are substantial. These
alternatives do not allow NMFS to specify and implement a TAL (also TAC
in the case of scup) for these fisheries, as required in the regulations
at 50 CFR part 648, for the upcoming fishing year. Monitoring the
landings and taking action as necessary to prevent the state and Federal
caps from being exceeded, as applicable, are essential for management of
these fisheries and form the backbone of the current quota-based
management systems under the FMP. Therefore, the no action alternative
is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP, as well as its
implementing regulations, and is likely to result in overfishing of
summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass (due to NMFS' inability to
monitor and enforce quotas designed to constrain harvest to a target F).
The "true" no action alternatives are not considered reasonable;
therefore, they are not analyzed further in the EA. The alternative for
summer flounder is compared to summer flounder alternative 2; the no
action alternative. The alternatives for scup and black sea bass are
compared to scup alternative 3 and black sea bass alternative 3,
respectively, which are the status quo alternatives (No Action) as
opposed to the "true" no action alternatives described above."

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469638 .anchor}**5.1 Summer Flounder**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469639 .anchor}**5.1.1 Alternative 1
(Preferred: Status Quo Conservation Equivalency)**

Based on a Monitoring Committee recommendation, the Council and
Commission voted to recommend conservation equivalency to achieve the
2008 summer flounder recreational harvest limit. The Council and
Commission\'s preferred alternative (alternative 1 - conservation
equivalency) would allow states to implement conservation equivalent
management measures. State-specific reductions associated with the 2008
coastwide recreational harvest limit of 6.21 million lb (2.82 million
kg) are based on the number of fish landed in 1998, and the number of
fish projected to have been landed in 2007 based on waves 1-5 is 3.22
million fish (Table 1). State-specific landings from 1998 are used as a
base because 1998 is the last year that recreational summer flounder
regulations were consistent along the coast. Recreational landings in
1998 were 6.978 million fish coastwide. As such, the 2008 recreational
harvest limit in number of fish (the 2008 recreational harvest limit
divided by the predicted mean weight of summer flounder in 2008) would
have to be reduced by 70.6% to achieve this limit. State-specific 1998
landings were reduced by 70.6% to derive state-specific targets for
2008. These targets were then compared to 2007 landings to determine if
state-specific reductions were necessary. Landings projections for 2007
indicate that all states, except for Massachusetts, will be required to
reduce recreational summer flounder landings in 2008 (Table 1).

To constrain recreational landings to the overall recreational harvest
limit, the Commission established conservation equivalency guidelines
that require each state to determine and implement an appropriate
possession limit, size limit, and closed season to achieve the landings
target for each state. The state-specific tables are adjusted to account
for the past effectiveness of the regulations in each state. In
addition, under Framework 6 to the FMP, regional conservation
equivalency could be applied. This involves states forming voluntary
regions and pooling their recreational harvest limits and landings such
that they develop identical regulations for all the states within the
region that meet the pooled regional 2008 recreational harvest limit.

The Commission requires each state to submit its conservation
equivalency proposal by January 15, 2008 (Table 2). The Commission's
Summer Flounder Technical Committee will evaluate the proposals and
advise the Board of each proposal's consistency with respect to
achieving the coastwide recreational harvest limit. After the Technical
Committee evaluation, the Board will meet to approve or disapprove each
state's proposal. During the comment period for the proposed rule, the
Commission will notify NMFS as to which state proposals have been
approved or disapproved. If, at the final rule stage, the Commission
recommends and NMFS accepts conservation equivalency, then NMFS would
waive the Federal recreational measures that would otherwise apply in
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Federally permitted vessels, as well
as vessels fishing in the EEZ, would be subject to the recreational
fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land.

The FMP requires that the Council and Commission specify precautionary
default measures when conservation equivalency is recommended as the
preferred alternative. These would be the measures required to be
implemented by a state that either does not submit a summer flounder
management proposal or for states whose measures do not achieve the
required reduction. For 2008, the precautionary default measures include
a 20-inch total length (TL) minimum fish size, a 2-fish per person
possession limit, and open season from May 23 to September 1, 2008 (i.e.
closed seasons during January 1 to May 22 and September 2 to December
31).

An examination of 2007 landings and state regulations indicates that a
20-inch TL minimum fish size and 2-fish possession limit would constrain
landings to the recreational harvest limit for all individual states in
2008, assuming the same effort and fish availability as in 2007. The
precautionary default measures need to be set at or below the level of
reduction needed for the state with the highest reduction level to
ensure it is constraining for all states. Based on the information
available at the time the Council identified precautionary default
measures, New York measures for 2008 would be expected to result in the
most restrictive measures relative to the other states. For 2007, New
York currently had a minimum fish size of 19.5 inches, 4-fish possession
limit, and an open season from April 29 to September 17. The required
reduction for New York to meet the 2008 recreational harvest limit
proposed by NMFS, based on waves 1-4 MRFSS data was 42.7%. Therefore, a
precautionary default comprised of a 20-inch TL minimum fish size and
2-fish possession limit based on was identified as it would result in a
greater reduction than that required for the state of New York.

The Commission would allow states that had been assigned the
precautionary default measures to resubmit revised management measures.
In this case, the Commission would notify NMFS of any resubmitted
proposals that were approved after publication of the final rule
implementing the recreational specifications. Afterwards, NMFS would
publish a notice in the [Federal]{.underline} [Register]{.underline} to
notify the public of any changes to a state's management measures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469640 .anchor}**5.1.2 Alternative 2
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure/No Action)**

Based on a Monitoring Committee recommendation, the Council and
Commission adopted a non-preferred coastwide alternative to be
implemented in the EEZ if conservation equivalency is not implemented.
These measures include a 19-inch TL minimum fish size, a 3-fish per
person possession limit, and season from May 23 to September 1, 2008
(i.e. closed seasons during January 1 to May 22 and September 2 to
December 31). An examination of 2007 landings and state regulations
indicates that a 19-inch TL minimum fish size and 1-fish possession
limit could constrain landings to the recreational harvest limit on a
coastwide basis in 2008, assuming the same effort and fish availability
as in 2007. Relative to the current regulations, a 19-inch TL minimum
fish size and 3-fish possession limit would be a more restrictive
measure for all but one state (New York). As such, the reductions in
2008 landings due to adjustments in minimum size and possession limits
could be estimated using state-specific bag-size limit tables. The
combined reduction or increase in landings as a result adjusting both
the season, and fish size possession limits was estimated. Based on that
analysis, 2007 landings would have been approximately 1.82 million fish
if all the states had implemented a 19-inch total length (TL) minimum
fish size, a 3-fish per person possession limit, and season from May 23
to September 1, 2008. Therefore, the 2008 landings under those
regulations are expected to be less than the 2008 coastwide recreational
target of approximately 2.05 million fish. Therefore, it is anticipated
that these measures could constrain landings to the coastwide limit in
2008.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469641 .anchor}**5.2 Scup**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469642 .anchor}**5.2.1 Alternative 1
(Preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

The scup landings in 2007 based on waves 1-5 are projected to be 3.80
million lb (1.72 million kg), which is higher than the 2008 recreational
harvest limit of 1.83 million lb (0.83 million kg). Based on the
projected landings estimate for 2007, landings would have to be reduced
by 51.8% to achieve the recreational harvest limit for 2008. Changes in
the possession limits, size limits, and fishing seasons could be
considered to achieve the harvest limit. The Council and Commission
voted to recommend a 10.5-inch TL minimum fish size, a 15-fish per
person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February
29 and October 1 through October 31 (i.e. closed seasons of March 1
through September 30 and November 1 through December 31) for the 2008
scup recreational measures. It is estimated that this alternative could
reduce recreational landings by 53.2% by closing 13 days in September
(wave 5) and 30 additional days in November (wave 6). This reduction
assumes that states would maintain their more restrictive minimum size
limits, and all states would implement the given season and possession
limit (Tables 3 and 4a-b).

The Commission adopted state-by-state conservation equivalency measures
for 2008 and directed the Commission staff to develop a draft addendum
for conservation equivalency using the same parameters that were
approved in Addendum VII (ASMFC 2002) to the Commission's Interstate
Scup FMP. Addendum VII (ASMFC 2002) required states from Massachusetts
through New Jersey to develop state-specific management measures.
Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for conservation
equivalency and states will be adopting their own unique measures under
an addendum to the Commission's Interstate FMP, it is likely that
Federal and state recreational scup measures will differ for the 2008
season. As such, the Federal measures would only apply to party/charter
boats fishing in Federal waters with Federal permits. Based on 1997 to
2006 MRFSS data, on average about 7% of scup landings occur in the EEZ.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469643 .anchor}**5.2.2 Alternative 2
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

This non-preferred alternative for scup includes a 10.5-inch TL minimum
fish size, 15-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of
January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October 15 (i.e.
closed seasons of March 1 through September 30 and October 16 through
December 31) for the 2008 recreational fishery. It is estimated that
this alternative could reduce recreational landings by 60.5% by closing
13 days in September (wave 5), 16 days in October, and 30 additional
days in November (wave 6). This reduction assumes that states would
maintain their more restrictive minimum size limits, and all states
would implement the given season and possession limit (Tables 3 and
4a-b). This measure may be more restrictive than necessary to meet the
required 51.8% reduction.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469644 .anchor}**5.2.3 Alternative 3
(Non-preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No Action)**

This non-preferred alternative for scup includes a 10-inch TL minimum
fish size, a 50-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of
January 1 through February 29 and September 18 through November 30 (i.e.
closed seasons of March 1 through September 17 and December 1 through
December 31) for the 2008 recreational fishery. This alternative is not
expected to result in any reductions in landings relative due to a lack
of adjustment of the recreational management measures (i.e. possession
limits, size limits, and fishing seasons; Tables 3 and 4a-b).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469645 .anchor}**5.3 Black Sea Bass**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469646 .anchor}**5.3.1 Alternative 1
(Preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No Action)**

The black sea bass landings in 2007 based on waves 1-5 are projected to
be 1.97 million lb (0.89 million kg), or 6.6% below the 2007
recreational harvest limit of 2.11 million lb (0.96 million kg). The
Council and Commission recommended implementation of regulations in 2008
that maintained the same minimum size, possession limits, and seasons
that were in place in 2007. To constrain recreational black sea bass
landings to the 2008 recreational harvest limit, the Council and
Commission recommended a 12-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per
person possession limit, and open season of January 1 through December
31.

[]{#OLE_LINK11 .anchor}

Based on the projected landing estimate for 2007, landings would not
have to be reduced to achieve the recreational harvest limit for 2008;
therefore, the status quo measures under this alternative were
preferred. Updated MRFSS wave 6 data will likely be available before
final rule making for the 2008 black sea bass recreational management
measures. If those data indicate landings in 2007 were much higher than
anticipated and a concurrent need to implement more restrictive measures
to achieve the 2008 target, then the measures proposed in alternative 2,
alternative 3, or management measures within the range of alternatives
presented in this document for black sea bass could be adopted.

**5.3.2 Alternative 2 (Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

This non-preferred alternative for black sea bass would include a
coastwide 11.5-inch TL minimum fish size, 25-fish per person possession
limit, and open season of January 1 through December 31 for the 2008
recreational fishery. This alternative differs from the preferred by
recommending a reduction in the minimum fish size of 0.5 inch TL as
proposed by industry advisors to the Council. Based on the projected
landings estimate for 2007, landings would not have to be reduced to
achieve the recreational harvest limit for 2008. As the landings have
been consistently lower than the harvest limits in recent years (section
6.1), relaxation of the minimum fish size is considered under this
alternative.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469648 .anchor}**5.3.3 Alternative 3
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

This non-preferred alternative for black sea bass would include a
coastwide 12.5-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per person
possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31
for the 2008 recreational fishery. This alternative would increase the
minimum fish size by 0.5 inch TL, while maintaining the same size and
possession limits. Based on the projected landings estimate for 2007,
landings would not have to be reduced to achieve the recreational
harvest limit for 2008. This alternative could decrease landings by
15.0% and may be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the
recreational harvest limit. This estimate assumes that states would
maintain their more restrictive minimum size limits, and all states
would implement the given season and possession limit (Tables 5a-b and
6).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469649 .anchor}**6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND FISHERIES**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469650 .anchor}**6.1 Description of the Manages
Resource**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469651 .anchor}**6.1.1 Description of the
Fisheries (Including Review of Past Management Measures)**

The recreational fisheries for the three managed resources are fully
described in section 3.3.2, of Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and are outlined by principal port in
section 3.4.2 of that document.

**6.1.1.1 Summer Flounder**

Recreational catch and landings of summer flounder have fluctuated since
1981. Recreational catches peaked in 1983 at 32.06 million fish and then
decreased to 2.68 million fish in 1989, the lowest value in the time
series (1981-present; Figure 1). Catches increased significantly since
that low value to 28.19 million fish in 2001 and decreased to 22.04
million fish in 2006. Recreational landings peaked at 27.97 million lb
(12.69 million kg) in 1983 and then decreased to a time series low of
3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg) in 1989. Landings were estimated at
11.51 million lb (5.22 million kg) in 2006. Since Amendment 2 to the FMP
(which defined overfishing) was implemented in 1993, recreational catch
and landings patterns have varied. Based on 2007 MRFSS data for waves
1-5 (January through October) and the proportions of landings by wave in
2006, summer flounder recreational landings for 2007 are projected to be
9.30 million lb (4.22 million kg).

Recreational harvest limits and management measures have varied since
the FMP was first implemented (Table 7). The recreational harvest limit
was 8.38 million lb (3.80 million kg) in 1993, increased to 10.67
million lb (4.84 million kg) in 1994, and then decreased to 7.41 million
pounds annually from 1996 through 2000. The recreational harvest limit
then increased to a high of 11.98 million lb (5.43 million kg) in 2005
and decreased to 6.75 million lb (3.03 million kg) in 2007 (Table 8).
Over the time period from 1993 through 2001, coastwide possession limits
ranged from 3 to 10-fish with size limits ranging from 14 to 15.5-inch
TL. In 2002, conservation equivalency was implemented and has been used
as the preferred management system since then. In 2006, the
state-specific possession limits ranged from 2 to 8-fish with size
limits ranging from 14 to 18--inch TL, with assorted seasons (Table 9).
In 2007, the state-specific possession limits ranged from 2 to 8-fish
with size limits ranging from 14 to 19.5-inch TL, with assorted seasons
(Table 10). The Council and Commission also adopted a non-preferred and
precautionary default measures in 2006 of 4-fish with a minimum size of
18.5-inch TL and 1-fish with a 19-inch TL minimum fish size,
respectively. Based on projected landings for 2007, all states but
Massachusetts and Virginia will exceed their targets (Table 11).

**6.1.1.2 Scup**

Recreational catch and landings of scup have fluctuated since 1981.
Recreational catch peaked in 1986 at 30.87 million fish and then
declined to 2.67 million fish in 1998, the lowest value in the time
series (1981-present; Figure 2). Recreational landings peaked at 11.61
million lb (5.27 million kg) in 1986 and then trended downward to a low
of 0.88 million lb (0.40 million kg) in 1998. Based on 2007 MRFSS data
for waves 1-5 (January through October) and the proportions of landings
by wave in 2006, scup recreational landings for 2007 are projected to be
3.80 million lb (1.72 million kg).

Recreational harvest limits and management measures have varied since
the FMP was first implemented (Table 12). Beginning in 1997,
recreational harvest limits were established to achieve the target
exploitation rates. Since 1997, the recreational harvest limit has
varied from a low of 1.24 million lb (0.56 million kg) annually in 1999
and 2000 to a high of 4.01 million lb (1.82 million kg) in 2003. In the
most recent years (2003-2006), the coastwide possession limit has been
50-fish. The minimum size limit has increased from 7-inch TL in 1993 to
10-inch TL from 2002 onward.

In 2007, the Council adopted the same coastwide measures as 2006.
Specifically, they adopted a 50-fish possession limit, a 10-inch TL size
limit, and an open season from January 1 through February 28 and
September 18 through November 30. The Commission adopted a regional
approach (as was done in 2005 and 2006) based on a harvest target
allocation of 97% of the fish to the states from Massachusetts to New
York and 3% to the states from New Jersey to North Carolina, resulting
in the combination of management measures (Table 15). It should be noted
that the Commission scup harvest target was based on a higher TAL in
2007 than was implemented in Federal waters.

**6.1.1.3 Black Sea Bass**

Recreational catch and landings of black sea bass have fluctuated since
1981. Recreational catches peaked in 1986 at 28.95 million fish and then
fluctuated between 5.05 and 14.06 million fish from 1987 through 1999
(1981-present; Figure 3). Catches increased significantly in 2000 to
16.93 million fish and then dropped to 7.08 million fish in 2005, and
then increased slightly to 8.12 million fish in 2006. Recreational
landings peaked at 12.39 million lb (5.62 million kg) in 1986 and then
fluctuated between 1.15 and 6.21 million lb (0.52 and 2.82 million kg)
from 1987 through 2003. Landings were estimated at 1.98 million lb (0.90
million kg) in 2006. Based on 2007 MRFSS data for waves 1-5 (January
through October) and the proportions of landings by wave in 2006, black
sea bass recreational landings for 2007 are projected to be 1.97 million
lb (0.89 million kg).

The Council and the Commission have recommended various harvest limits
and other management measures since the FMP was first implemented.
Harvest limits have ranged from a low of 3.15 million lb (1.43 million
kg) from 1998 through 2001 to a high of 4.13 million lb (1.87 million
kg) in 2005, and a decrease to 3.99 million lb (1.81 million kg) in 2006
(Table 16). Most recently, in 2007 the recreational harvest limit was
2.47 million lb (1.12 million kg). In 2005 and 2006, all states adopted
Federal regulations of 25-fish, 12-inch TL minimum fish size, and
matched the Federal season, with the exception of Massachusetts (Tables
17 and 18). Massachusetts opted for a more restrictive 20-fish
possession limit and adopted all other Federal regulations in 2007
(Table 19).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469652 .anchor}**6.1.2 Description of the Stock
(Including Status, Stock Characteristics, and Ecological
Relationships)**

Reports on "Stock Status," including annual assessment and reference
point update reports, Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) reports, and Stock
Assessment Review Committee (SARC) panelist reports, are available
online at the NEFSC website:
[http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov](http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/).

EFH Source Documents, which include details on stock characteristics and
ecological relationships, are available at the following website:

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/.

**6.1.2.1 Summer Flounder**

The most recent assessment peer review on summer flounder was the NMFS
Office of Science and Technology Division (S&T) Peer Review of the 2006
SAW Southern Demersal Working Group (SDWG) assessment (October 2006;
Terceiro 2006a, 2006b).

The SDWG met in June 2007 to perform an annual update to the assessment.
Using the updated 2006 fishery and 2007 survey data, the SDWG found that
relative to the biological reference points, the stock is overfished and
overfishing is occurring (Box 6.1.2.1). The fishing mortality rate
estimated for 2006 is 0.35, a significant decline from the 1.32
estimated for 1994 but above the threshold F of 0.28. There is an 80%
probability that the fishing mortality rate in 2006 was between 0.29 and
0.49. The estimate of F for 2006 may understate the actual fishing
mortality; retrospective analysis shows that the current assessment
method tends to underestimate recent fishing mortality rates. Over the
last 3 years, the annual retrospective increase in fishing mortality has
ranged from +20 to +40%. Total stock biomass increased substantially
during the 1990s and was estimated to be 104 million lbs (47,135 mt) on
January 1, 2007. Spawning stock biomass has increased since the early
1990s to 93 million lbs (42,316 mt) on November 1, 2006, which is below
the biomass threshold of one-half SSB~MSY~ = 98.6 million lbs (44,706
mt). Retrospective analysis shows a tendency to overestimate the SSB in
the most recent years. Over the last 3 years, the annual retrospective
decrease in SSB has ranged from -8 to -22%.

The average year-class estimate from 1982 to 2006 is 37 million fish at
age 0, with a median of 33 million fish. The 2006 year-class is
currently estimated to be about 30 million fish. Retrospective analysis
shows no trend in estimation of year-class strength in the most recent
years.

A full description of stock characteristics and ecological relationships
of summer flounder is presented in section 3.1.1 of Amendment 13 to the
FMP (MAFMC 2002). Additional information can be found in the document
entitled, \"Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder,
*Paralichthys dentatus*, Life History and Habitat Characteristics\"
(Packer et al. 1999).

+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  |       |               |          |              |           |
| Box |       |               |          |              |           |
| 6   |       |               |          |              |           |
| .1. |       |               |          |              |           |
| 2.1 |       |               |          |              |           |
| Sum |       |               |          |              |           |
| mer |       |               |          |              |           |
| Fl  |       |               |          |              |           |
| oun |       |               |          |              |           |
| der |       |               |          |              |           |
| St  |       |               |          |              |           |
| ock |       |               |          |              |           |
| Sta |       |               |          |              |           |
| tus |       |               |          |              |           |
| Inf |       |               |          |              |           |
| orm |       |               |          |              |           |
| ati |       |               |          |              |           |
| on^ |       |               |          |              |           |
| a^, |       |               |          |              |           |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 0-2 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 006 |       |               |          |              |           |
| .** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | **Up  | **O           | **       | **O          | **Year    |
| Yea | dated | verfishing?** | Spawning | verfished?** | Class     |
| r** | F     |               | Stock    |              | Estimate  |
|     | Estim | **(F~thres    | B        | **(SSB~thr   | (m        |
|     | ate** | hold~=0.28)** | iomass** | eshold~=98.6 | illions** |
|     |       |               |          | million      |           |
|     |       |               | **(      | lb)**        | **of      |
|     |       |               | million  |              | fish)**   |
|     |       |               | lb)**    |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.87  | Yes           | 60.0     | Yes          | 33.2      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 0** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.67  | Yes           | 68.6     | Yes          | 33.4      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 1** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.47  | Yes           | 80.2     | Yes          | 36.6      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 2** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.46  | Yes           | 92.8     | Yes          | 27.9      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 3** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.44  | Yes           | 93.5     | Yes          | 38.0      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 4** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.47  | Yes           | 97.2     | Yes          | 17.0      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 5** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **  | 0.35  | Yes           | 93.3     | Yes          | 30.3      |
| 200 |       |               |          |              |           |
| 6** |       |               |          |              |           |
+-----+-------+---------------+----------+--------------+-----------+

^a^ Based on most recent SDWG assessment update (contained in the report
entitled "Summer Flounder

Stock Assessment Summary for 2007"); therefore, values in this box may
not match those in the prior

year's specifications document.

**6.1.2.2 Scup**

The most recent assessment on scup was completed in June, 2002 (35^th^
SARC). At that time, the assessment indicated that scup are no longer
overfished, "but stock status with respect to overfishing cannot
currently be evaluated." The SARC also concluded that although "the
relative exploitation rates have declined in recent years the absolute
value of F cannot be determined." The SARC noted that "survey data
indicate strong recruitment and some rebuilding of age structure" in
recent years and commented on the "high degree of inter-annual variation
in individual survey indices."

While State and federal surveys indicated an increase in stock abundance
since the mid to late 1990s, the NEFSC 3-year average (2003-2005) spring
survey results indicated that spawning stock decreased; the estimate for
2004 was 0.69 kg/tow. This is below the minimum biomass threshold value
of 2.77 kg/tow. Therefore, the stock is considered overfished (Box
6.1.2.2). The 2006 NEFSC Spring SSB 3-year average (2005-2007) index
value is 0.76 kg/tow and remains below the minimum biomass threshold of
2.77 kg/tow. The NEFSC spring survey index increased significantly in
2004 to 1.85 kg/tow relative to the low value of 0.15 kg/tow derived in
2003. In 2005, the spring index dropped to 0.10 kg/tow; however, in 2006
this value increased to 2.04. The 2006 index is the highest value in the
spring survey since 1978, excluding the high value in 2002. In 2007 this
value dropped to 0.14 kg/tow. Year class strength is evident in the
NEFSC autumn trawl survey results. The survey indicates that strong year
classes were produced from 1999-2002. The most recent information
indicates a strong year class was produced in 2006.

Estimates of fishing mortality rates for scup are uncertain. The 31^st^
SARC conducted several analyses that indicated that F was at least 1.0
for ages 0-3 scup for the 1984 to 2000 time series. SARC 31 could not
estimate Fs on older fish because they were not well represented in the
surveys. Although the magnitude of the current mortality rates is
unknown, relative exploitation rates have changed over the time series.
Relative exploitation rates based on total landings and the spring
survey suggest a general increase in exploitation from 1981 to 1995.
Since then, relative exploitation rates have declined from the 1995
value of 135.5 to single digit values for 2001 to 2003 and 2005. This
relative index increased to 19.9 in 2004 but has since decreased to 9.0
in 2005. In 2006, the value increased to 15.2.

The stock characteristics and ecological relationships of scup are fully
described in section 3.1.2 of Amendment 13 to the FMP (MAFMC 2002).
Additional information can be found in the document titled, \"Essential
Fish Habitat Source Document: Scup, *Stenotomus chrysops*, Life History
and Habitat Characteristics\" (Steimle et al. 1999).

+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  |         |             |         |             |              |
| Box |         |             |         |             |              |
| 6   |         |             |         |             |              |
| .1. |         |             |         |             |              |
| 2.2 |         |             |         |             |              |
| S   |         |             |         |             |              |
| cup |         |             |         |             |              |
| St  |         |             |         |             |              |
| ock |         |             |         |             |              |
| Sta |         |             |         |             |              |
| tus |         |             |         |             |              |
| Inf |         |             |         |             |              |
| orm |         |             |         |             |              |
| ati |         |             |         |             |              |
| on^ |         |             |         |             |              |
| a^, |         |             |         |             |              |
| 200 |         |             |         |             |              |
| 0-2 |         |             |         |             |              |
| 006 |         |             |         |             |              |
| .** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | **      | **Ove       | **NEFSC | **Ov        | **Year Class |
| Yea | Updated | rfishing?** | Spring  | erfished?** | Estimate     |
| r** | F       |             | SSB**   |             | NEFSC Fall   |
|     | Est     | *           |         | **(SSB~thre | SSB          |
|     | imate** | *(F~thresho | *       | shold~=2.77 | (kg/tow)**   |
|     |         | ld~=0.26)** | *3-year | kg/tow)**   |              |
|     |         |             | avg.**  |             |              |
|     |         |             |         |             |              |
|     |         |             | **(     |             |              |
|     |         |             | kg      |             |              |
|     |         |             | /tow)** |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.25    | Yes         | 4.79         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 0** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 3.30    | No          | 1.11         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 1** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 3.31    | No          | 3.79         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 2** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 3.74    | No          | 0.80         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 3** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.69    | Yes         | 0.26         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 4** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 1.32    | Yes         | 0.07         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 5** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.76    | Yes         | 1.92         |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |             |              |
| 6** |         |             |         |             |              |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+

^a^Based on most recent assessment update; therefore, values in this box
may not match those in the prior year's specifications document.

**6.1.2.3 Black Sea Bass**

The most recent assessment on black sea bass was completed in June 2006
(SAW/SARC 43); however, the assessment was not approved for management
use. The most recent, peer-reviewed, accepted assessment on black sea
bass was completed in June 2004. At that time, it indicated that black
sea bass were no longer overfished and overfishing was not occurring.
Amendment 12 to the FMP (MAFMC 1998), which was partially approved by
NMFS in 1999, established a biomass threshold based on the spring
survey. Specifically, the biomass threshold is defined as the maximum
value of a three-year moving average of the NEFSC spring survey
catch-per-tow (1977-1979 average of 0.98 kg/tow). The 2006 biomass index
was 0.6 (the three-year average for 2005-2007). Based on this value, the
stock is overfished.

Because of the potential influence of an extremely small or large number
for a single tow, Gary Shepherd, NEFSC (pers. comm.) has suggested that
the survey indices be log transformed to give a better indication of
stock status. The transformed series indicates a general increase in the
exploitable biomass since 1996, although these values have decreased
over the last few years. The index for 2002 of 0.799 is the highest
value in the time series (1968-2007). The biomass index has steadily
declined from this time series high to 0.493 in 2003, 0.321 in 2004,
0.374 in 2005, 0.288 in 2006, and 0.127 in 2007. The three point moving
average based on these survey results for the recent time period has
steadily increased from a low of 0.093 in 1997 to 0.538 in 2003.
However, lower survey values resulted in a three year average value for
2006 of 0.263.

The spring survey can also be used as an index of recruitment. The
survey, an indicator of age-1 fish, indicates good year classes were
produced in 1987, 1989 through 1991, and 1994 and poor year classes in
1992, 1993, and 1995 through 1997. Results for 2000 indicate a strong
year class was produced in 1999; the index was 0.661, the highest in the
time series. The 2001 year class was good; the index was about four
times the average for the period and the third largest value since 1968.
The 2005 and 2006 year classes (as indicated by the 2006 and 2007 index
values) were below the average for the time series (1968-2007).

Relative exploitation based on the total commercial and recreational
landings and the moving average of the transformed spring survey index
indicates a significant reduction in mortality from 2001 to 2006
relative to indices prior to 1997. Based on tag recapture models, the F
estimated for 2003 was less than 0.26; exploitation rates for 2003
ranged from 15-20%. However, preliminary F estimates for June 2003 to
March 2004 ranged from 0.24 to 0.3, and the SARC working group indicated
that \"uncertainty remains in the tag reporting rates and may result in
under estimated exploitation rates. Also, discard losses in the
commercial fisheries were not estimated and remain an uncertain
component of the fishery.\"

A full description of stock characteristics and ecological relationships
is presented in section 3.1.1 of Amendment 13 to the FMP (MAFMC 2002).
Additional information can be found in the documents titled, \"Essential
Fish Habitat Source Document: Black Sea Bass, *Centropristis striata*,
Life History and Habitat Characteristics\" (Steimle et al. 1999) and an
update of that document, \"Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Black
Sea Bass, *Centropristis striata*, Life History and Habitat
Characteristics (Second Edition)\" (Drohan et al. 2007).

+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  |         |             |         |               |            |
| Box |         |             |         |               |            |
| 6   |         |             |         |               |            |
| .1. |         |             |         |               |            |
| 2.3 |         |             |         |               |            |
| Bl  |         |             |         |               |            |
| ack |         |             |         |               |            |
| Sea |         |             |         |               |            |
| B   |         |             |         |               |            |
| ass |         |             |         |               |            |
| St  |         |             |         |               |            |
| ock |         |             |         |               |            |
| Sta |         |             |         |               |            |
| tus |         |             |         |               |            |
| Inf |         |             |         |               |            |
| orm |         |             |         |               |            |
| ati |         |             |         |               |            |
| on^ |         |             |         |               |            |
| a^, |         |             |         |               |            |
| 200 |         |             |         |               |            |
| 0-2 |         |             |         |               |            |
| 006 |         |             |         |               |            |
| .** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | **      | **Ove       | **NEFSC | **            | **Year     |
| Yea | Updated | rfishing?** | Spring  | Overfished?** | Class      |
| r** | F       |             | Expl    |               | Strength   |
|     | Est     | *           | oitable | **(Biomass~th | NEFSC      |
|     | imate** | *(F~thresho | Bi      | reshold~=0.98 | Spring     |
|     |         | ld~=0.33)** | omass** | kg/tow)**     | Recruits   |
|     |         |             |         |               | (          |
|     |         |             | *       |               | no./tow)** |
|     |         |             | *3-year |               | ^b^        |
|     |         |             | avg.**  |               |            |
|     |         |             |         |               |            |
|     |         |             | **(     |               |            |
|     |         |             | kg      |               |            |
|     |         |             | /tow)** |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.35    | Yes           | 0.08       |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |               |            |
| 0** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.58    | Yes           | 0.55       |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |               |            |
| 1** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 1.25    | No            | 0.15       |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |               |            |
| 2** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | \< 0.26 | No          | 1.40    | No            | 0.08       |
| 200 | ^c^     |             |         |               |            |
| 3** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 1.34    | No            | 0.22       |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |               |            |
| 4** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.80    | Yes           | 0.05       |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |               |            |
| 5** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| **  | Unav    | Unknown     | 0.60    | Yes           | 0.10       |
| 200 | ailable |             |         |               |            |
| 6** |         |             |         |               |            |
+-----+---------+-------------+---------+---------------+------------+

^a^Based on most recent assessment update; therefore, values in this box
may not match those in the prior

year's specifications document.

^b^Lagged one year (i.e. 2006 year-class strength indicated by 2007
spring recruit value)

^c^39th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (39th SAW), 2004

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469653 .anchor}**6.1.3 Non-target Species**

There are significant recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass. The recreational fishery may catch and/or land
numerous other species within the management units of the managed
resources. These species could include, but are not limited to, striped
bass, bluefish, weakfish, tautog, Atlantic croaker, spot, spiny dogfish,
skates species, and other flounder species and pelagics.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469654 .anchor}**6.2 Habitat (Including
Essential Fish Habitat)**

A description of the habitat associated with the summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass fisheries is presented in section 3.2 of Amendment 13
to the FMP (MAFMC 2002), and a brief summary of that information is
given here. The impact of fishing on summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass on habitat (and EFH) and the impact of the summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass fisheries on other species' habitat and EFH can
be found in Amendment 13 to the FMP (section 3.2; MAFMC 2002). Potential
impacts associated with the measures proposed in this specifications
document on habitat (including EFH) are discussed in section 7.0.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469655 .anchor}**6.2.1 Summer Flounder**

Summer flounder spawn during the fall and winter over the open ocean
areas of the continental shelf. Planktonic larvae are often found in the
northern part of the Middle Atlantic Bight from September to February
and in the southern part from November to May. From October to May,
larvae and postlarvae migrate inshore, entering coastal and estuarine
nursery areas. Juveniles are distributed inshore and in many estuaries
throughout the range of the species during spring, summer, and fall.
Summer flounder exhibit strong seasonal inshore-offshore movements.
Adult flounder normally inhabit shallow coastal and estuarine waters
during the warmer months of the year and remain offshore during the
colder months. EFH includes pelagic waters, demersal waters, saltmarsh
creeks, seagrass beds, mudflats, and open bay areas, from the Gulf of
Maine through North Carolina. Additional information on summer flounder
habitat requirements can be found in the document titled, \"Essential
Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, *Paralichthys dentatus*,
Life History and Habitat Characteristics\" (Packer et al. 1999). An
electronic version of this source document is available at the following
website: <http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/>. The current EFH
designation definitions by life history stage for summer flounder are
available at the following website:

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm.

Any actions implemented in the FMP that affect species with overlapping
EFH were considered in the EFH assessment for Amendment 13 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP (MAFMC 2002). Summer flounder are
primarily landed by bottom otter trawls. Amendment 13 included
alternatives to minimize the adverse impacts of fishing gear on EFH (as
required pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the SFA). As stated in section
3.2 of Amendment 13, the Council determined that both mobile bottom
tending and stationary gear in the commercial fishery have a potential
to adversely impact EFH. The analysis in that document also indicated
that no management measures were needed, because in Federal waters the
fishery is conducted primarily in high energy mobile sand and bottom
habitat, where gear impacts are minimal and/or temporary in nature. On
that basis, the Council selected the no action alternative, from among
the suite of alternatives to minimize fishing gear impacts on EFH in
Amendment 13 to the FMP. The principal gear types used in the
recreational fishery for summer flounder are rod and reel and handlines.
The habitat impacts of these two gear types were not evaluated in
Amendment 13 (because it only deals with the commercial fishery), in the
2001 NMFS Gear Effects Workshop (NREFHSC 2002), or in Stevenson et al.
(2004). Barnette (2001) reports that there are few studies of the
physical habitat impacts of these gear types, but concludes that
"impacts may include entanglement and minor degradation of benthic
species from line abrasion and the use of weights (sinkers)." The only
published evidence reported by Barnette related to the effects of
discarded or lost fishing line on branching and digitate corals
(Schleyer and Tomalin 2000). Corals are not a component of EFH for
summer flounder. A panel of experts that did evaluate hook and line gear
concluded that the physical and biological habitat impacts were "very
low" (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). For all the reasons cited above, the
potential impacts of fishing gear used in the recreational fishery for
black sea bass are not expected to be more than minimal or temporary in
nature.

There have be no significant changes to the manner in which the summer
flounder fishery is prosecuted, and none of the alternatives being
considered in this document would adversely affect EFH (see section
7.0); therefore, the effects of fishing on EFH have not been
re-evaluated since Amendment 13 to the FMP, and no alternatives to
minimize adverse effects on EFH are presented in this document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469656 .anchor}**6.2.2 Scup**

Scup spawn once annually, over weedy or sand-covered areas in the
spring. Scup eggs and newly hatched larvae are found in open water in
bays and sounds of Southern New England during the spring-summer.
Juvenile and adult scup are demersal using inshore waters in the spring
and moving offshore in the winter. EFH includes demersal waters, sands,
mud, mussel and seagrass beds, from the Gulf of Maine through Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina. Additional information on scup habitat
requirements can be found in the documents titled, \"Essential Fish
Habitat Source Document: Scup, *Centropristis striata*, Life History and
Habitat Characteristics\" (Steimle et al. 1999) and an update of that
document, \"Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Scup, *Centropristis
striata*, Life History and Habitat Characteristics (Second Edition)\"
(Drohan et al. 2007). An electronic version of the source documents is
available at the following website:
<http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/>. The current EFH
designation definitions by life history stage for scup are available at
the following website:

<http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm>.

Any actions implemented in the FMP that affect species with overlapping
EFH were considered in the EFH assessment for Amendment 13 to the FMP
(MAFMC 2002). Scup are primarily landed by fish pots/traps, bottom and
midwater trawls, and lines. Amendment 13 included alternatives to
minimize the adverse impacts of fishing gear on EFH (as required
pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the SFA). As stated in section 3.2 of
Amendment 13, the Council determined that both mobile bottom tending and
stationary gear in the commercial fishery have a potential to adversely
impact EFH. The analysis in that document also indicated that no
management measures were needed, because in Federal waters the fishery
is conducted primarily in high energy mobile sand and bottom habitat,
where gear impacts are minimal and/or temporary in nature. On that
basis, the Council selected the no action alternative, from among the
suite of alternatives to minimize fishing gear impacts on EFH in
Amendment 13 to the FMP. The principal gear types used in the
recreational fishery for scup are rod and reel and handlines. The
habitat impacts of these two gear types were not evaluated in Amendment
13 (because it only deals with the commercial fishery), in the 2001 NMFS
Gear Effects Workshop (NREFHSC 2002), or in Stevenson et al. (2004).
Barnette (2001) reports that there are few studies of the physical
habitat impacts of these gear types, but concludes that "impacts may
include entanglement and minor degradation of benthic species from line
abrasion and the use of weights (sinkers)." The only published evidence
reported by Barnette related to the effects of discarded or lost fishing
line on branching and digitate corals (Schleyer and Tomalin 2000).
Corals are not a component of EFH for scup. A panel of experts that did
evaluate hook and line gear concluded that the physical and biological
habitat impacts were "very low" (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). For all
the reasons cited above, the potential impacts of fishing gear used in
the recreational fishery for black sea bass are not expected to be more
than minimal or temporary in nature.

There have be no significant changes to the manner in which the scup
fishery is prosecuted, and none of the alternatives being considered in
this document would adversely affect EFH (see section 7.0); therefore,
the effects of fishing on EFH have not been re-evaluated since Amendment
13 to the FMP, and no alternatives to minimize adverse effects on EFH
are presented in this document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469657 .anchor}**6.2.3 Black Sea Bass**

The northern population of black sea bass spawns in the Middle Atlantic
Bight continental shelf during the spring through fall. Spawning begins
in the spring in the southern portion of the range of this population,
i.e. off North Carolina and Virginia, and progresses north into southern
New England waters in the summer-fall; these pelagic eggs are closely
associated with spawning. Collections of ripe fish and egg distributions
indicate that the species spawns primarily on the inner continental
shelf between Chesapeake Bay and Montauk Pt., Long Island. The duration
of larval stage and habitat-related settlement cues are unknown;
therefore, distribution and habitat use of this pelagic stage may only
partially overlap with that of the egg stage. Adult black sea bass are
also very structure oriented, especially during their summer coastal
residency. Unlike juveniles, they tend to enter only larger estuaries
and are most abundant along the coast. Larger fish tend to be found in
deeper water than smaller fish. A variety of coastal structures are
known to be attractive, and these include shipwrecks, rocky and
artificial reefs, mussel beds and any other object or source of shelter
on the bottom. In the warmer months, inshore, resident adult black sea
bass are usually found associated with structured habitats. EFH for
black sea bass is pelagic waters, structured habitat (e.g., sponge
beds), rough bottom shellfish, sand and shell, from the Gulf of Maine
through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Additional information on black
sea bass habitat requirements can be found in the document titled,
\"Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Black Sea Bass, *Centropristis
striata*, Life History and Habitat Characteristics\" (Steimle et al.
1999; 2007). An electronic version of this source document is available
at the following website:

<http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/>. The current EFH
designation definitions by life history stage for black sea bass are
available at the following website:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm.

Any actions implemented in the FMP that affect species with overlapping
EFH were considered in the EFH assessment for Amendment 13 to the FMP
(MAFMC 2002). Black sea bass are primarily landed by fish pots/traps,
bottom and midwater trawls, and lines. Amendment 13 included
alternatives to minimize the adverse impacts of fishing gear on EFH (as
required pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the SFA). As stated in section
3.2 of Amendment 13, the Council determined that both mobile bottom
tending and stationary gear in the commercial fishery have a potential
to adversely impact EFH. The analysis in that document also indicated
that no management measures were needed, because in Federal waters the
fishery is conducted primarily in high energy mobile sand and bottom
habitat, where gear impacts are minimal and/or temporary in nature. On
that basis, the Council selected the no action alternative, from among
the suite of alternatives to minimize fishing gear impacts on EFH in
Amendment 13 to the FMP.

The principal gear types used in the recreational fishery for black sea
bass are rod and reel and handlines. The habitat impacts of these two
gear types were not evaluated in Amendment 13 (because it only deals
with the commercial fishery), in the 2001 NMFS Gear Effects Workshop
(NREFHSC 2002), or in Stevenson et al. (2004). Barnette (2001) reports
that there are few studies of the physical habitat impacts of these gear
types, but concludes that "impacts may include entanglement and minor
degradation of benthic species from line abrasion and the use of weights
(sinkers)." The only published evidence reported by Barnette related to
the effects of discarded or lost fishing line on branching and digitate
corals (Schleyer and Tomalin 2000). Corals are not a component of EFH
for black sea bass. A panel of experts that did evaluate hook and line
gear concluded that the physical and biological habitat impacts were
"very low" (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). For all the reasons cited
above, the potential impacts of fishing gear used in the recreational
fishery for black sea bass are not expected to be more than minimal or
temporary in nature.

There have be no significant changes to the manner in which the black
sea bass fishery is prosecuted, and none of the alternatives being
considered in this document would adversely affect EFH (see section
7.0); therefore, the effects of fishing on EFH have not been
re-evaluated since Amendment 13 to the FMP, and no alternatives to
minimize adverse effects on EFH are presented in this document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469658 .anchor}**6.3 Endangered and Protected
Species**

Number range CHAPTERThere are numerous species inhabiting the
environment, within the management unit of the three species managed
through this FMP, that are afforded protection under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (i.e. for those designated as threatened or
endangered), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), and/or the
Migratory Bird Act of 1918. Sixteen are classified as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, while the rest are protected by the provisions
of the MMPA. These species are listed below in Box 6.3. A more detailed
description of the species listed as endangered or threatened, including
ecological relationships and life history information, is presented in
Appendix B, however information on loggerhead and green sea turtles
which have had encounters with the gear used to commercially harvest
summer flounder are given in this section. The potential impacts to
protected species associated with the proposed measures under this
specifications document are discussed in section 7.0.

The status of these and other marine mammal populations inhabiting the
Northwest Atlantic has been discussed in detail in the U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. Initial assessments were
presented in Blaylock et al. (1995) and are updated in Waring et al.
(2006). The most recent information on the stock assessment of various
marine mammals through 2005 can be found at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/individual_sars.html.

Three other useful websites on marine mammals are:

<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery>,

http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr611/mfr611.htm, and

<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals>.

Under section 118 of the MMPA of 1972, NMFS must publish, and annually
update, the List of Fisheries (LOF), which places all U.S. commercial
fisheries in one of three categories based on the level of incidental
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals in each fishery
(arranging them according to a two tiered classification system). The
categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants
in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the
MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan
requirements. The classification criteria consist of a two-tiered,
stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all
fisheries on each marine mammal stock (Tier 1) and then addresses the
impact of the individual fisheries on each stock (Tier 2).

The principle gears used in the recreational fishery for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass are rod and reel and handlines.
Recreational fisheries, in general, have very limited interaction with
marine mammals and endangered or threatened species. Potential impacts
to protected species associated with the proposed measures under this
specifications package are discussed in section 7.0.

  --------------- --------------- -------------------------- -----------------
  **Box 6.3.                                                 
  Species                                                    
  protected by                                               
  the ESA, MMPA,                                             
  or the                                                     
  Migratory Bird                                             
  Act that are                                               
  found in the                                               
  environment                                                
  utilized by the                                            
  summer                                                     
  flounder, scup,                                            
  and black sea                                              
  bass                                                       
  fisheries:**                                               

  **Species**     **Common name** **Scientific Name**        **Status**

  **Whales**      Northern right  *Eubalaena glacialis*      Endangered

                  Humpback        *Megaptera novaeangliae*   Endangered

                  Fin             *Balaenoptera physalus*    Endangered

                  Blue            *Balaenoptera musculus*    Endangered

                  Sei             *Balaenoptera borealis*    Endangered

                  Sperm           *Physeter macrocephalus*   Endangered

                  Minke           *Balaenoptera              Protected
                                  acutorostrata*             

                  Beaked          *Ziphius and Mesoplodon    Protected
                                  spp.*                      

                  Pilot           *Globicephala spp.*        Protected

  **Dolphins**    Risso\'s        *Grampus griseus*          Protected

                  White-sided     *Lagenorhynchus acutus*    Protected

                  Common          *Delphinus delphis*        Protected

                  Spotted and     *Stenella spp.*            Protected
                  striped                                    

                  Bottlenose      *Tursiops truncatus*       Protected

  **Sea Turtles** Leatherback     *Dermochelys coriacea*     Endangered

                  Kemp\'s ridley  *Lepidochelys kempii*      Endangered

                  Green           *Chelonia mydas*           Endangered

                  Hawksbill       *Eretmochelys imbricata*   Endangered

                  Loggerhead      *Caretta caretta*          Threatened

  **Fish**        Shortnose       *Acipenser brevirostrum*   Endangered
                  sturgeon                                   

                  Atlantic salmon *Salmo salar*              Endangered

                  Smalltooth      *Pristis pectinata*        Endangered
                  sawfish                                    

  **Birds**       Roseate tern    *Sterna dougallii          Endangered
                                  dougallii*                 

                  Piping plover   *Charadrius melodus*       Endangered

  **Critical      Right Whale     Cape Cod Bay and Great     
  Habitat                         South Channel              
  Designation**                                              
  --------------- --------------- -------------------------- -----------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469659 .anchor}**6.4 Fishery and Socioeconomic
Environment**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469660 .anchor}**6.4.1 Economic and Social
Environment**

**6.4.1.1 Summer Flounder**

Summer flounder continues to be an important component of the
recreational fishery. Estimation of primary species sought as reported
by anglers in recent intercept surveys from Maine through North Carolina
indicates that summer flounder has increased in importance from 1991 to
2001, from a low of 3.8 million trips in 1992 to a high of 6.1 million
trips in 2001. For 2002 through 2007, the number of recreational fishing
trips reported by anglers as targeting summer flounder ranges from 4.6
to 5.6 million trips. A detailed description of the economic aspects of
the commercial and recreational fisheries for summer flounder was
presented in section 3.3.1 of Amendment 13. Additional economic analysis
regarding this fishery is presented in section 7.0 of the EA and in the
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(RIR/IRFA) section. Information regarding fishing trends is presented in
section 4.3 of the RIR/IRFA.

**6.4.1.2 Scup**

A detailed description of the economic aspects of the commercial and
recreational fisheries for scup was presented in section 3.3.2 of
Amendment 13. Additional economic analysis regarding this fishery is
presented in section 7.0 of the EA and in the RIR/IRFA section.
Information regarding fishing trends is presented in section 4.3 of the
RIR/IRFA.

**6.4.1.3 Black Sea Bass**

A detailed description of the economic aspects of the commercial and
recreational fisheries for black sea bass is presented in section 3.3.3
of Amendment 13. Additional economic analysis regarding this fishery is
presented in section 7.0 of the EA and in the RIR/IRFA section.
Information regarding fishing trends is presented in section 4.3 of the
RIR/IRFA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469661 .anchor}**6.5 Human Communities**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469662 .anchor}**6.5.1 Port and Community
Description**

The recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are
important to many communities along the East Coast. Recent summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass landing patterns among ports are
presented in section 6.5 of the 2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black
Sea Bass Specifications. A brief description of the relative importance
of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational landings at
the state level follows. The ports and communities that are dependent on
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are fully described in
Amendment 13 (section 3.4).

Data are not available to identify to what extent communities are
dependent upon these recreational fisheries. The MRFSS program does not
identify port and community level data. Vessel Trip Report (VTR or
"logbook") data can be analyzed on the port-level for party/charter boat
landings. However, MRFSS data indicate that party/charter landings
represented 14%, 16%, and 63%, of the total number (A+B1) of summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational landings, respectively,
from Maine through North Carolina, on average from 1981-2006 (Tables
20-22). As such, VTR data may not be representative of the importance of
the entire summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational
fisheries to ports. However, as stated in section 6.4 of the 2008 Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications, for party/charter
vessels, the largest number of permit holders for these species are
located in Massachusetts, followed by New Jersey and New York.

According to MRFSS estimates, the top five states from Maine through
North Carolina in 2006 that landed summer flounder were New Jersey, New
York, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (Table 23). The other
five states accounted for less than 11% of the total summer flounder
landings. VTR data indicate that summer flounder accounted for 25%, 12%,
7%, and 5% of the total catch by party/charter vessels in the states of
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York, respectively, in 2005
(Table 24).

The top five states that landed scup in 2006 were New York, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Jersey (Table 23). These states
accounted for nearly 100% of the total recreational scup landings in
2006. VTR data indicate that scup accounted for 27%, 11%, 9%, 6%, and 5%
of the total catch by party/charter vessels in the states of New York,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut, respectively,
in 2005 (Table 25).

The top five states that landed black sea bass in 2006 were New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Delaware, and Virginia (Table 23). New Jersey
alone accounted for 43% of the landings. The remaining states of
accounted for 15% of the total black sea bass recreational landings. VTR
data indicate that black sea bass accounted for 86%, 35%, 28%, and 17%
of the total catch by party/charter vessels in the states of Maryland,
Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia, respectively, in 2005 (Table 26).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469663 .anchor}**6.5.2 Analysis of Permit
Data**

A full description and analysis of the vessels permitted to participate
in the commercial and recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass are presented in section 6.5.2 of the 2008 Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications. Data from the
Northeast permit application database indicates that 919 vessels held
some combination of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass permits in
2006. However, VTR data indicate that less than half (369) of these
vessels reported landings of summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea
bass in 2006.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469664 .anchor}**6.6 Marine Recreational
Descriptive Statistics**

In 1994, sportfishing surveys were conducted by NMFS in the Northeast
Region (Maine to Virginia) to obtain demographic and economic
information on marine recreational fishing participants from Maine to
Virginia. Data from the surveys were then used to access socioeconomic
characteristics of these participants, as well as to identify their
marine recreational fishing preferences and their perceptions of current
and prospective fishery management regulations. This information will be
used in future stages of the research to estimate statistical models of
the demand for marine recreational fishing for eight important
recreational species. The information that follows is excerpted and
paraphrased from a preliminary report by Steinback et al. (1999).

\"Marine recreational fishing is one of the most popular outdoor
recreational activities in America. In 1992, the lowest level of
participation during the last ten years, approximately 2.57 million
residents of coastal states in the Northeast Region participated in
marine recreational fishing in their own state. Participation increased
approximately 5% in 1993 (2.7 million) and increased another 14% in 1994
(3.1 million), exceeding the ten-year average of 2.9 million. Although
the total number of finfish caught in the Northeast Region has declined
over the past ten years, effort (trips) has remained relatively stable.
An estimated 22.4 million fishing trips were taken in 1994, up from 19.3
million in 1993.\"

The following discussion contains demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of anglers, as well as their preferences, attitudes, and
opinions, toward recreational fishing activities and regulations. There
was little or no difference in mean age across subregions. \"The largest
proportion of anglers in both subregions were 36-45 years old (NE=28%,
MA=25%). However, New England (NE) anglers were younger than
Mid-Atlantic (MA) anglers. Results show that participation in marine
recreational fishing increased with age, peaked between ages of 36 to
45, and subsequently declined thereafter. The resultant age distribution
is similar to the findings of other marine recreational studies.
However, the distribution is not reflective of the general population in
these subregions. Bureau of the Census estimates indicated population
peaks between the ages of 25 to 34 in both subregions, declines until
the age of 64 and then increases substantially.\" The complete
distribution of recreational anglers by age for both subregions is as
follows: less than 18, 25.2% in NE and 25.6% in MA; between the ages of
18-24, 9.8% in NE and 9.7% in MA; between 25-34, 16.4% in NE and 17.0%
in MA; between 35-44, 16.3% in NE and 16.2% in MA; between 45-54, 11.5%
in NE and 11.8% in MA; between 55-64, 8.2% in NE and 8.4% in MA; and 65
and over, 12.6% in NE and 11.3% in MA. In this survey, anglers under the
age of 16 were not interviewed and are not included in the analysis.

In both subregions, at least 88% of the anglers (age 25 and over) had
obtained at least a high school degree (NE=91%, MA=88%). \"While the
educational background is similar across subregions, a greater portion
of the anglers in New England earned college or post
graduate/professional degrees (NE=29%, MA=23%). The shape of the
educational distribution essentially mirrored the general population in
both subregions. However, the average number of anglers without a high
school degree was considerably lower than Bureau of the Census estimates
(age 25 and over) for the general population. On the other hand, it
appears that anglers in New England and the Mid-Atlantic earned less
post graduate/professional degrees than Bureau of Census estimates.\"

When anglers were asked to describe their racial or ethnic origin,
almost all of the anglers interviewed in both subregions considered
themselves to be white (NE=95%, MA=90%). \"In the Mid-Atlantic, most of
the remaining individuals were black (7%), leaving 3% to be of other
ethnic origins. In New England, the remaining anglers were evenly
distributed across other ethnic origins. The high occurrence of white
fishermen is representative of the general population of the coastal
states in New England. Approximately 94% of the population in 1993 was
estimated to be white. However, in the Mid-Atlantic, the percentage of
white anglers was considerable higher than Bureau of Census populations
estimates, and the percentage of black fishermen was 12% lower.\"

When anglers were asked to indicate from a range of categories what
their total annual household income was, only minor differences between
subregions were found. \"The largest percentage of household incomes
fell between \$30,001 and \$45,000 for both subregions (NE=27%, MA=26%).
In comparison to the general population, anglers\' annual household
incomes are relatively higher in both subregions\...Results are
consistent with previous studies which showed that angler household
incomes are generally higher than the population estimates.\"

If it is assumed that \"years fished\" is a proxy for \"experience,\"
the survey data shows that anglers in New England are relatively less
experienced than anglers in the Mid-Atlantic. The distribution of
recreational anglers years of experience is as follows: 0-5 years of
experience, 22% in NE and 16% in MA; 6-10 years of experience, 10% in NE
and 10% in MA; 11-15 years of experience, 13% in NE and 14% in MA; 16-20
years of experience, 9% in NE and 9% in MA; 21-25 years of experience,
12% in NE and 12% in MA; 26-30 years of experience, 13% in NE and 12% in
MA; and 30 or more years of experience, 21% NE and 26% in MA. Survey
results show that over 50% of the anglers in both subregions indicated
boat ownership (NE=51%, MA=53%). These results were obtained when
anglers were asked if anyone living in their household owns a boat that
is used for recreational saltwater fishing.

Regarding the duration of the interviewed trip, \"at least 80% of the
anglers in both subregions indicated they were on a one-day fishing trip
(NE=80%, MA=84%). One-day fishing trips were defined to be trips in
which an angler departs and returns on the same day. Less than one
fourth of the respondents indicated the day fishing was part of a longer
trip which they spent at least one night away from their residence
(NE=20%, MA=16%).\"

\"Respondents were asked why they chose to fish at the site they were
interviewed\... 'Convenience' and 'better catch rates' were the main
reasons why anglers chose fishing sites in both subregions. Forty-nine
percent of the anglers in New England and 57% of the anglers in the
Mid-Atlantic indicated 'convenience' as either a first or second reason
for site choice. 'Better catch rates' was the first or second stated
reason for site choice by 51% of the anglers in New England and 50% of
the anglers in the Mid-Atlantic. Other notable responses were 'always go
there,' 'boat ramp,' 'access to pier,' and 'scenic beauty.'\...Results
indicate that although anglers chose fishing sites for many different
reasons, sites that offered good catch rates and were convenient
attracted the most anglers.\"

Recreational anglers were asked to rate recreational fishing against
their other outdoor activities during the last two months. Specifically,
they were asked if fishing was their most important outdoor activity,
their second most important outdoor activity, or only one of many
outdoor activities? \"Over 60% of the respondents in both subregions
(NE=61%, MA=68%) reported marine recreational fishing was their most
important outdoor activity during the past two months. Less than 30% in
both subregions (NE=27%, MA=20%) said recreational fishing was only one
of many outdoor activities." This is consistent with national outdoor
recreation surveys carried out over the past three decades indicating
that fishing is consistently one of the top outdoor recreational
activities in terms of number of people who participate.

Recreational anglers\' ratings of reasons (7 pre-established reasons)
for marine fishing are presented in Table 27. More than 65% of the
anglers in both subregions said that it was very important to go marine
fishing because it allowed them to: spend quality time with friends and
family (NE=81%, MA=85%); enjoy nature and the outdoors (NE=89%, MA=87%);
experience or challenge of sport fishing (NE=69%, MA=66%); and relax and
escape from my daily routine (NE=83%, MA=86%). \"The reasons that were
rated as not important by the largest proportion of anglers consisted
of: catch fish to eat (NE=42%), to be alone (NE=55%, MA=58%), and to
fish in a tournament or when awards were available (NE=79%, MA=73%). In
the Mid-Atlantic, although to catch fish to eat was rated as being
somewhat important by the largest proportion of anglers (40%),
approximately 31% felt that catching fish to eat was very important.
However, in New England, only 20% concurred. It is clear from these
responses that marine recreational fishing offers much more than just
catching fish to anglers. Over 80% of the respondents in both subregions
perceived recreational fishing as a time to spend with friends and
family, a time to escape from their daily routine, and time to enjoy
nature and outdoors. While catching fish to eat is somewhat important to
anglers, findings of this survey generally concur with previous studies
that found non-catch reasons are rated highly by almost all respondents
while catch is very important for about a third and catching to eat fish
is moderately important for about another third.\"

\"The economic survey sought to solicit anglers opinions regarding four
widely applied regulatory methods used to restrict total recreational
catch of the species of fish for which they typically fish: (1) limits
on the minimum size of the fish they can keep; (2) limits on the number
of fish they can keep; (3) limits on the times of the year when they can
keep the fish they catch; and (4) limits on the areas they fish. Anglers
were asked whether or not they support or opposed the regulations.\" As
indicated in Table 28, strong support existed for all regulatory methods
in both subregions. Limits on the minimum size of fish anglers could
keep generated the highest support in both regions (NE=93%, MA=93%),
while limits on the area anglers can fish, although still high,
generated relatively lower support (NE=68%, MA=66%).

Regulations which limit the number of fish anglers can keep ranked
second (NE=91%, MA=88%). The results from this solicitation indicate
that recreational anglers in the Northeast Region appear to be
conservation-oriented and generally support regulations employed to
restrict total catch. Not surprisingly, when analyzing anglers' opinions
regarding the four widely applied regulatory methods, it was found that
anglers in all modes indicated strong support for the regulatory
measures. With minimum size limits generating the strongest support,
followed by catch limits, seasonal closures, and lastly, area closures
(Table 29). \"Although party/charter, private/rental, and shore
respondents did offer varying degrees of support for each of a selection
of regulatory measures, similar support existed across all modes.
Support was highest for common regulatory methods currently being
implemented in New England and the Mid-Atlantic (e.g., size and bag
limits), than for area and seasonal closures.\"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469665 .anchor}**6.7 Vessel Trip Report (VTR)
Data**

Vessel Trip Reports (logbook data) have been collected by NMFS since
1994 for the recreational and commercial fisheries. In the recreational
fishery, these data are collected from party/charter vessels permitted
to operate in federal waters as required by the species FMPs or
amendments. VTR data for 1994 and 1995 had some auditing and reporting
problems; therefore, the VTR data for 1996 to 2005 were used in the
following analyses. While vessel trip reports are an incomplete
representation of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
fisheries, they can provide information on trends within the fishery
assuming the submitted reports are representative and the information is
accurate. In addition, there are some underlying problems with the VTR
reporting process ranging from unclear writing on the reports to
submission of misinformation. As such, inter-annual trends in total
numbers of trips, catch, and landings based on VTR for all three species
are likely to be strongly influenced by these issues and should be
interpreted with caution. VTR data for the party/charter sector from
1996-2005 were used to describe the catch, landings, and participation
in this fishing sector. It should be noted that changes in
availability/abundance and regulations may have an underlying effect on
the observed trends.

The number of summer flounder trips, catch, and vessels reporting based
on general trends in the VTR data for party and charter vessels has
changed over time (Table 30). The mean number of anglers for party boats
that caught summer flounder peaked in 2002, with a mean of 32.08 anglers
per trip. Charter boats had the lowest mean number of anglers in that
same year. In general, the mean number of anglers for scup and black sea
bass from both party and charter boats remained relatively stable with
some interannual variability (Table 30).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469666 .anchor}**7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
AND REGULATORY ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES**

This EA analyzes the impacts of the recreational management measures
considered for the year 2008 specifications for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass, relative to the status quo measures for each
species. The analyses of the TALs (commercial quotas and recreational
harvest limits), which are necessary to achieve the annual target
exploitation rates established under the individual species' rebuilding
schedules, and other commercial management measures were conducted under
the 2008 Summer Flounder Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications
document. The Council and Commission met in December 2007 to adopt
specific recreational management measures (i.e. bag limits, size limits,
and seasonal closures) for 2008. As stated in the FMP, the recreational
specifications may alter the fishing season, minimum fish size, and the
possession limit to achieve the recreational harvest limit. The impact
of each alternative is analyzed below.

The nature of the management programs for the summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass fisheries was examined in detail in the EISs prepared for
each of the fisheries as described in section 4.0 of this EA. The FMP
regulates the black sea bass and scup fisheries from Maine to Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina, while the summer flounder fishery is regulated
from Maine to the southern border of North Carolina. The fisheries are
prosecuted by vessels throughout the range, although the geographic
focus of the fishery varies somewhat from year to year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469667 .anchor}**7.1 Summer Flounder
Alternatives**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469668 .anchor}**7.1.1 Alternative 1
(Preferred: Status Quo Conservation Equivalency)**

The preferred alternative for summer flounder is the status quo
alternative and would require states to use conservation equivalency to
develop state-specific management measures in 2008. A full description
of this alternative is presented in section 5.0 of the EA.

**7.1.1.1 Biological Impacts**

Projected landings for 2007 (based on waves 1-5) are 9.30 million lb
(4.22 million kg), which is greater than the 2007 recreational harvest
limit of 6.75 million lb (3.06 million kg). A comparison of the
projected 2007 landings with the 2007 state-specific targets indicates
that the states of Massachusetts and Virginia will not exceed their
targets in 2007 (Table 11). State-specific reductions associated with
the 2008 coastwide recreational harvest limit of 6.21 million lb (2.82
million kg) are based on the number of fish landed in 1998, and the
number of fish projected to have been landed in 2007 (Table 1). Assuming
the same level of fishing effort in 2007, a coastwide reduction in
landings (pounds) of 33.2% would be required for summer flounder to
achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limit. Under conservation
equivalency, all states except Massachusetts would be required to reduce
landings (in number of fish; Table 1).

Conservation equivalent recreational management measures would allow
each state to develop specific recreational measures to allow the
fishery to operate in each state during critical fishing periods while
still achieving conservation goals. It is expected that state-specific
management measures for summer flounder will constrain summer flounder
landings to the recreational harvest limit in 2008. This alternative
would therefore have neutral to positive biological impacts on the
managed resource by constraining landings to the harvest limit for 2008
that is consistent with the target fishing mortality rates for summer
flounder, as prescribed under the current stock rebuilding plan. Impacts
would be similar to those analyzed for the no action alternative
(alternative 2).

The precautionary default measures are a 20-inch TL minimum fish size, a
2-fish per person possession limit, an open season from may 23 to
September 1 (i.e. closed seasons during January 1 to May 22 and
September 2 to December 31 for 2008. Specific states, or states within a
conservation equivalency region, that fail to implement conservation
equivalent measures as specified in Frameworks 2 and 6 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP would be required to implement
precautionary default measures. Precautionary default measures are
defined as measures that would achieve at least the overall required
reduction in landings for each state. The precautionary default measures
could constrain coastwide landings to the 2008 harvest; these measures
are more restrictive than the non-preferred coastwide measures proposed
under alertnative 2 and therefore constrain landings to the coastwide
2008 recreational harvest limit in numbers of fish (see section 5.1).
The state-specific reductions in landings associated with the
precautionary default measures are higher than the state reductions to
be implemented via conservation equivalency. As such, it is expected
that states will avoid the impacts of precautionary approach measures by
establishing conservation equivalency management measures.

**7.1.1.2 Habitat Impacts**

The environment in which these fisheries are prosecuted was described in
Amendment 13, section 3.2.4. The fishery management unit for summer
flounder is from Maine to the southern border of North Carolina. The
analyses in Amendment 13 include the impacts of the overall management
measures on stock health and abundance, spawning stock biomass, and
protected species, as well as on the economy and affected fishermen. A
brief description of the physical environment is presented in section
6.2 of the EA.

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to the
types of management measures implemented in this fishery. The FMP limits
recreational specifications to minimum fish size, possession limit, and
fishing season. The principal gears used in the recreational fishery for
summer flounder are rod and reel and handline. The potential adverse
impacts of these gears on EFH for any of the federally-managed species
in the region are minimal (see section 6.2). Therefore, this alternative
would have no additional EFH impacts beyond those analyzed for the no
action alternative (alternative 2).

**7.1.1.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

Numerous species of marine mammals and threatened or endangered species
occur in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. These species are described in
detail in Appendix A. The impacts of the summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass recreational fisheries upon endangered and threatened
species and marine mammal populations are also described in detail in
Amendment 13. Recreational fisheries, in general, have very limited
interactions with marine mammals and endangered or threatened species.
However, recreational fishermen do contribute to difficulties for
endangered and threatened marine species in that it is estimated that
recreational fishermen discard over 227 million lb (103 million kg) of
litter each year (O\'Hara et al. 1988). More than nine million
recreational vessels are registered in the United States. The greatest
concentrations of recreational vessels in the United States are found in
the waters off New York, New Jersey, the Chesapeake Bay, and Florida
(O\'Hara et al. 1988). As previously stated, recreational fishermen are
a major source of debris in the form of monofilament fishing line. The
amount of fishing line lost or discarded by the 17 million U.S.
fishermen during an estimated 72 million fishing trips in 1986 is not
known, but if the average angler snares or cuts loose only one yard of
line per trip, the potential amount of deadly monofilament line is
enough to stretch around the world (O\'Hara et al. 1988). Although the
recreational fishery may impact these marine species, nothing considered
in this alternative will have a significant impact on marine mammals and
threatened or endangered species when compared to 2007.

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to the
types of management measures implemented in this fishery. The FMP limits
recreational specifications to minimum fish size, possession limit, and
fishing season. Changes in overall fishing effort as a result of changes
in recreational harvest limits, possession and size limits, and seasons
are unknown. Because the alternative is not expected to cause large
increases in fishing effort, it is concluded that this alternative will
not affect endangered and threatened species or critical habitat in any
manner not considered in prior consultations. Therefore, any potential
negative impacts on protected species associated with this alternative
are expected to be negligible when compared to 2007.

**7.1.1.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

Conservation equivalency recreational management measures would allow
each state to develop specific recreational measures to allow the
fishery to operate in each state during critical fishing periods while
still achieving conservation goals. This would enable the summer
flounder fishery to operate in a way that dissipates potential adverse
economic effects in specific states. Table 31 details the proportion of
summer flounder harvested in state and Federal waters. On average
(1995-2005), approximately 90% of the harvested summer flounder (by
number) came from state waters. The Board will either approve or
disapprove each state's measures in February 2007 (Table 2). No
quantitative analysis is provided here since the measures have yet to be
adopted by the states.

There is very little information available to empirically estimate how
sensitive the affected anglers might be to regulations implemented
through conservation equivalency. It is possible that proposed
management measures by states could restrict the recreational fishery
for 2008 (i.e. via a reduced possession limit, larger minimum fish size,
or closed season). However, due to lack of data, these effects cannot be
quantified.

There are no data available at the port or community level that shows
the dependence of the party/charter boat fishery, the private/rental
boat fishery, or the shore fishery on summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass. However, for party/charter vessels, the largest number of
permit holders for these species is located in Massachusetts, followed
by New Jersey and New York (section 6.5.2 of the 2008 Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications). Projected data from MRFSS
indicate that anglers fished 38.70 million days in 2007 in the Northeast
Region (Maine through North Carolina). Party/charter anglers comprised
about 4.7% (1.82 million) of the angler fishing days in 2007, 52.5%
(20.34 million) for private/rental mode, and 42.75% (16.55 million) for
shore mode (Table 32).

A description by port of importance to the commercial summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass fisheries is presented in Amendment 13. In
addition to this, demographic and economic information on marine
recreational fishing participants by region is presented in section 6.5
of the EA. There is a distinction to be made between negative impacts to
individuals and negative impacts to the larger communities. If the
number of affected individuals in a community is large (i.e. large
numbers of recreational anglers in a community), the degree of impacts
on individuals and communities would be expected to be the same.
However, where the number of recreational anglers in a community is
proportionally small, the degree of impacts on individuals and
communities would differ. In this situation, some individual fishermen
and their families could find the final recreational management measures
for 2008 to have significant impacts, whereas the larger communities and
towns in which they live would not. The economic diversity of a
community may enable a community to be sustained, although the
recreational fishing sector might be adversely impacted. On the other
hand, small, remote and less economically diverse communities that are
more dependent upon recreational fishing are less likely to be sustained
through restrictive regulations.

If the harvesting restrictions adopted under conservation equivalency in
2008 are more restrictive than the 2007 measures, there could be a
decline in the demand for summer flounder fishing trips. However, it is
not likely that the new measures will have a significant negative effect
on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in the North and
Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some anglers may reduce their overall
fishing effort in response to the 2008 summer flounder regulations, it
is expected that most anglers that fished for summer flounder during
2007 will continue to do so in 2008 under the new limits. The proposed
regulations will likely result in changes to the number and size of the
fish that can be landed, but they will not prohibit anglers from keeping
at least some of the fish they catch or from engaging in catch and
release fishing. Anglers that choose to reduce their summer flounder
effort in 2008 in response to the new regulations are likely to transfer
this effort to alternative species (i.e. black sea bass, spot, bluefish,
weakfish, striped bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little
change in overall fishing effort. However, recreational harvest
restrictions for many of the alternative species in the Northeast are
becoming more binding each year, resulting in fewer substitute landing
opportunities, particularly for anglers fishing aboard headboats where
passengers are primarily limited to bottom fishing.

The Council and Board also must recommend precautionary default measures
for Federal permit holders landing summer flounder in states that do not
submit approved conservation equivalency measures. The precautionary
default measures consist of an 20-inch TL minimum fish size, a 2-fish
possession limit, and closed seasons during January 1 to May 22 and
September 2 to December 31. It is expected that states will avoid the
impacts of the precautionary default measures by establishing
conservation equivalency measures. Because states have a choice, it is
more rational for the states to adopt the conservation equivalency
measures that result in fewer adverse economic impacts than to adopt the
much more restrictive precautionary default measures.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one summer flounder smaller than 20 inches TL, or landed more than 2
summer flounder, or landed summer flounder during the closed seasons.
The analysis concluded that the measure could affect 1.36% of the
party/charter boat trips, 1.40% of the private/rental boat trips, and
0.24% of the shore trips (Table 33). It is possible that the potential
effects on angler effort associated with the precautionary default
measures would be greater than those associated with conservation
equivalency or the coastwide measures. The economic impacts of the
proposed measures under this and other alternatives are further
discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469669 .anchor}**7.1.2 Alternative 2
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure/No Action)**

The summer flounder non-preferred alternative (coastwide management
measures) adopted by the Council and Commission was a 19-inch TL minimum
fish size, a 3-fish per person possession limit, and open season from
May 23 to September 1 (i.e. closed seasons during January 1 to May 22
and September 2 to December 31) for the 2008 recreational fishery. A
full description of this alternative is presented in section 5.0 of the
EA.

**7.1.2.1 Biological Impacts**

Projected landings for 2007 (based on waves 1-5) are 9.30 million lb
(4.22 million kg), which is greater than the 2007 recreational harvest
limit of 6.75 million lb (3.06 million kg). A comparison of the
projected 2007 landings with the 2007 state-specific targets indicates
that the states of Massachusetts and Virginia will not exceed their
targets in 2007 (Table 11).

Angler catches and landings in 2007 may be explained by regulatory
effects. Analysis of coastwide intercept data indicates that 94% of the
trips landed less than 3 fish in 2007 based on data through wave 4
(Table 34). This compares to 85% of the trips landing 3 fish or less in
1992, the year before the fishery was regulated with possession limits
(Table 35). Landings were constrained by the various minimum size limits
that were in effect in 2007 based on an analysis of length frequencies
(Table 36). However, there were significant numbers of fish measured
less than the size limit in some states. The percent of measured fish
less than the specific size limit in 2007 ranged from 1.5% (Connecticut)
to 16.9% (Massachusetts).

Analysis of wave data suggests that some landings may have been affected
by seasonal restrictions in 2007 (Table 37). Obviously, greater effects
would be associated with seasonal closures in waves with a greater
proportion of landings.

State-specific reductions associated with the 2008 coastwide
recreational harvest limit of 6.21 million lb (2.82 million kg) are
based on the number of fish landed in 1998, and the number of fish
projected to have been landed in 2007 (Table 1). Assuming the same level
of fishing effort in 2007, a coastwide reduction in landings (pounds) of
33.2% would be required for summer flounder. The non-preferred coastwide
alternative could constrain landings to the recreational harvest limit
for 2008 (see section 5.1.2). As such, this alternative is expected to
result in neutral to positive biological impacts on the managed resource
by constraining landings to the harvest limit in 2008 that is consistent
with the target fishing mortality rates for summer flounder, as
prescribed under the current stock rebuilding plan.

**7.1.2.2 Habitat Impacts**

For reasons stated in section 6.2 of the EA, the EFH impacts under this
alternative are minimal.

**7.1.2.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

The protected resources impacts under this alternative are minimal and
similar to those described in section 7.1.1.3 of the EA.

**7.1.2.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

The impacts of recreational management measures on the demand for trips
and the social impacts of recreational measures on ports and communities
described in section 7.1.1.4 of the EA also apply here.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one summer flounder smaller than 19 inches TL, or landed more than 3
summer flounder, or landed summer flounder during the closed seasons.
The analysis concluded that the measure could affect 0.90 of the
party/charter boat trips, 1.06% of the private/rental boat trips, and
less than 0.24% of the shore trips (Table 33).

There is very little information available to empirically estimate how
sensitive the affected anglers might be to the proposed coastwide
fishing regulations. Nonetheless, the coastwide measures are much more
restrictive than the conservation equivalency measures that were in
place during 2007 so there likely would be an overall reduction in the
demand for summer flounder fishing trips. Many of the anglers that might
reduce their summer flounder effort would likely transfer at least some
of this fishing effort to alternative species (i.e. black sea bass,
spot, bluefish, weakfish, striped bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.), thereby
lessening the reduction in overall fishing effort in response to the
coastwide measures. Headboat businesses that rely at least partially on
summer flounder anglers fishing for food would likely be faced with
reduced passenger loads in response to the low bag limit proposed under
the coastwide measures (3 fish). The economic impacts of the proposed
measures under this and other alternatives are further discussed in
section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469670 .anchor}**7.2 Scup Alternatives**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469671 .anchor}**7.2.1 Alternative 1
(Preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

The preferred alternative for scup includes a coastwide 10.5-inch TL
minimum fish size, a 15-fish per person possession limit, and open
seasons of January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October
31 (i.e. closed seasons of March 1 through September 30 and November 1
through December 31) for the 2008 recreational fishery. A full
description of this alternative is presented in section 5.0 of the EA.

**7.2.1.1 Biological Impacts**

The 2008 specifications for scup implemented a recreational harvest
limit of 1.83 million lb (0.83 million kg), which is lower than the
recreational harvest limit of 2.74 million lb (1.24 million kg)
implemented in 2007. The 2007 recreational scup landings are projected
to be 3.80 million lb (1.72 million kg). Assuming the same level of
fishing effort in 2008, a 51.8% coastwide reduction in landings would be
required.

Possession and size limits can be used to constrain landings to the
harvest limit in 2007. Potential reductions need to be adjusted to
account for levels of effectiveness. It is improbable that a regulation
will be 100% effective. In fact, analyses of catch and length
frequencies indicate that anglers do exceed the possession limit and
land scup smaller than the size limit (Table 38). In 2001, the
Commission, with the assistance of the Commission\'s Technical
Committee, determined that an effective way to deal with this
inefficiency was to remove fish less than the size limit or in excess of
the possession limits from the data before constructing the table that
is used to determine the reductions associated with the size/possession
limit combinations. The adjusted table, based on 2007 data, can then be
used to guide recommendations on the appropriate limits for 2008 (Table
39). Recreational limits act to constrain landings as the availability
of fish increases. If availability is low, few anglers will be affected
by the regulations, and landings will be lower than the harvest limit.
As availability of scup to anglers increases, constraints imposed by the
limits increase, i.e. anglers are more constrained by a size limit when
there is a good year class of scup produced and more constrained by a
possession limit when the availability of larger fish is high. The
correct management measures will allow anglers to land up to the harvest
limit but not exceed the limit.

Analysis of length frequencies indicates that landings were constrained
in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York by the
10.5-inch TL size limit implemented in 2006. Coastwide, approximately
19.1% of the measured fish were less than 10-inch TL in the first four
waves of 2007 (Table 38). In 2002, 6.1% of the measured fish were less
than 10-inch TL. Landing frequencies for the first four waves of 2007
indicate about 90% of the trips had 45 or less fish per trip with about
50% of the trips landing 2 or less scup (Table 40). Anglers were less
successful in 2007 compared to 2006, which indicated 90% of the trips
landed 16 or fewer scup (Table 41).

It is estimated that this alternative could reduce recreational landings
by 53.2% by closing 13 days in September (wave 5) and 30 additional days
in November (wave 6). This reduction assumes that states would maintain
their more restrictive minimum size limits, and all states would
implement the given season and possession limit (Tables 3 and 4a-b).

Because these measures are expected to constrain landings to the
recreational harvest limit in 2008 that is consistent with the target
fishing mortality rate as prescribed under the current rebuilding plan,
this action is expected to result in positive biological impacts in 2008
relative to the no action alternative.

**7.2.1.2 Habitat Impacts**

The environment in which these fisheries are prosecuted was described in
Amendment 13, section 3.2.4. The fishery management unit for scup is
from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. A brief description of the
physical environment is presented in section 6.2 of the EA.

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to the
types of management measures implemented in this fishery. The FMP limits
recreational specifications to minimum fish size, possession limit, and
fishing season. The principal gears used in the recreational fishery for
scup are rod and reel and handline. For reasons stated in section 6.2 of
the EA, the EFH impacts associated with the use of these gears are
minimal. Therefore, the impact of this alternative on EFH would be
minimal.

**7.2.1.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

Numerous species of marine mammals and threatened or endangered species
occur in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. These species are described in
detail in Appendix A. The impacts of the summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass recreational fisheries upon endangered and threatened
species and marine mammal populations are also described in detail in
Amendment 13. Recreational fisheries, in general, have very limited
interactions with marine mammals and endangered or threatened species.
However, recreational fishermen do contribute to difficulties for
endangered and threatened marine species as discussed section 7.1.1.3 of
this EA.

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to the
types of management measures implemented in this fishery. The FMP limits
recreational specifications to minimum fish size, possession limit, and
fishing season. Changes in overall fishing effort as a result of changes
in recreational harvest limits, possession and size limits, and seasons
are unknown. Because the alternative is not expected to cause large
increases in fishing effort, it is concluded that this alternative will
not affect endangered and threatened species in any manner not
considered in prior consultations. Therefore, any potential negative
impacts on protected species associated with the alternative are
expected to be negligible.

**7.2.1.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one scup smaller than 10.5 inches TL, landed more than 15 scup, or
landed 1 scup during the closed season (March 1 through September 30 and
November 1 through December 31). The analysis concluded that the measure
could affect 3.95% of the party/charter boat trips, 1.63% of the
private/rental boat trips, and 0.51% of the shore trips (Table 33).

It is possible that the proposed measures could cause some decrease in
recreational satisfaction for anglers restricted by the landing limits.
However, it is not likely that the measures will have a significant
negative effect on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in
the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of the affected
anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response to the
regulations, it is expected that most anglers that fished for scup in
2007 will continue to do so in 2008. The proposed regulations do not
prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish they catch or
from engaging in catch and release fishing. Anglers that choose to
reduce their scup effort in 2008 are likely to transfer this effort to
alternative species (i.e. black sea bass, spot, bluefish, weakfish,
striped bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little change in
overall fishing effort. However, recreational harvest restrictions for
many of the alternative species in the Northeast are becoming more
binding each year, resulting in fewer substitute landing opportunities,
particularly for anglers fishing aboard headboats where passengers are
primarily limited to bottom fishing. The economic impacts of the
proposed measures under this and other alternatives are further
discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469672 .anchor}**7.2.2 Alternative 2
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

Scup non-preferred alternative 2 includes a coastwide 10.5-inch TL
minimum fish size, 15-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons
of January 1 through February 29 and October 1 through October 15 for
the 2008 recreational fishery. A full description of this alternative is
presented in section 5.0 of the EA.

**7.2.2.1 Biological Impacts**

It is estimated that this alternative could reduce recreational landings
by 60.5% by closing 13 days in September (wave 5), 16 days in October,
and 30 additional days in November (wave 6). This reduction assumes that
states would maintain their more restrictive minimum size limits, and
all states would implement the given season and possession limit (Tables
3 and 4a-b). This measure may be more restrictive than necessary to meet
the required 51.8% reduction. Because these measures are expected to
constrain landings to the recreational harvest limit in 2008 that is
consistent with the target fishing mortality rate (as prescribed under
the current rebuilding plan) and may be more restrictive than necessary
given the required reduction, this action is expected to result in
positive biological impacts in 2008 relative to the no action
alternative (alternative 1).

**7.2.2.2 Habitat Impacts**

The EFH impacts under this alternative are minimal (see section 6.2 of
the EA).

**7.2.2.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

The protected resources impacts under this alternative are minimal and
similar to those described in section 7.2.1.3 of the EA.

**7.2.2.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

The impacts of recreational management measures on the demand for trips
and the social impacts of recreational measures on ports and communities
described in section 7.1.1.4 of the EA also apply here.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one scup smaller than 10.5 inches TL, or landed more than 15 scup, or
landed 1 scup during the closed season (March 1 through September 30 and
October 16 through December 31). The analysis concluded that the measure
could affect 4.13% of the party/charter boat trips, 1.84% of the
private/rental boat trips, and 0.51% of the shore trips (Table 33).

It is possible that the proposed measures could cause some decrease in
recreational satisfaction for anglers restricted by the landing limits.
However, it is not likely that the measures will have a significant
negative effect on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in
the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of the affected
anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response to the
regulations, it is expected that most anglers that fished for scup in
2007 will continue to do so in 2008 under this alternative. The proposed
regulations do not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the
fish they catch or from engaging in catch and release fishing. Anglers
that choose to reduce their scup effort in 2008 are likely to transfer
this effort to alternative species (i.e. black sea bass, spot, bluefish,
weakfish, striped bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little
change in overall fishing effort. However, recreational harvest
restrictions for many of the alternative species in the Northeast are
becoming more binding each year, resulting in fewer substitute landing
opportunities, particularly for anglers fishing aboard headboats where
passengers are primarily limited to bottom fishing.

The potential effects on angler effort associated with this alternative
are estimated to be greater than those associated with coastwide
measures under preferred alternative 1 because the reductions associated
with the management measures under this alternative have a greater
impact on angler effort compared to those under alternative 1 (Table
33). The economic impacts of the proposed measures under this and other
alternatives are further discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469673 .anchor}**7.2.3 Alternative 3
(Non-preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No Action)**

Scup non-preferred alternative 3 includes a coastwide 10-inch TL minimum
fish size, 50-fish per person possession limit, and open seasons of
January 1 through February 29 and September 18 through November 30 (i.e.
closed seasons of March 1 through September 17 and December 1 through
December 31) for the 2008 recreational fishery. A full description of
this alternative is presented in section 5.0 of the EA.

**7.2.3.1 Biological Impacts**

This alternative is not expected to result in any reductions in landings
because recreational management measures are identical to 2007 (i.e. no
adjustments to possession limits, size limits, and fishing seasons;
Tables 3 and 4a-b). These measures are not expected to constrain scup
landings to the 2008 recreational harvest limit. If landings in 2008 are
similar to 2007, landings levels would be inconsistent with the current
scup rebuilding plan and may result in the target fishing mortality rate
being exceeded in 2008. As such, this alternative is expected to result
in negative impacts on the managed resource when compared to 2007
(alternative 1).

**7.2.3.2 Habitat Impacts**

The EFH impacts under this alternative are minimal (see section 6.2 of
the EA).

**7.2.3.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

The protected resources impacts under this alternative are minimal and
similar to those described in section 7.2.1.3 of the EA.

**7.2.3.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

The impacts of recreational management measures on the demand for trips
and the social impacts of recreational measures on ports and communities
described in section 7.1.1.4 of the EA also apply here.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one scup smaller than 10 inches TL, landed more than 50 scup, or landed
1 scup during the closed season (March 1 through September 17 and
December 1 through December 31). The analysis concluded that the measure
could affect 3.53% of the party/charter boat trips, 1.41% of the
private/rental boat trips, and 0.49% of the shore trips (Table 33).

It is possible that the proposed measures could cause some decrease in
recreational satisfaction for anglers restricted by the landing limits.
However, it is not likely that the measures will have a significant
negative effect on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in
the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of the affected
anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response to the
regulations, it is expected that most anglers that fished for scup in
2007 will continue to do so in 2008 under this alternative. The proposed
regulations do not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the
fish they catch or from engaging in catch and release fishing. Anglers
that choose to reduce their scup effort in 2008 are likely to transfer
this effort to alternative species (i.e. black sea bass, spot, bluefish,
weakfish, striped bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little
change in overall fishing effort. However, recreational harvest
restrictions for many of the alternative species in the Northeast are
becoming more binding each year, resulting in fewer substitute landing
opportunities, particularly for anglers fishing aboard headboats where
passengers are primarily limited to bottom fishing.

The potential effects on angler effort associated with this alternative
are estimated to be lower than those associated with alternative's 1 or
2 because the possession limit and open season are less restrictive than
under the first two alternatives (Table 33). The economic impacts of the
proposed measures under this and other alternatives are further
discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469674 .anchor}**7.3 Black Sea Bass
Alternatives**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469675 .anchor}**7.3.1 Alternative 1
(Preferred: Status Quo Coastwide Measure/No Action)**

The preferred alternative for black sea bass includes a coastwide
12-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per person possession limit, and
open season of January 1 through December 31 for the 2008 recreational
fishery. This alternative is also the status quo/no action alternative.
A full description of this alternative is presented in section 5.0 of
the EA.

**7.3.1.1 Biological Impacts**

The black sea bass landings in 2007 are projected to be 1.97 million lb
(0.89 million kg), which is lower than the 2007 recreational harvest
limit of 2.47 million lb (1.12 million kg). This implies that the
management measures in place for 2007 (minimum fish size, possession
limit, and seasons) did constrain landings to the harvest limit for
2007. Projected landings for 2007 are less than the 2008 recreational
harvest limit of 2.11 million lb (0.96 million kg). Therefore, the
Council and Commission recommended implementing regulations in 2008 that
were identical to those in 2007. To constrain recreational black sea
bass landings to the 2008 recreational harvest limit, the Council and
Commission recommended a 12-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per
person possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through December
31.

Possession and size limits can be used to constrain landings to the
harvest limit. However, potential reductions need to be adjusted to
account for levels of effectiveness. It is improbable that a regulation
will be 100% effective. In 2001, the Commission, with the assistance of
the Commission\'s Technical Committee, determined that an effective way
to deal with this inefficiency was to remove fish less than the size
limit or in excess of the possession limit from the data before
constructing the table used to determine the reductions associated with
the size/possession limit combinations. The adjusted table can then be
used to guide recommendations on the appropriate limits for 2008.
Recreational limits act to constrain landings as the availability of
fish increases. If availability is low, few anglers will be affected by
the regulations, and landings will be lower than the harvest limit. As
availability of black sea bass to anglers increases, constraints imposed
by the limits increase, i.e. anglers are more constrained by a size
limit when there is a good year class of black sea bass produced and
more constrained by a possession limit when the availability of larger
fish are plentiful.

Landing frequencies for the first four waves of 2007 indicate that 90%
of the trips landed 6 or less fish per trip, with 50% of the successful
trips landing between 1 and 2 black sea bass (Table 42). This is similar
to 2006 when 90% of the trips landed 6 or less black sea bass per trip
(Table 43). Analysis of length frequencies indicates that landings were
constrained by the 12-inch TL size limit in the first four waves of 2006
(Table 44). The correct size and possession limits will allow anglers to
land up to the harvest limit but not exceed the limit in 2008. This
preferred black sea bass alternative contains the same minimum size,
possession limit, and season as 2007. The management measures under this
alternative are expected to constrain black sea bass landings to the
2008 recreational harvest limit based on the assumption that regulations
would be implemented by all states. This alternative would have no
additional biological impacts relative to impacts in 2007.

**7.3.1.2 Habitat Impacts**

The environment in which these fisheries are prosecuted was described in
Amendment 13, section 3.2.4. The fishery management unit for black sea
bass is from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. A brief description
of the physical environment is presented in section 6.2 of the EA.

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to the
types of management measures implemented in this fishery. The FMP limits
recreational specifications to minimum fish size, possession limit, and
fishing season. The principal gear used in the recreational fishery for
black sea bass is rod and reel and handline. The potential adverse
impacts of these gears on EFH for any of the federally-managed species
in the region are minimal (see section 6.2), as they were in 2007.

**7.3.1.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

Numerous species of marine mammals and threatened or endangered species
occur in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. These species are described in
detail in Appendix A. The impacts of the summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass recreational fisheries upon endangered and threatened
species and marine mammal populations are also described in detail in
Amendment 13. Recreational fisheries, in general, have very limited
interactions with marine mammals and endangered or threatened species.
However, recreational fishermen do contribute to difficulties for
endangered and threatened marine species as discussed section 7.1.1.3 of
this EA. Although the recreational fishery may impact these marine
species, nothing considered in this alternative (alternative 1) will
have a significant impact on marine mammals and threatened or endangered
species.

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to the
types of management measures implemented in this fishery. The FMP limits
recreational specifications to minimum fish size, possession limit, and
fishing season. Changes in overall fishing effort as a result of changes
in recreational harvest limits, possession and size limits, and seasons
are unknown. Because the alternative is not expected to cause large
increases in fishing effort, it is concluded that this alternative will
not affect endangered and threatened species or critical habitat in any
manner not considered in prior consultations. Therefore, any potential
negative impacts on protected species associated with this alternative
are expected to be negligible.

**7.3.1.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

The impacts of recreational management measures on the demand for trips
and the social impacts of recreational measures on ports and communities
described in section 7.1.1.4 of the EA also apply here.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one black sea bass smaller than 12 inches TL or landed more than 25
black sea bass. The analysis concluded that the measure could affect
0.29% of the party/charter boat trips and less than 0.1% of each the
private/rental boat trips and the shore trips in 2008 (Table 33).

It is possible that the proposed measures could cause some decrease in
recreational satisfaction for anglers restricted by the landing limits.
However, it is not likely that the measures will have a significant
negative effect on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in
the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of the affected
anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response to the
regulations, it is expected that most anglers that fished for black sea
bass in 2007 will continue to do so in 2008. The proposed regulations do
not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish they catch
or from engaging in catch and release fishing. Anglers that choose to
reduce their black sea bass effort in 2008 are likely to transfer this
effort to alternative species (i.e. spot, bluefish, weakfish, striped
bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little change in overall
fishing effort. However, recreational harvest restrictions for many of
the alternative species in the Northeast are becoming more binding each
year, resulting in fewer substitute landing opportunities, particularly
for anglers fishing aboard headboats where passengers are primarily
limited to bottom fishing.

This alternative evaluates the status quo management measures for black
sea bass Even though these are the same coastwide management measures
that were in place in 2007, the analysis indicates that some trips will
still be impacted in 2008. This is due to the fact that not all states
implemented these coastwide measures in 2007 and angler compliance was
not 100%. The economic impacts of the proposed measures under this and
other alternatives are further discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469676 .anchor}**7.3.2 Alternative 2
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

Black sea bass non-preferred alternative 2 includes a coastwide
11.5-inch TL minimum fish size, 25-fish per person possession limit, and
open season of January 1 through December 31 for the 2008 recreational
fishery. A full description of this alternative is presented in section
5.0 of the EA.

**7.3.2.1 Biological Impacts**

The technical information regarding the role of recreational limits,
recreational landings, and the effects of possession limits and size
limits discussed in section 7.3.1.1 of the EA is also relevant to this
section.

The black sea bass landings in 2007 are projected to be 1.97 million lb
(0.89 million kg), which is lower than the 2007 recreational harvest
limit of 2.47 million lb (1.12 million kg). This implies that the
management measures in place for 2007 (minimum fish size, possession
limit, and seasons) did constrain landings to the harvest limit for
2007. Projected landings for 2007 are less than the 2008 recreational
harvest limit of 2.11 million lb (0.96 million kg). This alternative
recommends implementing regulations in 2008 that were identical to those
in 2002. In 2002, an 11.5-inch TL minimum fish size, a 25-fish per
person possession limit, and open season of January 1 through December
31 resulted in landings of 4.35 million lb (1.97 million kg).

While fish availability and the age/size structure of the black sea bass
stock may be different in 2008 than in 2002, the 2002 landings of 4.35
million lb (1.97 million kg) indicate these measures have the potential
to result in landings in excess of the 2008 recreational harvest limit,
resulting in negative biological impacts on the black sea bass resource.
Therefore, the biological impact of this alternative could range from no
impact to a negative impact when compared to the no action alternative
(alternative 1).

**7.3.2.2 Habitat Impacts**

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to
existing management measures. The FMP limits recreational specifications
to minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season. The
principal gears used in the recreational fishery for black sea bass are
rod and reel and handline. The potential adverse impacts of these gears
on EFH for any of the federally-managed species in the region are
minimal (see section 6.2), as they were in 2007.

**7.3.2.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

The protected resources impacts under this alternative are minimal and
similar to those described in section 7.3.1.3 of the EA.

**7.3.2.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

The impacts of recreational management measures on the demand for trips
and the social impacts of recreational measures on ports and communities
described in section 7.3.1.4 of the EA also apply here.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one black sea bass smaller than 11.5 inches TL or landed more than 25
black sea bass. The analysis concluded that the measure could affect
0.16% of the effort fishing aboard party/charter boats in 2008 and less
than 0.1% of both private/rental boat effort and shore effort in 2008
(Table 33).

It is possible that the proposed measures could cause some decrease in
recreational satisfaction for anglers restricted by the landing limits.
However, it is not likely that the measures will have a significant
negative effect on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in
the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of the affected
anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response to the
regulations, it is expected that most anglers that fished for black sea
bass in 2007 will continue to do so in 2008. The proposed regulations do
not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish they catch
or from engaging in catch and release fishing. Anglers that choose to
reduce their black sea bass effort in 2008 are likely to transfer this
effort to alternative species (i.e. spot, bluefish, weakfish, striped
bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little change in overall
fishing effort. However, recreational harvest restrictions for many of
the alternative species in the Northeast are becoming more binding each
year, resulting in fewer substitute landing opportunities, particularly
for anglers fishing aboard headboats where passengers are primarily
limited to bottom fishing.

The potential effects on angler effort associated with this alternative
are estimated to be lower than those associated with the coastwide
measures under the preferred alternative 1 (status quo) and
non-preferred alternative 3, because the reductions associated with the
management measures under this alternative have a smaller impact on
angler effort compared to those under alternatives 1 and 3 (Table 33).
The economic impacts of the proposed measures under this and other
alternatives are further discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469677 .anchor}**7.3.3 Alternative 3
(Non-preferred: Coastwide Measure)**

Black sea bass non-preferred alternative 3 includes a coastwide
12.5-inch TL minimum fish size, 25-fish per person possession limit, and
open season of January 1 through December 31 (i.e. closed seasons of
March 1 through September 17 and December 1 through December 31) for the
2008 recreational fishery. A full description of this alternative is
presented in section 5.0 of the EA.

**7.3.3.1 Biological Impacts**

The black sea bass landings in 2007 are projected to be 1.97 million lb
(0.89 million kg), which is lower than the 2007 recreational harvest
limit of 2.47 million lb (1.12 million kg). This implies that the
management measures in place for 2007 (minimum fish size, possession
limit, and seasons) did constrain landings to the harvest limit for
2007. Projected landings for 2007 are less than the 2008 recreational
harvest limit of 2.11 million lb (0.96 million kg). This alternative
recommends implementing regulations in 2008 that include a more
restrictive size limit and similar possession limit and season when
compared to 2007 (status quo alternative 1).

The technical information regarding the role of recreational limits,
recreational landings, and the effects of possession limits and size
limits discussed in section 7.3.1.1 of the EA is also relevant to this
section.

This alternative contains management measures that are more restrictive
than necessary to constrain black sea bass recreational landings to the
harvest limit in 2008. These more restrictive measures in 2008 may allow
more rapid rebuilding of the black sea bass stock. Therefore, this
alternative would be expected to result in no impacts or positive
impacts when compared to those analyzed for the no action alternative
(alternative 1).

**7.3.3.2 Habitat Impacts**

The measures in this alternative do not contain major changes to
existing management measures. The FMP limits recreational specifications
to minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season. The
principal gears used in the recreational fishery for black sea bass are
rod and reel and handline. The potential adverse impacts of these gears
on EFH for any of the federally-managed species in the region are
minimal (see section 6.2), as they were in 2007.

**7.3.3.3 Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

The protected resources impacts under this alternative are minimal and
similar to those described in section 7.3.1.3 of the EA.

**7.3.3.4 Socioeconomic Impacts**

The impacts of recreational management measures on the demand for trips
and the social impacts of recreational measures on ports and communities
described in section 7.3.1.4 of the EA also apply here.

Impacted trips were defined as trips taken in 2007 that landed at least
one black sea bass smaller than 12.5 inches TL or landed more than 25
black sea bass. The analysis concluded that the measure could affect
0.49% of the party/charter boat trips, less than 0.1% of each
private/rental boat trips and shore trips in 2008 (Table 33).

It is possible that the proposed measures could cause some decrease in
recreational satisfaction for anglers restricted by the landing limits.
However, it is not likely that the measures will have a significant
negative effect on the overall number of recreational fishing trips in
the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of the affected
anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response to the
regulations, it is expected that most anglers that fished for black sea
bass in 2007 will continue to do so in 2008. The proposed regulations do
not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish they catch
or from engaging in catch and release fishing. Anglers that choose to
reduce their black sea bass effort in 2008 are likely to transfer this
effort to alternative species (i.e. spot, bluefish, weakfish, striped
bass, tautog, pelagics, etc.) resulting in very little change in overall
fishing effort. However, recreational harvest restrictions for many of
the alternative species in the Northeast are becoming more binding each
year, resulting in fewer substitute landing opportunities, particularly
for anglers fishing aboard headboats where passengers are primarily
limited to bottom fishing.

The potential effects on angler effort associated with this alternative
are estimated to be larger than those associated with coastwide measures
under the preferred alternative 1 (no action/status quo) and
non-preferred alternative 2, because the reductions associated with the
management measures under this alternative have a larger impact on
angler effort compared to those under alternatives 1 and 2 (Table 33).
The economic impacts of the proposed measures under this and other
alternatives are further discussed in section 7.5.6 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469678 .anchor}**7.5 Cumulative Impacts of
Preferred Alternatives**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469679 .anchor}**7.5.1 Introduction; Definition
of Cumulative Effects**

A cumulative effects analysis (CEA) is required by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1508.7). The purpose of CEA is
to consider the combined effects of many actions on the human
environment over time that would be missed if each action were evaluated
separately. CEQ guidelines recognize that it is not practical to analyze
the cumulative effects of an action from every conceivable perspective,
but rather, the intent is to focus on those effects that are truly
meaningful. A formal cumulative impact assessment is not necessarily
required as part of an EA under NEPA as long as the significance of
cumulative impacts have been considered (U.S. EPA 1999). The following
remarks address the significance of the expected cumulative impacts as
they relate to the federally managed summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass fisheries.

In section 6.0 (Description of the Affected Environment), the valued
ecosystem components (VECs) that exist within the summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass fishery environment are identified. Therefore, the
significance of the cumulative effects will be discussed in relation to
the VECs listed below.

> 1\. Managed resources (summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass)
>
> 2\. Non-target species
>
> 3\. Habitat including EFH for the managed resource and non-target
> species
>
> 4\. Endangered and protected species
>
> 5\. Human communities

The analysis of impacts focuses on actions related to the harvest of
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The core geographic scope for
each of the VECs is focused on the Western Atlantic Ocean (section 6.0).
The core geographic scope for the managed resources is from Maine
through North Carolina, as this represents the typical biological range
for these stocks. For non-target species, those ranges may be expanded
and would depend on the biological range of each individual non-target
species in the Western Atlantic Ocean. For habitat, the core geographic
scope is focused on EFH within the EEZ but includes all habitat utilized
by summer flounder, scup, black sea bass and other non-target species in
the Western Atlantic Ocean. The core geographic scope for endangered and
protected resources can be considered the overall range of these VECs in
the Western Atlantic Ocean. For human communities, the core geographic
boundaries are defined as those U.S. fishing communities directly
involved in the harvest or processing of the managed resources, which
were found to occur in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina
(section 6.5).

The temporal scope of past and present actions for the managed
resources, non-target species, habitat and human communities is
primarily focused on actions that have occurred after FMP implementation
(1988 for summer flounder; 1996 for scup and black sea bass). For
endangered and other protected resources, the scope of past and present
actions is on a species-by-species basis (section 6.4) and is largely
focused on the 1980s and 1990s through the present, when NMFS began
generating stock assessments for marine mammals and turtles that inhabit
waters of the U.S. EEZ. The temporal scope of future actions for all
five VECs extends about seven years (2015) into the future. This period
was chosen because it is the longest time frame of the three rebuilding
programs for these stocks. Scup is to be rebuilt by January 1, 2015
(seven years of specifications), summer flounder is to be rebuilt by
January 1, 2013 (five years of specifications), and black sea bass is to
be rebuilt by January 1, 2010 (two years specifications). In addition,
the temporal scope does not extend beyond seven years because the
dynamic nature of resource management and lack of information on
projects that may occur in the future make it very difficult to predict
impacts beyond this timeframe with any certainty.

***Past and Present Actions***

The historical management practices of the Council (described in section
4.0) have resulted in positive impacts on the health of the summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass stocks. Numerous actions have been
taken to manage the commercial and recreational fisheries for these
three species through amendment and framework adjustment actions. In
addition, the annual specifications process is intended to provide the
opportunity for the Council and NMFS to regularly assess the status of
the fishery and to make necessary adjustments to ensure that there is a
reasonable expectation of meeting the objectives of the FMP and the
targets associated with any rebuilding programs under the FMP. The
statutory basis for Federal fisheries management is the MSA. To the
degree with which this regulatory regime is complied, the cumulative
impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal
fishery management actions on the VECs should generally be associated
with positive long-term outcomes. Constraining fishing effort through
regulatory actions can often have negative short-term socio-economic
impacts. These impacts are usually necessary to bring about long-term
sustainability of a given resource, and as such, should, in the
long-term, promote positive effects on human communities, especially
those that are economically dependent upon the summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass stocks.

Non-fishing activities that introduce chemical pollutants, sewage,
changes in water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and suspended
sediment into the marine environment pose a risk to all of the
identified VECs. Human-induced non-fishing activities tend to be
localized in nearshore areas and marine project areas where they occur.
Examples of these activities include, but are not limited to
agriculture, port maintenance, beach nourishment, coastal development,
marine transportation, marine mining, dredging and the disposal of
dredged material. Wherever these activities co-occur, they are likely to
work additively or synergistically to decrease habitat quality and, as
such, may indirectly constrain the sustainability of the managed
resources, non-target species, and protected resources. Decreased
habitat suitability would tend to reduce the tolerance of these VECs to
the impacts of fishing effort. Mitigation of this outcome through
regulations that would reduce fishing effort could then negatively
impact human communities. The overall impact to the affected species and
their habitats on a population level is unknown, but likely neutral to
low negative, since a large portion of these species have a limited or
minor exposure to these local non-fishing perturbations.

In addition to guidelines mandated by the MSA, NMFS reviews these types
of effects through the review process required by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for certain
activities that are regulated by Federal, state, and local authorities.
The jurisdiction of these activities is in \"waters of the U.S.\" and
includes both riverine and marine habitats.

***Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions***

In terms of Reasonably Foreseeable Future (RFF) Actions that relate to
the federally-managed summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
fisheries, several warrant additional discussion. The development of
Amendment 15 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP would
continue to manage these resources in accordance with the National
Standards required under the MSA. The Council has identified many issues
to be addressed in Amendment 15 which include commercial and
recreational overcapacity, fishery allocation issues (potentially
involving sector allocation), as well as others, and that Amendment will
likely address annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures
(AMs) to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded.

For many of the proposed non-fishing activities to be permitted under
other Federal agencies (such as beach nourishment, offshore wind
facilities, etc.), those agencies would conduct examinations of
potential impacts on the VECs. The MSA (50 CFR 600.930) imposes an
obligation on other Federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of
Commerce on actions that may adversely affect EFH. The eight Fishery
Management Councils are engaged in this review process by making
comments and recommendations on any Federal or state action that may
affect habitat, including EFH, for their managed species and by
commenting on actions likely to substantially affect habitat, including
EFH.

In addition, under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Section 662),
"whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed
or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the
stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for any
purpose whatever, including navigation and drainage, by any department
or agency of the U.S., or by any public or private agency under Federal
permit or license, such department or agency first shall consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of the Interior,
and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the
wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the" activity is
taking place. This act provides another avenue for review of actions by
other Federal and state agencies that may impact resources that NMFS
manages in the reasonably foreseeable future.

In addition, NMFS and the USFWS share responsibility for implementing
the ESA. ESA requires NMFS to designate \"critical habitat\" for any
species it lists under the ESA (i.e. areas that contain physical or
biological features essential to conservation, which may require special
management considerations or protection) and to develop and implement
recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. The ESA provides
another avenue for NMFS to review actions by other entities that may
impact endangered and protected resources whose management units are
under NMFS' jurisdiction.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469680 .anchor}**7.5.2 Targeted Fishery
Resources**

The current status of the managed resources is provided in section 6.1
of this EA. Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are all currently
under rebuilding schedules; therefore, annual specifications need to be
set not only to ensure overfishing does not occur on these stocks but
also to ensure the statutory rebuilding deadlines are met. Overfishing
occurs when the threshold fishing mortality rate is exceeded and the
stock is overfished when stock biomass falls below the minimum biomass
threshold. At present, all three stocks are considered overfished.
Overfishing is occurring on the summer flounder stock, but the fishing
mortality rate cannot be determined for scup and black sea bass.

Those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, whose
effects may impact the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass stocks
have been positive overall. Past and present non-fishing actions which
have the potential to have indirectly negative impacts on the habitat
for these three species (such as offshore disposal of dredged materials,
beach nourishment, marine transportation, etc.) are typically localized
in nearshore areas and marine project areas where they occur. Therefore,
the magnitude of those impacts on the summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass is expected to be limited. Non-fishing actions such as
agricultural runoff may be much broader in scope, and the impacts of
nutrient inputs to the coastal system may be of a larger magnitude,
although the impact on productivity of the managed resource is
unquantifiable. NMFS has several means under which it can review
non-fishing actions of other Federal or state agencies that may impact
NMFS' managed resources prior to permitting or implementation of those
projects. This serves to minimize the extent and magnitude of indirect
negative impacts those actions could have on resources under NMFS'
jurisdiction.

Past and present fishery management actions taken through the FMP and
annual specification process have had a positive cumulative effect on
the managed resource (see Section 4.1 and 7.5.1). It is anticipated that
the future management actions, such as the proposed specifications in
this document, will result in additional positive effects on the managed
resources. The recreational management measures proposed for 2008 for
each species are consistent with the objectives of the FMP. The proposed
action provides continuity for the overall rebuilding schemes for each
of the stocks, and should have indirectly positive impacts overall.
Additional positive future actions include the development of Amendment
15. While the actions to eventually be implemented through this
amendment are speculative, it is likely these actions will directly or
indirectly improve the status of these three stocks. Actions taken
through the FMP in the future which reduce and monitor bycatch, protect
habitat, and protect ecosystem services on which summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass productivity depends could result in additional
positive impacts. These impacts could be broad in scope. Overall, the
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are truly
meaningful to the managed resources have had a positive cumulative
effect.

Therefore, none of the proposed actions in this document would have any
significant effect on the managed resources individually, or in
conjunction with other anthropogenic activities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469681 .anchor}**7.5.3 Non-Target Species or
Bycatch**

There are significant recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass. A large portion of the summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass that are caught are released after capture. It is
estimated that 10%, 15%, and 25% of the summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass, respectively, that are caught and released by anglers die
after release, i.e, the majority of the fish are released alive and are
expected to survive after release. The fish that survive are not defined
as bycatch under the SFA. The Council and Commission believe that
information and education programs relative to proper catch and release
techniques for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass and other species
caught by recreational fishermen should help to maximize the number of
these species released alive.

Current recreational management measures could affect the discards of
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. These measures include a
possession limit, size limit, and season. The effects of the possession
limit would be greatest at small limits and be progressively less at
higher limits. The size limit would have similar effects, but the level
of discarding will be dependent upon the levels of incoming recruitment
and subsequent abundance of small fish. Seasonal effects would differ
depending on the length of the season and the amount of summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass caught while targeting other species.

Minimum size limits, bag limits and seasons have proven to be effective
management tools in controlling fishing mortality in the recreational
fishery. A notable example of success using these measures for
management is the Atlantic coast striped bass fishery. The recreational
striped bass fishery is managed principally through the use of minimum
size limits, bag limits and seasons. When these measures were first
implemented, release rates in the recreational striped bass fishery
exceeded 90%. However, the quick and sustained recovery of the striped
bass stock after implementation of these measures provides evidence of
their effectiveness in controlling fishing mortality in recreational
fisheries.

The Council and Commission can currently implement annual changes in
commercial and recreational management measures in response to changes
in fishermen behavior or an increased level of discards through the
annual specifications process. The framework adjustment procedure
implemented in Amendment 12 can be used to allow the Council and
Commission to respond quickly to changes in the fishery through the
implementation of new management measures or the modification of
existing measures.

Those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, whose
effects may impact non-target species have been positive overall. Past
and present non-fishing actions which have the potential to have
indirectly negative impacts on non-target species and their habitat
(such as offshore disposal of dredged materials, beach nourishment,
marine transportation, etc.) are typically localized in nearshore areas
and marine project areas where they occur. Agricultural runoff may be
much broader in scope, and the impacts of nutrient inputs to the coastal
system may be of a larger magnitude, although the impact on productivity
of non-target resources and the oceanic ecosystem is unquantifiable.
NMFS has several means under which it can review non-fishing actions of
other Federal or state agencies that may impact NMFS' managed resources
prior to permitting or implementation of those projects. At this time,
NMFS can consider impacts to non-target species (federally-managed or
otherwise) and comment on potential impacts. This serves to minimize the
extent and magnitude of indirect negative impacts those actions could
have on resources within NMFS' jurisdiction.

Past fishery management actions taken through the FMP and annual
specification process have had a positive cumulative effect on
non-target species (see Section 4.1 and 7.5.1). While the actions to be
implemented under the future Amendment 15 are unknown, these actions
would be consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the National
Standards, and the amendment document would include an EIS. The EIS will
describe the potential impacts for non-target species from the proposed
action and therefore, provide an opportunity for NMFS to implement
actions which minimize those impacts. It is therefore anticipated that
the future management actions will result in additional indirect
positive effects on non-target species through actions which reduce and
monitor bycatch, protect habitat, and protect ecosystem services on
which the productivity of many of these non-target resources depend.

The proposed action is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of
any non-target species. All of the alternatives that are being
considered are designed to constrain recreational landings to the
recreational harvest limit specified through the FMP for the 2008
fishing year. The alternatives contain only changes to existing
recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass, including the minimum recreational fish size, recreational
possession limit and recreational season for each of the species.
Bycatch of non-target species in the recreational fishery using rod and
reel or handline is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, none of
the proposed management measures would have significant cumulative
effects on non-target species by themselves or in conjunction with other
anthropogenic activities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469682 .anchor}**7.5.4 Protected Species**

There are numerous species which inhabit the environment within the
management unit of this FMP that are afforded protection under the ESA
of 1973 (i.e. for those designated as threatened or endangered) and/or
the MMPA of 1972. Sixteen are classified as endangered or threatened
under the ESA, while the remainders are protected by provisions of the
MMPA. The Council examined the list (section 6.3 of the EA) of species
protected by the ESA, the MMPA, or the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 that
may be found in the environment utilized by the summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass fisheries.

The impacts of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
recreational fisheries upon endangered and threatened species and marine
mammal populations are also described in detail in Amendment 13. As
described in section 7.0 of the EA, in general, recreational fisheries
have very limited interactions with marine mammals and endangered or
threatened species. However, recreational fishermen do contribute to
difficulties for endangered and threatened marine species in that it is
estimated that recreational fishermen discard over 227 million lb (103
million kg) of litter each year (O\'Hara et al. 1988). More than nine
million recreational vessels are registered in the United States. The
greatest concentrations of recreational vessels in the United States are
found in the waters off New York, New Jersey, the Chesapeake Bay, and
Florida (O\'Hara et al. 1988). Recreational fishermen are also a major
source of debris in the form of monofilament fishing line. The amount of
fishing line lost or discarded by the 17 million U.S. fishermen during
an estimated 72 million fishing trips in 1986 is not known, but if the
average angler snares or cuts loose only one yard of line per trip, the
potential amount of deadly monofilament line is enough to stretch around
the world (O\'Hara et al. 1988).

Changes in overall fishing effort as a result of changes in recreational
harvest limits, possession and size limits, and seasons are unknown.
However, because the alternatives discussed in this document are not
expected to cause large changes in fishing effort, it is concluded that
they will not affect endangered and threatened species in any manner not
considered in prior consultations. None of the proposed quotas or other
management measures would have significant cumulative effects on
protected resources by themselves or in conjunction with other
anthropogenic activities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469683 .anchor}**7.5.5 Habitat (Including
EFH)**

The environment in which these fisheries are prosecuted was described in
Amendment 13, section 3.2.4. The fishery management unit for summer
flounder is from Maine to the southern border of North Carolina and from
Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina for scup and black sea bass. A
brief description of the physical environment is presented in section
6.2 of the EA.

The principal gears used in the recreational fishery for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass are rod and reel and handline. The
potential adverse impacts of these gears on EFH for any of the
federally-managed species in the region are minimal (see section 6.2).
The measures in this specifications document do not contain major
changes to existing management measures and are not expected to result
in changes in fishing effort. None of the proposed quotas or other
management measures would have significant cumulative effects on habitat
by themselves or in conjunction with other anthropogenic activities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469684 .anchor}**7.5.6 Socioeconomic**

National Standard 8 requires that management measures take into account
the fishing communities. The ports and communities that are dependent on
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are fully described in
Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP
(section 3.4.2). The top commercial landings ports for summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass by pounds landed and related data for the
recreational fisheries are described in section 6.5 of the 2008 Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications. However, due to the
nature of the recreational database (MRFSS), it is inappropriate to
desegregate to less than state levels. Thus, port-level recreational
data are not shown.

The ports and communities involved in these fisheries will positively
benefit from the proposed management measures presented in this
document. With regard to the specific recommendations proposed in this
document (i.e. size limits, possession limits, and seasons), impact to
the affected biological and physical and socioeconomic environment are
described in section 7.0. Given that no negative impacts are anticipated
to result from the preferred alternatives, the synergistic interaction
of improvements in the efficiency of the fishery is expected to generate
positive impacts overall. These impacts will be felt most strongly in
the social and economic dimension of the environment. Direct economic
and social benefit from improved fishery efficiency is most likely to
affect participants in the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
fisheries.

*Socioeconomic Impacts*

Although the management measures established by the Council for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass are implemented on a
species-by-species basis to examine the overall impacts of the proposed
actions, the measures must be considered simultaneously. Thus, an
evaluation of the potential combinations of alternatives across species
is provided in this section. This evaluation contains an assessment of
the total number of projected recreational fishing trips by mode that
would be affected from implementation of all combinations of proposed
management measures. In addition, the potential short-run reduction in
reduced angler expenditures and associated regional losses (sales,
income, and employment) to businesses that supply goods and services to
saltwater fishermen was explored for all potential management
combinations of alternatives.

Projected data from MRFSS indicate that 38,704,008 fishing trips were
taken in the Northeast Region (Maine-North Carolina) in 2007. It is
estimated that the number of trips by fishing mode was 1,822,567
party/charter boat trips, 20,335,069 private/rental boat trips, and
16,546,372 shore trips (Table 32).

*Affected Effort*

Assuming angler effort in 2008 will be the same as that estimated for
2007, fishing impacts were examined by estimating the number of
recreational fishing trips in 2007 that would have been affected by the
2008 management measures proposed for all three species. All 2007
fishing trips that would have been constrained by the proposed 2008
measures in the Northeast Region were considered to be "affected" trips.
To date, the first five waves of preliminary MRFSS effort data are
available for 2007 (January - October). Wave six effort estimates for
2006 (November - December) were used as a proxy for wave six 2007
effort.

Of the potential 18 combinations of alternatives across species that
could be analyzed, the measures proposed under summer flounder
alternative 2, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass alternative 2
(when considered together), are predicted to affect the fewest number of
party/charter boat trips in the Northeast Region in 2008 (83,661; Table
45). The same combinations of alternatives are also estimated to have
the lowest overall effect on private/rental boat fishing effort and
shore fishing effort in 2008. However, there are other combinations of
alternatives for both private/rental fishing and shore fishing that
result in the same estimate of affected trips.

It is worth noting that since the management measures under summer
flounder alternative 1 (i.e. conservation equivalency) have yet to be
adopted the effort effects of this alternative could not be analyzed in
conjunction with the alternatives proposed for scup and black sea bass.
Since conservation equivalency allows each state to tailor specific
recreational fishing measures to the needs of their state, while still
achieving conservation goals, it is likely that the measures developed
under summer flounder alternative 1 when considered in combination with
the measures proposed for scup and black sea bass would have lower,
overall adverse effects on fishing effort in 2008 than any of the
combinations that could be analyzed.

The percent of total party/charter boat trips in the Northeast Region
that are estimated to be affected by the proposed actions ranges from a
low of 4.59% for the combination of measures proposed under summer
flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass
alternative 2 to 5.98% for the measures proposed under the summer
flounder precautionary default combined with scup alternative 2 and
black sea bass alternative 3 (Table 45). Affected private/rental effort
ranges from a low of 2.52% of total private/rental trips (under 3
different combinations of alternatives) to 3.30% of total private/rental
effort (under 3 different combinations of alternatives). The number of
affected shore fishing trips under the 18 different combinations of
alternatives analyzed in this analysis are virtually identical.
Estimated affected shore fishing trips ranges from a low of 0.73% of
total shore trips (under 6 different combinations of alternatives) to
0.75% (under the remaining 12 combinations of alternatives).

Unfortunately, no empirical information is available to determine how
sensitive the affected anglers might be to the proposed regulations.
Will the affected angler trip taking behavior remain unchanged or will
the harvest restrictions result in anglers taking fewer fishing trips -
or no recreational trips at all if suitable alternative target species
are unavailable? Although the potential changes in trip-taking behavior
cannot be quantified, it is not likely that the new measures will have a
significant negative effect on the overall number of recreational
fishing trips in the North and Mid-Atlantic regions. Although some of
the affected anglers may reduce their overall fishing effort in response
to the 2008 regulations, it is expected that most anglers will continue
to fish as they did in 2007. The proposed regulations will likely result
in changes to the number and size of the fish that can be landed, but
they will not prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish
they catch or from engaging in catch and release fishing. Many of the
anglers that choose to reduce their summer flounder, scup, or black sea
bass effort in 2008, in response to the new regulations, are likely to
transfer this effort to alternative species resulting in very little
change in overall fishing effort. However, recreational harvest
restrictions for many alternative species in the Northeast are becoming
more binding each year, resulting in fewer substitute landing
opportunities, particularly for anglers fishing aboard headboats where
passengers are primarily limited to bottom fishing. Nevertheless, if
there is a net reduction in fishing trips in 2008, economic losses may
accrue to businesses that support marine recreational activities. The
next section describes the procedures used to estimate the potential
losses to these supporting businesses.

*Short-term regional economic impacts*

An input-output model was employed to assess the potential economic
losses (sales, income, and employment) associated with implementation of
all combinations of the proposed management alternatives to businesses
that support marine recreational fishing activities in the Northeast
Region. Reductions in sales, income, and employment could occur in the
Northeast Region if the affected anglers reduce fishing effort, and
hence, expenditures, in response to the new regulations. Since it is
unknown how anglers' trip taking behavior will change upon
implementation of the proposed regulations, economic losses were
estimated for two hypothetical scenarios: (1) a 25% reduction in the
number of fishing trips that are predicted to be affected by
implementation of the management measures in the Northeast Region; and
(2) a 50% reduction in the number of fishing trips that are predicted to
be affected in the Northeast Region.

Reductions in anglers' trip-related purchases will have a direct effect
on the sales, income, and employment of businesses that supply goods and
services to saltwater fishermen. Businesses providing these goods and
services must also purchase goods and services and hire employees, which
in turn, will affect the sales, income, and employment of many
additional businesses.

Three levels of economic impacts result from purchases by saltwater
fishermen: (1) direct, (2) indirect, and (3) induced. Direct effects
occur when anglers spend money at retail and service-oriented fishing
businesses (e.g., purchases of ice at convenience stores or access fees
paid to owners of for-hire vessels). Indirect effects occur as the
retail and service sectors purchase fishing supplies from wholesale
trade businesses and manufacturers and pay operating expenditures (e.g.,
the retailer must purchase fishing rods from the manufacturer or
wholesaler and pay electric bills). These secondary industries must
then, in turn, purchase additional supplies and this cycle of industry
to industry purchasing continues until the amount remaining within the
region of interest is negligible. Finally, induced effects result when
employees of the direct and indirect sectors make purchases from
retailers and service establishments in the normal course of household
consumption (e.g., convenience store employees spend money on groceries
and pay federal and state taxes). The summation of direct, indirect, and
induced effects are total effects.

*Data and Methods*

Input-output (I/O) analysis is the most common approach available for
determining the direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with an
overall change in economic activity in a particular region. For the
analysis presented here, a ready-made regional I/O modeling system
called IMPLAN Pro (Impact Analysis for Planning) was used to determine
the economic losses associated with the hypothetical reductions in
fishing trips under all 18 potential combinations of alternatives. The
IMPLAN Pro system is a widely used, nationally recognized tool that
provides detailed purchasing information for 509 industrial sectors and
a user-friendly media for customizing input-output models to specific
applications (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2001).

Angler expenditures in the Northeast Region by state and mode for marine
fishing were obtained from Steinback and Gentner (2001). These
expenditure data were produced from extensive surveys of marine
recreational fishermen in the Northeast Region in 1998 (Table 46). The
surveys were conducted as part of the MRFSS. Average fishing trip
expenditures were provided for each state and mode of fishing (i.e.
private boat, party/charter, and shore) in the Northeast region in 1998.
Trip-related expenditure categories shown in the report included food,
lodging, travel costs, boat fuel, party/charter fees, access or boat
launching fees, equipment rental, bait, and ice. In addition to
trip-related expenditures, Steinback and Gentner (2001) also estimated
anglers' expenditures for semi-durable items (e.g., rods, reels, lines,
clothing, etc.) and durable goods (e.g., motor boats, vehicles, etc.).
However, expenditures for these items are not likely to change after
implementation of the proposed regulations since semi-durable and
durable items can be used for many fishing trips. Thus, in the analysis
presented here, it is assumed that the proposed management measures will
only affect anglers' trip-related expenditures.

The economic losses associated with reductions in angler expenditures
were estimated by applying the product of the estimated number of
affected trips and the average trip expenditure estimates from Steinback
and Gentner (2001) to the appropriate IMPLAN sector multipliers in each
state. The multipliers measure the direct, indirect, and induced
relationships between industries and households. Input-output models
require all values to be in producer prices (manufacturer prices) so
each of the angler expenditure categories was associated with its
corresponding IMPLAN producing sector. In IMPLAN, margins are used to
convert the retail-level prices paid by anglers into the appropriate
producer values. Margins ensure that the correct value is assigned to
products as they move from producers, to wholesalers, through the
transportation sectors, and finally on to retail establishments.

Potential economic losses are estimated for sales, income, and
employment. Sales reflect the aggregate reductions in total dollar sales
generated from expenditures by anglers in the Northeast Region. Income
represents the aggregate reductions in wages, salaries, benefits, and
proprietary income generated from angler expenditures across the coastal
states in the Northeast Region. Employment includes both full-time and
part-time workers and is expressed as aggregate reductions in total jobs
across states.

*Results*

The projected regional economic losses associated with the hypothetical
reductions in affected marine recreational fishing trips are shown in
Tables 47 (assumes a 25% reduction in affected trips) and 48 (assumes a
50% reduction in affected trips). In total, the projected sales, income,
and employment losses to the Northeast Region vary little across
combinations of alternatives. For a 25% reduction in affected fishing
trips, total losses to the Northeast region range from \$15.964 million
to \$20.363 million in sales, \$5.826 million to \$7.431 in income, and
between 156 and 200 jobs (Table 47). The estimated losses are
approximately twice as high if a 50% reduction in affected trips is
assumed to occur (Table 48).

Across all combinations of alternatives, approximately 71% of the total
sales, income, and employment losses is projected to be generated by
anglers fishing from private/rental boats. Losses associated with
reductions in party/charter effort comprise approximately 18% of
potential region-wide reductions, while the remaining 11% is associated
with shore mode effort changes. This large disparity in losses across
modes is generally due to the fact that the measures proposed under all
combinations of alternatives are projected to affect substantially more
private/rental boat trips than party/charter and shore trips.

*Summary*

The measures proposed under all combinations of alternatives will affect
a portion of the recreational fishing trips that catch summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass. Unfortunately, although we can generally
predict how many trips will be affected by the proposed measures, it is
unknown how anglers' trip taking behavior will change in response to the
additional restrictions. If the measures result in an overall reduction
in angler effort, expenditures associated with these trips will be
foregone, and reductions in sales, income, and employment will occur for
businesses that supply goods and services to saltwater fishermen. In
addition, the sales, income, and employment of many businesses that
supply the directly affected businesses could also decline. On the other
hand, if the proposed measures do not induce a change in overall angler
effort, total angler expenditures would remain unchanged, and there
would be no effect on supporting businesses.

Given the uncertainty surrounding how anglers will respond to the
proposed measures, total potential reductions in sales, income, and
employment to businesses in the coastal states of the Northeast Region
are estimated for two hypothetical scenarios: (1) a 25% reduction in the
number of fishing trips that are predicted to be affected by
implementation of the management measures; and (2) a 50% reduction in
the number of fishing trips that are predicted to by affected. Losses
are estimated for all 18 combinations of alternatives that could be
analyzed. The measures proposed under summer flounder alternative 1
could not be analyzed in combination with the measures proposed for scup
and black sea bass because this alternative would implement conservation
equivalent measures that are yet to be determined.

The projected economic losses shown in this assessment do not capture
losses borne by individual anglers. The input-output approach followed
in this analysis projects the change in goods and services produced by
different businesses that are linked to purchases by marine anglers, but
it does not provide estimates of angler welfare losses. These welfare
losses are generally defined as the additional value above opportunity
costs (usually taken to be expenditures of time and money) that anglers
would be willing to pay in order to fish.

*Long-term Cumulative Effects*

Long-term effects of each of these management alternatives are clear:
stocks of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass will rebuild as a
result of the accumulated effects of these measures applied over time.
Although the long-term effects of these alternatives are less clear or
quantifiable from a social and economic perspective, rebuilt stocks
would presumably provide anglers with the ability to increase catch and
possibly keep rates resulting in higher overall welfare benefits to
anglers and the Nation as a whole.

*Impacts Associated with Future Management Actions*

While the measures to achieve rebuilding are expected to result in
positive economic benefits to anglers and to businesses that support
marine recreational activities in the long-term, some effects of
short-term declines in revenues, jobs, and income may be irreversible,
prohibiting economic growth during later years when the resources have
been rebuilt. For instance, if party/charter boat anglers reduce their
trip taking behavior as the industry is further restricted to meet
rebuilding requirements; gentrification could begin to replace segments
of the party/charter boat industry and the related land-based
infrastructure. The process of gentrification transforms working harbors
into upscale areas primed for recreation and tourism, replacing
infrastructure that supports the party/charter industry and shore and
private boat anglers (i.e. bait and tackle shops) with waterfront
housing, entertainment, and dining establishments or other facilities.
Among the businesses and industry support structures that may be
eliminated are party/charter operations, bait and tackle suppliers,
provisioners of food, ice, fuel, and boat rental businesses, etc. As
shoreline property prices rise, the economic viability of these
industries is becoming increasingly strained. If fishing regulations
result in lower angler participation, the possibility exists that this
infrastructure may be permanently replaced by new entities with
alternative functions. Hall-Arber et al. (2001) noted that "if the
facilities as well as the stocks are not protected, once the biophysical
capital rebounds, communities that are dependent on \[these\]
facilities\...will not be able to take advantage of the improved stock
conditions to generate fisheries capital for the region and nation."
These structural changes to the economy and physical composition of
fishing communities are accompanied by delocalization, or the loss of
localized community character and culture (Hall-Arber et al. 2001).
Long-standing traditions and close-knit alliances that unite fishing
communities and families may cease to exist.

The management alternatives proposed for 2008 do not introduce measures
that specifically seek to mitigate these problems of infrastructure loss
and the changing culture of fishing communities. However, if the
mortality targets established in the FMP continue to be achieved over
the long-term, it is not expected that recreational fishing
opportunities for summer flounder, black sea bass, and scup will be
significantly impacted. If recreational landings are estimated to exceed
the annual targets, management measures are adjusted to reduce the
harvest in the following year to the specified level. Thus, the annual
specification process provides frequent checks and balances to maintain
rebuilding goals which reduces the likelihood of wide-sweeping
management changes and therein the loss of recreational fishing
infrastructure.

Reasonably foreseeable future federal actions include additional or
revised fishing regulations, both for the summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass fisheries and for other species that marine recreational
fishermen target. For example, future regulations implemented under the
Northeast Multispecies FMP may induce party/charter boat operators to
switch from targeting Atlantic cod and haddock on some of their trips to
targeting summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass. This may have a
negative effect on rebuilding goals and cause increased competition
within party/charter fishing communities dependent on summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass. Additional Federal actions could also have
indirect impacts on recreational fishing communities reliant on these
species. Federal decisions on offshore petroleum access and the
placement of inshore/offshore wind farms, for example, could have either
a positive or negative effect on landings and access to summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass stocks.

*Historical Account of Overages*

Although the measures proposed in this EA are only for the year 2008
fisheries, these measures have the potential to result in cumulative
impacts on the environment. The extent of any cumulative impacts from
measures established in previous years is largely dependent on how
effective those measures were in meeting their intended objectives and
the extent to which mitigating measures compensated for any quota
overages.

The management schemes established by the Council for summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass in the FMP, as previously analyzed in each
species' respective EIS, recognize that management measures and fishery
specifications established in one fishing year have implications for the
measures that follow in subsequent years. In order to end overfishing
and remedy the overfished status of these stocks, the Council developed
rebuilding programs that have stock biomass targets. To achieve
rebuilding, the Council recommends annual specifications that are
intended to have a reasonable likelihood of not exceeding the specified
target Fs for the coming fishing year. Because of the nature of the
fisheries (e.g., the landing of these species over in a large number of
coastal states) and the inherent time lags encountered in collecting
landings that are necessary to make final determinations of actual
landings, there is always the possibility that some harvest quotas may
be unintentionally exceeded before the information to close that portion
of the fishery is available. On the other hand, in a given year the
recreational harvest limit may not be achieved. A detail account of the
commercial and recreational overages was presented in section 6.0 of the
2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications.

As previously indicated, overages in the recreational fishery are
addressed by way of changes in management measures to reduce the harvest
in the following year to the specified level. Thus, the FMP and the
annual specifications anticipate the possibility that landings may
exceed targets in any given year and provide a remedy that at least
partially compensates for such occurrences in terms of maintaining the
conservation goals of the FMP and the rebuilding programs, thus
mitigating the impacts of those overages. The annual nature of the
management measures is intended to provide the opportunity for the
Council and NMFS to assess regularly the status of the fisheries and to
make necessary adjustments to ensure that there is a reasonable
expectation of meeting the objectives of the FMP and the targets
associated with any rebuilding programs under the FMP.

The rebuilding programs under the FMP began in 1993, 1997, and 1998 for
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, respectively. Because each
year's measures build upon the previous year's measures, the cumulative
effects of the management program on the health of the stocks and the
fishery are assessed from year to year. Projected recreational landings
in a given year are used by the Council in recommending recreational
management measures for each species in the following year. The Council
and NMFS consider angler effort and success, stock availability and the
target harvest limits in establishing recreational measures for the
upcoming year, including size limits, seasons, and bag limits. The
recreational fisheries have target harvest levels, which do not require
the fishery to be closed when attained, as compared to the commercial
fishing quotas, which do require the fishery to be closed when the quota
is attained. Recreational harvest limits, total landings, and total
overages for each of the three recreational fisheries have been as
follows (weight in million lb):

***Summer Flounder***

**[Year]{.underline} [Harvest Limit]{.underline} [Landings]{.underline}
[Overages (+)/Underages (-)]{.underline}**

**1995** 7.76 5.42 -2.34

**1996** 7.41 9.82 +2.41

**1997** 7.41 11.87 +4.46

**1998** 7.41 12.48 +5.07

**1999** 7.41 8.37 +0.96

**2000** 7.41 16.47 +9.06

**2001** 7.16 11.64 +4.48

**2002** 9.72 8.01 -1.71

**2003** 9.28 11.64 +2.36

**2004** 11.21 10.87 -0.34

**2005** 11.98 10.58 -1.40

**2006** 9.29 11.51 +2.22

**2007** 6.75 9.30^a^ +2.55^a^

^a^ Projected

***Scup***

**[Year]{.underline} [Harvest Limit]{.underline} [Landings]{.underline}
[Overages (+)/Underages (-)]{.underline}**

**1997** 1.95 1.20 -0.75

**1998** 1.55 0.88 -0.67

**1999** 1.24 1.89 +0.65

**2000** 1.24 5.44 +4.22

**2001** 1.77 4.26 +2.49

**2002** 2.71 3.62 +0.91

**2003** 4.01 8.48 +4.47

**2004** 3.99 4.41 +0.42

**2005** 3.96 2.67 -1.29

**2006** 3.99 4.95 +0.96

**2007** 2.74 3.80^a^ +1.06^a^

^a^ Projected

***Black Sea Bass***

**[Year]{.underline} [Harvest Limit]{.underline} [Landings]{.underline}
[Overages (+)/Underages (-)]{.underline}**

**1997** N/A 4.27 N/A

**1998** 3.15 1.15 -2.00

**1999** 3.15 1.70 -1.45

**2000** 3.15 3.99 +0.84

**2001** 3.15 3.42 +0.27

**2002** 3.43 4.35 +0.92

**2003** 3.43 3.29 -0.14

**2004** 4.01 1.67 -2.34

**2005** 4.13 2.01 -2.12

**2006** 3.99 1.98^a^ -2.01^a^

**2007** 2.47 1.97^a^ -0.50^a^

^a^ Projected

Even though the recreational overage cannot be deducted from the TAL,
the total overage factors into the cumulative impact on the stocks.
Recreational overages in a given year or period have two expected
impacts. First, overages result in lower harvest levels in the following
year or period for that portion of the fishery than would otherwise have
been allowed. In the recreational fisheries, overages in one year may
result in lower bag limits, larger minimum size limits, and/or shorter
seasons than would otherwise have been allowed had the overages not
occurred. Increased harvests in one year are thus "paid back" by
decreased harvest opportunities the next year. Recreational fishing
opportunities for those fishermen not desiring to keep their catch of
these species would be affected little, if any, by such occurrences.

The second possible result of recreational overages is the potential
that the annual F targets of the FMP will not be met and/or that the
rebuilding schedule will be delayed. The significance of any such delays
depends on the magnitude of the overages and their resultant impact on
the stock size and age structure. While it is not possible to quantify
those effects precisely, the fact that the FMP's management regime takes
into account the overages and the current status of the stocks in
setting the specifications for the next year mitigates any such impacts.

Projected estimates of recreational landings indicate that there will be
overages in the summer flounder (2.55 million lb) and scup (1.06 million
lb) fisheries in 2007. No overages are expected in the black sea bass
fishery for 2007. In 2006, both the scup and summer flounder fisheries
experienced recreational overages. The Council and NMFS recognize that
overages in any of the fisheries would have additional negative impacts
on the rate of rebuilding. Given the history of the summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass fisheries, the mitigating influence of annual
overage adjustments, and the fact that the stocks have shown continued
improvement during the rebuilding period despite the overages that have
occurred, the cumulative impacts of overages are not considered to be
significant. Likewise, the impacts of any overages that might occur in
2008 as a result of these fishery specifications are also not considered
to be significant.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469685 .anchor}**7.5.7 Conclusions**

None of the proposed management measures will have significant
cumulative effects on the target species or non-target species
individually or in conjunction with other anthropogenic activities. The
proposed actions, together with past, present, and future actions, are
expected to result in positive cumulative impacts on the biological,
physical, and human components of the environment. As long as management
continues to prevent overfishing and continue the rebuilding process,
the fisheries and their associated communities will prosper.

This action builds on actions taken in the original FMP, subsequent
amendments, and the annual specification process for the 2008 fishing
year. Based on the information and analyses presented in these documents
and this document, there are no significant cumulative effects
associated with the proposed summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
recreational specifications.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469686 .anchor}**8.0 APPLICABLE LAWS**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469687 .anchor}**8.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA)**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469688 .anchor}**8.1.1 National Standards**

Section 301 of the MSA requires that FMPs contain conservation and
management measures that are consistent with the ten National Standards.
The most recent FMP amendments 12, 13, and 14 (MAFMC 1998, 2002, 2007,
respectively) address how the management actions implemented comply with
the National Standards. First and foremost, the Council continues to
meet the obligations of National Standard 1 by adopting and implementing
conservation and management measures that will continue to prevent
overfishing, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield
for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass and the U.S. fishing
industry. The Council uses the best scientific information available
(National Standard 2) and manages all three species throughout their
range (National Standard 3). These management measures do not
discriminate among residents of different states (National Standard 4),
they do not have economic allocation as their sole purpose (National
Standard 5), the measures account for variations in these fisheries
(National Standard 6), they avoid unnecessary duplication (National
Standard 7), they take into account the fishing communities (National
Standard 8) and they promote safety at sea (National Standard 10).
Finally, actions taken are consistent with National Standard 9, which
addresses bycatch in fisheries. The Council has implemented many
regulations that have indirectly acted to reduce fishing gear impacts on
EFH. By continuing to meet the National Standards requirements of the
MSA through future FMP amendments, framework actions, and the annual
specification setting process, the Council will insure that cumulative
impacts of these actions will remain positive overall for the ports and
communities that depend on these fisheries, the Nation as a whole, and
certainly for the resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469689 .anchor}**8.2 NEPA (FONSI)**

***Finding of No Significant Impact***

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order
216-6 (May 20, 1999) contains criteria for determining the significance
of the impacts of a proposed action. In addition, the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27 state that the
significance of an action should be analyzed both in terms of "context"
and "intensity." Each criterion listed below is relevant to making a
finding of no significant impact and has been considered individually,
as well as in combination with the others. The significance of this
action is analyzed based on the NAO 216-6 criteria and CEQ\'s context
and intensity criteria. These include:

*1) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to jeopardize the
sustainability of any target species that may be affected by the
action?*

The proposed action for summer flounder, as modified by the supplemente
to the EA, and proposed action for scup and black sea bass is not
expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any target species that may
be affected by the action, as described in section 7.0 of the EA. As
specified in the FMP, this proposed action is intended to maintain
recreational landings to achieve target fishing mortality rates for
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass under the current rebuilding
plans.

*2) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to jeopardize the
sustainability of any non-target species?*

The proposed action is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of
any non-target species. All of the alternatives that are being
considered are designed to constrain recreational landings to the
recreational harvest limit specified through the FMP for the 2008
fishing year. The alternatives contain only changes to existing
recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass, including the minimum recreational fish size, recreational
possession limit and recreational season for each of the species.
Bycatch of non-target species in the recreational fishery using rod and
reel or handline is not expected to be substantial.

*3) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause substantial
damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitat
as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in FMPs?*

The proposed action as described in section 5.0 of the EA is not
expected to cause substantial damage to the ocean, coastal habitats,
and/or EFH as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in
the FMP. The area affected by the proposed action in the summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries has been identified as EFH
for species managed by the Northeast Multispecies; Atlantic Sea Scallop;
Spiny Dogfish; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; Bluefish; Atlantic Billfish; Spiny Dogfish;
Monkfish; Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks; Calico Scallop;
Wreckfish; King and Spanish Mackerel; Atlantic Coast Red Drum; Shrimp;
Stone Crab; Snapper-Grouper of the South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs
of the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic; and Coastal Migratory
Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic FMPs. The
primary gear utilized in the recreational harvest of summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass is hook and line gear (rod and reel or
handlines). Although the specific effects of these gear types on various
bottom habitats are poorly understood, any potential habitat impacts
associated with their use are minimal. Furthermore, the proposed action
does not include any major changes to existing management measures and
will not result in significant impacts to the environment or to EFH
(section 6.2 of the EA).

*4) Can the proposed action be reasonably expected to have a substantial
adverse impact on public health or safety?*

The proposed action is not expected to have a substantial adverse impact
on public health or safety. Each of the alternatives contains only
changes to existing management measures (i.e. recreational minimum fish
size, recreational possession limit and recreational seasons).
Management alternatives will be selected to achieve the recreational
harvest limits and to provide a reasonable balance among size limits,
seasons and possession limits, so as not to compromise public health or
safety.

*5) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect
endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of
these species?*

The proposed action is not reasonably expected to have an adverse impact
on endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat
for these species. The interaction between protected species and the
gear used in the recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
fisheries is minimal. As stated in section 6.3 of the EA, the activities
to be conducted under the proposed annual recreational specifications
are within the scope of the FMP and do not change the basis for the
determinations made in previous consultations.

*6) Can the proposed action be expected to have a substantial impact on
biodiversity and/or ecosystem function within the affected area (e.g.,
benthic productivity, predator-prey relationships, etc.)?*

The proposed action is not expected to have a substantial impact on
biodiversity and ecosystem function within the affected area. As
specified in the FMP, this proposed action is intended to reduce
recreational landings to achieve the target fishing mortality rates
under the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass FMPs. The
alternatives contain only changes to existing recreational management
measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, including the
minimum recreational fish size, recreational possession limit and
recreational season for each of the species. Bycatch of non-target
species in the recreational fishery using rod and reel or handline is
not expected to be substantial. The proposed action will likely ensure
biodiversity and ecosystem stability over the long-term as the species
continue to rebuild.

*7) Are significant social or economic impacts interrelated with natural
or physical environmental effects?*

As discussed in section 7.0 of the EA, the proposed action is not
expected to result in significant social or economic impacts, or in
significant natural or physical environmental effects. Therefore, there
are no significant social or economic impacts interrelated with
significant natural or physical environmental impacts.

*8) Are the effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be
highly controversial?*

Measures contained in this EA are not expected to be controversial. The
proposed action would implement measures for the upcoming fishing year
to achieve the recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass in 2008, as specified through the FMP. The proposed
action is based on measures contained in the FMP, which have been in
place for many years.

*9) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in
substantial impacts to unique areas, such as historic or cultural
resources, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers
or ecologically critical areas?*

This action merely revises the proposed annual management measures for
the upcoming fishing year to achieve the recreational harvest limits for
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass in 2008, as specified through
the FMP. These recreational fisheries are not known to be prosecuted in
any unique areas such as historic or cultural resources, park land,
prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically
critical areas. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to have a
substantial impact on any of these areas.

*10) Are the effects on the human environment likely to be highly
uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks?*

The impacts of the proposed measures on the human environment are
described in section 7.0 of the EA. The proposed action merely revises
the annual management measures for the upcoming fishing year to achieve
the recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea
bass in 2008, as specified through the FMP. The measures contained in
this action are not expected to have highly uncertain, unique, or
unknown risks on the human environment.

*11) Is the proposed action related to other actions with individually
insignificant, but cumulatively significant impacts?*

As discussed in section 7.5, the proposed action is not expected to have
individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The
synergistic interaction of improvements in the efficiency of the fishery
is expected to generate positive impacts overall. The proposed actions,
together with past and future actions, are not expected to result in
significant cumulative impacts on the biological, physical, and human
components of the environment.

*12) Is the proposed action likely to adversely affect districts, sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or
destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historical
resources?*

The impacts of the proposed measures on the human environment are
described in section 7.0 of the EA. The proposed action merely revises
the annual management measures for the upcoming fishing year to achieve
the recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea
bass in 2008, as specified through the FMP. These summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass recreational fisheries are not known to be prosecuted
in any areas that might affect districts, sites, highways, structures,
or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places or cause the loss or destruction of significant
scientific, cultural or historical resources. Therefore, the proposed
action is not expected to affect any of these areas.

*13) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in the
introduction or spread of a nonindigenous species?*

This action proposes annual management measures for the upcoming fishing
year to achieve the recreational harvest limits for summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass in 2008, as specified through the FMP. There is
no evidence or indication that these fisheries have ever resulted in the
introduction or spread of nonindigenous species. None of the
specifications are expected to alter fishing methods or activities in
the recreational fishery. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the
proposed specifications would be expected to result in the introduction
or spread of a non-indigenous species.

*14) Is the proposed action likely to establish a precedent for future
actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle
about a future consideration?*

This action merely revises the annual management measures for the
upcoming fishing year to achieve the recreational harvest limits for
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass in 2008, as specified through
the FMP. None of the specifications are expected to alter fishing
methods or activities in the recreational fishery. The proposed action
is based on measures contained in the FMP, which have been in place for
many years. None of these specifications result in significant effects
or do they represent a decision in principle about a future
consideration.

*15) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a
violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for
the protection of the environment?*

This action proposes annual management measures for the upcoming fishing
year to achieve the recreational harvest limits for summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass in 2008, as specified through the FMP. None of
the specifications are expected to alter fishing methods or activities
such that they threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. In fact, the
proposed measures have been found to be consistent with other applicable
laws (see sections 9.2 - 9.9 below).

*16) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in
cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on the
target species or non-target species?*

The proposed action is not expected to result in cumulative adverse
effects that could have a substantial effect on target or non-target
species. All of the alternatives that are being considered are designed
to achieve the recreational harvest limit specified through the FMP for
the 2008 fishing year. The alternatives contain only changes to existing
recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass, including the minimum recreational fish size, recreational
possession limit and recreational season for each of the species.
Furthermore, bycatch of target and non-target species in the
recreational fishery using rod and reel or handline is not expected to
be substantial. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to result
in any cumulative adverse effects to target or non-target species.

**DETERMINATION**

In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis
contained in the supporting Environmental Assessment prepared for the
2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Recreational
Specifications, it is hereby determined that the proposed action for
summer flounder, as modified by the supplement to the EA, and the
proposed action for scup and black sea bass in this specification
package will not significantly impact the quality of the human
environment as described above and in the supporting Environmental
Assessment. In addition, all beneficial and adverse impacts of the
proposed action have been addressed to reach the conclusion of no
significant impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an EIS for this action
is not necessary.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*Regional Administrator for NERO, NMFS, NOAA Date*

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469690 .anchor}**8.3 Endangered Species Act**

Sections 6.3 and 7.5.4 of the EA should be referenced for an assessment
of the impacts of the proposed action on endangered species and
protected resources. None of the specifications proposed in this
document are expected to alter fishing methods or activities. Therefore,
this action is not expected to affect endangered or threatened species
or critical habitat in any manner not considered in previous
consultations on the fisheries.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469691 .anchor}**8.4 Marine Mammal Protection
Act**

Sections 6.3 and 7.5.4 of the EA should be referenced for an assessment
of the impacts of the proposed action on marine mammals. None of the
specifications proposed in this document are expected to alter fishing
methods or activities. Therefore, this action is not expected to affect
marine mammals or critical habitat in any manner not considered in
previous consultations on the fisheries.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469692 .anchor}**8.5 Coastal Zone Management
Act**

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 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
involve mutually supportive goals. The Council has developed this
specifications document and will submit it to NMFS; NMFS must determine
whether this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the CZM programs for each state (Maine through North Carolina).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469693 .anchor}**8.6 Administrative Procedure
Act**

Sections 551-553 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act establish
procedural requirements applicable to informal rulemaking by federal
agencies. The purpose is to ensure public access to the federal
rulemaking process and to give the public notice and opportunity to
comment before the agency promulgates new regulations.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires solicitation and review of
public comments on actions taken in the development of an FMP and
subsequent amendments and framework adjustments. Development of this
specifications document provided many opportunities for public review,
input, and access to the rulemaking process. This action and the
proposed specifications document was developed through a multi-stage
process that began with the review of the source document (2008 Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications), and was open to
review by affected members of the public. The public had the opportunity
to review and comment on management measures during the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee Meetings held on July 19,
2007 and November 15, 2007, during the MAFMC Council meetings held on
August 7-9, 2007, and December 11-13, 2007. In addition, the public will
have further opportunity to comment on this specifications document once
NMFS publishes a request for comments notice in the Federal Register
(FR).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469694 .anchor}**8.7 Section 515 (Data Quality
Act)**

***Utility of Information Product***

This action proposes recreational management measures in 2008 for the
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. This document
includes: A description of the alternatives considered, the
Council-preferred action and rationale for selection, and any changes to
the implementing regulations of the FMP. As such, this document enables
the implementing agency (NMFS) to make a decision on implementation of
annual specifications (i.e. management measures) and this document
serves as a supporting document for the proposed rule.

The action contained within this specifications document was developed
to be consistent with the FMP, MSA, and other applicable laws, through a
multi-stage process that was open to review by affected members of the
public. The public had the opportunity to review and comment on
management measures during the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Monitoring Committee Meetings held on July 19, 2007 and November 15,
2007, during the MAFMC Council meetings held on August 7-9, 2007, and
December 11-13, 2007. In addition, the public will have further
opportunity to comment on this specifications document once NMFS
publishes a request for comments notice in the Federal Register (FR).

***Integrity of Information Product***

The information product meets the standards for integrity under the
following types of documents: Other/Discussion (e.g., Confidentiality of
Statistics of the MSA; NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Protection of
Confidential Fisheries Statistics; 50 CFR 229.11, Confidentiality of
information collected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act).

***Objectivity of Information Product***

The category of information product that applies here is "Natural
Resource Plans." This section (section 8.0) describes how this document
was developed to be consistent with any applicable laws, including MSA
with any of the applicable National Standards. The analyses used to
develop the alternatives (i.e. policy choices) are based upon the best
scientific information available and the most up to date information is
used to develop the EA which evaluates the impacts of those alternatives
(see sections 4.3 and 7.0 of this document for additional details). The
specialists who worked with these core data sets and population
assessment models are familiar with the most recent analytical
techniques and are familiar with the available data and information
relevant to the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries.

The review process for this specifications document involves MAFMC,
NEFSC, NERO, and NOAA Fisheries headquarters. The NEFSC technical review
is conducted by senior level scientists with specialties in fisheries
ecology, population dynamics and biology, as well as economics and
social anthropology. The MAFMC review process involves public meetings
at which affected stakeholders have the opportunity to comments on
proposed management measures. Review by NERO is conducted by those with
expertise in fisheries management and policy, habitat conservation,
protected resources, and compliance with the applicable law. Final
approval of the specifications document and clearance of the rule is
conducted by staff at NOAA Fisheries Headquarters, the Department of
Commerce, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469695 .anchor}**8.8 Paperwork Reduction Act**

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) concerns the collection of
information. The intent of the PRA 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. There are no changes to the
existing reporting requirements previously approved under this FMP for
vessel permits, dealer reporting, or vessel logbooks. This action does
not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the
PRA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469696 .anchor}**8.9 Impacts of the Plan
Relative to Federalism/EO 13132**

This specifications document does not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment under Executive Order (EO) 13132.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469697 .anchor}**8.10 Environmental Justice/EO
12898**

This EO provides that "each Federal agency shall make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations." EO 12898 directs each
Federal agency to analyze the environmental effects, including human
health, economic, and social effects of Federal actions on minority
populations, low-income populations, and Indian tribes, when such
analysis is required by NEPA. Agencies are further directed to "identify
potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected
communities, and improve the accessibility of meetings, crucial
documents, and notices."

The proposed actions are not expected to affect participation in the
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Since the proposed
action represents no changes relative to the current levels of
participation in these fisheries, no negative economic or social effects
are anticipated as a result (section 7.0). Therefore, the proposed
action is not expected to cause disproportionately high and adverse
human health, environmental or economic effects on minority populations,
low-income populations, or Indian tribes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469698 .anchor}**9.0 LITERATURE CITED**

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2002. Addendum VII to the
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan.
Washington, DC. 7 p.

Barlow, J., and P.J. Clapham. 1997. A new birth-interval approach to
estimating demographic parameters of humpback whales. *Ecology*, 78:
535-546.

Barnette, M.C. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the
Southeast Region and their potential impacts of essential fish habitat.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-449, 60 p.

Baum, E. 1997. Maine Atlantic Salmon, A National Treasure. Atlantic
Salmon Unlimited, Hermon, Maine. 224 pp.

Blaylock, R.A., J.W. Hain, L.J. Hansen, D.L. Palka, and G.T. Waring.
1995. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-363. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 211 pp.

Carr, A.F. 1963. Panspecific convergence in *Lepidochelys kempii*.
*Ergebn. Biol*., 26: 298-303.

CeTAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program). 1982. Final report or
the cetacean and turtle assessment program, University of Rhode Island,
to Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. Ref. No.
AA551-CT8-48. 568 pp.

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage based
population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for
conservation. *Ecology* 68(5):1412-1423.

Dadswell, M.J. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the
shortnose sturgeon, *Acipenser brevirostrum*, LeSueur 1818
(*Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae*), in the Saint John River Estuary, New
Brunswick, Canada. *Can. J. Zool*. 57:2186-2210.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead
sea turtle *Caretta caretta* (Linnaeus 1758). Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 88(14). 110pp.

Eckert, S.A., D.W. Nellis, K.L. Eckert, and G.L. Kooyman. 1996. Diving
patterns of two leatherback sea turtles, (*Demochelys coriacea*) during
interesting intervals at Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
*Herpetologica*. Sep. 42(3):381-388.

Geraci, J. R. 1989. Clinical investigation of the 1987-88 mass mortality
of bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. central and south Atlantic coast.
Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Navy, Office of
Naval Research, and Marine Mammal Commission, 63 pp.

Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtle, *Dermochelys
coriacea*, in cold water off Newfoundland and Labrador. *Can. Field
Nat*.102(1):1-5.

Hain, J. H. W. 1975. The international regulation of whaling. *Marine
Affairs J*. 3: 28-48.

Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin
whale, *Balaenoptera physalus*, in waters of the northeastern United
States continental shelf. *Rep. Int. Whal. Comm*. 42: 653-669.

Hall-Arber, M., C. Dyer, J. Poggie, J. McNally, and R. Gagne. 2001.
Fishing communities and fishing dependency in the Northeast region of
the United States. MARFIN Project Report to NMFS, Grant #NA87FF0547. 429
pp.

IWC (International Whaling Commission). 1992. Report of the
comprehensive assessment special meeting on North Atlantic fin whales.
*Rep. Int. Whal. Comm* 42: 595-644.

Katona, S.K., and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migrations, and
feeding aggregations of the humpback whale (*Megaptera novaeangliae*) in
the Western North Atlantic Ocean. *Rep. Int. Whal. Comm., Special Issue*
12: 295-306.

Klumov, S.K. 1962. The right whale in the Pacific Ocean. In P.I. Usachev
(Editor), Biological marine studies. *Trud. Inst. Okeanogr*. 58:
202-297.

Lallemand, P. J.M. Gates, J. Dirlam, and J-H. Cho. 1998. The costs of
small trawlers in the Northeast. Department of Environmental Natural
Resource Economics and The University of Rhode Island, Kingston,
Cooperative Marine Education and Research Program (CMER).

Leary, T.R. 1957. A schooling of leatherback turtles, *Dermochelys
coriacea*, on the Texas coast. *Copeia* 1957:232.

Leatherwood, S., and R.R. Reeves. 1983. The Sierra Club handbook of
whales and dolphins. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California. 302
pp.

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea
turtles in Virginia. *Copeia* 1985(2):449-456.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1992. Amendment 2 to
the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. Dover, DE. 164 p. + append.

MAFMC. 1996. Amendment 8 to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan: Fishery Management Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Scup Fishery. Dover, DE.

MAFMC. 1996. Amendment 9 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass Fishery Management Plan. Dover, DE. 152 p. + append.

MAFMC. 1998. Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass Fishery Management Plan. Dover, DE. 398 p. + append.

MAFMC. 2002. Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass Fishery Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Submitted to NMFS for Secretarial approval on August 20, 2002. Dover,
DE. 552 p. + append.

MAFMC. 2003. 2004 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Specifications: Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment. Dover, DE. 159 p + append.

MAFMC. 2004. 2005 and 2006 Summer Flounder and 2005 Scup and Black Sea
Bass Specifications: Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment. Dover, DE. 204 p + append.

MAFMC. 2005. 2006, 2007, and 2008 Summer Flounder and 2006 Scup and
Black Sea Bass Specifications: Environmental Assessment, Regulatory
Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Essential
Fish Habitat Assessment. Dover, DE. 237 p + append.

Mitchell E. and D.G. Chapman. 1977. Preliminary assessment of North
Atlantic sei whales (*Balaenoptera borealis*). *Rep. Intl. Whaling Comm.
Special Issue* 1:117-120.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2001. IMPLAN System (data and software),
1725 Tower Drive West, Suite 140, Stillwater, MN 55082. www.implan.com

Morgan, L.E. and R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting gears: addressing the
collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. Pew Science Series
on Conservation and the Environment, 42 p.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 1998. 27th Northeast
Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (27th SAW). Stock Assessment Review
Committee (SARC) Consensus Summary of Assessments. US DOC, NOAA, NMFS.
Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 98-15. 350 p.

NEFSC. 2000. 31st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (31st
SAW). Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus Summary of
Assessments. US DOC, NOAA, NMFS. Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 00-15. 400 p.

NEFSC. 2002. 35th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (35th
SAW). Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus Summary of
Assessments. US DOC, NOAA, NMFS. Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NEFSC Ref.
Doc. 02-14. 270 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Endangered Species Act
Section 7 consultation, biological opinion and conference. Consultation
in accordance with Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act Regarding
the Federal Monkfish Fishery. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, MA. December 21, 1998.

NMFS. 1998a. Draft recovery plans for the fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus) and sei whale (*Balaenoptera borealis*). Prepared by R.R.
Reeves, G.K. Silber, and P.M. Payne for the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. July 1998.

NMFS. 1998b. Recovery plan for the blue whale (*Balaenoptera musculus*).
Prepared by Reeves, R.R., P.J. Clapham, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. for the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS. 1991. Final recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale
(*Eubalaena glacialis*). Prepared by the Right Whale Recovery Team for
the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 86 pp.

NMFS and USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Recovery
plan for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf
of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 65 pp.

NMFS and USFWS. 1995. Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland. 139 pp.

Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee. 2002.
Workshop on the effects of fishing gear on marine habitats off the
Northeastern United States. Northeast Fish. Sci. Ctr. Ref. Doc. 02-01,
86 p

O\'Hara K.J., S. Iudicello, and R. Bierce. 1988. A citizens guide to
plastic in the ocean: more than a litter problem. Center for
Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 131 p.

Packer, D. and S. Griesbach. 1999. Life History and Habitat Requirements
of Summer Flounder, *Paralichthys dentatus*. USDC, NMFS, Highlands, NJ.

Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 1999. The Sperm Whale In:
The great whales: History and status of six species listed as endangered
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. *Mar. Fish. Rev. Special
Edition*. 61(1): 59-74.

Prescott, R.L. 1988. Leatherbacks in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts,
1977-1987, p 83-84 In: B.A. Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth
Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC- 214.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, *Dermochelys
coriacea*, in Pacific, Mexico, with a new estimate of the world
population status. *Copeia* 1982:741-747.

Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West
Indies, Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables,
Florida.

Reeves, R.R., Breiwick, J.M., and Mitchell, E. 1992. Pre-exploitation
abundance of right whales off the eastern United States. Pp. 5-7 in J.
Hain (ed.), The right whale in the western North Atlantic: a science and
management workshop, 14-15 April 1992, Silver Spring, Maryland. National
Marine Fisheries Service, NEFSC Ref. Doc. 92-05.

Robbins, J. and D.K. Mattila. 2001. Monitoring entanglements of humpback
whales (*Megaptera novaeangliae*) in the Gulf of Maine on the basis of
caudal peduncle scarring. Paper SC/53/NAH25 presented tot he IWC
Scientific Committee.

Ross, J.P. 1979. Green turtle, Chelonia mydas, Background paper, summary
of the status of sea turtles. Report to WWF/IUCN. 4 pp.

Shepherd, G. Personal Communication. Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Schleyer, M.H. and B.J. Tomalin. 2000. Damage on South African coral
reefs and an assessment of their sustainable diving capacity using a
fisheries approach. *Bull. Mar. Sci*. 67:1025-1042.

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance
of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern
United States. *Herpetol. Monogr*. 6: 43-67.

Sminkey, T. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Silver Spring, Maryland.

Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin,
and F.V. Paladino. 1996. Worldwide Population Decline of *Demochelys
coriacea*: Are Leatherback Turtles Going Extinct? *Chelonian
Conservation and Biology* 2(2): 209-222.

Steimle, F., C. Zetlin, P. Berrien, D. Johnson, S. Chang, and the EFH
Information Team. 1999a. FMP EFH Source Document: Scup, *Stenotomus
chrysops* (Linnaeus 1766), Life History and Habitat Use in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight. USDC, NMFS, Highlands, NJ.

Steimle, F., C. Zetlin, P. Berrien, D. Johnson, S. Chang, and the EFH
Information Team. 1999b. FMP EFH Source Document: Black Sea Bass,
*Centropristis striata* (Linnaeus), Life History and Habitat Use in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight. USDC, NMFS, Highlands, NJ.

Steinback, S., and B. Gentner. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the
Northeast Region, 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-47.

Steinback, S., E. Thunberg, J. O'Neil, A. Gautam, M. Osborn. 1999.
Volume I: Summary Report of Methods and Descriptive Statistics for the
1994 Northeast Region Marine Economics Survey. NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NMFS-F/SPO-37, August 1999. USDC, NOAA, NMFS, 124 p.

Steve, C., J. Gearhart, D. Borggaard, L. Sabo and A.A. Hohn. 2001.
Characterization of North Carolina Commercial Fisheries with Occasional
Interactions with Marine Mammals. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-458. 60
pp.

Stevenson, D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J.
McCarthy, and M. Pentony. 2004. Characterization of the fishing
practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. shelf, and
an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential fish
habitat. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-181, 179 p.

Terceiro M. 2006. Stock assessment of summer flounder for 2006. U.S.
Dep. Commer., *Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc*. 06-17; 119 p.

Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's
ridley (*Lepicochelys kempii*) and loggerhead (*Caretta caretta*) sea
turtle populations in the Western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp.

TEWG. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea
turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA
Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp.

Vaughan, D.S., J.W. Smith, E.H. Williams, and M.H. Prager. 2001.
Analyses on the status of the Atlantic menhaden stock. Report prepared
for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 57 pp. Available
from: NMFS-Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Dr.,
Miami, FL 33149.

Vladakov, V.D. and R. Greeley. 1963. Order *Aciperseroidei*: In Fishes
of the North Atlantic. Part III. Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. 1, p,
24-60.

Wade, P. R., and R. P. Angliss. 1997. Guidelines for assessing marine
mammal stocks: Report of the GAMMS Workshop, April 3-5, 1996, Seattle,
Washington. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-OPR-12. US DOC, Washington, DC. 93 pp.

Waring, G.T., C.P. Fairfield, C.M. Ruhsam, and M. Sano. 1993. Sperm
whales associated with Gulf Stream features off the northeastern USA
shelf. *Fish. Oceanogr*. 2(2):101-105.

Waring, G.T, D.L. Palka, P.J. Clapham, S. Swartz, M.C. Rossman, T.V.N.
Cole, L.J. Hansen, K.D. Bisack, K.D. Mullin, R.S. Wells, D.K. Odell, and
N.B. Barros. 1999. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock
assessments - 1999. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-153.

Waring, G.T., J.M. Quintal, C.P. Fairfield (eds). 2002 . U.S. Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 2002. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-169.

Wynne, K. and M. Schwartz. 1999. Guide to marine mammals and turtles of
the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Rhode Island Sea Grant,
Narragansett. 115 pp.

Zug, G. R. and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles,
*Dermochelys coriacea*: a skeletochronological analysis. *Chelonian
Conservation and Biology*. 2(2): 244-249.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469699 .anchor}**10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**

The summer flounder, scup and black sea bass specifications were
submitted to NMFS by MAFMC. This specifications package was prepared by
the following members of the MAFMC staff: Jessica Coakley and Dr. José
L. Montañez, and Dr. Scott Steinback (NEFSC) assisted in documenting the
analysis of permit data and the socioeconomic analyses.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469700 .anchor}**11.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND
PERSONS CONSULTED**

In preparing this specifications document, the Council consulted with
the NMFS, New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the states of Maine through North
Carolina through their membership on the Mid-Atlantic and New England
Fishery Management Councils. To ensure compliance with NMFS formatting
requirements, the advice of NMFS NERO personnel was sought, including
Michael Ruccio, Michael Pentony, and Sarah Thompson.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469701 .anchor}***REGULATORY IMPACT
REVIEW/INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS***

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469702 .anchor}**1.0 Introduction**

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 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. This RIR is part of the process of preparing and
reviewing FMPs and provides a comprehensive review of the changes in net
economic benefits to society associated with proposed regulatory
actions. This analysis also 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 solve the problems. The purpose
of this analysis is to ensure 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
way. This RIR addresses many items in the regulatory philosophy and
principles of Executive Order (EO) 12866.

Also included is an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to
evaluate the economic impacts of the alternatives on small business
entities. This analysis is undertaken in support of a complete analysis
for the 2008 recreational specifications for summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469703 .anchor}**2.0 Evaluation of EO 12866
Significance**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469704 .anchor}**2.1 Description of the
Management Objectives**

A complete description of the purpose and need and objectives of this
proposed rule is found under section 4.0 of the EA. This action is taken
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50
CFR part 648.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469705 .anchor}**2.2 Description of the
Fishery**

A description of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries
is presented in section 6.0 of the EA. A description of ports and
communities is found in Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and
Black Sea Bass FMP. An analysis of permit data is found in section 6.4
of the 2008 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications.
Additional characterization of these fisheries is presented in sections
6.0 of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469706 .anchor}**2.3 A Statement of the
Problem**

A statement of the problem for resolution is presented under section 4.0
of the EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469707 .anchor}**2.4 A Description of Each
Alternative**

A full description of the three sets of alternatives analyzed in this
section is presented in section 5.0 of the EA. A full description of the
TAL derivation process is presented in sections 4.3 and 5.0 of the 2008
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications. A brief
description of each alternative is presented below for reference
purposes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469708 .anchor}**2.5 RIR Impacts**

The proposed action does not constitute a significant regulatory action
under EO 12866 for the following reasons. First, it will not have an
annual effect on the economy of more than \$100 million. The measures
considered in this regulatory action will not affect gross revenues or
indirect and induced effects generated by the party/charter,
private/rental, or other sectors offering goods and services to anglers
engaged in the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries to
the extent that an annual \$100 million economic impact will occur in
any of these fisheries individually or combined.

Projected data from Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) indicate that 38,704,008 fishing trips were taken in the
Northeast Region (Maine-North Carolina) in 2007. It is estimated that
the number of trips by fishing mode was 1,822,567 party/charter boat
trips, 20,335,069 private/rental boat trips, and 16,546,372 shore trips
(Table 32).

Assuming angler effort in 2008 will be the same as that estimated for
2007, fishing impacts were first examined by estimating the number of
recreational fishing trips in 2007 that would have been "affected" by
the proposed 2008 management measures. Section 7.5.6 of the EA (i.e.
socioeconomic discussion) delineates the procedures and data bases used
to determine the number of affected trips. Next, an input-output model
was employed to address potential direct, indirect, and induced
short-term economic losses in sales, income, and employment in the
Northeast Region. If the proposed measures result in an overall
reduction in angler effort, expenditures associated with these trips
will be foregone, and reductions in sales, income, and employment will
occur for businesses that supply goods and services to saltwater
fishermen. In addition, the sales, income, and employment of many
businesses that supply the directly affected businesses could also
decline.

All of the potential 18 combinations of alternatives that could be
analyzed for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass were included in
the assessment.[^1]

Since no empirical information is available to determine how anglers'
trip taking behavior will change upon implementation of the proposed
regulations, economic losses were estimated under two hypothetical
scenarios: (1) a 25% reduction in the number of fishing trips that are
predicted to be affected by implementation of the management measures in
the Northeast Region in 2008; and (2) a 50% reduction in the number of
fishing trips that are predicted to be affected in the Northeast Region
in 2008. These analyses are described in detail in section 7.5.6 of the
EA (i.e. socioeconomic discussion).

The projected regional economic losses associated with the hypothetical
reductions in affected marine recreational fishing trips are shown in
Table's 47 (assumes a 25% reduction in affected trips) and 48 (assumes a
50% reduction in affected trips). In total, the projected sales, income,
and employment losses to the Northeast Region vary little across
combinations of alternatives. For a 25% reduction in affected fishing
trips, total losses to the Northeast region range from \$15.964 million
to \$20.363 million in sales, \$5.826 million to \$7.431 in income, and
between 156 and 200 jobs (Table 47). The estimated losses are
approximately twice as high if a 50% reduction in affected trips is
assumed to occur (Table 48).

Across all combinations of alternatives, approximately 71% of the total
sales, income, and employment losses are projected to be generated by
anglers fishing from private/rental boats. Losses associated with
reductions in party/charter effort comprise approximately 18% of
potential region-wide reductions, while the remaining 11% is associated
with shore mode effort changes. This large disparity in losses across
modes is generally due to the fact that the measures proposed under all
combinations of alternatives are projected to affect substantially more
private/rental boat trips than party/charter and shore trips.

Long-term biological effects of each of these management alternatives
are clear: stocks of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass will
rebuild as a result of the accumulated effects of these measures applied
over time. Although the long-term effects of these alternatives are less
clear or quantifiable from a social and economic perspective, rebuilt
stocks would presumably provide anglers with the ability to increase
catch and possibly keep rates resulting in higher overall welfare
benefits to anglers and the Nation as a whole. Therefore, this action
should not adversely affect, in the long-term, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
government communities. Second, this action should not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency. No other agency has indicated that it plans an action
that will affect the summer flounder, scup or black sea bass fisheries
in the EEZ. However, future regulations implemented under the Northeast
Multispecies FMP may induce party/charter boat operators to switch from
targeting Atlantic cod and haddock on some of their trips to targeting
summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass. Although this switching
behavior is not predicted to be significant, this may have a negative
effect on rebuilding goals and cause increased competition within
party/charter fishing communities dependent on summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass. Third, this action will not materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or
the rights and obligations of their participants. And, fourth, the
proposed action does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President\'s priorities, or the principles set
forth in EO 12866. Based on the results of the RIR, this action is not
significant under EO 12866.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469709 .anchor}**3.0 Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995**

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) concerns the collection of
information. The intent of the PRA is to minimize the Federal paperwork
burden for individuals, small business, state and local governments, and
other persons as well as to maximize the usefulness of information
collected by the Federal government.

The Council is not proposing measures under this regulatory action that
require review under PRA. There are no changes to existing reporting
requirements previously approved under OMB Control Nos. 0648-0202
(Vessel permits), 0648-0229 (Dealer reporting) and 0648-0212 (Vessel
logbooks).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469710 .anchor}**4.0 Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469711 .anchor}**4.1 Impacts on Small
Entities**

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the Federal rule maker to
examine the impacts of proposed and existing rules on small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. In reviewing
the potential impacts of proposed regulations, the agency must either:
(A) certify that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; or (B)
prepare an IRFA. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small
business in the commercial fishing and recreational fishing activity, as
a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to \$4.0 and \$6.5 million,
respectively.

*Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency is being
Considered*

A complete description of the purpose and need and objectives of this
proposed rule is found under section 4.0 of the EA. A statement of the
problem for resolution is presented under section 4.0 of the EA.

*The Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule*

A complete description of the objectives of this proposed rule is found
under section 4.0 of the EA. This action is taken under the authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and regulations at 50 CFR part 648.

*Estimate of the Number of Small Entities*

This rule would apply to the following small entities: summer flounder,
scup or black sea bass party/charter permit holders, as well as those
actively participating in the recreational fisheries in state waters.
While permit holders represent the universe of entities whose normal
activities might be directly affected by these regulations, not all
permit holders choose to fish in a given year. Those who actively
participate, i.e. land fish, would be the group of permit holders that
are directly impacted by the regulations. Latent fishing power (in the
form of unfished permits) represents a real and considerable force to
alter the impacts on a fishery, but vessels actively participating in
the fishery are dependent upon a particular species. It is impossible to
predict how many - or who - will or will not participate in these
fisheries in 2008.

Data from the Northeast permit application database indicates that in
2006 there were 919 vessels permitted to take part in the summer
flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries in the EEZ. The
Northeast landings database (VTR Data) indicates that a total of 369
party/charter vessels participated in the summer flounder, scup, and/or
black sea bass fisheries in the Northeast in 2006 (Table 49).

*Recordkeeping and Reporting*

As stated in section 3.0 of the RIR/IRFA, this proposed action does not
propose new reporting or recordkeeping measures. There are no changes to
existing reporting requirements. Currently, all summer flounder, scup or
black sea bass federally-permitted dealers must submit weekly reports of
fish purchases. The owner or operator of any vessel issued a moratorium
vessel permit for summer flounder, scup or black sea bass, must maintain
on board the vessel, and submit, an accurate daily fishing log report
for all fishing trips, regardless of species fished for or taken. The
owner of any party or charter boat issued a summer flounder, scup or
black sea bass permit other than a moratorium permit and carrying
passengers for hire must submit an accurate daily fishing log report for
each charter or party fishing trip that lands summer flounder, scup, or
black sea bass, unless such a vessel is also issued another permit that
requires regular reporting, in which case a fishing log report is
required for each trip regardless of species retained.

*Conflict with Other Federal Rules*

This proposed action will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
other Federal rules.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469712 .anchor}**4.2 Significant Alternatives
to the Proposed Rule**

There is no need to further mitigate economic impacts on small entities
because the Council selected the alternatives determined to result in
the least severe impacts without compromising the biological health of
the stocks.

The analysis conducted did not include the specific state measures under
conservation equivalency for summer flounder because the states have not
yet been adopted specific management measures. Nevertheless, it is
expected that the since conservation equivalent recreational management
measures would allow each state to develop specific summer flounder
recreational measures that allow the fishery to operate in each state
during critical fishing periods while still achieving conservation goals
while mitigating potential adverse economic effects in specific states.
Therefore, it is likely that the measures developed under summer
flounder alternative 1 when considered in combination with the measures
proposed for scup and black sea bass would have lower overall adverse
effects in 2008 than any of the other combinations that were analyzed.
Specifications of recreational fish size limits, possession limits, and
open fishing seasons is constrained by the conservation objectives of
the FMP, and implemented at 50 CFR part 648 under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council did not consider alternatives that
would compromise the biological health of the stocks.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469713 .anchor}**4.3 General Fishing Trends**

A detailed description of the fishery for summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass is presented in section 6.0 of the EA. The information
presented below is intended to further characterize recent fishing
trends for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries.

*Summer Flounder*

Summer flounder recreational data indicate that for the 1993 to 2001
period recreational landings were less than the recreational harvest
limits only two years (1994 and 1995). In 1994 and 1995, summer flounder
landings were below the recreational harvest limit by approximately 20
percent for both years combined (Table 50). From 1996 to 2001,
recreational landings have been above the recreational harvest limit
ranging from 0.96 million lb in 1999 to 9.11 million lb in 2000. Over
the 2002 to 2006 period, the recreational landings were below the
recreational harvest limits in 2002, 2004, and 2005, and above the
recreational harvest limits in 2003 and 2006. For 2007, recreational
landings are projected to be above (2.55 million lb) the recreational
harvest limit of 6.75 million lb. The total number of recreational trips
from Maine through North Carolina has fluctuated throughout the 1993 to
2006 period from 4.2 million trips in 1999 to 6.1 million trips in 2001.
Overall, fishing trips have remained relatively stable for the 1993 to
2006 period (Table 50).

The proposed recreational harvest limit for 2008 is 6.21 million lb (see
discussion in section 5.1). This recreational harvest limit is
approximately 8% lower than the recreational harvest limit implemented
in 2007 (6.75 million lb) and 33% below the projected recreational
landings for 2007 (9.30 million lb; Table 50). The proposed recreational
management measures are necessary to prevent anglers from exceeding the
recreational harvest limit in 2008.

*Scup*

Scup recreational landings have declined over 89% for the period 1991
through 1998 (Table 51). The number of fishing trips has also declined
over 73% for the same time period. This decrease in the recreational
fishery has occurred both with and without any recreational measures
being in place, and is perhaps a result of the stock being
over-exploited and at a low biomass level. In addition, it is possible
that party/charter boats may had targeted other species that were
relatively more abundant than scup (e.g., striped bass), thus accounting
for the decrease in the number of fishing trips in this fishery.

Recreational harvest limits in the scup fishery were first implemented
in 1997. Recreational landings in 1997 and 1998 were below the
recreational harvest limit for those years. However, for the 1999-2004
period, recreational landings were above the recreational harvest limit
for those years. In 2007, scup landings are projected to be 3.80 million
lb (39%) above the recreational harvest limit for that year (Table 51).

The recreational harvest limit for 2008 is 1.83 million lb. This limit
is approximately 33% below the recreational harvest limit implemented in
2007 (2.74 million lb) and approximately 52% below the projected
recreational landings in 2007 (3.80 million lb; Table 51). Since there
is no mechanism to deduct overages directly from the recreational
harvest limit, any overages to the recreational harvest limit must be
addressed by the way of adjustments to the management measures (fish
size, bag limit and/or season). The scup recreational management
measures are necessary to prevent anglers from exceeding the
recreational harvest limit in 2008.

*Black Sea Bass*

Black sea bass recreational fishing trips have shown a slight upward
trend from the early to Mid-1990\'s (Table 52). Black sea bass
recreational landings have also shown a slight upward trend from 1991 to
1997. However, landings decreased considerably from 1995-1996 to
1998-1999, but then substantially increased in 2000 to 3.99 million lb.
In 2001, 2002, and 2003 recreational landings were 3.42, 4.35, and 3.30
million lb, respectively. In 2004, 2005, and 2006 recreational landings
were 58% (2.34 million lb), 51% (2.12 million lb), and 50% (2.01 million
lb) respectively, below the recreational harvest limits implemented
those years.

The proposed recreational harvest limit for 2008 is about 14% (0.36
million lb) lower than the limit established in 2007, and 7% (0.14
million lb) more than the projected recreational landings in 2007 (1.97
million lb; Table 52). The proposed recreational management measures are
necessary to prevent anglers from exceeding the recreational harvest
limit in 2008.

*Expenditures for Recreational Fishing*

During 1998, social and economic data from marine recreational fishermen
in the Northeast Region were gathered through an economic add-on to
NMFS' MRFSS (Steinback and Gentner 2001). As part of this survey,
anglers were asked to delineate trip expenditures and purchases of
durable equipment used primarily for saltwater recreational fishing.
Results of the survey were used to project the potential losses
associated with the proposed 2008 regulations.

Survey results indicate that the average trip expenditure in the
Northeast Region in 1998 was \$47.42 for anglers fishing from a
private/rental boat, \$32.48 for shore anglers, and \$67.12 for anglers
that fished from a party/charter boat (Table 46). Trip expenditures
included the following consumable items: (1) travel; (2) food, drink,
and refreshments; (3) lodging at motels, cabins, lodges, or campgrounds;
(4) public transportation or car rental; (5) boat fuel; (6) guide or
package fees; (7) access and/or boat launching fees; (8) equipment
rental such as boat, fishing or camping equipment; (9) bait; and (10)
ice. Expenditures on durable items such as rods, reels, tackle, special
fishing clothing, etc., were also estimated in the Steinback and Gentner
report but are not included in the subsequent analysis. Although
expenditures on durable items may also be affected by the proposed
regulations, the extent of the impact would be difficult to quantify
since these items could be used for many trips.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469714 .anchor}**5.0 Analysis of Impacts of
Proposed Measures**

This analysis will present information relative to the impacts of this
proposed action on small entities. Specifically, assessments of
potential changes in gross revenues for all 18 combinations of
alternatives proposed in this action were conducted for federally
permitted party/charter vessels in each state in the Northeast.[^2]
Estimates of the impacts upon profitability are not provided because
data on costs and revenues for party/charter vessels are not available
at this time. As such, potential changes in gross revenues for
party/charter vessels participating in these fisheries were estimated by
employing various assumptions which are described below. The effects of
these actions were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches to the
extent possible. Where quantitative data were not available, qualitative
analyses were conducted. The MAFMC invites public comment on this IRFA,
and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of it in particular.

Impacts were examined by first estimating the number of angler trips
aboard party/charter vessels in each state in 2007 that would have been
affected by the proposed 2008 management measures. All 2007
party/charter fishing trips that would have been constrained by the
proposed 2008 measures in each Northeast state were considered to be
"affected" trips. To date, the first five waves of MRFSS effort data are
available for 2007. Wave six effort estimates for 2006 (November -
December) were used as a proxy for wave six 2007 effort. Therefore, wave
six effort estimates for 2007 were assumed to be the same as in 2006.

Unfortunately, no empirical information is available to determine how
sensitive the "affected" anglers might be to the proposed management
changes. If the proposed measures discourage trip-taking behavior among
some of the affected anglers, economic losses may accrue to the
party/charter boat industry in the form of reduced access fees. On the
other hand, if the proposed measures do not have a negative impact on
the value or satisfaction the affected anglers derive from their fishing
trips then party/charter revenues would remain unaffected by this
action. In an attempt to bound the potential changes in gross revenues
to the party/charter boat industry in each state, economic losses were
estimated under two hypothetical scenarios: (1) a 25% reduction in the
number of fishing trips that are predicted to be affected by
implementation of the management measures in the Northeast Region in
2008; and (2) a 50% reduction in the number of fishing trips that are
predicted to be affected in the Northeast Region in 2008.

Total economic losses to party/charter vessels were then estimated by
multiplying the number of potentially affected trips in each state in
2008, under the two hypothetical scenarios, by the estimated average
access fee paid by party/charter anglers in the Northeast region in 2007
(\$41.32).[^3] The recreational fishing expenditure data used in this
analysis was presented in detail in section 7.5.6 of the EA (i.e.
socioeconomic discussion). Finally, total economic losses were divided
by the number of federally permitted party/charter vessels that
participated in the summer flounder, scup, and/or, black sea bass
fisheries in 2006 in each state (according to homeport state in the
Northeast logbook database) to obtain an estimate of the average
projected gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel in 2008.

*Results*

All 18 potential combinations of management alternatives proposed for
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass could affect party/charter
boat revenues to some extent in all of the northeast coastal states
except for Maine and New Hampshire (Tables 53 through 70). The estimated
average party/charter losses are similar across the 18 potential
combinations of alternatives, but they vary considerably across states.
For instance, in Maryland, the maximum difference in average estimated
losses per vessel across the 18 combinations of alternatives is only
\$189 in 2007 (assuming a 25% reduction in affected effort). However,
across states average gross revenue losses range from a low of \$59 per
vessel in Delaware to \$9,680 in North Carolina. Average gross revenue
losses per vessel under each of the 18 combinations of alternatives were
generally highest in North Carolina followed by Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland and then
Delaware.

Actual losses will likely be even lower than described above for several
reasons. First, since the management measures proposed under summer
flounder alternative 1 (i.e. conservation equivalency) have yet to be
adopted, the potential losses under this alternative could not be
analyzed in conjunction with the alternatives proposed for scup and
black sea bass. Since conservation equivalency allows each state to
tailor specific recreational fishing measures to the needs of their
state, while still achieving conservation goals, it is likely that the
measures developed under summer flounder alternative 1 when considered
in combination with the measures proposed for scup and black sea bass
would have lower overall adverse effects in 2008 than any of the other
combinations that were analyzed.

Secondly, the universe of party/charter vessels that participates in the
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries is likely to be even
larger than presented in this analysis. Party/charter vessels that do
not possess a Federal summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass permit
because they only fish in state waters are not represented in this
assessment. Considering that 91% and 94% of the landings of summer
flounder and scup in 2006, respectively, were caught in state waters
(Table 31) it is probable that some party/charter vessels fish only in
state waters and, thus, do not hold Federal permits for these species.
Therefore, the party/charter losses shown in this assessment would be
spread over a greater number of vessels resulting in lower estimated
losses per vessel.

Lastly, economic losses are estimated under two hypothetical scenarios:
(1) a 25% reduction in the number of fishing trips that are predicted to
be affected by implementation of the management measures in the
Northeast Region in 2008; and (2) a 50% reduction in the number of
fishing trips that are predicted to be affected in the Northeast Region
in 2008. Reductions in fishing effort of this magnitude in 2008 are not
likely to occur given the fact that the proposed measures do not
prohibit anglers from keeping at least some of the fish they catch or
the fact that there are alternative species to harvest. While keeping
fish is moderately important to anglers in the Mid-Atlantic, over 42% of
anglers in New England in 1994, indicated catching fish to eat was not
an important reason for marine fishing (Steinback and ONeil 1998).
Although these anglers are not likely to be the ones constrained by the
regulations, findings of this study generally concur with previous
studies that found non-catch reasons for participating in marine
recreational fishing were rated much higher than keeping fish for food.
In combination with alternative target species available to anglers, the
findings of the Steinback and ONeil (1998) study suggest that at least
some of the potentially affected anglers would not reduce their effort
when faced with the proposed landings restrictions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469715 .anchor}**TABLES**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554140 .anchor}Table 1. Summer flounder
landings (number in thousands) by state for 1998, the 2007 target
(number in thousands), and the 2007 projected landings. The percent
reduction necessary to achieve the 2008 recreational harvest limit
relative to 2007 landings is also presented.

  ----------- ---------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------
  **State**   **1998**   **2008 Target^1^** **2007^2^**   **% Reduction**

  **MA**      383        113                82            0

  **RI**      395        116                221           47.5

  **CT**      261        77                 108           28.7

  **NY**      1,230      361                667           45.9

  **NJ**      2,728      801                1,317         39.2

  **DE**      219        64                 110           41.8

  **MD**      206        61                 140           56.4

  **VA**      1,165      342                397           13.9

  **NC**      391        115                175           34.3
  ----------- ---------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------

^1^Based on a 70.6% reduction in 1998 landings.

^2^Projected using 2006 landings proportions by wave and 2007 waves 1-5
data.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554141 .anchor}Table 2. Procedures for
establishing summer flounder recreational management measures, modified
to include voluntary multi-state conservation equivalency (changes
underlined).

**August**

Council/Commissions\'s Board recommend recreational harvest limit.

**October**

MRFSS data available for current year through wave 4.

**November**

Monitoring Committee meeting to develop recommendations to Council:

Overall % reduction required.

Use of coastwide measures or state conservation equivalency.

\*\*Precautionary default measures.

\*\*Coastwide measures.

**December**

Council/Board meeting to make recommendation to NMFS

State Conservation Equivalency

or

Coastwide measures.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***State Conservation Equivalency | ***Coastwide Measures***          |
| Measures***                       |                                   |
|                                   | **Early January**                 |
| **Late December**                 |                                   |
|                                   | Council staff submits             |
| Commission staff summarizes and   | recreational measure package      |
| distributes [state-specific and   |                                   |
| multi-state conservation          | to NMFS. Package includes:        |
| equivalency]{.underline}          |                                   |
| guidelines to states.             | -Overall % reduction required.    |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Early January**                 | -Coastwide measures.              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Council staff submits             | **February 15**                   |
| recreational measure package      |                                   |
|                                   | NMFS publishes proposed rule for  |
| to NMFS. Package includes:        | recreational measures             |
|                                   |                                   |
| \- Overall % reduction required.  | announcing the overall %          |
|                                   | reduction required and            |
| \- Recommendation to implement    |                                   |
| conservation equivalency          | Coastwide measures.               |
|                                   |                                   |
| and precautionary default         | **April**                         |
| measures (Preferred Alternative). |                                   |
|                                   | NMFS publishes final rule         |
| -Coastwide measures               | announcing overall %              |
| (Non-preferred Alternative).      |                                   |
|                                   | reduction required and Coastwide  |
| States submit conservation        | measures.                         |
| equivalency proposals to          |                                   |
| ASMFC**.**                        | \*\*Precautionary default         |
|                                   | measures - measures to achieve at |
| **January 15**                    | least the % required reduction in |
|                                   | each state, e.g., one fish        |
| ASMFC distributes [state-specific | possession limit and 15.5 inch    |
| or multi-state                    | bag limit would have achieved at  |
| conservation]{.underline}         | least a 41% reduction in landings |
| [equivalency                      | for each state in 1999.           |
| proposals]{.underline} to         |                                   |
| Technical Committee.              | \*\*Coastwide measures - measure  |
|                                   | to achieve % reduction coastwide. |
| **Late January**                  |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| ASMFC Technical Committee         |                                   |
| meeting:                          |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -Evaluation of proposals.         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -ASMFC staff summarizes Technical |                                   |
| Committee                         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| recommendations and distributes   |                                   |
| to Board.                         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **February**                      |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Board meeting to                  |                                   |
| approve/disapprove proposals and  |                                   |
| submits                           |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| to NMFS within two weeks, but no  |                                   |
| later than end of February.       |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **March 1 (on or around)**        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| NMFS publishes proposed rule for  |                                   |
| recreational measures             |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| announcing the overall %          |                                   |
| reduction required,               |                                   |
| [state-specific or multi-state    |                                   |
| conservation                      |                                   |
| equivalency]{.underline} measures |                                   |
| and precautionary default         |                                   |
| measures (as the preferred        |                                   |
| alternative), and coastwide       |                                   |
| measures as the non-preferred     |                                   |
| alternative.                      |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **March 15**                      |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| During comment period, Board      |                                   |
| submits comment to inform         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| whether conservation equivalency  |                                   |
| proposals are approved.           |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **April**                         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| NMFS publishes final rule         |                                   |
| announcing overall %              |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| reduction required and one of the |                                   |
| following scenarios:              |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| \-[State-specific or multi-state  |                                   |
| conservation                      |                                   |
| equivalency]{.underline} measures |                                   |
| with precautionary default        |                                   |
| measures, or -Coastwide measures. |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554142 .anchor}**Table 3. The effect of various
size and possession limits on 2007 scup recreational landings. The
tables contain the proportional reduction in number of scup landed
assuming regulations are 100% effective (Table A) and adjusting for the
effectiveness of the 2007 management measures (Table B).**

**Table A - 100% Effective**

  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
            **Size (TL                                              
            in)**                                                   

  **Bag**   **9**       **10**      **10.5**   **11**    **11.5**   **12**

  **1**     0.912       0.913       0.918      0.926     0.936      0.941

  **2**     0.853       0.855       0.862      0.876     0.890      0.900

  **3**     0.807       0.809       0.819      0.839     0.855      0.869

  **4**     0.771       0.773       0.787      0.810     0.827      0.843

  **5**     0.742       0.745       0.760      0.785     0.802      0.819

  **6**     0.717       0.719       0.735      0.760     0.779      0.797

  **7**     0.694       0.697       0.713      0.739     0.759      0.777

  **8**     0.672       0.675       0.691      0.718     0.739      0.758

  **9**     0.651       0.653       0.669      0.698     0.720      0.739

  **10**    0.629       0.632       0.649      0.678     0.701      0.720

  **15**    0.536       0.539       0.558      0.591     0.614      0.637

  **20**    0.459       0.463       0.482      0.517     0.542      0.569

  **25**    0.386       0.389       0.409      0.447     0.474      0.515

  **30**    0.321       0.324       0.344      0.384     0.421      0.469

  **35**    0.259       0.262       0.283      0.328     0.375      0.428

  **40**    0.204       0.207       0.228      0.279     0.334      0.394

  **45**    0.151       0.154       0.177      0.236     0.296      0.365

  **50**    0.100       0.103       0.130      0.197     0.263      0.339
  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------

**Table B - Adjusted**

  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
            **Size (TL                                              
            in)**                                                   

  **Bag**   **9**       **10**      **10.5**   **11**    **11.5**   **12**

  **1**     0.911       0.911       0.914      0.923     0.933      0.938

  **2**     0.850       0.851       0.855      0.870     0.884      0.895

  **3**     0.805       0.805       0.810      0.831     0.848      0.862

  **4**     0.771       0.772       0.777      0.801     0.819      0.836

  **5**     0.743       0.743       0.748      0.774     0.793      0.811

  **6**     0.717       0.718       0.722      0.749     0.768      0.788

  **7**     0.694       0.695       0.699      0.727     0.748      0.767

  **8**     0.671       0.672       0.676      0.705     0.727      0.748

  **9**     0.649       0.650       0.654      0.684     0.707      0.728

  **10**    0.627       0.628       0.632      0.664     0.687      0.708

  **15**    0.533       0.534       0.538      0.537     0.598      0.622

  **20**    0.454       0.455       0.459      0.497     0.523      0.552

  **25**    0.379       0.380       0.384      0.424     0.452      0.494

  **30**    0.312       0.313       0.318      0.359     0.396      0.446

  **35**    0.250       0.250       0.255      0.300     0.348      0.402

  **40**    0.193       0.193       0.198      0.248     0.305      0.366

  **45**    0.139       0.140       0.145      0.202     0.265      0.336

  **50**    0.091       0.091       0.096      0.162     0.230      0.309
  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554143 .anchor}Table 4. a) Average percent of
scup landed (in number) by wave, based on 1996-2000 MRFSS landings data
and b) projected reduction in scup landings (in number) associated with
closing one day per wave, based on 1996-2000 MRFSS landings data.

**a.**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **State**   **Wave 1** **Wave 2** **Wave 3** **Wave 4** **Wave 5** **Wave 6**

  **MA**      0.0        0.0        37.4       31.5       31.1       0.0

  **RI**      0.0        0.0        4.9        48.1       45.7       1.3

  **CT**      0.0        0.0        8.2        49.6       42.2       0.0

  **NY**      0.0        0.0        22.0       27.7       48.8       1.5

  **NJ**      0.0        0.3        0.0        3.0        78.6       18.1

  **DE**      0.0        0.0        0.0        9.0        89.9       1.1

  **MD**      0.0        0.0        0.0        46.2       0.0        53.8

  **VA**      0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        87.8       12.2

  **NC**      0.0        3.3        40.9       31.3       24.5       0.0

  **Coast**   0.0        0.4        12.6       27.4       49.8       9.8
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**b.**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **State**   **Wave 1** **Wave 2** **Wave 3** **Wave 4** **Wave 5** **Wave 6**

  **MA**      0.0        0.0        0.61       0.51       0.51       0.0

  **RI**      0.0        0.0        0.08       0.78       0.75       0.02

  **CT**      0.0        0.0        0.13       0.80       0.69       0.00

  **NY**      0.0        0.0        0.36       0.45       0.80       0.02

  **NJ**      0.0        0.01       0.0        0.05       1.29       0.30

  **DE**      0.0        0.0        0.0        0.15       1.47       0.02

  **MD**      0.0        0.0        0.0        0.74       0.0        0.88

  **VA**      0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        1.44       0.20

  **NC**      0.0        0.05       0.67       0.50       0.40       0.0

  **Coast**   0.0        0.01       0.21       0.44       0.82       0.16
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554144 .anchor}Table 5. a) Average percent of
black sea bass landed (in number) by wave, 1996-2000, based on 1996-2000
MRFSS landings data and b) projected reduction in black sea bass
landings (in number) associated with closing one day per wave, based on
1996-2000 MRFSS landings data.

**a.**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **State**   **Wave 1** **Wave 2** **Wave 3** **Wave 4** **Wave 5** **Wave 6**

  **MA**      0.0000     0.0000     23.4694    24.6675    51.6401    0.2230

  **RI**      0.0000     0.0029     1.8545     20.2479    64.9094    12.9853

  **CT**      0.0000     0.0000     6.5206     62.5768    30.9027    0.0000

  **NY**      0.0000     0.0000     9.6851     38.9277    47.8741    3.5131

  **NJ**      0.0000     1.7127     26.9043    15.4321    52.4008    3.5500

  **DE**      0.0000     0.7649     36.8219    29.6058    24.1154    8.6920

  **MD**      0.0000     3.3434     34.1283    13.5413    16.8959    32.0911

  **VA**      0.0000     3.5027     29.7212    17.9100    25.5224    23.3438

  **NC**      0.0000     8.5527     26.8782    30.8952    15.9682    17.7056

  **Coast**   0.0000     2.1402     27.0501    17.6799    42.1276    11.0022
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**b.**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **State**   **Wave 1** **Wave 2** **Wave 3** **Wave 4** **Wave 5** **Wave 6**

  **MA**      0.0000     0.0000     0.3847     0.3979     0.8466     0.0037

  **RI**      0.0000     0.0000     0.0304     0.3266     1.0641     0.2129

  **CT**      0.0000     0.0000     0.1069     1.0093     0.5066     0.0000

  **NY**      0.0000     0.0000     0.1588     0.6279     0.7848     0.0576

  **NJ**      0.0000     0.0281     0.4411     0.2489     0.8590     0.0582

  **DE**      0.0000     0.0125     0.6036     0.4775     0.3953     0.1425

  **MD**      0.0000     0.0548     0.5595     0.2184     0.2770     0.5261

  **VA**      0.0000     0.0574     0.4872     0.2889     0.4184     0.3827

  **NC**      0.0000     0.1402     0.4406     0.4983     0.2618     0.2903

  **Coast**   0.0000     0.0351     0.4434     0.2852     0.6906     0.1804
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554145 .anchor}**Table 6. The effect of various
size and possession limits on 2007 black sea bass recreational landings.
The tables contain the proportional reduction in number of black sea
bass landed assuming the regulations were 100% effective in 2007 (Table
A) and adjusting for the effectiveness of 2007 management measures
(Table B).**

**Table A - 100% Effective**

  ----------- ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------
              **Size (TL)**                                    

  **Bag**     **12**        **12.5**    **13**     **13.5**    **14**

  **1**       0.714         0.753       0.777      0.804       0.841

  **2**       0.564         0.626       0.674      0.718       0.773

  **3**       0.480         0.548       0.613      0.670       0.736

  **4**       0.424         0.498       0.572      0.634       0.711

  **5**       0.379         0.461       0.541      0.609       0.692

  **6**       0.344         0.433       0.516      0.589       0.676

  **7**       0.315         0.408       0.497      0.572       0.661

  **8**       0.294         0.388       0.483      0.560       0.654

  **9**       0.274         0.374       0.470      0.550       0.648

  **10**      0.258         0.359       0.459      0.541       0.643

  **11**      0.242         0.346       0.450      0.535       0.638

  **12**      0.230         0.336       0.444      0.529       0.634

  **13**      0.219         0.328       0.438      0.525       0.630

  **14**      0.209         0.320       0.434      0.522       0.628

  **15**      0.201         0.314       0.431      0.520       0.626

  **20**      0.180         0.305       0.431      0.520       0.626

  **25**      0.170         0.304       0.431      0.520       0.626
  ----------- ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------

**Table B - Adjusted**

  ----------- ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------
              **Size (TL)**                                    

  **Bag**     **12**        **12.5**    **13**     **13.5**    **14**

  **1**       0.632         0.683       0.714      0.749       0.798

  **2**       0.441         0.522       0.586      0.644       0.714

  **3**       0.337         0.427       0.512      0.587       0.671

  **4**       0.271         0.368       0.465      0.546       0.640

  **5**       0.218         0.326       0.431      0.518       0.615

  **6**       0.179         0.297       0.404      0.493       0.593

  **7**       0.148         0.271       0.380      0.473       0.574

  **8**       0.128         0.251       0.363      0.457       0.564

  **9**       0.108         0.233       0.347      0.444       0.558

  **10**      0.089         0.216       0.332      0.432       0.551

  **11**      0.071         0.199       0.321      0.424       0.544

  **12**      0.058         0.188       0.313      0.416       0.538

  **13**      0.045         0.178       0.305      0.410       0.533

  **14**      0.036         0.170       0.300      0.407       0.530

  **15**      0.027         0.163       0.296      0.404       0.528

  **20**      0.007         0.152       0.296      0.404       0.528

  **25**      0.000         0.150       0.296      0.404       0.528
  ----------- ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554146 .anchor}Table 7. Summary of federal
management measures for the summer flounder recreational fishery,
1993-2007.

+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Measure**     | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **1   | **2   |
|                 | 199 | 199 | 199 | 199 | 199 | 199 | 999** | 000** |
|                 | 3** | 4** | 5** | 6** | 7** | 8** |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Harvest Limit | 8   | 10  | 7   | 7   | 7   | 7   | 7.41  | 7.41  |
| (m lb)**        | .38 | .67 | .76 | .41 | .41 | .41 |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Landings (m   | 8   | 9   | 5   | 9   | 11  | 12  | 8.37  | 16.47 |
| lb)**           | .83 | .33 | .42 | .82 | .87 | .48 |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Possession    | 6   | 8   | 6/8 | 10  | 8   | 8   | 8     | 8     |
| Limit**         |     |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Size Limit    | 14  | 14  | 14  | 14  | 1   | 15  | 15    | 15.5  |
| (TL in)**       |     |     |     |     | 4.5 |     |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Open Season** | 5   | 4   | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 5/29  | 5/10  |
|                 | /15 | /15 | -   | -   | -   | -   | -     | -     |
|                 | -   | -   |     |     |     |     |       |       |
|                 |     |     | 12  | 12  | 12  | 12  | 9/11  | 10/2  |
|                 | 9   | 10  | /31 | /31 | /31 | /31 |       |       |
|                 | /30 | /15 |     |     |     |     |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Measure**     | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **2   |       |
|                 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 007** |       |
|                 | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** | 6** |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Harvest Limit | 7   | 9   | 9   | 11  | 11  | 9   | 6.75  |       |
| (m lb)**        | .16 | .72 | .28 | .21 | .98 | .29 |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Landings (m   | 11  | 8   | 11  | 10  | 10  | 11  | 9.30  |       |
| lb)**           | .64 | .01 | .64 | .87 | .58 | .51 | ^a^   |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Possession    | 3   | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^   |       |
| Limit**         |     |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Size Limit    | 1   | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^   |       |
| (TL in)**       | 5.5 |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| **Open Season** | 4   | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^ | ^b^   |       |
|                 | /15 |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
|                 | -   |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
|                 | 10  |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
|                 | /15 |     |     |     |     |     |       |       |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+

^a^Projected using 2005 landings proportions by wave and 2006 waves 1-5
data.

^b^State-specific conservation equivalency measures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554147 .anchor}Table 8. Summer flounder
recreational management measures by state, 2005.

+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| Number range        | **Minimum     | **           | **Open**       |
| CHAPTER**State**    | Size**        | Possession** |                |
|                     |               |              | **Season**     |
|                     | **(inches)**  | **Limit**    |                |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Number range      | 17            | 7            | All Year       |
| CHA                 |               |              |                |
| PTERMassachusetts** |               |              |                |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Rhode Island**    | 17.5          | 7            | April 1- Dec.  |
|                     |               |              | 31             |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Connecticut**     | 17.5          | 6            | April 30 -     |
|                     |               |              | Dec. 31        |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **New York**        | 17.5          | 5            | April 29 -     |
|                     |               |              | Oct. 31        |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **New Jersey**      | 16.5          | 8            | May 7 - Oct.   |
|                     |               |              | 10             |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Delaware**        | 17.5          | 4            | All Year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Maryland:         | 15.5 / 15.0   | 4 / 2        | All Year / All |
| Atlantic & Coastal  |               |              | Year           |
| Bay / Chesapeake    |               |              |                |
| Bay**               |               |              |                |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Potomac River**   | 15            | 2            | All Year       |
|                     |               |              |                |
| **Fisheries         |               |              |                |
| Commission**        |               |              |                |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Virginia**        | 16.5          | 6            | All Year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **North Carolina**  | 14            | 8            | All Year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+

^1^New York raised its minimum size to 18 inches on July 30, 2004, and
maintained the same season and possession limit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554148 .anchor}Table 9. Summer flounder
recreational management measures by state, 2006.

+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| Number range        | **Minimum     | **           | **Open**       |
| CHAPTER**State**    | Size**        | Possession** |                |
|                     |               |              | **Season**     |
|                     | **(inches)**  | **Limit**    |                |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Massachusetts**   | 17.5          | 7 fish       | All Year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Rhode Island**    | 17.5          | 7 fish       | April 1-Dec.   |
|                     |               |              | 31             |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Connecticut**     | 18            | 6 fish       | April          |
|                     |               |              | 30-Dec.31      |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **New York**        | 18            | 4 fish       | May 6-Sept. 12 |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **New Jersey**      | 16.5          | 8 fish       | May 6 --Oct. 9 |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Delaware**        | 17            | 4 fish       | All Year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Maryland:**       | 15.5          | 4 fish       | All Year       |
|                     |               |              |                |
| **Atlantic &        | 15.0          | 2 fish       | All Year       |
| Coastal Bays**      |               |              |                |
|                     |               |              |                |
| **Chesapeake Bay**  |               |              |                |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **PRFC**            | 15.0          | 2 fish       | All year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **Virginia**        | 16.5          | 6 fish       | All year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| **North Carolina**  | 14            | 8 fish       | All Year       |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554149 .anchor}Table 10. Summer flounder
recreational management measures by state, 2007.

+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| Number range         | **Minimum     | **           | **Open**      |
| CHAPTER**State**     | Size**        | Possession** |               |
|                      |               |              | **Season**    |
|                      | **(inches)**  | **Limit**    |               |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Number range       | 17.5          | 5 fish       | June 10 --    |
| CH                   |               |              | Aug. 15       |
| APTERMassachusetts** |               |              |               |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Rhode Island**     | 19.0          | 7 fish       | May 18 -      |
|                      |               |              | Sept. 16      |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Connecticut**      | 18.0          | 5 fish       | April 30 -    |
|                      |               |              | Sept. 5       |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **New York**         | 19.5          | 4 fish       | April 29 -    |
|                      |               |              | Sept. 17      |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **New Jersey**       | 17.0          | 8 fish       | May 26 -      |
|                      |               |              | Sept. 10      |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Delaware**         | 18.0          | 4 fish       | All year      |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Maryland:**        | 15.5          | 4 fish       | All year      |
|                      |               |              |               |
| **Atlantic & Coastal | 15.0          | 2 fish       | All year      |
| Bays**               |               |              |               |
|                      |               |              |               |
| **Chesapeake Bay**   |               |              |               |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Potomac River**    | 15.0          | 2 fish       | All year      |
|                      |               |              |               |
| **Fisheries          |               |              |               |
| Commission**         |               |              |               |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Virginia**         | 18.5          | 5 fish       | April 1 --    |
|                      |               |              | July 22 and   |
|                      |               |              | July 29 --    |
|                      |               |              | Dec. 31       |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **North Carolina:    | 14.0 14.5     | 8 fish       | All year      |
| Internal Ocean**     |               |              |               |
+----------------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554150 .anchor}Table 11. Projected summer
flounder recreational landings (number in thousands) relative to
targets, by state for 2007.

  ----------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------------------
  **State**   **2007 Target**  **2007           **Overage (+%)/Underage
                               Landings^1^**    (-%)**

  **MA**      134              82               -63

  **RI**      138              221              +38

  **CT**      91               108              +16

  **NY**      430              667              +36

  **NJ**      954              1,317            +28

  **DE**      77               110              +30

  **MD**      72               140              +49

  **VA**      407              397              -3

  **NC**      137              175              +22
  ----------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------------------

^1^ Projected using 2006 landings proportions by wave and 2007 waves 1-5
data.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554151 .anchor}Table 12. Summary of management
measures for the scup recreational fishery, 1997-2007.

+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Measure**  | **     | **1   | **     | **2   | **     | *       |
|              | 1997** | 998** | 1999** | 000** | 2001** | *2002** |
+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Harvest    | 1.95   | 1.55  | 1.24   | 1.24  | 1.76   | 2.71    |
| Limit**      |        |       |        |       |        |         |
|              |        |       |        |       |        |         |
| **(m lb)**   |        |       |        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Landings** | 1.20   | 0.88  | 1.89   | 5.44  | 4.26   | 3.62    |
|              |        |       |        |       |        |         |
| **(m lb)**   |        |       |        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Possession | \-     | \-    | \-     | \-    | 50     | 20      |
| Limit**      |        |       |        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Size       | 7      | 7     | 7      | \-    | 9      | 10      |
| Limit**      |        |       |        |       |        |         |
|              |        |       |        |       |        |         |
| **(in        |        |       |        |       |        |         |
| TL)^b^**     |        |       |        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Open**     | 1/1/   | 1/1/- | 1/1/   | 1/1/- | 8/15   | 7/1 -   |
|              | -12/31 | 12/31 | -12/31 | 12/31 | -10/31 |         |
| **Season**   |        |       |        |       |        | 10/2    |
+--------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+---------+

+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Measure**  | **2003** | **2004** | *       | **2006** | **2007** |
|              |          |          | *2005** |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Harvest    | 4.01     | 3.99     | 3.96    | 3.99     | 2.74     |
| Limit**      |          |          |         |          |          |
|              |          |          |         |          |          |
| **(m lb)**   |          |          |         |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Landings** | 8.48     | 4.41     | 2.67    | 2.95     | 3.80^a^  |
|              |          |          |         |          |          |
| **(m lb)**   |          |          |         |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Possession | 50       | 50       | 50      | 50       | 50       |
| Limit**      |          |          |         |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Size       | 10       | 10       | 10      | 10       | 10       |
| Limit**      |          |          |         |          |          |
|              |          |          |         |          |          |
| **(in        |          |          |         |          |          |
| TL)^b^**     |          |          |         |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Open**     | 1/1-2/28 | 1/1-2/28 | 1       | 1/1-2/28 | 1/1-2/28 |
|              |          | and      | /1-2/28 |          |          |
| **Season**   | and      |          | and     | and      | and      |
|              |          | 9        |         |          |          |
|              | 7        | /7-11/30 | 9/1     | 9/       | 9/       |
|              | /1-11/30 |          | 8-11/30 | 18-11/30 | 18-11/30 |
+--------------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+

^a^ Projected using 2006 landings proportions by wave and 2007 waves 1-5
data.

^b^Coastwide minimum size limit, some states have larger minimum size
limits.

^c^The Board developed a conservation equivalency program for scup in
2002-2007.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554152 .anchor}Table 13. Scup recreational
management measures by state, 2005.

+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **State**    | *        | **Possession Limit**   | **Open Season**  |
|              | *Minimum |                        |                  |
|              | Size**   |                        |                  |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Mas        | 10.5"    | 25 fish; 50 per        | May 1-Aug. 31    |
| sachusetts** |          | private vessel with 2  |                  |
|              |          | or more anglers; party |                  |
|              |          | and charter may        |                  |
|              |          | possess up to 60 fish  |                  |
|              |          | from May 1-June 30     |                  |
|              |          | (all other times       |                  |
|              |          | party/charter may      |                  |
|              |          | possess up to 25 fish) |                  |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Rhode      | 10.5"    | 25 fish; party/charter | July 1- Oct. 31  |
| Island**     |          | may possess up to 60   |                  |
|              |          | fish from              |                  |
|              |          |                        |                  |
|              |          | Sept. 1-Oct. 31 (all   |                  |
|              |          | other times            |                  |
|              |          | party/charter may      |                  |
|              |          | possess up to 25 fish) |                  |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **C          | 10.5"    | 25 fish; party/charter | July 1- Oct. 31  |
| onnecticut** |          | may possess up to 60   |                  |
|              |          | fish from              |                  |
|              |          |                        |                  |
|              |          | Sept. 1-Oct. 31 (all   |                  |
|              |          | other times            |                  |
|              |          | party/charter may      |                  |
|              |          | possess up to 25 fish) |                  |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **New York** | 10.5"    | 25 fish; party/charter | July 1- Oct. 31  |
|              |          | may possess up to 60   |                  |
|              |          | fish from              |                  |
|              |          |                        |                  |
|              |          | Sept. 1-Oct. 31 (all   |                  |
|              |          | other times            |                  |
|              |          | party/charter may      |                  |
|              |          | possess up to 25 fish) |                  |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **New        | 9"       | 50 fish                | Jan. 1-Feb. 28   |
| Jersey**     |          |                        | and              |
|              |          |                        |                  |
|              |          |                        | July 1-Dec. 31   |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Delaware** | 8"       | 50 fish                | All Year         |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Maryland** | 8"       | 50 fish                | All Year         |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Virginia** | 8"       | 50 fish                | All Year         |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+
| **North      | 8"       | 50 fish                | All Year         |
| Carolina**   |          |                        |                  |
+--------------+----------+------------------------+------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554153 .anchor}Table 14. Scup recreational
management measures by state, 2006.

  ------------------- --------------- ---------------------- ----------------
  **State**           **Minimum       **Possession Limit**   **Open Season**
                      Size**                                 

  **Massachusetts**   10.5\"          25 fish (50 max        May 1- Sept. 30
                                      private vessel); party 
                                      /charter may possess   
                                      up to 60 fish from May 
                                      1- June 30 (all other  
                                      times PC bag is 25     
                                      fish)                  

  **Rhode Island**    10.5\"          25 fish; party /       June 1- Oct. 31
                                      charter may possess up 
                                      to 60 fish from Sept.  
                                      1- Oct. 31 (all other  
                                      times PC bag is 25     
                                      fish)                  

  **Connecticut**     10.5\"          25 fish; party         June 1- Oct. 31
                                      /charter may possess   
                                      up to 60 fish from     
                                      Sept. 1- Oct. 31 (all  
                                      other times PC bag is  
                                      25 fish)               

  **New York**        10.5\"          25 fish; party         June 1- Oct. 31
                                      /charter may possess   
                                      up to 60 fish from     
                                      Sept. 1- Oct. 31 (all  
                                      other times PC bag is  
                                      25 fish)               

  **New Jersey**      9\"             50 fish                Jan. 1-Feb. 28
                                                             and July 1 --
                                                             Dec. 31

  **Delaware**        8\"             50 fish                All year

  **Maryland**        8\"             50 fish                All year

  **Virginia**        8\"             50 fish                All year

  **North Carolina**  8\"             50 fish                All year
  ------------------- --------------- ---------------------- ----------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554154 .anchor}Table 15. Scup recreational
management measures by state, 2007.

+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **State**  | **Minimum  | **Possession Limit**   | **Open Season**  |
|            | Size**     |                        |                  |
|            |            |                        |                  |
|            | **         |                        |                  |
|            | (inches)** |                        |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Massa    | 10.5       | 25 fish (50 max        | May 1-Sept. 30   |
| chusetts** |            | private vessel); party |                  |
|            |            | /charter may possess   |                  |
|            |            | up to 60 fish from May |                  |
|            |            | 1- June 30 (all other  |                  |
|            |            | times PC bag is 25     |                  |
|            |            | fish)                  |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Rhode    | 10.5       | 25 fish; party /       | June 1-Oct. 31   |
| Island**   |            | charter may possess up |                  |
|            |            | to 60 fish from Sept.  |                  |
|            |            | 1- Oct. 31 (all other  |                  |
|            |            | times PC bag is 25     |                  |
|            |            | fish)                  |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **Con      | 10.5       | 25 fish; party         | June 1-Oct. 31   |
| necticut** |            | /charter may possess   |                  |
|            |            | up to 60 fish from     |                  |
|            |            | Sept. 1- Oct. 31 (all  |                  |
|            |            | other times PC bag is  |                  |
|            |            | 25 fish)               |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **New      | 10.5       | 25 fish; party /       | June 1-Oct. 31   |
| York**     |            | charter may possess up |                  |
|            |            | to 60 fish from Sept.  |                  |
|            |            | 1- Oct. 31 (all other  |                  |
|            |            | times PC bag is 25     |                  |
|            |            | fish)                  |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **New      | 9          | 50 fish                | Jan 1-Feb 28 and |
| Jersey**   |            |                        | July 1 -- Dec.   |
|            |            |                        | 31               |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **         | 8          | 50 fish                | All Year         |
| Delaware** |            |                        |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **         | 8          | 50 fish                | All Year         |
| Maryland** |            |                        |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **         | 8          | 50 fish                | All Year         |
| Virginia** |            |                        |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+
| **North    | 8          | 50 fish                | All Year         |
| Carolina** |            |                        |                  |
+------------+------------+------------------------+------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554155 .anchor}Table 16. Summary of management
measures for the black sea bass recreational fishery, 1996-2007.

+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+
| **[         | **    | **   | **[1      | **    | **    | **[200   |
| Measure]{.u | [1996 | [199 | 998]{.und | [1999 | [2000 | 1]{.unde |
| nderline}** | ]{.un | 7]{. | erline}** | ]{.un | ]{.un | rline}** |
|             | derli | unde |           | derli | derli |          |
|             | ne}** | rlin |           | ne}** | ne}** |          |
|             |       | e}** |           |       |       |          |
+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+
| **Harvest   | \-    | Nu   | 3.15      | 3.15  | 3.15  | 3.15     |
| Limit**     |       | mber |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | r    |           |       |       |          |
| **(m lb)**  |       | ange |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | CHAP |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | TER- |           |       |       |          |
+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+
| *           | 4.0   | 4.3  | 1.2       | 1.7   | 4.0   | 3.4      |
| *Landings** |       |      |           |       |       |          |
|             |       |      |           |       |       |          |
| **(m lb)**  |       |      |           |       |       |          |
+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+
| *           | \-    | Nu   | \-^a^     | \-^a^ | \-^a^ | 25       |
| *Possession |       | mber |           |       |       |          |
| Limit**     |       | r    |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | ange |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | CHAP |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | TER- |           |       |       |          |
+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+
| **Size      | 9     | 9    | 10        | 10    | 10    | 11       |
| Limit**     |       |      |           |       |       |          |
|             |       |      |           |       |       |          |
| **(TL       |       |      |           |       |       |          |
| inches)**   |       |      |           |       |       |          |
+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+
| **Open      | 1/1 - | Nu   | 1/1-7/30  | 1/1-  | 1/1-  | 1/1-2/28 |
| Season**    |       | mber |           | 12/31 | 12/31 |          |
|             | 12/31 | r    | and       |       |       | and      |
|             |       | ange |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | CHAP | 8         |       |       | 5/       |
|             |       | TER1 | /16-12/31 |       |       | 10-12/31 |
|             |       | /1-1 |           |       |       |          |
|             |       | 2/31 |           |       |       |          |
+-------------+-------+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+

+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[         | **    | **[200   | **[2      | **    | **    | **    |
| Measure]{.u | [2002 | 3]{.unde | 004]{.und | [2005 | [2006 | [2007 |
| nderline}** | ]{.un | rline}** | erline}** | ]{.un | ]{.un | ]{.un |
|             | derli |          |           | derli | derli | derli |
|             | ne}** |          |           | ne}** | ne}** | ne}** |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Harvest   | 3.43  | 3.43     | 4.01      | 4.13  | 3.99  | 2.47  |
| Limit**     |       |          |           |       |       |       |
|             |       |          |           |       |       |       |
| **(m lb)**  |       |          |           |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+
| *           | 4.3   | 3.3      | 1.67      | 2.01  | 1.98  | 1.    |
| *Landings** |       |          |           |       |       | 97^b^ |
|             |       |          |           |       |       |       |
| **(m lb)**  |       |          |           |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+
| *           | 25    | 25       | 25        | 25    | 25    | 25    |
| *Possession |       |          |           |       |       |       |
| Limit**     |       |          |           |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Size      | 11.5  | 12       | 12        | 12    | 12    | 12    |
| Limit**     |       |          |           |       |       |       |
|             |       |          |           |       |       |       |
| **(TL       |       |          |           |       |       |       |
| inches)**   |       |          |           |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Open      | 1/1-  | 1/1-9/1  | 1/1-9/7   | 1/1-  | 1/1-  | 1/1-  |
| Season**    | 12/31 |          |           | 12/31 | 12/31 | 12/31 |
|             |       | and      | and       |       |       |       |
|             |       |          |           |       |       |       |
|             |       | 9/       | 9         |       |       |       |
|             |       | 16-11/30 | /22-11/30 |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+

^a^ There was no federal possession limit but some states implemented a
20 fish possession limit in

these years

^b^Projected using proportions from 2006 data and 2007 waves 1-5.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554156 .anchor}Table 17. Black sea bass
recreational management measures by state, 2005.

  ------------------ ------------- ---------------- ----------------------
  **State**          **Minimum     **Possession     **Open Season**
                     Size**        Limit**          

  Massachusetts      12\"          20               All Year

  Rhode Island       12\"          25               All Year

  Connecticut        12\"          25               All Year

  New York           12\"          25               Jan. 1-Nov. 30

  New Jersey         12\"          25               All Year

  Delaware           12\"          25               All Year

  Maryland           12\"          25               All Year

  PRFC               12\"          25               All Year

  Virginia           12\"          25               All Year

  North Carolina     12\"          25               All Year
  (North of Cape                                    
  Hatteras)                                         
  ------------------ ------------- ---------------- ----------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554157 .anchor}Table 18. Black sea bass
recreational management measures by state, 2006.

+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Number range  | **Minimum    | **           | **Open**              |
| CHA           | Size**       | Possession** |                       |
| PTER**State** |              |              | **Season**            |
|               | **(inches)** | **Limit**    |                       |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Massachusetts | 12\"         | 20           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Rhode Island  | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Connecticut   | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| New York      | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| New Jersey    | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Delaware      | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Maryland      | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| PRFC          | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| Virginia      | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| North         | 12\"         | 25           | All Year              |
| Carolina      |              |              |                       |
| (North of     |              |              |                       |
| Cape          |              |              |                       |
| Hatteras)     |              |              |                       |
+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554158 .anchor}Table 19. Black sea bass
recreational management measures by state, 2007.

+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| **State**       | **Minimum   | **Possession  | **Open Season**      |
|                 | Size**      | Limit**       |                      |
|                 |             |               |                      |
|                 | *           |               |                      |
|                 | *(inches)** |               |                      |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| Massachusetts   | 12          | 20            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| Rhode Island    | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| Connecticut     | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| New York        | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| New Jersey      | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| Delaware        | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| Maryland        | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| PRFC            | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| Virginia        | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+
| North Carolina  | 12          | 25            | All Year             |
| (North of Cape  |             |               |                      |
| Hatteras)       |             |               |                      |
+-----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554159 .anchor}Table 20. The number of summer
flounder landed from Maine through North Carolina by mode, 1981-2006.

  --------------- --------------- ------------------- --------------------
                  **Mode**                            

  **Year**        **Shore**       **Party/Charter**   **Private/Rental**

  1981            3,145,682       1,362,254           5,058,639

  1982            1,120,522       5,936,007           8,416,174

  1983            3,963,676       3,574,230           13,458,398

  1984            1,355,596       2,495,734           13,623,841

  1985            786,183         1,152,248           9,127,759

  1986            1,237,031       1,608,908           8,774,922

  1987            406,095         1,150,096           6,308,570

  1988            945,864         1,134,353           7,879,442

  1989            180,269         141,321             1,395,176

  1990            261,897         413,242             3,118,447

  1991            565,403         597,608             4,904,636

  1992            275,472         375,246             4,351,389

  1993            342,226         1,013,464           5,138,354

  1994            447,184         836,363             5,419,146

  1995            241,904         267,349             2,816,462

  1996            206,929         659,878             6,130,181

  1997            255,066         930,636             5,981,122

  1998            316,314         360,776             6,302,006

  1999            213,446         300,807             3,592,740

  2000            569,614         648,755             6,582,707

  2001            226,995         329,703             4,736,909

  2002            154,957         261,551             2,845,647

  2003            203,719         389,141             3,965,812

  2004            210,207         494,946             3,851,517

  2005            146,150         476,904             3,413,163

  2006            127,623         380,870             3,629,247

  \% of Total     9               14                  77
  --------------- --------------- ------------------- --------------------

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554160 .anchor}Table 21. The number of scup
landed from Maine through North Carolina by mode, 1981-2006.

  --------------- --------------- ------------------- --------------------
                  **Mode**                            

  **Year**        **Shore**       **Party/Charter**   **Private/Rental**

  1981            772,162         1,054,556           7,256,991

  1982            833,429         1,393,724           4,226,957

  1983            2,227,112       2,996,661           3,612,789

  1984            1,299,565       227,735             4,530,009

  1985            1,121,593       325,846             9,362,605

  1986            1,898,859       3,228,151           19,696,033

  1987            522,310         583,977             8,809,698

  1988            698,340         1,137,624           4,226,347

  1989            882,603         1,033,319           7,260,512

  1990            434,740         1,302,788           6,305,463

  1991            1,625,127       2,250,042           9,403,917

  1992            1,003,649       1,017,368           5,743,164

  1993            284,525         1,762,459           3,616,036

  1994            229,924         918,217             3,122,101

  1995            222,397         837,390             1,359,241

  1996            120,596         451,614             2,399,997

  1997            141,367         453,066             1,322,000

  1998            117,056         164,932             929,148

  1999            197,876         821,995             2,230,780

  2000            550,951         1,140,133           5,552,866

  2001            766,084         768,893             3,563,841

  2002            505,079         1,309,168           1,832,594

  2003            858,699         1,329,584           7,264,026

  2004            467,263         671,623             3,559,209

  2005            285,838         192,071             1,914,032

  2006            307,549         497,442             1,995,921

  \% of Total     10              16                  74
  --------------- --------------- ------------------- --------------------

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554161 .anchor}Table 22. The number of black
sea bass landed from Maine through North Carolina by mode, 1981-2006.

  ---------------- -------------- ------------------- --------------------
                   **Mode**                           

  **Year**         **Shore**      **Party/Charter**   **Private/Rental**

  1981             452,101        1,440,172           841,479

  1982             81,445         8,104,205           2,063,333

  1983             222,011        4,005,708           1,403,509

  1984             98,228         1,128,295           1,264,894

  1985             163,447        2,393,046           1,659,701

  1986             1,021,523      16,695,386          4,187,088

  1987             71,956         1,157,244           2,238,164

  1988             140,755        1,691,300           2,227,902

  1989             237,967        1,991,670           2,419,648

  1990             289,379        2,268,913           1,710,455

  1991             250,678        2,586,147           2,621,274

  1992             45,368         2,043,188           1,780,225

  1993             54,675         4,579,665           1,562,230

  1994             243,347        2,005,888           1,321,626

  1995             275,981        5,197,229           1,413,573

  1996             70,522         2,631,734           1,062,026

  1997             8,337          3,950,334           908,839

  1998             7,073          777,873             474,072

  1999             19,231         621,354             771,258

  2000             177,489        1,797,696           1,780,238

  2001             14,035         1,826,850           1,164,977

  2002             16,618         2,066,233           1,338,447

  2003             10,760         2,073,130           1,308,494

  2004             4,862          920,672             974,277

  2005             21,808         569,464             919,932

  2006             24,306         507,868             852,706

  \% of Total      3              63                  34
  ---------------- -------------- ------------------- --------------------

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554162 .anchor}Table 23. State contribution (as
a percentage) to total recreational landings of summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass (MRFSS Type A+B1 in number of fish), from Maine
through North Carolina, 2006.

  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **State**           **Summer          **Scup**          **Black Sea
                      Flounder**                          Bass**

  **Maine**           0.00              0.00              0.00

  **New Hampshire**   0.04              0.00              0.00

  **Massachusetts**   5.29              11.21             5.33

  **Rhode Island**    6.37              15.27             3.27

  **Connecticut**     2.60              18.53             0.23

  **New York**        19.38             45.59             17.14

  **New Jersey**      37.71             8.92              42.85

  **Delaware**        2.66              0.02              7.94

  **Maryland**        1.41              0.02              6.44

  **Virginia**        20.84             0.00              7.14

  **North Carolina**  3.69              0.44              9.66

  **Total**           **100%**          **100%**          **100%**
  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554163 .anchor}Table 24. The percentage (%)
contribution of summer flounder to the total catch of all species from
party/charter vessels by state, 1996-2005.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="7.736111111111111in"
height="2.467361111111111in"}

Note: Percentages cannot be summed across columns or rows. They only
represent the percentage of respective species landings to total
landings

in that state for given year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554164 .anchor}Table 25. The percentage (%)
contribution of scup to the total catch of all species from
party/charter vessels by state, 1996 - 2005.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="7.736111111111111in"
height="2.467361111111111in"}

Note: Percentages cannot be summed across columns or rows. They only
represent the percentage of respective species landings to total
landings

in that state for given year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554165 .anchor}Table 26. The percentage (%)
contribution of black sea bass to the total catch of all species from
party/charter vessels by state, 1996 - 2005.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="7.736111111111111in"
height="2.467361111111111in"}

Note: Percentages cannot be summed across columns or rows. They only
represent the percentage of respective species landings to total
landings

in that state for given year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554166 .anchor}Table 27. Recreational anglers'
ratings (mean) of reasons for marine fishing, by subregion.

Source: Steinback et al., 1999.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554167 .anchor}Table 28. Recreational anglers'
ratings (mean) of fishing regulation methods, by subregion.

Source: Steinback et al., 1999.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554168 .anchor}Table 29. Recreational anglers'
ratings (mean) of fishing regulation methods, by mode.

  -------------------- ------------------- -------- -------------------- -------- ----------- --------
                       **Party/Charter**            **Private/Rental**            **Shore**   

  **Type of            Support             Oppose   Support              Oppose   Support     Oppose
  Regulation**                                                                                

  Limits on the        92.1%               7.9%     94.4%                5.6%     90.1%       9.9%
  Minimum Size of Fish                                                                        
  You Can Keep                                                                                

  Limits on the Number 87.9%               12.1%    90.0%                10.0%    87.7%       12.3%
  of Fish You Can Keep                                                                        

  Limits on the Times  79.2%               20.8%    78.3%                21.7%    75.0%       25.0%
  of the Year When You                                                                        
  Can Keep the Fish                                                                           
  You Catch                                                                                   

  Limits on the Areas  74.4%               25.6%    65.9%                34.1%    63.6%       36.4%
  You Can Fish                                                                                
  -------------------- ------------------- -------- -------------------- -------- ----------- --------

Source: Steinback et al., 1999.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554169 .anchor}Table 30. Party and charter
vessel trip report (VTR) data for summer flounder, scup, and black sea
bass, 1996-2005.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.415972222222222in"
height="5.541666666666667in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554170 .anchor}Table 31. Percentage of summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational landings (MRFSS Type
A+B1 in number of fish) by year and area, Maine through North Carolina.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554171 .anchor}Table 32. Projected^1^ total
estimated angler effort (fishing trips) by state, in 2007.

  ---------------- ------------------- -------------------- ------------------
  **Number range   **Party/Charter**   **Private/Rental**   **Shore**
  CHAPTERState**                                            

  **ME**           27,362              479,856              707,812

  **NH**           32,652              250,228              192,670

  **MA**           237,573             2,338,377            2,110,253

  **RI**           44,121              613,342              827,173

  **CT**           36,473              1,087,029            509,757

  **NY**           374,562             3,501,134            2,203,948

  **NJ**           508,259             3,894,901            3,309,663

  **DE**           23,542              728,366              459,668

  **MD**           198,130             2,386,079            1,482,227

  **VA**           51,626              2,340,125            1,088,592

  **NC**           288,268             2,715,633            3,654,608

  **Total**        1,822,567           20,335,069           16,546,372
  ---------------- ------------------- -------------------- ------------------

^1^ Values were projected using MRFSS data.

Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554172 .anchor}Table 33. Projected 2008 effort
effects of individual management measures in isolation, by mode (2007
catch and effort estimates were used to project 2008 effects).

  ----------------- ------------------- ----------- --------- -- -------------------- ------------ --------- -- -------------- ------------ ---------
  Number range      **Party/Charter**                            **Private/Rental**                                            **Shore**    
  CHAPTER                                                                                                                                   

                    **Affected**        **Total**   **% of**     **Affected**         **Total**    **% of**     **Affected**   **Total**    **% of**

                    **Trips**           **Trips**   **Total      **Trips**            **Trips**    **Total      **Trips**      **Trips**    **Total
                                                    Trips**                                        Trips**                                  Trips**

  **Fluke                                                                                                                                   
  Alternative 1                                                                                                                             
  (status quo)**                                                                                                                            

  **Conservation    ?                   1,822,567   ?            ?                    20,335,069   ?            ?              16,546,372   ?
  Equivalency**                                                                                                                             

  **Fluke           24,818              1,822,567   1.36         284,617              20,335,069   1.40         39,518         16,546,372   0.24
  precautionary                                                                                                                             
  default                                                                                                                                   
  measures**                                                                                                                                

  **Fluke           16,487              1,822,567   0.90         215,018              20,335,069   1.06         39,494         16,546,372   0.24
  Alternative 2**                                                                                                                           

  **Scup            72,007              1,822,567   3.95         331,928              20,335,069   1.63         83,876         16,546,372   0.51
  Alternative 1**                                                                                                                           

  **Scup            75,248              1,822,567   4.13         375,007              20,335,069   1.84         84,395         16,546,372   0.51
  Alternative 2**                                                                                                                           

  **Scup            64,346              1,822,567   3.53         286,498              20,335,069   1.41         81,280         16,546,372   0.49
  Alternative 3                                                                                                                             
  (status quo)**                                                                                                                            

  **BSB Alternative 5,340               1,822,567   0.29         10,923               20,335,069   0.05         \<10           16,546,372   \<0.1
  1 (status quo)**                                                                                                                          

  **BSB Alternative 2,828               1,822,567   0.16         10,687               20,335,069   0.05         \<10           16,546,372   \<0.1
  2**                                                                                                                                       

  **BSB Alternative 8,968               1,822,567   0.49         11,091               20,335,069   0.05         \<10           16,546,372   \<0.1
  3**                                                                                                                                       
  ----------------- ------------------- ----------- --------- -- -------------------- ------------ --------- -- -------------- ------------ ---------

Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554173 .anchor}Table 34. The percent of
successful anglers landing 1 to 9 summer flounder (MRFSS Type A fish)
per trip, waves 1-4, 2007.

Catch per Cumulative Cumulative

[Angler/Trip]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}
[Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}

1 1329 63.59 1329 63.59

2 454 21.72 1783 85.31

3 189 9.04 1972 94.35

4 74 3.54 2046 97.89

5 24 1.15 2070 99.04

6 9 0.43 2079 99.47

7 5 0.24 2084 99.71

8 5 0.24 2089 99.95

9 1 0.05 2090 100.00

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554174 .anchor}Table 35. The percent of
successful anglers landing 1 to 30 summer flounder (MRFSS Type A fish)
per trip, 1992.

Catch per Cumulative Cumulative

[Angler/Trip]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}
[Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}

1 1622 51.9 1622 51.9

2 652 20.9 2274 72.8

3 395 12.6 2669 85.4

4 186 6.0 2855 91.4

5 120 3.8 2975 95.2

6 57 1.8 3032 97.0

7 20 0.6 3052 97.7

8 28 0.9 3080 98.6

9 3 0.1 3083 98.7

10 17 0.5 3100 99.2

11 1 0.0 3101 99.2

12 10 0.3 3111 99.6

13 3 0.1 3114 99.6

14 1 0.0 3115 99.7

15 7 0.2 3122 99.9

16 1 0.0 3123 99.9

21 1 0.0 3124 100.0

30 1 0.0 3125 100.0

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554175 .anchor}Table 36. The percent of
measured summer flounder (MRFSS Type A fish) less than 15\" TL (1999),
15.5\" TL (2000), and state specific size limits (2001 through 2007).
The number in parentheses is sample size (N).

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------
  **State**   **1999**              **2000**              **2001**                      **2002**                      **2003**              

              \% Below   Number     \% Below   Number     \% Below   Number     Size    \% Below   Number     Size    \% Below   Number     Size
              Size Limit Measured   Size Limit Measured   Size Limit Measured   Limit   Size Limit Measured   Limit   Size Limit Measured   Limit

  **ME**      \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-      \-         \-         \-      \-         \-         \-

  **NH**      \-         \-         0          \(1\)      \-         \-         \-      \-         \-         \-      \-         \-         \-

  **MA**      25         \(24\)     23.3       \(43\)     3.9        \(26\)     16.5    20.8       \(53\)     16.5    15.6       \(45\)     16.5

  **RI**      11.9       \(160\)    18.1       \(282\)    14.8       \(196\)    17.5    11.8       \(228\)    18.0    8.4        \(250\)    17.5

  **CT**      15.5       \(258\)    2.9        \(379\)    3.1        \(129\)    17.5    5.8        \(69\)     17.0    7.8        \(179\)    17.0

  **NY**      5.9        \(272\)    5.5        \(325\)    5.8        \(274\)    17.0    6.9        \(246\)    17.0    6.2        \(482\)    17.0

  **NJ**      4.1        \(635\)    9.8        \(705\)    14.7       \(1169\)   16.0    6.1        \(540\)    16.5    6.4        \(934\)    16.5

  **DE**      19         \(216\)    5.2        \(249\)    9.2        \(325\)    17.5    7.5        \(267\)    17.5    10.9       \(266\)    17.5

  **MD**      3.8        \(263\)    9.1        \(243\)    4.0        \(101\)    17.0    5.2        \(77\)     17.0    5.0        \(20\)     17.0

  **VA**      0.5        \(183\)    4.4        \(386\)    3.9        \(1094\)   15.5    24.6       \(884\)    17.5    14.6       \(513\)    17.5

  **NC**      59.4       \(544\)    56.0       \(703\)    66.6       \(915\)    15.5    75.7       \(474\)    15.5    57.5       \(73\)     15.0

  **Coast**   18.9       \(2555\)   17.1       \(3316\)   17.2       \(4229\)   15.5    \-         \(2838\)   \-      13.2       \(2763\)   17.0
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------

  ----------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------- ---------- --------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------
  **State**           **2004**                      **2005**                                **2006**                                        **2007**              

              \%                 Number     Size               \%      Number     Size                 \%      Number     Size      \%                 Number     Size
              Below              Measured   Limit              Below   Measured   Limit                Below   Measured   Limit     Below              Measured   Limit
              Size                                             Size                                    Size                         Size                          
              Limit                                            Limit                                   Limit                        Limit                         

  **ME**      \-                 \-         \-                 \-      \-         \-                   \-      \-         \-        \-                 \-         \-

  **NH**      \-                 \-         \-                 \-      \-         \-                   \-      \(1\)      \-        \-                 \-         \-

  **MA**      6.7                \(30\)     16.5               15.2    \(46\)     17.0                 9.8     \(102\)    17.5      16.9               \(71\)     17.5

  **RI**      7.0                \(503\)    17.5               6.2     \(401\)    17.5                 8.8     \(352\)    17.5      10.0               \(389\)    19.0

  **CT**      5.8                \(174\)    17.0               2.8     \(104\)    17.5                 10.1    \(69\)     18.0      1.5                \(66\)     18.0

  **NY**      3.4                \(381\)    17.0               4.8     \(581\)    17.5                 13.6    \(403\)    18.0      13.3               \(330\)    19.5

  **NJ**      2.5                \(756\)    16.5               2.8     \(645\)    16.5                 6.7     \(421\)    16.5      6.8                \(542\)    17.0

  **DE**      12.4               \(193\)    17.5               9.8     \(367\)    17.5                 8.5     \(224\)    17.0      6.6                \(244\)    18.0

  **MD**      9.1                \(55\)     16.0               1.9     \(104\)    15.5/                0.0     \(51\)     15.5/     8.1                \(37\)     15.5/
                                                                                  15.0^a^                                 15.0^a^                                 15.0^a^

  **VA**      8.1                \(334\)    17.0               7.1     \(294\)    16.5                 5.0     \(300\)    16.5      6.9                \(476\)    18.5

  **NC**      1.6                \(186\)    14.0               5.4     \(205\)    14                   3.7     \(243\)    14.0      2.9                \(238\)    14.5/
                                                                                                                                                                  14.0^b^

  **Coast**   15.0               \(2612\)   17.0               15.4    \(2747\)   17                   19.3    \(2166\)   17.0      22.2               \(2393\)   18.0
  ----------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------- ---------- --------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------

^a^ For Maryland, 5.5" in Atlantic and Coastal Bay; 15.0" in Chesapeake
Bay; % below given in table is below 15.0"

^b^ For North Carolina, 14.5" in Internal waters; 14.0" in External
waters; % below given in table is below 14.0"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554176 .anchor}Table 37. Percent of summer
flounder landings for each wave, 1994-1998.

+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
|     | *       |         |          |         |         |         |
|     | *Wave** |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **S | **1**   | **2**   | **3**    | **4**   | **5**   | **6**   |
| tat |         |         |          |         |         |         |
| e** | (J      | (M      | (M       | (Ju     | (Se     | (N      |
|     | an-Feb) | ar-Apr) | ay-June) | ly-Aug) | pt-Oct) | ov-Dec) |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **N | 0%      | 0%      | 0%       | 0%      | 100%    | 0%      |
| H** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **M | 0%      | 0%      | 25%      | 71%     | 4%      | 0%      |
| A** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **R | 0%      | 0%      | 26%      | 70%     | 3%      | 0%      |
| I** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **C | 0%      | 0%      | 17%      | 76%     | 7%      | 0%      |
| T** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **N | 0%      | 0%      | 28%      | 59%     | 13%     | 0%      |
| Y** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **N | 0%      | 0%      | 25%      | 47%     | 28%     | 0%      |
| J** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **D | 0%      | 0%      | 25%      | 64%     | 10%     | 0%      |
| E** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **M | 0%      | 3%      | 27%      | 61%     | 9%      | 0%      |
| D** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **V | 0%      | 3%      | 41%      | 38%     | 16%     | 0%      |
| A** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **N | 0%      | 6%      | 26%      | 32%     | 30%     | 7%      |
| C** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **C | 0%      | 0.9%    | 28%      | 51%     | 19%     | 0%      |
| oas |         |         |          |         |         |         |
| t** |         |         |          |         |         |         |
+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+---------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554177 .anchor}**Table 38. The percent of
measured scup (MRFSS Type A fish) relative to state specific and coastal
size limits from 2002 through 2007. The number in parentheses is sample
size.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>2002</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>2003</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>2004</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>State</strong></td>
<td>% Below Size Limit</td>
<td>Number Measured</td>
<td>Size Limit</td>
<td>% Below Size Limit</td>
<td>Number Measured</td>
<td>Size Limit</td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below Size Limit</p></td>
<td>Number Measured</td>
<td>Size Limit</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>ME</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>NH</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>MA</strong></td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>(279)</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>(715)</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>(579)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>RI</strong></td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>(435)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>(313)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>(138)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>CT</strong></td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>(152)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>(362)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>(96)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>NY</strong></td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>(94)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(969)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(220)</td>
<td>11.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>NJ</strong></td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>(44)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>(29)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>(5)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>DE</strong></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(1)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>33.3</td>
<td>(6)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>MD</strong></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(1)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>VA</strong></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(3)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>NC</strong></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(3)</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Coast</strong></td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>(1006)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>(2397)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>6.44</td>
<td>(1041)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>2005</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>2006</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>2007*</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>State</strong></td>
<td>% Below Size Limit</td>
<td>Number Measured</td>
<td>Size Limit</td>
<td>% Below Size Limit</td>
<td>Number Measured</td>
<td>Size Limit</td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below Size Limit</p></td>
<td>Number Measured</td>
<td>Size Limit</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>ME</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>NH</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>MA</strong></td>
<td>32.4</td>
<td>(657)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>41.5</td>
<td>(719)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>(974)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>RI</strong></td>
<td>32.0</td>
<td>(442)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>(743)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>(63)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>CT</strong></td>
<td>18.8</td>
<td>(80)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>32.6</td>
<td>(141)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td>(22)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>NY</strong></td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>(562)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>42.2</td>
<td>(294)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>(141)</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>NJ</strong></td>
<td>11.1</td>
<td>(27)</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>33.9</td>
<td>(192)</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>(20)</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>DE</strong></td>
<td>25.0</td>
<td>(4)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>66.7</td>
<td>(3)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(5)</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>MD</strong></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>(10)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(2)</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>VA</strong></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(2)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>(0)</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>NC</strong></td>
<td>56.2</td>
<td>(73)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>18.6</td>
<td>(113)</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>(37)</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Coast</strong></td>
<td>15.4</td>
<td>(1847)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>(2215)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>19.1</td>
<td>(1264)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Only first four waves of 2007 included.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554178 .anchor}**Table 39. The effect of
various size and possession limits on 2007 scup recreational landings.
The tables contain the proportional reduction in number of scup landed
assuming regulations are 100% effective (Table A) and adjusting for the
effectiveness of the 2007 management measures (Table B).**

**Table A - 100% Effective**

  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
            **Size (TL                                              
            in)**                                                   

  **Bag**   **9**       **10**      **10.5**   **11**    **11.5**   **12**

  **1**     0.912       0.913       0.918      0.926     0.936      0.941

  **2**     0.853       0.855       0.862      0.876     0.890      0.900

  **3**     0.807       0.809       0.819      0.839     0.855      0.869

  **4**     0.771       0.773       0.787      0.810     0.827      0.843

  **5**     0.742       0.745       0.760      0.785     0.802      0.819

  **6**     0.717       0.719       0.735      0.760     0.779      0.797

  **7**     0.694       0.697       0.713      0.739     0.759      0.777

  **8**     0.672       0.675       0.691      0.718     0.739      0.758

  **9**     0.651       0.653       0.669      0.698     0.720      0.739

  **10**    0.629       0.632       0.649      0.678     0.701      0.720

  **15**    0.536       0.539       0.558      0.591     0.614      0.637

  **20**    0.459       0.463       0.482      0.517     0.542      0.569

  **25**    0.386       0.389       0.409      0.447     0.474      0.515

  **30**    0.321       0.324       0.344      0.384     0.421      0.469

  **35**    0.259       0.262       0.283      0.328     0.375      0.428

  **40**    0.204       0.207       0.228      0.279     0.334      0.394

  **45**    0.151       0.154       0.177      0.236     0.296      0.365

  **50**    0.100       0.103       0.130      0.197     0.263      0.339
  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------

**Table B - Adjusted**

  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
            **Size (TL                                              
            in)**                                                   

  **Bag**   **9**       **10**      **10.5**   **11**    **11.5**   **12**

  **1**     0.911       0.911       0.914      0.923     0.933      0.938

  **2**     0.850       0.851       0.855      0.870     0.884      0.895

  **3**     0.805       0.805       0.810      0.831     0.848      0.862

  **4**     0.771       0.772       0.777      0.801     0.819      0.836

  **5**     0.743       0.743       0.748      0.774     0.793      0.811

  **6**     0.717       0.718       0.722      0.749     0.768      0.788

  **7**     0.694       0.695       0.699      0.727     0.748      0.767

  **8**     0.671       0.672       0.676      0.705     0.727      0.748

  **9**     0.649       0.650       0.654      0.684     0.707      0.728

  **10**    0.627       0.628       0.632      0.664     0.687      0.708

  **15**    0.533       0.534       0.538      0.537     0.598      0.622

  **20**    0.454       0.455       0.459      0.497     0.523      0.552

  **25**    0.379       0.380       0.384      0.424     0.452      0.494

  **30**    0.312       0.313       0.318      0.359     0.396      0.446

  **35**    0.250       0.250       0.255      0.300     0.348      0.402

  **40**    0.193       0.193       0.198      0.248     0.305      0.366

  **45**    0.139       0.140       0.145      0.202     0.265      0.336

  **50**    0.091       0.091       0.096      0.162     0.230      0.309
  --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554179 .anchor}Table 40. The percent of
successful anglers landing 1 to 75 scup (MRFSS Type A fish) per trip,
waves 1-4, 2007.

Catch per Cumulative Cumulative

[Angler/Trip]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}
[Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}

1 129 34.13 129 34.13

2 59 15.61 188 49.74

3 34 8.99 222 58.73

4 32 8.47 254 67.20

5 7 1.85 261 69.05

6 16 4.23 277 73.28

7 3 0.79 280 74.07

8 3 0.79 283 74.87

9 4 1.06 287 75.93

10 9 2.38 296 78.31

11 1 0.26 297 78.57

12 7 1.85 304 80.42

13 8 2.12 312 82.54

14 3 0.79 315 83.33

15 4 1.06 319 84.39

16 1 0.26 320 84.66

20 1 0.26 321 84.92

23 3 0.79 324 85.71

24 1 0.26 325 85.98

27 1 0.26 326 87.30

30 2 0.53 332 87.83

31 2 0.53 334 88.36

32 1 0.26 335 88.62

33 1 0.26 336 88.89

34 1 0.26 337 89.15

35 1 0.26 338 89.42

42 1 0.26 339 89.68

44 1 0.26 340 89.95

45 3 0.79 343 90.74

46 2 0.53 345 91.27

47 2 0.53 347 91.80

48 3 0.79 350 92.59

49 1 0.26 351 92.86

58 2 0.53 353 93.39

60 21 5.56 374 98.94

62 1 0.26 375 99.21

72 1 0.26 376 99.47

75 2 0.53 378 100.00

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554180 .anchor}Table 41. The percent of
successful anglers landing 1 to 75 scup (MRFSS Type A fish) per trip,
waves 1-4, 2006.

Catch per Cumulative Cumulative

[Angler/Trip]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}
[Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}

1 102 34.34 102 34.34

2 34 11.45 136 45.79

3 24 8.08 160 53.87

4 27 9.09 187 62.96

5 11 3.70 198 66.67

6 13 4.38 211 71.04

7 8 2.69 219 73.74

8 10 3.37 229 77.10

9 7 2.36 236 79.46

10 8 2.69 244 82.15

11 3 1.01 247 83.16

12 3 1.01 250 84.18

13 5 1.68 255 85.86

14 4 1.35 259 87.21

15 8 2.69 267 89.90

16 1 0.34 268 90.24

17 1 0.34 269 90.57

19 4 1.35 273 91.92

24 1 0.34 274 92.26

25 4 1.35 278 93.60

30 6 2.02 284 95.62

34 1 0.34 285 95.96

41 1 0.34 286 96.30

45 1 0.34 287 96.63

47 1 0.34 288 96.97

51 3 1.01 291 97.98

60 2 0.67 293 98.65

62 1 0.34 294 98.99

75 3 1.01 297 100.00

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554181 .anchor}Table 42. The percent of
successful anglers landing 1 to 29 black sea bass (MRFSS Type A fish)
per trip, waves 1-4, 2007.

Catch per Cumulative Cumulative

[Angler/Trip]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}
[Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}

1 475 46.61 475 46.61

> 2 230 22.57 705 69.19
>
> 3 110 10.79 815 79.98
>
> 4 51 5.00 866 84.99
>
> 5 32 3.14 898 88.13
>
> 6 24 2.36 922 90.48
>
> 7 21 2.06 943 92.54
>
> 8 18 1.77 961 94.31
>
> 9 17 1.67 978 95.98
>
> 10 6 0.59 984 96.57
>
> 11 2 0.20 986 96.76
>
> 12 3 0.29 989 97.06
>
> 13 11 1.08 1000 98.14
>
> 14 1 0.10 1001 98.23
>
> 15 9 0.88 1010 99.12
>
> 18 1 0.10 1011 99.21
>
> 20 1 0.10 1012 99.31
>
> 22 1 0.10 1013 99.41
>
> 24 1 0.10 1014 99.51
>
> 25 1 0.10 1015 99.61
>
> 27 1 0.10 1016 99.71

29 3 0.29 1019 100.00

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554182 .anchor}Table 43. The percent of
successful anglers landing 1 to 31 black sea bass (MRFSS Type A fish)
per trip, waves 1-4, 2006.

Catch per Cumulative Cumulative

[Angler/Trip]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}
[Frequency]{.underline} [Percent]{.underline}

1 454 46.85 454 46.85

2 173 17.85 627 64.71

3 111 11.46 738 76.16

4 45 4.64 783 80.80

5 40 4.13 823 84.93

6 49 5.06 872 89.99

7 14 1.44 886 91.43

8 18 1.86 904 93.29

9 13 1.34 917 94.63

10 7 0.72 924 95.36

11 23 2.37 947 97.73

12 3 0.31 950 98.04

13 2 0.21 952 98.25

14 3 0.31 955 98.56

15 3 0.31 958 98.86

16 4 0.41 962 99.28

17 4 0.41 966 99.69

20 2 0.21 968 99.90

31 1 0.10 969 100.00

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554183 .anchor}**Table 44. Measured black sea
bass (MRFSS Type A fish) less than 10 inches TL (1994-1999), 11 inches
(2000-2001), 11.5 inches (2002), and 12 inches (2003-2007), by state and
year.**

  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **State**   **1994**   **1995**   **1996**   **1997**   **1998**   **1999**   **2000**   **2001**   **2002**   **2003**   **2004**   **2005**   **2006**   **2007**

  **ME**      \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-

  **NH**      \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         \-         0          7.1        0                     \-         \-         \-         \-

  **MA**      0          0          0          0          0          \-         44.4       0          0          4.6        1.7        2.5        5.8        10.7

  **RI**      5.3        32.2       10.0       28.6       15.6       2.9        17.4       2.7        9.8        1.8        2.3        1.3        2.9        8.1

  **CT**      \-         44.4       0          0          0          0          0          0          9.1        9.1        12.5       0          0          0

  **NY**      70.3       60.9       25.0       55.2       0          37.9       42.2       4.4        4.8        11.3       4.8        9.7        18.4       17.8

  **NJ**      35.0       60.2       37.0       36.2       8.4        3.1        47.0       2.5        2.6        2.7        0.3        0.9        6.8        3.4

  **DE**      56.5       55.4       36.7       24.0       8.5        4.8        26.1       9.8        13.8       9.4        11.2       17.1       8.4        2.1

  **MD**      29.2       34.7       0          15.0       10.0       3.0        37.2       6.4        1.8        3.5        2.2        10.1       6.3        6.5

  **VA**      47.8       50.5       52.7       20.1       18.9       15.3       9.3        6.3        8.0        9.8        11.2       33.1       24.2       10.1

  **NC^1^**   29.8       39.9       26.5       26.3       33.5       17.4       31.7       22.5       12.1       46.0       59.0       62.4       56.6       44.4

                                                                                                                                                             

  **Coast**   44.3       48.6       42.3       26.5       18.4       13.1       25.6       8.2        9.0        8.1        17.5       25.3       19.2       14.44
  ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

^1^All of NC, both North and South of Hatteras.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554184 .anchor}Table 45. Projected 2008 Effort
Effects of Combined Management Measures, by Mode (2007 catch and effort
estimates were used to project 2008 effects).

  -------------------------- ------------------- ----------- --------- -- -------------------- ------------ --------- -- -------------- ------------ ---------
  Number range CHAPTER       **Party/Charter**                            **Private/Rental**                                            **Shore**    

                             **Affected**        **Total**   **% of**     **Affected**         **Total**    **% of**     **Affected**   **Total**    **% of**

                             **Trips**           **Trips**   **Total      **Trips**            **Trips**    **Total      **Trips**      **Trips**    **Total
                                                             Trips**                                        Trips**                                  Trips**

  **Fluke precautionary      102,165             1,822,567   5.61         627,018              20,335,069   3.08         123,397        16,546,372   0.75
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt1, BSB Alt1**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      99,653              1,822,567   5.47         627,232              20,335,069   3.08         123,397        16,546,372   0.75
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt1, BSB Alt2**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      105,793             1,822,567   5.80         627,636              20,335,069   3.09         123,397        16,546,372   0.75
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt1, BSB Alt3**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      105,406             1,822,567   5.78         670,547              20,335,069   3.30         123,916        16,546,372   0.75
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt2, BSB Alt1**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      102,894             1,822,567   5.65         670,311              20,335,069   3.30         123,916        16,546,372   0.75
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt2, BSB Alt2**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      109,034             1,822,567   5.98         670,715              20,335,069   3.30         123,916        16,546,372   0.75
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt2, BSB Alt3**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      94,504              1,822,567   5.19         582,038              20,335,069   2.86         120,801        16,546,372   0.73
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt3, BSB Alt1**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      91,992              1,822,567   5.05         581,802              20,335,069   2.86         120,801        16,546,372   0.73
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt3, BSB Alt2**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke precautionary      98,132              1,822,567   5.38         582,206              20,335,069   2.86         120,801        16,546,372   0.73
  default measures, Scup                                                                                                                             
  Alt3, BSB Alt3**                                                                                                                                   

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt1,   93,834              1,822,567   5.15         557,869              20,335,069   2.74         123,373        16,546,372   0.75
  BSB Alt1**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt1,   91,322              1,822,567   5.01         557,633              20,335,069   2.74         123,373        16,546,372   0.75
  BSB Alt2**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt1,   97,462              1,822,567   5.35         558,037              20,335,069   2.74         123,373        16,546,372   0.75
  BSB Alt3**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt2,   97,075              1,822,567   5.33         600,948              20,335,069   2.96         123,892        16,546,372   0.75
  BSB Alt1**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt2,   94,563              1,822,567   5.19         600,712              20,335,069   2.95         123,892        16,546,372   0.75
  BSB Alt2**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt2,   100,703             1,822,567   5.53         601,116              20,335,069   2.96         123,892        16,546,372   0.75
  BSB Alt3**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt3,   86,173              1,822,567   4.73         512,439              20,335,069   2.52         120,777        16,546,372   0.73
  BSB Alt1**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt3,   83,661              1,822,567   4.59         512,203              20,335,069   2.52         120,777        16,546,372   0.73
  BSB Alt2**                                                                                                                                         

  **Fluke Alt2, Scup Alt3,   89,801              1,822,567   4.93         512,607              20,335,069   2.52         120,777        16,546,372   0.73
  BSB Alt3**                                                                                                                                         
  -------------------------- ------------------- ----------- --------- -- -------------------- ------------ --------- -- -------------- ------------ ---------

Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554185 .anchor}Table 46. Average daily trip
expenditures by recreational fishermen in the Northeast region by mode,
in 1998.

  ----------------------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------
  Expenditures                  \$                               

                                Party/Charter   Private/Rental   Shore

  **Travel**                    4.77            5.27             5.39

  **Food, drink, refreshments** 16.06           13.18            13.37

  **Lodging at motels, cabins,  5.53            1.51             5.28
  lodges, or campgrounds**                                       

  **Public transportation or    1.46            0.48             0.87
  car rental**                                                   

  **Boat fuel**                 0               13.40            0

  **Guide or package fees**     33.22           0                0

  **Access and/or boat          0.86            3.72             0.41
  launching fees**                                               

  **Equipment**                 1.66            0.42             0.21

  **Bait**                      2.18            6.95             5.15

  **Ice**                       1.39            2.48             1.79

  **Total**                     67.12           47.42            32.48
  ----------------------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554186 .anchor}Table 47. Regional Economic
Impacts of Combined Management Measures Assuming a 25% Reduction in the
Number of Affected Trips (2008 \$'s).

  ------------- ------------------- -------- ------ -- -------------------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------
  Number range  **Party/Charter**                      **Private/Rental**                      **Shore**                      **Total**            
  CHAPTER                                                                                                                                          

                Sales               Income   Jobs      Sales                Income   Jobs      Sales       Income   Jobs      Sales       Income   Jobs

                (thousand dollars)                     (thousand dollars)                      (thousand                      (thousand            
                                                                                               dollars)                       dollars)             

  Combination   3,237               1,181    32        14,029               5,120    137       1,891       690      19        19,157      6,991    188
  1^a^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   3,157               1,152    31        14,037               5,123    137       1,891       690      19        19,085      6,965    187
  2^b^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   3,351               1,223    33        14,046               5,126    138       1,891       690      19        19,288      7,039    190
  3^c^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   3,339               1,219    33        15,006               5,477    147       1,899       693      19        20,244      7,389    199
  4^d^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   3,259               1,189    32        15,001               5,475    147       1,899       693      19        20,159      7,357    198
  5^e^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   3,454               1,260    34        15,010               5,478    147       1,899       693      19        20,363      7,431    200
  6^f^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   2,994               1,092    29        13,026               4,754    128       1,852       676      18        17,872      6,522    175
  7^g^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   2,914               1,063    29        13,020               4,752    127       1,852       676      18        17,786      6,491    174
  8^h^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   3,108               1,134    31        13,029               4,755    128       1,852       676      18        17,989      6,565    177
  9^i^                                                                                                                                             

  Combination   2,972               1,085    29        12,485               4,556    122       1,891       690      19        17,348      6,331    170
  10^j^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   2,893               1,056    28        12,479               4,554    122       1,891       690      19        17,263      6,300    169
  11^k^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   3,087               1,127    30        12,488               4,558    122       1,891       690      19        17,466      6,375    171
  12^l^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   3,075               1,122    30        13,449               4,908    132       1,899       693      19        18,423      6,723    181
  13^m^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   2,995               1,093    29        13,443               4,906    132       1,899       693      19        18,337      6,692    180
  14^n^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   3,190               1,164    31        13,452               4,910    132       1,899       693      19        18,541      6,767    182
  15^o^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   2,730               996      27        11,468               4,185    112       1,851       676      18        16,049      5,857    157
  16^p^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   2,650               967      26        11,463               4,183    112       1,851       676      18        15,964      5,826    156
  17^q^                                                                                                                                            

  Combination   2,845               1,038    28        11,472               4,187    112       1,851       676      18        16,168      5,901    158
  18^r^                                                                                                                                            
  ------------- ------------------- -------- ------ -- -------------------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------

^a^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 1, BSB
alternative 1

^b^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 1, BSB
alternative 2

^c^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 1, BSB
alternative 3

^d^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 2, BSB
alternative 1

^e^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 2, BSB
alternative 2

^f^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 2, BSB
alternative 3

^g^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 3, BSB
alternative 1

^h^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 3, BSB
alternative 2

^i^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 3, BSB
alternative 3

^j^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 1, BSB alternative 1

^k^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 1, BSB alternative 2

^l^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 1, BSB alternative 3

^m^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 2, BSB alternative 1

^n^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 2, BSB alternative 2

^o^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 2, BSB alternative 3

^p^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 3, BSB alternative 1

^q^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 3, BSB alternative 2

^r^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 3, BSB alternative 3

Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554187 .anchor}Table 48. Regional Economic
Impacts of Combined Management Measures Assuming a 50% Reduction in the
Number of Affected Trips (2008 \$'s).

  -------------------- ------------------- -------- ------ -- -------------------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------
  Number range CHAPTER **Party/Charter**                      **Private/Rental**                      **Shore**                      **Total**            

                       Sales               Income   Jobs      Sales                Income   Jobs      Sales       Income   Jobs      Sales       Income   Jobs

                       (thousand dollars)                     (thousand dollars)                      (thousand                      (thousand            
                                                                                                      dollars)                       dollars)             

  Number range         6,474               2,362    64        28,058               10,240   274       3,782       1,380    38        38,314      13,982   376
  CHAPTERCombination                                                                                                                                      
  1^a^                                                                                                                                                    

  Combination 2^b^     6,314               2,304    62        28,074               10,246   274       3,782       1,380    38        38,170      13,930   374

  Combination 3^c^     6,702               2,446    66        28,092               10,252   276       3,782       1,380    38        38,576      14,078   380

  Combination 4^d^     6,678               2,438    66        30,012               10,954   294       3,798       1,386    38        40,488      14,778   398

  Combination 5^e^     6,518               2,378    64        30,002               10,950   294       3,798       1,386    38        40,318      14,714   396

  Combination 6^f^     6,908               2,520    68        30,020               10,956   294       3,798       1,386    38        40,726      14,862   400

  Combination 7^g^     5,988               2,184    58        26,052               9,508    256       3,704       1,352    36        35,744      13,044   350

  Combination 8^h^     5,828               2,126    58        26,040               9,504    254       3,704       1,352    36        35,572      12,982   348

  Combination 9^i^     6,216               2,268    62        26,058               9,510    256       3,704       1,352    36        35,978      13,130   354

  Combination 10^j^    5,944               2,170    58        24,970               9,112    244       3,782       1,380    38        34,696      12,662   340

  Combination 11^k^    5,786               2,112    56        24,958               9,108    244       3,782       1,380    38        34,526      12,600   338

  Combination 12^l^    6,174               2,254    60        24,976               9,116    244       3,782       1,380    38        34,932      12,750   342

  Combination 13^m^    6,150               2,244    60        26,898               9,816    264       3,798       1,386    38        36,846      13,446   362

  Combination 14^n^    5,990               2,186    58        26,886               9,812    264       3,798       1,386    38        36,674      13,384   360

  Combination 15^o^    6,380               2,328    62        26,904               9,820    264       3,798       1,386    38        37,082      13,534   364

  Combination 16^p^    5,460               1,992    54        22,936               8,370    224       3,702       1,352    36        32,098      11,714   314

  Combination 17^q^    5,300               1,934    52        22,926               8,366    224       3,702       1,352    36        31,928      11,652   312

  Combination 18^r^    5,690               2,076    56        22,944               8,374    224       3,702       1,352    36        32,336      11,802   316
  -------------------- ------------------- -------- ------ -- -------------------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------ -- ----------- -------- ------

^a^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 1, BSB
alternative 1

^b^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 1, BSB
alternative 2

^c^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 1, BSB
alternative 3

^d^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 2, BSB
alternative 1

^e^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 2, BSB
alternative 2

^f^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 2, BSB
alternative 3

^g^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 3, BSB
alternative 1

^h^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 3, BSB
alternative 2

^i^Fluke precautionary default measures, Scup alternative 3, BSB
alternative 3

^j^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 1, BSB alternative 1

^k^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 1, BSB alternative 2

^l^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 1, BSB alternative 3

^m^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 2, BSB alternative 1

^n^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 2, BSB alternative 2

^o^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 2, BSB alternative 3

^p^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 3, BSB alternative 1

^q^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 3, BSB alternative 2

^r^Fluke alternative 2, Scup alternative 3, BSB alternative 3

Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554188 .anchor}Table 49. Summary of Landings
Combinations by Vessels Reporting Party/Charter Trips (Calendar Year
2006 VTR Data).

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
  **Number range   **Landed   **Landed   **Landed   **Landed   **Landed   **Landed   **Landed   **Total**
  CHAPTERState**   Fluke,     BSB Only** BSB and    BSB and    Scup       Fluke      Fluke and  
                   BSB, and              Scup**     Fluke**    Only**     Only**     Scup**     
                   Scup**                                                                       

  **Number range   0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
  CHAPTERME**                                                                                   

  **NH**           1          0          0          0          0          1          0          2

  **MA**           13         3          2          5          2          5          0          30

  **RI**           20         0          1          5          2          9          2          39

  **CT**           5          0          2          1          2          2          2          14

  **NY**           57         4          3          13         1          9          2          89

  **NJ**           43         10         3          46         1          18         1          122

  **DE**           5          10         0          24         0          3          0          42

  **MD**           1          2          0          3          0          0          0          6

  **VA**           1          5          0          7          0          6          0          19

  **NC**           1          4          0          0          0          1          0          6

  **Total**        147        38         11         104        8          54         7          369
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------

Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554189 .anchor}Table 50. Number of summer
flounder recreational fishing trips, recreational harvest limit, and
recreational landings from 1991 to 2008.

+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Number  | **Number range   | **Number range   | **Recreational   |
| range     | CHAPTER**        | CHAPT            | Landings**       |
| CHAPTER** |                  | ERRecreational** |                  |
|           | **Number of**    |                  | **of Summer      |
| **Year**  |                  | **Harvest        | Flounder**       |
|           | **Fishing        | Limit**          |                  |
|           | Trips^a^**       |                  | **(million       |
|           |                  | **(million lb)** | lb)^b^**         |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1991**  | 4,536,651        | None             | 7.96             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1992**  | 3,820,071        | None             | 7.15             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1993**  | 4,671,638        | 8.38             | 8.83             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1994**  | 5,769,037        | 10.67            | 9.33             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1995**  | 4,683,754        | 7.76             | 5.42             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1996**  | 4,885,179        | 7.41             | 9.82             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1997**  | 5,595,636        | 7.41             | 11.87            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1998**  | 5,268,926        | 7.41             | 12.48            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1999**  | 4,219,909        | 7.41             | 8.37             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2000**  | 5,802,215        | 7.41             | 16.47            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2001**  | 6,130,383        | 7.16             | 11.64            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2002**  | 4,564,011        | 9.72             | 8.01             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2003**  | 5,624,387        | 9.28^d^          | 11.64            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2004**  | 5,129,166        | 11.21^d^         | 10.87            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2005**  | 5,560,041        | 11.98^d^         | 10.58            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2006**  | 5,447,976        | 9.29^d^          | 11.51            |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2007**  | 5,568,147        | 6.75^d^          | 9.30^c^          |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2008**  | \-               | 6.21^d^          | \-               |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

^a^Estimated number of recreational fishing trips (expanded) where the
primary target species was summer flounder, Maine through North
Carolina. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

^b^From Maine through North Carolina. Source: MRFSS.

^c^Projected landings using waves 1-5.

^d^Adjusted for research set-aside.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554190 .anchor}Table 51. Number of scup
recreational fishing trips, recreational harvest limit, and recreational
landings from 1991 to 2008.

+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Number  | **Number range   | **Number range   | **Recreational   |
| range     | CHAPTER**        | CHAPT            | Landings**       |
| CHAPTER** |                  | ERRecreational** |                  |
|           | **Number of**    |                  | **of Scup**      |
| **Year**  |                  | **Harvest        |                  |
|           | **Fishing        | Limit**          | **(million       |
|           | Trips^a^**       |                  | lb)^b^**         |
|           |                  | **(million lb)** |                  |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1991**  | Number range     | None             | 8.09             |
|           | CHAPTER793,593   |                  |                  |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1992**  | 499,780          | None             | 4.41             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1993**  | 499,703          | None             | 3.20             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1994**  | 435,625          | None             | 2.63             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1995**  | 242,956          | None             | 1.34             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1996**  | 241,322          | None             | 2.16             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1997**  | 198,754          | 1.95             | 1.20             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1998**  | 213,842          | 1.55             | 0.88             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1999**  | 231,596          | 1.24             | 1.89             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2000**  | 485,039          | 1.24             | 5.44             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2001**  | 484,604          | 1.77             | 4.26             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2002**  | 481,716          | 2.71^d^          | 3.62             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2003**  | 971,770          | 4.01^d^          | 8.48             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2004**  | 567,518          | 3.99^d^          | 4.41             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2005**  | 478,810          | 3.96^d^          | 2.67             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2006**  | 466,977          | 3.99^d^          | 2.95             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2007**  | 505,318          | 2.74^d^          | 3.80^c^          |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2008**  | \-               | 1.83^d^          | \-               |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

^a^Estimated number of recreational fishing trips where the primary
target species was scup, Maine through

North Carolina. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NEFSC.

^b^From Maine to North Carolina. Source MRFSS.

^c^Projected landings using waves 1-5.

^d^Adjusted for research set-aside.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554191 .anchor}Table 52. Number of black sea
bass recreational fishing trips, recreational harvest limit, and
recreational landings from 1991 to 2008.

+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Number  | **Number range   | **Number range   | **Recreational   |
| range     | CHAPTER**        | CHAPT            | Landings**       |
| CHAPTER** |                  | ERRecreational** |                  |
|           | **Number of**    |                  | **of BSB**       |
| **Year**  |                  | **Harvest        |                  |
|           | **Fishing        | Limit**          | **(million       |
|           | Trips^a^**       |                  | lb)^b^**         |
|           |                  | **(million lb)** |                  |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1991**  | Number range     | None             | 4.19             |
|           | CHAPTER288,691   |                  |                  |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1992**  | 263,957          | None             | 2.71             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1993**  | 299,404          | None             | 4.84             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1994**  | 253,888          | None             | 2.95             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1995**  | 313,537          | None             | 6.21             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1996**  | 231,090          | None             | 4.00             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1997**  | 310,898          | None             | 4.27             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1998**  | 137,734          | 3.15             | 1.15             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **1999**  | 136,452          | 3.15             | 1.70             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2000**  | 255,789          | 3.15             | 3.99             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2001**  | 293,191          | 3.15             | 3.42             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2002**  | 283,537          | 3.43^d^          | 4.35             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2003**  | 285,861          | 3.43^d^          | 3.30             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2004**  | 186,038          | 4.01^d^          | 1.67             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2005**  | 163,418          | 4.13^d^          | 2.01             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2006**  | 251,945          | 3.99^d^          | 1.98             |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2007**  | 340,321          | 2.47^d^          | 1.97^c^          |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **2008**  | \-               | 2.11^d^          |                  |
+-----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

^a^Estimated number of recreational fishing trips (expanded) where the
primary target species was black sea bass, Maine through North Carolina.
Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NEFSC.

^b^From Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Source MRFSS.

^c^Projected landings using waves 1-5.

^d^Adjusted for research set-aside.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554192 .anchor}Table 53. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 1, and
black sea bass alternative 1 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,276 | 30     | \$7,966    | \$15,933   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 12.7%  | 5,616  | 39     | \$1,479    | \$2,957    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 13.1%  | 48,984 | 89     | \$5,651    | \$11,302   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.2%   | 16,515 | 122    | \$1,390    | \$2,780    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.4%   | 319    | 42     | \$78       | \$156      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 661    | 6      | \$1,131    | \$2,261    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 755    | 19     | \$408      | \$816      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.8%   | 5,224  | 6      | \$8,940    | \$17,880   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554193 .anchor}Table 54. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 1, and
black sea bass alternative 2 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,216 | 30     | \$7,946    | \$15,891   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 12.2%  | 5,385  | 39     | \$1,418    | \$2,836    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 12.9%  | 48,164 | 89     | \$5,556    | \$11,113   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.1%   | 15,747 | 122    | \$1,325    | \$2,651    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.3%   | 303    | 42     | \$74       | \$148      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 609    | 6      | \$1,043    | \$2,086    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 749    | 19     | \$405      | \$810      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.6%   | 4,663  | 6      | \$7,980    | \$15,960   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554194 .anchor}Table 55. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 1, and
black sea bass alternative 3 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 10.0%  | 23,765 | 30     | \$8,134    | \$16,267   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 13.1%  | 5,800  | 39     | \$1,527    | \$3,054    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 13.3%  | 49,784 | 89     | \$5,743    | \$11,487   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.6%   | 18,166 | 122    | \$1,529    | \$3,058    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.5%   | 343    | 42     | \$84       | \$168      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.4%   | 707    | 6      | \$1,210    | \$2,421    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 756    | 19     | \$408      | \$817      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 2.0%   | 5,657  | 6      | \$9,680    | \$19,360   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554195 .anchor}Table 56. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 2, and
black sea bass alternative 1 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,276 | 30     | \$7,966    | \$15,933   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 12.7%  | 5,614  | 39     | \$1,478    | \$2,956    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 13.8%  | 51,842 | 89     | \$5,981    | \$11,962   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.3%   | 16,880 | 122    | \$1,421    | \$2,841    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.4%   | 319    | 42     | \$78       | \$156      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 661    | 6      | \$1,131    | \$2,261    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 774    | 19     | \$418      | \$836      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.8%   | 5,224  | 6      | \$8,940    | \$17,880   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554196 .anchor}Table 57. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 2, and
black sea bass alternative 2 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,216 | 30     | \$7,946    | \$15,891   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 12.2%  | 5,383  | 39     | \$1,417    | \$2,834    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 13.6%  | 51,023 | 89     | \$5,886    | \$11,773   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.2%   | 16,112 | 122    | \$1,356    | \$2,712    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.3%   | 303    | 42     | \$74       | \$148      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 609    | 6      | \$1,043    | \$2,086    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 768    | 19     | \$415      | \$830      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.6%   | 4,663  | 6      | \$7,980    | \$15,960   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554197 .anchor}Table 58. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 2, and
black sea bass alternative 3 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 10.0%  | 23,765 | 30     | \$8,134    | \$16,267   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 13.1%  | 5,797  | 39     | \$1,526    | \$3,052    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 14.1%  | 52,643 | 89     | \$6,073    | \$12,146   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.6%   | 18,531 | 122    | \$1,560    | \$3,119    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.5%   | 343    | 42     | \$84       | \$168      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.4%   | 707    | 6      | \$1,210    | \$2,421    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 775    | 19     | \$419      | \$837      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 2.0%   | 5,657  | 6      | \$9,680    | \$19,360   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554198 .anchor}Table 59. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 3, and
black sea bass alternative 1 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,276 | 30     | \$7,966    | \$15,933   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 11.0%  | 4,874  | 39     | \$1,283    | \$2,566    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 0.9%   | 331    | 14     | \$243      | \$486      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 11.7%  | 43,734 | 89     | \$5,045    | \$10,091   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.0%   | 15,487 | 122    | \$1,303    | \$2,607    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.4%   | 319    | 42     | \$78       | \$156      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 648    | 6      | \$1,109    | \$2,218    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 755    | 19     | \$408      | \$816      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.8%   | 5,081  | 6      | \$8,696    | \$17,391   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554199 .anchor}Table 60. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 3, and
black sea bass alternative 2 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,216 | 30     | \$7,946    | \$15,891   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 10.5%  | 4,643  | 39     | \$1,222    | \$2,445    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 0.9%   | 331    | 14     | \$243      | \$486      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 11.5%  | 42,914 | 89     | \$4,951    | \$9,902    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 2.9%   | 14,719 | 122    | \$1,239    | \$2,478    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.3%   | 303    | 42     | \$74       | \$148      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 597    | 6      | \$1,021    | \$2,042    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 749    | 19     | \$405      | \$810      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.6%   | 4,520  | 6      | \$7,735    | \$15,471   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554200 .anchor}Table 61. Combined effects of
summer flounder precautionary default measures, scup alternative 3, and
black sea bass alternative 3 management measures - affected
party/charter effort and the average estimated gross revenue loss per
party/charter vessel (federally permitted) in each state in the
Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 10.0%  | 23,765 | 30     | \$8,134    | \$16,267   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 11.5%  | 5,057  | 39     | \$1,331    | \$2,663    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 0.9%   | 331    | 14     | \$243      | \$486      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 11.9%  | 44,534 | 89     | \$5,138    | \$10,275   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 3.4%   | 17,138 | 122    | \$1,442    | \$2,885    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.5%   | 343    | 42     | \$84       | \$168      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.4%   | 695    | 6      | \$1,189    | \$2,377    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 756    | 19     | \$408      | \$817      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.9%   | 5,514  | 6      | \$9,435    | \$18,871   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554201 .anchor}Table 62. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass
alternative 1 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| **     | *      | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average | **Average |
| Number | *MRFSS | imated | imated | Number | Estimated | Estimated |
| range  | Pro    | P      | Angler | of     | Gross     | Gross     |
| CHA    | jected | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue   | Revenue   |
| PTER** | Total  | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per  | Loss per  |
|        | Est    | Angler | P      | pating | Part      | Part      |
| **S    | imated | P      | arty/C | Fed    | y/Charter | y/Charter |
| tate** | Angler | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in | Vessel in |
|        | Effort | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008      | 2008      |
|        | in     | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming  | Assuming  |
|        | 2008   | S      | ubject | P      | a 25%     | a 50%     |
|        | Aboard | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction | Reduction |
|        | P      | to     | Meas   | harter | in        | in        |
|        | arty/C | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected  | Affected  |
|        | harter | ures** |        | essels | Effort    | Effort    |
|        | B      |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**  | (\$'s)**  |
|        | oats** |        |        | 2      |           |           |
|        |        |        |        | 006)** |           |           |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| ME     | 27,362 | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-        | \-        |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NH     | 32,652 | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-        | \-        |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| MA     | 2      | 9.6%   | 22,759 | 30     | \$7,789   | \$15,578  |
|        | 37,573 |        |        |        |           |           |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| RI     | 44,121 | 10.9%  | 4,793  | 39     | \$1,262   | \$2,524   |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| CT     | 36,473 | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598     | \$1,197   |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NY     | 3      | 12.5%  | 46,960 | 89     | \$5,418   | \$10,835  |
|        | 74,562 |        |        |        |           |           |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NJ     | 5      | 2.3%   | 11,633 | 122    | \$979     | \$1,958   |
|        | 08,259 |        |        |        |           |           |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| DE     | 23,542 | 1.1%   | 255    | 42     | \$62      | \$125     |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| MD     | 1      | 0.3%   | 661    | 6      | \$1,131   | \$2,261   |
|        | 98,130 |        |        |        |           |           |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| VA     | 51,626 | 1.4%   | 734    | 19     | \$397     | \$793     |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NC     | 2      | 1.8%   | 5,223  | 6      | \$8,938   | \$17,877  |
|        | 88,268 |        |        |        |           |           |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554202 .anchor}Table 63. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass
alternative 2 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| ** | **MRFSS   | **Es    | **Est  | **     | **Average | **Average |
| Nu | Projected | timated | imated | Number | Estimated | Estimated |
| mb | Total     | Percent | Angler | of     | Gross     | Gross     |
| er | Estimated | of      | Trips  | P      | Revenue   | Revenue   |
| r  | Angler    | Angler  | Aboard | artici | Loss per  | Loss per  |
| an | Effort in | Party/  | P      | pating | Part      | Part      |
| ge | 2008      | Charter | arty/C | Fed    | y/Charter | y/Charter |
| C  | Aboard    | Effort  | harter | erally | Vessel in | Vessel in |
| HA | Part      | Subject | Boats  | Per    | 2008      | 2008      |
| PT | y/Charter | to      | S      | mitted | Assuming  | Assuming  |
| ER | Boats**   | Mea     | ubject | P      | a 25%     | a 50%     |
| ** |           | sures** | to     | arty/C | Reduction | Reduction |
|    |           |         | Meas   | harter | in        | in        |
| *  |           |         | ures** | V      | Affected  | Affected  |
| *S |           |         |        | essels | Effort    | Effort    |
| ta |           |         |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**  | (\$'s)**  |
| te |           |         |        | 2      |           |           |
| ** |           |         |        | 006)** |           |           |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| ME | 27,362    | 0.0%    | 0      | 0      | \-        | \-        |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NH | 32,652    | 0.0%    | 0      | 2      | \-        | \-        |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| MA | 237,573   | 9.6%    | 22,698 | 30     | \$7,768   | \$15,537  |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| RI | 44,121    | 10.3%   | 4,562  | 39     | \$1,201   | \$2,402   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| CT | 36,473    | 2.2%    | 816    | 14     | \$598     | \$1,197   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NY | 374,562   | 12.3%   | 46,141 | 89     | \$5,323   | \$10,646  |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NJ | 508,259   | 2.1%    | 10,865 | 122    | \$914     | \$1,829   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| DE | 23,542    | 1.0%    | 239    | 42     | \$59      | \$117     |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| MD | 198,130   | 0.3%    | 609    | 6      | \$1,043   | \$2,086   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| VA | 51,626    | 1.4%    | 729    | 19     | \$394     | \$787     |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| NC | 288,268   | 1.6%    | 4,662  | 6      | \$7,978   | \$15,957  |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554203 .anchor}Table 64. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass
alternative 3 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS   | **Es    | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | Projected | timated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | Total     | Percent | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Estimated | of      | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | Angler    | Angler  | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | Effort in | Party/  | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | 2008      | Charter | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Aboard    | Effort  | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | Part      | Subject | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | y/Charter | to      | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Boats**   | Mea     | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** |           | sures** | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    |           |         | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |           |         | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |           |         |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |           |         |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |           |         |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |           |         |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362    | 0.0%    | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652    | 0.0%    | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573   | 9.8%    | 23,248 | 30     | \$7,956    | \$15,913   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121    | 11.3%   | 4,977  | 39     | \$1,310    | \$2,620    |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473    | 2.2%    | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562   | 12.8%   | 47,761 | 89     | \$5,510    | \$11,020   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259   | 2.6%    | 13,284 | 122    | \$1,118    | \$2,236    |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542    | 1.2%    | 279    | 42     | \$68       | \$137      |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130   | 0.4%    | 707    | 6      | \$1,210    | \$2,421    |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626    | 1.4%    | 735    | 19     | \$397      | \$794      |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268   | 2.0%    | 5,656  | 6      | \$9,678    | \$19,357   |
+----+-----------+---------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554204 .anchor}Table 65. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass
alternative 1 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| ** | **MRFSS   | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average | **Average   |
| Nu | Projected | imated | imated | Number | Estimated | Estimated   |
| mb | Total     | P      | Angler | of     | Gross     | Gross       |
| er | Estimated | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue   | Revenue     |
| r  | Angler    | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per  | Loss per    |
| an | Effort in | Angler | P      | pating | Part      | Pa          |
| ge | 2008      | P      | arty/C | Fed    | y/Charter | rty/Charter |
| C  | Aboard    | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in | Vessel in   |
| HA | Part      | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008      | 2008        |
| PT | y/Charter | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming  | Assuming a  |
| ER | Boats**   | S      | ubject | P      | a 25%     | 50%         |
| ** |           | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction | Reduction   |
|    |           | to     | Meas   | harter | in        | in Affected |
| *  |           | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected  | Effort      |
| *S |           | ures** |        | essels | Effort    | (\$'s)**    |
| ta |           |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**  |             |
| te |           |        |        | 2      |           |             |
| ** |           |        |        | 006)** |           |             |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| ME | 27,362    | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-        | \-          |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NH | 32,652    | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-        | \-          |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| MA | 237,573   | 9.6%   | 22,759 | 30     | \$7,789   | \$15,578    |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| RI | 44,121    | 10.9%  | 4,791  | 39     | \$1,261   | \$2,523     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| CT | 36,473    | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598     | \$1,197     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NY | 374,562   | 13.3%  | 49,819 | 89     | \$5,747   | \$11,495    |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NJ | 508,259   | 2.4%   | 11,998 | 122    | \$1,010   | \$2,020     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| DE | 23,542    | 1.1%   | 255    | 42     | \$62      | \$125       |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| MD | 198,130   | 0.3%   | 661    | 6      | \$1,131   | \$2,261     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| VA | 51,626    | 1.5%   | 753    | 19     | \$407     | \$814       |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NC | 288,268   | 1.8%   | 5,223  | 6      | \$8,938   | \$17,877    |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554205 .anchor}Table 66. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass
alternative 2 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| ** | **MRFSS   | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average | **Average   |
| Nu | Projected | imated | imated | Number | Estimated | Estimated   |
| mb | Total     | P      | Angler | of     | Gross     | Gross       |
| er | Estimated | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue   | Revenue     |
| r  | Angler    | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per  | Loss per    |
| an | Effort in | Angler | P      | pating | Part      | Pa          |
| ge | 2008      | P      | arty/C | Fed    | y/Charter | rty/Charter |
| C  | Aboard    | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in | Vessel in   |
| HA | Part      | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008      | 2008        |
| PT | y/Charter | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming  | Assuming a  |
| ER | Boats**   | S      | ubject | P      | a 25%     | 50%         |
| ** |           | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction | Reduction   |
|    |           | to     | Meas   | harter | in        | in Affected |
| *  |           | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected  | Effort      |
| *S |           | ures** |        | essels | Effort    | (\$'s)**    |
| ta |           |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**  |             |
| te |           |        |        | 2      |           |             |
| ** |           |        |        | 006)** |           |             |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| ME | 27,362    | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-        | \-          |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NH | 32,652    | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-        | \-          |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| MA | 237,573   | 9.6%   | 22,698 | 30     | \$7,768   | \$15,537    |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| RI | 44,121    | 10.3%  | 4,560  | 39     | \$1,200   | \$2,401     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| CT | 36,473    | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598     | \$1,197     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NY | 374,562   | 13.1%  | 49,000 | 89     | \$5,653   | \$11,306    |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NJ | 508,259   | 2.2%   | 11,230 | 122    | \$945     | \$1,890     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| DE | 23,542    | 1.0%   | 239    | 42     | \$59      | \$117       |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| MD | 198,130   | 0.3%   | 609    | 6      | \$1,043   | \$2,086     |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| VA | 51,626    | 1.4%   | 748    | 19     | \$404     | \$808       |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| NC | 288,268   | 1.6%   | 4,662  | 6      | \$7,978   | \$15,957    |
+----+-----------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554206 .anchor}Table 67. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass
alternative 3 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,248 | 30     | \$7,956    | \$15,913   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 11.3%  | 4,974  | 39     | \$1,310    | \$2,619    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 2.2%   | 816    | 14     | \$598      | \$1,197    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 13.5%  | 50,620 | 89     | \$5,840    | \$11,679   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 2.7%   | 13,649 | 122    | \$1,149    | \$2,297    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.2%   | 279    | 42     | \$68       | \$137      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.4%   | 707    | 6      | \$1,210    | \$2,421    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.5%   | 754    | 19     | \$407      | \$815      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 2.0%   | 5,656  | 6      | \$9,678    | \$19,357   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554207 .anchor}Table 68. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass
alternative 1 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.6%   | 22,759 | 30     | \$7,789    | \$15,578   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 9.2%   | 4,051  | 39     | \$1,066    | \$2,133    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 0.9%   | 331    | 14     | \$243      | \$486      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 11.1%  | 41,710 | 89     | \$4,812    | \$9,624    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 2.1%   | 10,605 | 122    | \$892      | \$1,785    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.1%   | 255    | 42     | \$62       | \$125      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 648    | 6      | \$1,109    | \$2,218    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.4%   | 734    | 19     | \$397      | \$793      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.8%   | 5,080  | 6      | \$8,694    | \$17,388   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554208 .anchor}Table 69. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass
alternative 2 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.6%   | 22,698 | 30     | \$7,768    | \$15,537   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 8.7%   | 3,820  | 39     | \$1,006    | \$2,011    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 0.9%   | 331    | 14     | \$243      | \$486      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 10.9%  | 40,891 | 89     | \$4,717    | \$9,435    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 1.9%   | 9,837  | 122    | \$828      | \$1,656    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.0%   | 239    | 42     | \$59       | \$117      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.3%   | 597    | 6      | \$1,021    | \$2,042    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.4%   | 729    | 19     | \$394      | \$787      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.6%   | 4,519  | 6      | \$7,734    | \$15,467   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc189554209 .anchor}Table 70. Combined effects of
summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 3, and black sea bass
alternative 3 management measures - affected party/charter effort and
the average estimated gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel
(federally permitted) in each state in the Northeast Region (ME-NC).

+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ** | **MRFSS  | **Est  | **Est  | **     | **Average  | **Average  |
| Nu | P        | imated | imated | Number | Estimated  | Estimated  |
| mb | rojected | P      | Angler | of     | Gross      | Gross      |
| er | Total    | ercent | Trips  | P      | Revenue    | Revenue    |
| r  | E        | of     | Aboard | artici | Loss per   | Loss per   |
| an | stimated | Angler | P      | pating | Par        | Par        |
| ge | Angler   | P      | arty/C | Fed    | ty/Charter | ty/Charter |
| C  | Effort   | arty/C | harter | erally | Vessel in  | Vessel in  |
| HA | in 2008  | harter | Boats  | Per    | 2008       | 2008       |
| PT | Aboard   | Effort | S      | mitted | Assuming a | Assuming a |
| ER | Party    | S      | ubject | P      | 25%        | 50%        |
| ** | /Charter | ubject | to     | arty/C | Reduction  | Reduction  |
|    | Boats**  | to     | Meas   | harter | in         | in         |
| *  |          | Meas   | ures** | V      | Affected   | Affected   |
| *S |          | ures** |        | essels | Effort     | Effort     |
| ta |          |        |        | (VTR   | (\$'s)**   | (\$'s)**   |
| te |          |        |        | 2      |            |            |
| ** |          |        |        | 006)** |            |            |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| ME | 27,362   | 0.0%   | 0      | 0      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NH | 32,652   | 0.0%   | 0      | 2      | \-         | \-         |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MA | 237,573  | 9.8%   | 23,248 | 30     | \$7,956    | \$15,913   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| RI | 44,121   | 9.6%   | 4,234  | 39     | \$1,115    | \$2,229    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| CT | 36,473   | 0.9%   | 331    | 14     | \$243      | \$486      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NY | 374,562  | 11.3%  | 42,511 | 89     | \$4,904    | \$9,809    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NJ | 508,259  | 2.4%   | 12,256 | 122    | \$1,031    | \$2,063    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| DE | 23,542   | 1.2%   | 279    | 42     | \$68       | \$137      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| MD | 198,130  | 0.4%   | 695    | 6      | \$1,189    | \$2,377    |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| VA | 51,626   | 1.4%   | 735    | 19     | \$397      | \$794      |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+
| NC | 288,268  | 1.9%   | 5,513  | 6      | \$9,434    | \$18,867   |
+----+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+------------+

\- Less than 4 observations. Source: Scott Steinback, NMFS/NER/NEFSC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469716 .anchor}**FIGURES**

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.15625in" height="3.2083333333333335in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187821412 .anchor}Figure 1. Summer flounder
recreational catch (A+B1+B2) and landings (A+B1), 1981-2006.
(MRFSS/NMFS/FSO, pers. comm.)

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.166666666666667in" height="3.21875in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187821413 .anchor}Figure 2. Scup recreational
catch (A+B1+B2) and landings (A+B1), 1981-2006. (MRFSS/NMFS/FSO, pers.
comm.)

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.177083333333333in"
height="3.2291666666666665in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187821414 .anchor}Figure 3. Black sea bass
recreational catch (A+B1+B2) and landings (A+B1), 1981-2006.
(MRFSS/NMFS/FSO, pers. comm.)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469717 .anchor}**GLOSSARY**

**Glossary**

*[Amendment]{.underline}.* A formal change to a fishery management plan
(FMP). The Council prepares amendments and submits them to the Secretary
of Commerce for review and approval. The Council may also change FMPs
through a \"framework adjustment framework adjustment\" (see below).

*[B]{.underline}.* Biomass, measured in terms of total weight, spawning
capacity, or other appropriate units of production.

*[B~MSY~]{.underline}.* Long term average exploitable biomass that would
be achieved if fishing at a constant rate equal to F~MSY~. For most
stocks, B~MSY~ is about ½ of the carrying capacity. Overfishing
definition control rules usually call for action when biomass is below ¼
or ½ B~MSY~, depending on the species.

*[B~target~]{.underline}.* A desirable biomass to maintain fishery
stocks. This is usually synonymous with B~MSY~ or its proxy.

*[B~threshold~]{.underline}.* 1) A limit reference point for biomass
that defines an unacceptably low biomass i.e. puts a stock at high risk
(recruitment failure, depensation, collapse, reduced long term yields,
etc). 2) A biomass threshold that the SFA requires for defining when a
stock is overfished. A stock is overfished if its biomass is below
B~threshold~. A determination of overfished triggers the SFA requirement
for a rebuilding plan to achieve B~target~ as soon as possible, usually
not to exceed 10 years except certain requirements are met. B~threshold~
is also known as B~minimum~, or B~min~.

*[Bycatch]{.underline}.* Fish that are harvested in a fishery, but which
are not sold or kept for personal use. This includes economic discards
and regulatory discards. The fish that are being targeted may be bycatch
if they are not retained.

*[Commission]{.underline}.* Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

*[Committee]{.underline}.* The Monitoring Committee, made up of staff
representatives of the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils, the Commission, the Northeast Regional
Office of NMFS, the Northeast Fisheries Center, and the Southeast
Fisheries Center. The MAFMC Executive Director or his designee chairs
the Committee.

*[Conservation equivalency]{.underline}.* The approach under which
states are required to develop, and submit to the Commission for
approval, state-specific management measures (i.e. possession limits,
size limits, and seasons) designed to achieve state-specific harvest
limits.

*[Control rule]{.underline}.* A pre-determined method for determining
rates based on the relationship of current stock biomass to a biomass
target. The biomass threshold (B~threshold~ or B~min~) defines a minimum
biomass below which a stock is considered.

*[Council]{.underline}.* The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

*[Environmental Impact Statement]{.underline}.* An analysis of the
expected impacts of a fishery management plan (or some other proposed
Federal action) on the environment and on people, initially prepared as
a \"Draft\" (DEIS) for public comment. After an initial EIS is prepared
for a plan, subsequent analyses are called \"Supplemental.\" The Final
EIS is referred to as the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (FSEIS).

*[Exclusive Economic Zone]{.underline}.* For the purposes of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the area from
the seaward boundary of each of the coastal states to 200 nautical miles
from the baseline.

*[Fishing for summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass]{.underline}.*
Any activity, other than scientific research vessel activity, which
involves: (a) the catching, taking, or harvesting of summer flounder,
scup, or black sea bass; (b) any other activity which can reasonably be
expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of summer
flounder, scup, or black sea bass; or (c) any operations at sea in
support of, or in preparation for, any activity described in paragraphs
(a) or (b) of this definition.

*[Fishing effort]{.underline}.* The amount of time and fishing power
used to harvest fish. Fishing power is a function of gear size, boat
size, and horsepower.

*[Fishing mortality rate]{.underline}.* The part of the total mortality
rate (which also includes natural mortality) applying to a fish
population that is caused by man\'s harvesting. Fishing mortality is
usually expressed as an instantaneous rate (F), and can range from 0 for
no fishing to very high values such as 1.5 or 2.0. The corresponding
annual fishing mortality rate (A) is easily computed but not frequently
used. Values of A that would correspond to the F values of 1.5 and 2.0
would be 78% and 86%, meaning that there would be only 22% and 14% of
the fish alive (without any natural mortality) at the end of the year
that were alive at the beginning of the year. Fishing mortality rates
are estimated using a variety of techniques, depending on the available
data for a species or stock.

*[F~max~]{.underline}.* A calculated instantaneous fishing mortality
rate that is defined as \"the rate of fishing mortality for a given
method of fishing that maximizes the harvest in weight taken from a
single year class of fish over its entire life span\".

*[F~MSY~]{.underline}.* A fishing mortality rate that would produce MSY
when the stock biomass is sufficient for producing MSY on a continuing
basis.

*[Framework adjustments]{.underline}.* Adjustments within a range of
measures previously specified in a fishery management plan (FMP). A
change usually can be made more quickly and easily by a framework
adjustment than through an amendment. For plans developed by the
Mid-Atlantic Council, the procedure requires at least two Council
meetings including at least one public hearing and an evaluation of
environmental impacts not already analyzed as part of the FMP.

*[F~target~]{.underline}.* The target fishing mortality rate, equal to
the annual F determined from the selected rebuilding schedule for
overfished resources (i.e. summer flounder) and Council selected fishing
mortality level for non-overfished resources (i.e. surfclams).
Overfishing occurs when the overfishing target is exceeded.

*[F~threshold~]{.underline}.* 1) The maximum fishing mortality rate
allowed on a stock and used to define overfishing for status
determination. 2) The maximum fishing mortality rate allowed for a given
biomass as defined by a control rule.

*[Landings]{.underline}.* The portion of the catch that is harvested for
personal use or sold.

*[Metric ton]{.underline}*. A unit of weight equal to 1,000 kilograms (1
kg = 2.2 lb.). A metric ton is equivalent to 2,205 lb. A thousand metric
tons is equivalent to 2.2 million lb.

*[MSY]{.underline}.* Maximum sustainable yield. The largest long-term
average yield (catch) that can be taken from a stock under prevailing
ecological and environmental conditions. Overfished. An overfished stock
is one whose size is sufficiently small that a change in management
practices is required in order to achieve an appropriate level and rate
of rebuilding.

*[Natural Mortality Rate.]{.underline}* The part of the total mortality
rate applying to a fish population that is caused by factors other than
fishing. This may include disease, senility, predation, pollution, etc.,
with all sources of natural mortality being considered together. Natural
mortality is usually expressed as an instantaneous rate, and is
abbreviated as \"M\". An instantaneous mortality rate reflects the
percentage of fish dying at any one time, as compared to an annual rate
which reflects the percentage of fish dying in one year. Natural
mortality is differentiated from the instantaneous fishing mortality
rate, \"F\". Together, these comprise the instantaneous total mortality
rate, \"Z\" (i.e. Z = F + M). Natural mortality rates can be estimated
using a variety of techniques depending on data availability. As
compared to fishing mortality, natural mortality is often difficult to
investigate because direct evidence about the timing or magnitude of
natural deaths is rarely available.

*[Overfished.]{.underline}* An overfished stock is one "whose size is
sufficiently small that a change in management practices is required to
achieve an appropriate level and rate of rebuilding." A stock or stock
complex is considered overfished when its population size falls below
the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). A rebuilding plan is required
for stocks that are deemed overfished. A stock is considered
"overfished" when exploited beyond an explicit limit beyond which its
abundance is considered 'too low' to ensure safe reproduction.

*[Overfishing.]{.underline}* According to the National Standard
Guidelines, "overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is
subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the
capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) on a continuing basis." Overfishing is occurring if the
maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) is exceeded for 1 year or
more. In general, it is the action of exerting fishing pressure (fishing
intensity) beyond the agreed optimum level. A reduction of fishing
pressure would, in the medium term, lead to an increase in the total
catch.

*[Party/Charter boat]{.underline}.* Any vessel which carries passengers
for hire to engage in fishing

*[Recruitment]{.underline}*. The addition of fish to the fishable
population due to migration or to growth. Recruits are usually fish from
one year class that have just grown large enough to be retained by the
fishing gear.

*[Spawning Stock Biomass]{.underline}.* The total weight of all sexually
mature fish in the population. This quantity depends on year class
abundance, the exploitation pattern, the rate of growth, fishing and
natural mortality rates, the onset of sexual maturity and environmental
conditions.

*[Status Determination]{.underline}.* A determination of stock status
relative to B~threshold~ (defines overfished) and F~threshold~ (defines
overfishing). A determination of either overfished or overfishing
triggers a SFA requirement for rebuilding plan (overfished), ending
overfishing (overfishing) or both.

*[Stock]{.underline}.* A grouping of a species usually based on genetic
relationship, geographic distribution and movement patterns. A region
may have more than one stock of a species (for example, Gulf of Maine
cod and Georges Bank cod).

*[TAL]{.underline}.* Total allowable landings; the total regulated
landings from a stock in a given time period, usually one year.

*[Total length]{.underline}.* The straight-line distance from the tip of
the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side.
For black sea bass, the total length excludes any caudal filament.

*[Year-class]{.underline}.* The fish spawned or hatched in a given year.

*[Yield per recruit]{.underline}.* The theoretical yield that would be
obtained from a group of fish of one age if they were harvested
according to a certain exploitation pattern over the life span of the
fish. From this type of analysis, certain critical fishing mortality
rates are estimated that are used as biological reference points for
management, such as F~max~ and F~0.1~.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc192469718 .anchor}**APPENDIX A**

**Description of Species Listed as Endangered and Threatened which
inhabit the management unit of the FMP**

*North Atlantic Right Whale*

Right whales have occurred historically in all the world's oceans from
temperate to subarctic latitudes. NMFS recognizes three major
subdivisions of right whales: North Pacific, North Atlantic, and
Southern Hemisphere. NMFS further recognizes two extant subunits in the
North Atlantic: eastern and western. A third subunit may have existed in
the central Atlantic (migrating from east of Greenland to the Azores or
Bermuda), but this stock appears to be extinct (Waring et al. 2002).

The north Atlantic right whale has the highest risk of extinction among
all of the large whales in the worlds oceans. The scarcity of right
whales is the result of an 800-year history of whaling that continued
into the 1960s (Klumov 1962). Historical records indicate that right
whales were subject to commercial whaling in the North Atlantic as early
as 1059. Between the 11th and 17th centuries, an estimated 25,000-40,000
right whales may have been harvested. The size of the western north
Atlantic right whale population at the termination of whaling is
unknown, but the stock was recognized as seriously depleted as early as
1750. However, right whales continued to be taken in shore-based
operations or opportunistically by whalers in search of other species as
late as the 1920's. By the time the species was internationally
protected in 1935, there may have been fewer than 100 western north
Atlantic right whales in the western Atlantic (Hain 1975; Reeves et al.
1992; Waring et al. 2002).

Right whales appear to prefer shallow coastal waters, but their
distribution is also strongly correlated to the distribution of their
prey (zooplankton). In both the northern and southern hemispheres, right
whales are observed in the lower latitudes and more coastal waters
during winter where calving takes place, and then tend to migrate to
higher latitudes during the summer. The distribution of right whales in
summer and fall in both hemispheres appears linked to the distribution
of their principal zooplankton prey (Winn et al. 1986). They generally
occur in Northwest Atlantic waters west of the Gulf Stream and are most
commonly associated with cooler waters (21º C). They are not found in
the Caribbean and have been recorded only rarely in the Gulf of Mexico.

Right whales feed on zooplankton through the water column, and in
shallow waters may feed near the bottom. In the Gulf of Maine they have
been observed feeding on zooplankton, primarily copepods, by skimming at
or below the water's surface with open mouths (NMFS 1991b; Kenney et al.
1986; Murison and Gaskin 1989; and Mayo and Marx 1990). Research
suggests that right whales must locate and exploit extremely dense
patches of zooplankton to feed efficiently (Waring et al. 2000). New
England waters include important foraging habitat for right whales and
at least some portion of the North Atlantic right whale population is
present in these waters throughout most months of the year. They are
most abundant in Cape Cod Bay between February and April (Hamilton and
Mayo 1990; Schevill et al. 1986; Watkins and Schevill 1982) and in the
Great South Channel in May and June (Payne et al. 1990) where they have
been observed feeding predominantly on copepods, largely of the genera
Calanus and Pseudocalanus (Waring et al. 2002). Right whales also
frequent Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge, as well as Canadian waters
including the Bay of Fundy and Browns and Baccaro Banks, in the spring
and summer months. Mid-Atlantic waters are used as a migratory pathway
from the spring and summer feeding/nursery areas to the winter calving
grounds off the coast of Georgia and Florida.

NMFS designated right whale critical habitat on June 3, 1994 (59 FR
28793) to help protect important right whale foraging and calving areas
within the U.S. These include the waters of Cape Cod Bay and the Great
South Channel off the coast of Massachusetts, and waters off the coasts
of southern Georgia and northern Florida. In 1993, Canada's Department
of Fisheries declared two conservation areas for right whales; one in
the Grand Manan Basin in the lower Bay of Fundy, and a second in Roseway
Basin between Browns and Baccaro Banks (Canadian Recovery Plan for the
North Atlantic Right Whale 2000).

The northern right whale was listed as endangered throughout it's range
on June 2, 1970 under the ESA. The current population is considered to
be at a low level and the species remains designated as endangered
(Waring et al. 2002). A Recovery plan has been published and currently
is in effect (NMFS 1991). This is a strategic stock because the average
annual fishery-related mortality and serious injury from all fisheries
exceeds the PBR.

The western North Atlantic population of right whales was estimated to
be 291 individuals in 1998 (Waring et al. 2002). The current population
growth rate of 2.5% as reported by Knowlton et al. (1994) suggests the
stock may be showing signs of slow recovery. The best available
information makes it reasonable to conclude that the current death rate
exceeds the birth rate in the western North Atlantic right whale
population. The nearly complete reproductive failure in this population
from 1993 to 1995 and again in 1998 and 1999 suggests that this pattern
has continued for almost a decade, though the 2000/2001 season appears
the most promising in the past 5 years, in terms of calves born. Because
no population can sustain a high death rate and low birth rate
indefinitely, this combination places the North Atlantic right whale
population at high risk of extinction. Coupled with an increasing
calving interval, the relatively large number of young right whales (0-4
years) and adults that are killed, by human-related factors, the
likelihood of extinction is high. The recent increase in births gives
rise to optimism, however these young animals must be provided with
protection so that they can mature and contribute to future generations
in order to be a factor in stabilizing of the population.

Right whales may be adversely affected by habitat degradation, habitat
exclusion, acoustic trauma, harassment, or reduction in prey resources
due to trophic effects resulting from a variety of activities including
the operation of commercial fisheries. However, the major known sources
of anthropogenic mortality and injury of right whales clearly are ship
strikes and entanglement in commercial fishing gear. Waring et al.
(2002) give a detailed description of the annual human related
mortalities of right whales.

*Humpback Whale*

The humpback whale was listed as endangered throughout it's range on
June 2, 1970. This species is the fourth most numerically depleted large
cetacean worldwide. Humpback whales calve and mate in the West Indies
and migrate to feeding areas in the northwestern Atlantic during the
summer months. Six separate feeding areas are utilized in northern
waters after their return (Waring et al. 2002). Only one of these
feeding areas, the GOM, lies within U.S. waters and is within the action
area of this consultation. Most of the humpbacks that forage in the GOM
visit Stellwagen Bank and the waters of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
Sightings are most frequent from mid-March through November between 41º
N and 43º N, from the Great South Channel north along the outside of
Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge (CeTAP 1982), and peak in
May and August. Small numbers of individuals may be present in this area
year-round. They feed on a number of species of small schooling fishes,
particularly sand lance and Atlantic herring, by targeting fish schools
and filtering large amounts of water for their associated prey. Humpback
whales have also been observed feeding on krill (Wynne and Schwartz
1999).

Various papers (Barlow & Clapham 1997; Clapham et al. 1999) summarized
information gathered from a catalogue of photographs of 643 individuals
from the western North Atlantic population of humpback whales. These
photographs identified reproductively mature western North Atlantic
humpbacks wintering in tropical breeding grounds in the Antilles,
primarily on Silver and Navidad Banks, north of the Dominican Republic.
The primary winter range also includes the Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico (Waring et al. 2002). In general, it is believed that calving and
copulation take place on the winter range. Calves are born from December
through March and are about 4 meters at birth. Sexually mature females
give birth approximately every 2 to 3 years. Sexual maturity is reached
between 4 and 6 years of age for females and between 7 and 15 years for
males. Size at maturity is about 12 meters.

Humpback whales use the mid-Atlantic as a migratory pathway, but it may
also be an important feeding area for juveniles. Since 1989,
observations of juvenile humpbacks in the mid-Atlantic have been
increasing during the winter months, peaking January through March
(Swingle et al. 1993). Biologists speculate that non-reproductive
animals may be establishing a winter feeding range in the mid-Atlantic
since they are not participating in reproductive behavior in the
Caribbean. Swingle et al. (1993) identified a shift in distribution of
juvenile humpback whales in the nearshore waters of Virginia, primarily
in winter months. Those whales using this mid-Atlantic area that have
been identified were found to be residents of the GOM and Atlantic
Canada (Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland) feeding groups,
suggesting a mixing of different feeding stocks in the mid-Atlantic
region. A shift in distribution may be related to winter prey
availability. Studies conducted by the Virginia Marine Science Museum
indicate that these whales are feeding on, among other things, bay
anchovies and menhaden. In concert with the increase in mid-Atlantic
whale sightings, strandings of humpback whales have increased between
New Jersey and Florida since 1985. Strandings were most frequent during
September through April in North Carolina and Virginia waters, and were
comprised primarily of juvenile humpback whales of no more than 11
meters in length (Wiley et al. 1995). Six of 18 humpbacks for which the
cause of mortality was determined were killed by vessel strikes. An
additional humpback had scars and bone fractures indicative of a
previous vessel strike that may have contributed to the whale\'s
mortality. Sixty percent of those mortalities that were closely
investigated showed signs of entanglement or vessel collision.

New information has recently become available on the status and trends
of the humpback whale population in the North Atlantic. Although current
and maximum net productivity rates are unknown at this time, the
population is apparently increasing. It has not yet been determined
whether this increase is uniform across all six feeding stocks (Waring
et al. 2002). For example, the overall rate of increase has been
estimated at 9.0% (CV=0.25) by Katona and Beard (1990), while a 6.5%
rate was reported for the Gulf of Maine by Barlow and Clapham (1997)
using data through 1991. The rate reported by Barlow and Clapham (1997)
may roughly approximate the rate of increase for the portion of the
population within the action area.

Estimating abundance for the Gulf of Maine stock has proved problematic.
Three approaches have been investigated: mark-recapture estimates,
minimum population size, and line-transect estimates. Most of the mark
recapture estimates were affected by heterogeneity of sampling, which
was heavily focused on the southwestern Gulf of Maine. However, an
estimate of 652 (CV=0.29) derived from the more extensive and
representative YONAH sampling in 1992 and 1993 was probably less subject
to this bias. The second approach uses photo-identification data to
establish the minimum number of humpback whales known to be alive in a
particular year, 1997. By determining the number of identified
individuals seen either in that year, or in both a previous and
subsequent year, it is possible to determine that at least 497 humpbacks
were alive in 1997. This figure is also likely to be negatively biased,
again because of heterogeneity of sampling. A similar calculation for
1992 (which would correspond to the YONAH estimate for the Gulf of
Maine) yields a figure of 501 whales (Waring et al. 2002).

In the third approach, data were used from a 28 July to 31 August 1999
line-transect sighting survey conducted by a ship and airplane covering
waters from Georges Bank to the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Total
track line length was 8,212 km. However, in light of the information on
stock identity of Scotian Shelf humpback whales noted above, only the
portions of the survey covering the Gulf of Maine were used; surveys
blocks along the eastern coast of Nova Scotia were excluded. Shipboard
data were analyzed using the modified direct duplicate method (Palka
1995) that accounts for school size bias and g(0), the probability of
detecting a group on the track line. Aerial data were not corrected for
g(0) (Palka 2000). These surveys yielded an estimate of 816 humpbacks
(CV = 0.45). However, given that the rate of exchange between the Gulf
of Maine and both the Scotian Shelf and mid-Atlantic region is not zero,
this estimate is likely to be somewhat conservative. Accordingly,
inclusion of data from 25% of the Scotian Shelf survey area (to reflect
the match rate of 25% between the Scotian Shelf and the Gulf of Maine)
gives an estimate of 902 whales (CV=0.41). Since the mark-recapture
figures for abundance and minimum population size given above falls
above the lower bound of the CV of the line transect estimate, and given
the known exchange between the Gulf of Maine and the Scotian Shelf, we
have chosen to use the latter as the best estimate of abundance for Gulf
of Maine humpback whales (Waring et al. 2002).

The minimum population estimate is the lower limit of the two-tailed 60%
confidence interval of the lognormally distributed best abundance
estimate. This is equivalent to the 20th percentile of the log-normal
distribution as specified by Wade and Angliss (1997). The best estimate
of abundance for Gulf of Maine humpback whales is 902 (CV=0.41). The
minimum population estimate for this stock is 647 (Waring et al. 2002).

As detailed below, current data suggest that the Gulf of Maine humpback
whale stock is steadily increasing in size. This is consistent with an
estimated average trend of 3.2% (SE=0.005) in the North Atlantic
population overall for the period 1979--1993 (Stevick et al. 2001),
although there are no other feeding-area-specific estimates. Barlow and
Clapham (1997) applied an interbirth interval model to photographic
mark-recapture data and estimated the population growth rate of the Gulf
of Maine humpback whale stock at 6.5% (CV=0.012). Maximum net
productivity is unknown for this population, although a theoretical
maximum for any humpback population can be calculated using known values
for biological parameters (Brandão et al. 2000, Clapham et al. 2001b).
For the Gulf of Maine, data supplied by Barlow and Clapham (1997) and
Clapham et al. (1995) gives values of 0.96 for survival rate, 6y as mean
age at first parturition, 0.5 as the proportion of females, and 0.42 for
annual pregnancy rate. From this, a maximum population growth rate of
0.072 is obtained according to the method described by Brandão et al.
(2000). This suggests that the observed rate of 6.5% (Barlow and Clapham
1997) was close to the maximum for this stock. Clapham et al. (2001a)
updated the Barlow and Clapham (1997) analysis using data from the
period 1992 to 2000. The estimate was either 0% (for a calf survival
rate of 0.51) or 4.0% (for a calf survival rate of 0.875). Although
confidence limits are not available (because maturation parameters could
not be estimated), both estimates of population growth rate are outside
the 95% confidence intervals of the previous estimate of 6.5% for the
period 1979 to 1991 (Barlow and Clapham 1997). It is unclear whether
this apparent decline is an artifact resulting from a shift in
distribution; indeed, such a shift occurred during exactly the period
(1992-95) in which survival rates declined. It is possible that this
shift resulted in calves born in those years imprinting on (and thus
subsequently returning to) areas other than those in which intensive
sampling occurs. If the decline is a real phenomenon it may be related
to known high mortality among young-of-the-year whales in the waters of
the U.S. Mid-Atlantic states. However, calf survival appears to have
increased since 1996, presumably accompanied by an increase in
population growth. In light of the uncertainty accompanying the more
recent estimate of population growth rate for the Gulf of Maine, for
purposes of this assessment the maximum net productivity rate was
assumed to be the default value for cetaceans of 0.04 (Barlow et al.
1995). Current and maximum net productivity rates are unknown for the
North Atlantic population overall (Waring et al. 2002). As noted above,
Stevick et al. (2001) calculated an average population growth rate of
3.2% (SE=0.005) for the period 1979--1993.

PBR is the product of minimum population size, one-half the maximum
productivity rate, and a "recovery" factor (MMPA Sec. 3. 16 U.S.C. 1362;
Wade and Angliss 1997). The minimum population size is 647. The maximum
productivity rate is the default value of 0.04. The "recovery" factor,
which accounts for endangered, depleted, threatened stocks, or stocks of
unknown status relative to optimum sustainable population (OSP) is
assumed to be 0.10 because this stock is listed as an endangered species
under the ESA. PBR for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is 1.3
whales (Waring et al. 2002).

The major known sources of anthropogenic mortality and injury of
humpback whales include entanglement in commercial fishing gear and ship
strikes. Based on photographs of the caudal peduncle of humpback whales,
Robbins and Mattila (1999) estimated that at least 48% \-\-- and
possibly as many as 78% \-\-- of animals in the Gulf of Maine exhibit
scarring caused by entanglement. Several whales have apparently been
entangled on more than one occasion. These estimates are based on
sightings of free-swimming animals that initially survive the encounter.
Because some whales may drown immediately, the actual number of
interactions may be higher. In addition, the actual number of
species-gear interactions is contingent on the intensity of observations
from aerial and ship surveys.

For the period 1996 through 2000, the total estimated human-caused
mortality and serious injury to the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock
is estimated as 3.0 per year (USA waters, 2.4; Canadian waters, 0.6).
This average is derived from two components: 1) incidental fishery
interaction records, 2.8 (USA waters, 2.2; Canadian waters, 0.6); and 2)
records of vessel collisions, 0.2 (USA waters, 0.2; Canadian waters, 0).
There were additional humpback mortalities and serious injuries that
occurred in the southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states that could not be
confirmed as involving members of the Gulf of Maine stock (Waring et al.
2002). These records represent an additional minimum annual average of
1.6 human-caused mortalities and serious injuries to humpbacks over the
time period, of which 1.0 per year are attributable to incidental
fishery interactions and 0.6 per year are attributable to vessel
collisions (Waring et al. 2002).

As with right whales, human impacts (vessel collisions and
entanglements) are factors which may be slowing recovery of the humpback
whale population. There is an average of four to six entanglements of
humpback whales a year in waters of the southern Gulf of Maine and
additional reports of vessel-collision scars (unpublished data, Center
for Coastal Studies). Of 20 dead humpback whales (principally in the
mid-Atlantic, where decomposition did not preclude examination for human
impacts), Wiley et al. (1995) reported that 6 (30%) had major injuries
possibly attributable to ship strikes, and 5 (25%) had injuries
consistent with possible entanglement in fishing gear. One whale
displayed scars that may have been caused by both ship strike and
entanglement. Thus, 60% of the whale carcasses which were suitable for
examination showed signs that anthropogenic factors may have contributed
to, or been responsible for, their death. Wiley et al. (1995) further
reported that all stranded animals were sexually immature, suggesting a
winter or migratory segregation and/or that juvenile animals are more
susceptible to human impacts.

An updated analysis of humpback whale mortalities from the Mid-Atlantic
states region has recently been produced by Barco et al. (2001). Between
1990 and 2000, there were 52 known humpback whale mortalities in the
waters of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic states (summarized by Barco et al.
2001). Length data from 48 of these whales (18 females, 22 males and 8
of unknown sex) suggested that 39 (81.2%) were first-year animals, 7
(14.6%) were immature and 2 (4.2%) were adults. However, sighting
histories of 5 of the dead whales indicate that some were small for
their age, and histories of live whales further indicate that the
population contains a greater percentage of mature animals than is
suggested by the stranded sample. In their study of entanglement rates
estimated from caudal peduncle scars, Robbins and Mattila (2001) found
that males were more likely to be entangled than females. The scarring
data also suggested that yearlings were more likely than other age
classes to be involved in entanglements. Finally, female humpbacks
showing evidence of prior entanglements produced significantly fewer
calves, suggesting that entanglement may significantly impact
reproductive success. Humpback whale entanglements also occur in
relatively high numbers in Canadian waters. Reports of collisions with
fixed fishing gear set for groundfish around Newfoundland averaged 365
annually from 1979 to 1987 (range 174-813). An average of 50 humpback
whale entanglements (range 26-66) were reported annually between 1979
and 1988, and 12 of 66 humpback whales that were entangled in 1988 died
(Lien et al. 1988). Volgenau et al. (1995) also summarized existing data
and concluded that in Newfoundland and Labrador, cod traps caused the
most entanglements and entanglement mortalities (21%) of humpbacks
between 1979 and 1992. They also reported that gillnets are the gear
that has been the primary cause of entanglements and entanglement
mortalities (20%) of humpbacks in the Gulf of Maine between 1975 and
1990.

Humpback whales may also be adversely affected by habitat degradation,
habitat exclusion, acoustic trauma, harassment, or reduction in prey
resources due to trophic effects resulting from a variety of activities
including the operation of commercial fisheries.

*Fin Whale*

Fin whales inhabit a wide range of latitudes between 20-75̊ N and 20-75̊ S
(Perry et al. 1999). Fin whales spend the summer feeding in the
relatively high latitudes of both hemispheres, particularly along the
cold eastern boundary currents in the North Atlantic and North Pacific
Oceans and in Antarctic waters (IWC 1992). Most migrate seasonally from
relatively high-latitude Arctic and Antarctic feeding areas in the
summer to relatively low-latitude breeding and calving areas in the
winter (Perry et al. 1999).

As in the case of right and humpback whales, fin whale populations were
heavily affected by commercial whaling. However, commercial exploitation
of fin whales occurred much later than for right and humpback whales.
Although some fin whales were taken as early as the 17th century by the
Japanese using a fairly primitive open-water netting technique (Perry et
al. 1999) and were hunted occasionally by sailing vessel whalers in the
19th century (Mitchell and Reeves 1983), wide-scale commercial
exploitation of fin whales did not occur until the 20th century when the
use of steam power and harpoon- gun technology made exploitation of this
faster, more offshore species feasible. In the southern hemisphere, over
700,000 fin whales were landed in the 20th century. More than 48,000 fin
whales were taken in the North Atlantic between 1860 and 1970 (Perry et
al. 1999). Fisheries existed off of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Norway,
Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Svalbard (Spitsbergen), the islands of the
British coasts, Spain and Portugal. Fin whales were rarely taken in U.S.
waters, except when they ventured near the shores of Provincetown, MA,
during the late 1800's (Perry et al. 1999).

Various estimates have been provided to describe the current status of
fin whales in western North Atlantic waters. Based on the catch history
and trends in Catch Per Unit Effort, an estimate of 3,590 to 6,300 fin
whales was obtained for the entire western North Atlantic (Perry et al.
1999). Hain et al. (1992) estimated that about 5,000 fin whales inhabit
the Northeastern United States continental shelf waters. The latest
(Waring et al. 2002) SAR gives a best estimate of abundance for fin
whales of 2,814 (CV = 0.21). The minimum population estimate for the
western North Atlantic fin whale is 2,362. This is currently an
underestimate, as too little is known about population structure, and
the estimate is derived from surveys over a limited portion of the
western North Atlantic. There is also not enough information to estimate
population trends.

In the North Atlantic today, fin whales are widespread and occur from
the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea northward to the edges of the
arctic pack ice (Waring et al. 2002). A number of researchers have
suggested the existence of fin whale subpopulations in the North
Atlantic. Mizroch et al. (1984) suggested that local depletions
resulting from commercial overharvesting supported the existence of
North Atlantic fin whale subpopulations. Others have used genetics
information to provide support for the belief that there are several
subpopulations of fin whales in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean
(Bérubé et al. 1998). In 1976, the IWC's Scientific Committee proposed
seven stocks for North Atlantic fin whales. These are: (1) North Norway;
(2) West Norway-Faroe Islands; (3) British Isles-Spain and Portugal; (4)
East Greenland-Iceland; (5) West Greenland; (6) Newfoundland-Labrador;
and (7) Nova Scotia (Perry et al. 1999). However, it is uncertain
whether these stock boundaries define biologically isolated units
(Waring et al. 2002). The NMFS has designated one stock of fin whale for
U.S. waters of the North Atlantic where the species is commonly found
from Cape Hatteras northward.

During 1978-1982 aerial surveys, fin whales accounted for 24% of all
cetaceans and 46% of all large cetaceans sighted over the continental
shelf between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia (Waring et al. 1998).
Underwater listening systems have also demonstrated that the fin whale
is the most acoustically common whale species heard in the North
Atlantic (Clark 1995). The single most important area for this species
appeared to be from the Great South Channel, along the 50 meter isobath
past Cape Cod, over Stellwagen Bank, and past Cape Ann to Jeffrey's
Ledge (Hain et al. 1992).

Despite our broad knowledge of fin whales, less is known about their
life history as compared to right and humpback whales. Age at sexual
maturity for both sexes ranges from 5-15 years. Physical maturity is
reached at 20-30 years. Conception occurs during a 5 month winter period
in either hemisphere. After a 12 month gestation, a single calf is born.
The calf is weaned between 6 and 11 months after birth. The mean calving
interval is 2.7 years, with a range of between 2 and 3 years (Agler et
al. 1993). Like right and humpback whales, fin whales are believed to
use northwestern North Atlantic waters primarily for feeding and migrate
to more southern waters for calving. However, the overall pattern of fin
whale movement consists of a less obvious north-south pattern of
migration than that of right and humpback whales. Based on acoustic
recordings from hydrophone arrays, Clark (1995) reported a general
pattern of fin whale movements in the fall from the
Labrador/Newfoundland region, south past Bermuda, and into the West
Indies. However, evidence regarding where the majority of fin whales
winter, calve, and mate is still scarce. Some populations seem to move
with the seasons (e.g., one moving south in winter to occupy the summer
range of another), but there is much structuring in fin whale
populations that what animals of different sex and age class do is not
at all clear. Neonate strandings along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast from
October through January suggest the possibility of an offshore calving
area.

The overall distribution of fin whales may be based on prey
availability. This species preys opportunistically on both invertebrates
and fish. The predominant prey of fin whales varies greatly in different
geographical areas depending on what is locally available. In the
western North Atlantic fin whales feed on a variety of small schooling
fish (i.e. herring, capelin, sand lance) as well as squid and planktonic
crustaceans. As with humpback whales, fin whales feed by filtering large
volumes of water for their prey through their baleen plates. Photo
identification studies in western North Atlantic feeding areas,
particularly in Massachusetts Bay, have shown a high rate of annual
return by fin whales, both within years and between years (Seipt et al.
1990).

As discussed above, fin whales were the focus of commercial whaling,
primarily in the 20th century. The IWC did not begin to manage
commercial whaling of fin whales in the North Atlantic until 1976. In
1987, fin whales were given total protection in the North Atlantic with
the exception of a subsistence whaling hunt for Greenland. The IWC set a
catch limit of 19 whales for the years 1995-1997 in West Greenland. All
other fin whale stocks had a zero catch limit for these same years.
However, Iceland reported a catch of 136 whales in the 1988/89 and
1989/90 seasons, and has since ceased reporting fin whale kills to the
IWC (Perry et al. 1999). In total, there have been 239 reported kills of
fin whales from the North Atlantic from 1988 to 1995.

The major known sources of anthropogenic mortality and injury of fin
whales include ship strikes and entanglement in commercial fishing gear.
However, many of the reports of mortality cannot be attributed to a
particular source. Of 18 fin whale mortality records collected between
1991 and 1995, four were associated with vessel interactions, although
the proximal cause of mortality was not known. The following
injury/mortality events are those reported from 1996 to the present for
which source was determined. These numbers should be viewed as absolute
minimum numbers; the total number of mortalities and injuries cannot be
estimated but is believed to be higher since it is unlikely that all
carcasses will be observed. In general, known mortalities of fin whales
are less than those recorded for right and humpback whales. This may be
due in part to the more offshore distribution of fin whales where they
are either less likely to encounter entangling gear, or are less likely
to be noticed when gear entanglements or vessel strikes do occur. Fin
whales may also be adversely affected by habitat degradation, habitat
exclusion, acoustic trauma, harassment, or reduction in prey resources
due to trophic effects resulting from a variety of activities including
the operation of commercial fisheries. The fin whale was listed as
endangered throughout it's range on June 2, 1970 under the ESA. Hain et
al. (1992) estimated that about 5,000 fin whales inhabit the
northeastern United States continental shelf waters. Waring et al. 2002
present a more recent estimate of 2,814 (CV=0.21) fin whales based on
aerial and shipboard surveys of the area from Georges Bank to the mouth
of the Gulf of S. Lawrence in 1999.

*Sei Whale*

Sei whales are a widespread species in the world's temperate, subpolar
and subtropical and even tropical marine waters. However, they appear to
be more restricted to temperate waters than other balaenopterids (Perry
et al. 1999). The IWC recognized three stocks in the North Atlantic
based on past whaling operations as opposed to biological information:
(1) Nova Scotia; (2) Iceland Denmark Strait; (3) Northeast Atlantic
(Donovan 1991 in Perry et al. 1999). Mitchell and Chapman (1977)
suggested that the sei whale population in the western North Atlantic
consists of two stocks, a Nova Scotian Shelf stock and a Labrador Sea
stock. The Nova Scotian Shelf stock includes the continental shelf
waters of the northeastern United States, and extends northeastward to
south of Newfoundland. The IWC boundaries for this stock are from the
U.S. east coast to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and east to longitude 42̊
(Waring et al. 2002). This is the only sei whale stock within the action
area.

Sei whales became the target of modern commercial whalers primarily in
the late 19th and early 20th century after stocks of other whales,
including right, humpback, fin and blues, had already been depleted. Sei
whales were taken in large numbers by Norway and Scotland from the
beginning of modern whaling. More than 700 sei whales were killed off of
Norway in 1885, alone. Small numbers were also taken off of Spain,
Portugal and in the Strait of Gibraltar beginning in the 1920's, and by
Norwegian and Danish whalers off of West Greenland from the 1920's to
1950's (Perry et al. 1999). In the western North Atlantic, sei whales
were originally hunted off of Norway and Iceland; from 1967-1972, sei
whales were also taken off of Nova Scotia (Perry et al. 1999). A total
of 825 sei whales were taken on the Scotian Shelf between 1966 and 1972,
and an additional 16 were taken from the same area during the same time
by a shore based Newfoundland whaling station (Perry et al. 1999). The
species continued to be exploited in Iceland until 1986 even though
measures to stop whaling of sei whales in other areas had been put into
place in the 1970's (Perry et al. 1999). There is no estimate for the
abundance of sei whales prior to commercial whaling. Based on whaling
records, approximately14,295 sei whales were taken in the entire North
Atlantic from 1885 to 1984 (Perry et al. 1999).

Sei whales winter in warm temperate or subtropical waters and summer in
more northern latitudes. In the northern Atlantic, most births occur in
November and December when the whales are on the wintering grounds.
Conception is believed to occur in December and January. Gestation lasts
for 12 months and the calf is weaned at 6-9 months when the whales are
on the summer feeding grounds. Sei whales reach sexual maturity at 5-15
years of age. The calving interval is believed to be 2-3 years (Perry et
al. 1999).

Sei whales occur in deep water throughout their range, typically over
the continental slope or in basins situated between banks. In the
northwest Atlantic, the whales travel along the eastern Canadian coast
in autumn, June and July on their way to and from the Gulf of Maine and
Georges Bank where they occur in winter and spring. Within the action
area, the sei whale is most common on Georges Bank and into the Gulf of
Maine/Bay of Fundy region during spring and summer, primarily in deeper
waters. Individuals may range as far south as North Carolina. It is
important to note that sei whales are known for inhabiting an area for
weeks at a time then disappearing for year or even decades; this has
been observed all over the world, including in the southwestern GOM in
1986. The basis for this phenomenon is not clear.

Although sei whales may prey upon small schooling fish and squid in the
action area, available information suggests that calanoid copepods and
euphausiids are the primary prey of this species. There are occasional
influxes of sei whales further into Gulf of Maine waters, presumably in
conjunction with years of high copepod abundance inshore. Sei whales are
occasionally seen feeding in association with right whales in the
southern Gulf of Maine and in the Bay of Fundy. However, there is no
evidence to demonstrate interspecific competition between these species
for food resources. There is very little information on natural
mortality factors for sei whales. Possible causes of natural mortality,
particularly for young, old or otherwise compromised individuals are
shark attacks, killer whale attacks, and endoparasitic helminths. Baleen
loss has been observed in California sei whales, presumably as a result
of an unknown disease (Perry et al. 1999).

There are insufficient data to determine trends of the sei whale
population. Because there are no abundance estimates within the last 10
years, a minimum population estimate cannot be determined for NMFS
management purposes (Waring et al. 2002). Abundance surveys are
problematic not only because this species is difficult to distinguish
from the fin whale but more significant is that too little is known of
the sei whale's distribution, population structure and patterns of
movement; thus survey design and data interpretation are very difficult.

Few instances of injury or mortality of sei whales due to entanglement
or vessel strikes have been recorded in U.S. waters. Entanglement is not
known to impact this species in the U.S. Atlantic, possibly because sei
whales typically inhabit waters further offshore than most commercial
fishing operations, or perhaps entanglements do occur but are less
likely to be observed. A small number of ship strikes of this species
have been recorded. The most recent documented incident occurred in 1994
when a carcass was brought in on the bow of a container ship in
Charlestown, Massachusetts. Other impacts noted above for other baleen
whales may also occur. Due to the deep-water distribution of this
species, interactions that do occur are less likely to be observed or
reported than those involving right, humpback, and fin whales that often
frequent areas within the continental shelf (Waring et al. 2002).

*Blue Whale*

Like the fin whale, blue whales occur worldwide and are believed to
follow a similar migration pattern from northern summering grounds to
more southern wintering areas (Perry et al. 1999). Three subspecies have
been identified: *Balaenoptera musculus* *musculus, B.m. intermedia*,
and *B.m. brevicauda* (Waring et al. 2002). Only *B. musculus* occurs in
the northern hemisphere. Blue whales range in the North Atlantic extends
from the subtropics to Baffin Bay and the Greenland Sea. The IWC
currently recognizes these whales as one stock (Perry et al. 1999).

Blue whales were intensively hunted in all of the world's oceans from
the turn of the century to the mid-1960's. Blue whales were occasionally
hunted by sailing vessel whalers in the 19th century. However,
development of steam-powered vessels and deck-mounted harpoon guns in
the late 19th century made it possible to exploit them on an industrial
scale. Blue whale populations declined worldwide as the new technology
spread and began to receive widespread use (Perry et al. 1999).
Subsequently, the whaling industry shifted effort away from declining
blue whale stocks and targeted other large species, such as fin whales,
and then resumed hunting for blue whales when the species appeared to be
more abundant (Perry et al. 1999). The result was a cyclical rise and
fall, leading to severe depletion of blue whale stocks worldwide (Perry
et al. 1999). In the North Atlantic, Norway shifted operations to fin
whales as early as 1882 due to the scarcity of blue whales (Perry et al.
1999). In all, at least 11,000 blue whales were taken in the North
Atlantic from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century. Blue
whales were given complete protection in the North Atlantic in 1955
under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
However, Iceland continued to hunt blue whales until 1960. There are no
good estimates of the pre-exploitation size of the western North
Atlantic blue whale stock but it is widely believed that this stock was
severely depleted by the time legal protection was introduced in 1955
(Perry et al. 1999). Mitchell (1974) suggested that the stock numbered
in the very low hundreds during the late 1960's through early 1970's
(Perry et al. 1999). Photo-identification studies of blue whales in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence from 1979 to 1995 identified 320 individual whales.
The NMFS recognizes a minimum population estimate of 308 blue whales for
the western North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2002).

Blue whales are only occasional visitors to east coast U.S. waters. They
are more commonly found in Canadian waters, particularly the Gulf of St.
Lawrence where they are present for most of the year, and other areas of
the North Atlantic. It is assumed that blue whale distribution is
governed largely by food requirements. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, blue
whales appear to predominantly feed on *Thysanoessa raschii* and
*Meganytiphanes norvegica*. In the eastern North Atlantic, *T. inermis*
and *M. norvegica* appear to be the predominant prey.

Compared to the other species of large whales, relatively little is
known about this species. Sexual maturity is believed to occur in both
sexes at 5-15 years of age. Gestation lasts 10-12 months and calves
nurse for 6-7 months. The average calving interval is estimated to be
2-3 years. Birth and mating both occur during the winter season, but the
location of wintering areas is speculative (Perry et al. 1999). In 1992
the U.S. Navy and contractors conducted an extensive blue whale acoustic
survey of the North Atlantic and found concentrations of blue whales on
the Grand Banks and west of the British Isles. One whale was tracked for
43 days during which time it traveled 1,400 nautical miles around the
general area of Bermuda (Perry et al. 1999).

There is limited information on the factors affecting natural mortality
of blue whales in the North Atlantic. Ice entrapment is known to kill
and seriously injure some blue whales, particularly along the southwest
coast of Newfoundland, during late winter and early spring. Habitat
degradation has been suggested as possibly affecting blue whales such as
in the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence where habitat has
been degraded by acoustic and chemical pollution. However, there is no
data to confirm that blue whales have been affected by such habitat
changes (Perry et al. 1999).

Entanglement in fishing gear, and ship strikes are believed to be the
major sources of anthropogenic mortality and injury of blue whales.
However, confirmed deaths or serious injuries from either are few. In
1987, concurrent with an unusual influx of blue whales into the Gulf of
Maine, one report was received from a whale watch boat that spotted a
blue whale in the southern Gulf of Maine entangled in gear described as
probable lobster pot gear. A second animal found in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence apparently died from the effects of an entanglement. In March
1998, a juvenile male blue whale was carried into Rhode Island waters on
the bow of a tanker. The cause of death was determined to be due to a
ship strike, although not necessarily caused by the tanker on which it
was observed, and the strike may have occurred outside the U.S. EEZ
(Waring et al. 2002). No recent entanglements of blue whales have been
reported from the U.S. Atlantic. Other impacts noted above for other
baleen whales may occur.

*Sperm Whale*

Sperm whales inhabit all ocean basins, from equatorial waters to polar
regions (Perry et al. 1999). In the western North Atlantic they range
from Greenland to the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. The sperm whales
that occur in the western North Atlantic are believed to represent only
a portion of the total stock (Blaylock et al. 1995). Total numbers of
sperm whales off the USA or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown,
although eight estimates from selected regions of the habitat do exist
for select time periods. The best estimate of abundance for the North
Atlantic stock of sperm whales is 4,702 (CV=0.36) (Waring et al. 2002).
The minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic sperm
whale is 3,505 (CV=0.36). Sperm whales present in the Gulf of Mexico are
considered by some researchers to be endemic, and represent a separate
stock from whales in other portions of the North Atlantic. However, NMFS
currently uses the IWC stock structure guidance which recognizes one
stock for the entire North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2002).

The International Whaling Commission estimates that nearly a
quarter-million sperm whales were killed worldwide in whaling activities
between 1800 and 1900 (IWC 1971). However, estimates of the number of
sperm whales taken during this time are difficult to quantify since
sperm whale catches from the early 19th century through the early 20th
century were calculated on barrels of oil produced per whale rather than
the actual number of whales caught (Perry et al. 1999). With the advent
of modern whaling the larger rorqual whales were targeted. However as
their numbers decreased, greater attention was paid to smaller rorquals
and sperm whales. From 1910 to 1982 there were nearly 700,000 sperm
whales killed worldwide from whaling activities (Clarke 1954). Whale
catches for the southern hemisphere is 394,000 (including revised Soviet
figures). Sperm whales were hunted in America from the 17th century
through the early 20th century. In the North Atlantic, hunting occurred
off of Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, coastal Britain, West
Greenland, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland/Labrador, New England, the Azores,
Madeira, Spain, and Spanish Morocco (Waring et al. 1998). Some whales
were also taken off the U.S. Mid-Atlantic coast (Reeves and Mitchell
1988; Perry et al. 1999), and in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Perry et
al. 1999). There are no catch estimates available for the number of
sperm whales caught during U.S. operations (Perry et al. 1999). Recorded
North Atlantic sperm whale catch numbers for Canada and Norway totaled
1,995 from 1904 to 1972. All killing of sperm whales was banned by the
IWC in 1988. However, at the 2000 meetings of the IWC, Japan indicated
it would include the take of sperm whales in its scientific research
whaling operations. Although this action was disapproved of by the IWC,
Japan has reported the take of 5 sperm whales from the North Pacific as
a result of this research.

Sperm whales generally occur in waters greater than 180 meters in depth.
While they may be encountered almost anywhere on the high seas, their
distribution shows a preference for continental margins, sea mounts, and
areas of upwelling, where food is abundant (Leatherwood and Reeves
1983). Sperm whales in both hemispheres migrate to higher latitudes in
the summer for feeding and return to lower latitude waters in the winter
where mating and calving occur. Mature males typically range to much
higher latitudes than mature females and immature animals but return to
the lower latitudes in the winter to breed (Perry et al. 1999). Waring
et al. (2002) suggest sperm whale distribution is closely correlated
with the Gulf Stream edge. Like swordfish, which feed on similar prey,
sperm whales migrate to higher latitudes during summer months, when they
are concentrated east and northeast of Cape Hatteras. In the U.S. EEZ,
sperm whales occur on the continental shelf edge, over the continental
slope, and into the mid-ocean regions, and are distributed in a distinct
seasonal cycle; concentrated east-northeast of Cape Hatteras in winter
and shifting northward in spring when whales are found throughout the
mid-Atlantic Bight. Distribution extends further northward to areas
north of Georges Bank and the Northeast Channel region in summer and
then south of New England in fall, back to the mid-Atlantic Bight
(Waring et al. 2002).

Sperm whale distribution may be linked to their social structure as well
as distribution of their prey (Waring et al. 2002). Sperm whale
populations are organized into two types of groupings: breeding schools
and bachelor schools. Older males are often solitary (Best 1979).
Breeding schools consist of females of all ages, calves and juvenile
males. In the Northern Hemisphere, mature females ovulate April through
August. During this season one or more large mature bulls temporarily
join each breeding school. A single calf is born after a 15-month
gestation. A mature female will produce a calf every 4-6 years. Females
attain sexual maturity at a mean age of nine years, while males have a
prolonged puberty and attain sexual maturity at about age 20 (Waring et
al. 2002). Bachelor schools consist of maturing males who leave the
breeding school and aggregate in loose groups of about 40 animals. As
the males grow older they separate from the bachelor schools and remain
solitary most of the year (Best 1979). Male sperm whales may not reach
physical maturity until they are 45 years old (Waring et al. 2002). The
sperm whales prey consists of larger mesopelagic squid (e.g.,
*Architeuthis* and *Moroteuthis*) and fish species (Perry et al. 1999).
Sperm whales, especially mature males in higher latitude waters, have
been observed to take significant quantities of large demersal and
mesopelagic sharks, skates, and bony fishes (Clarke 1962, 1980).

Few instances of injury or mortality of sperm whales due to human
impacts have been recorded in U.S. waters. Because of their generally
more offshore distribution and their benthic feeding habits, sperm
whales are less subject to entanglement than right or humpback whales.

Documented takes primarily involve offshore fisheries such as the
offshore lobster pot fishery and pelagic driftnet and pelagic longline
fisheries. The NMFS Sea Sampling program recorded three entanglements
(in 1989, 1990, and 1995) of sperm whales in the swordfish drift gillnet
fishery prior to permanent closure of the fishery in January 1999. All
three animals were injured, found alive, and released. However, at least
one was still carrying gear. Opportunistic reports of sperm whale
entanglements for the years 1993-1997 include three records involving
offshore lobster pot gear, heavy monofilament line, and fine mesh
gillnet from an unknown source. Sperm whales may also interact
opportunistically with fishing gear. Observers aboard Alaska sablefish
and Pacific halibut longline vessels have documented sperm whales
feeding on longline caught fish in the Gulf of Alaska (Perry et al.
1999). Behavior similar to that observed in the Alaskan longline fishery
has also been documented during longline operations off South America
where sperm whales have become entangled in longline gear, have been
observed feeding on fish caught in the gear, and have been reported
following longline vessels for days (Perry et al. 1999).

Sperm whales are also struck by ships. In May 1994 a ship struck sperm
whale was observed south of Nova Scotia (Waring et al. 2002). A sperm
whale was also seriously injured as a result of a ship strike in May
2000 in the western Atlantic. Due to the offshore distribution of this
species, interactions that do occur are less likely to be reported than
those involving right, humpback, and fin whales that more often occur in
nearshore areas. Other impacts noted above for baleen whales may also
occur.

Due to their offshore distribution, sperm whales tend to strand less
often than, for example, right whales and humpbacks. Preliminary data
for 2000 indicate that of ten sperm whales reported to the stranding
network (nine dead and one injured) there was one possible fishery
interaction, one ship strike (wounded with bleeding gash on side) and
eight animals for which no signs of entanglement or injury were sighted
or reported. No sperm whales have stranded or been reported to the
stranding network as of February 2001.

*Atlantic Bottlenose dolphin*

Most of the information which follows concerning Atlantic bottlenose
dolphin was excerpted from the most recent stock assessment for this
species (Waring et al. 2002). The coastal morphotype of the Atlantic
bottlenose dolphin is continuously distributed along the Atlantic coast
south of Long Island, around peninsula Florida and along the Gulf of
Mexico coast. Within the western North Atlantic, the stock structure of
coastal bottlenose dolphins is complex. Scott et al. (1988) hypothesized
a single coastal migratory stock ranging seasonally from as far north as
Long Island, NY, to as far south as central Florida, citing stranding
patterns during a high mortality event in 1987-88 and observed density
patterns along the US Atlantic coast. The continuous distribution of
dolphins along the coast seemed to support this hypothesis. It was
recognized that bottlenose dolphins were resident in some estuaries;
these were considered to be separate from the coastal migratory animals.
However, recent studies suggest that the single coastal migratory stock
hypothesis is incorrect and that there is likely a complex mosaic of
stocks. For example, year-round resident populations have been reported
at a variety of sites in the southern part of the range, from
Charleston, South Carolina (Zolman 1996) to central Florida (Odell and
Asper 1990); seasonal residents and migratory or transient animals also
occur in these areas (summarized in Hohn 1997). In the northern part of
the range the patterns reported include seasonal residency, year-round
residency with large home ranges, and migratory or transient movements
(Barco and Swingle 1996, Sayigh et al. 1997). Communities of dolphins
have been recognized in embayments and coastal areas of the Gulf of
Mexico (Wells et al. 1996; Scott et al. 1990; Weller 1998) so it is not
surprising to find similar situations along the Atlantic coast (Waring
et al. 2002).

Recent genetic analyses of samples from Jacksonville, FL, southern South
Carolina (primarily the estuaries around Charleston), southern North
Carolina, and coastal Virginia, using both mitochondrial DNA and nuclear
microsatellite markers, indicate that a significant amount of the
overall genetic variation can be explained by differences between the
groups (NMFS 2001). These results indicate a minimum of four populations
of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the Northwest Atlantic and reject the
null hypothesis of one homogeneous population of bottlenose dolphins.
Integration of the preliminary results from genetics,
photo-identification, satellite telemetry, and stable isotope studies
confirms a complex mosaic of stocks of coastal bottlenose dolphins in
the western North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2002). As an interim measure,
pending additional results, seven management units within the range of
the "coastal migratory stock" have been defined. The true population
structure is likely more than the seven units identified in Waring et
al. (2002); research efforts continue in an attempt to identify that
structure.

Earlier aerial (CETAP 1982) and shipboard (NMFS unpublished data)
surveys north of Cape Hatteras identified two concentrations of
bottlenose dolphins, one inshore of the 25 m isobath and the other
offshore of the 25 m isobath. The lowest density of bottlenose dolphins
was observed over the continental shelf, with higher densities along the
coast and near the continental shelf edge. It was suggested that the
coastal morphotype is restricted to waters \< 25 m in depth north of
Cape Hatteras (Kenney 1990). There was no apparent longitudinal
discontinuity in bottlenose dolphin herd sightings during aerial surveys
south of Cape Hatteras in the winter (Blaylock and Hoggard 1994). NMFS
surveys conducted from 1992-1998 show a clustering of bottlenose
dolphins nearshore and then additional bottlenose dolphins in the
offshore areas. Unfortunately, the morphotype of bottlenose dolphins
(WNA offshore or WNA coastal) cannot be determined from the air so
attributing each sighting to a specific morphotype is not possible.
There is also a potential for confusing immature spotted dolphins, with
few or no spots dorsally, with bottlenose dolphins where the two species
co-occur. In 1995, NMFS conducted two aerial surveys along the Atlantic
coast (Blaylock 1995; Garrison and Yeung 2001). One survey was conducted
during summer 1995 between Cape Hatteras, NC, and Sandy Hook, NJ, and
included three replicate surveys. The second survey was conducted during
winter 1995 between Cape Hatteras, NC, and Ft. Pierce, FL. A
distributional analysis identified a significant spatial pattern in
bottlenose dolphin sightings as a function of distance from shore
(Garrison 2001a). During the northern (summer) surveys, the significant
spatial boundary occurred at 12 km from shore. During the southern
(winter) survey, the significant spatial boundary occurred at 27 km from
shore. The gap in sightings best defines, for the time being, the
eastern extent of the coastal morphotype for purposes of habitat
definition and abundance estimates. NMFS continues to collect biopsy
samples from Tursiops throughout the possible range of the coastal
morphotype so that stock boundaries can be confirmed or modified on the
basis of a more comprehensive data set (Waring et al. 2002).

The 1995 aerial surveys were conducted to estimate population size of
the hypothesized single coastal migratory stock (Blaylock 1995; Garrison
and Yeung 2001). The summer aerial survey was conducted between July 1
and August 14, 1995, covering Cape Hatteras, NC, to Sandy Hook, NJ,
(35.23oN-40.5oN), and from the mainland shore to the 25 m isobath. This
survey provided coverage and abundance estimates for the Northern
Migratory (NM) and Northern North Carolina (NNC) management units.
However, coverage of the NNC unit was incomplete as the surveys did not
cover the region south of Cape Hatteras, NC, to Cape Lookout, NC.
Abundance was estimated for each stratum pooling across the three
replicate surveys. The winter survey was conducted between January 27
and March 6, covering from Fort Pierce, FL, to Cape Hatteras, NC, from
the mainland shore to 9.25 km (5 Nautical Miles) beyond the inshore edge
of the Gulf Stream or \<200 km offshore. This survey included coverage
of the NNC, Southern North Carolina (SNC), South Carolina (SC), Georgia
(GA), Northern Florida (NFL) and Central Florida (CFL) management units.
However, the coverage of the NNC management unit was incomplete and did
not include the region north of Cape Hatteras, NC. These abundance
estimates also include NM unit animals that have migrated south of the
NC/VA border during winter. Abundance for each management unit was
estimated using line transect methods and the program DISTANCE (Buckland
et al. 1993) for both the winter and summer surveys. There was no
significant difference between the abundance estimates for the combined
NM and NNC management units in summer and the combined NM, NNC, and SNC
stocks in winter. Another set of aerial surveys was conducted parallel
to the coastline from the North Carolina/South Carolina border to the
Maryland/Delaware border during 1998 and 1999 to document the
distribution of dolphins and fishing gear in nearshore waters (Hohn et
al. unpubl. data). These strip/ transect surveys were conducted weekly,
weather permitting, over 12 months in most of North Carolina and for six
months (May to December) in Virginia and Maryland. In retrospect, they
provide seasonal coverage of the Southern North Carolina, Northern North
Carolina, and Northern Migratory management units. The strip transect
surveys cannot be used directly for abundance estimation because they
did not follow the design constraints of line transect survey methods
and covered only a small proportion of the habitat of coastal bottlenose
dolphin. The density of dolphins near the coastline is high relative to
habitats farther offshore, and the use of density estimates in this
region to calculate overall abundance would likely result in significant
positive bias. However, these surveys do provide information on the
relative abundance of dolphins between regions that may be used to
supplement the abundance estimates from the line transect surveys
conducted in 1995 (Garrison and Hohn 2001). Both sets of aerial surveys
covered ocean coasts only. An abundance estimate was generated for
bottlenose dolphins in estuarine waters of North Carolina using
mark-recapture methodology (Read et al. In review). It is possible to
post-stratify the mark-recapture estimates consistent with management
unit definitions (Palka et al. 2001). Abundance estimates for each
management unit are the sum of estimates, where appropriate, from the
recent analyses. Estimated overall abundance was 9,206 from summer
surveys and 19,459 from winter surveys. However, for consistency with
achieving the goals of the MMPA, such as maintaining marine mammals as
functioning components of their ecosystems, it is more appropriate to
establish abundance estimates for each management unit. Abundance for
each management unit was estimated by post-stratifying sightings and
effort data consistent with geographic and seasonal management unit
boundaries (Garrison and Yeung 2001; Palka et al. 2001). Although these
estimates are improved relative to previous abundance estimates for
coastal bottlenose dolphins, potential biases remain. The aerial survey
estimates are not corrected for g(0), the probability of detecting a
group on the track line as a function of perception bias and
availability bias. The exclusion of g(0) from the abundance estimate
results in a negative bias of unknown magnitude. A positive bias may
occur if the longitudinal boundaries have been extended too far offshore
resulting in offshore dolphins being included in the abundance estimates
for the coastal morphotype or if estuarine dolphins were
over-represented in coastal waters during the time of the survey.
Further uncertainties in the abundance estimates result from incomplete
coverage of some seasonal management units during the line transect
surveys. While the strip transect surveys were used to supplement the
survey coverage, uncertainties associated with that analysis also
introduce uncertainty in the overall abundance estimate (Garrison and
Hohn 2001).

The minimum population size (NMIN) for each management was calculated by
Waring et al. (2002) according to he Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997): NMIN=
N/exp(0.842×\[ln(1+\[CV(N)\]2)\]½). It was recognized that these
estimates may be negatively biased because they do not include
corrections for g(0) and, for some of the managements units, do not
include the entire spatial range of the unit during that season. The
strip transect surveys compensate for some of the abundance omitted
during line-transect survey; nonetheless, for some management units the
entire range was not covered. There are insufficient data to determine
the population trend for this stock (Waring et al. 2002).

In addition, Current and maximum net productivity rates are not known
for the WNA coastal morphotype. The maximum net productivity rate was
assumed to be 0.04. This value is based on theoretical modeling showing
that cetacean populations may not grow at rates much greater than 4%
given the constraints of their reproductive life history (Barlow et al.
1995; Waring et al. 2002).

PBR is the product of the minimum population size, one-half the maximum
productivity rate, and a "recovery" factor (Wade and Angliss 1997). The
"recovery" factor is assumed to be 0.50, the default for depleted stocks
and stocks of unknown status. At least part of the range-wide stock
complex is depleted; for the remainder, status is unknown. For
consistency with achieving the goals of the MMPA, such as maintaining
marine mammals as functioning components of their ecosystems, it is more
appropriate to establish separate PBRs for each management unit.

Total estimated average annual fishery-related mortality or serious
injury resulting from observed fishing trips during 1996-2000 was 233
bottlenose dolphins (CV=0.16) in the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet
fishery (Waring et al. 2002). The management units affected by this
fishery would be the NM, NNC, and SC. An estimated 24 (CV=0.89) were
taken in the shark drift gillnet fishery off the coast of Florida during
1999-2000, affecting the Central and Northern Florida management units.
No estimates of mortality from observed trips are available for any of
the other fisheries that interact with WNA coastal bottlenose dolphins.
Therefore, the total average annual mortality estimate is considered to
be a lower bound of the actual annual human-caused mortality and serious
injury (Waring et al. 2002).

Bottlenose dolphins are known to interact with commercial fisheries and
occasionally are taken in various kinds of fishing gear including
gillnets, seines, long-lines, shrimp trawls, and crab pots (Read 1994;
Wang et al. 1994) especially in near-shore areas where dolphin densities
and fishery efforts are greatest. There are nine Category II commercial
fisheries that interact with WNA coastal bottlenose dolphins in the 2001
MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF), six of which occur in North Carolina
waters. Category II fisheries include the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet,
NC inshore gillnet, mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine, NC long haul seine,
NC stop net, Atlantic blue crab trap/pot, Southeast Atlantic gillnet,
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet and the Virginia pound net (see
2001 List of Fisheries, 66 FR 42780, August 15, 2001; Waring et al.
2002). The mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine fishery also includes the haul
seine and swipe net fisheries. There are five Category III fisheries
that may interact with WNA coastal bottlenose dolphins. Three of these
are inshore gillnet fisheries: the Delaware Bay inshore gillnet, the
Long Island Sound inshore gillnet, and the Rhode Island, southern
Massachusetts, and New York Bight inshore gillnet. The remaining two are
the shrimp trawl and mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine fisheries. There
have been no takes observed by the NMFS observer programs in any of
these fisheries (Waring et al. 2002).

The mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery is actually a combination of
small-vessel fisheries that target a variety of fish species, including
bluefish, croaker, spiny and smooth dogfish, kingfish, Spanish mackerel,
spot, striped bass, and weakfish (Steve et al. 2001). These fisheries
operate in different seasons targeting different species in different
states throughout the range of the coastal morphotype. Most nets are set
gillnets without anchors and are fished close to shore. Anchored set
gillnets or drift gillnets are used in some fisheries (e.g., monkfish or
dogfish). A comprehensive description of coastal gillnet gears and
fishing effort in North Carolina is available in Steve et al. (2001).
This fishery has the highest documented level of mortality of WNA
coastal bottlenose dolphins; the North Carolina sink gillnet fishery is
its largest component in terms of fishing effort and observed takes.
Bycatch estimates are available for the period 1996-2000 (Waring et al.
2002). Of 12 observed mortalities from 1995-2000, 5 occurred in sets
targeting spiny or smooth dogfish and another in a set targeting "shark"
species, 2 occurred in striped bass sets, 2 occurred in Spanish mackerel
sets, and the remainder were in sets targeting kingfish, weakfish, or
\"finfish\" (Rossman and Palka 2001; Waring et al. 2002).

The shark gillnet fishery operates in federal waters from southern
Florida to southern Georgia. The fishery is defined by vessels using
relatively large mesh nets (\>10 inches) and net lengths typically
greater than 1500 feet. The fishery primarily uses drifting nets that
are set overnight; however, recently it has been employing a small
number of shorter duration "strike" sets that encircle targeted schools
of sharks. Since 1999, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
restricted the activities of the fishery to waters south of 27̊ 51' N
latitude during the critical right whale season from 15 November -- 31
March and mandated 100% observer coverage during this period. During the
remainder of the year, these vessels generally operate north of Cape
Canaveral, FL and there is little observer coverage of the fleet. The
fishery potentially interacts with the Georgia, Northern Florida, and
Central Florida management units of coastal bottlenose dolphin. During
an observer program in 1993 and 1994 and limited observer coverage
during the summer of 1998, no takes of bottlenose dolphin were observed
(Trent et al. 1997; Carlson and Lee, 2000). However, takes resulting in
mortality were observed in the Central Florida management unit during
1999 and 2000. Total bycatch mortality for this management unit has been
estimated for 1999 and 2000 (Garrison 2001b).

A beach seine fishery operates along northern North Carolina beaches
targeting striped bass, mullet, spot, weakfish, sea trout, and bluefish.
The fishery operates on the Outer Banks of North Carolina primarily in
the spring (April through June) and fall (October through December). It
uses two primary gear types: a "beach anchored gill net" and a "beach
seine." Both systems utilize a small net anchored to the beach. The
beach seine system also uses a bunt and a wash net that are attached to
the beach and are in the surf (Steve et al. 2001). The North Carolina
beach seine fishery has been observed since April 7, 1998 by the NMFS
fisheries sampling program (observer program) based at the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center. Through 2001, there were 101 sets observed
during the winter season (Nov-Apr) and 65 sets observed during the
summer season (May-Oct). A total of 2 coastal bottlenose dolphin takes
were observed, 1 in May 1998 and 1 in December 2000. The beach seine
observer data are currently being reviewed but estimates of mortality
are not yet available (Waring et al. 2002).

Between 1994 and 1998, 22 bottlenose dolphin carcasses (4.4 dolphins per
year on average) recovered by the Stranding Network between North
Carolina and Florida's Atlantic coast displayed evidence of possible
interaction with a trap/pot fishery (i.e. rope and/or pots attached, or
rope marks). Additionally, at least 5 dolphins were reported to be
released alive (condition unknown) from blue crab traps/pots during this
time period. In recent years, reports of strandings with evidence of
interactions between bottlenose dolphins and both recreational and
commercial crab-pot fisheries have been increasing in the Southeast
Region (McFee and Brooks 1998). The increased reporting may result from
increased effort towards documenting these marks or increases in
mortality (Waring et al. 2002).

Data from the Chesapeake Bay suggest that the likelihood of bottlenose
dolphin entanglement in pound net leads may be affected by the mesh size
of the lead net (Bellmund et al. 1997), but the information is not
conclusive. Stranding data for 1993-1997 document interactions between
WNA coastal bottlenose dolphins and pound nets in Virginia. Two
bottlenose dolphin carcasses were found entangled in the leads of pound
nets in Virginia during 1993-1997, for an average of 0.4 bottlenose
dolphin strandings per year. A third record of an entangled bottlenose
dolphin in Virginia in 1997 may have been applicable to this fishery.
This entanglement involved a bottlenose dolphin carcass found near a
pound net with twisted line marks consistent with the twine in the
nearby pound net lead rather than with monofilament gillnet gear. Given
that other sources of annual serious injury and mortality estimates
(e.g., observer data) are not available, the stranding data (0.4
bottlenose dolphins per year) were used as a minimum estimate of annual
serious injury and mortality and this fishery was classified as a
Category II fishery in the 2001 List of Fisheries (Waring et al. 2002).

The shrimp trawl fishery operates from North Carolina through northern
Florida virtually year around, moving seasonally up and down the coast.
One bottlenose dolphin was recovered dead from a shrimp trawl in Georgia
in 1995 (Southeast USA Marine Mammal Stranding Network unpublished
data), and another was taken in 1996 near the mouth of Winyah Bay, SC,
during a research survey. No other bottlenose dolphin mortality or
serious injury has been previously reported to NMFS (Waring et al.
2002).

The Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery targets the Atlantic menhaden
in Atlantic coastal waters. Smith (1999) summarized menhaden fishing
patterns by the Virginia-North Carolina vessels from 1985-1996. Most of
the catch and sets during that time occurred within three miles of the
shore. Between 1994 and 1997, menhaden were processed at only three
facilities, two in Reedville Beach, VA, and one in Beaufort, NC. Each of
the Virginia facilities had a fleet of 9-10 vessels while the Beaufort
facility is supported by 2-6 vessels. Since 1998, only one plant has
operated in Virginia and the number of vessels has been reduced to ten
in Virginia and two in North Carolina (Vaughan et al. 2001). The fishery
moves seasonally, with most effort occurring off of North Carolina from
November-January and moving northward to southern New England during
warmer months. Menhaden purse seiners have reported an annual incidental
take of 1 to 5 bottlenose dolphins, although observer data are not
available (Waring et al. 2002).

From 1997-1999, 995 bottlenose dolphins were reported stranded along the
Atlantic coast from New York to Florida (Hohn and Martone 2001; Hohn et
al. 2001; Palka et al. 2001). Of these, it was possible to determine
whether a human interaction had occurred for 449 (45%); for the
remainder it was not possible to make that determination. The proportion
of carcasses determined to have been involved in a human interaction
averaged 34%, but ranged widely from 11-12% in Delaware and Georgia to
49% and 53% in Virginia and North Carolina, respectively.

The nearshore habitat occupied by the coastal morphotype is adjacent to
areas of high human population and in the northern portion of its range
is highly industrialized. The blubber of stranded dolphins examined
during the 1987-88 mortality event contained anthropogenic contaminants
in levels among the highest recorded for a cetacean (Geraci 1989). There
are no estimates of indirect human-caused mortality resulting from
pollution or habitat degradation.

The coastal migratory stock is designated as depleted under the MMPA.
From 1995-2001, NMFS recognized only a single migratory stock of coastal
bottlenose dolphins in the WNA and, therefore, the entire stock was
listed as depleted. The management units in this report now replace the
single coastal migratory stock. A re-analysis of the depletion
designation on a management unit basis needs to be undertaken. In the
interim, because one or more of the management units may be depleted,
all management units retain the depleted designation. In addition,
mortality in multiple units exceeded PBR (Waring et al. 2002). There are
no rigorous results that would provide reliable information on current
abundance relative to historical abundance. All prior estimates cover
only part of the range of management units spatially or temporally,
include the offshore morphotype, or are otherwise compromised.
Population trends cannot be determined due to insufficient data. Over
the past five years, estimated average annual mortality exceeded PBR in
the mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries for the northern migratory and
northern NC management units during summer and for the NC mixed
management units in winter (Waring et al. 2002).

The species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act, but because, as noted above, the stock is listed
as depleted under the MMPA it is a strategic stock. This stock is also
considered strategic under the MMPA because fishery-related mortality
and serious injury exceed the potential biological removal level.

*Leatherback Sea Turtle*

Leatherback turtles are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the
world, and are found in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and
the Gulf of Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1972). The leatherback sea turtle
is the largest living turtle and ranges farther than any other sea
turtle species, exhibiting broad thermal tolerances (NMFS and USFWS,
1995). Evidence from tag returns and strandings in the western Atlantic
suggests that adults engage in routine migrations between boreal,
temperate and tropical waters (NMFS and USFWS, 1992). In the U.S.,
leatherback turtles are found throughout the action area of this
consultation. Located in the northeastern waters during the warmer
months, this species is found in coastal waters of the continental shelf
and near the Gulf Stream edge, but rarely in the inshore areas. However,
leatherbacks may migrate close to shore, as a leatherback was satellite
tracked along the mid-Atlantic coast, thought to be foraging in these
waters. A 1979 aerial survey of the outer Continental Shelf from Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia showed leatherbacks
to be present throughout the area with the most numerous sightings made
from the Gulf of Maine south to Long Island. Shoop and Kenney (1992)
also observed concentrations of leatherbacks during the summer off the
south shore of Long Island and off New Jersey. Leatherbacks in these
waters are thought to be following their preferred jellyfish prey. This
aerial survey estimated the leatherback population for the northeastern
U.S. at approximately 300-600 animals (from near Nova Scotia, Canada to
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina).

Compared to the current knowledge regarding loggerhead populations, the
genetic distinctness of leatherback populations is less clear. However,
genetic analyses of leatherbacks to date indicate female turtles nesting
in St. Croix/Puerto Rico and those nesting in Trinidad differ from each
other and from turtles nesting in Florida, French Guiana/Suriname and
along the South African Indian Ocean coast. Much of the genetic
diversity is contained in the relatively small insular subpopulations.
Although populations or subpopulations of leatherback sea turtles have
not been formally recognized, based on the most recent reviews of the
analysis of population trends of leatherback sea turtles, and due to our
limited understanding of the genetic structure of the entire species,
the most conservative approach would be to treat leatherback nesting
populations as distinct populations whose survival and recovery is
critical to the survival and recovery of the species. Further, any
action that appreciably reduces the likelihood for one or more of these
nesting populations to survive and recover in the wild, would
appreciably reduce the species' likelihood of survival and recovery in
the wild.

Leatherbacks are predominantly a pelagic species and feed on jellyfish
(i.e. *Stomolophus, Chryaora*, and *Aurelia* (Rebel 1974)), cnidarians
(*medusae, siphonophores*) and tunicates (*salps, pyrosomas*).
Time-Depth-Recorder data recorded by Eckert et al. (1998b) indicate that
leatherbacks are night feeders and are deep divers, with recorded dives
to depths in excess of 1000 meters. However, leatherbacks may come into
shallow waters if there is an abundance of jellyfish nearshore. Leary
(1957) reported a large group of up to 100 leatherbacks just offshore of
Port Aransas, Texas associated with a dense aggregation of
*Stomolophus*. Leatherbacks also occur annually in places such as Cape
Cod and Narragansett Bays during certain times of the year, particularly
the fall. Although leatherbacks are a long lived species (\> 30 years),
they are somewhat faster to mature than loggerheads, with an estimated
age at sexual maturity reported as about 13-14 years for females, and an
estimated minimum age at sexual maturity of 5-6 years, with 9 years
reported as a likely minimum (Zug and Parham 1996) and 19 years as a
likely maximum (NMFS 2001). In the U.S. and Caribbean, female
leatherbacks nest from March through July. They nest frequently (up to 7
nests per year) during a nesting season and nest about every 2-3 years.
During each nesting, they produce 100 eggs or more in each clutch and
thus, can produce 700 eggs or more per nesting season (Schultz 1975).
The eggs will incubate for 55-75 days before hatching. The habitat
requirements for post-hatchling leatherbacks are virtually unknown (NMFS
and USFWS 1992).

Anthropogenic impacts to the leatherback population are similar to those
discussed above for the loggerhead sea turtle, including fishery
interactions as well as intense exploitation of the eggs (Ross 1979).
Eckert (1996) and Spotila et al. (1996) record that adult mortality has
also increased significantly, particularly as a result of driftnet and
longline fisheries. Zug and Parham (1996) attribute the sharp decline in
leatherback populations to the combination of the loss of long-lived
adults in fishery related mortality, and the lack of recruitment
stemming from elimination of annual influxes of hatchlings because of
intense egg harvesting.

Poaching is not known to be a problem for U.S. nesting populations.
However, numerous fisheries that occur in both U.S. state and Federal
waters are known to negatively impact juvenile and adult leatherback sea
turtles. These include incidental take in several commercial and
recreational fisheries. Fisheries known or suspected to incidentally
capture leatherbacks include those deploying bottom trawls, off-bottom
trawls, purse seines, bottom longlines, hook and line, gill nets, drift
nets, traps, haul seines, pound nets, beach seines, and surface
longlines (NMFS and USFWS 1992). At a workshop held in the Northeast in
1998 to develop a management plan for leatherbacks, experts expressed
the opinion that incidental takes in fisheries were likely higher than
is being reported.

Leatherback interactions with the southeast shrimp fishery are also
common. Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), typically used in the southeast
shrimp fishery to minimize sea turtle/fishery interactions, are less
effective for the large-sized leatherbacks. Therefore, the NMFS has used
several alternative measures to protect leatherback sea turtles from
lethal interactions with the shrimp fishery. These include establishment
of a Leatherback Conservation Zone (60 FR 25260). NMFS established the
zone to restrict, when necessary, shrimp trawl activities from off the
coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida to the Virginia/North Carolina Border.
It allows the NMFS to quickly close the area or portions of the area to
the shrimp fleet on a short-term basis when high concentrations of
normally pelagic leatherbacks are recorded in more coastal waters where
the shrimp fleet operates. Other emergency measures may also be used to
minimize the interactions between leatherbacks and the shrimp fishery.
For example, in November 1999 parts of Florida experienced an unusually
high number of leatherback strandings. In response, the NMFS required
shrimp vessels operating in a specified area to use TEDs with a larger
opening for a 30-day period beginning December 8, 1999 (64 FR 69416) so
that leatherback sea turtles could escape if caught in the gear.

Leatherbacks are also susceptible to entanglement in lobster and crab
gear, possibly as a result of attraction to gelatinous organisms and
algae that collect on buoys and buoy lines at or near the surface,
attraction to the buoys which could appear as prey, or the gear
configuration which may be more likely to wrap around flippers. The
total number of leatherbacks reported entangled from New York through
Maine from all sources for the years 1980 - 2000 is 119; out of this
total, 92 of these records occurred from1990-2000. Entanglements are
also common in Canadian waters where Goff and Lien (1988) reported that
14 of 20 leatherbacks encountered off the coast of Newfoundland/Labrador
were entangled in fishing gear including salmon net, herring net,
gillnet, trawl line and crab pot line. It is unclear how leatherbacks
become entangled in such gear. Prescott (1988) reviewed stranding data
for Cape Cod Bay and concluded that for those turtles where cause of
death could be determined (the minority), entanglement in fishing gear
is the leading cause of death followed by capture by dragger, cold
stunning, or collision with boats.

Spotila et al. (1996) describe a hypothetical life table model based on
estimated ages of sexual maturity at both ends of the species' natural
range (5 and 15 years). The model concluded that leatherbacks maturing
in 5 years would exhibit much greater population fluctuations in
response to external factors than would turtles that mature in 15 years.
Furthermore, the simulations indicated that leatherbacks could maintain
a stable population only if both juvenile and adult survivorship
remained high, and that if other life history stages (i.e. egg,
hatchling, and juvenile) remained static. Model simulations indicated
that an increase in adult mortality of more than 1% above background
levels in a stable population was unsustainable. As noted, there are
many human-related sources of mortality to leatherbacks; a tally of all
leatherback takes anticipated annually under current biological opinions
completed for the NMFS June 30, 2000, biological opinion on the pelagic
longline fishery projected a potential for up to 801 leatherback takes,
although this sum includes many takes expected to be nonlethal.
Leatherbacks have a number of pressures on their populations, including
injury or mortality in fisheries, other Federal activities (e.g.,
military activities, oil and gas development, etc.), degradation of
nesting habitats, direct harvest of eggs, juvenile and adult turtles,
the effects of ocean pollutants and debris, lethal collisions, and
natural disturbances such as hurricanes (which may wipe out nesting
beaches).

Spotila et al. (1996) recommended not only reducing mortalities
resulting from fishery interactions, but also advocated protection of
eggs during the incubation period and of hatchlings during their first
day, and indicated that such practices could potentially double the
chance for survival and help counteract population effects resulting
from adult mortality. They conclude, "stable leatherback populations
could not withstand an increase in adult mortality above natural
background levels without decreasing . . . the Atlantic population is
the most robust, but it is being exploited at a rate that cannot be
sustained and if this rate of mortality continues, these populations
will also decline. ".

Estimated to number approximately 115,000 adult females globally in 1980
(Pritchard 1982) and only 34,500 by 1995 (Spotila et al. 1996),
leatherback populations have been decimated worldwide, not only by
fishery related mortality but, at least historically, primarily due to
intense exploitation of the eggs (Ross 1979). On some beaches nearly
100% of the eggs laid have been harvested (Eckert 1996). Eckert (1996)
and Spotila et al. (1996) record that adult mortality has also increased
significantly, particularly as a result of driftnet and longline
fisheries. Spotila (2000) states that a conservative estimate of annual
leatherback fishery-related mortality (from longlines, trawls and
gillnets) in the Pacific during the 1990s is 1,500 animals. He estimates
that this represented about a 23% mortality rate (or 33% if most
mortality was focused on the East Pacific population).

Nest counts are currently the only reliable indicator of population
status available for leatherback turtles. The status of the leatherback
population in the Atlantic is difficult to assess since major nesting
beaches occur over broad areas within tropical waters outside the United
States. Recent information suggests that Western Atlantic populations
declined from 18,800 nesting females in 1996 (Spotila et al. 1996) to
15,000 nesting females by 2000. Eastern Atlantic (i.e. off Africa,
numbering \~ 4,700) and Caribbean (4,000) populations appear to be
stable, but there is conflicting information for some sites and it is
certain that some populations (e.g., St. John and St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands) have been extirpated (NMFS and USFWS 1995). It does
appear, however, that the Western Atlantic population is being subjected
to mortality beyond sustainable levels, resulting in a continued decline
in numbers of nesting females.

*Number range CHAPTERLoggerhead Sea Turtle*

The loggerhead sea turtle occurs throughout the temperate and tropical
regions of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans (Dodd 1998). The
loggerhead turtle was listed as \"threatened\" under the ESA on July 28,
1978, but is considered endangered by the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) and under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES). Loggerhead sea turtles are found in
a wide range of habitats throughout the temperate and tropical regions
of the Atlantic. These include open ocean, continental shelves, bays,
lagoons, and estuaries (NMFS& FWS 1995).

Since they are limited by water temperatures, sea turtles do not usually
appear on the summer foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine until June,
but are found in Virginia as early as April. They remain in these areas
until as late as November and December in some cases, but the large
majority leaves the Gulf of Maine by mid-September. Loggerheads are
primarily benthic feeders, opportunistically foraging on crustaceans and
mollusks (NMFS & FWS 1995). Under certain conditions they also feed on
finfish, particularly if they are easy to catch *(e.g.,* caught in
gillnets or inside pound nets where the fish are accessible to turtles).

A Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG 2000), conducting an assessment of
the status of the loggerhead sea turtle population in the Western North
Atlantic (WNA), concluded that there are at least four loggerhead
subpopulations separated at the nesting beach in the WNA. However, the
group concluded that additional research is necessary to fully address
the stock definition question. The four nesting subpopulations include
the following areas: northern North Carolina to northeast Florida, south
Florida, the Florida Panhandle, and the Yucatan Peninsula. Genetic
evidence indicates that loggerheads from Chesapeake Bay southward to
Georgia appear nearly equally divided in origin between South Florida
and northern subpopulations. Additional research is needed to determine
the origin of turtles found north of the Chesapeake Bay.

The TEWG (1998) analysis also indicated the northern subpopulation of
loggerheads is stable or declining. A recovery goal of 12,800 nests has
been assumed for the Northern Subpopulation, but TEWG (1998) reported
nest number at around 6,200 (TEWG 1998). More recently, the addition of
nesting data from the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, did not change the
assessment of the TEWG that the number of loggerhead nests in the
Northern Subpopulation is stable or declining (TEWG 2000). Since the
number of nests has declined in the 1980\'s, the TEWG concluded that it
is unlikely that this subpopulation will reach this goal given this
apparent decline and the lack of information on the subpopulation from
which loggerheads in the WNA originate. Continued efforts to reduce the
adverse effects of fishing and other human-induced mortality on this
population are necessary.

The most recent 5-year ESA sea turtle status review (NMFS & USFWS 1995)
highlights the difficulty of assessing sea turtle population sizes and
trends. Most long-term data comes from nesting beaches, many of which
occur extensively in areas outside U.S. waters. Because of this lack of
information, the TEWG was unable to determine acceptable levels of
mortality. This status review supports the conclusion of the TEWG that
the northern subpopulation may be experiencing a decline and that
inadequate information is available to assess whether its status has
changed since the initial listing as threatened in 1978. NMFS & USFWS
(1995) concluded that loggerhead turtles should remain designated
threatened but noted that additional research will be necessary before
the next status review can be conducted.

*Number range CHAPTERHawksbill Sea Turtle*

The following is a summary of information on the Hawksbill sea turtle
made available by NMFS at the following website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.html

Number range CHAPTERThe hawksbill occurs in tropical and subtropical
seas of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. The species is widely
distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean, with
representatives of at least some life history stages regularly occurring
in southern Florida and the northern Gulf of Mexico (especially Texas);
in the Greater and Lesser Antilles; and along the Central American
mainland south to Brazil. Within the United States, hawksbills are most
common in Puerto Rico and its associated islands, and in the U.S. Virgin
Islands. In the continental U.S., the species is recorded from all the
gulf states and from along the eastern seaboard as far north as
Massachusetts, with the exception of Connecticut, but sightings north of
Florida are rare.

The hawksbill is a small to medium-sized sea turtle. In the U.S.
Caribbean, nesting females average about 62-94cm in straight carapace
length. Weight is typically to 80 kg in the wider Caribbean, with a
record weight of 127 kg. Hatchlings average about 42 mm straight
carapace length and range in weight from 13.5-19.5 g. The following
characteristics distinguish the hawksbill from other sea turtles: two
pairs of prefrontal scales; thick, posteriorly overlapping scutes on the
carapace; four pairs of coastal scutes; two claws on each flipper; and a
beak-like mouth. The carapace is heart-shaped in very young turtles, and
becomes more elongate or subovate with maturity. Its lateral and
posterior margins are sharply serrated in all but very old individuals.

Hawksbills utilize different habitats at different stages of their life
cycle. Posthatchling hawksbills occupy the pelagic environment, taking
shelter in weedlines that accumulate at convergence points. Hawksbills
reenter coastal waters when they reach approximately 20-25 cm carapace
length. Coral reefs are widely recognized as the resident foraging
habitat of juveniles, subadults and adults. This habitat association is
undoubtedly related to their diet of sponges, which need solid substrate
for attachment. The ledges and caves of the reef provide shelter for
resting both during the day and night. Hawksbills are also found around
rocky outcrops and high energy shoals, which are also optimum sites for
sponge growth. Hawksbills are also known to inhabit mangrove-fringed
bays and estuaries, particularly along the eastern shore of continents
where coral reefs are absent. In Texas, juvenile hawksbills are
associated with stone jetties.

Hawksbills utilize both low- and high-energy nesting beaches in tropical
oceans of the world. Both insular and mainland nesting sites are known.
Hawksbills will nest on small pocket beaches, and, because of their
small body size and great agility, can traverse fringing reefs that
limit access by other species. They exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting
substrate type. Nests are typically placed under vegetation.

The hawksbill turtle\'s status has not changed since it was listed as
endangered in 1970. It is a solitary nester, and thus, population trends
or estimates are difficult to determine. The decline of nesting
populations is accepted by most researchers. In 1983, the only known
apparently stable populations were in Yemen, northeastern Australia, the
Red Sea, and Oman. Commercial exploitation is the major cause of the
continued decline of the hawksbill sea turtle. There is a continuing
demand for the hawksbill\'s shell as well as other products including
leather, oil, perfume, and cosmetics. Prior to being certified under the
Pelly Amendment, Japan had been importing about 20 metric tons of
hawksbill shell per year, representing approximately 19,000 turtles. A
negotiated settlement was reached regarding this trade on June 19, 1992.
The hawksbill shell commands high prices (currently \$225/kilogram), a
major factor preventing effective protection.

Incidental catch of hawksbill turtles during fishing operations is an
unquantified and potentially significant source of mortality. Gill nets,
longlines and shrimp trawls all take turtles in Gulf of Mexico waters.
The extent to which hawksbills are killed or debilitated after becoming
entangled in marine debris are unknown, but it is believed to be a
serious and growing problem. Hawksbills have been reported entangled in
monofilament gill nets, \"fish nets\", fishing line and rope. Hawksbill
turtles eat a wide variety of debris such as plastic bags, plastic and
styrofoam pieces, tar balls, balloons and plastic pellets. Effects of
consumption include interference in metabolism or gut function, even at
low levels of ingestion, as well as absorption of toxic byproducts.

*Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle*

The Kemp\'s ridley is probably the most endangered of the world\'s sea
turtle species. The only major nesting site for ridleys is a single
stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963).
Estimates of the adult population reached a low of 1,050 in 1985, but
increased to 3,000 individuals in 1997. First-time nesting adults have
increased from 6% to 28% from 1981 to 1989, and from 23% to 41% from
1990 to 1994, indicating that the ridley population may be in the early
stages of growth (TEWG 1998). More recently the TEWG (2000) concluded
that the Kemp\'s Ridley population appears to be in the early stages of
exponential expansion. While the number of females nesting annually is
estimated to be orders of magnitude less than historical levels, the
mean rate of increase in the annual number of nests has accelerated over
the period 1987-1999. Preliminary analyses suggest that the intermediate
recovery goal of 10,000 nesting females by 2020 may be achievable (TEWG
2000).

Juvenile Kemp\'s ridleys inhabit northeastern US coastal waters where
they forage and grow in shallow coastal areas during the summer months.
Juvenile ridleys migrate southward with autumnal cooling and are found
predominantly in shallow coastal embayments along the Gulf Coast during
the late fall and winter months.

Ridleys found in mid-Atlantic waters are primarily post-pelagic
juveniles averaging 40 cm in carapace length, and weighing less than 20
kg. After loggerheads, they are the second most abundant sea turtle in
Virginia and Maryland waters, arriving in there during May and June and
then emigrating to more southerly waters from September to November. In
the Chesapeake Bay, ridleys frequently forage in shallow embayments,
particularly in areas supporting submerged aquatic vegetation (Lutcavage
and Musick 1985). The juvenile population in Chesapeake Bay is estimated
to be 211 to 1,083 turtles.

The model presented by Crouse et al. (1987) illustrates the importance
of subadults to the stability of loggerhead populations and may have
important implications for Kemp\'s ridleys. The vast majority of ridleys
identified along the Atlantic Coast have been juveniles and subadults.
Sources of mortality in this area include incidental takes in fishing
gear, pollution and marine habitat degradation, and other man-induced
and natural causes. Loss of individuals in the Atlantic, therefore, may
impede recovery of the Kemp\'s ridley sea turtle population. Sea
sampling data from the northeast otter trawl fishery and southeast
shrimp and summer flounder bottom trawl fisheries has recorded takes of
Kemp\'s ridley turtles.

*Green Sea Turtle*

Green sea turtles are more tropical in distribution than loggerheads,
and are generally found in waters between the northern and southern 20°C
isotherms. In the wester Atlantic region, the summer developmental
habitat encompasses estuarine and coastal waters as far north as Long
Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and the North Carolina sounds, and south
throughout the tropics (NMFS 1998). Most of the individuals reported in
U.S. waters are immature (NMFS 1998). Green sea turtles found north of
Florida during the summer must return to southern waters in autumn or
risk the adverse effects of cold temperatures.

There is evidence that green turtle nesting has been on the increase
during the past decade. For example, increased nesting has been observed
along the Atlantic coast of Florida on beaches where only loggerhead
nesting was observed in the past (NMFS 1998). Recent population
estimates for the western Atlantic area are not available. Green turtles
are threatened by incidental captures in fisheries, pollution and marine
habitat degradation, destruction/disturbance of nesting beaches, and
other sources of man-induced and natural mortality.

Juvenile green sea turtles occupy pelagic habitats after leaving the
nesting beach. At approximately 20 to 25 cm carapace length, juveniles
leave pelagic habitats, and enter benthic foraging areas, shifting to a
chiefly herbivorous diet (NMFS 1998). Post-pelagic green turtles feed
primarily on sea grasses and benthic algae, but also consume jellyfish,
salps, and sponges. Known feeding habitats along U.S. coasts of the
western Atlantic include shallow lagoons and embayments in Florida, and
similar shallow inshore areas elsewhere (NMFS 1998).

Sea sampling data from the scallop dredge fishery and southeast shrimp
and summer flounder bottom trawl fisheries have recorded incidental
takes of green turtles

*Shortnose Sturgeon*

Shortnose sturgeon occur in large rivers along the western Atlantic
coast from the St. Johns River, Florida (possibly extirpated from this
system), to the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada. The species
is anadromous in the southern portion of its range (i.e. south of
Chesapeake Bay), while northern populations are amphidromous (NMFS
1998). Population sizes vary across the species\' range with the
smallest populations occurring in the Cape Fear and Merrimack Rivers and
the largest populations in the Saint John and Hudson Rivers (Dadswell
1979; NMFS 1998).

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic and mainly inhabit the deep channel
sections of large rivers. They feed on a variety of benthic and
epibenthic invertebrates including molluscs, crustaceans (arnphipods,
chironomids, isopods), and oligochaete worms (Vladykov and Greeley 1963;
Dadswell 1979). Shortnose sturgeon are long-lived (30 years) and mature
at relatively old ages. In northern areas, males reach maturity at 5-10
years, while females reach sexual maturity between 7 and 13 years.

In the northern part of their range, shortnose sturgeon exhibit three
distinct movement patterns that are associated with spawning, feeding,
and overwintering periods. In spring, as water temperatures rise above
8° C, pre-spawning shortnose sturgeon move from overwintering grounds to
spawning areas. Spawning occurs from mid/late April to mid/late May.
Post-spawned sturgeon migrate downstream to feed throughout the summer.

As water temperatures decline below 8° C again in the fall, shortnose
sturgeon move to overwintering concentration areas and exhibit little
movement until water temperatures rise again in spring (NMFS 1998).
Young-of-the-year shortnose sturgeon are believed to move downstream
after hatching (NMFS 1998) but remain within freshwater habitats. Older
juveniles tend to move downstream in fall and winter as water
temperatures decline and the salt wedge recedes. Juveniles move upstream
in spring and feed mostly in freshwater reaches during summer.

Shortnose sturgeon spawn in freshwater sections of rivers, typically
below the first impassable barrier on the river (e.g., dam). Spawning
occurs over channel habitats containing gravel, rubble, or rock-cobble
substrates (NMFS 1998). Environmental conditions associated with
spawning activity include decreasing river discharge following the peak
spring freshet, water temperatures ranging from 9 -12 C, and bottom
water velocities of 0.4 - 0.7 m/sec (NMFS 1998).

*Atlantic salmon*

The recent ESA-listing for Atlantic salmon covers the wild population of
Atlantic salmon found in rivers and streams from the lower Kennebec
River north to the U.S.-Canada border. These include the Dennys, East
Machias, Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap, and Sheepscot Rivers
and Cove Brook. Atlantic salmon are an anadromous species with spawning
and juvenile rearing occurring in freshwater rivers followed by
migration to the marine environment. Juvenile salmon in New England
rivers typically migrate to sea in May after a two to three year period
of development in freshwater streams, and remain at sea for two winters
before returning to their U.S. natal rivers to spawn from mid October
through early November. While at sea, salmon generally undergo an
extensive northward migration to waters off Canada and Greenland. Data
from past commercial harvest indicate that post-smolts overwinter in the
southern Labrador Sea and in the Bay of Fundy. The numbers of returning
wild Atlantic salmon within the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) are perilously small with total run sizes of approximately
150 spawners occurring in 1999 (Baum 2000). Although capture of Atlantic
salmon has occurred in commercial fisheries (usually otter trawl or
gillnet gear) or by research/survey, no salmon have been reported
captured in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries.

*Smalltooth sawfish*

NMFS issued a final rule to list the DPS of smalltooth sawfish in the
United States as an endangered species on April 1, 2003. Smalltooth
sawfish are tropical marine and estuarine fish that have the
northwestern terminus of their Atlantic range in the waters of the
eastern United States. In the United States, smalltooth sawfish are
generally a shallow water fish of inshore bars, mangrove edges, and
seagrass beds, but larger animals can be found in deeper coastal waters.
In order to assess both the historic and the current distribution and
abundance of the smalltooth sawfish, a status review team collected and
compiled literature accounts, museum collection specimens, and other
records on the species. This information indicated that prior to around
1960, smalltooth sawfish occurred commonly in shallow waters of the Gulf
of Mexico and eastern seaboard up to North Carolina, and more rarely as
far north as New York. Subsequently their distribution has contracted to
peninsular Florida and, within that area, they can only be found with
any regularity off the extreme southern portion of the state. The
current distribution is centered in the Everglades National Park,
including Florida Bay (NMFS 2003).

Smalltooth sawfish have declined dramatically in U.S. waters over the
last century, as indicated by publication and museum records, negative
scientific survey results, anecdotal fishermen observations, and limited
landings per unit effort (NMFS 2003). The fact that documented
smalltooth sawfish catch records have declined during the twentieth
century despite tremendous increases in fishing effort underscores the
population reduction in the species. While NMFS lacks time-series
abundance data to quantify the extent of the DPS\'s decline, the best
available information indicates that the abundance of the U.S. DPS of
smalltooth sawfish is at an extremely low level relative to historic
levels.

The smalltooth sawfish continues to face threats from: (1) loss of
wetlands, (2) eutrophication, (3) point and non point sources of
pollution, (4) increased sedimentation and turbidity, (5) hydrologic
modifications, and (6) incidental catch in fisheries (NMFS 2003).
Commercial bycatch has played the primary role in the decline of this
species. While Federal, state, and interjurisdictional laws,
regulations, and policies lead to overall environmental enhancements
indirectly aiding smalltooth sawfish, very few have been applied
specifically for the protection of smalltooth sawfish. Based on the
species\' low intrinsic rate of increase resulting from their slow
growth, late maturation, and low fecundity, population recovery
potential for the species is limited and the species is at risk of
extinction. Current protective measures and conservation efforts
underway to protect the smalltooth sawfish are confined to: actions
directed at increasing general awareness of this species and the risks
it faces; possession prohibitions in the state waters of Florida and
Louisiana; and research being pursued by the Mote Marine Laboratory\'s
Center for Shark Research. There are no Federal or state conservation
plans for the smalltooth sawfish.

*Seabirds*

Most of the following information about seabirds is taken from the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Marine Research Program (1994) and Peterson
(1963). 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. Nine species of gulls breed in eastern North America and
occur in shelf waters off the northeastern US. 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 (Safina pers. comm.). In
addition, the bald eagle is listed as threatened under the ESA and is a
bird of aquatic ecosystems.

Like marine mammals, seabirds are vulnerable to entanglement in
commercial fishing gear. Human activities such as coastal development,
habitat degradation, and the presence of organochlorine contaminants are
considered the major threats to some seabird populations.

[^1]: However, since the management measures under fluke alternative 1
    (i.e. conservation equivalency) have yet to be adopted so the
    potential losses under this alternative could not be analyzed in
    conjunction with the alternatives proposed for scup and black sea
    bass. Since conservation equivalency allows each state to tailor
    specific recreational fishing measures to the needs of their state,
    while still achieving conservation goals, it is likely that the
    measures developed under fluke alternative 1 when considered in
    combination with the measures proposed for scup and black sea bass
    would have lower overall adverse effects than any of the
    combinations that were analyzed.

[^2]: The management measures proposed under summer flounder alternative
    1 (i.e. conservation equivalency) have yet to be adopted so the
    potential losses under this alternative could not be analyzed in
    conjunction with the alternatives proposed for scup and black sea
    bass. Since conservation equivalency allows each state to tailor
    specific recreational fishing measures to the needs of their state,
    while still achieving conservation goals, it is likely that the
    measures developed under summer flounder alternative 1 when
    considered in combination with the measures proposed for scup and
    black sea bass would have lower overall adverse effects than any of
    the other combinations that were analyzed.

[^3]: The 1998 party/charter average expenditure estimate (\$32.48;
    Table 46) was adjusted to its 2007 equivalent using the Bureau of
    Labor's Consumer Price Index.