**Agency Action:**

##### Approval of the Georges Bank Cod 

##### Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan

**Fishing Year 2008**

###### **Type of statement:** 

###### **Draft Environmental Assessment**

![](media/image1.png){width="4.678472222222222in"
height="1.8090277777777777in"}

**Lead Authors:**

**Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector Inc.**

**&**

**Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA)**

# In Consultation with the Lead Agency: 

# National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service)

**For further information:**

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, Inc.

Eric O. Brazer, Jr., Manager Phone: (508) 945-2432

210-E Orleans Road Fax: (508) 945-0981

North Chatham, Massachusetts 02650

#### 

#### February 12, 2008

## **Intentionally Blank**

## *Table of Contents*

[1.0 INTRODUCTION 5](#__RefHeading___Toc183286291)

[1.1 GB COD FIXED GEAR SECTOR OPERATIONS PLAN REQUEST
5](#__RefHeading___Toc183286292)

[1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 6](#__RefHeading___Toc183286293)

[1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286294)

[1.4 BACKGROUND 8](#__RefHeading___Toc183286295)

[2.0 Affected Environment 1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286296)3

[2.1 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286297)3

[2.1.1 TARGET SPECIES 1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286298)3

[2.1.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF MULTISPECIES STOCK ANALYSIS
1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286299)4

[2.1.1.2 STATUS OF THE TARGET SPECIES 14](#__RefHeading___Toc183286300)

[2.1.2 NON-TARGET SPECIES 1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286301)5

[2.1.2.1 STATUS OF OTHER NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES
1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286302)5

[2.1.3 PROTECTED SPECIES 1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286303)6

[2.1.3.1 STATUS OF PROTECTED SPECIES](#__RefHeading___Toc183286304) 18

[2.1.3.1.1 STATUS OF THORNY SKATE *(AMBLYRAJA
RADIATA)*](#__RefHeading___Toc183286305) 18

[2.1.3.1.2 STATUS OF BARNDOOR SKATE (*DIPTURUS
LAEVIS*)](#__RefHeading___Toc183286306) 18

[2.2 HABITAT ENVIRONMENT](#__RefHeading___Toc183286307) 18

[2.2.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND HABITAT
1](#__RefHeading___Toc183286308)8

[2.2.1.1 Northeast Shelf Ecosystem 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286309)2

[2.2.1.2 GEORGES BANK 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286310)2

[2.2.1.2.1 GB Water Column Habitat 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286311)3

[2.2.1.2.2 GB Benthic Habitat 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286312)4

[2.2.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286313)6

[2.2.3.1 SCOPE OF DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE OF FURTHER INFO
2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286314)7

[2.2.3.2 EFH DESCRIPTIONS FOR SPECIES IN AFFECTED
AREA](#__RefHeading___Toc183286315) 28

[2.3 SOCIAL and Economic ENVIRONMENT 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286316)8

[2.3.1 Background and Definitions 2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286317)8

[2.3.2 Social and economic status of the affected
area](#__RefHeading___Toc183286318) 28

[2.3.2.1 New England](#__RefHeading___Toc183286319) 28

[2.3.2.2 Port Analysis Criteria and Overview
2](#__RefHeading___Toc183286320)9

[2.3.2.2.1 Port Analysis Summary](#__RefHeading___Toc183286321) 30

[2.3.2.3 Overview of GB FIXED GEAR
Fishery](#__RefHeading___Toc183286322) 31

[2.3.2.4 Cape Cod and the Islands](#__RefHeading___Toc183286323) 31

[2.3.2.5 Chatham/Harwichport,
Massachusetts](#__RefHeading___Toc183286324) 31

[2.3.2.6 GEORGES BANK COD HOOK SECTOR 3](#__RefHeading___Toc183286325)2

2.3.2.7 GEORGES BANK COD FIXED GEAR
SECTOR.................................\...........33

[3.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
3](#__RefHeading___Toc183286326)3

[3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 3](#__RefHeading___Toc183286327)3

[3.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred
Alternative)](#__RefHeading___Toc183286328) 33

[4.0 Environmental Consequences 3](#__RefHeading___Toc183286329)7

[4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 3](#__RefHeading___Toc183286330)7

[4.1.1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 1)
3](#__RefHeading___Toc183286331)7

[4.1.2 HABITAT IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 1)](#__RefHeading___Toc183286332) 41

[4.1.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 1)
4](#__RefHeading___Toc183286333)2

[4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
4](#__RefHeading___Toc183286334)4

[4.2.1 BIO. IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
4](#__RefHeading___Toc183286335)4

[4.2.2 HABITAT IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
5](#__RefHeading___Toc183286336)2

[4.2.3 SOCIAL & ECONOMIC IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALT.)
5](#__RefHeading___Toc183286337)4

[4.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) ASSESSMENT
5](#__RefHeading___Toc183286339)8

[4.4 IMPACTS TO PROTECTED RESOURCES 5](#__RefHeading___Toc183286340)8

[5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS](#__RefHeading___Toc183286341) 60

[5.1 VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS (VECs)](#__RefHeading___Toc183286342)
60

[5.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL SCOPE](#__RefHeading___Toc183286343) 61

[5.3 Past, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE
Actions](#__RefHeading___Toc183286344) 62

[5.3.1 Target and Non-Target Species 6](#__RefHeading___Toc183286345)2

[5.3.2 PROTECTED SPECIES 6](#__RefHeading___Toc183286346)8

[5.3.3 HABITAT](#__RefHeading___Toc183286347) 70

[5.3.4 HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND THE FISHERY](#__RefHeading___Toc183286349)
71

[5.4 NON-FISHING IMPACTS 7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286350)2

[5.5 SUMMARY OF DIRECT/INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTS
7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286348)3

[5.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286348)5

[5.7 Summary of cumulative impacts 7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286353)7

[6.0 List Of Preparers 7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286356)8

[7.0 List Of Agencies and Persons Consulted
7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286357)8

[8.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW 7](#__RefHeading___Toc183286358)9

[8.1 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE UNDER EO
12866](#__RefHeading___Toc183286359) 80

[9.0 INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY
ANALYSIS](#__RefHeading___Toc183286360) 82

[10.0 APPLICABLE LAW 8](#__RefHeading___Toc183286361)3

[11.0 REFERENCES 9](#__RefHeading___Toc183286362)2

[12.0 Glossary of Acronyms and
Terms................................................9](#__RefHeading___Toc183286363)5

**1.0 INTRODUCTION**

The final rule implementing Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE)
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (69 CFR 22906, April 27,
2004) specified a process for the formation of sectors within the NE
multispecies fishery and the allocation of total allowable catch (TAC)
for a specific groundfish species (or Days-at-Sea), implemented
restrictions that apply to all sectors, authorized and implemented the
first GB cod Sector TAC in New England: the Georges Bank (GB) Cod Hook
Sector (Hook Sector), established the GB Cod Hook Sector Area (Hook
Sector Area), and specified a formula for the allocation of GB cod TAC
to future Sectors. In November 2006, Framework (FW) 42 to the NE
Multispecies FMP authorized the second GB cod Sector TAC in New England:
the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector (Fixed Gear Sector). While FW 42 to the NE
Multispecies FMP authorized the Fixed Gear Sector, in order for GB cod
to be allocated to the Fixed Gear Sector and the Fixed Gear Sector
authorized to fish, the Fixed Gear Sector must submit an Operations Plan
and Fixed Gear Sector Contract to the Regional Administrator (RA)
annually for approval. The Operations Plan and Fixed Gear Sector
Contract must contain certain elements, including a contract signed by
all Fixed Gear Sector participants and a plan containing the management
rules that the Fixed Gear Sector participants agree to abide by to avoid
exceeding the allocated TAC. An analysis of the impacts of the Fixed
Gear Sector's proposed operation and harvesting rules is required to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

This proposal does not request substantial changes to the approved 2007
GB Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan. Only the number of participating
vessels is expected to change: 16 vessels in 2007 as compared to 33
vessels in 2008. Five of these vessels joined from the Hook Sector
(mostly to have the option to use sink gillnets if hook fishing
continues to be inefficient), one was purchased by a current Fixed Gear
Sector member, and 11 joined the Fixed Gear Sector from the Common pool.

**1.1 GB COD FIXED GEAR SECTOR OPERATIONS PLAN REQUEST**

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector requests approval and implementation of the
Fixed Gear Sector Allocation Operations Plan for the 2008-09 fishing
year. The Operations Plan was submitted under FW 42 to the NE
Multispecies FMP and was implemented in November 2006. The Operations
Plan has previously been approved for fishing year 2007-2008. The New
England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) has authorized the formation
of Sectors under Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP and has set
forth criteria for establishing Sectors in that action. The Operations
Plan for 2008-2009 provides the specific details for how the Fixed Gear
Sector would function and is required for Fixed Gear Sector operations
approval.

The Fixed Gear Sector is a group of self-selecting fishermen that have
come together voluntarily and cooperatively for the purposes of
efficiently harvesting an annual allocation of GB cod. The Fixed Gear
Sector would operate under a hard TAC of GB cod to meet the overfishing
mandates of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendment to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act).
Furthermore, the Fixed Gear Sector would foster novel and highly
adaptive means of local decision-making, self-monitoring, and
enforcement that would serve as a model for the future of sustainable
fisheries in New England.

Implementation of the Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would mitigate
potentially adverse economic impacts that are being experienced as a
result of Amendment 13 and adverse economic impacts of FW 42 to the NE
Multispecies FMP by conveying environmental, social, and economic
benefits directly to the Fixed Gear Sector members. By voluntarily
restricting themselves to using fixed gear only and operating within a
hard TAC, Fixed Gear Sector fishermen have ceased wasteful fishing
practices and would maintain a low discard (undersized or predated GB
cod) rate. Inaugural year (2007) data is preliminary at the time of
writing, but discard rates appear to be less than 10%. Furthermore,
participation in the Sector stops overfishing for the members:
currently, 16 groundfish vessels are not participating in overfishing in
2007. These same numbers of fishermen are reaping the social benefits of
Sector management by operating their fishing businesses sustainably, and
knowing that their colleagues were doing the same. Collaboration and
cooperation now occurred where it may not have in the past.
Additionally, economic benefits are accruing to the members because they
were given the flexibility to make market-based decisions on when and
where to fish. Knowing that the Sector's TAC was available and could not
be achieved by larger vessels and more-efficient gear types, Sector
members were given the opportunity to not fish if fish prices were
considered to be too low; in the Common Pool, the drive to achieve the
daily trip limit as often as possible did not allow for such behavior.

**Member Requirements**

To qualify for participation in the Fixed Gear Sector, members must
possess a valid limited access NE multispecies permit and an allocation
of days-at-sea (DAS) as promulgated in Amendment 13. Under Amendment 13,
the NEFMC established the GB Cod Sector Qualifying Period according to
the baseline fishing years 1996-2001 that were used to allocate DAS.
Fixed Gear Sector members must have documented landings of GB cod during
the qualifying period in order to be eligible for participation in the
Fixed Gear Sector. The Fixed Gear Sector's TAC is the cumulative sum of
each Fixed Gear Sector member's individual proportion of the landings
taken during the qualifying period. Fixed Gear Sector members would be
required to declare their intention to join the Fixed Gear Sector to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) Regional
Administrator (RA) on an annual basis. Once declared into the Fixed Gear
Sector, members would fish for groundfish solely within the GB Hook
Sector area (Hook Sector Area, defined later). Furthermore, Fixed Gear
Sector members must only utilize fixed gear (which includes both
anchored sink gillnet and hook-and-line), and not mobile gear, to target
groundfish. Fixed Gear Sector members would be legally bound by a
Membership Contract that sets forth the requirements for each member as
well as a schedule of penalties for violations of Fixed Gear Sector
rules.

**Fixed Gear Sector Rules**

The Fixed Gear Sector would operate under a hard TAC of GB cod, which
would assure that the Fixed Gear Sector would not contribute to
overfishing of the GB cod stock. Real-time landings data would be
employed to ensure compliance with the hard TAC. Once declared into the
Fixed Gear Sector, members would fish for groundfish solely within the
Hook Sector Area (Figure 4). Furthermore, Fixed Gear Sector members must
utilize only fixed gear to target groundfish. Fixed Gear Sector members
would retain all legal-sized marketable GB cod in order to minimize
bycatch of the target species. The Fixed Gear Sector Manager (Manager)
would oversee day-to-day operations of the Fixed Gear Sector. The quota
would be divided monthly, ensuring that there would be an opportunity
for Fixed Gear Sector members to fish each month of the year. Monthly
distribution of the quota would serve to maintain equity between vessels
within the Fixed Gear Sector that have traditionally fished during
different times of the year. The Manager would have the authority to
adjust the monthly quota targets if necessary, and would report such
adjustment to NOAA Fisheries Service. A portion of the GB cod TAC would
be set aside as a bycatch for traditional large mesh gillnet fisheries
for skates and monkfish. The rolling closure during the month of May
would be opened for use of bottom longline or jigging operations only.
Regulations pertaining to number of nets would be maintained as would
DAS and minimum mesh size requirements. Under these rules, the Fixed
Gear Sector would act as a model for the future of community- and quota-
based management regimes in New England.

2.  **PURPOSE AND NEED**

The need for this action is to provide an opportunity for flexible
fisheries management through local decision-making, self-monitoring and
enforcement. The purpose of the action is to approve an Operations Plan
and an allocation of GB cod for the Fixed Gear Sector for which the
process was specified and authorized as part of Amendment 13 and
subsequent framework adjustments that would allow Fixed Gear Sector
members to alleviate social and economic hardships while still meeting
biological objectives through management rules by which the Sector
participants agree to abide.

**1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES**

The NEFMC has established a set of goals and objectives for the purposes
of developing Amendment 13; the Fixed Gear Sector is deliberate in
meeting many of the goals and objectives set forth for the Amendment.
Some of the most applicable goals and objectives for both the Amendment
and Fixed Gear Sector are listed below. Goals and objectives of
Amendment 13 are excerpted from the Amendment 13 Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) Section 2.3:

> **[Amendment 13 Goals:]{.underline}**

**Goal 1**: Consistent with the National Standards and other required
provisions of the Magnuson Act and other applicable law, manage the
northeast multispecies complex at sustainable levels.

> **Goal 2**: Create a management system so that fleet capacity will be
> commensurate with resource status so as to achieve goals of economic
> efficiency and biological conservation and that encourages diversity
> within the fishery.
>
> **Goal 3**: Maintain a directed commercial and recreational fishery
> for northeast multispecies.
>
> **Goal 4**: Minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on
> fishing communities and shoreside infrastructure.
>
> **Goal 6**: To promote stewardship within the fishery.
>
> **[Amendment 13 Objectives:]{.underline}**
>
> **Objective 1**: Achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield (OY)
> for the U.S. fishing industry.
>
> **Objective 3**: Adopt fishery management measures that constrain
> fishing mortality to levels that are compliant with the SFA.
>
> **Objective 4**: Implement rebuilding schedules for overfished stocks,
> and prevent overfishing.
>
> **Objective 7**: To the extent possible, maintain a diverse groundfish
> fishery, including different gear types, vessel sizes, geographic
> locations, and levels of participation.
>
> **Objective 9**: Adopt measures consistent with the habitat provisions
> of the Magnuson Act, including identification of EFH and minimizing
> impacts on habitat to the extent practicable.
>
> **Objective 10**: Identify and minimize bycatch, which include
> regulatory discards, to the extent practicable, and to the extent
> bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.

**[Fixed Gear Sector Goals:]{.underline}**

**Goal 1**: Sustain a viable fixed gear fishery on Georges Bank.

> **Goal 2**: Sustain a viable commercial groundfish fleet in
> Chatham/Harwichport, Massachusetts.
>
> **Goal 3**: Assure that the fixed gear fleet will not overfish the GB
> cod stock through utilization of a hard TAC.
>
> **Goal 4**: Create new opportunities for the GB fixed gear fleet, such
> as opportunities to pursue healthy or rebuilding Groundfish stocks
> instead of GB cod.

**Goal 5**: Retain access for small boat fishermen on GB.

**Goal 6**: Promote stewardship of GB cod resource.

**Goal 7**: Implement Community-Based Fisheries Management in New
England.

> **Goal 8**: Create a working model for future development, submission,
> and implementation of other Sectors in the New England groundfish
> fishery

**1.4 BACKGROUND**

**Brief Regulatory History**

The Magnuson Act initiated management on groundfish stocks in 1977 with
the adoption of a plan for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder.
Relying primarily on hard quotas but failing to fully develop
appropriate allocation levels and provide sufficient monitoring, the
plan soon proved unworkable. In 1982, the quota system was rejected and
replaces with an Interim Groundfish Plan, which relied on input controls
such as minimum fish sizes and codend mesh regulations to control
fishing mortality in the GOM and GB. Four years later, the interim plan
was replaced by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. This FMP established
biological targets (outputs) in terms of maximum spawning potential and
continued to rely on gear restrictions and minimum mesh size (inputs) to
control fishing mortality. Amendment 5, adopted in 1994, was a major
revision to the FMP which substantially reduced in time fished DAS for
some fleet components and implemented year-round closed areas as means
to control mortality. Amendment 7, adopted in 1996, expanded the DAS
program and accelerated the DAS reduction timeline first adopted in
Amendment 5 -- fishermen were losing DAS at a more rapid pace. Since the
implementation of Amendment 7, there have been a series of amendments
and smaller changes (framework adjustments) that are detailed in
Amendment 13.

**Recent and Relevant Management Actions**

Amendment 13 (Table 1) was developed over a four-year period to meet the
Magnuson Act requirement to adopt rebuilding programs for stocks that
are overfished and to end overfishing. Implemented in 2004, Amendment 13
also brought the FMP into compliance with other provisions of the
Magnuson Act. Due to these regulatory restrictions, however, substantial
negative short-term social and economic impacts were experienced by a
large portion of New England. It was intended that these impacts would
by offset by the continual rebuilding of target and non-target stocks.
Amendment 13 also authorized the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Operations
Plan and Agreement, the first of its kind in New England waters.

Subsequent to the implementation of Amendment 13, FW Adjustment 40A (FW
40A) provided opportunities to target healthy stocks, FW Adjustment 40B
(FW 40B) improved the effectiveness of the effort control program, and
FW Adjustment 41 (FW 41) expanded the vessels eligible to participate in
a Special Access Program (SAP) that targets GB haddock (NEFMC, FW 42 DEA
Section 3.3.1).

FW 40A to the NE Multispecies FMP provided exclusive access to Closed
Area I (CAI) for the GB Hook Sector in a directed haddock Special Access
Program (SAP). While this allowed for increased mortality on GB cod and
haddock stocks, it was done so under strict performance guidelines
approved by NMFS. Protected species and habitat impacts were determined
to be negligible. However, this SAP provided a substantial contribution
to the Hook Sector members' annual catch, and the overall economic
viability of hook fishing on GB. It provided a revenue stream to the
Chatham/Harwich community and Sector members, and empowered fishermen by
providing responsible fishing opportunities as a direct result of
collaborative research. Relatively low populations of cod continued to
require alternatives for the hook and line fishery on GB. Furthermore,
the NEFMC implemented the Category B (regular) DAS pilot program in FW
40A. This program was used to test the concept of targeting healthy
stocks of groundfish using Category B (regular) DAS, while minimizing
impacts on groundfish stocks of concern (SOC). This action acknowledged
that monkfish category C and D vessels fishing on a multispecies DAS in
the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) had no monkfish trip limit,
and could target monkfish on a Category B (regular) DAS provided they
did not exceed the limits on groundfish SOC. The FW 40A analysis
identified that this action may result in increased monkfish fishing
mortality, but at the time of analysis the northern monkfish stock was
nearly rebuilt, and the southern stock as improving substantially. As
such, no steps were taken to limit the ability of Category C and D
monkfish vessels to target monkfish in the NFMA (using a B regular DAS)
or to satisfy the multispecies DAS usage requirement on a monkfish DAS
in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA).

Additionally, under FW 40B the eligibility criteria and allocation
formula for the Hook Sector changed. Amendment 13 established the Hook
Sector and allocated GB cod to the Hook Sector based on the history of
the Hook Sector participants. As implemented, only permits with a past
history of using hook gear could join the Hook Sector, and only GB cod
landed using hook gear was used to determine the Hook Sector's cod
allocation. FW 40B modified these requirements and allowed any vessel to
join the Hook Sector and all GB cod landings of Hook Sector
participants, regardless of gear, to be used to determine the Hook
Sector's allocation. Hook Sector participants are required to use hook
gear once in the Hook Sector and the maximum share of the GB cod TAC
that the Hook Sector can be allocated is twenty percent. Despite this,
no additional vessels opted to join the Hook Sector, and the Hook
Sector's allocation did not experience an increase based on the
allowance of history associated by non-hook gear. FW 40B also revised
the DAS leasing and transfer programs, modified provisions for the
Closed Area II yellowtail flounder SAP, established a DAS credit for
vessels standing by an entangled whale, implemented new notification
requirements for Category 1 herring vessels, and removed the net limit
for trip gillnet vessels.

FW 41 allowed access to the CA I SAP to non-Hook Sector vessels,
including those of the Fixed Gear Sector.  The Hook Sector negotiated
with non-Hook Sector vessels in an attempt to maintain product value by
eliminating a derby style fishery.  The two sides negotiated a
decision - the TAC and season were split in two. Hook Sector and
non-Hook Sector vessels would alternate seasons on an annual basis. It
would provide a revenue stream to the Chatham/Harwich community and
empower fishermen by providing responsible fishing opportunities as a
direct result of collaborative research. As the TAC grows with the
haddock resource, expansion of the area and the season may be
considered. Low positive socioeconomic impacts were realized by both
non-Hook Sector members and the towns of Chatham and Harwich. .
Additionally, FW 41 specified the TACs of SOC that can be caught on
Category B DAS, and allocated those TACs to specific Category B DAS
programs. These TACs are based on the evaluation of likely impacts of
A13, and are set at 5 percent or less of each stock's target TAC. The
TACs will be recalculated on a biannual basis, dependant on the
then-current stock status.

FW 42 was initiated following the 2005 assessment of groundfish stocks
(see Section 3.1 for stock status information). Eight stocks were found
to be experiencing overfishing (GB Yellowtail flounder, CC/GOM
Yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA Yellowtail flounder, White Hake, SNE winter
flounder, GB winter flounder, GOM cod and GB cod) and as a result, the
NEFMC approved a range of alternatives to adjust fishing mortality
downward on these stocks. Alternatives included DAS cuts, reduced trip
limits, and differential DAS counting (2:1 in the inshore fishing areas)
to reduce groundfish mortality. All were intended to have positive
biological impacts. However, these measures also caused short-term high
negative socioeconomic impacts, particularly to the communities that
were heavily-dependent on groundfish revenue (including Chatham and
Harwich). The future rebuilt stocks are intended to offset economic
losses. Mortality cuts may have reduced harmful interactions with
protected species and habitats. Additionally, FW42 authorized an 8.3%
reduction the allocation of DAS through a change in the allocation
between A and B DAS. Finally, FW42 implemented the GB Cod Fixed Gear
Sector Allocation Operations Plan, which ended overfishing on GB cod by
its membership and generated positive socioeconomic benefits to the
Fixed Gear Sector.

In summary, the cumulative effects of Amendment 13, and Frameworks 40a,
40b, 41, and 42 have had an overall positive effect on groundfish
stocks. Rebuilding plans were identified and maintained; mortality was
reduced as a result of DAS cuts, increased trip limits, and differential
DAS counting; and a portion of the groundfish fishery (manifested in the
Hook and Fixed Gear Sectors) is not overfishing GB cod. These mortality
reductions may have a positive impact on protected species and habitat
impacts, as fishing effort and therefore risk of interaction may
decrease. Increases in mortality may have occurred on GB cod and haddock
through the implementation of the SAP; however, this occurred under
strict performance guidelines that were approved by NOAA Fisheries
Service.

Generally speaking, negative socio-economic impacts were felt in the
Chatham/Harwich community. Often, reductions in mortality are generated
by increased regulations and inefficiency. Groundfish-dependant
fishermen and communities in particular experienced negative impacts.
These impacts are intended to only occur in the short-term, as mortality
reductions should help rebuild groundfish stocks, which will allow for
fishermen and communities to reap the future benefits of increased
groundfish biomass. The SAP and the formation of the Hook and Fixed Gear
Sectors offered socioeconomic relief, created a revenue stream for
individual fishermen and communities, and empowered fishermen and
communities to effect positive change.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><p><strong>Regulatory Package and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Applicable Regulatory Changes</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Biological Impacts</strong></td>
<td><strong>Habitat Impacts</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Social Impacts</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Economic Impacts</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Overall</strong></td>
<td><strong>Target Species</strong></td>
<td><strong>Non-target Species</strong></td>
<td><strong>Protected Species</strong></td>
<td><strong>Habitat</strong></td>
<td><strong>Overall</strong></td>
<td><strong>Chatham/ Harwich</strong></td>
<td><strong>Sectors</strong></td>
<td><strong>Overall</strong></td>
<td><strong>Chatham/ Harwich</strong></td>
<td><strong>Sectors</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Amendment 13</strong></p>
<p>Developed rebuilding plans, and ensured Magnuson compliance.</p>
<p>Authorized Hook Sector</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High +</strong></p>
<p>Developed rebuilding plans, created mechanism to place a portion of
GB cod stock under a hard TAC, and ensured Magnuson compliance.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High +</strong></p>
<p>Adopted rebuilding plans for overfished stocks and to end
overfishing, reduced mortality through effort reductions (DAS) and
closed areas.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High +</strong></p>
<p>Adopted rebuilding plans for overfished stocks and to end
overfishing. Reduced fishing effort has reduced mortality of non-target
species.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Reduced effort and closed areas reduced protected species
interactions.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Closed Habitat Areas and reduced effort; Effort reductions may have
positive impacts due to less bottom contact time.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Increased regulations negatively impacted fishing communities, but
with long-term effort reduction assisting in rebuilding.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>High negative effects on these groundfish-dependant ports; long-term
benefits from reduced mortality.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High +</strong></p>
<p>Responded to community initiative and local conservation efforts by
implement-ing Hook Sector.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Increased regulations reduced economic stability, but with long-term
effort reduction resulting in increased stocks and therefore
revenue.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Reduction in effort resulting from increased regulations and local
business inefficiency.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>High +</strong></p>
<p>Increased efficiency of Sector members, decreased overhead costs, and
allowed for revenue-generation in May.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Framework 40a</strong></p>
<p>Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP implemented, and Category B
(regular) DAS program implemented.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Increased mortality on GB cod and haddock, but under strict
performance guidelines and low B (regular) DAS TACs; not expected to
threaten A13 mortality objectives.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Increased mortality on GB cod and haddock, but under strict
performance guidelines and low B (regular) DAS TACs; not expected to
threaten A13 mortality objectives</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Increased incidental mortality but under strict performance
guidelines and low B (regular) DAS TACs; monkfish mortality may
increase.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Maximize conservation benefits and community mitigation measures
built into Amendment 13; awarded the opportunity to target healthy
stocks.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Realized importance of industry involvement, and shoreside businesses
supported; awarded the opportunity to target healthy stocks.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Participation in collaborative research that brought about
sustainable fishing opportunities; awarded the opportunity to target
healthy stocks.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Increased revenue to individual fishing businesses and communities
involved with Sectors and for those who target healthy stocks.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Provided increased revenue to Chatham/ Harwich industry.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Provided increased revenue to Hook Sector members.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Framework 40b</strong></p>
<p>Allowed vessels with no hook history to join the Hook Sector and
count non-hook landings history toward the Hook Sector allocation
calculation, revised DAS leasing and transfer programs, modified
provisions for the Closed Area II yellowtail flounder SAP, established a
DAS credit for vessels standing by an entangled whale, implemented new
notification requirements for Category 1 herring vessels, and removed
the net limit for trip gillnet vessels.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Short-term increase in effort; not expected to threaten A13 mortality
objectives.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Short-term increase in effort; not expected to threaten A13 mortality
objectives.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Short-term increase in effort; minor increased mortality on GOM
haddock; not expected to threaten A13 mortality objectives.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Minor benefits gained through DAS revision and/or gain, and no trip
gillnet net limit.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Minor benefits gained through DAS revision and/or gain, and no trip
gillnet net limit.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Minor benefits gained through DAS revision and/or gain, and no trip
gillnet net limit.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Minor benefits gained through DAS revision and/or gain, and no trip
gillnet net limit.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Framework 41</strong></p>
<p>Allowed Common Pool (Non-Hook Sector) vessel access to CAI Hook Gear
Haddock SAP, and specified incidental TACs for SOC.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Provided non-Hook Sector community members the opportunity to
participate, but capped effort for SOC.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Provided non-Hook Sector community members the opportunity to
participate, but capped effort for SOC.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Provided non-Hook Sector community members the opportunity to
participate, but capped effort for SOC.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Provided non-Hook Sector community members the opportunity to
participate, but capped effort for SOC.</p></td>
<td><strong>Negligible</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Framework 42</strong></p>
<p>Various trip limit reductions, DAS reductions, differential DAS
counting, and Fixed Gear Sector implementation.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Lowered mortality for target and non-target species; Second sector
formed, putting more GB cod under hard TAC.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Differential DAS counting reduces mortality and effort; also Fixed
Gear Sector put more GB cod under hard TAC.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Reduced mortality through effort reductions; reductions in trip
limits.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Effort reductions may have positive impacts due to fewer species
interactions.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Effort reductions may have positive impacts due to less bottom
contact time.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Negative impact to fishing communities, but with long-term effort
reduction assisting in rebuilding.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Dis-proportionate negative effects on these groundfish-dependant
ports; long-term benefits from reduced mortality.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Allowed local community members to effect positive change in the NE
groundfish fishery.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Reduced economic stability, but with long-term effort reduction
resulting in increased stocks and therefore revenue.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Reduction in effort resulting from additional restrictive regulations
and local business inefficiency.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Increased efficiency of Sector members, decreased overhead costs, and
allowed for revenues to be maximized when fish available</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Sum of Impacts</strong></p>
<p>All measures implemented and contemplated for Amendment 13 FWs 40A,
40B, 41, and 42 taken cumulatively.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Rebuilding plans to prevent overfishing and rebuild stocks, habitat
protection</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Develops rebuilding program and reduces mortality on all stocks;
SAP-related mortality increases but under strict performance
guidelines.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Maintains rebuilding program and reduces mortality on non-target
stocks; SAP-related mortality increases but under strict performance
guidelines.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Effort reductions may have positive impacts on protected
species.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low +</strong></p>
<p>Effort reductions may have positive impacts on habitat. Habitat
closures protect EFH.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Short to long-term costs will be experienced due to increased
regulations; however, long-term benefits will be gained by rebuilt
stocks.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>-</strong></p>
<p>Local communities are highly dependant on groundfish and are highly
affected by increased regulations.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>The Hook and Fixed Gear Sectors were approved; offered flexibility
and efficiency for members to align business plans with conservation
goals.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Low -</strong></p>
<p>Short-term loss of income/ revenue will be experienced due to
increased regulations; however, long-term profits will be realized
through rebuilt stocks.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>Short-term -, low long-term +</strong></p>
<p>Reduction in effort resulting from increased regulations and local
business inefficiency.</p></td>
<td><p><strong>+</strong></p>
<p>Hook and Fixed Gear Sectors offers socio-economic relief and ability
to not overfish, in the face of ever-increasing regulations and
mortality reductions.</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Table 1- Impacts of Recent Northeast Multispecies Actions on the
Affected Environment

**2.0 Affected Environment**

This section contains information on the biological, habitat, social,
and economic environments affected by the proposed action. Since the
approval of the Fixed Gear Sector for the 2007-08 fishing year, baseline
information for the affected resources, aside from the status of
groundfish stocks have not substantially changed and are described
herein. The status of the stocks section has been updated to reflect the
latest information from the GARM II (Figure 2).

**2.1 Biological Environment**

The proposed action would affect the NE Multispecies Fishery and would
be restricted to the GB stocks for all those component species thereof
for which distinctions are made.

**2.1.1 TARGET SPECIES**

The target species for the Fixed Gear Sector is GB cod (Figure 1)

![](media/image1.png){width="3.40625in" height="1.3215277777777779in"}

Figure 1 - The Atlantic Cod (*Gadus morhua*).

(Goode, 1884)

Atlantic cod (Figure 1) can be found in the northwest Atlantic Ocean
between Greenland to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, although their
densities are highest in the western GOM. Spanning depths between
nearshore areas and 400 meters (rare), Atlantic cod are most often
concentrated on rough bottoms in waters between 10 and 150 m and at
temperatures between 0 and 10 degrees C.

Although they do reach ages of 20 years, most enter fisheries between
the ages of 2 and 5. After only one year, they average 26 cm; they can
eventually grow to lengths of 130 cm and weights of 25-35 kg. Median age
at sexual maturity is 1.7-2.3 years at lengths between 32 and 41 cm
(NEFSC 2005). Large females may produce 3 million to 9 million eggs,
indicating high fecundity. Spawning occurs near bottom during winter and
early spring, usually in water temperatures between 5 and 7 degrees C.
Eggs drift for 2-3 weeks in the water column before hatching; larvae
remain in the water column until they reach 4-6 cm in about 3 months,
whence they descend to the bottom (Lough, 2004).

The Atlantic cod (*Gadus morhua*) population is split into two distinct
management units under the NE Multispecies FMP: GOM cod and GB cod.
Little interchange occurs between the two (Lough, 2004). As such, no
changes are proposed in the management regime for GOM cod nor would this
stock be accessible to participants in the proposed action: the target
species is GB cod. All cod harvested by the Fixed Gear Sector will be
considered GB cod.

**2.1.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF MULTISPECIES STOCK ANALYSIS**

Groundfish assessments are conducted on individual stocks and are
usually prepared by the Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) and reviewed by
the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC). The NEFMC Multispecies
Plan Development Team (PDT) compiles assessment data, conducts
projections if necessary, and reports their findings to the NEFMC.

The most recent groundfish stock assessments were performed in August
2005 with the report of the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM).
Of nineteen managed groundfish stocks, the assessments found that
fishing mortality for eight stocks exceeded Amendment 13 thresholds. As
a result, the NEFMC prepared FW 42.

**2.1.1.2 STATUS OF THE TARGET SPECIES**

The 2005 GARM provided the most recent stock assessment for GB cod. The
following information is incorporated by reference into this document.

GB cod is overfished and overfishing is still occurring (Figure 2),
despite an overall decline in fishing mortality since 1997. To further
restrict rebuilding, the spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been declining
instead of increasing since 2001. Year classes of age-1 fish have been
below the long-term average during the current rebuilding period. The
largest year class since 1990 is the 2003 year class, which was expected
to recruit into the fishery in 2005. Despite these 21.2 million age-1
fish, cod landings have not increased in recent years.

The United States' NE Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Canada's
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) survey biomass and abundance
indices fluctuated during 2002 to 2005; however, all the indices
continue to remain below the long term average. According to the NEFSC,
the lack of strong recruitment in the last decade suggests that recovery
of this stock would be largely dependent on reducing fishing mortality
in the near term and husbanding the strong 2003 year class, and
potentially the 2004 year class, to increase SSB

By operating under a hard TAC of GB cod, the 33 Fixed Gear Sector
vessels are voluntarily committing themselves to stopping overfishing.
By not contributing to overfishing of GB cod, the Fixed Gear Sector is
promoting the form of accountable and sustainable management that GB cod
required in order to achieve MSY.

![](media/image2.png){width="4.79375in" height="3.4923611111111112in"}

Figure 2 - Groundfish Stocks Status 2004.

(NEFSC 2005)

**2.1.2 NON-TARGET SPECIES**

Sink gillnets interact with many species. For a listing of these
species, please see Table 11. Non-target species that may be affected by
this action are identified as other species that are part of the
northeast multispecies complex. In total, the NE Multispecies
(Groundfish) FMP manages 15 species and 24 stocks of finfish. These
species are generally separated into "large-mesh species" and
"small-mesh species." (Figure 3). The various components of the complex
can be found throughout the affected area and except for those stocks
managed according to regulations specific to the GOM, together represent
the Groundfish species subject to fishing effort described in the
proposed action.

**2.1.2.1 STATUS OF OTHER NE MULTISPECIES**

The following information, as incorporated by reference to NEFMC
documents and coupled with Figure 2, describe the current biological
environment as related to stocks in the NE Multispecies Groundfish
Complex other than GB cod:

The implementation of Amendment 5 in 1994 has succeeded in increasing
the biomass of many groundfish stocks. While overall biomass has
increased rapidly, some stocks-- such as GB cod, SNE/MA yellowtail
flounder, and CC/GOM yellowtail flounder -- have only shown gradual
improvement. Progress has also been made in controlling fishing
mortality for many stocks. On GB, overall mortality of key stocks has
declined significantly since 1990.

In 1996, only one groundfish stock was not overfished, and overfishing
was not occurring on only six stocks. Based on projected estimates of
mortality and biomass provided by the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, in 2002 eight stocks were not overfished, and overfishing was
not occurring on ten stocks. In 1996, fishing mortality on eight stocks
was more than twice the level of mortality (F) required to produce the
maximum sustainable yield (MSY), or FMSY, while by 2002, only three
stocks were subject to fishing mortality rates that were twice this
threshold.

The most recent data, according to the 2005 GARM, indicate that six
stocks were not overfished, and overfishing was not occurring on 13
stocks in 2004 (Figure 3). Six of the 19 stocks have seen an increase in
stock biomass since 2001; the average increase of these six was 50
percent. Stock biomass for the remaining 13 stocks has decreased by an
average of 19 percent. F rates declined an average of 50 percent for 13
of 19 stocks between 2001 and 2004, and increased between 39 percent and
140 percent for the remaining 6 stocks.

![](media/image3.png){width="4.89375in" height="3.4854166666666666in"}

Figure 3 -- The NE Multispecies Groundfish Complex.

(NEFMC Groundfish FAQ)

**2.1.3 PROTECTED SPECIES**

For the purposes of this EA, protected species are assumed to be those
species outside the NE Multispecies Groundfish Complex that are
endangered, threatened, or candidate species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), or protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), or both, and that are known to exist in the area affected by the
proposed action. Furthermore, this section includes certain Marine
Mammal Critical Habitat Designations and may include bird species
protected under the Migratory Bird Act of 1918, which can be referenced
in the NEFMC Amendment 13 FSEIS, Section 9.2.2. Finally, it includes
those skate species with prohibitions on possession in place under the
NE Skate Complex FMP. Table 2 lists the protected species known to exist
in the affected area.

Protected species that occur within the affected area that are not known
to interact with the fixed gear fishery are not discussed further in
this EA. Brief descriptions of the species that are known to interact
with fixed and hook gear follow, and further information on these
species and the others in Table 2 can be found in Section 9.2.2 of the
NEFMC Amendment 13 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  ***Cetaceans***                       ***Status***

  Northern right whale (*Eubalaena      Endangered
  glacialis*)                           

  Humpback whale (*Megaptera            Endangered
  novaeangliae*)                        

  Fin whale (*Balaenoptera physalus*)   Endangered

  Minke whale (*Balaenoptera            Protected
  acutorostrata*)                       

  Harbor porpoise (*Phocoena phocoena*) Protected

  Risso's dolphin (*Grampus griseus*)   Protected

  Pilot whale (*Globicephala* spp.)     Protected

  White-sided dolphin (*Lagenorhynchus  Protected
  acutus*)                              

  Common dolphin (*Delphinus delphis*)  Protected

  Bottlenose dolphin (*Tursiops         Protected
  truncatus*)                           

  ***Seals***                           

  Harbor seal (*Phoca vitulina*)        Protected

  Gray seal (*Halichoerus grypus*)      Protected

  Harp seal (*Phoca groenlandica*)      Protected

  Hooded seal (*Cystophora cristata*)   Protected

  ***Sea Turtles***                     

  Leatherback sea turtle (*Dermochelys  Endangered
  coriacea*)                            

  Kemp's ridley sea turtle              Endangered
  (*Lepidochelys kempii*)               

  Green sea turtle (*Chelonia mydas*)   Endangered

  Loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta       Threatened
  caretta*)                             

  ***Fish***                            

  Barndoor skate (*Dipturus laevis*)    Candidate Species/Possession
                                        Prohibition

  Thorny skate (*Amblyraja radiata)*    Possession Prohibition

  ***Critical Habitat Designations***   

  Right whale                           Cape Cod Bay

                                        Great South Channel
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

Table 2- Protected species known to exist in the area affected by the
proposed action.

(NEFMC, Am 13 FSEIS, Section 9.2.2)

Although all of the protected species listed above may be found in the
general geographical area covered by the Multispecies FMP, not all are
affected by the fishery for several reasons. Some protected species may
inhabit more inshore or offshore areas than those utilized by the
groundfish species, prefer a different depth or temperature zone than
multispecies, or may migrate through the area at different times than
the species regulated by the FMP. In addition, certain protected species
may not be vulnerable to capture or entanglement in certain fishing gear
used in the multispecies fishery.

It has been determined that that multispecies fishing operations, as
managed by Amendment 13 to the Multispecies FMP, are not expected to
affect the shortnose sturgeon *(Acipenser brevirostrum*), the GOM
distinct population segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon (*Salmo salar*),
the roseate tern (*Sterna* *dougallii dougallii*), the piping plover
(*Charadrius melodus*) or the hawksbill sea turtle (*Eretmochelys*
*imbricata)*, all of which are listed species under the ESA of 1973.

There are several cetaceans protected under the MMPA that are found in
the waters fished by the multispecies fishery, namely the Risso's
dolphin (*Grampus griseus*), spotted and striped dolphins (*Stenella*
spp.), and coastal forms of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (*Tursiops*
*truncatus*). Although these species may occasionally become entangled
or otherwise entrapped in certain fishing gear such as pelagic longline
and mid-water trawls, these gear types are not used in the multispecies
fishery (or allowed to operate within the Sector) (NEFMC, Am 13 FSEIS,
Section 9.2.2).

Species in Table 2 that are known to have interacted with the longline
and/or gillnet fisheries on GB are as follows: Bottlenose, Common,
Risso's, and White-Sided dolphin; Fin, Humpback, Canadian East Coast
Minke, Pilot, and North Atlantic Right whale; Harbor Porpoise; Gray,
Hooded, Harbor, and Harp seal; Leatherback, Kemp's Ridley, Green, and
Loggerhead turtle. Interactions most frequently include getting caught
on hooks (longline gear), entanglement in mesh (gillnet fishery),
entanglement in float line (gillnet fishery), entanglement in groundline
(gillnet and longline fisheries), entanglement in anchor line (gillnet
and longline fisheries), or entanglement in vertical lines that connect
the gear to the surface (gillnet and longline fisheries).

**2.1.3.1 STATUS OF PROTECTED SPECIES**

With the exception of the Thorny Skate (*Amblyraja radiata)* and the
Barndoor Skate *(Dipturus laevis*)*,* information on the biological
status of the species listed in Table 2 can be found in Section 9.2.2 of
the NEFMC Amendment 13 FSEIS.

**2.1.3.1.1 STATUS OF THORNY SKATE *(AMBLYRAJA RADIATA)***

Thorny skates, also known as Mud skate, Starry skate or Spanish skate,
inhabit areas along the 100 fm edge of GB, with very few found in
Massachusetts (NEFMC- NE Skate Complex Final FMP)**.** In fact, though
frequently captured on GB, they are more likely to be encountered in the
GOM, as its most common skate (Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002). Thorny
skates are classified as a large skate (\>100 cm TL) under the FMP. They
are distinguished by the presence of 11-19 thorns arranged in a row
along the center of the disc and tail.

Thorny skates are found on a wide variety of bottom types from 10 to 600
fathoms and feed on a variety of benthic invertebrates and fishes. They
are not highly migratory (Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002). At one
point, thorny skates were commercially important; however, now they are
classified as overfished (NEFMC- NE Skate Complex Final FMP) and bound
to a formal rebuilding program by the FMP.

**2.1.3.1.2 STATUS OF BARNDOOR SKATE (*DIPTURUS LAEVIS*)**

Barndoor skates are classified as a "large skate" under the NE Skate
Complex FMP and are one of the largest skate species in New England
waters. They are found throughout the affected area and are considered
abundant on GB and Nantucket Shoals (Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002).
Barndoor skates have been considered for listing under the ESA, and
although the petition for listing was determined to be not warranted as
of September 2002, they were left on the candidate list at that time
because of concerns about status and population structure (NEFMC, 2003).
There is currently a possession prohibition on barndoor skates under the
NE Skate Complex FMP.

**2.2 HABITAT ENVIRONMENT**

**2.2.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND HABITAT**

The geographic area that the Fixed Gear Sector would operate in is
consistent with the GB Hook Sector area (Figure 4). The GB Cod Hook
Sector Area is defined by straight lines connecting the following
waypoints: (1) 70°00' N latitude and the east facing shoreline of Cape
Cod, MA; (2) 70°00' N latitude and 42°20' W longitude; (3) 67°18.4' N
latitude \[the U.S. Canada Maritime Boundary\] and 42°20' W longitude;
(4) follow the U.S. EEZ boundary south to 66°45.5' N latitude and 39°00'
W longitude; (5) 71°40' N latitude and 39°00' W longitude; and (6)
71°40' N latitude and the south-facing shoreline of Rhode Island:

![](media/image4.png){width="2.5826771653543306in"
height="2.690157480314961in"}
![](media/image5.png){width="3.083464566929134in"
height="2.8326771653543306in"}

Figure 4 -- GB Cod Hook Sector Area (outlined)

The Fixed Gear Sector restricts itself to operating only within the GB
Cod Hook Sector area (Sector Area). In addition to GB cod, many of the
Fixed Gear Sector vessels target monkfish within this area, as they have
done for decades. Fixed Gear Sector vessels are highly reliant on
monkfish for their economic survival. Monkfish commonly inhabit
nearshore and offshore waters from Newfoundland to North Carolina. The
Fixed Gear Sector vessels that rely on monkfish use gear (10" mesh
anchored sink gillnets) occasionally catch GB cod. As this cod
"interaction" exists, the Fixed Gear Sector must account for it and does
so by including traditional monkfish fishing areas in its Operating
Area. If excluded from these areas, these vessels would almost certainly
go under. Prosecuting the monkfish fishery means the difference between
financial viability and business failure for nearly every Fixed Gear
Sector vessel.

Figures 5a-d (below) depict the various groundfish and essential fish
habitat closed areas on GB, as excerpted from the NERO website:

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.189583333333333in"
height="4.001388888888889in"}

Figure 5a - NE Multispecies Closed Areas and US/Canada Management Area

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="5.180555555555555in"
height="4.001388888888889in"}

Figure 5b - NE Multispecies Differential DAS Areas, Closed Areas, SAPs,
and the US/Canada Management Area

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.180555555555555in"
height="4.001388888888889in"}

Figure 5c - NE Multispecies May Seasonal Closures

[]{.mark}

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.180555555555555in"
height="4.001388888888889in"}

Figure 5d -- Essential Fish Habitat Closure Areas

**2.2.1.1 NORTHEAST Shelf Ecosystem**

The NE Shelf Ecosystem (Figure 6) has been described as including the
area from the GOM south to North Carolina, extending from the coast
seaward to the edge of the continental shelf, including the slope sea
offshore to the Gulf Stream (Sherman et al*.* 1996).

The NE Shelf Ecosystem is defined by the shallow coastal plateau of the
continental shelf and steep submarine canyons at the edge of the shelf
break. The shelf expands 100 to 200 km offshore and is subject to the
strong currents characteristic of highly productive, well-mixed waters.
Other morphological features of note include shoal massifs, scarps, sand
ridges, swales, and shelf valleys and channels. Only the Georges Bank
portion of the NE Shelf Ecosystem correlates to the proposed action.

![](media/image10.png){width="2.167361111111111in"
height="2.582638888888889in"}

Figure 6 - The Affected Ecosystem

(NEFMC, Am. 13 FSEIS, Section 9.1.1)

**2.2.1.2 Georges Bank**

GB is of primary concern as its physical boundaries contain and
correlate to the management units affected by the proposed action. The
following information is incorporated by reference to the NEFMC
Amendment 13 FSEIS, Section 9.1.2.

GB is subject to strong erosive currents (4-7km/hr) that re-shape and
characterize this distinctive extension of the continental shelf.
Relatively shallow (3-150m deep) and elongate (161km x 322km), the
Wisconsinian glacial episode produced GB with its steep northern edge
and gently sloping southern flank. The seabed sediments (clay to gravel)
and biological community are subject to erosive currents that not only
create shoals and troughs, but bring a rich bio-productivity to the
Bank. GB is a highly dynamic environment that is inhabited by many
groundfish species.

![](media/image11.png){width="2.6972222222222224in"
height="2.6381944444444443in"}

Figure 7 - The New England region, including GOM,

GB, and Nantucket Shoals. (NEFMC, 1998)

**2.2.1.2.2 GB Water Column Habitat**

The following information is incorporated by reference to the NEFMC EFH
Omnibus Amendment (1998).

The varied currents on and around GB keep the waters over the bank
well-mixed vertically and result in a clockwise gyre that controls the
drift of larval fish and other plankton. The fronts, eddies, and
divergence and convergence zones impact population dynamics of
planktonic masses, which in turn create high primary productivity areas
for forage and predatory species. Every aspect of a marine species' life
history is influenced by physical oceanography.

The oceanographic conditions on GB influence the distribution and
survival rates of cod larvae and impact forage species upon which cod
rely. Centuries of physical oceanography have shaped the environment
that cod inhabit.

![](media/image12.png){width="2.11875in" height="2.2819444444444446in"}

Figure 8 - Map showing water mass circulation patterns in the GB -- GOM
region. (Figure reproduced from Valentine and Lough 1991, in NEFMC- EFH
Omnibus Amendment, 1998)

**2.2.1.2.2 GB Benthic Habitat**

Sedimentary composition of the ocean floor is highly variable in the
GOM, GB, and southern New England (Figure 9). Sediments differ in
origin, texture, size, transport mechanism, and distribution. Bottom
habitats in New England waters are heterogeneous, characterized by
patchy surficial sediment composition and irregular topographic peaks.

Habitat conditions of New England waters are diverse and include smooth
sand or mud, sand waves, shell aggregates, pebbles and cobbles with or
without attached megafauna, partially buried boulders, and piled
boulders. The definitions of these sedimentary classifications are
provided in Table 3b. Benthic conditions of GB are incredibly varied by
location and depth (Figure 9 and Tables 3 and 4).

The interaction of several environmental factors, including availability
and type of sediment, current speed and direction, and bottom
topography, has formed seven sedimentary provinces on eastern GB
(Valentine and Lough 1991) which are described in "Characterization of
the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the NE U.S.
Shelf, and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on
Essential Fish Habitat" and appear below:

![](media/image13.png){width="5.498611111111111in"
height="4.964583333333334in"}

Table 3 - Sedimentary providence and associated benthic landscapes of
GB.

(Stevenson et. al., 2004)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Sediment Classification Definitions**

  ***smooth sand* or *mud*:** areas with no vertical structure;

  ***sand waves*:** troughs and peaks provide shelter from current;
  previous observations indicate species such as whiting position
  themselves on the downcurrent sides of sand waves where they ambush
  drifting demersal zooplankton and shrimp;

  ***biogenic structures***: burrows, depressions, cerianthid anemones,
  hydroid patches; features that are created and / or used by mobile
  fauna for shelter;

  ***shell aggregates***: provide complex small interstitial spaces for
  shelter; shell aggregates also provide a complex high contrast
  background which may confuse visual predators;

  ***pebbles and cobbles***: provide small interstitial spaces and may be
  equivalent in shelter value to shell aggregates;

  ***pebbles and cobbles* with *attached megafauna***: attached fauna
  such as sponges provide additional spatial complexity for a wider range
  of size classes of mobile organisms;

  ***partially buried boulder**s*: while not providing small interstitial
  spaces or deeper crevices, partly buried boulders exhibit high vertical
  relief; the shelter value of this type of habitat may be less or
  greater than previous types based on the size class and behavior
  species;

  ***piled boulders***: this habitat provides deep interstitial spaces of
  variable sizes.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3b -- Definitions of sedimentary terms.

(NEFMC EFH Omnibus Amendment, 1998)

Emergent epifauna often contribute to the survivorship of marine
organisms because of the increased cover and habitat complexity they
provide (NEFMC, 1998). Bottom topography, along with sediment type, may
also influence the distribution and abundance of benthic, demersal, and
pelagic organisms. Geologic features such as submarine canyons, rock
ledges, and topographic peaks are potential habitat components that are
potentially important to a variety of marine organisms. Bottom
topography is often associated with particular sediment types (e.g.
deep-water canyons and fine sediments), and may contribute to suitable
environmental conditions for the survivorship, growth, and reproduction
of fishery resources. (NEFMC, 1998).

![](media/image14.png){width="5.595833333333333in"
height="5.245833333333334in"}

Figure 9 - Map showing distribution of surficial sediments, GOM, GB,

and southern New England. (NEFMC, 1998).

![](media/image15.png){width="2.9583333333333335in"
height="1.6034722222222222in"}

> Table 4 - Type of surficial sediment\* observed on the seafloor of the
> New England region.
>
> (NEFMC, 1998).

**2.2.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT**

According to the 1996 SFA Amendments to the Magnuson Act, EFH "means
those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity.\" (Department of Commerce, 1996) The
intent of EFH, as identified by the SFA amendments, is to regulate
fishing gears that reduce an essential fish habitat\'s capacity to
support marine resources, not practices that produce inconsequential
changes in the habitat. The EFH Final Rule goes on to identify adverse
impacts as "any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH.
Adverse effects may include direct (e.g. contamination or physical
disruption), indirect, (e.g. loss of prey, or reduction of species\'
fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts including individual,
cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions." Effects resulting
from fishing activities may include physical, chemical, or biological
alterations of the substrate, and loss of, or injury to, benthic
organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other components of the
ecosystem. Furthermore, the EFH final rule requires adverse effects,
including, but not limited to, those stated above that justify taking
management action be identified.

![](media/image16.png){width="5.989583333333333in" height="5.15625in"}

> Table 5 - Depths and Substrates Associated With Essential Fish
> Habitats for Benthic Life Stage of 15 Species Included in the New
> England Multi-Species Fishery Management Plan (NEFMC, 1998).

**2.2.3.1 SCOPE OF DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE OF FURTHER INFO**

A full description of the affected environment with regards to habitat
can be found within the EA that accompanied Amendment 11 to the NE
Multispecies FMP, Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, Amendment
1 to the Monkfish FMP, Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Salmon FMP and
Sections of the Atlantic Herring FMP. This document is commonly known as
the Omnibus EFH Amendment. This Amendment also contained EFH
designations for all groundfish species managed by the NEFMC. However,
the most recent information is contained in a 2004 NOAA Technical Memo
(181) entitled "Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine
Benthic Ecosystems of the NE U.S. Shelf, and an Evaluation of the
Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat." It should be
referenced for further information which is outside the scope of the
description included below.

**2.2.3.2 EFH DESCRIPTIONS FOR SPECIES IN AFFECTED AREA**

Table 5 (above) summarizes the EFH designations for the target species
and those other Multispecies stocks with EFH designations and describes
the EFH which can be found in the affected area.

A similar description of the depth and substrate features of EFH for the
remaining 18 federally-managed species with benthic life stages is not
included because EFH for the 15 species that are managed under the NE
Multispecies FMP already covers a broad range of habitat types. The
aerial extent of EFH for the juvenile and adult stages of all 33 species
includes virtually the entire NE shelf.

**2.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT**

**2.3.1 Background and Definitions**

In 1996, the SFA amended the Magnuson Act of 1976. These amendments,
among other things, defined a set of National Standards that must be
adhered to when developing FMPs. Among them, National Standard 8
dictates that "Conservation and management measures shall, consistent
with the conservation requirements of this act (including the prevention
of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account
the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to
(A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B)
to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities."

Furthermore, a fishing community is defined as "a community which is
substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or
processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and
includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States
fish processors that are based in such a community." Simply, for the
general purposes of this document, fishing communities are areas where
there are substantial numbers of residents who make their primary living
from harvesting from the sea. In particular, for the purposes of
evaluating the proposed action, there are three levels of fishing
communities -- New England as a region, the Cape and Islands as a
sub-region, and Chatham / Harwich as a community.

This section presents both social and environmental parameters of the
affected environment as they are inextricably tied together to form the
socio-economic environment affected by fisheries management decisions
such as the proposed action.

**2.3.2 Social and economic status of the affected area**

**2.3.2.1 New England**

The entire New England region has centuries of identification as a
collection of fishing communities. The New England fisherman in his
yellow slicker and corn cob pipe is a world-famous stereotype,
underscored by the reality of thousands of people in this region of all
types, men and women, young and old, who still make a living today from
harvesting the sea. GB, the GOM, and Stellwagen Bank all remain active
fishing grounds where generations have ventured and many have died in
pursuit of the seafood prized by this region. According to the NE
Multispecies Amendment 13 SEIS, 1,888 active vessels landed \$105
million worth of groundfish in 2000. The majority of this fleet used
otter trawl gear, followed next in numbers by hook-and-line, and finally
by gillnets. New Bedford had the greatest amount of landings, followed
in order by Portland, Gloucester, Chatham, and Boston.

Justification for a region-wide, port-by-port consideration of
socio-economic environmental impacts from the proposed action can be
found in the Amendment 13 SEIS, as incorporated by reference here:

The impacts of the Proposed Alternatives must be considered across all
communities. Impacts can be defined as the effects that a fisheries
management action may create in people's way of life, cultural
traditions, and community. Changes in flexibility, opportunity,
stability, certainty, safety, and other factors may all catalyze and be
affected by these impacts. It is possible that the social impacts of
some measures under consideration would not be experienced solely by one
community group or another; rather, it is likely that some impacts would
be experienced across communities, gear cohorts, and vessel size
classes.

**2.3.2.2 Port Analysis Criteria and Overview**

Ports in New England were selected for consideration based on the
criteria outlined in the Amendment 13 SEIS (Section 5.6.1.3), as listed
below:

> The communities that are likely to experience substantial impacts from
> the alternatives under consideration include those with at least one
> of the following characteristics:

-   an active and large multispecies fishing fleet,

-   vessels and shoreside facilities that currently depend on groundfish
    for a substantial portion of their business,

-   geographically close to areas proposed for additional seasonal or
    year-round closure, and

-   vessels that hold a substantial amount of latent effort (inactive
    DAS).

Port groups are subdivided by dependence and engagement in the
groundfish fishery. Primary groups are "substantially" engaged and are
likely to be impacted the most by management measures. Conversely,
secondary groups have a lower dependence/engagement in groundfishing and
have demonstrated minimal participation in the fishery since 1994 (Table
6).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Primary Community Groups**

  1\. Portland, Maine

  2\. Portsmouth, New Hampshire

  3\. Gloucester, Massachusetts

  4\. Boston, Massachusetts

  5\. Chatham/Harwichport, Massachusetts

  6\. New Bedford/Fairhaven, Massachusetts

  7\. Point Judith, Rhode Island

  **Secondary Community Groups**

  8\. Upper Mid-Coast 1, Maine

  9\. Lower Mid-Coast 1, Maine

  10\. NH Seacoast

  11\. South Shore, Massachusetts

  12\. Provincetown, Massachusetts

  13\. Eastern Rhode Island
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6 -- Community Groups

(NEFMC, Am 13 FSEIS, Section 5.6.1.1.1)

**2.3.2.2.1 Port Analysis Summary**

When fishery management impacts on communities are to be considered, it
should be noted that both dependence on fisheries in general and
dependence on the multispecies fishery should be considered. As
indicated in the MARFIN Report (2001), fishing dependence is assessed
based on three indices: (1) the percentage of labor force involved in
fishing, (2) the percentage of related occupations within the Bureau of
Labor Statistics category of fisheries/forestry/farming, and (3) a
summary measure of a series of dependence ratios that compare the number
of fishermen per hundred community residents to various alternative
occupational roles that fishermen could enter with their particular
skill profiles (Table 7).

The MARFIN Report subdivides New England into eleven sub-regions, and
then ranks these sub-regions from highest to lowest based on fishing
dependence (Table 8, below). The Report goes on to explain that the
three sub-regions with the highest dependence (Downeast Maine, Upper
Midcoast Maine, and the Cape and Islands) share similar characteristics
that make these communities substantially more dependent on fishery
resources than other New England regions. These include but are not
limited to relative isolation from major industrial regions of New
England, and have small islands and harbors which give fishermen
relatively easy access to nearby fish and shellfish grounds.

The Report indicates that the "occupational alternative index" is lower
for the Cape and Islands than it is for the two Maine sub-regions. This
occurs because of the elevated levels of gentrification and tourism in
the former areas. However, it is noted that variation between ports
within these sub-regions exists -- for example, Chatham has remained an
active fishing port and supports an active fishing community despite low
biomass levels, increased regulations, and recreational fishing and
tourism pressures.

![](media/image17.png){width="5.278472222222222in"
height="2.1305555555555555in"}

Table 7 - Comparative fishing dependence indices for the eleven
sub-regions of New England.

(MARFIN 2001 in NEFMC, Am 13 FSEIS, Section 5.6.2)

For the purposes of this assessment, groundfish revenues expressed as
the percentage of total fisheries revenues from federally-permitted
vessels homeported in a particular community group represent the
community group's current dependence on the groundfish fishery.
Information about dependence for all community groups can be found in
the Affected Human Environment section of the NEFMC Amendment 13 SEIS.
Table 8 ranks average dependence on multispecies from FY1999 and FY2000
for the communities of interest.

![](media/image18.png){width="4.3902777777777775in"
height="2.1284722222222223in"}

Table 8 -- Ranking of dependence on groundfish for communities of
interest.

(NEFMC, Am 13 FSEIS, Section 5.6.2)

**2.3.2.3 Overview of GB Fixed Gear Fishery**

The GB Fixed Gear Sector, which operates out of Chatham and Harwich, is
comprised of 33 vessels. Many of these fishermen are second- or
third-generation fishermen that hope to pass along this tradition to
their sons and daughters. Massachusetts, and specifically the ports of
Chatham and Harwichport, has a longstanding history of catching GB cod.

**2.3.2.4 Cape Cod and the Islands**

The very name of this region speaks volumes about its centuries-old
connection to fishing. Ever since 1602, when Bartholomew Gosnold first
landed in what is now Provincetown, fishing has drawn people to Cape
Cod. The Pilgrims established fishing villages along the length of this
sandy peninsula, and several of these endure today, although in much
changed form. A look through any promotional material for the area
prominently features fishing as a primary attraction for tourism and
retirement activity. Seafood originating from towns such as Chatham,
Wellfleet, and Eastham is renowned throughout New England for its
freshness and quality. A drive through any of these towns at dawn
reveals a working world of fishermen, trucks, and boats busily plying
their trade. A wide range of ancillary businesses such as gear
suppliers, fuel, bait, marine equipment, fish markets, and restaurants
depend on this industry for survival. Little hard data exist to measure
the financial scope of this industry, but it is becoming a priority, and
it is anticipated that such data will become available in the near
future. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney created the Cape Cod
Regional Competitiveness Council. NEMFC Chairman John Pappalardo was on
their Fisheries / Agriculture Sub-Committee and has recommended that the
NEFMC begin compiling this kind of data so there will be a better
picture of the financial and social value of commercial fishing to the
Cape and Islands.

According to "Fishing Communities and Fishing Dependency in the
Northeast Region of the United States," fishing is a natural occupation
for those on the Cape and Islands, since they live in close proximity to
fertile fishing grounds. Additionally, the substantial distances to
major population centers (i.e. Boston and Providence) limit alternative
employment. A cause and effect of this is tourism, which rivals the
fishing industry in importance to the region. Tourism is primarily
restricted to mild seasons and major holidays; fishing is often regarded
as a year-round enterprise.

**2.3.2.5 Chatham/Harwichport, Massachusetts**

Chatham is known as the most active port in the Cape and Islands
sub-region. Though small, the town has an important hook-and-line fleet,
in addition to a growing number of gillnetters and lobstermen. As
concluded by the MARFIN Report, "Innovation and flexibility are
hallmarks of Chatham fishermen. The development of niche fisheries
(e.g., dogfish and now, selling to the live fish market) is something
that respondents reported with pride."

Chatham is a geologically diverse area that supports a multitude of
commercial, recreational, and charter fisheries. In 2004, it was
estimated that there were 279 commercial vessels at the Chatham Fish
Pier and Stage Harbor mooring areas, two-thirds of which are small
skiffs used for shellfishing. MARFIN found that there were 64 vessels
with docking permits for the Town Pier, including 22 gillnetters, 17
benthic longliners, 5 combination vessels, 8 lobster vessels, several
handline vessels and draggers, and four party-charter vessels. The Town
Pier facilities are maintained by the Town of Chatham, and are dedicated
solely to commercial fishing interests. In addition to the Town Pier,
the majority of fishing activity takes place at two private docks
adjacent to the Town's facility.

The Chatham fleet primarily targets GB stocks of groundfish and also
dogfish. Major species landed include codfish, dogfish, monkfish,
skates, haddock, and lobster. Shellfish is also a substantial component
of the Chatham fishing industry. There are numerous shoreside support
services for the local fishing industry including fish buyers, cutters,
gear workers, and shellfish shuckers. Some fishermen in this area only
fish part of the year, and others switch their gear to fish for longer
periods of time. A majority of vessels in Chatham are owner-operated.

Incorporated by reference to the Amendment 13 FSEIS, Section 5.6.1.3 as
prepared by the NEFMC, Chatham established itself as an important port
for landing groundfish in FY1999 and FY2000. During these years, Chatham
and Harwichport averaged 5,980,850 pounds and \$7,254,100 in revenues.
In those same years, an average of 95 multispecies vessels homeported in
Chatham and Harwichport. Chatham's overall community dependence on
multispecies as a percentage of total fisheries revenues from
federally-permitted vessels averaged about 71% during those years. It is
likely, however, that at least some of the active groundfish vessels in
these ports are even more than 71% dependent on the multispecies
fishery.

Amendment 13 identified eight primary groundfish ports. This section
summarizes recent activity in those ports. All eight ports experienced a
decline in the number of vessels with groundfish permits that landed
regulated groundfish. The smallest decline was in Portland ME, which
experienced a 5 percent decline in the number of permitted vessels
landing regulated groundfish. Chatham/Harwichport experienced a 53
percent decline, the largest in any port over this period (FY2001 to
FY2004). Gloucester and New Bedford/Fairhaven, two other large ports,
respectively experienced a 22 percent and a 21 percent decline.

According to FW 42, most ports experienced a decline in total landings
between FY2001 and FY2004, with New Bedford the sole exception. Boston,
New Bedford/Fairhaven, and Pt. Judith saw an increase in total revenues,
while all other ports experienced a decline. Groundfish landings
declined in all ports, with Boston experiencing the least decline (8
percent) and Eastern Long Island the largest (71 percent). Groundfish
landings declined 22 percent in Portland, 19 percent in Gloucester, and
23 percent in New Bedford/Fairhaven. Landings declined 59 percent in
Chatham/Harwichport.

**2.3.2.6 georges bank cod hook sector**

At the time of writing, the Hook Sector is midway through its fourth
year of operation (FY2007). The Hook Sector has seen some substantial
changes occur since inception, most notably the loss of membership from
58 to 18 vessels. However, the Hook Sector continues to progress towards
efficiency by gaining exemptions from additional inappropriate
restrictions (including hook limits, differential DAS counting, leasing
baselines, CAI access, and certain observer requirements). The Hook
Sector continues to hold meetings and work with other non-Hook Sector
members to organize and empower themselves. Rugged individualism has
been replaced with a noticeable feeling of collaboration, at times.
Profitability has increased for some of the remaining Hook Sector
vessels, although it is difficult to quantify. The Hook Sector is
directly responsible for the development and implementation of the only
other groundfish sector in New England, the Fixed Gear Sector. While
this move may have been controversial (due to gear conflicts and
personalities), the outcome has been positive and fosters cooperation
amongst most fishermen in Chatham and Harwichport. Throughout New
England, fishermen are witnessing the rise of sector management, and are
working with the existing sectors to develop their own plans for their
own communities. Hook Sector members travel throughout New England and
the U.S. to promote community-based Sector management, and are
successful at doing so.

**2.3.2.7 GEORGES BANK COD FIXED GEAR SECTOR**

At the time of writing, the Fixed Gear Sector is halfway through its
first complete season. Due to delays in implementation in 2006, only one
vessel elected to participate. In 2007, that number increased from one
vessel to 16 vessels and will increase to 33 vessels in the 2008 FY.
Fixed Gear Sector fishermen represent a new contingent of Sector members
-- those reliant on sink gillnet gear. Reaching out to those other
gillnetters in New England, the Fixed Gear Sector has taken the concept
of the Hook Sector and adapted it. This flexibility is proving itself
currently, and is appealing to other fleets in New England.

**3.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION**

This EA presents options including the proposed action and analyzes the
impacts of alternatives that are described below.

**3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)**

**The No Action Alternative is the disapproval of the Fixed Gear Sector
Operations Plan and no submission of a modified Operations Plan. While
the Fixed Gear Sector would be available under Alternative 1, all
vessels would remain in the Common Pool and fish under the regulations
implemented in Amendment 13 and subsequent framework adjustments to the
NE Multispecies FMP. Therefore, no allocation of GB cod would be made to
the Fixed Gear Sector.**

Alternative 1 assumes that no vessels elect to enter the Fixed Gear
Sector. Under this alternative, all fixed gear vessels decide to remain
in the Common Pool under the rules implemented in Amendment 13 and
subsequent FW adjustments to the FMP. The Fixed Gear Sector would not
have an allocation of GB cod. Alternative 1 would subject all GB fixed
gear vessels to the input control measures designed to reduce the
efficiency of the groundfish fleet in Amendment 13 and subsequent FW
adjustments.

**3.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)**

**The Preferred Alternative is approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
Operations Plan and receipt of an allocation of GB cod for FY2008. Fixed
Gear Sector vessels would be subject to the regulations implemented
under the Operations Plan.**

As part of Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP, the concept of
Sector Allocation was passed unanimously by the NEFMC (14-0) as an
opportunity for a self-selecting group of fishermen with valid
multispecies permits to voluntarily come together and form a cooperative
for the purposes of attaining an allocation.

The Fixed Gear Sector allocation was approved by the NEFMC and
implemented by NOAA Fisheries Service as a component to FW42. Now, for
the 3^rd^ year, the Fixed Gear Sector members present the Fixed Gear
Sector Operations Plan for review and approval by NOAA Fisheries
Service. The proposed Preferred Alternative/Operations Plan has been
deliberated by the prospective Fixed Gear Sector members and represents
the culmination of many stakeholder meetings over many years. The
process by which the Operations Plan was developed is but one example of
the social benefits of the Fixed Gear Sector. The Operations Plan is the
result of authorizing formation of a Fixed Gear Sector that empowers
stakeholders to more closely "plug in" to the management infrastructure
and hold a more active role in development of appropriate regulations.

The 33 vessels in the Fixed Gear Sector are typical of the traditional
fixed gear fleet. Vessels range in size from 32 to 50 feet, and 215 to
650 horsepower. Most vessels sail from Chatham or Harwichport, and
return to port after 12-25 hours at sea.

Most vessels utilize solely gillnet gear, although they may switch to
benthic longline gear to participate in the SAPs. Of those vessels
gillnetting, approximately half set gillnets for traditional roundfish
(GB cod, pollock, haddock) species while the other half will set both
roundfish and flatfish gillnets (targeting monkfish and skates). Only 1
to 3 vessels will use only hook gear.

Vessels participating in the Fixed Gear Sector would be legally-bound to
uphold and abide by the Operations Plan and the following Harvesting
Rules:

> **Fishing Year 2008-09 (May 2008 -- April 2009) GB Cod Fixed Gear
> Sector Operations Plan Harvesting Rules**
>
> The members and the participating vessels of the Fixed Gear Sector
> agree to be legally-bound to follow the Operations Plan and Harvesting
> Rules for fishing year 2008 as described herein, notwithstanding those
> rules and regulations applicable to common pool multispecies vessels.
>
> [1. Aggregate Sector allocation]{.underline}: GB cod TAC **(insert
> poundage)**: The Members agree that they will not collectively harvest
> more GB cod than the Sector TAC and that once the annual TAC is
> reached no Member will fish commercially with any fishing gear capable
> of catching GB cod or other species managed under the Plan.
>
> 2\. [Monthly Quota Targets]{.underline}: Commencing May 2008, 8.33% of
> the Sector's cod will be allocated to each month of the fishing year
> (*see Table 9 below*). Quota that is not landed during a month will be
> rolled over into the next month. Once the aggregate monthly quota is
> reached, no Participating Vessel will be authorized to use fishing
> gear capable of catching GB cod or other species managed under the
> Plan. All cod harvested by Members and Participating Vessels shall be
> considered GB cod for the purposes of the Operations Plan and
> Agreement.

  ---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
       May   June   July   Aug    Sept   Oct    Nov    Dec    Jan    Feb    March   April

  \%   8.3   16.7   25.0   33.3   41.7   50.0   58.3   66.6   75.0   83.3   91.6    100.0
  ---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------

*Table 9 -- Monthly quota targets*

> 3\. [Weekly cod quota targets:]{.underline} In addition to the monthly
> quota targets, the Manager may impose weekly or trip target quotas to
> slow down harvest rates. If such target quotas are imposed, Sector
> Members agree to adjust their fishing operations to avoid exceeding
> these quotas.
>
> 4\. [Days-At-Sea ("DAS")]{.underline}: Each participating Permit and
> Participating Vessel be allocated DAS by the Regional Administrator
> through Amendment 13, as set forth on [Exhibit B]{.underline} to the
> Agreement. This DAS allocation will be considered the Sector's DAS
> allocation to individual Members. Members will be required to use an
> "A," "B Regular," or "B Reserve," DAS when conducting fishing
> operations.
>
> 5\. [Sector Call-In]{.underline}: Each Participating Vessel must
> notify the Manager or his designated representative prior to departing
> from port when using fishing gear capable of catching GB cod.
>
> 6\. [DAS Pooling]{.underline}: Participating Vessels and/or Permits
> may redistribute or pool DAS to other Participating Vessels and/or
> Permits, provided that the Manager has given his prior written consent
> to such redistribution or pooling. The Manager shall notify NOAA
> Fisheries Service within 3 calendar days of any such redistribution or
> pooling. A Participating Vessel and/or Permit may not transfer or
> lease DAS to any non-Sector vessel and/or permit during the fishing
> year in which the Participating Vessel and/or Permit is enrolled in
> the Sector.
>
> 7\. [Full retention]{.underline}: All legal size GB cod harvested
> during any fishing operation must be retained and counted against the
> Sector's Aggregate Allocation.
>
> 8\. [Species Trip Limits]{.underline}: Except for GB cod,
> participating vessels shall be subject to any trip limits imposed by
> the National Marine Fisheries Service for species managed under the
> Plan.

## 9. [Gear Restrictions]{.underline}: No Participating Vessel may fish for GB cod with any gear other than jigs, non-automated demersal longline, handgear, or gillnets. While participating in the Georges Bank seasonal closure (May 1 through 31) vessels must use hook gear to target cod or other regulated species managed under the Plan. All Participating Vessels are subject to the same gear restrictions on marking, tagging, mesh size, and number of gillnets applicable to common pool vessels using the same type of gear. In addition, when fishing with hooks all hooks must be 12/0 circle hooks. A "circle hook" is defined as a hook with the point turned back towards the shank and the barbed end of the hook is displaced (offset) relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank of the hook when laid on its side. Participating Vessels are exempt from the 3,600 hook limit. When monk fishing with gillnets, all participating vessels must use a 10 inch minimum mesh. 

> 10\. [GB Seasonal Closure/Spawning Season Restrictions]{.underline}:
> Participating Vessels are not required to adhere to the seasonal
> closure on Georges Bank (May 1 through May 31) but must use hook gear
> to target cod or other regulated species managed under the Plan.
> However, Participating Vessels must continue to comply with the
> Spawning Season Restrictions. The 20 day spawning block (March-May)
> will remain in effect in accordance with NOAA Fisheries Service
> regulations.
>
> 11\. [Closed Areas]{.underline}: Participating Vessels may fish in
> closed areas to the extent authorized by NOAA Fisheries Service.

12\. [Operating Area]{.underline}: Participating vessels are restricted
to fishing in the designated fishing area when using fishing gear
capable of catching GB cod or any regulated species managed under the
Plan.  The definition of the management area is the GB Cod Hook Sector
Area. The geographic boundaries of the management area are defined as
straight lines connecting the following waypoints (except for the
east-facing shoreline of the U.S.): (1) 70°00' W latitude and the east
facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA; (2) 70°00' W latitude and 42°20' N
longitude; (3) 42°20' N longitude and 67°18.4' \[the U.S. Canada
Maritime Boundary\]; (4) follow the U.S. EEZ boundary south to 39°00' N
longitude; (5) 39°00' N longitude and 71°40' W latitude; (6) 71°40' W
latitude and the south-facing shoreline of Rhode Island.

> [13. Prorating of DAS and Landings:]{.underline} Members and their
> Participating Vessels that use a DAS (including while engaged in an
> approved exempted fishing permit) prior to the effective date of the
> Agreement under Article VIII thereof shall have such DAS usage
> deducted from such Members' individual DAS allocation set forth on
> [Exhibit B]{.underline} hereto, for purposes of the DAS restrictions
> described in paragraph 3 of this [Exhibit C]{.underline}. All GB cod
> caught by said Participating Vessels shall be deducted from the Fixed
> Gear Sector's Aggregate Allocation of GB cod. The Manager and/or other
> Fixed Gear Sector management would consult with NOAA Fisheries Service
> as to NOAA Fisheries Service' crediting of all GB cod landings against
> the Fixed Gear Sector's Aggregate Allocation.

In addition to the Operations Plan, Fixed Gear Sector members would be
subject to a legally-binding Membership Agreement that would delineate
the interaction of members within the Fixed Gear Sector, including
governance, enforcement, and penalties for non-compliance. The Fixed
Gear Sector would operate independent of common pool vessels that would
still operate under a soft TAC and input control measures (such as DAS)
as the primary controls for managing mortality. The self-governance and
monitoring of the Fixed Gear Sector would allow members to maintain
stewardship of the resource upon which they depend. It would create a
sense of interconnectedness among fishermen that would discourage
violation of the Fixed Gear Sector Membership Agreement and Operations
Plan. As the Fixed Gear Sector manages itself at the community level,
NOAA Fisheries Service carries less of an enforcement burden. In
addition, because community-based management is flexible to annual and
midseason modifications, it would be more responsive to changes in the
condition of the fishery than the traditional process has been.

The table presented below (Table 10) identifies and compares those
elements of the Operations Plan that are specific to the Fixed Gear
Sector (Preferred Alternative) to those elements of current regulations
that would pertain to fixed gear vessels in the Common Pool.

+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
|                                  | **Operations       | **Common    |
|                                  | Plan**             | Pool**      |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                                  | **(Preferred       | **(No       |
|                                  | Alternative)**     | Action)**   |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #1 -- Hard TAC Allocation of GB  | Yes                | No          |
| Cod                              |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #2 -- Monthly Quota Targets      | Yes                | No          |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #3 -- Weekly Quota Targets       | Yes                | No          |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #4 -- DAS Allocations            | Yes                | Yes         |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #5 -- Sector Notification        | Yes                | No          |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #6 -- DAS Transfer to/from       | Yes                | Yes         |
| Common Pool                      |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #7 -- Full retention of GB Cod   | Yes                | No          |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #8 -- Species Trip Limits (GB    | No                 | 1,000       |
| Cod)                             |                    | lbs/day     |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #8b -- Species Trip Limits       | Yes                | Yes         |
| (other species)                  |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #9a -- Gear Restrictions (gear)  | Fixed Gear Only    | No          |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #9b -- Gear Restrictions (hook   | No                 | 3,600       |
| limit)                           |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #9c -- Gear Restrictions (net    | Yes                | Yes         |
| limit)                           |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #10 -- GB Seasonal Closure - May | No                 | Yes         |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #11 -- Closed Areas              | Yes                | Yes         |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #12 -- Operating Area            | Yes                | No          |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| #13 -- Prorating of DAS and      | Yes                | Yes         |
| Landings                         |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+

Table 10 - Comparison of management measures for Fixed Gear Sector
vessels

under the Operations Plan and Common Pool rules.

**4.0 Environmental Consequences**

**4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)**

The No Action Alternative is the disapproval of the Fixed Gear Sector
Operations Plan. While the Fixed Gear Sector would be available through
Alternative 1, all vessels would remain in the Common Pool and fish
under the regulations implemented under Amendment 13 and subsequent FW
adjustments. Thus, no allocation of GB cod would be made to the Fixed
Gear Sector.

**4.1.1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 1)**

**Target Species**

Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative, which would include use of
all gear types associated with the common pool (not only sink gillnet
and hook-and-line). These vessels would not have a hard TAC to constrain
them and therefore, little incentive to stop fishing upon reaching their
1,000 pound daily GB cod limit; thus, they may continue fishing while
discarding all further GB cod overboard. Of the 33 participating Fixed
Gear Sector vessels in 2008, it is anticipated that approximately 11
will only use sink gillnet gear, 1-3 will use hook gear exclusively, and
19-21 will use both gear types at varying degrees. In 2006, the Sector
made one trip and caught 2 GB cod (6 pounds); preliminary 2007 data show
that the Sector has made 564 trips and caught 901,854 lbs GB cod.
Fishing outside the Sector under common pool trip limit (Alternative 1),
these 564 trips could have had a maximum of 564,000 lbs of landings and
the potential to discard the remainder. However, this level of GB cod
catch is low when compared to the available catch for the entire GB cod
stock.

**Non-target Species/Incidental Catch**

Effects on non-target species that are expected to occur under
Alternative 1 would be the same as in the Common Pool, which includes
use of all gear types (not solely gillnet and hook-and-line). Table 11
shows the difference in species interaction between three primary New
England groundfish gear types in all areas by all vessels (Sector and
Common Pool) with documented landings by said gear type.

  ----------- -------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------
  **Year**    **Species**                **Benthic       **Sink/Anchor   **Fish Bottom
                                         Longline        Gillnet         Otter Trawl
                                         Landings (mt)** Landings (mt)** Landings
                                                                         (mt)**

  2006        MACKEREL, ATLANTIC         **278.8**       **3.2**         **5,914.7**

  2006        SHARK, SPINY DOGFISH       **94.9**        **977.9**       **410.1**

  2006        SWORDFISH                  **38.2**        n/a             n/a

  2006        COD, ATLANTIC              **29.3**        **1,695.8**     **2981.9**

  2006        GOOSEFISH                  **29.0**        **3,359.7**     **6,203.8**

  2006        HERRING, ATLANTIC          **18.0**        **82.7**        **11,023.6**

  2006        TUNA, BIGEYE               **11.8**        n/a             n/a

  2006        HADDOCK                    **10.8**        **259.1**       **2,460.4**

  2006        LOBSTER, AMERICAN          **10.7**        **130.1**       **305.0**

  2006        TUNA, YELLOWFIN            **8.7**         n/a             n/a

  2006        SKATES                     **7.1**         **4,362.3**     **8,470.6**

  2006        HALIBUT, ATLANTIC          **6.3**         n/a             **6.6**

  2006        SHARK, MAKO                **3.7**         n/a             n/a

  2006        FLOUNDER, SUMMER           **3.1**         **19.4**        **985.9**

  2006        TILEFISH                   **2.1**         n/a             **50.5**

  2006        DOLPHINFISH                **2.1**         n/a             n/a

  2006        CRAB, JONAH                **1.7**         n/a             n/a

  2006        TUNA, ALBACORE             **1.7**         n/a             n/a

  2006        POLLOCK                    **1.2**         **2,548.8**     **2,987.9**

  2006        SHARKS                     **1.1**         n/a             n/a

  2006        FLOUNDER, WITCH            **1.0**         **40.6**        **1,582.4**

  2006        HAKE, WHITE                n/a             **318.0**       **1,284.4**

  2006        FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL       n/a             **117.5**       **1,353.2**

  2006        BLUEFISH                   n/a             **113.6**       **164.7**

  2006        SQUID, LONGFIN             n/a             **104.8**       **9,421.9**

  2006        FINFISHES, UNC GENERAL     n/a             **102.4**       **10.4**

  2006        FLOUNDER, WINTER           n/a             **62.8**        **1,772.3**

  2006        REDFISH OR OCEAN PERCH     n/a             **43.4**        **431.1**

  2006        FLOUNDER,ATLANTIC,PLAICE   n/a             **43.2**        **942.9**

  2006        SCALLOP, SEA               n/a             **36.6**        **62.3**

  2006        CUSK                       n/a             **21.6**        **20.6**

  2006        SEA BASS, BLACK            n/a             **15.0**        **62.9**

  2006        CRAB, ATLANTIC ROCK        n/a             **13.8**        n/a

  2006        WOLFFISH, ATLANTIC         n/a             **12.8**        **58.1**

  2006        HAKE, SILVER               n/a             **12.3**        **2,960.5**

  2006        SCUPS OR PORGIES           n/a             **11.0**        **1194.0**

  2006        SHARK, SMOOTH DOGFISH      n/a             **7.4**         **1.9**

  2006        BUTTERFISH                 n/a             **5.2**         **251.6**

  2006        SHRIMP, MARINE, OTHER      n/a             **4.6**         **681.3**

  2006        CLAM, QUAHOG               n/a             **2.5**         **1.7**

  2006        BASS, STRIPED              n/a             **2.0**         **5.6**

  2006        SNAILS (CONCHS)            n/a             **2.0**         **38.1**

  2006        TAUTOG                     n/a             **2.0**         **7.8**

  2006        WEAKFISH                   n/a             **1.6**         **19.9**

  2006        BONITO, ATLANTIC           n/a             **1.4**         n/a

  2006        CRAB, HORSESHOE            n/a             n/a             **22.7**

  2006        DORY, AMERICAN JOHN        n/a             n/a             **12.3**

  2006        EEL, CONGER                n/a             n/a             **3.9**

  2006        FLOUNDER, WINDOWPANE       n/a             n/a             **50.7**

  2006        FLATFISH                   n/a             n/a             **5.8**

  2006        HAKE, ATLANTIC, RED/WHITE  n/a             n/a             **2.2**

  2006        HAKE, OFFSHORE SILVER      n/a             n/a             **1.0**

  2006        HAKE, RED                  n/a             n/a             **334.6**

  2006        WHITING, KING              n/a             n/a             **1.5**

  2006        SEAROBINS                  n/a             n/a             **1.3**

  2006        SHELLFISH                  n/a             n/a             **8,263.2**

  **TOTAL**   \-                         **565.6**       **14,543.1**    **72,833.7**
  ----------- -------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------

Table 11 - Non-target species interactions for sink gillnets and benthic
longlines

(species landed under 1 mt are not shown).

The information is based on a NOAA Fisheries Service landings database
query for 2006 and filtered to show those species which were caught by
sink gillnets in amounts greater than or equal to one (1) metric ton.
This shows that with the application of this filter (≥ 1mt), sink
gillnets interact with 35 non-target species while benthic longlines
interact with 21 non-target species. Gillnets interacted with 14 more
species than longline; bottom otter trawl gear interacted with 11 more
species than gillnet, and 25 more than longline. It is expected that
these overall totals would not change in the absence of the Fixed Gear
Sector. Impacts to non-target species include continued fishing pressure
for non-overfished stocks and delayed rebuilding for overfished stocks.

**Protected Species**

Alternative 1 includes use of all gear types and the flexibility to
switch gear types (as opposed to sector vessels that must be dedicated
fixed gear under the Preferred Alternative). Because of the allowed and
continued use of these gear types (No Action), Alternative 1 would have
no increased risk to protected species as compared to those analyzed in
previous NE Multispecies fishery actions (Amendment 13 and subsequent
Frameworks 40A, 40B, 41 and 42). The Northeast sink gillnet fishery is
classified as a Category I fishery under the 2008 List of Fisheries
(LOF) at 50 CFR Part 229. The Northeast bottom trawl fishery is
classified as a Category II fishery under the LOF. The Northeast bottom
longline fishery on GB is part of the Category III listing for the
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline fishery. An explanation of the
classifications used in the LOF is as follows:

> *Category I fishery* means a commercial fishery determined by the
> Assistant Administrator to have frequent incidental mortality and
> serious injury of marine mammals. A commercial fishery that frequently
> causes mortality or serious injury of marine mammals is one that is by
> itself responsible for the annual removal of 50 percent or more of any
> stock\'s potential biological removal (PBR) level.
>
> *Category II fishery* means a commercial fishery determined by the
> Assistant Administrator to have occasional incidental mortality and
> serious injury of marine mammals. A commercial fishery that
> occasionally causes mortality or serious injury of marine mammals is
> one that, collectively with other fisheries, is responsible for the
> annual removal of more than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock's
> PBR level and that is by itself responsible for the annual removal of
> between 1 and 50 percent, exclusive of any stock's PBR.
>
> *Category III fishery* means a commercial fishery determined by the
> Assistant Administrator to have a remote likelihood of, or no known
> incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. A
> commercial fishery that has a remote likelihood of causing incidental
> mortality and serious injury of marine mammals is one that
> collectively with other fisheries is responsible for the annual
> removal of:
>
> \(1\) Less than 50 percent of any marine mammal stock\'s PBR level,
>
> or
>
> \(2\) More than one percent of any marine mammal stock\'s potential
> biological removal level, yet that fishery by itself is responsible
> for the annual removal of 1 percent or less of that stock\'s potential
> biological removal level. In the absence of reliable information
> indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of
> marine mammals by a commercial fishery, the Assistant Administrator
> would determine whether the incidental serious injury or mortality is
> "remote" by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear
> used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons
> and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports,
> stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in
> the area or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator. (50 CFR
> 229.2)

Table 12 shows the marine mammals known to have had interactions with
sink gillnets, otter trawls, and bottom longlines on GB, as excerpted
from the Proposed Rule for the 2008 List of Fisheries at 50 CFR Part
229.

+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Fishery          | *          | **Marine mammal species and       |
| Description**      | *Estimated | stocks incidentally               |
|                    | \# of      | killed/injured**                  |
|                    | vessels    |                                   |
|                    | /persons** |                                   |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Category 1         |            |                                   |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Northeast sink     | 341        | Bottlenose dolphin, Western North |
| gillnet            |            | Atlantic (WNA) offshore           |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Common dolphin, WNA               |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Fin whale, WNA                    |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Gray seal, WNA                    |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Harbor porpoise, Gulf of          |
|                    |            | Maine/Bay of Fundy (GME/BF)       |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Harbor seal, WNA                  |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Harp seal, WNA                    |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Hooded seal, WNA                  |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine     |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Minke whale, Canadian east coast  |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | North Atlantic right whale, WNA   |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Risso's dolphin                   |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Category 2         |            |                                   |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Northeast bottom   | 1,052      | Common dolphin, WNA               |
| trawl              |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Harbor porpoise, GME/BF           |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Harp seal, WNA                    |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Long-finned pilot whale, WNA      |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | Short-finned pilot whale, WNA     |
|                    |            |                                   |
|                    |            | White-sided dolphin, WNA          |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Category 3         |            |                                   |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Nort               | 46         | None documented                   |
| heast/Mid-Atlantic |            |                                   |
| bottom             |            |                                   |
| long               |            |                                   |
| line/hook-and-line |            |                                   |
+--------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+

Table 12 - List of marine mammals known to have interacted with the
longline and gillnet fisheries in the NE. Excerpted from the Proposed
2008 LOF (Department of Commerce, 2007)

As can be seen, NE sink gillnets and bottom otter trawls have more
interactions with marine mammals than bottom longline gear. Under the No
Action alternative in the absence of the Fixed Gear Sector, it is
expected that these overall totals would not change substantially. Based
on the gear type, and the ALWTRP gear compliance requirements, increased
negative impacts on protected species are not expected, as was assessed
in previous regulatory actions. Interactions that may occur would most
likely be consistent with species known to interact with sink gillnet
gear.

Under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), Harbor
Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP), and Bottlenose Dolphin Take
Reduction Plan (BDTRP), fixed gear must meet federal requirements for
gear markings, locations, weak links, and buoyancy requirements. In
addition, fixed gear fishermen must abide by rolling closures and
seasonal and spawning periods of restricted fishing activity. Under the
No Action alternative, Fixed Gear Sector members would not have a hard
TAC to constrain them; therefore, there would be an unlikely chance that
large whale interactions would decrease.

According to the NE Fisheries Science Center Sea Turtle Program, four
species of turtles migrate northward along the continental shelf of the
eastern U.S. to forage in highly productive, nearshore habitats during
the spring, summer and fall months: primarily early life history stages
of cheloniid loggerhead (*Caretta caretta*), Kemp's ridley
*(Lepidochelys kempii)* and green (*Chelonia mydas*) turtles; and
sub-adult and adult leatherback turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*).  

Although sea turtles are known to interact with both gillnet and
hook-and-line gear, these occurrences happen infrequently with these
gear types in the proposed operating area. Between January 2002 and June
2006, 4,651 anchored sink gillnet trips were observed, and 487 bottom
longline trips were observed. In this 54 month period, federal observers
reported 11 incidental takes of sea turtles in the anchored sink gillnet
fishery, and zero incidental takes of sea turtles in the bottom longline
fishery. It should be noted that the term "incidental take" can mean
"dead," "alive and injured," or "alive and uninjured." Sea turtles often
inhabit waters more temperate than the Sector's Operating Area. Under
the No Action alternative, Fixed Gear Sector members would not have a
hard TAC to constrain them; therefore, there would be an unlikely chance
that sea turtle interactions would decrease.

**Biological Conclusions**

Should the No Action alternative be chosen, an allocation of GB cod
would not be made to the Fixed Gear Sector. As indicated by the
preliminary Fixed Gear Sector GB cod landings data, these interactions
are relatively minor as compared to the total GB cod landings
(referenced for 2006 and 2007) . Without a GB cod allocation to contain
fishing effort, gillnets have more opportunity for increased
interactions and incidental catch of non-target and protected species.
While the overall biological impacts to regulated species are considered
and accounted for as part of the TAC specification process, in
comparison to sector operations use of gear other than what is allowed
in the Fixed Gear Sector would increase interactions with a broader
range of species, which creates opportunity for negative interactions
through incidental catch of non-target and protected species (Section
4.2.1). Preliminary Fixed Gear Sector data on non-target species
supports this claim. Thus, instead of the full retention hard TAC
fishery which would be in place under Alternative 2, Alternative 1 would
include a broader range of gear types, some of which have greater
interactions with non-target and protected species. Protected species
interactions would be expected to remain consistent with those indicated
in the LOF and supported by preliminary 2007 FY Fixed Gear Sector data,
identified in Table 14d.

A benefit of Alternative 2 is the geographical limitations placed on
Fixed Gear Sector members: the Fixed Gear Sector would maintain a
traditional fishing fleet around a traditional fishing area. Under the
proposed Fixed Gear Sector Operations plan (Alternative 2), members are
prohibited from fishing in the GOM and therefore cannot redirect effort
onto GOM stocks.

**4.1.2 HABITAT IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 1)**

According to the Magnuson Act, EFH means "those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity\" (Department of Commerce, 1996).

The EFH Final Rule identifies adverse impacts as "any impact, which
reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects from fishing may
include physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the substrate,
and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their
habitat, and other components of the ecosystem\" (NEFMC, 1998).

The *Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the
Northeastern United States*, October 23-25, 2001, found that longlines
and sink gillnets cause some low degree impacts in mud, sand and gravel
habitats, while otter trawls have additional impacts (Department of
Commerce, 2002). As stated in the EFH final rule, the intent of EFH "is
to regulate fishing gears that reduce an essential habitat\'s capacity
to support marine resources, not practices that produce inconsequential
changes in the habitat\" (Department of Commerce, 2002).

**Habitat Conclusions**

Alternative 1 is expected to have minimal habitat impacts because it is
a No Action condition in which the multispecies fishery would continue
to be conducted as is: without the operation of the Fixed Gear Sector
and with continued use of a variety of gears. In the context of the
entire NE statistical areas, the GB Cod Hook Sector Operating area is a
relatively small, well-defined area. Habitat impacts of the existing
fishery have already been minimized by the establishment of the habitat
closed areas and effort controls that were approved in Amendment 13 and
subsequent FW actions. As such, no additional habitat impacts would
result that haven't already been accounted for.

**4.1.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 1)**

The Amendment 13 FSEIS concluded that the management action, which
restricted fishing activity through DAS cuts, possession limits, and
other measures, would probably have negative impacts on fishing
communities throughout the region. However, these impacts would be
particularly felt on those ports that rely heavily on multispecies. As
indicated, Chatham and Harwichport rely on a majority of their income to
be generated from multispecies revenue. Furthermore, recent actions
taken to rebuild NE multispecies stocks (including FW 40a, FW 40b, FW
41, and FW42) have further resulted in economic losses for individuals
and communities that rely on multispecies. These conclusions are
referenced in Tables 1 and 18.

As noted at the Social Impact Informational Meetings, the flexibility to
switch fisheries has been lost due to effort and mortality restrictions,
and other actions taken to rebuild stocks. Specifically in Chatham,
meeting participants felt that regulations have 'boxed them in' to
particular fisheries, making it difficult or impossible for them to
maximize their opportunities and/or adjust to changing conditions. When
combined with the inherent limitations of small vessels, the regulations
have reduced fishing opportunities to the point that many fishermen
cannot guarantee a year-round income from fishing for themselves or for
their crew.

Alternative 1 would have negative social impacts on local fixed gear
fishermen and on the Chatham/Harwich community. The daily GB cod trip
limit (1,000 lbs), in addition to a continued reduction in DAS (up to
40%), differential counting of DAS in traditional areas adjacent to
Chatham and Hariwchport (2:1), gear restrictions (3,600 hook limit), and
continued closed areas would likely eliminate the traditional,
small-boat fleet, causing negative social impacts. Pending changes to
multispecies groundfish management may potentially undermine the Fixed
Gear Sector concept as well as affect the likelihood that fixed gear
fishing remains profitable. This would cause disruption within the
principle communities (Chatham/Harwichport) for shore-based businesses
and could eventually lead to the loss of piers, wharves, and docks, all
of which are in high demand for residential purposes. Furthermore,
Alternative 1 would not ensure that 33 traditional GB cod fishermen on
Georges Bank stopped overfishing GB cod -- a large proportion of the
remaining Chatham and Harwichport groundfish fleet. This outcome would
further diminish the possibility for these communities to re-renter the
fishery once stocks have rebuilt. The well-documented social ills that
follow the collapse of a traditional industry are likely to be the
result of implementation of Alternative 1.

According to the Amendment 13 FSEIS, "Consistent with the requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks, the proposed action will restrict fishing activity
through the imposition of additional restrictions on fishing time,
possession limits, and other measures.....these declines will probably
have negative impacts on fishing communities throughout the region, but
particularly on those ports that rely heavily on groundfish" (NEFMC, Am
13 FSEIS, Section 7.1.1).

In 2004, vessels targeting multispecies in Chatham/Harwichport
experienced 59% decrease in landings. If the Operations Plan is not
approved and an allocation of GB cod is not made to the Fixed Gear
Sector, hook-and-line vessels that would otherwise be part of the Fixed
Gear Sector would likely fish under common pool regulations or switch
gear types to ensure the viability of their fishing businesses and
attempt to offset their decrease in landings.

According to the Amendment 13 FSEIS, "Consistent with the requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks, the proposed action would restrict fishing activity
through the imposition of additional restrictions on fishing time,
possession limits, and other measures.....these declines would probably
have negative impacts on fishing communities throughout the region, but
particularly on those ports that rely heavily on groundfish" (NEFMC, Am
13 FSEIS, Section 7.1.1).

**Trip Limit**

"Both gillnet and hook gear groups appear to be split between vessels
that may experience significant revenue losses and vessels that may
experience revenue gains. This disparity is likely due to differences in
dependence on GB cod and GOM cod. Because cod tends to represent such a
high proportion of total fishing income for these two gear groups,
revenues are very sensitive to changes in cod trip limits. Thus, while
the GOM cod trip limit would be double that of FY2001, the GB cod trip
limit is more restrictive. This means that even with a 45% DAS
reduction, hook and gillnet vessels with a high dependence on GOM cod
can increase total fishing income while vessels with high dependence on
GB cod experience revenue losses" (NEFMC, Am 13 FSEIS, Section 5.4.4.1).

**Gear Limit**

Fixed Gear Sector vessels are subject to the same gear restrictions on
marking, tagging, mesh size, and number of gillnets applicable to common
pool vessels using the same type of gear. The 3,600 hook limit prevents
hook fishermen from maximizing opportunities when codfish and haddock
are available for harvest in abundance. The opportunity to fish multiple
tides is prevented by regulations that prohibit setting more than 3,600
hooks on a given day. This gear restriction limits the ability of
vessels to recognize sufficient revenue to justify the expense and
danger of fishing. The 3,600 hook limit was introduced in the Interim
Rule and fishermen have employed it since May 2002. The 3,600 hook limit
does not allow fishermen the flexibility to maximize their catch when GB
cod appear in their geographical range and unnecessarily restricts the
opportunity of Fixed Gear Sector members to maximize their efficiency
and revenue. Alternative 1, because it lacks approval of the Operations
Plan and allocation of GB cod, would result in all vessel owners
remaining outside the Fixed Gear Sector so that they can exercise these
options.

**Discard Mortality**

Under Alternative 1, vessels would not have a hard TAC to constrain
them. With their efficient gear offering them a wider array of species
to target, these vessels are likely to reach their 1,000 pound daily GB
cod limit and continue fishing, discarding all further GB cod overboard.
By discarding these legal-sized GB Cod, Fixed Gear Sector members would
be contributing to the inefficiency of the current regulatory system and
may be experiencing substantial revenue loss in the short-term and
long-term.

**Social and Economic Conclusions**

The GB cod dependent fixed gear fishery of GB would not survive the
multiple regulation changes that would result from Alternative 1. Left
with fewer DAS, a high dependence on GB cod, a limit on the number of
hooks which can be used in a given day, and mandatory regulatory
discards of GB cod over the daily trip limit, the fixed gear fishery
would likely experience a negative economic impact. This is evident by
the positive social and economic impacts that are generated by
enrollment in the Fixed Gear Sector, as described in Section 4.2.3.

**4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)**

**The Preferred Alternative is approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
Operations Plan and an allocation of GB cod for FY2008. Fixed Gear
Sector vessels would be allocated a hard TAC of GB cod and, subject to
the regulations implemented under the Operations Plan, allowed to fish
it.**

**4.2.1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)**

Alternative 2 would have overall positive biological impacts because the
Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would ensure that a traditional
portion of GB cod is taken by fixed gear, operating under a hard TAC. In
addition, implementation of the Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would
reduce the amount of time that fixed gear would remain in the water. By
mandating the retention of all legal-sized GB cod and by operating under
a hard TAC rather than a daily trip limit, the Fixed Gear Sector would
be able to harvest their allocation of GB cod more efficiently and in
less time. By increasing this efficiency, gear has the potential to
remain in the water less time than it would under common pool rules,
thereby reducing the potential interactions with protected species.
Fixed gear has been used to target groundfish on GB for centuries, and
the biological impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector would be predictable and
minimal. In addition, the imposition of a hard TAC on the Fixed Gear
Sector would ensure that Fixed Gear Sector members are not participating
in overfishing of GB cod. Implementation of the Operations Plan would
allow a maximum number of fixed gear vessels to remain dedicated to the
fixed gear fishery, constrained from the common pool flexibility to
switch gear types. In addition, approval of the preferred alternative
would prevent the transfer of effort from GB to the GOM. Of the 33
participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels in 2008, it is anticipated that
approximately 11 will only use sink gillnet gear, 1 will use hook gear
exclusively, and 21 will use both gear types at varying degrees.

**Target Species**

Table 13 summarizes the landings and discards of GB cod for the Fixed
Gear Sector for the only trip sailed during the 2006FY:

  ------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------
                                  FY 2006 (pounds)     

                                  **Landings**         **Discards**

  **GB Cod**                      5                    1
  ------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------

Table 13 -- 2006 GB Fixed Gear Sector Catch of GB Cod (Pounds)

Preliminary data for the 2007 FY has been compiled and indicates that
901,854 pounds of GB cod were caught as of December 31, 2007 (Table
13b). This reflects 735,355 pounds of dealer-reported GB cod landings,
which was converted to 876,627 pounds of round-weight GB cod. So 25,227
pounds of GB cod, mostly sub-legal and predated, were discarded.

  -------- ---------- ----------- --------- -------------- ------------- -----------
                      **Fixed                                            
                      Gear Sector                                        
                      Fishing                                            
                      Year 2007                                          
                      Monthly                                            
                      Aggregate                                          
                      Report**                                           

                                            GEORGES BANK                 
                                            COD                          

           KEPT                   DISCARD   CATCH          Cumulative    
           (dealer)                                        Annual Catch  

           Reported   Converted                                           

  Month    lbs (Hail  lbs (Round  lbs       lbs (Round     lbs (Round    \% of quota
           Weight)    Weight)     (Round    Weight)        Weight)       
                                  Weight)                                

  May-07   2,947      3,448       515       **3,963**      **3,963**     **0.2%**

  Jun-07   57,863     71,605      1,282     **72,887**     **76,850**    **4.5%**

  Jul-07   244,568    291,474     6,600     **298,074**    **374,924**   **22.1%**

  Aug-07   221,748    261,888     4,759     **266,647**    **641,572**   **37.7%**

  Sep-07   66,081     77,967      4,735     **82,702**     **724,274**   **42.6%**

  Oct-07   90,794     108,554     4,469     **113,023**    **837,296**   **49.3%**

  Nov-07   31,390     37,783      1,688     **39,471**     **876,768**   **51.6%**

  Dec-07   19,964     23,907      1,179     **25,086**     **901,854**   **53.1%**

  Jan-08                                                                 ** **

  Feb-08                                                                 ** **

  Mar-08                                                                 ** **

  Apr-08                                                                 ** **

  TOTAL    735,355    876,627     25,227    **901,854**                   
  -------- ---------- ----------- --------- -------------- ------------- -----------

Table 13b - GB Fixed Gear Sector Preliminary FY2007 Landings to Date, in
564 trips.

By staying within the hard TAC of GB cod allocated to the Fixed Gear
Sector, approval of the Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would not
compromise groundfish mortality targets of Amendment 13. The Fixed Gear
Sector prevents its members from contributing to overfishing of GB cod.
The Fixed Gear Sector is granted an exemption from the 3,600 hook limit,
although it was not utilized in FY2006. Allowance for a larger number of
hooks would maximize the efficiency of hook gear, allowing fishermen to
capitalize on the presence of GB cod, while still operating within the
confines of a hard TAC of GB cod. The Operations Plan calls for full
retention of legal-sized GB cod, which occurred. Thus, there would be no
regulatory discards of legal-sized GB cod associated with the Fixed Gear
Sector. The only discarding that took place was a 1 lb sub-legal GB cod.
The full retention clause, as well as other stipulations of the
Operations Plan including dealer reporting, would ensure that all
legal-sized GB cod caught by Fixed Gear Sector participants would be
landed and counted against the Fixed Gear Sector quota in real-time.
This assures that the Fixed Gear Sector and members of the Fixed Gear
Sector would not contribute to overfishing of GB cod. The Sector caught
only 0.0000003% of the overall U.S TAC of GB cod in 2006. Even though
this number will increase with additional members in 2007, current and
preliminary data indicate that the Fixed Gear Sector has caught less
than 5% of the overall U.S. TAC for GB cod in 2007 -- well below the
approximately 9% the Sector was allocated. Including the portion of the
GB cod TAC managed by the US/CA sharing agreement will decrease this
number. Given that the most productive seasons have already passed, as
evident by the high landings and effort in the summer months on the
Fixed Gear Sector's monthly catch reports (Table 13b), it is anticipated
that the Fixed Gear Sector will not achieve its cod TAC in 2007.

According to the Amendment 13 FEIS, "As long as \[the sector\]
allocation is consistent with target fishing mortality rates, this
alternative is consistent with the biological objectives of the
Amendment" (NEFMC, AM 13 FSEIS, Sec 5.2.4.18). Furthermore, the FSEIS
concluded that if shares (allocations) of the resource are assigned
appropriately, then they are consistent with rebuilding targets and will
result in only minor biological impacts. While it is possible for a
Sector to exceed its share, appropriate reductions must be made the
following year. To counter the idea that the Fixed Gear Sector would
exceed its TAC, the GB Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan has provisions
for a 5% set aside of Fixed Gear Sector TAC to prevent the Fixed Gear
Sector from exceeding the TAC in any given FY.

Sector operations require levels of reporting and monitoring over and
above the Common Pool. Internally, these include but are not limited to
sailing notification and submission of VTRs and dealer slips within 48
hours of landing. Externally, the Sector manager reports GB cod catch
data to NOAA Fisheries Service on a monthly basis, until 90% of the TAC
is achieved. At that point, reporting becomes weekly until 95% of the
TAC is achieved (daily reporting henceforth). Accurate and timely
monitoring and reporting of catch is essential to the Sector not
exceeding its TAC.

It is important to note that Federal regulations state the following:

> *A primary motivation for the formation of a sector is the assurance
> that members of the sector would not face reductions of catch or
> effort as a result of the actions of vessels outside of the sector
> (i.e., if the other vessels exceed their target TACs). The final rule
> is revised, based on public comment, to provide the Regional
> Administrator the authority to exempt members of a sector from
> regulations that apply to the fishery at large, if they are in
> conflict with a sector's approved operations plan.*
>
> (22914 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 27, 2004 /
> Rules and Regulations)

Several specific elements of the Operations Plan have direct impacts on
the target species. The elements and their impacts on target species are
listed below:

(1) The hard TAC (Harvesting Rule #1) sets an absolute maximum poundage
    of GB cod that the Fixed Gear Sector can catch each year, and
    prevents the Fixed Gear Sector from overfishing. The one
    participating Fixed Gear Sector vessel in FY2006 did not overfish GB
    cod, as it harvested 0.005% of the Sector's TAC;

(2) Monthly and weekly quota targets (Harvesting Rule #2 and #3) spread
    out the catch evenly throughout the FY and ensure that the Fixed
    Gear Sector does not harvest the Fixed Gear Sector allocation in an
    overly intensive fashion to the detriment of the GB cod stock or to
    spawning aggregations. In 2006, monthly quota targets were not met;

(3) Weekly quota targets (Harvesting Rule #3) would be enacted, if
    necessary, to slow down harvest rates. In 2006, the Sector did not
    achieve 90% of its TAC, therefore weekly quota targets were not
    triggered;

(4) DAS allocations (Harvesting Rule #4) set an absolute maximum on the
    amount of effort the Fixed Gear Sector can expend in attempting to
    catch the Fixed Gear Sector allocation each year and would continue
    to account for mortality. The DAS and the hard TAC work as
    complementary input and output controls that ensure no overfishing
    of GB cod by the Fixed Gear Sector. In 2006, the Fixed Gear Sector
    used a total of 0.97 DAS;

(5) The full retention clause (Harvesting Rule #7) ensures that all
    legal-sized GB cod caught by Fixed Gear Sector members would be
    landed and counted against the Fixed Gear Sector quota. This would
    ensure that the Fixed Gear Sector does not overfish GB cod through
    regulatory discards of legal-sized GB cod. Neither regulatory
    discarding, nor overfishing occurred in the Fixed Gear Sector in
    2006;

(6) Elimination of the daily trip limit for target species (Harvesting
    Rule #8) in lieu of a hard TAC would allow vessels to operate more
    efficiently, eliminate regulatory discarding, and may reduce fishing
    time due to the achievement of the TAC. The Fixed Gear Sector did
    not exceed the 1,000 Common Pool daily trip limit for GB cod in the
    single trip that was taken;

(7) Gear restrictions (Harvesting Rule #9) mandate that the Fixed Gear
    Sector members be subject to the same gear restrictions on marking,
    tagging, mesh size, and number of gillnets applicable to common pool
    vessels using the same type of gear. A benefit of the 6 ½" mesh size
    restriction (which Fixed Gear Sector vessels are subject to) is that
    the capture of sub-legal fish is minimized. In addition, the size 12
    circle hook would reduce the amount of undersized GB cod caught,
    thus reducing regulatory discards of undersized GB cod. The circle
    requirement allows undersized fish to have better survivability and
    easier escapement. The increased daily hook limits would have
    minimal impacts as effort, landings, and discards are strictly
    controlled through previous measures (hard TAC of GB cod, layered
    with DAS). In addition, by entering into agreement with the Fixed
    Gear Sector, vessels are prevented from using mobile gear, which has
    been known to have higher levels of fish bycatch and discards than
    fixed gear. Hook gear was not utilized in the Fixed Gear Sector in
    2006, and neither was mobile gear. 50 anchored sink gillnets were
    set in total. Of the 33 participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels in
    2008, it is anticipated that approximately 11 will only use sink
    gillnet gear, 1 will use hook gear exclusively, and 21 will use both
    gear types at varying degrees.;

(8) The GB seasonal closure/spawning season restriction (Harvesting Rule
    #10) stipulation has minimal impacts on GB cod. The impact may be
    offset as Fixed Gear Sector members would no longer fish in the GOM
    during the month of May. In addition, Fixed Gear Sector members
    would still be required to take their 20 day spawning block out of
    the fishery during the months of March, April, or May to protect
    spawning fish and must continue to comply with spawning season
    restrictions. The Fixed Gear Sector was not implemented until
    November 22, 2006 and therefore was not able to utilize the
    opportunity for this Harvesting Rule;

(9) The fishing area (Harvesting Rule #12) is the GB Cod Hook Sector
    Operating Area (defined earlier). This area includes traditional
    winter monkfish fishing areas. Since Fixed Gear Sector vessels that
    target monkfish are using gear capable of catching GB cod, any
    legal-sized GB cod caught while under a directed GB cod trip or a
    directed monkfish trip would be retained and accounted for. This
    area voluntarily restricts Fixed Gear Sector members to a
    well-defined area, thereby allowing for a more-accurate
    qualification and quantification of impacts on GB cod, as compared
    to a larger, ill-defined area(s). The one Fixed Gear Sector trip
    taken in 2006 was located within the Operating Area.

(10) Prorating of DAS and Landings (Harvesting Rule #13) would allow the
     Fixed Gear Sector to commence operation on May 1, 2008, even if
     final approval of the Fixed Gear Sector's Operations Plan is
     pending. However, all GB cod caught by the Fixed Gear Sector would
     be accounted for and deducted from the Fixed Gear Sector's
     aggregate allocation of GB cod. The Fixed Gear Sector was not
     implemented until November 22, 2006 and therefore was not able to
     utilize the opportunity for this Harvesting Rule

**Non-target Species/Incidental Catch**

Table 14 summarizes total catch of other species that the Fixed Gear
Sector caught in FY2006:

  ------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------
                                  FY 2006 (pounds)     

                                  **Landings**         **Discards**

  **Lobster**                     3                    0

  **Yellowtail**                  2                    0

  **Skates**                      0                    10

  **Mackerel**                    0                    2
  ------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------

Table 14 - 2006 GB Fixed Gear Sector Landings (Pounds)

Table 14b shows the preliminary dealer-reported Fixed Gear Sector
landings for the 2007 FY, current as of December 31, 2007. Relative to
the total amount of these species caught by numerous gear types in the
previous FY (see Table 11), these landings are minimal. Furthermore,
these preliminary data indicate that no substantial redirection of
effort has occurred and remain fairly consistent with fleet-wide data.

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Species**                           **Pounds Landed**

  Acadian Redfish                       1,414

  American Lobster                      2,135

  American Plaice                       182

  Atlantic Halibut                      119

  Atlantic Wolffish                     4,742

  Bluefish                              9,634

  Cunner                                177

  Cusk                                  745

  Goosefish Whole                       97,844

  Goosefish, Livers                     1,556

  Goosefish, Tails                      13,378

  Grey Sole                             377

  Haddock                               76,599

  Mackerel                              233

  Pollock                               124,700

  Shad                                  44

  Skate Wings                           353,851

  Spiny Dogfish Shark                   92,839

  Tilefish                              70

  White Hake                            5,468

  Whiting                               123

  Winter Flounder                       15,320

  Yellowtail Flounder                   564
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

Table 14b -- Preliminary Fixed Gear Sector dealer-reported landings data
for May 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007

Table 11 summarizes additional species that Fixed Gear Sector members
could catch. Fixed Gear Sector members would be employing gear that has
been used for decades to catch GB cod. The incidental catch of
non-target species is likely to be similar to the incidental catch of
non-target species during the qualifying period (FY1996-FY2001), because
the Fixed Gear Sector GB cod TAC would be identical to the percentage of
take of Fixed Gear Sector members during the qualifying period. A net
increase in the incidental catch of non-target species is not expected.
DAS would continue to account for mortality on non-target species. Table
14c compares the preliminary 2007 Fixed Gear Sector landings (May 1 --
December 31, 2007) of all species to the 2006 landings shown in Table
11. Extrapolating from this data, the Fixed Gear Sector contributes less
than 2% to the interactions of each non-target species, with the
exception of Spiny Dogfish and Wolffish.

  -------------------------- -------------------- ------------- --------------
  **Species**                **FY 2006 Landings   **FY 2007     **Comparison
                             for Benthic          Fixed Gear    of Sector to
                             Longline,            Sector        Common Pool**
                             Sink/Anchor Gillnet, Landings      
                             & Bottom Otter Trawl (mt)**        
                             (mt)**                             

  MACKEREL, ATLANTIC         6196.7               0.11          0.002%

  SHARK, SPINY DOGFISH       1482.9               42.11         2.840%

  COD, ATLANTIC              4707.0               409.08        8.691%

  GOOSEFISH                  9592.5               44.38         0.463%

  HADDOCK                    2730.3               34.75         1.273%

  LOBSTER, AMERICAN          445.8                0.97          0.217%

  SKATES                     12840.0              160.51        1.250%

  HALIBUT, ATLANTIC          12.9                 0.05          0.418%

  TILEFISH                   52.6                 0.03          0.060%

  POLLOCK                    5537.9               56.56         1.021%

  FLOUNDER, WITCH            1624.0               0.17          0.011%

  HAKE, WHITE                1602.4               2.48          0.155%

  FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL       1470.7               0.26          0.017%

  BLUEFISH                   278.3                4.37          1.570%

  FLOUNDER, WINTER           1835.1               6.95          0.379%

  REDFISH OR OCEAN PERCH     474.5                0.64          0.135%

  FLOUNDER,ATLANTIC,PLAICE   986.1                0.08          0.008%

  CUSK                       42.2                 0.34          0.801%

  WOLFFISH, ATLANTIC         70.9                 2.15          3.034%

  HAKE, SILVER               2972.8               0.06          0.002%
  -------------------------- -------------------- ------------- --------------

Table 14c -- Preliminary Fixed Gear Sector dealer-reported landings data
for May 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 compared to the 2006 landings data
from Table 11.

Several specific elements of the Harvesting Rules that have impacts on
non-target species are listed below:

(1) The hard TAC for GB cod (Harvesting Rule #1) stops Fixed Gear Sector
    members from catching non-target species once the hard TAC is caught
    each year. The Fixed Gear Sector's TAC has yet to be achieved;

(2) Monthly and weekly quota targets (Harvesting Rule #2 and #3) stop
    groundfish fishing when targets are caught and not adjusted, ending
    potential for interaction. Monthly and weekly quota targets were not
    triggered in 2006;

(3) DAS allocations (Harvesting Rule #4) set an absolute maximum on the
    amount of effort the Fixed Gear Sector can expend in attempting to
    catch the Fixed Gear Sector allocation of GB cod each year. DAS
    usage ensures that the effort of the Fixed Gear Sector would be
    similar to the effort of the fleet during the qualifying period and
    puts a cap on the effort that Fixed Gear Sector members can put into
    the fishery. This sets a corollary maximum on expected bycatch. In
    2006, the Fixed Gear Sector used a total of 0.97 DAS;

(4) Elimination of the daily trip limit for target species (Harvesting
    Rule #8) in lieu of a hard TAC would allow vessels to operate more
    efficiently, which may reduce fishing time, and therefore, may
    reduce impacts on non-target species due to the achievement of the
    TAC. Preliminary data from 2007 FY (Table 13b) indicate that 735,355
    lbs of GB cod were landed in 564 trips. With the daily trip limit in
    place,171,355 lbs would have been discarded;

(5) Gear restrictions (Harvesting Rule #9), specifically hook size
    limits, require a larger hook size, ensuring that some amount of
    fish with smaller mouths, such as small flounders, is not caught in
    large numbers by Fixed Gear Sector members using hook gear. The
    circle hook requirement increases survivability for non-target
    species caught incidentally. Additionally, an exemption from the
    3,600 hook limit may result in increased interactions with
    non-target species. However, DAS are still in place to control
    mortality of non-GB cod species. A benefit of the 6 ½" mesh size
    restriction (which Fixed Gear Sector vessels are subject to) is that
    the capture of sub-legal fish is minimized. In addition, by entering
    into agreement with the Fixed Gear Sector, vessels are prevented
    from using mobile gear, which has been known to have higher levels
    of fish bycatch and discards than fixed gear. Finally, by mandating
    use of 10" minimum mesh size in the monkfish fishery, minimizes the
    capture of various sub-legal non-target fish species. Hook gear was
    not utilized in the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006, and neither was
    mobile gear. 50 anchored sink gillnets with 7-inch mesh were set. Of
    the 33 participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels in 2008, it is
    anticipated that approximately 11 will only use sink gillnet gear, 1
    will use hook gear exclusively, and 21 will use both gear types at
    varying degrees;

(6) The fishing area (Harvesting Rule #12) that the Fixed Gear Sector
    vessels are restricting themselves to includes traditional monkfish
    fishing areas. Nearly all Fixed Gear Sector vessels are reliant on
    monkfish for their fishing businesses and have traditionally
    persecuted monkfish in the Operating Area. Furthermore, by
    restricting themselves to a well-defined area, the Fixed Gear Sector
    allowing for a more-accurate qualification and quantification of
    impacts on non-target species, compared to a larger, ill-defined
    area(s). The only trip taken by the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006 was
    within the Operating Area.

**Protected Species**

Table 2 lists protected species in the region. Fixed Gear Sector members
would be employing gear in the same areas they have been fishing for
decades, so the effect on protected species in that area would be likely
to be similar to what they have been in the past. However, by operating
under a hard TAC rather than a daily trip limit, the Fixed Gear Sector
may be able to harvest their allocation of GB cod more efficiently and
in less time, which may reduce the potential for protected species
interactions.

The Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line fishery is
listed as a Category III fishery under 50 CFR Part 229; the Northeast
sink gillnet fishery is listed as a Category I fishery. Both fisheries
would continue to operate within the mandated level of observer
coverage. Entanglements are assumed to occur with increased frequency in
areas where more gear is set and in areas with higher concentrations of
protected species. The Fixed Gear Sector would continue to operate in
areas and using gear types that they have traditionally used. A majority
of hook-and-line gear would be set during the fall months in the
offshore waters of GB (NE and Southeast portion of the Operating Area);
anchored sink gillnet gear would be set nearly year-round in the inshore
waters of GB (Northwest portion of the Operating Area), and in winter
months in the offshore waters of GB (Southwest portion of the Operating
Area). Interactions between the aforementioned species and fixed gear
would vary over time and space, and include getting caught on hooks
(longline gear), entanglement in mesh (gillnet fishery), entanglement in
float line (gillnet fishery), entanglement in groundline (gillnet and
longline fisheries), entanglement in anchor line (gillnet and longline
fisheries), or entanglement in vertical lines that connect the gear to
the surface (gillnet and longline fisheries). Interactions occur when
fishing gear overlaps both spatially and trophically with a species'
niche. Spatial interactions are more "passive" and involve unintentional
interactions with fishing gear. Trophic interactions are more "active"
and occur when species use fishing gear to assist in their predation.
When fishing gear is catching fish that protected species prey on, the
protected species may interact with the fishing gear as they attempt to
consume the fish. Both forms of interactions occur with bottom longline
and anchored sink gillnet gear.

Despite the potential for the gear to interact with protected species,
the Fixed Gear Sector is taking important steps to account for and
mitigate these interactions. Through DAS and a hard TAC of GB cod (to
cap GB cod mortality), full retention of legal-sized GB cod (to
eliminate incentive to discard and increase efficiency) Fixed Gear
Sector management (to respond in near-real time to constantly changing
species interactions), and exemption from daily trip limits in lieu of a
hard TAC (to maximize efficiency and potentially reduce the amount of
time gear remains in the water), the Fixed Gear Sector would account for
and reduce the potential for marine mammal interactions. Further actions
to reduce the likelihood of interactions between the gear types governed
by this FMP and the marine mammals that inhabit the area in which these
fisheries are prosecuted would be considered if deemed necessary. Thus,
this alternative is anticipated to have a positive impact on protected
species, including marine mammals and sea turtles, when compared to what
may occur under the No Action alternative.

Table 14d, below, demonstrates the preliminary data on protected species
interactions in the Fixed Gear Sector for the 2007 FY as of December 31,
2007. It should be noted that these interactions occurred with sink
gillnet gear and not with hook gear operated within the Fixed Gear
Sector. It can be seen that low numbers of interactions have occurred in
the Fixed Gear Sector and that these interactions are consistent with
the species known to interact with sink gillnet gear.

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
                                                    Quantity

  Grey Seal                                         8

  Seal, unknown                                     2

  Harbor Porpoise                                   3
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

Table 14d -- Preliminary 2007 Fixed Gear Sector Protected Species Takes

Zero interactions between Fixed Gear Sector members and the
aforementioned species occurred in 2006.

Several specific elements of the Operations Plan that have impacts on
protected species are listed below:

(1) The hard TAC (Harvesting Rule #1) stops groundfish fishing when the
    aggregate allocation of GB cod is caught, ending the potential for
    interaction;

(2) Monthly quota targets (Harvesting Rule #2) stop fishing when monthly
    quotas are caught, ending the potential for interaction;

(3) DAS allocations (Harvesting Rule #4) set an absolute maximum on
    Fixed Gear Sector effort each year;

(4) Hook size (Harvesting Rule #8) mandates a size 12 circle hook
    allowing better survivability prospects for protected species;

(5) Elimination of the daily trip limit for target species (Harvesting
    Rule #8) in lieu of a hard TAC would allow vessels to operate more
    efficiently and would likely reduce fishing time due to the
    achievement of the TAC; and

(6) Gear restrictions (Harvesting Rule #9) require that Fixed Gear
    Sector members would only pursue groundfish with fixed gear. Through
    daily communication with the Fixed Gear Sector members, the Manager
    has the ability and authority to implement further gear/area
    restrictions if interactions with protected species can't be
    avoided. An exemption from the hook limit may result in an increased
    amount of hook gear used, however impacts on protected species would
    be minimal as hook gear is known for minimal interactions. In
    addition, hook gear restrictions mandate a size 12 circle hook
    allowing better survivability prospects for protected species..
    Finally, all gillnet gear used under the Fixed Gear Sector
    Operations Plan would be in compliance with ALWTRP, HPTRP, and BDTRP
    regulations and notices. Of the 33 participating Fixed Gear Sector
    vessels in 2008, it is anticipated that approximately 11 will only
    use sink gillnet gear, 1 will use hook gear exclusively, and 21 will
    use both gear types at varying degrees. The one vessel using hook
    gear only is expected to have lower chances of interacting and
    harming protected species than the vessels utilizing varying degrees
    of sink gillnets;

(7) The fishing area (Harvesting Rule #12) has been traditionally fished
    while targeting GB cod and monkfish, both of which are found
    throughout the Area. By mandating daily communication with the
    Manager, the Fixed Gear Sector would be able to monitor its
    interactions with protected species in a large area and in near-real
    time.

**Biological Conclusions**

The Fixed Gear Sector impacts on GB cod would be positive, compared to
the No Action alternative, as the Fixed Gear Sector would harvest up to
20% of the GB cod stock under a hard TAC ensuring, that overfishing is
not occurring on that portion of the GB cod population. In the one year
of operation thus far, overfishing has not occurred because the TAC was
never achieved, due to the fact that only one trip was sailed and
minimal GB cod were located. Preliminary 2007 data indicate that 53.1%
of the Fixed Gear Sector's GB cod TAC has been caught as of December 31,
2007. The hard TAC and the requirement to use DAS would provide two
mechanisms to restrict both the effort and landings of the Fixed Gear
Sector for both target and non-target species. Both 2006 and preliminary
2007 data indicate that non-target species interactions have been both
minimal (due to effort constraints) and consistent with intended
non-target species interactions, respectively. Through daily
communication with the Fixed Gear Sector members, the Manager has the
ability and authority to implement further gear restrictions if
interactions with protected species cannot be avoided. This situation
has yet to occur, but can be promptly accommodated if and when it does.
Both 2006 and preliminary 2007 data indicate that protected species
interactions have been minimal and consistent with those experienced by
sink gillnet gear. As the Operations Area includes areas traditionally
used to target monkfish, and as GB cod can be found throughout this
area, managing the Fixed Gear Sector vessels in near-real time is
essential for the success of the Fixed Gear Sector. Based on these
regulations, the limited past performance of the Fixed Gear Sector, and
the overall minimal and consistent impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector on
target, non-target, and protected resources, implementation of the
Operations Plan would have a slight positive effect on the target
species (GB cod), and a minimal but consistent impact on other species
when compared to what may occur under the No Action alternative.

**4.2.2 HABITAT IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)**

Fixed gear is known to have minimal impacts on habitat. By assuring that
fishermen within the Fixed Gear Sector use fixed gear, Alternative 2
would result in positive habitat impacts relative to the No Action
alternative due to the low-impact nature of fixed gear. In addition,
according to the Amendment 13 FEIS, since Sectors are not geographically
constrained; it is unlikely that they, as a management measure, would
have any significant habitat impacts. The Fixed Gear Sector would
operate within a specific geographic area defined as the GB cod Hook
Sector Area and use low-impact gear only. Although the Fixed Gear Sector
would voluntarily be constrained to this area, the Fixed Gear Sector
traditionally operates in a much smaller geographic area, notably
Statistical Areas 521, 522, 526, and 561.

This excerpt from Table 135 of the Amendment 13 FEIS describes the
habitat implications of sector allocation (Table 15):

+-------------------+--------+------------------+---------------------+
| **Alternative**   | **O    | **Feature**      | **Description of    |
|                   | verall |                  | Essential Fish      |
|                   | H      |                  | Habitat Impact**    |
|                   | abitat |                  |                     |
|                   | Im     |                  |                     |
|                   | pact** |                  |                     |
+-------------------+--------+------------------+---------------------+
| Sector Allocation | N      | Approval of      | As a management     |
|                   | eutral | sector           | measure, sector     |
|                   | Impact | allocation       | allocation is not   |
|                   |        | proposal brought | expected to have    |
|                   | \(0\)  | to NOAA          | any significant     |
|                   |        | Fisheries        | habitat impacts.    |
|                   |        | Service through  |                     |
|                   |        | Council. Sector  |                     |
|                   |        | decides about    |                     |
|                   |        | movement among   |                     |
|                   |        | sectors.         |                     |
|                   |        | Allocation based |                     |
|                   |        | on documented    |                     |
|                   |        | catch. Hard TACs |                     |
|                   |        | by species.      |                     |
+-------------------+--------+------------------+---------------------+
| GB Fixed Gear     | N      | Approval of GB   | This sector         |
| Sector            | eutral | Hook Sector      | allocation program  |
|                   | Impact |                  | is not expected to  |
|                   |        |                  | have any            |
|                   | \(0\)  |                  | significant habitat |
|                   |        |                  | impacts, especially |
|                   |        |                  | since fixed gear    |
|                   |        |                  | has been deemed not |
|                   |        |                  | to have adverse     |
|                   |        |                  | impacts on EFH.     |
+-------------------+--------+------------------+---------------------+

Table 15 - Habitat implications of Sector allocation as presented in the
Amendment 13 FEIS. Note that this table does not contemplate every
aspect of the Operations Plan. (NEFMC, Am 13 FEIS, Section 5.3.6.7)

Implementation of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would
entice more fishermen to opt into the Fixed Gear Sector. Thus, more
fishermen would be restricted to fishing only on GB, specifically in the
GB cod Hook Sector Operating Area, which is a very small sub-region of
the entire NE statistical areas. This would reduce habitat impacts in
the GOM because fewer fishermen would fish there, especially when GB is
closed during the month of May. Furthermore, this restricted fishing
would only occur with low-impact gear and would cease completely when
the TAC is achieved or DAS are exhausted.

Several specific elements of the Operations Plan that have impacts on
habitat are listed below:

(1) The hard TAC (Harvesting Rule #1) ends Fixed Gear Sector impacts on
    habitat when the allocation is caught each year. The Fixed Gear
    Sector's TAC has yet to be achieved;

(2) Monthly and weekly quota targets (Harvesting Rule #2 and #3) end
    Fixed Gear Sector impacts on habitat when the quota is caught each
    month and not adjusted. Monthly and weekly quota targets were not
    triggered in 2006;

(3) DAS allocations (Harvesting Rule #4) set an absolute maximum on
    fishing effort, and therefore habitat interaction, for the Fixed
    Gear Sector. In 2006, the Fixed Gear Sector used a total of 0.97
    DAS;

(4) Elimination of the daily trip limit for target species (Harvesting
    Rule #8) in lieu of a hard TAC may allow vessels to operate more
    efficiently and may reduce fishing time due to the achievement of
    the TAC. 6 pounds of GB cod were caught by the Fixed Gear Sector in
    2006, therefore the Fixed Gear Sector was not able to take full
    advantage of this Harvesting Rule;

(5) Gear restrictions (Harvesting Rule #9) subjects participating
    vessels to the same gillnet gear restrictions applicable to common
    pool vessels, and therefore no increased habitat impacts would
    occur. Fixed Gear Sector vessels are exempt from hook limits, in
    contrast to the 3,600 hook limit put in place in the Interim Rule
    and maintained in Amendment 13. Allowing more hooks to be deployed
    by longlines, would allow more gear to come into contact with the
    benthic habitat. This may cause a minimal disturbance, but would
    have a negligible impact on habitat because hook gear has been shown
    not to have substantial habitat impacts and because the Fixed Gear
    Sector would have effort controls and TAC related closures. Hook
    gear was not utilized in the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006, and neither
    was mobile gear. 50 anchored sink gillnets with 7-inch mesh were
    set;

(6) The GB seasonal closure/spawning season restriction (Harvesting Rule
    #10) stipulation has minimal impacts on habitat. Even though fishing
    on GB would occur during May, and then only with hook gear, any
    habitat interactions would be offset by a reduction in GOM fishing
    effort. Furthermore, because the Fixed Gear Sector is managed under
    a hard TAC based on the catch history of Fixed Gear Sector members,
    there would be no yearly net increase in habitat interactions
    resulting from implementation of the Operations Plan. The Fixed Gear
    Sector was not implemented until November 22, 2006 and therefore was
    not able to utilize the opportunity for this Harvesting Rule;

(7) The fishing area (Harvesting Rule #12) that the Fixed Gear Sector
    vessels are restricting themselves to only fishing in traditional
    areas, including traditional monkfish fishing areas. Nearly all
    Fixed Gear Sector vessels are reliant on monkfish for their fishing
    businesses and have traditionally persecuted monkfish in the
    Operating Area. Furthermore, by restricting themselves to is a
    well-defined area, the Fixed Gear Sector allowing for a
    more-accurate qualification and quantification of impacts on
    non-target species, compared to a larger, ill-defined area(s). The
    only trip taken by the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006 was within the
    Operating Area.

**Habitat Conclusions**

Based on these regulations, the limited past performance of the Fixed
Gear Sector, the small operating area relative to the entire NE and
Mid-Atlantic seaboard, the amount of Fixed Gear Sector effort relative
to the amount of effort expended by the entire New England groundfish
fleet, and the overall minimal impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector on
habitat, implementation of the Operations Plan would have positive
habitat impacts. Fixed Gear Sector operations ensure that members will
only use low-impact gear. Additionally, upon achievement of the TAC,
Fixed Gear Sector members are prevented from fishing with gear capable
of catching GB cod. This would therefore cease habitat impacts with this
and other gear types.

**4.2.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS (ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE)**

Alternative 2 would provide social benefits to the Fixed Gear Sector
members as well as to the Chatham/Harwichport, MA communities.
Chatham/Harwichport, MA is more than 71% revenue dependent on groundfish
stocks, particularly the GB cod stock. By allowing the Operations Plan
to be implemented, fishermen at the local level would be making
decisions that impact the Fixed Gear Sector members and the larger
Chatham/Harwichport community. By making collective decisions, Fixed
Gear Sector members would foster interconnectedness amongst fishermen
that would allow them to become more efficient while protecting the
fabric of the traditional fishing community.

The Operations Plan allows a range of management measures that would
make the Fixed Gear Sector economically viable for fixed gear fishermen.
By pairing hook and gillnet fishermen together in the Fixed Gear Sector,
cooperation would be maximized between the two groups.

Because fixed gear fishing is labor intensive, the Fixed Gear Sector
would ensure that shoreside jobs such as baiting remain viable
opportunities in Chatham/Harwichport. Shoreside jobs and infrastructure
are identified and characterized in Section 2.3.2 of this EA. These
opportunities would have benefits that trickle throughout the community.

Input controls, such as reduced GB cod trip limits and the GB closure in
May, have a substantial impact on the Chatham/Harwichport community. "At
the social impact informational meeting in Chatham, a few residents of
Chatham and Harwichport submitted comments reporting that they have
experienced the most substantial social impacts from the May closure on
GB to protect cod. The majority of multispecies vessels from
Chatham/Harwichport fish for GB cod and not GOM cod. The measures
proposed in Amendment 13 that are likely to impact this community group
the most are those that modify or add nearshore area closures on GB and
those that modify the GB cod trip limit" (NEFMC, AM 13 FSEIS, Sec
5.6.1.3).

The Amendment 13 FEIS concluded that negative distributional impacts
affecting Chatham/Harwichport in Amendment 13 are mitigated by Fixed
Gear Sector allocation. The input controls of Amendment 13 increased the
localized impacts experienced as a result of the Interim Rule.
Furthermore, according to the FW42 FSEIS, Chatham/Harwichport is
expected to experience the following changes in revenues for the common
pool vessels: -21% change in total revenue; -15% change in groundfish
revenue; -19% change in total revenue on groundfish trips and in
groundfish revenue; and -10% change in total. FW 42 is anticipated to
further result in a -6.5% median alternative percent change in port
total revenues, and a -6% median alternative impact on total fishing
revenue. Fixed Gear Sector management would allow for a portion of these
costs to be offset through increased efficiency and flexibility as
discussed previously.

Fixed gear fishermen and the Chatham/Harwichport area are dependent on
GB cod. Past studies have shown this dependency to be substantial (71%
revenue-dependence on GB cod). Because of this, distributional impacts
of fishery management are most severely felt in Chatham/Harwichport and
amongst fixed gear fishermen when GB cod is restricted. By implementing
the Operations Plan and allowing the benefits of community-based
management, these negative distributional impacts would be minimized or
mitigated.

By allowing fishermen to take part in localized decision-making,
fishermen maximize their opportunity to make safety-conscious decisions
and potentially save lives. This community-based management also allows
for rapid response to changing developments on the ocean. Measures such
as the individual quota and DAS usage pulse the fishery so it does not
concentrate in times of questionable weather. Having the flexibility of
the DAS redistribution/pooling stipulation leads to cooperative fishing
and allows the most tired vessels to rest at shore and fishermen to work
together to avoid bad weather instead of racing to fish. Implementation
of the Operations Plan would have major safety benefits and a positive
social impact for both the Fixed Gear Sector and Chatham/Harwichport
area when compared to what may occur under the No Action alternative.

Implementation of the Operations Plan and allocation of GB cod would
allow Fixed Gear Sector members the flexibility to implement management
measures that promote efficient methods of harvesting the GB cod
resource with fixed gear. This would allow Fixed Gear Sector members to
remain economically viable while adjusting to changing economic and
fishing conditions. By allowing the Fixed Gear Sector to create its own
input controls while staying within a hard TAC, Fixed Gear Sector
members would be able to realize greater economic returns on their
investment in the groundfishery. This is crucial, given that the FW 42
FSEIS anticipated -6.5% in total revenue for the port of Chatham as a
result of the action.

This has been very evident in the 3 years of Hook Sector operation. The
daily presence of supportive fishermen in the Sector office is a
testament to the effectiveness of this action. The socio-economic
benefits gained by the Hook Sector have convinced the GB Cod Fixed Gear
Sector to pursue this alternative. Furthermore, the NEFMC continues to
receive applications for Sector management while developing Amendment 16
(which includes the concept of Sector management). It is evident that
Sectors are gaining a stronger foothold in the region, and can be
partially attributed to the socio-economic success of the Hook Sector.

The Fixed Gear Sector is a group of self-selecting fishermen that have
come together voluntarily and cooperatively for the purpose of
efficiently harvesting an annual allocation of GB cod. By making
collective decisions, Fixed Gear Sector members have fostered an
interconnectedness amongst fishermen that has allowed them to become
more efficient while continuing to protect the fabric of the traditional
fishing community. This efficiency has materialized itself economically
and socially, as Fixed Gear fishermen are able to retain a profit margin
that they can live on, are promoting accountable management to the
region, and are maintaining their traditional fishing community in the
presence of increasing tourism and local cost-of-living increases.

Several specific elements of the Operations Plan that have social and/or
economic impacts are listed below:

(1) The hard TAC (Harvesting Rule #1) sets an absolute maximum poundage
    of GB cod that the Fixed Gear Sector can catch each year which sets
    an approximate amount of revenue a fisherman or a fishing community
    can expect for the year. Although there are times of the year when
    Fixed Gear Sector members would not be fishing, they would have
    peace of mind that comes from knowing the Fixed Gear Sector has an
    allocation and therefore, would not contribute to overfishing. This
    allocation allows individuals, businesses, and communities to
    prepare business plans and fishing plans, providing a degree of
    economic stability. Furthermore, by preventing overfishing in the
    Fixed Gear Sector, the hard TAC allows the possibility of a viable
    economic future for the fixed gear fleet. The Fixed Gear Sector's
    TAC was not achieved in 2006, but the one participating vessel can
    honestly report that it did not participate in overfishing of GB
    cod;

(2) Monthly and weekly quota targets (Harvesting Rule #2 and #3) spread
    out the catch evenly throughout the year, ensuring opportunities for
    a diverse set of fishermen, including those who, for whatever
    reason, choose to fish more intensively for GB cod at one time of
    the year or another. This would more evenly distribute the revenues
    of the Fixed Gear Sector amongst individual members as well as the
    community. In addition, this would ensure that revenues from
    groundfishing are felt year round, which would be positive for fish
    processors and other shoreside businesses. However, monthly and
    weekly quota targets were not triggered in 2006;

(3) DAS allocations (Harvesting Rule #4) set an absolute maximum on the
    amount of effort the Fixed Gear Sector can expend in attempting to
    catch the Fixed Gear Sector allocation each year. DAS restrictions
    and DAS cuts and their social impacts overall are outside the scope
    of this EA and well-documented in Amendment 13 FSEIS. For the
    purposes of this EA, usage of DAS as envisioned in the Operations
    Plan would serve to maintain the relative distribution of effort
    within the Fixed Gear Sector. Compared to the No Action alternative,
    this alternative would have positive social benefits by maintaining
    a social structure that is familiar to the community. Generally,
    fishermen who caught the most during the qualifying period and
    brought the most catch history to the Fixed Gear Sector are the same
    members who bring the most DAS to the Fixed Gear Sector. Thus,
    relative effort in the Fixed Gear Sector would be similar to what it
    was during the qualifying period. This would keep a similar economic
    hierarchy in place. In 2006, the Fixed Gear Sector used a total of
    0.97 DAS;

(4) The Fixed Gear Sector notification provision (Harvesting Rule #5)
    allows the Manager to monitor the Fixed Gear Sector members in real
    time so as to ensure that the hard TAC is not exceeded. The Sector
    had 100% compliance with this Harvesting Rule in 2006;

(5) The DAS redistribution/pooling (Harvesting Rule #6) stipulation
    allows Fixed Gear Sector members to maximize efficiency within the
    Fixed Gear Sector, creating a positive social benefit for the fleet
    and the community compared to the No Action alternative. Through
    resource sharing, the community would achieve maximum rents while
    minimizing effort in the short term. By using the resource
    cooperatively as designed in the Operations Plan, Fixed Gear Sector
    members could stay in business as GB cod stocks rebuild and the
    fleet is rationalized. As stated earlier, this would have corollary
    safety benefits. Allowing Fixed Gear Sector members the necessary
    flexibility and means to create business plans that offer a
    reasonable shot at keeping them in business while GB cod rebuilds is
    one of the underlying principles of sector allocation. The Fixed
    Gear Sector did not have the opportunity to utilize this
    opportunity, due to the singularity of its membership;

(6) The full retention (Harvesting Rule #7) requirement ensures that all
    legal-sized GB cod caught by Fixed Gear Sector members would be
    landed and counted against the Fixed Gear Sector quota. This would
    end regulatory discards of legal-sized GB cod, allowing Fixed Gear
    Sector members to maximize per trip revenue. This creates an
    economic benefit to the Fixed Gear Sector, as well as the community
    and the Nation as a whole, because America's fish would not be
    wasted. Neither regulatory discarding, nor overfishing occurred in
    the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006;

(7) Gear restrictions (Harvesting Rule #9) would ensure that Fixed Gear
    Sector members would only pursue groundfish with fixed gear. This
    would have no economic impacts for the community as a whole because
    fishermen would not change current practices. In addition, fishermen
    would not incur the cost of switching gear. In addition, exemption
    from hook limits would provide the flexibility for Fixed Gear Sector
    members to maximize revenue by bringing in more fish when the market
    is better. It would also allow fishermen to take advantage of
    temporal and seasonal opportunities to catch GB cod while avoiding
    bycatch of other species. Creating the flexibility to maximize
    revenue per trip would allow the fleet to maximize revenue while
    minimizing expenses. This would bring positive economic impacts
    compared to the No Action alternative. Hook gear was not utilized in
    the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006, and neither was mobile gear. 50
    anchored sink gillnets with 7-inch mesh were cumulatively set. Of
    the 33 participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels in 2008, it is
    anticipated that approximately 11 will only use sink gillnet gear, 1
    will use hook gear exclusively, and 21 will use both gear types at
    varying degrees.;

(8) The GB seasonal closure/spawning season restriction (Harvesting Rule
    #10) would allow Fixed Gear Sector members to catch quota in May
    using hook gear. This would keep from having the entire fleet out of
    business in May, providing a positive social and economic impact as
    fishermen have revenues. The Fixed Gear Sector was not implemented
    until November 22, 2006 and therefore was not able to utilize the
    opportunity for this Harvesting Rule;

(9) Operating within the Sector Area (Harvesting Rule #12) allows Fixed
    Gear Sector members to continue to pursue monkfish, an economic
    necessity to nearly every member, in their traditional fishing areas
    with traditional fixed gear while still maintaining accountability
    and responsibility for any legal-sized GB cod caught. The only trip
    taken by the Fixed Gear Sector in 2006 was within the Operating
    Area.

**Social and Economic Conclusions**

Compared with the No Action alternative, Alternative 2 would have
positive social impacts for the GB Fixed Sear Sector and the
Chatham/Harwichport area. Both Sectors and SAPs can partially mitigate
the negative social and economic impacts of effort reductions associated
with on-going rebuilding timeframes. Targeting healthier stocks while
limiting impact on less healthy stocks, and providing flexibility for
fishing businesses, can be achieved.

Based on these regulations, past performance of the Fixed Gear Sector,
and the overall-minimal but locally-substantial positive socio-economic
benefits gained by Fixed Gear Sector participation, implementation of
the Operations Plan would provide safety benefits as well as regulatory
flexibility that would allow cooperative harvest and the maximization of
economic opportunity. Implementation of the Operations Plan and
allocation of GB cod would allow the Fixed Gear Sector the flexibility
it needs to maximize revenues while minimizing expenses in the short
term. It would allow Chatham/Harwichport to remain in the commercial
groundfish business and benefit from the rebuilding of the groundfish
resource.

**4.3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT (EFH)**

[Description of Action]{.underline}

The "Preferred Alternative" is implementation of FW 42 and submission
and approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan. The Fixed
Gear Sector is a group of self-selecting fishermen that have come
together voluntarily and cooperatively for the purposes of efficiently
harvesting an annual allocation of GB cod using low-impact hook gear and
sink gillnets in the GB Cod Hook Sector Operating Area. The Fixed Gear
Sector would operate under a hard TAC of GB cod to meet the overfishing
mandates of the SFA amendment to the Magnuson Act.

The "No Action Alternative" is the implementation of the GB Cod Fixed
Gear Sector Allocation without submission or approval of neither the
Operations Plan nor any modified Operations Plan. While the Fixed Gear
Sector would be available under this alternative, all vessels would opt
to remain in the Common Pool and fish under the regulations implemented
in Amendment 13 and subsequent FW adjustments to the NE Multispecies
FMP. Therefore, no allocation of GB cod would be made to the Fixed Gear
Sector and the fishermen would not be restricted by area or gear type.

The Proposed Action is not expected to allow substantial damage to the
ocean and coastal habitats and/or EFH as defined under the Magnuson Act
and identified in the FMP.

[Assessing Potential Adverse Impacts on EFH]{.underline}

Given the fact that the habitat impact analysis in Section 4.2.2 shows
that there are no adverse habitat impacts associated with this action,
an EFH Assessment is unnecessary.

**4.4 IMPACTS TO MARINE MAMMALS, ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES, AND
OTHER PROTECTED RESOURCES**

In the NE region, marine mammals, endangered, and protected species
utilize marine habitats to feed, reproduce, and utilize as nursery areas
and migratory corridors. Some species occupy these areas year-round
while others use these regions only seasonally or move traverse inshore
and offshore waters. Due to the overlap between ecological niche and
commercial fishing operations, these species occasionally interact with
fixed gear. Species that are known to have interacted with the longline
and/or gillnet fisheries in the proposed area are as follows:
Bottlenose, Common, Risso's, and White-Sided dolphin; Fin, Humpback,
Canadian East Coast Minke, Pilot, and North Atlantic Right whale; Harbor
Porpoise; Gray, Hooded, Harbor, and Harp seal; Leatherback, Kemp's
Ridley, Green, and Loggerhead turtle. The status of these species
inhabiting the Northwest Atlantic, not including turtle species, 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.* (2005).

The Northeast/Mid Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line fishery is
currently listed in Category III of the Proposed LOF. In addition, the
Northeast sink gillnet fishery is currently listed in Category I of the
Proposed LOF. Interactions between the aforementioned species and fixed
gear include getting caught on hooks (longline gear), entanglement in
mesh (gillnet fishery), entanglement in float line (gillnet fishery),
entanglement in groundline (gillnet and longline fisheries),
entanglement in anchor line (gillnet and longline fisheries), or
entanglement in vertical lines that connect the gear to the surface
(gillnet and longline fisheries).

The Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line fishery
recorded no incidental injuries or deaths of any endangered marine
mammals, seals, or sea turtles in the MMPA LOF for 2005 or 2006 for the
proposed area. Additionally, the NE Fisheries Observer Program Annual
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Incidental Take Report, zero incidental
takes of marine mammals, seals, or sea turtles occurred with bottom
longline gear in 2005 and 2006 in the proposed area.

According to the LOF, the list of marine mammals incidentally killed or
injured in the NE sink gillnet fishery in 2005 and 2006 included
Offshore Bottlenose, Common, Risso's, and White-sided dolphin; Fin,
Minke, Humpback, and North Atlantic Right whales; Gray, Harbor, Harp,
and Hooded seals; and Harbor porpoise. The NE Fisheries Observer Program
Annual Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Incidental Take Reports indicate
that 177 marine mammal and 2 turtle interactions occurred in 2005, and
70 marine mammal and 0 turtle interactions in 2006.

Given the low occurrence of loggerheads and leatherbacks and the rarity
of green, Kemp's ridley, and hawksbill turtles in the NE region, it is
unlikely that the proposed action would have any adverse impact on
ESA-listed or other sea turtles.

Over time limited access as well as a cap on landings and effort should
contribute toward a reduction in marine mammal interactions, and harbor
porpoise specifically. Additionally, less gillnet fishing, provided that
effort does not simply shift, may have a direct positive impact on
achieving the PBR goals for endangered whales. Based on information
collected in similar fisheries, the major gear types used in the
monkfish fishery appear to have few interactions with sea turtles,
although it must be acknowledged there is little or no information
available from the Southern Management Area where such occurrences are
likely to take place (NEFMC, Monkfish FMP).

According to Waring et. al. (2005), effort patterns in sink gillnet
fisheries within the proposed area are heavily influenced by pinger
requirements, marine mammal time/area closures, fish time/area closures,
and gear restrictions due to fish conservation measures, the ALWTRP, and
the HPTRP. Effort patterns in bottom longline fisheries result from fish
time/area closures, gear restrictions, the ALWTRP, and the HPTRP. These
controls would further assist the Fixed Gear Sector in monitoring and
ultimately reducing its interactions with marine mammals, endangered,
threatened, or protected species.

Although marine mammals often frequent the proposed area and can
interact with fixed gear, the Fixed Gear Sector is not expected to
increase their interactions with these marine mammals. The Fixed Gear
Sector anticipates using DAS and a hard TAC of GB cod (to cap effort),
full retention of legal-sized GB cod (to eliminate discards and increase
efficiency) and Fixed Gear Sector management (to respond in near-real
time to constantly changing species interactions) as some of the tools
to minimize the potential for protected species interactions.
Furthermore, by increasing the Fixed Gear Sector's efficiency, fixed
gear soak times are predicted to decrease; by increasing their operating
efficiency, fixed gear would remain in the water less time than it would
under common pool rules, thereby reducing the potential interactions
with protected species. Thus, the Fixed Gear Sector anticipates a
decreasing rate of interactions with marine mammals, endangered or
threatened species, and other protected resources.

The Fixed Gear Sector would continue to operate in a traditional manner
in a traditional fishing area. However, by operating under a hard TAC
rather than a daily trip limit (current management), the Fixed Gear
Sector may be able to harvest their allocation of GB cod more
efficiently and in less time. If this occurs, it is likely to decrease
the potential for interactions with protected species. Finally, the
ability of the Manager to monitor the Fixed Gear Sector in near-real
time is the basis for its effectiveness and a model for regional
fisheries management. Through daily communication with the Fixed Gear
Sector members, the Manager has the ability and authority to implement
further gear and area restrictions if interactions with protected
species can't be avoided.

**5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

The term "cumulative effects" is defined in the Council of Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) regulations in 40 CFR Part 1508.7 as:

> The impact on the environment which results from the incremental
> impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
> foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
> non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

In 1997, the CEQ published a handbook titled "Considering Cumulative
Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act." The CEQ identified
the following eight principles of cumulative effects analysis, which
should be considered in the discussion of the cumulative effects of the
Proposed Action:

1.  Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past, present, and
    reasonably foreseeable future actions;

2.  Cumulative effects are the total effect, including both direct and
    indirect efforts, on a given resource, ecosystem, and human
    community of all actions taken, no matter who (federal, non-federal,
    or private) has taken the actions;

3.  Cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific
    resource, ecosystem, and human community being affected;

4.  It is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action
    on the universe; the list of environmental effects must focus on
    those that are truly meaningful;

5.  Cumulative effects on a given resource, ecosystem, and human
    community are rarely aligned with political or administrative
    boundaries;

6.  Cumulative effects may result from the accumulation of similar
    effects or the synergistic interaction of different effects;

7.  Cumulative effects may last for many years beyond the life of the
    action that caused the effects;

8.  Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be
    analyzed in terms of its capacity to accumulate additional effects,
    based on its own space and time parameters.

Table 17 provides an overview of the qualitative comparative impacts of
the proposed alternative in relation to the No Action alternative. Much
of the cumulative effects outlined therein and related below are
derivative of the detailed Environmental Impacts sections of this
document (Section 4) and the cumulative impacts discussion in the
Amendment 13 FSEIS (the most recent FSEIS). The analyses that follow are
qualitative in nature.

**5.1 VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS (VECs)**

This EA was structured such that the cumulative effects can be readily
identified by analyzing the impacts on valued ecosystem components
(VECs). For actions prior to Amendment 13, the VECs used were Resource,
Habitat, and Community Benefits. For Amendment 13 and later actions, the
following VECs are used:

1.  Regulated groundfish stocks (target and non-target);

2.  Non-groundfish species (incidental catch and bycatch);

3.  Endangered and other protected species;

4.  Habitat, including non-fishing effects;

5.  Human communities and the fishery, including the economics of the
    fishery and fishing communities

VECs represent the resources, areas, and human communities that may be
affected by a proposed action or alternatives and by other actions that
have occurred or will occur outside the proposed action. The range of
VECs chosen (target species, non-target species, protected species,
habitat and human communities) was limited to those for which a
reasonable likelihood of meaningful impacts is expected. This is based
on the environmental components that have historically been impacted by
fishing, and statutory requirements to complete assessments of these
factors under the Magnuson Act, ESA, MMPA, RFA, and several EOs. The
VECs are intentionally broad to allow for flexibility in assessing all
potential environmental factors that are likely to be impacted by the
action.

While subsistence fishing would ordinarily fall under the human
communities VEC, no subsistence fishing or Native American treaty
fishing occur in the area managed under this FMP. Further, vessels
participating in the groundfish fishery must comply with all federal air
quality (engine emissions) and marine pollution regulations. Therefore,
the management measures contained in this action would not likely result
in any additional impact to air or marine water quality and thus, are
not considered as a VEC in this analysis.

**5.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL SCOPE**

Since Alternative 1 is a continuation of the input controls that have
evolved since Amendment 5, the temporal scope of the cumulative effects
assessment begins in 1994 with the implementation of the DAS system. The
following sections are excerpted in part from FW42 to the NE
Multispecies FMP and Amendment 11 to the Scallop FMP.

While the effects of historical fisheries are considered, the temporal
scope of past and present actions for regulated groundfish stocks,
non-groundfish species, habitat and the human environment is primarily
focused on actions that have taken place since implementation of the
initial NE Multispecies FMP in 1977. An assessment using this timeframe
demonstrates the changes to resources and the human environment that
have resulted through management under the NEFMC process and through
U.S. prosecution of the fisheries, rather than foreign fleets. For
endangered and other protected species, the context is largely focused
on the 1980s and 1990s, when NOAA Fisheries Service began generating
stock assessments for marine mammals and turtles that inhabit waters of
the U.S. EEZ.

The geographic scope of the analysis of impacts is the defined in
Section 2.2 as the Sector Operating Area, and the communities of Chatham
and Harwichport, MA, as described in the Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences sections of the document (Section 2.0). The
geographic boundaries of the management area are defined as straight
lines connecting the following waypoints (except for the east-facing
shoreline of the U.S.): (1) 70°00' W latitude and the east facing
shoreline of Cape Cod, MA; (2) 70°00' W latitude and 42°20' N longitude;
(3) 42°20' N longitude and 67°18.4' \[the U.S. Canada Maritime
Boundary\]; (4) follow the U.S. EEZ boundary south to 39°00' N
longitude; (5) 39°00' N longitude and 71°40' W latitude; (6) 71°40' W
latitude and the south-facing shoreline of Rhode Island.

In terms of future actions, the analysis examines the period between
implementation and expiration of this annual EA (the 2007 FY: May 1,
2008 to April 30, 2009). As mandated in Amendment 13, Sectors must
comply with NEPA and submit an Operations Plan to the RO on an annual
basis. As such, the scope of the Operations Plan is one fishing year;
however, due to the constantly changing regulatory environment, the EA
must look forward to the reasonably foreseeable future actions of NOAA
Fisheries Service and the NEFMC and attempt to analyze, to the extent
practicable, the potential impacts they may have on the Fixed Gear
Sector within the 2007FY and beyond.

**5.3 Past, Present and Reasonably ForEseeable Future Actions**

**5.3.1 Target and Non-Target Species**

The following summarizes the past and present cumulative impacts to
target and non-target species, including a portion of the discussion
that was included in the Amendment 13 FEIS and the FW 42 EA.

**[Analysis of the Past and Present Fishery Management
Actions]{.underline}**

Although management measures for groundfish were first enacted for the
EEZ in 1977 under the original Groundfish FMP, the dramatic increase in
larger vessels, bigger gear and electronic aids such as fishfinders and
navigation equipment contributed to a greater efficiency and intensity
of fishing, which in turn resulted in a precipitous drop in landings
during the 1980s to an all-time low in the early 1990s. The following
discussion is limited to those past management actions thought to have
had the greatest impact on the New England groundfish fishery, habitat,
protected resources and human environment for the purposes of this
cumulative impacts assessment: Amendments 5, 7 and 13 to the FMP; the
1994 Emergency Action; Framework Adjustments 9, 40A, 40B, 41, and 42 to
the FMP; and the Interim Actions of 2002.

To end overfishing and address the severe decline in the groundfish
resources and the influx of more and larger vessels, the Council
developed Amendment 5 to the FMP. This action, which became effective in
1994, implemented a moratorium on permits, as well as an effort-control
program that proposed to reduce a vessel's DAS by 50% over a 5-7 year
period. Amendment 5, thus, was the first action to restrict both access
and effort in the multispecies fishery.

Despite implementation of Amendment 5, stocks continued to decline
rapidly. In response, the NEFMC requested that NOAA Fisheries Service
implement an emergency action to close, on a year-round basis, three
large areas to all vessels capable of catching groundfish (Closed Area
I, Closed Area II, and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area). NOAA
Fisheries Service implemented the emergency action to close these three
areas in December of 1994. These closure areas are thought to have had a
major beneficial effect on groundfish stocks, as they afforded
protection over large areas and for extended amounts of time. Indirect
benefits to other species accrued from these closures as well, such as
the protection of sea scallops. Although there were large benefits
attributed to these closures, it is important to note that they may have
had a negative effect on other groundfish stocks as vessels moved
elsewhere to fish. Framework 9, implemented in 1995, extended the
emergency action permanently and also implemented measures to reduce the
discard of groundfish by vessels fishing directing on non-groundfish
species.

Amendment 7, implemented in 1996, accelerated the Amendment 5 DAS
effort-reduction schedule and further reduced the bycatch of regulated
multispecies. Similar to Amendment 5, the FSEIS for Amendment 7
specified that this action was expected to have a substantial impact on
a substantial number of small entities in the short-term, with higher,
long-term benefits accruing to the industry and to the Nation. However,
the combination of Amendments 5 and 7 to the FMP and Framework 9 reduced
fishing effort substantially and provided large areas of year-round
protection, especially on Georges Bank, for several species of
groundfish. In response, the status of several groundfish stocks has
improved over the past several years and landings increased as a result.

Following Amendment 7, several framework adjustments were implemented,
adding further restrictions to the groundfish fishery. While the
combination of measures implemented since the adoption of Amendment 5
improved stock status (increasing biomass and reducing fishing
mortality) for many stocks, the improvement has not been achieved for
all stocks.

In response to a Federal Court decision in the case of *Conservation Law
Foundation, et al. V. Evans, et al*., NOAA Fisheries Service, in May and
August 2002, implemented management measures consistent with a
Settlement Agreement through an interim final rule. Measures contained
in the interim rule included a considerable reduction of DAS; increased
gear restrictions for certain gear types, including gillnets, hook-gear,
and trawl nets; modifications and additions to the closure areas; limits
on yellowtail flounder catch; and more restrictive recreational fishing
measures. It was projected that continuation of the Settlement Agreement
for the duration of the 2003 fishing year would result in a 25-35%
reduction in fishing effort, further protect several groundfish species,
most notably GOM cod, and increase the likelihood of timely stock
rebuilding.

Amendment 13, implemented on May 1, 2004, superseded the Settlement
Agreement and adopted major changes to groundfish management. The
analysis contained in the Amendment 13 FEIS predicted the following
impacts (described in detail in the amendment document):

1.  For regulated stocks, an end to overfishing for all groundfish
    stocks, to rebuild overfished stocks by 2014 for most stocks (2018
    for CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, 2026 for GB cod, and 2047 for
    redfish), reduce discards due to the adoption of an increased mesh
    size and create opportunities for groundfish vessels to target
    healthy stocks (SAPS);

2.  For other stocks, reduce the bycatch of skates, dogfish and monkfish
    as a result of effort reductions;

3.  No specific measures to protect endangered and other protected
    species were adopted however, effort reductions for regulated and
    other stocks would have negligible or possibly beneficial impacts;

4.  Specific measures to protect habitat included the adoption of areas
    closed to mobile gear, further benefits could also result from
    effort reductions on regulated and other stocks;

5.  Short-term reductions in revenue would have negative impacts on
    fishing communities, but over the period of the rebuilding program
    revenues would increase, however, there was considerable uncertainty
    over whether current fishery participants would benefit from
    rebuilding.

Multispecies FW 40A, implemented November 19, 2004, created three
opportunities for groundfish vessels to target healthy stocks. These
included a pilot project SAP to target haddock in the Eastern U.S/Canada
area, a SAP for GB Cod Hook Sector vessels to target haddock in CAI, and
a Category B (regular) DAS pilot program that allows vessels to target
healthy stocks in all areas while using Category B DAS (DAS that cannot
be used outside these programs). All three programs were designed so
that they would not threaten the mortality targets adopted by Amendment
13. This was accomplished by establishing incidental catch TACs for
stocks of concern and requiring that the various programs end when these
TACs are caught.

FW 40A has had a positive biological impact as the Hook Sector used
approximately 200 DAS targeting GB haddock rather then GB cod while
fishing in the SAP.  During the SAP, Hook Sector vessels averaged
approximately 100 pounds of GB cod per trip, substantially less than the
expected catch when targeting GB cod on a DAS. FW 40A has had a positive
economic impact by creating an opportunity for the Hook Sector to target
haddock in a manner and area not experienced before. This directed
fishery landed approximately 209,000 pounds of haddock and approximately
12,000 pounds of cod, generating revenue during a time of year that does
not normally do so. FW 40A has had a positive social impact as Hook
Sector members have come together to work towards ways to cooperatively
harvest the haddock resource and to create branding and marketing
opportunities.  This industry cooperation would expand as the non-Hook
Sector vessels join the Hook Sector in fishing in the SAP.

Multispecies FW 40B, effective in June 1, 2005, implemented management
measures to improve the effectiveness of the effort control program
implemented under Amendment 13, created additional opportunities to
target healthy stocks and increased information available to assess
groundfish bycatch in the herring fishery. The measures implemented
under FW 40B were not expected to increase effort on groundfish species
of concern nor threaten the mortality targets adopted by Amendment 13.

FW 40B had negligible biological impacts. While it allowed non-hook GB
cod landings history in the Hook Sector, the overall allocation for the
Hook Sector did not change as no additional history was included.  As
such, FW 40B did not affect Hook Sector landings and therefore had
negligible economic impacts.

Multispecies FW 41, effective September 14, 2005, revised the Closed
Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP rules to allow for participation by
non-Hook Sector vessels. As a result, FW 41 resulted in the decline of
catch and consequently revenue (approximately \$2.9M in FY2004 and
approximately \$2.2M in FY2005) to the GB Hook Sector membership;
however, socioeconomic gains to non-Hook Sector members offset this. The
intent of this program is to help mitigate the economic and social
impacts caused by the fishing effort reductions that resulted from the
implementation of Amendment 13.

FW 41 had negligible biological impacts.  The Hook Sector caught
approximately 1.05 million pounds of haddock in the SAP in FY2004 and
caught approximately 1 million pounds in the SAP in FY2005, and
approximately 149,000 pounds in the SAP in FY2006. Despite the fact that
this increased mortality occurred, it was offset by the relatively
minimal amount of haddock catch generated relative to the haddock
biomass. FW 41 had a positive economic benefit as the Hook Sector
created a cooperative harvest and marketing plan by splitting the season
in half, sharing the opportunity and the TAC of haddock with non-Hook
Sector members. As a result, FW 41 resulted in the decline of catch and
consequently revenue (approximately \$2.9M in FY2004 and approximately
\$2.2M in FY2005) to the GB Hook Sector membership; but it generated
revenue for Non-Hook Sector members. The towns of Chatham and Harwich
realized positive benefits. FW 41 also had positive social benefits, as
it increased cooperative harvesting and internal controls offer
mitigation of safety, logistical and shoreside support issues resulting
from a potential derby fishery. 

Because implementation of FW 42 was delayed beyond the start of the 2006
fishing year (May 1, 2006), an Emergency Action was implemented on or
around the beginning of the fishing year and remained in place until
superseded by FW 42. The primary purpose of the Emergency Action was to
reduce mortality on several groundfish stocks that are not achieving
target F levels for 2006. These mortality reductions would be in
addition to the Amendment 13 default measures (revision of the DAS
category A:B ratio from 60:40 to 55:45 and differential DAS counting in
the SNE/MA RMA at a rate of 1.5:1) which became effective on May 1,
2006.

Multispecies FW 42, effective November 22, 2006, implemented a number of
regulations including the following: maintain the Amendment 13 default
DAS reductions for the 2006 fishing year; specify target TACs and
Incidental Catch TACs for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 fishing years;
implement a VMS requirement for NE multispecies DAS vessels; implement
differential DAS counting in specific areas of the GOM and SNE;
implement new commercial trip limits for several NE multispecies; renew
and modify the Regular B DAS Program, including the rules pertaining to
monkfish vessels; renew and modify the Eastern U.S./ Canada Haddock SAP;
renew the DAS Leasing Program; modify the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP;
provide flexibility for vessels to fish inside and outside of the
Eastern U.S./Canada Management Area on the same trip; modify reporting
requirements for Special Management Programs; modify the DAS Transfer
Program; modify the trawl codend mesh size requirement in the SNE RMA;
modify the RA's authority to adjust certain possession limits; and
modify the recreational possession restrictions and size limits for GOM
cod. Most importantly, it implemented the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
operations plan, and set the stage for where we are today.

FW 42 has positive biological impacts on groundfish stocks by relieving
fishing pressure to meet stock rebuilding objectives.  The Fixed Gear
Sector is limited by DAS and a hard TAC on GB cod, as is the Hook
Sector. The reductions of FW 42 (including reduced trip limits and 2:1
differential DAS counting) were driven by the need to reduce effort upon
yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder and white hake stocks. Other
stocks requiring reductions were not part of the approved GB Hook Sector
operations area. Previous landings data and the Hook Sector's own
landings database show that in FY2004 the Hook Sector landed a total of
7 pounds of yellowtail which was 0.0000005% of the total landings. The
catch rates of other non-target species by the Hook Sector were low
(\>1%). The Hook Sectors catch of GB winter flounder was 0.0002% and
white hake 0.003% of total catch for fishing year 2004-2005. In FY 2005,
the Hook Sector landed 6 pounds of yellowtail, 1,626 pounds of winter
flounder, and 26,316 pounds of white hake. In 2006, the Hook Sector
landed 32 pounds of yellowtail, 1,435 pounds of winter flounder, and
9,416 pounds of white hake. As such, the Hook Sector requested, and
received exemption from changes in DAS use rates implemented to protect
yellowtail, white hake and GB winter flounder. The Fixed Gear Sector is
developing such databases for to quantify its impacts on the SOCs and
potentially make similar requests for exemptions in the future. FW 42
had a negative impact on Hook Sector participants wishing to harvest
primary target species, and for the newly-formed Fixed Gear Sector
participants as well. Reductions in DAS continue to limit the efficiency
of all Sector vessels and subsequently their revenue. Rising cost of
fuel (for both Hook and Fixed Gear Sectors) and bait (for the Hook
Sector) reduce profitability as well. FW 42 resulted in positive social
benefits to the Chatham and Harwich communities with the approval of the
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, another group of local fishermen coming under
a hard TAC. By working closely with the Hook Sector, the Fixed Gear
Sector participants foster an environment of cohesiveness and
accountability within the Chatham/Harwichport community across gear
types. A net increase in GB cod managed under a true hard TAC system
improves the likelihood that the GB cod stock would stabilize and
eventually rebuild. The premise of the two sectors is that a healthy GB
cod stock equals a healthy coastal community.

Framework 43 to the Multispecies FMP established a bycatch TAC for
haddock caught by herring fishing vessels. The bycatch TAC would be
comprised of 0.2 percent of the GOM and GB haddock TAC combined. The
amendment would also permit herring vessels to possess no more than 100
pounds of all other species of groundfish combined. Because the Herring
Amendment was not implemented until this current fishing year, these
bycatch provisions were submitted as a separate management action and
were implemented during the summer, 2006.

**[Other FMPs Past and Present Actions]{.underline}**

Other recent management actions that affect groundfish include the
adoption of Scallop Amendment 10 and Scallop FW 16/Multispecies FW 39.
Scallop Amendment 10, implemented on June 23, 2004, established a
rotational management system for the scallop fishery that opens and
closes areas that were permanently closed (CA I, CA II and NLSCA) to
groundfish and scallop fishing. Although this system permits scallop
vessels to fish in areas that were closed to protect groundfish
spawning, vessels are not allowed into the areas during peak spawning
periods. Further, the portions of the areas that have been opened
primarily consist of sandy substrate, which recovers quickly from
disturbances. Therefore, impacts to groundfish stocks or EFH are
expected to be minimal and temporary in nature, respectively.

Framework 16/39, implemented November 2, 2004, defined the requirements
for extending scallop fishery area management into the groundfish
mortality closed areas. Scallop dredges have historically caught
groundfish. Therefore, FW 16/39 placed caps on the amount of yellowtail
flounder that can be caught inside groundfish mortality closed areas
(ten percent of the GB yellowtail and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder target
TACs), and the retention of cod was restricted to 100 lbs. (45.4 kg.) of
cod per trip for personal use. These measures further mitigated impacts
to groundfish as a result of he scallop rotational management system.

The primary intent of Scallop Framework 17 was to provide more complete
monitoring of the general category scallop fleet and it was not
anticipated that the action would impact the multispecies fishery.

Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP, effective March 12, 2007, prohibited
mid-water trawl gear from the GOM (Area 1A) from June 1 through
September 30. In addition, the amendment establishes a limited access
program; an open access incidental catch permit; a change in the
management area boundaries; establishment of a purse seine/fixed
gear-only area; establishment of a MSY proxy; an approach to determining
the distribution of area-specific TACs; a multi-year specifications
process; a research quota set-aside for herring-related research; a
set-aside for fixed gear fisheries; a change in the midwater trawl gear
definition; and additional measures that could be implemented through
the framework adjustment process. This amendment would likely have only
minimal positive impacts to the groundfish resource.

**Annual TAC Adjustment for the U.S./Canada Management Area under the NE
Multispecies FMP**

This action established TACs for Georges Bank cod, haddock and
yellowtail flounder for the 2006 fishing year (May 1, 2006, through
April 30, 2007) in accordance with the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing
Understanding. The proposed 2006 TACs for haddock and yellowtail
flounder are lower than the TACs adopted for the 2005 fishing year
(haddock reduced by 1% and yellowtail flounder reduced by 51%). However,
the proposed 2006 TAC for cod would increase by 44%. Although the
increase in the cod TAC would provide vessels fishing in the Eastern
U.S./Canada Area additional fishing opportunities, should the yellowtail
flounder TAC be attained first, it would likely curtail harvest of the
full cod quota.

This action would also specify target TACs for all groundfish stocks and
incidental catch TACs for stocks of concern. The purpose of these
measures is to provide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the
management measures and to limit the impact of special programs (e.g.,
SAPs) on stocks of concern, respectively. Overall, it is expected that
this action will help ensure that the Amendment 13 mortality objectives
are not threatened.

**EFPs**

Under the Magnuson Act, NOAA Fisheries Service is authorized to require
permits for experimental fishing activities. There are several ongoing
programs that coordinate and fund experiments that test fishing gear or
fishing operations. Many of these experiments are designed to identify
ways to target healthy groundfish stocks and could lead to the future
development of SAPs or other Category B DAS programs that are authorized
by Amendment 13. As a result, the experiments often catch regulated
groundfish and request an exemption from existing regulations. NOAA
Fisheries Service reviews these requests and grants approved experiments
an EFP. However, to constrain mortality, NOAA Fisheries Service often
requires some of these experiments to use Category A DAS so that
mortality falls within the range of impacts analyzed by Amendment 13 and
subsequent framework actions. Although the Groundfish PDT has noted that
the expected 2004 catches of GB cod and CC/GOM yellowtail flounder were
high enough to cause concern, when approving EFPs, NOAA Fisheries
Service works to ensure that the experiments do not threaten Amendment
13 mortality objectives.

**Monkfish Framework 4**

Monkfish Framework 4, effective October 22, 2007, was developed to
facilitate rebuilding of this stock since stock size is not increasing
consistent with the original rebuilding plan. This action: set target
TACs, trip limits, incidental limits, and DAS for both management areas;
re-established the provision for carryover DAS; established a target TAC
overage backstop provision; revised the boundary line for Category H
permit holders; established trip limits for Category F vessels, and will
extend measures beyond FY2009 if necessary. Overall, it is expected that
this action will help ensure that the Amendment 13 mortality objectives
are not threatened

**Amendment 11 to the Scallop FMP**

The NEFMC initiated development of Amendment 11 to revise management
measures for the General Category Scallop Fishery. Many multispecies
vessels have General Category Scallop permits, and many groundfish boats
have supplemented reduced groundfish income by entering this fishery.
While alternatives have not yet been developed for this action, it is
likely that additional constraints will be placed on this fishery that
will place limits on the catch or participation in this fishery, though
it is not yet clear where those limits will be set and whether they will
be reductions from current levels. As a result, this action could impact
groundfish fishermen who are affected by the effort reductions in FW 42
and may limit opportunities in the scallop fishery for those permit
holders. This would be unlikely to have an impact on groundfish
resources but may have negative impacts on groundfish fishing port
groups.

**[Reasonably-Foreseeable Future Actions]{.underline}**

Amendment 16 to the Multispecies FMP, expected May 1, 2009, will revise
the current DAS system, evaluate rebuilding program adjustments,
determine reference point review/adjustments, address recreational
allocations, research set-aside program for groundfish stocks
scallop/multispecies limited access permit provisions, and general
category scallop monkfish trip limits. Additionally, Amendment 16 will
address Sector allocations. Roughly 19 Sector applications were
submitted in April of 2007 for review in the Amendment. As such, at the
time of writing, the NEFMC is addressing issues of monitoring,
allocation, and trading. While it is still too early to determine what
effects Amendment 16 and the 19 Sector applications will have on the
Preferred Alternative, it is anticipated that DAS management will
continue to be ratcheted downwards and become increasingly inefficient.
However, increased participation in Sectors will have New England-wide
positive effects on the biological, habitat, and socio-economic aspects
of the region's multispecies fishery. This will be ensured through an
increased and more-robust monitoring plan; without such a plan, a
network of Sectors will fail to achieve these targets.

Monkfish Framework 5, initiated on November 6, 2007, will incorporate
the most recent 2007 trawl survey data into the analysis, and is
expected to be implemented in 2008. However, it is too early to tell
exactly what the resulting analysis will be and when exactly it will be
implemented. Therefore, it is difficult to gauge the impact to/from the
Proposed Action.

**[Summary of Impacts]{.underline}**

The cumulative impacts of past and present management actions have
resulted in substantial effort reductions in the multispecies fishery.
Although this has benefited some stocks (GB haddock), rebuilding has
been slow for others (GB and GOM cod, CC/GOM, GB and SNE/MA yellowtail
flounder, GB and SNE/MA winter flounder and white hake). Of the 19
stocks currently managed under the FMP, only 5 are not overfished and
overfishing is not occurring; 8 stocks, including GB cod, are
experiencing both overfishing and are overfished. It is anticipated that
effort reductions implemented under Amendment 13, FW 42, and subsequent
framework or future actions would end overfishing for all stocks, while
also creating new opportunities for groundfish vessels to target healthy
stocks. With the approval of FW 42, the Fixed Gear Sector joins the Hook
Sector in bringing up to 40% of the GB cod stock under a hard TAC and
preventing overfishing from occurring on this portion of the entire GB
cod stock. Furthermore, the effort control measures implemented in FW42
for the Common Pool vessels (including DAS revisions) are intended to
prevent overfishing on GB cod and other non-target species.

While the effects of historical fisheries are considered, the temporal
scope of past and present actions for regulated groundfish stocks,
non-groundfish species, habitat and the human environment is primarily
focused on actions that have taken place since implementation of the
initial NE Multispecies FMP in 1977. An assessment using this timeframe
demonstrates the changes to resources and the human environment that
have resulted through management under the NEFMC process and through
U.S. prosecution of the fisheries, rather than foreign fleets. For
endangered and other protected species, the context is largely focused
on the 1980s and 1990s, when NOAA Fisheries Service began generating
stock assessments for marine mammals and turtles that inhabit waters of
the U.S. EEZ. In terms of future actions, the analysis examines the
period between implementation and expiration of this annual EA (the 2007
FY: May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009). The geographic scope of the analysis
of impacts is the defined in Section 2.2 as the Sector Operating Area,
and the communities of Chatham and Harwichport, MA, as described in the
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the
document (Section 4.0).

Sectors and SAPs are two examples of positive biological
accomplishments. Even though GB cod is overfished and experiencing
overfishing, mechanisms (Sector Operation Plans) are in place to ensure
that a portion (up to 40%) of the stock will not experience overfishing.
Some stocks have decreased; but some (haddock and redfish) are
rebounding. Overall, past and present fisheries actions have had a
slight positive effect. Amendment 13 initiated a rebuilding program,
which is maintained in future frameworks. Mortality on most groundfish
stocks continues to be reduced, resulting in, for some stocks, a more
rapid rebuilding timeframe than projected by Amendment 13. Additionally,
reductions in effort will reduce interactions between groundfish
operations and other stocks. Bycatch-reducing measures, including mesh
size requirements, sidebar TACs, and gear selectivity requirements, may
also be adopted in other actions. Furthermore, reasonably foreseeable
future actions are difficult to predict outside of the groundfish FMP.
Amendment 16 is anticipated to incorporate additional Sector Operations
Plans, which will bring hard-TAC accountability and reduce overfishing
if monitored properly. Further DAS (effort) cuts are expected, and an
additional GARM will be announced. It is anticipated that the biological
effects of these actions are expected to be positive; however, it is too
early to determine with any substantial reliance.

**5.3.2 PROTECTED SPECIES**

The following summarizes the past and present cumulative impacts to
protected species, including a portion of the discussion that was
included in the Amendment 13 FEIS and the FW 42 EA.

Large 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. Ship strikes and fishing gear
entanglement continue to be the most likely sources of injury or
mortality for the right, humpback, fin and minke whales. Gear
entanglement occurs in the vertical buoy lines of sink gillnet and
pot/trap gear, the groundlines of pot/trap gear, and also in the net
panels of gillnet gear. Sei, blue and sperm whales are also vulnerable,
but fewer ship strikes or entanglements have been recorded. Mobile
bottom trawls are less of a concern for the large whale species. Other
marine mammals, such as harbor porpoise, dolphins and seals, are also
vulnerable to entanglement in net gear (including seines, gillnets and
drift nets).

Low frequency sonar may pose an additional threat, although the extent
of its continued use by the U.S. military is presently unclear. A
successful lawsuit brought by environmental groups limited the use of
such sonar following a number of marine mammal deaths in the vicinity of
naval exercises in several places around the world. A recent
modification to the MMPA could override the lawsuit settlement agreement
since it provides for a national security exemption in some
circumstances and focuses on the "likelihood" of substantial disruptions
to behavior critical to survival rather than the "potential."

The potential impact of pollution is more likely problematic in
nearshore areas closer to the source, such as agricultural and urban
runoff and sewer outfalls. Nutrients can also promote toxic
phytoplankton blooms, which have been known or suspected in killing
whales and other marine mammals.

Turtles have been entangled in shrimp trawls, pound nets, bottom trawls
and sink gillnets. Shrimp trawls are required to use turtle excluder
devices. The diversity of the sea turtle life history also leaves them
susceptible to many other human impacts, including impacts on land, in
the benthic environment, and in the pelagic environment. Anthropogenic
factors that negatively impact the success of nesting and hatching
include: beach erosion, beach armoring and nourishment; artificial
lighting; beach cleaning; increased human presence; recreational beach
equipment; beach driving; coastal construction and fishing piers; exotic
dune and beach vegetation; and poaching. An increased human presence at
some nesting beaches or close to nesting beaches has led to secondary
threats such as the introduction of exotic fire ants, and an increased
presence of native species (e.g., raccoons, armadillos, and opossums)
which raid and feed on turtle eggs. Entanglements in debris or ingestion
of marine debris are also seen as possible threats.

**Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions**

Potential future actions whose effects would be cumulative to the
Proposed Action include actions taken to protect marine mammals, and
endangered or threatened species. Current measures in effect are
discussed in Section 1.4. These could be modified in the future under a
fishery management plan, marine mammal TRP, or regulation promulgated
under authority of the Endangered Species Act.

Specifically, known or anticipated future actions include:

1.  Short-term closures to sink gillnets under the ALWTRP DAM system;

2.  Changes to the HPTRP;

3.  Development of an Atlantic Trawl Take Reduction Team (ATTRT);

4.  The Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation in Atlantic Ocean and Gulf
    of Mexico Fisheries to address sea turtle fisheries interactions in
    state and federal fisheries operating in the Atlantic and Gulf of
    Mexico through a consistent gear based approach;

5.  Measures adopted under the NOAA Fisheries Service final rule
    implementing large-mesh gillnet closures off the North
    Carolina/Virginia coast to protect sea turtles;

6.  The proposed use of modified scallop dredge gear to reduce
    interactions with sea turtles.

Since the specific elements of those potential changes are not known at
this time, their effects cannot be determined; however, the goals of
these measures will be to, among other things, decrease the number of
marine mammal interactions with commercial fishing operations.
Therefore, it should be assumed that these measures will succeed and
will have some positive effects.

In addition, regulations to the ALWTRP are proposed to be implemented to
address the number of observed Atlantic large whale entanglements. A
Notice of Availability for the DEIS for the ALWTRP published in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2005, and the proposed rule published
on June 21, 2005. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to further
reduce the risk of entanglement to Atlantic large whales in fishing
gear. The Proposed Action includes broad-based gear modifications in
lieu of seasonal and/or area management requirements. The Proposed
Action would also apply to trap/pot and gillnet fisheries. As a result,
vessels using gillnet gear in the multispecies fishery could be required
to make modifications to their gear.

**Summary of Impacts**

While reductions in fishing effort as a result of past fishery
management actions is thought to have had a slightly positive impact on
protected species, gear entanglement continues to be a source of injury
or mortality. Therefore, the factors discussed above in conjunction with
fishing effort have potentially had cumulative low adverse effects on
most protected species to varying degrees. However, this effect would be
positive if reductions in effort directly reduced interactions with
protected species. Upon reaching their respective TACs, the Hook Sector
and the Fixed Gear Sector completely cease effort with gear capable of
catching GB cod. In that instance, 19 and 33 vessels (respectively)
would reduce/eliminate chances for interactions with protected species.
Furthermore, hook gear (approved for both Sectors) is considered to have
minimal interactions with protected species. The direct and indirect
effects of the alternatives in this framework adjustment are assessed in
Section 1.4 and do not appreciably increase impacts discussed and
analyzed previously.

**5.3.3 HABITAT**

The effects of mobile bottom-tending gear (trawls and dredges) on fish
habitat have been recently reviewed by the National Research Council
(NRC 2002). This study determined that repeated use of trawls/dredges
reduce the bottom habitat complexity by the loss of erect and sessile
epifauna, smoothing sedimentary bedforms and bottom roughness. This
activity, when repeated over a long term also results in discernable
changes in benthic communities, which involve a shift from larger bodied
long-lived benthic organisms for smaller shorter-lived ones. This shift
also can result in loss of benthic productivity and thus biomass
available for fish predators. Thus, such changes in bottom structure and
loss of productivity can reduce the value of the bottom habitat for
demersal fish, such as haddock and cod.

**Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions**

An EFH Omnibus Amendment is currently under development for all of the
NEFMC's FMPs. The purpose of the amendment is to review and revise EFH
components of the FMPs and to develop a comprehensive EFH management
plan that will successfully minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH
through actions that will apply to all NEFMC-managed FMPs. The Council
is considering several measures for inclusion in the Omnibus Amendment,
including a review and update of the following:

1.  Description and identification of EFH;

2.  Non-fishing activities that may adversely impact EFH;

3.  Identification and consideration of new Habitat Areas of Particular
    Concern; and

4.  Integration of alternatives to minimize any adverse effects of
    fishing on EFH.

While it is possible that the Council would recommend measures that
could impact multispecies EFH, because the amendment is under
development, it is not possible to predict impacts to the multispecies
fishery with any certainty.

**Summary of Impacts**

While reductions in fishing effort as a result of past fishery
management actions is thought to have had a positive impact on habitat
and EFH, the repeated use of trawls/dredges reduces bottom habitat
complexity, ultimately decreasing the value of habitat for demersal
fish. Identification of additional areas for restricted habitat
interactions will have a positive effect, as will decreased interactions
brought about by decreased effort and gear-selective (low-impact)
management. Upon reaching their respective TACs, the Hook Sector and the
Fixed Gear Sector completely cease effort with gear capable of catching
GB cod. In that instance, 19 and 33 vessels (respectively) would
reduce/eliminate chances for interactions with habitat. Furthermore,
fixed gear (approved for both Sectors) is considered to have minimal
interactions with habitat.

**5.3.4 HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND THE FISHERY**

**Past and Present Actions**

Past management actions have had negative effects on communities.
Management actions taken prior to Amendment 5 failed to reverse
increases in fishing mortality and declines in groundfish stock size. As
a result, landings and revenues began a slow decline until the
mid-1990's. These economic losses translated into reductions in the
number of fishing vessels and fishermen, caused consternation in fishing
communities, and led to a regulatory response that exacerbated many of
these problems. For both Amendment 5 and Amendment 7, impacts to fishing
communities were predicted to be substantial, with substantial
short-term loses in revenue. Some communities lost access to the
resource entirely as vessels left the fishery and stock size contracted.
However, as a result of Amendments 5 and 7 stock sizes began to
increase, resulting in greater landings and revenues.

Because Amendments 5 and 7 failed to reduce fishing mortality to within
legal requirements of the SFA (adopted after the implementation of
Amendment 5), additional measures were needed. The Settlement Agreement
and Amendment 13 imposed further restrictions on the industry. In the
short term, Amendment 13 measures will reverse recent increases in
landings and revenues that have benefited communities. The measures will
also limit the opportunities for many fishermen to participate in the
groundfish fishery through DAS reductions -- over 300 permit holders do
not have any Category A DAS needed to fish for any stock of groundfish.
Over the longer term, however, the pace of stock rebuilding is expected
to increase under Amendment 13 and landings and revenues will increase
as well. These increases will benefit fishing communities. Further, SAPs
implemented through Amendment 13 and FW 40A have created opportunities
for groundfish vessels to target healthy stocks. While these SAPs are
limited in scope, the programs should help mitigate some of the negative
impacts on communities that resulted from Amendment 13.

**Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions**

Several of the future management actions discussed under the previous
VECs would likely impact human communities. For example, both the
Emergency Action to Implement Measures to Reduce Overfishing in the
Northeast Multispecies Complex and the Annual TAC Adjustment for the
U.S./Canada Area would constrain fishing effort and likely limit
economic benefits to communities. Further, future actions to protect
endangered or threatened species and habitat could also require the
industry to make gear modifications or displace fishing effort. Although
it is not possible to predict the exact nature of these impacts, actions
taken to protect these resources could result in a loss of revenue to
human communities.

In addition to management actions, non-fishing effects may also impact
human communities. As previously discussed, there are several Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) projects in various stages of the approval process.
Depending on the location of the project, a range of impacts can occur,
including impacts to communities. Due to the potentially hazardous
nature of the facilities (LNG is transported via tanker to specialized
terminals), security zones are generally established around LNG
facilities. This can restrict access to areas traditionally utilized for
fishing and shellfishing, essentially closing some areas to fishing and
thus reducing fishing opportunities.

**Summary of Impacts**

Past management actions have had a cumulative high adverse impact on
communities, including Chatham and Harwichport, MA, that depend on the
groundfish resource. Although special programs implemented through
Amendment 13 and subsequent framework actions have provided the industry
opportunities to target healthy groundfish stocks, substantial increases
in landings and revenue will likely not take place until further stock
rebuilding occurs under the Amendment 13 rebuilding plan. Sector
management has offered some socio-economic relief to participants,
especially to a hook-and-line fleet that was headed to extinction; but
constraining restrictions prevent the Sector from achieving maximum
efficiency. Substantial short-term negative socio-economic impacts are
being felt throughout the region. Long-term benefits are anticipated to
be substantial, but it is not clear if current fishery participants will
benefit.

**5.4 NON-FISHING IMPACTS**

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 point
source pollution, agricultural and urban runoff, port maintenance, beach
nourishment, coastal development, marine transportation, marine mining,
LNG terminals, wind energy farms, dredging and disposal of dredged
material. Many of these have occurred in the past and present and will
continue in the reasonably foreseeable future. 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 resource, non-target species, and
protected resources. It is likely that these projects would have
negative impacts caused from disturbance and construction activities in
the area immediately around the affected project area. Given the wide
distribution of the affected species, minor overall negative effects to
offshore habitat, protected resources, and target and non-target species
are anticipated since the affected areas are localized to the project
sites, which involve a small percentage of the fish populations and
their habitat. Any impacts to inshore water quality from these permitted
projects, including impacts to planktonic, juvenile and adult life
stages, are unknown but likely minor due to the transient and limited
exposure.

Further, these projects are permitted by other Federal and State
agencies, who conduct examinations of potential biological,
socioeconomic, and habitat impacts. In addition to guidelines mandated
by the Magnuson Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, NOAA
Fisheries, the Councils and the other Federal and State regulatory
agencies review these projects through a regulatory review process
required by the Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act for certain activities that
are regulated by Federal, State, and Local authorities. These reviews
limit and often mitigate the impact of these projects. The jurisdiction
of these authorities is in "waters of the U.S." and ranges from inland
riverine to marine habitats offshore in the EEZ.

In addition, NOAA Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service share responsibility for implementing the ESA. The ESA requires
NOAA Fisheries Service 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 or 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 NOAA
Fisheries Service's jurisdiction.

Although only two offshore wind energy projects have formally been
proposed in the northeast region, at least 20 other separate projects
may be proposed in the near future. Cape Wind Associates (CWA) proposes
to construct a wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal, located between Cape Cod
and Nantucket in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. The CWA project would
have 130 wind turbines located as close as 4.1 miles offshore of Cape
Cod in an area of approximately 24 square miles with the turbines being
placed at a minimum of 1/3 mile apart. The turbines will be
interconnected by cables, which will relay the energy to shore to the
power grid.

The Army Corps of Engineers developed a DEIS for the proposed CWA
project on Horseshoe Shoal. Subsequently, the Minerals Management
Service was named the lead Federal agency and a new DEIS is under
development. If constructed, the turbines would preempt other bottom
uses in an area similar to oil and natural gas leases. The potential
impacts associated with the CWA offshore wind energy project include the
construction, operation and removal of turbine platforms and
transmission cables; thermal and vibration impacts; and changes to
species assemblages within the area from the introduction of vertical
structures.

Impacts from these aforementioned activities range from "negligible" to
"low negative" in the areas of the project site. On a larger-scale
population level, these activities are likely to have a negligible to
low negative impact on a population level, considering that the large
portion of the populations have a limited or negligible exposure to
these local non-fishing perturbations.

**5.5 SUMMARY OF DIRECT/INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES**

As this document describes, there would be different impacts depending
on which alternative is chosen. A summary table (Table 17) is provided
to summarize the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. This table
contains a brief summary intended to distill the more detailed text
descriptions found in this section, which compliment the detailed
descriptions in Section 4.2 (Alternative 2). To enhance clarity and
maintain consistency, the following terms in Table 16 are used to
summarize impacts:

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Impacts**                                     **Qualifier**

  Positive (improve)                              Low (lesser)

  Negative (degrade)                              High (greater)

  Negligible (slight improve/degrade)             

  Neutral (no effect)                             

  No Impact                                       
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Table 16 -- Terms used to summarize cumulative impacts

The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in positive or
negligible biological impacts to target, non-target, and protected
species. An exemption from the GB cod daily trip limit, and mandates for
full retention of legal-sized GB cod will end overfishing and regulatory
discarding of GB cod, and provide for a mechanism to control mortality
effectively. GOM cod (or other GOM species) will not be harvested by
Fixed Gear Sector vessels due to the restrictions on operating area. DAS
are still required for use by the Fixed Gear Sector, and will serve to
control effort and mortality on non-target species as they have in the
past. Exemption from the May seasonal closure will allow for controlled
harvest of GB cod using hook gear, and other non-target species. Despite
not having achieved its TAC in its only year of operation, the Fixed
Gear Sector must cease fishing with gear capable of catching GB cod upon
reaching the TAC, therefore ending fishing on GB cod and any non-target
species. Protected species interactions would therefore cease as well.
Monthly quota targets would help ensure that GB cod catch is evenly
distributed throughout the course of the year. Hook size and style
(circle only) limits discourage the catch of sub-legal GB cod and other
non-target species, and increase the survivability of releases.
Protected species interactions are extremely rare with hook-and-line
gear but are more common with sink gillnet gear, as detailed in Section
4.2. However, by holding themselves to a higher standard of real time
monitoring and reporting, the Fixed Gear Sector and Sector manager will
maintain accurate and transparent operations and be able to react
immediately and appropriately to protected species interactions.

The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in positive or
negligible habitat impacts. Hook-and-line and sink gillnet gear is
characterized as having lower habitat impacts than other gear types.
Despite not having achieved its TAC in 2006, the Fixed Gear Sector must
cease fishing with gear capable of catching GB cod upon reaching the
TAC, which would subsequently end habitat interactions. The same holds
true for monthly and weekly quota targets, if they are not adjusted
accordingly. Exemption from the May seasonal closure and the hook limit
may result in more hook-and-line gear coming in contact with the benthic
habitat, but given the low impact of the gear the effects are considered
negligible.

The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in positive or
negligible social impacts to the Fixed Gear Sector and its communities.
Fixed Gear Sector management has empowered 33 traditional hook-and-line
and sink gillnet vessels from Chatham and Harwichport to align their
fishing businesses with conservation measures. Fixed Gear Sector members
will achieve more flexibility and efficiency than their Common Pool
counterparts. The Fixed Gear Sector and its communities are progressing
towards achieving maximum social benefits by providing certainty and
long-range planning for their fishing businesses. Cooperation and
collaboration occur in a setting that was at one time solely
individualistic. Monthly and weekly quota targets spread catch
throughout the year, which maintains opportunities to harvest GB cod
year-round. The TAC provides peace of mind and leverage for fishermen
knowing that they are voluntarily prohibiting themselves from
contributing to overfishing of GB cod. The Fixed Gear Sector fosters a
community of low-impact, hook-and-line and sink gillnet fishermen that
traditionally pursued GB cod generations ago, and will hopefully
continue for generations to come. Shoreside jobs and infrastructure will
remain, and the Chatham Town Pier will continue to draw inquisitive
tourists from the world over. An exemption from the GB cod daily trip
limit, and mandates for full retention of legal-sized GB cod will end
overfishing and will not force Fixed Gear Sector members to waste fish.
By holding themselves to a higher standard of monitoring and reporting,
the Fixed Gear Sector and Sector manager will maintain accurate and
transparent operations, and will foster safety-based decisions.
Exemptions from the May seasonal closure will restore spatial and
temporal access to a traditional fishery by reducing the inefficiencies
generated by Common Pool rules specific to those areas.

The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in positive economic
impacts to the Fixed Gear Sector and its communities. By increasing
flexibility and efficiency, Fixed Gear Sector members can make decisions
based more on market fluctuations rather than the DAS clock ticking in
their heads. An annual TAC provides Fixed Gear Sector members with
long-range planning and stability as they determine their business plans
year-to-year.

An exemption from the GB cod daily trip limit, and mandates for full
retention of legal-sized GB cod will allow Fixed Gear Sector members to
maximize the profitability of their trips and minimize overhead costs by
decreasing the number of trips they must take. Monthly and weekly quota
targets would spread catch throughout the year, which maintains
opportunities to generate revenue year-round. Exemptions from the May
seasonal closure will restore spatial and temporal access to a fishery
by reducing the inefficiencies generated by Common Pool rules specific
to those areas. Limited availability of GB cod in May would possibly
provide for increased prices. Monthly quota targets have helped ensure
that GB cod revenue is evenly distributed throughout the course of the
year. These small, day-boats can achieve realistic expectations of
economic activity for themselves, the Fixed Gear Sector, and their
communities.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4">Biological Impacts</td>
<td>Habitat Impacts</td>
<td colspan="3">Social Impacts</td>
<td colspan="3">Economic Impacts</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Overall</td>
<td>Target Species</td>
<td>Non-target species</td>
<td>Protected Species</td>
<td>Overall</td>
<td>Overall</td>
<td>Chatham/ Harwich</td>
<td>Fixed Gear Sector</td>
<td>Overall</td>
<td>Chatham/ Harwich</td>
<td>Fixed Gear Sector</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Alternative 2 (Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan)</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Aggregate Fixed Gear Sector allocation (Hard TAC)</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Monthly and weekly quota targets</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>DAS allocations</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>DAS redistribution/</p>
<p>pooling</p></td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Full retention</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Hook size and limits</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>May seasonal closure exemption</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Gear restrictions</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>High Positive</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Summary</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Table 17 - Biological, habitat, social, economic and qualitative
comparative impacts of the proposed management measure in comparison to
the No Action alternative presented in this EA.

**5.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

The following analysis summarizes the cumulative effects of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with
the Proposed Action on the VECs identified in Section 5.0.

**Cumulative Effects on Regulated Groundfish Stocks**

The Proposed Action would have positive cumulative effect on regulated
groundfish stocks. The Proposed Action would bring accountability
(through a hard TAC, prevention of utilization of low-impact fixed gear,
and increased monitoring and reporting requirements) to a group of 33
traditional fixed gear fishermen in Chatham and Harwichport, MA.
Overfishing on GB cod would not occur as these businesses will operate
within their hard TAC.

Because this action would continue to support the goals of the FMP and
is not expected to threaten the mortality objectives established by
Amendment 13, groundfish stock status should continue to improve.
Provisions were included in Amendment 13 that provide for annual
submission of the Fixed Gear Sector's EAs and Operations Plans, allowing
for adaptation as necessary. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when
combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions
described in this assessment, would not result in significant cumulative
negative impacts.

**Cumulative Effects on Non-groundfish Species**

This action may reduce the interaction between vessels fishing for
groundfish and other stocks because it further constrains effort in the
groundfish fishery within the Operating Area. Because past and future
groundfish actions have limited the interaction between vessels fishing
for groundfish and non-groundfish stocks, and future actions are
expected to result in only minimal increases to bycatch, the Proposed
Action, when combined with other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable actions described in this assessment, would not result in
significant cumulative negative impacts.

**Cumulative Effects on Endangered and Other Protected Species**

It is not anticipated that the Proposed Action would adversely impact
threatened, endangered or protected species beyond those analyzed and
discussed in Amendment 13 and possibly in FW 42. Hook-and-line gear is
classified as a Category III ("...remote likelihood of or no known
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.") under the
Proposed LOF. While not quantifiable, the impacts of that action were
expected to reduce risk for endangered and protected species as a result
of overall reductions in groundfish fishing effort. The intervening
frameworks actions (FW 40A, FW 40B, FW 41, FW 42, and FW 43) were not
expected to adversely impact endangered or protected species. The same
conclusion may be drawn with respect to this action as decreased effort
could prove beneficial relative to the status quo or no action to
protected resources if those reductions overlap with the presence of
protected resources.

**Cumulative Effects on Habitat**

Section 4.1.2 (habitat impacts of Proposed Action) demonstrates that the
overall habitat impacts of all the measures combined in this action have
positive impacts relative to the baseline habitat protections
established under Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Fixed
gear is known to have minimal habitat impacts, given its stationary
nature, and the relative low impact of hooks, sink gillnets groundline,
and small anchors on habitat.. Furthermore, upon reaching the hard TAC
or any unadjusted monthly or weekly quota targets, all habitat
interactions will cease. Non-fishing effects can have an impact on
habitat as well. Future non-fishing impacts could result from the
construction of LNG terminals or wind farms, both under consideration in
the northwest Atlantic although not within the Operating Area. While the
impacts depend on the precise location of such facilities, those that
have been proposed to date are located inside state waters and are
unlikely to have a significant impact on the fishery as a whole, though
local impacts could prove substantial.

**Cumulative Effects on Human Communities and the Fishery**

Previous multispecies management actions have had a negative effect on
communities. Starting with Amendment 5 and continuing through the
implementation of Amendment 13, communities, particularly in Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have suffered substantial
economic loses as a result of effort reductions. This action will result
in the preservation of effort in Chatham and Harwichport, MA. Short-term
revenues are expected to increase, and multispecies permits will remain
in the port from which they have traditionally been fished. This
community quota entity will continue to empower fishermen to align their
businesses with conservation, and to play a direct role in reforming
management.

The economic impacts are expected to be positive when considered in
addition to the short-term impacts of Amendment 13 and FW 42. Future
benefits will result from stock rebuilding, and current participants
will directly benefit from future catches taken from rebuilt stocks.

**5.7 Summary of cumulative impacts**

The cumulative effects of this action are not likely to have a
significant impact on regulated groundfish stocks (target and
non-target), non-groundfish species (incidental catch and bycatch),
endangered and other protected species, and habitat, including
non-fishing effects. The overall reductions in fishing effort adopted by
previous management actions are intended to have a positive biological
impact on groundfish and other stocks. This action will constrain effort
on many stocks in order to maintain progress in the rebuilding program.
With respect to endangered and other protected species, the proposed
measures would have negligible impacts. Impacts on habitat and EFH are
also expected to be minimal. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not
result in significant cumulative impacts to fisheries resources,
habitat, and protected species. The cumulative effects of this action
are likely to have a positive impact on target species and fishing
communities, and the economic returns from the groundfish fishery.
However, this impact is not significant when considered in the context
of the greater groundfish fishery at large. Of the approximately 1,500
permits involved in the New England groundfish fishery, only 52 of them
(3.4%) are enrolled in the Hook and Fixed Gear Sectors. Furthermore,
while the Sectors can cumulatively harvest up to 40% of the GB cod TAC,
preliminary data indicate that the Hook Sector and Fixed Gear Sector
have, respectively, caught 155,628 and 901,854 pounds (1,057,482 total
pounds, as of December 31, 2007) of the approximately 19M pound quota,
or approximately 5.5 % of the overall GB cod quota which is less than
14% of what they are allowed to take. Finally, Fixed Gear Sector
operations are confined to a relatively small subset (Operating Area) of
the areas in which groundfishing can occur, which ranges from Downeast
Maine to North Carolina and out to the EEZ. Additionally, Sector vessels
are still considered Small Businesses, and they do not achieve the \$4M
threshold for determination. Finally, the Chatham/Harwichport
communities are only two of hundreds, potentially thousands, of fishing
communities stretching from Maine to North Carolina. Taking this, and
the other aforementioned factors into account, it can be determined that
the impacts of the Sectors, when discussed relative to the impacts of
the entire fishery, are insignificant.

By creating and implementing a model for other groups to create Sectors,
Alternative 2 would have a positive, though unquantifiable, social
cumulative impact. As groups of fishermen voluntarily come together for
the purpose of securing a resource allocation in New England, the
Operations Plan provides a model to follow. 17 such groups agreed, and
submitted Sector Allocation applications for inclusion in Amendment 16
analysis: 19 Sector applications were received by the NEFMC in 2007,
including revised applications from both the Hook and Fixed Gear
Sectors. By being some of the first fishermen in New England to
voluntarily accept a hard TAC-based and community-based management
regime, the Fixed Gear Sector is creating a positive example for the
fleet that could translate into social and economic benefit to other
fishing groups, while continuing to meet mortality objectives on
groundfish stocks.

Past management measures, beginning with Amendment 5 in the mid-1990's,
have, over time, restricted GB fixed gear fishermen with input controls
that make fixed gear fishing increasingly inefficient. This
inefficiency, eventually came to the point that Amendment 13, as
characterized in Alternative 1, would likely force most fixed gear
fishermen to switch to other gears or otherwise shift their effort to
more efficient vessels, or relocate their businesses to the GOM.
Amendment 16 would most likely further reduce effort and increase
inefficiency in the common pool, but would allow for pre-existing
Sectors to further develop and refine their operations, maximizing the
flexibility and accountability of the Sector. The Fixed Gear Sector,
with implementation of the Operations Plan, would have a positive
cumulative impact on the GB fixed gear fleet and the Chatham/Harwichport
area as it would allow the fleet to escape the inefficiencies of past
management actions.

As a whole, approval and implementation of the suite of management
measures contained in the Operations Plan (Alternative 2), when
considered in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, would result in minor positive social and
economic cumulative impacts. It would not result in cumulative impacts
to target species, non-target species, protected resources, or habitat
Each measure in the Operations Plan is designed to be a piece of a
larger whole that creates an opportunity for the GB sink gillnet and
hook-and-line fleet to survive and for Chatham/Harwichport to remain an
active part of the commercial groundfish industry in New England.
Alternative 1 would not provide additional social or economic benefits
to Fixed Gear Sector members, nor would it provide any additional
protection or benefits to target species, non-target species, protected
resources, or habitat, which result in negligible cumulative impacts.
Whereas the biological and habitat impacts of Alternative 2 are not
compelling in and of themselves, when coupled with the positive social
and economic impacts that Alternative 2 offers. Thus, Alternative 2
offers a positive cumulative impact in comparison with the No Action
alternative (Table 18).

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Biological Impacts</strong></td>
<td><strong>Habitat Impacts</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Social Impacts</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Economic Impacts</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong>Overall</strong></td>
<td><strong>Target Species</strong></td>
<td><strong>Non-target species</strong></td>
<td><strong>Protected Species</strong></td>
<td><strong>Habitat</strong></td>
<td><strong>Overall</strong></td>
<td><strong>Chatham/ Harwich</strong></td>
<td><strong>Fixed Gear Sector</strong></td>
<td><strong>Overall</strong></td>
<td><strong>Chatham/ Harwich</strong></td>
<td><strong>Fixed Gear Sector</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Sum of Impacts from Past/Present Fisheries
Actions</strong></td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Negative</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td><p>Negative short term</p>
<p>Low Positive Long term</p></td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Sum of Impacts from Past/Present/ Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Non-Fisheries Actions</strong></td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Negligible</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Sum of Impacts from Reasonably Foreseeable Future Fisheries
Actions</strong></td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Sum of Direct/Indirect Effects of Fixed Gear Sector
Alternative 2</strong></td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
<td>Positive</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Cumulative Effects</strong></td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Positive</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
<td>Low Negative</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Table 18 - Cumulative Effects Summary of the Proposed Fixed Gear Sector

**6.0 List Of Preparers**

This document was prepared through the cooperative efforts of members of
the staffs of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association and
NOAA Fisheries Service.

Contributors include:

Eric Brazer, Jr., CCCHFA, Fisheries Policy and Management Coordinator

John Pappalardo, CCCHFA, Policy Analyst

**7.0 List Of Agencies and Persons Consulted**

The NERO of NOAA Fisheries Service and the NEFMC Staff were consulted in
preparing this EA.

**8.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW**

[Description of the Management Objectives]{.underline}

The NEFMC has authorized the formation of Sectors under Amendment 13 to
the NE Multispecies FMP and has set forth criteria for establishing
Sectors in that action. The Fixed Gear Sector, approved and implemented
under FW 42 to the same FMP, provides the specific details for how the
Sector would function and is required to finalize formation of the
Sector. However, the RA must, on an annual basis, approve the Sector's
Operations Plan and Agreement. For specific Goals and Objectives to the
Amendment, and to see specific goals for the Fixed Gear Sector, please
refer to Section 1.2 of the EA. Additionally, Fixed Gear Sector
objectives must take into account the requirements of multiple laws and
mandates, including MSA, ESA, MMPA, CZMA, NEPA, APA, QRA, IPA, and EOs
13132, 13158, and 12898. For further information on these laws and
mandates, please refer to Section 10.0 of the EA.

[Description of the Fishery]{.underline}

The Fixed Gear Sector is a group of 33 self-selecting, small, dayboat
hook and gillnet fishermen that have come together voluntarily and
cooperatively for the purposes of efficiently harvesting an annual
allocation of GB cod. Each business qualifies as a Small Business under
the Small Business Administration (SBA). The Fixed Gear Sector would
operate under a hard TAC of GB cod to meet the overfishing mandates of
the SFA amendment to the Magnuson Act. The Fixed Gear Sector
participants target GB cod as a primary species, but have had to
diversify their fishing businesses to catch other groundfish, monkfish,
and skates. They operate year-round, but most intensely from the
late-spring to late-fall. They would operate within the GB Hook Sector
Operating Area, defined in Section 3.2.1 in the EA, and would be legally
bound to adhering to the Fixed Gear Sector's Harvesting Rules, outlined
in Section 4.2 of the EA.

[Statement of the Problem]{.underline}

Current and future regulations would end overfishing and initiate
rebuilding plans for stocks in the groundfish complex, as well as
minimize bycatch and protect habitat. It will also bring about many
positive environmental changes and increased revenue in the long-term
but is likely to result in social and economic costs for the New England
groundfish fleet in the short-term. Additionally, input control
management measures have diminished other fleets in the GOM and on GB.
Low trip limits and a diminished GB cod stock status have severely
undermined the ability of the GB fixed gear fleet to remain economically
viable.

The Fixed Gear Sector would allow the GB fixed gear fleet to survive and
prosper as stocks rebuild. In addition, the Fixed Gear Sector would
provide a model for other New England day boat fleets that seek
alternative management options. The Fixed Gear Sector represents a
heretofore unique opportunity for fishermen to lead the way in promoting
conservation and stewardship of the resources on which they depend.
Authorization of the Fixed Gear Sector would provide a vehicle to
mitigate many of the Amendment 13 and FW 42 impacts. Likewise, full
implementation of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would
establish additional means to generate social, economic, and
environmental efficiencies. Authorization of the Fixed Gear Sector would
initiate a viable FW for GB fixed gear vessels to alleviate social and
economic hardships while meeting the biological objectives of Amendment
13 and FW 42. For further analysis, please refer to Section 4.2 of the
EA.

[Description and Economic Analysis of Each Selected
Alternative]{.underline}

Alternative 1 is a No Action Alternative: disapproval of the Fixed Gear
Sector Operations Plan. While the Fixed Gear Sector would be available
under Alternative 1, all vessels would opt to remain in the Common Pool
and fish under the regulations implemented in Amendment 13 and
subsequent FW adjustments to the NE Multispecies FMP. Therefore, no
allocation of GB cod would be made to the Fixed Gear Sector.

Alternative 1 would have negative social impacts on local fixed gear
fishermen and on the Chatham/Harwich community. The daily GB cod trip
limit, in addition to a continued reduction in DAS, gear restrictions,
and ever-increasing closed areas would continue to impact the
traditional, small-boat fleet. As noted at the Social Impact
Informational Meetings, small vessels lose flexibility to diversify
their businesses by participating in multiple fisheries because of
increased regulations. In Chatham, meeting participants felt that
regulations have 'boxed them in' to particular fisheries, making it
difficult or impossible for them to maximize their opportunities and/or
adjust to changing conditions. When combined with the inherent
limitations of small vessels, the regulations have reduced fishing
opportunities to the point that many fishermen cannot guarantee a
year-round income from fishing for themselves or for their crew. For
further economic analysis, please refer to Section 4.2.3 of the EA.

Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, is approval of the 2008 GB Cod
Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan and receipt of an allocation of GB cod
for FY2008. Fixed Gear Sector vessels would be subject to the
regulations implemented under the Harvesting Rules (please see Section
4.2 of the EA). In addition to the Operations Plan, Fixed Gear Sector
members are subject to a legally-binding Membership Agreement that
delineates the interaction of members within the Fixed Gear Sector,
including governance, enforcement, and penalties for non-compliance.

Alternative 2 would provide social benefits to the Fixed Gear Sector
members as well as to the Chatham/Harwichport, MA communities, which,
according to the AM13 FSEIS, are more than 71% revenue dependent on
groundfish stocks, particularly GB cod. The Fixed Gear Sector Operations
Plan allows a range of management measures that would make the Fixed
Gear Sector economically viable for fixed gear fishermen. The Amendment
13 FEIS concluded that negative distributional impacts affecting
Chatham/Harwichport in Amendment 13 are mitigated by Fixed Gear Sector
allocation: "The proposed action does include some measures designed to
mitigate these distributive impacts. The sector allocation and special
access programs are specifically designed to foster ways to target
healthy stocks to mitigate some of these distributional impacts. The EA
for the settlement agreement estimated that an average of 46.5% of
groundfish activity in Chatham and Harwichport could be affected by the
recently-implemented Interim Action" (NEFMC, AM 13 FSEIS, Sec 5.6.1.3).
For further economic analysis, please refer to Section 4.2.3 of the EA.

[Conclusions]{.underline}

Amendment 13 and FW 42 to the FMP, as passed by the NEFMC and approved
by NOAA Fisheries Service, is having severe, disproportional negative
economic impacts on the GB fixed gear fleet. Compared with the No Action
alternative, Alternative 2 would have positive social impacts for the GB
fixed gear fleet and the Chatham/Harwichport area. Implementation of the
Operations Plan would provide safety benefits as well as regulatory
flexibility that would allow cooperative harvest and the maximization of
economic opportunity. Implementation of the Operations Plan and
allocation of GB cod would allow the Fixed Gear Sector the flexibility
it needs to maximize revenues while minimizing expenses in the short
term. It would allow Chatham/Harwichport to remain in the commercial
groundfish business and benefit from the rebuilding of the groundfish
resource. For further conclusions, please refer to Section 5.5.1
(Alternative 1), and Section 5.5.2 (Alternative 2) of the EA.

**8.1 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE UNDER E.O. 12866**

NOAA Fisheries Service guidelines provide criteria to be used to
evaluate whether a proposed action is significant. A "significant
regulatory action" means any regulatory action that is likely to result
in a rule that may:

1.  *Have an annual effect on the economy of \$100 Million or more, or
    adversely effect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
    economy, productivity, competition, job, the environment, public
    health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
    communities;*

> The proposed action would have neither an annual effect on the economy
> of \$100 Million, nor adversely effect, in a material way the economy,
> a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, the environment,
> public health or safety, or State, local, tribal governments or
> communities. The SBA defines a small business in the commercial
> fishing and recreational fishing sector, as a firm with receipts
> (gross revenues) of up to \$4 million. According to this definition,
> each member of the Fixed Gear Sector qualifies as a small business;
> their cumulative effect on the economy is less than \$100 Million.

2.  *Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
    action taken or planned by another agency;*

> The proposed action does not create an inconsistency or otherwise
> interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The
> activity that would be allowed under this action was approved as part
> of FW 42 to the NE FMP (71 FR 62156, October 23, 2006 ), authorized by
> the NEFMC and approved by NOAA Fisheries Service. Therefore, there is
> no interference with actions taken by another agency, and no
> inconsistencies would be created in the management of commercial
> fisheries in the NE.

3.  *Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, use
    fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
    thereof;*

    The proposed action requests approval and implementation of the
    Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan during the 2008-09 fishing year.
    Fixed Gear Sector members must have documented landings of GB cod
    during the qualifying period in order to be eligible for
    participation in the Fixed Gear Sector. Fixed Gear Sector members
    would be required to declare their intention to join the Fixed Gear
    Sector to the NOAA Fisheries Service RA on an annual basis. Once
    declared into the Fixed Gear Sector, members would fish for
    groundfish solely within the GB Hook Sector area (defined earlier).
    Furthermore, Fixed Gear Sector members must utilize fixed (gillnet
    and hook-and-line) gear to target groundfish. Fixed Gear Sector
    members would be legally bound by a Membership Contract that sets
    forth the requirements for each member as well as a schedule of
    penalties for violations of Fixed Gear Sector rules. The proposed
    action does not materially alter the budgetary impact of
    entitlements, grants, use fees, or loan programs or the rights and
    obligations of recipients thereof.

4.  *Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
    the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
    Executive Order;*

    The proposed action is being taken pursuant to the mandates of FW 42
    to the NE FMP (71 FR 62156, October 23, 2006 ). Therefore, the
    proposed action would not be considered significant.

    Because none of these criteria apply, NOAA Fisheries Service has
    determined that the proposed action to approve and implement the
    Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan for 2008-2009, is not significant
    for the purpose of E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to assess the impacts
of their proposed regulations on small entities. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis (RFAA) determines whether the proposed action
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The SBA size standards define whether a business entity
is small and, thus, eligible for Government programs and preferences
reserved for "small business" concerns. Size standards have been
established for all for-profit economic activities or industries in the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA defines a
small business in the commercial fishing and recreational fishing
sector, as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to \$4 million

**9.0 INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

The following section provides an assessment and discussion of the
potential economic impacts, as required of the RFA, of various proposed
management and regulatory actions and alternatives. The objective of the
RFA is to require consideration of the capacity of those affected by
regulations to bear the direct and indirect costs of regulation. The
initial RFA (IRFA) must identify the number and types of businesses that
would be regulated, indicate how many of these entities are small
businesses, explain the expected economic impact of the regulation on
small businesses, and describe any feasible alternatives that would
minimize the economic impacts. The number of regulated entities for this
action is 33 vessels, each of which would be considered a small entity,
based on the definition as stated above. The economic impact resulting
from this action on these small entities is positive since the action
would mitigate the disproportionate impacts of Amendment 13 on the
Chatham/Harwichport fixed gear fleet.

[Description of the Reasons Why Action by Agency is Being
Considered]{.underline}

The specification of hard TACs is necessary in order to limit GB cod
mortality in the proposed area. Limitation of fishing mortality in this
area enhances management of such stocks. Upon approval of the Operations
Plan, the Fixed Gear Sector would be only the second group of fishermen
fishing under a hard TAC of GB cod, ensuring that they do not contribute
to overfishing of that species. Further description of the purpose and
need for the TACs is contained in Section 1.2. The specification of
Target TACs is necessary in order to enable the allocation of GB cod to
the GB Fixed Gear Sector.

[The Objectives and Legal Basis for the Proposed Action]{.underline}

The NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and promulgating regulations
at 50 CFR §§ 648.87(b.)

[Estimate of the Number of Small Entities]{.underline}

Under the SBA size standards for small fishing entities (\$4 million),
all permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery are
considered to be small. Gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not
exceed this threshold. The maximum number of entities that could be
affected by the proposed TAC is approximately 1,000 vessels: the
approximate number of vessels in New England with limited access
multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) permits and an allocation of Category A
or B DAS. Realistically however, the number of vessels that would chose
to fish in the Fixed Gear Sector would be substantially less than 1,000
vessels. Therefore, those vessels subject to the restrictions associated
with the TACs would be substantially less than 1,000 vessels. The number
of vessels who anticipate participating in the Fixed Gear Sector in
FY2008 is 33.

[Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements]{.underline}

The proposed action mandates reporting requirements that are as
stringent or more so than current federal regulations. Fixed Gear Sector
reporting and recordkeeping regulations do not exempt participants from
State and Federal reporting and recordkeeping, but are mandated above
and beyond current State and Federal requirements. A full list of
compliance requirements can be found in the Fixed Gear Sector Operations
Plan.

[Duplication, Overlap or Conflict with other Federal Rules]{.underline}

The proposed action that would be allowed under this action was approved
as part of FW 42 to the NE FMP (71 FR 62156, October 23, 2006 ),
authorized by the NEFMC and approved by NOAA Fisheries Service. It does
not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

[Alternatives which Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of Proposed
Action on Small Entities]{.underline}

The Preferred Action would create a positive economic impact for the
participating vessels because it would mitigate the harmful,
disproportionate impacts of Amendment 13 and ensuing FWs on the
Chatham/Harwichport fixed gear fleet. At this time, due to the fact that
Sector management is relatively new to New England groundfish
management, little quantitative data on the precise economic impacts is
not available. However, the economic impacts are qualitatively present:
by coming out from under the inefficient input controls of the current
management regime and by operating under both a hard TAC and DAS, Fixed
Gear Sector members would remain economically viable while adjusting to
changing economic and fishing conditions. The No Action Alternative is
inconsistent with the fishery management plan in both the short and long
term. As such, the no action alternative would likely provide fewer
economic benefits to the industry in the long term than the proposed
alternative.

[Economic Impacts on Small Entities Resulting from Proposed
Action]{.underline}

The proposed action would affect 33 commercial fishing vessels from
Chatham and Harwichport that have voluntarily joined the Fixed Gear
Sector. In FY1999 and FY2000, Chatham and Harwichport averaged 5,980,850
pounds of groundfish landings and \$7,254,100 in groundfish revenues,
establishing it as an important port of landing for groundfish vessels
and a primary port for the multispecies fishery. In FY1999 and FY2000,
an average of 95 multispecies vessels homeported in Chatham/Harwichport
generated \$6,844,500 in revenues from multispecies. Chatham's overall
community dependence on multispecies as a percentage of total fisheries
revenues from federally-permitted vessels averaged about 71% from FY1999
-- FY2000. It is likely that at least some of the active groundfish
vessels in Chatham and Harwichport are even more than 71% dependent on
the multispecies fishery. Economic analyses of the Fixed Gear Sector are
in progress at the time of writing, and anticipate being included in
future Fixed Gear Sector documents.

Sector allocation is cited repeatedly as a measure to mitigate economic
harm caused by Amendment 13, and to ensure a viable fishing industry
that may be able to develop more efficient means to harvest a portion of
the resource. Furthermore, it allows for some degree of flexibility to
be able to offset a portion of any profit losses by increasing
efficiency and reducing overhead costs. The Fixed Gear Sector Operations
Plan allows a range of management measures that would make the Sector
economically viable for hook fishermen.

**10.0 APPLICABLE LAW**

## [Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act)]{.underline}

The proposed action would comply with all elements of the Magnuson Act,
including the National Standards, and the NE Multispecies FMP.

####### **[Endangered Species Act (ESA)]{.underline}**

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies conducting, authorizing,
or funding activities that affect threatened or endangered species to
ensure that those effects do not impact the continued existence of
listed species. As concluded in Section 4.4, the Proposed Action is not
expected to increase the risk of adverse impacts to threatened and
endangered species or their habitat found within the Proposed Area. Once
this document is submitted, it is expected that NOAA Fisheries Service
would initiate an informal consultation on this action under Section 7
of the ESA.

####### **[Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)]{.underline}**

All U.S. commercial fishing operations are placed into one of three
categories based on their levels of

incidental and serious injury of marine mammals as required by section
118 of the MMPA. The anchored sink gillnet fishery in the NE is listed
as a Category I fishery (frequent incidental mortality) while the
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line fishery is listed
as a Category III fishery (remote likelihood of, or no known incidental
mortality).

Although the Proposed Action is likely to affect species inhabiting the
proposed area, the measures would not alter the effectiveness of
existing MMPA measures, such as take reduction plans, to protect those
species based on overall reductions in fishing effort that have been
implemented through the Proposed Action. Through DAS and a hard TAC of
GB cod (to cap effort), full retention of legal-sized GB cod (to
eliminate discards and increase efficiency) Fixed Gear Sector management
(to respond in near-real time to constantly changing species
interactions), and exemption from daily trip limits in lieu of a hard
TAC (to maximize efficiency and potentially reduce the amount of time
gear remains in the water), the Fixed Gear Sector would account for and
likely reduce the potential for marine mammal interactions. Further
actions to reduce the likelihood of interactions between the gear types
governed by this FMP and the marine mammals that inhabit the area in
which these fisheries are prosecuted would be considered if deemed
necessary.

NOAA Fisheries Service has concluded that there would be no direct or
indirect negative impacts on marine mammals, that the proposed action is
consistent with the provisions of the MMPA, and that the proposed action
would not alter existing measures to protect the species likely to
inhabit the management units of the subject fisheries.

**[Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)]{.underline}**

Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA requires that all Federal activities which
affect any coastal use or resource be consistent with approved state
coastal zone management programs (CZMP) to the maximum extent
practicable. NOAA Fisheries Service has reviewed the relevant
enforceable policies of each coastal state in the Northeast region for
this action and has determined that this action is incremental and
repetitive, without any cumulative effects, and is consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the CZMP of
the following states: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, and North Carolina. NOAA Fisheries Service finds this action
to be consistent with the enforceable policies to manage, preserve, and
protect the coastal natural resources, including fish and wildlife, and
to provide recreational opportunities through public access to waters
off the coastal areas. Pursuant to the general consistency determination
provision codified at 15 CFR 930.36(c), and in accordance with regional
consistency determination provision codified at § 930.36(e), NOAA
Fisheries Service has sent a single general consistency determination
that addresses the commonalities and differences of each state's
enforceable policies to the following states: Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

**[National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]{.underline}**

**Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)**

**Finding of No Significant Impact for Approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear
Sector Operations Plan**

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order
216-6 (NAO 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 C.F.R. 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 in
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 NOAA Administrative
Order 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?*

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action would not jeopardize the
> sustainability of the target species (GB cod) affected by the action
> because the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector has a set TAC for GB cod that
> would be adhered to on an annual basis. The biological impacts of the
> proposed action are analyzed in Section 4.2.1.

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to
> jeopardize the sustainability of any non-target species. Mortality of
> non-target species would be controlled within the Fixed Gear Sector by
> continued use of DAS (Section 4.2.1).

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?*

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to allow
> substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or EFH as
> defined under the under the Magnuson Act and identified in the FMP.
> The fixed gear used by Fixed Gear Sector members in the proposed
> action has minimal adverse impacts on marine habitats or EFH. Mobile,
> bottom-tending gear, including bottom trawl gear, have much greater
> impacts on bottom habitats; the Proposed Action will prevent fishermen
> who participate in the program from using trawls to catch cod which
> will therefore result in positive impacts on EFH and coastal habitats.
> (Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3)

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to have a
> substantial adverse impact on public health and safety. The proposed
> GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector involves routine fishing operations and would
> not decrease safety at sea. In fact, it is expected that the
> centralized and local controls placed on the Fixed Gear Sector would
> result in positive impacts on public health and safety. This would
> occur through daily monitoring and increased communication among Fixed
> Gear Sector members, and the ability to respond rapidly to changing
> developments on the ocean (Section 4.2.3).

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to have an
> increased adverse impact on endangered or threatened species, marine
> mammals, or critical habitat of these species. Fixed gear use within
> the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector is not expected to increase interference
> with threatened species, marine mammals, or their habitat. By
> mandating the retention of all legal-sized GB cod and by operating
> under a hard TAC rather than a daily trip limit, the Fixed Gear Sector
> may be able to harvest their allocation of GB cod more efficiently and
> in less time. By increasing this efficiency, gear could remain in the
> water less time than it would under common pool rules, thereby
> reducing the potential interactions with protected species. (Section
> 4.2.1).

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.)?*

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to have a
> substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the
> affected area. Implementation of the Operations Plan would cap the
> maximum amount of effort within the Fixed Gear Sector. As a result,
> the biodiversity and ecosystem impacts common to the common pool fleet
> would not expand (Section 4.2.2 and 4.4).

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The social and economic impacts of the
> Proposed Action are not interrelated with significant natural or
> physical environmental effects. As discussed in the EA, no significant
> social, economic, or biological effects are expected as a result of
> this project (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.3).

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The implementation of the GB Fixed Gear Sector
> was approved by a majority of the NEFMC. The GB Fixed Gear Sector is
> the second GB cod sector in New England that voluntarily fishes under
> a hard TAC of GB cod. Through the promotion of hard TACs as an
> alternative to DAS, the Fixed Gear Sector draws some controversy.
> However, healthy discussions revolving around alternative forms of
> management allow for the NEFMC to more informatively and effectively
> manage its fisheries (Section 4.2.3). Additionally, the effects on the
> quality of the human environment of this action are not expected to
> negatively impact target species, non-target species, habitat or
> protected resources as described in Sections 4.4 and 4.5.

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?*

> [Response]{.underline}: There are no known historic or cultural
> resources, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, or wild scenic rivers
> in the study area. All bottom-set, longline and sink gillnet gear is
> considered fixed and passive because once deployed the gear does not
> move. The general impacts to EFH from the use of these gears would be
> minimal and the level of damage to the habitat overall is considered
> to be quite low (Section 5.2.2 of original EA- Habitat Impacts
> (Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative)).

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan would
> mitigate harmful impacts of Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP by
> conveying environmental, social, and economic benefits directly to the
> Fixed Gear Sector members and thereby to the communities of Chatham
> and Harwichport. The effects of the proposed action on the human
> environment are not expected to be highly uncertain or involve unique
> or unknown risks (Section 4.2.3).

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

> [Response]{.underline}: The proposed action is not related to other
> actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant
> impacts. None of the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action are
> considered significant, nor are impacts of recent (since Amendment 13)
> management actions. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not have any
> significant impacts when considered individually or in conjunction
> with other actions/frameworks (Sections 5.5 and 5.6).

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?*

> [Response]{.underline}: There are no adjacent human communities that
> would be affected by the Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan. The study
> would take place on ocean waters and would not affect any human
> communities on the adjacent shorelines. There are no known districts,
> sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for
> listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Due to the
> minimal impact on the human environment, the effect of the Fixed Gear
> Sector Operations Plan would not be significant on scientific,
> cultural, or historical resources.

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

> [Response]{.underline}: No non-indigenous species would be introduced
> during the Proposed Action because operation of the Fixed Gear Sector
> is confined to a traditional fishing area, the GB Hook Sector Area
> (Section 4.2.1). Therefore, introduction or spread of non-indigenous
> species is minimized.

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?*

> [Response]{.underline}: The NEFMC has authorized the formation of
> Sectors under Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP and has set
> forth criteria for establishing Sectors in that action. The Proposed
> Action was initiated in response to Amendment 13, as would any related
> future actions. The Proposed Action does not set a precedent because
> it abides by the criteria set forth in Amendment 13. However, it
> should be noted that while Amendment 13 established the process for
> Sector allocation, each sector proposal is considered individually on
> its own merits and expected impacts, and include a specified process
> for public comment and 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?*

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to
> threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements
> imposed for the protection of the environment. In addition to Fixed
> Gear Sector rules, the Fixed Gear Sector would comply with all local,
> regional, and national laws and permitting requirements.

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*?

> [Response]{.underline}: The Proposed Action is not expected to result
> in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on
> target or non-target species. As stated in Section 5.0, impact on
> resources, encompassing groundfish, and other stocks is expected to be
> minimal.

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

**DETERMINATION**

In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis
contained in the supporting Environmental Assessment prepared for
Approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan, it is hereby
determined that the Approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector Operations
Plan would 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.

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

Northeast Regional Administrator Date

**[Administrative Procedure Act (APA)]{.underline}**

This action was developed in compliance with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act, and these requirements will continue to be
followed when the proposed regulation is published. Section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act establishes procedural requirements
applicable to informal rulemaking by Federal agencies. The purpose of
these requirements is to ensure public access to the Federal rulemaking
process, and to give the public adequate notice and opportunity for
comment. At this time, NMFS is not requesting any abridgement of the
rulemaking process for this action.

**[Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)]{.underline}**

> The purpose of the PRA is to control and, to the extent possible,
> minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses,
> nonprofit institutions, and other persons resulting from the
> collection of information by or for the Federal Government. This
> action does not propose to modify any existing collections or to add
> any new collections; therefore, no review under the PRA is necessary.

**[Information Quality Act (Section 515)]{.underline}**

In accordance with the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), the
Office of Management and Budget directed each Federal agency to issue
guidelines that ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity
of information disseminated by Federal agencies. The NOAA Section 515
Information Quality Guidelines require a series of actions for each new
information product subject to the Information Quality Act. Information
must meet standards of utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section
provides information that demonstrates compliance with these standards.

### *Utility of Information Product*

A *Is the information helpful, beneficial or serviceable to the intended
user?*

> The EA contains a description of the authority for the formation of a
> Fixed Gear Sector, as well as a description of the GB Cod Fixed Gear
> Sector and the proposed Fixed Gear Sector Agreement and Operations
> Plan. In addition, this EA contains specific information on the
> proposed number of participants in the Fixed Gear Sector and the
> amount of GB cod TAC proposed for allocation to the Fixed Gear Sector.
> Therefore, the EA contains the various information elements of
> interest to the public and necessary for decision makers to make
> informed decisions.

B *Is the data or information product an improvement over previously
available information? Is it more current or detailed? Is it more useful
or accessible to the public? Has it been improved based on comments from
or interactions with customers?*

> The proposed Fixed Gear Sector Agreement and Operations Plan for the
> 2008 fishing year is the third Fixed Gear Sector proposal submitted by
> the Fixed Gear Sector; the first was submitted for FY2006. However,
> Fixed Gear Sector vessels were not allowed to fish during the 2006
> fishing year prior to approval of the Fixed Gear Sector and Operations
> Plan. Due to delays in the implementation of FW42, final approval and
> implementation occurred in November 2006. As such, the number of
> vessels that were eligible to participate in the Fixed Gear Sector (1)
> was substantially smaller than anticipated since most vessels could
> not afford to forgo fishing operations until approval of the Fixed
> Gear Sector. In FY2007, a larger number of vessels (16) participated
> in the Fixed Gear Sector. The Fixed Gear Sector has continued to grow
> for FY2008, with 33 vessels participating. The EA and Operations Plan
> for FY2008 has therefore changed somewhat to reflect a larger number
> of participants.

C. *What media are used in the dissemination of the information? Printed
publications? CD-ROM? Internet? Is the product made available in a
standard data format? Does it use consistent attribute naming and unit
conventions to ensure that the information is accessible to a broad
range of users with a variety of operating systems and data needs?*

> The Federal Register notice that announces the proposed Operations
> Plan and Fixed Gear Sector Agreement would be made available in
> printed publication and on the Internet website for the NERO.
> Instructions for obtaining a copy of this EA are included in the
> Federal Register notice.

***Integrity of Information Product***

The information product meets the following standards for integrity:

All electronic information disseminated by NOAA Fisheries Service
adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, "Security of Automated
Information Resources," of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government
Information Security Act. If information is confidential, it is
safeguarded pursuant to the Privacy Act; Titles 13, 15, and 22 of the
U.S. Code (confidentiality of census, business, and financial
information); the Confidentiality of Statistics provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act; and NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Protection
of Confidential Fisheries Statistics.

## Objectivity of Information

(1) *Indicate which of the following categories of information products
    apply for this product:*

> ‪ Original Data
>
> ‪ Synthesized Products
>
> ‪ Interpreted Products
>
> ‪ Hydrometeorological, Hazardous Chemical Spill, and Space Weather
> Warnings, Forecasts, and Advisories
>
> ‪ Experimental Products
>
> **X** Natural Resource Plans
>
> ‪ Corporate and General Information

(2) *Describe how this information product meets the applicable
    objectivity standards.*

*What published standard(s) governs the creation of the Natural
Resources Plan? Does the Plan adhere to the published standards?*

> The Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan and Fixed Gear Sector Agreement
> must comply with the requirements of the NE Multispecies FMP, as well
> as the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, APA, CZMA, ESA,
> MMPA, and EOs 12612 (Federalism), 12630 (Property Rights), 12866
> (Regulatory Planning), and 13158 (MPAs, Marine Protected Areas). The
> NOAA Fisheries Service Administrator, NE Region, has authority, under
> 50 CFR 648.87, to approve the Operations Plan and Fixed Gear Sector
> Agreement and allocate TAC to the Fixed Gear Sector. NOAA Fisheries
> Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed Fixed
> Gear Sector Agreement and Operations Plan are consistent with the FMP
> and all applicable laws. In making a final decision, NOAA Fisheries
> Service would take into account comments received on the proposed rule
> and pertinent information that may be more current than previous
> information.

*Was the Plan developed using the best information available? Please
explain.*

> The proposed Fixed Gear Sector Agreement and Operations Plan are based
> upon information currently available, and the proposed TAC is based
> upon the best scientific information available, including Amendment 13
> and FW42.

*Has a clear distinction been drawn between policy choices and the
supporting science upon which they are based? Have all supporting
materials, information, data and analyses used within the Plan been
properly reference to ensure transparency?*

The policy choices that are proposed are supported by the available
scientific information. The overall GB cod target TAC from which the
proposed GB cod hard TAC for the Fixed Gear Sector is derived was based
upon Amendment 13 data as well as the 2005 GARM II data in accordance
with the process described in the FMP. The supporting materials and
analyses used to develop the TAC are contained in readily available
documents. The process utilized to develop the Fixed Gear Sector TAC is
described in the FMP.

*Describe the review process of the Plan by technically qualified
individuals to ensure that the Plan is valid, complete, unbiased,
objective and relevant. For example, internal review by staff who were
not involved in the development of the Plan to formal, independent,
external peer review. The level of review should be commensurate with
the importance of the Plan and the constraints imposed by legally
enforceable deadlines.*

The NOAA Fisheries Service Administrator, NE Region made a preliminary
determination that the proposed Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan, Fixed
Gear Sector Agreement, and proposed Fixed Gear Sector TAC are consistent
with Amendment 13, the FMP, and applicable laws. Staff from the
Sustainable Fisheries Division and Fishery Statistics Division and staff
responsible for implementation of NEPA reviewed the pertinent
information. Establishment of the overall GB cod target TAC involved
scientists with specialties in population dynamics, stock assessment
methods, and demersal resources. In accordance with the FMP regulations,
the RA would make a final determination after obtaining public comment.

**[Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)]{.underline}**

This EO established nine fundamental federalism principles for Federal
agencies to follow when developing and implementing actions with
federalism implications. The EO also lists a series of policy making
criteria to which Federal agencies must adhere when formulating and
implementing policies that have federalism implications. However, no
federalism issues or implications have been identified relative to the
measures proposed in the Approval of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
Operations Plan. This action does not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of an assessment under EO
13132. The affected states have been closely involved in the development
of the proposed management measures through their representation on the
Council (all affected states are represented as voting members of at
least one Regional Fishery Management Council). No comments were
received from any state officials relative to any federalism
implications that may be associated with this action.

[**Executive Order** **13158 (Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs))**]{.underline}

The EO on MPAs requires Federal agencies whose actions affect the
natural or cultural resources that are protected by an MPA to identify
such actions and, to the extent permitted by law and to the maximum
extent practicable, in taking such actions to avoid harm to the natural
and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA. The EO directs
Federal agencies to refer to the MPAs identified in a list developed and
maintained by the Departments of Commerce and Interior. As of the date
of submission of this document, the List of MPAs has not yet been
developed. No further guidance related to this EO is available at this
time.

**[Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)]{.underline}**

EO 12898 requires that "to the greatest extent practicable and permitted
by law 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 in the United States and its
territories and possessions...". Few, if any, low income or ethnic
minority populations participate in the local Fixed Gear fishery. Those
that do are more likely to be crew members rather than owners/operators.
Very few minority populations reside in Chatham/Harwichport and almost
none currently participate in this fishery. Due to the scale of the
fishery (approximately 20 vessels in FY2007), there is no indication
that the Preferred Alternative would have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on income-poor or minority populations; thus, the
overall impacts are not expected to be significant.

**11.0 References**

Backus, Richard H. Editor in Chief, Georges Bank, The MIT Press, 1987

Collette, B.B. and G. Klein-MacPhee, eds. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder\'s
fishes of the Gulf of Maine,

> third edition. P. 141-156. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
> DC.

Demarest, Chad, NEFSC, Unpublished data, 2004

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 223 and 229 Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan: Final
rule. (Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 2003 /
Rules and Regulations)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 229 Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan: Final rule.
(Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 231 / Wednesday, December 2, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 229 List of Fisheries for 2003 ACTION: Final rule. (Federal
Register / Vol. 68, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2003 / Rules and
Regulations)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 229 List of Fisheries for 2004 ACTION: Proposed rule
(Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 13, 2004 / Proposed
Rules)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 229 List of Fisheries for 2005 ACTION: Final rule (Federal
Register / Vol. 71, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2006 / Rules and
Regulations)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 229 List of Fisheries for 2006 ACTION: Final rule (Federal
Register / Vol. 71, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 2006 / Rules and
Regulations)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 229.2 Authorization for Commercial Fisheries Under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Definitions

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 600, Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) Interim Final Rule- January 1998.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 600, Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) Final Rule, January 2002.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 648 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE)
Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 13; Proposed Rule (Federal Register /
Vol. 69, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
50 CFR Part 648 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE)
Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 13; Final Rule (Federal Register / Vol.
69, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, As Amended Through October 11, 1996.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, NERO, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee,
Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the
Northeastern United States, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference
Document 02-01, October 23-25, 2001, February 2002

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, Small
Entity Compliance Guide, 2004

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2005.

Gilbert, J. R. and K.M. Wynne. 1985. Harbor seal populations and
fisheries interactions with marine mammals in New England, 1984. Interim
Rep., NOAA NA-84-EAC-00070, NOAA Fisheries Service, NEFSC., Woods Hole,
MA, 15pp.

Hall-Arber, Madeleine, Christopher Dyer, John Poggie, James McNally and
Renee Gagne. 2001. Fishing Communities and Fishing Dependency in the
Northeast Region of the United States. MARFIN Project Final Report to
National Marine Fisheries Service.

Lough, R. Gregory. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod,
Gadus morhua, Life History and Habitat Characteristics (2^nd^ edition).
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries Service-NE-190. Series Editor:
David B. Packer. National Marine Fisheries Serv., James J. Howard Marine
Sciences Lab., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ 07732. 2004.

NEFMC-Draft Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan Including a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, 2003

NEFMC-Final Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan Including a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

NEFMC-Final Fishery Management Plan for the Northeast Skate Complex
Including a Final Environmental Impact Statement, and an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

NEFMC -- Final Fishery Management Plan for Monkfish, 1998

NEFMC- Final Omnibus Amendment for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Incorporating the Environmental Assessment, Volume 1, October 7, 1998.

NEFSC. 2005a. Assessment of 19 Northeast Region Groundfish Stocks
through 2004: Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (2005 GARM; GARM II).
NEFSC Reference Document 05-13.

NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological
Opinion, June 14, 2001

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries Service-NE-124: Essential Fish
Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life History and
Habitat Characteristics by Michael P. Fahay, Peter L. Berrien, Donna L.
Johnson, and Wallace W. Morse. Series Editor: [[David B.
Packer]{.underline}](mailto:Dave.Packer@noaa.gov) National Marine
Fisheries Serv., James J. Howard Marine Sciences Lab., 74 Magruder Rd.,
Highlands, NJ 07732., 1999

Russo, Mike, FV Susan Lee, Personal Communication, 2004

Stevenson, D., et. al. 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
Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries Service-NE-181. 2004.

Taylor, Peter, F/V Seahound, Personal Communication, 2004

Valentine, P.C. and R.G. Lough, 1991. The sea floor environment and the
fishery of eastern Georges Bank. *U.S. Dep. Inter., U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open File Rep.* 91-439; 25 p.

Wynne, Kate and Malia Schwartz, Guide to Marine Mammals and Turtles of
the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Rhode Island Sea Grant, 1999.

**12.0 Glossary of Acronyms and Terms**

**ALWTRP** Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

**APA** Administrative Procedure Act

**ATTRT** Atlantic Trawl Take Reduction Team

**BDTRP** Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan

**CEQ** Council of Environmental Quality

**Cod** Codfish

**Council** New England Fishery Management Council

**CWA** Cape Wind Associates

**DAS** Days-at-Sea

**DFO** Department of Fisheries and Oceans

**DPS** Distinct Population Segment

**DQA** Information Quality Act

**EA** Environmental Assessment

**EFH** Essential Fish Habitat

**EO** Executive Order

**ESA** Endangered Species Act of 1973

**F** Mortality

**FMP** Fishery Management Plan

**FMSY** Mortality That Produces the Maximum Sustainable Yield

**FONSI** Finding of No Significant Impact

**FSEIS** Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

**F/V** Fishing Vessel

**FW 40A** FW Adjustment 40A

**FW 40B** FW Adjustment 40B

**FW 41** FW Adjustment 41

**FW 42** FW Adjustment 42

**FY** Fishing Year

**GARM** Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting

**GB** Georges Bank

**Gillnetter** Gillnet gear employed by fisherman

**GME/BF** Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy

**GOM** Gulf of Maine

**Handline** Hook gear employed by hand (jig)

**Hook Sector** GB Cod Hook Sector

**HPTRP** Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

**IMPLAN** Impact Analysis for Planning

**Jig** Hook gear employed by hand or rod

**Jigger** Fisherman or vessel which employs rod and reel and/or
handline

**Longline** Demersal longline or tub trawl

**LNG** Liquefied Natural Gas

**LOF** List of Fisheries

**Magnuson Act** Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1996

**Manager** Individual employed by the Hook Sector to manage the Hook
Sector

**MARFIN** Marine Fisheries Initiative

**MMPA** Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

**MPA** Marine Protected Area

**MSY** Maximum Sustainable Yield

**mt** Metric Ton

**NAICS** North American Industry Classification System

**NE** New England

**NEFMC** New England Fishery Management Council

**NEFSC** Northeast Fisheries Science Center

**NEPA** National Environmental Policy Act

**NMFS** National Marine Fisheries Service

**NOAA** National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

**NOAA Fisheries** National Marine Fisheries Service

**NERO** Northeast Regional Office

**OMB** Office of Management and Budget

**Operating Area** GB Cod Hook Sector Area

**Operations Plan** GB Cod Hook Sector Allocation Operations Plan

**OY** Optimum Yield

**PBR** Potential Biological Removal

**PDT** Plan Development Team

**PRA** Paperwork Reduction Act

**RA** Regional Administrator

**RO** Regional Office

**RFA** Regulatory Flexibility Act

**RFAA** Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

**SAP** Special Access Program

**SAW** Stock Assessment Workshop

**SBA** Small Business Administration

**Sector** GB Cod Hook Sector

**Sector Area** GB Cod Hook Sector Area

**SFA** 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery

> Conservation and Management Act

**SEIS** Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

**SNE** Southern New England

**SSB** Spawning Stock Biomass

**TAC** Total Allowable Catch

**VEC** Valued Ecosystem Component

**WGOM** Western GOM Closed Area

**WNA** Western North Atlantic