2020-2021 Scup and Black Sea Bass Specifications Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis March 2020 Prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901 (302) 674-2331 tel. (302) 674-5399 fax National Marine Fisheries Service 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 (978) 281-9315 tel. (978) 281-9135 fax Initial submission to NMFS: January 14, 2020 Revisions submitted to NMFS: March 5, 2020 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document was prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (the Council or MAFMC) in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This document was developed in accordance with all applicable laws and statutes as described in section 8. The purpose of this action is to implement commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits (RHLs) for the scup and black sea bass fisheries for 2020-2021. These measures are necessary to prevent overfishing and ensure that annual catch limits (ACLs) are not exceeded. This document describes all evaluated management alternatives (section 5) and their expected impacts on four aspects of the affected environment, which are defined as valued ecosystem components (VECs; sections 6 and 7). The expected impacts of the alternatives on the VECs are derived from consideration of both the current conditions of the VECs and expected changes in fishing effort under each alternative. Summary of 2020-2021 Scup Quota and RHL Alternatives and Impacts The 2020-2021 scup alternatives are summarized in Table 1 and described in more detail in section 5.1. Their expected impacts on the VECs are summarized in Table 2 and described in more detail in section 7. Alternative 1A is the status quo alternative and includes scup catch and landings limits identical to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (82 Federal Register 60682, 12/22/2017). Alternative 1B is the preferred alternative, and includes catch and landings limits recommended by the Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission or ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) in October 2019. Alternative 1B is based on the recommendations of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which are based on the best available scientific information and are intended to prevent overfishing. Alternative 1C is the least restrictive alternative for scup and includes a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% higher than those under alternative 1A. Alternative 1D is the most restrictive alternative and includes a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% below the limits under alternative 1B. As shown in Table 1, the commercial quota and RHL under alternatives 1A, 1C, and 1D would be identical in 2020 and 2021, but would vary across the two years under alternative 1B. The Council and Board recommended varying catch and landings limits across 2020-2021 as their preferred alternative. The other scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A, 1C, and 1D) are not preferred and are included for comparison purposes only. They include constant catch and landings limits across the two years for ease of comparison. Under all scup alternatives, it was assumed that commercial landings in 2020-2021 would be similar to the 2015-2018 average of 15.40 million pounds, which is lower than the 2020-2021 commercial quotas under all scup alternatives (Table 1). It was not assumed that commercial landings would reach the commercial quota under any alternative because the commercial fishery has not harvested the full quota since 2007. Commercial scup harvest appears to be limited more by market demand than by the quota. This is expected to continue to be the case under all alternatives for 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits. Based on this assumption, even under the most restrictive alternative for scup (i.e., alternative1D), commercial harvest would not meet the commercial quota. However, recreational harvest estimates for 2015-2018 based on current data are higher than the 2020-2021 RHLs under all scup alternatives. For the purposes of analyzing the impacts of the 2020-2021 RHLs, it was assumed that under all scup alternatives, measures would be put in place to constrain harvest to the RHL. 2 Based on the assumptions described above, all the scup alternatives (1A-1D) would be expected to result in in status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort and landings. All scup alternatives, including the least restrictive alternative (i.e., alternative 1C) would require a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings compared to recent levels, though the magnitude of these expected changes varies across the four scup alternatives. Alternative 1D (most restrictive) is expected to result in the largest reduction in recreational fishing effort and landings of the four scup alternatives, followed by alternative 1B (preferred), alternative 1A (status quo), and alternative 1C (least restrictive). Under all scup alternatives, it is not expected that fishing effort would substantially shift or expand in geographic area or seasonality. Table 1: 2020-2021 scup commercial quota and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D. Alternative Commercial quota (mil lb) RHL (mil lb) 2020 2021 2020 2021 1A (status quo) 23.98 7.37 1B (preferred) 22.23 18.06 6.51 5.34 1C (least restrictive) 29.98 9.21 1D (most restrictive) 16.67 4.88 Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings limit Alternatives on Scup and Non-Target Species As described in more detail in section 7, all scup alternatives (1A-1D) would be expected to result in in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and landings due to market constraints which have kept commercial landings below the quotas under alternatives 1A-1D for several years. All scup alternatives would be expected to result in a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings compared to recent years, though the magnitude of these expected changes varies across the four scup alternatives. All scup alternatives are expected to result in moderate positive impacts on scup in 2020-2021, as they would maintain biomass levels above the overfished threshold and overfishing would not be expected to occur. Alternative 1D has the lowest expected fishing effort and fishing mortality for scup and therefore is expected to result in the highest positive impacts to scup, followed by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. As described in more detail in section 7.1.1, alternatives 1A-1D are not expected to result in a change in the stock status of any non-target species; therefore, they are all expected to have impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative for non-target species which currently have a negative stock status (i.e., bluefish and those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive for non-target species with a currently positive stock status (i.e., spiny dogfish).Of the four scup alternatives, alternative 1D has the highest potential for positive impacts to non-target species, followed by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings limit Alternatives on Physical Habitat The scup fisheries operate in areas that have been fished for many years by many fisheries. As previously stated, all scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A-1D) are expected to result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and a reduction in recreational fishing effort. The magnitude of the expected reduction in recreational fishing effort varies across the four alternatives. Recreational hook and line gear generally has much lesser impacts on physical habitat than bottom otter trawl gear, the dominant gear type in the commercial scup fishery. None of the 3 alternatives are expected to change the methods of fishing or the areas fished. The expected levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under all scup alternatives are unlikely to further degrade habitat beyond its current state. Continued commercial and recreational fishing under all scup alternatives, including reduced levels of recreational fishing effort, is expected to result in slight negative impacts to habitat due to continued interactions between fishing gear and physical habitat. Of the four scup alternatives, alternative 1D is expected to result in the lowest total (i.e., commercial and recreational) fishing effort; therefore, the expected slight negative impacts to habitat are lowest in magnitude under alternative 1D, followed by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives on Protected Species As described in more detail in section 6.3, bottom trawl gear is the predominant gear type used in the commercial fishery. As interactions between this gear type and ESA listed species and/or MMPA protected species have been observed, operation of the commercial scup fishery has the potential to interact with these species. Based on documented interactions between hook and line gear and some protected species, the recreational fishery also has the potential to interact with certain protected species (see section 6.3). The continued operation of the commercial and recreational scup fisheries under all alternatives is expected to result in some level of continued interaction risk for protected species. Any interaction with an ESA-listed species or an MMPA protected species which is not at a sustainable level (i.e., PBR level has been exceeded), is considered a negative impact, even under reduced fishing effort levels; therefore, all scup alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts for those species. Some MMPA and ESA-listed species have not had documented interactions with the primary commercial scup gear types (e.g., large whales (except minke) and bottom trawls) and alternatives 1A-1D are expected to have negligible impacts for those species.