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. For non-ESA listed marine mammal species that are at more sustainable levels (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded), any action not expected to change fishing behavior or effort such that interaction risks increase relative to what has been in the fishery previously may have indirect positive impacts by maintaining takes below the PBR level and approaching the Zero Mortality Rate Goal. None of the scup alternatives are expected to result in an increase in fishing effort; therefore, new or elevated interactions to non-listed marine mammal species in good condition are not expected. Therefore, alternatives 1A-1D are all expected to result in slight positive impacts for marine mammals which have not had their PBR levels exceeded by maintaining those stocks at sustainable levels. In summary, alternatives 1A-1D are expected to have potential impacts on protected species ranging from slight negative to slight positive, with slight negative to slight positive impacts likely on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight negative impacts likely for ESA-listed species. Of the four scup alternatives, alternative 1D has the potential for the lowest fishing effort; therefore, it is expected to have the lowest potential for negative impacts to protected species, followed in order by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. Socioeconomic Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings limit Alternatives As described in detail in section 7.1, 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

4

commercial quotas under all scup alternatives. 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. Therefore, all scup alternatives (1A-1D) are expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery by maintaining similar levels of commercial revenues as recent years. These expected impacts are identical across all scup alternatives (1A-1D). All scup alternatives are expected to result in a decrease in recreational harvest and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery, though the magnitude of these expected changes varies across the four scup alternatives. Because recreational landings (and thus for-hire revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be highest under alternative 1C compared to the other scup alternatives, alternative 1C is expected to have the least negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery, followed by alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1D. Table 2: Expected impacts of 2020-2021 scup quotas and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D on each VEC, relative to current conditions. A minus sign (–) signifies a negative impact and a plus sign (+) signifies a positive impact. “Mod” refers to a moderate impact and “Sl” refers to a slight impact. None of the impacts are expected to be significant. Cells are shaded to show relative rankings of the alternatives from greatest positive/least negative to least positive/most negative expected impacts on each VEC. Green refers to the most positive/least negative, followed in order by yellow, orange, and red. All expected impacts are described in detail in section 7. Target and Non-

Protected Species Human Communities Target Species Alter- Marine Non- ESA-Listed native Mammals Commercial Recreational

Scup Target Habitat (endangered or (not ESA Fishery Fishery Species threatened) listed) 1A Sl - to Negligible to (Status Mod + Sl - Sl - to Sl + Mod + Mod - Mod + Sl - quo) 1B Sl - to Negligible to Mod + Sl - Sl - to Sl + Mod + Mod - (Preferred) Mod + Sl - 1C Sl - to Negligible to (Least Mod + Sl - Sl - to Sl + Mod + Mod - Mod + Sl - Restrictive) 1D Sl - to Negligible to (Most Mod + Sl - Sl - to Sl + Mod + Mod - Mod + Sl - restrictive)

Summary of 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives and Impacts The alternatives for 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits are summarized in Table 3 and described in more detail in section 5.2. Their expected impacts on the VECs are summarized in Table 4 and described in more detail in section 7. Alternative 2A is the status quo alternative, and includes black sea bass landings limits identical to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (83 Federal Register 64482, 12/17/2018). Alternative 2B is the preferred alternative and includes landings limits recommended by the Council and Board in October 2019. The preferred alternative is based on the recommendations of the Council’s SSC. It is based on the best available scientific information and is intended to prevent overfishing. Alternative 2C is the least restrictive alternative

5 and includes landings limits that are 25% higher than those under alternative 2B. Alternative 2D is the most restrictive alternative and includes landings limits that are 25% lower than those under alternative 2A. Under all black sea bass alternatives, it was assumed that commercial landings would be very close to the commercial quota and recreational harvest would meet, but not exceed, the RHL. Unlike scup, the commercial black sea bass fishery has landed very close to commercial quota for many years. Black sea bass are a valuable, highly available species; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that even under the quotas under alternatives 2B and 2C, which would be the highest quotas ever implemented for black sea bass, commercial landings would reach that level. Recreational harvest estimates for 2015-2018 based on the revised recreational data are higher than the 2020-2021 RHLs under all black sea bass alternatives. For example, estimated recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) is 9-189% greater than the 2020-2021 RHL, depending on the alternative. For the purposes of analyzing the impacts of the 2020-2021 RHLs, it was assumed that under all black sea bass alternatives, measures would be put in place to constrain harvest to the RHL. Based on these assumptions, alternative 2A (status quo) would be expected to result in status quo levels of commercial black sea bass fishing effort and landings, but a reduction in recreational fishing effort and landings. Alternative 2B (preferred) would be expected to result in an increase in commercial fishing effort and landings and a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings compared to recent levels. This expected decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings is lesser in magnitude than under alternative 2A. Alternative 2C (least restrictive) would be expected to result in an increase in commercial fishing effort and landings (greater than under alternative 2B) and slightly reduced or status quo levels of recreational fishing effort and landings. Alternative 2D (most restrictive) would be expected to result in a reduction in both commercial and recreational fishing effort and landings. This reduction would be greater than under all other black sea bass alternatives. Under all black sea bass alternatives, it is not expected that fishing effort would substantially shift or expand in geographic area or seasonality. Table 3: 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quotas and RHLs under alternatives 2A-2D. Commercial quota RHL Alternative (mil lb, both years) (mil lb, both years) Alternative 2A (Status quo) 3.52 3.66 Alternative 2B (preferred) 5.58 5.81 Alternative 2C (least restrictive) 6.98 7.26 Alternative 2D (most restrictive) 2.64 2.74

Impacts of 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives on Black Sea Bass and Non-Target Species

As described in more detail in section 7.1.2, alternatives 2A (status quo), 2B (preferred), and 2D (most restrictive) are expected to result in moderate positive impacts on black sea bass in 2020- 2021, as they are expected to maintain biomass levels above the target level and are not expected to result in overfishing. Alternative 2C (least restrictive) is also not expected to result in the black sea bass stock becoming overfished in 2020 or 2021; however, the impacts on the fishing mortality rate are uncertain. Depending on the scale and geographic distribution of the expected increase in

6

fishing effort under alternative 2C, the black sea bass stock may experience overfishing in 2020 or 2021. Therefore, the expected impacts of alternative 2C on black sea bass range from slight negative (if overfishing occurs) to slight positive (if overfishing does not occur).

None of the black sea bass alternatives are expected to result in a change in the stock status of any non-target species; therefore, as described in more detail in section 7.1.2, alternatives 2A-2D are all expected to have slight negative impacts on those non-target species with currently negative stock status and slight positive impacts on all non-target species with currently positive stock status. These impacts are expected to be similar under all black sea bass alternatives, including the least restrictive alternative (i.e., alternative 1C), which could allow for a notable increase in commercial fishing effort. As described in section 6.1.3, only spiny dogfish, striped sea robins, and scup accounted for 5% or more of total catch on black sea bass trips. Sea robins are unmanaged and their stock status is unknown as it has not been assessed. Both spiny dogfish and scup are managed at the state and federal levels. Management measures for both species include ACLs and AMs which take into account discards in all commercial fisheries. If the ACLs for either species are exceeded due to landings or discards, then AMs can be implemented to mitigate for any negative impacts to the stocks. Spiny dogfish and scup are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring based on the most recent stock assessment information. For all these reasons, the expected levels of fishing effort under all black sea bass alternatives are not expected to change the stock status of any commercial non-target species.

Due to expected differences in fishing effort under each alternative, and thus expected differences in fishing mortality for black sea bass and non-target species, alternative 2D (most restrictive) has the highest potential for positive impacts for black sea bass and non-target species compared to the other black sea bass alternatives, followed by alternative 2A (status quo), 2B (preferred), and 2C (least restrictive). Impacts of 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives on Physical Habitat As described in more detail in section 7.2.2, all black sea bass alternatives are expected to have slight negative habitat impacts due to continued interactions between fishing gear and physical habitats. As previously stated, compared to current conditions, increases in commercial fishing effort are expected under alternatives 2B (preferred) and 2C (least restrictive), while a decrease in commercial fishing effort is expected under alternative 2D (most restrictive) and no change is expected under alternative 2A (status quo). Reductions in recreational fishing effort are expected under alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D. Recreational fishing effort under alternative 2C could decrease slightly or remain close to recent levels. None of these changes in fishing effort are expected to result in additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the black sea bass fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. They are not expected to result in impacts to habitats which were previously not impacted by fishing activities. However, under all black sea bass alternatives, some level of commercial and recreational fishing effort will continue to occur and fishing gears will continue to impact physical habitat. For these reasons, alternatives 2A-2D are all expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. Due to expected differences in fishing effort under each alternative, the magnitude of the expected slight negative impacts on habitat are expected to be greatest under alternative 2C (least restrictive), followed by alternatives 2B (preferred), 2A (status quo), and 2D (most restrictive).

7

Impacts of 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives on Protected Species As described in more detail in section 6.3, bottom trawl gear and pots/traps are the predominant gear types used in the commercial black sea bass fishery. As interactions between these gear types and ESA listed species and/or MMPA protected species have been observed, operation of the commercial black sea bass 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). As previously stated, commercial fishing effort under each black sea bass alternative is expected to respond to changes in the commercial quota, with increased quotas resulting in increased effort and vice versa. However, reduced or status quo levels of recreational fishing effort are expected even under status quo (alternative 2A) or increased RHLs (alternatives 2B and 2C) due to the transition to the revised recreational data which shows that recreational harvest is higher than previously thought. Alternative 2A (status quo) is expected to result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and reduced recreational fishing effort for black sea bass compared to current conditions. For the reasons described in section 7.3.2, alternative 2A is expected to result in slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to moderate negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species. Alternative 2B (preferred) is expected to result in a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and a reduction in recreational fishing effort (a lesser reduction than under alternative 2A) compared to current conditions. For the reasons described in section 7.3.2.2, alternative 2B is expected to have moderate negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed marine mammals, depending on the species/stock and whether its PBR level is exceeded as a result of the expected increase in fishing effort, which is uncertain. Alternative 2B is expected to have negligible to high moderate negative (i.e., more negative than moderate negative, but less negative than high negative) impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species. Alternative 2C (least restrictive) is expected to result in a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort (greater than the increase expected under alternative 2B) and a slight reduction or status quo levels of recreational fishing effort. Alternative 2C has the highest expected fishing effort of the four black sea bass alternatives. For the reasons described in section 7.3.2.3, alternative 2C is expected to have high (but not significant) negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to high (but not significant) negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species and the scale of the actual increase in interactions, which is uncertain. Alternative 2D (most restrictive) is expected to result in reduced commercial and recreational fishing effort and is expected to have the lowest fishing effort of all four black sea bass alternatives. For the reasons described in section 7.3.2.4, alternative 2D is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight moderate negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species.

Due to expected differences in fishing effort under each alternative, and thus expected differences in the potential for interactions with protected species, alternative 2C (least restrictive) has the

8 highest potential for negative impacts for protected species compared to the other black sea bass alternatives, followed by alternatives 2B (preferred), 2A (status quo), and 2D (most restrictive). Socioeconomic Impacts of 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives As described in more detail in section 7.4.2, alternatives 2B (preferred) and 2C (least restrictive) are expected to result in notable increases in commercial landings of and commercial revenues from black sea bass compared to recent years. Black sea bass are a valuable commercial species (section 6.4.2); therefore, these expected increases in commercial landings and revenues are expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery. Alternative 2A (status quo) is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery by allowing for status quo levels of commercial landings and commercial revenues. Alternative 2D (most restrictive) would require an approximately 25% reduction in commercial landings compared to recent levels; therefore, it could have slight to moderate negative socioeconomic impacts due to expected decreases in commercial revenues. The expected socioeconomic impacts of alternatives 2A-2D for the recreational fishery differ from the expected impacts for the commercial fishery. Due to the use of the revised recreational data, which shows higher recreational harvest than the previous estimates, alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D would require reductions in recreational harvest to prevent RHL overages. Alternative 2C could require a slight reduction in recreational harvest compared to recent levels. Alternatively, based on annual decisions about expected harvest in the upcoming year, it is possible that alternative 2C could allow for no changes in management measures (i.e., bag, size, and season limits) and recreational fishing effort could remain similar to recent levels without exceeding the RHL. This document does not consider recreational management measures for 2020-2021. Any changes to those measures would be made through a separate action. As alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D are all expected to require moderate to large decreases in recreational harvest compared to recent levels to prevent RHL overages, they are all expected to result in reduced recreational fishing opportunities, reduced for-hire revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction. Therefore, alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D are expected to result in moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Alternative 2C is expected to result in socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery that range from slight negative (if a slight reduction in harvest is required) to slight positive (if recreational harvest can remain status quo).

Due to expected differences in commercial and recreational landings across alternatives 2A-2D, and thus expected differences in commercial and for-hire revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction, alternative 2C (least restrictive), is expected to have the highest positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and the least negative impacts for the recreational fishery, followed by alternatives 2B (preferred), 2C (status quo), and 2D (most restrictive).

9

Table 4: Expected impacts of 2020-2021 black sea bass quotas and RHLs under alternatives 2A- 2D on each VEC, relative to current conditions. A minus sign (–) signifies a negative impact and a plus sign (+) signifies a positive impact. “Mod” refers to a moderate impact and “Sl” refers to a slight impact. None of the impacts are expected to be significant. Cells are shaded to show relative rankings of the alternatives from greatest positive/least negative to least positive/most negative expected impacts on each VEC. Green refers to the most positive/least negative, followed in order by yellow, orange, and red. All expected impacts are described in detail in section 7.

Target and Non- Protected Species Human Communities Target Species Alter- Non- ESA-Listed Marine native Black Commercial Recreational

Target Habitat (endangered Mammals (not Sea Bass Fishery Fishery Species or threatened) ESA listed) 2A (Status Sl - to Negligible to Mod + Sl - Sl - to Sl + Mod+ Mod - quo) Mod + Mod - 2B Sl - to Negligible to Mod + Sl - Mod - to Sl + Mod + Mod - (preferred) Mod + High Mod - 2C (least Sl - to Sl - to Negligible to Sl - High - to Sl+ Mod + Sl - to Sl + restrictive) Sl+ Mod+ High - 2D (most Sl - to Negligible to High - to Mod + Sl - Sl - to Sl + Mod - to Sl- restrictive) Mod+ Sl Mod - Mod -

Cumulative Impacts The Council analyzed the impacts of all alternatives on the biological environment, physical habitat, protected species, and human communities. When the proposed action (i.e., all preferred alternatives) is considered in conjunction with all other impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, it is not expected to result in any significant impacts, positive or negative; therefore, no significant cumulative effects on the human environment are associated with the proposed action (section 7.5). Conclusions A description of the expected environmental impacts and any cumulative impacts resulting from each of the alternatives are provided in section 7. The preferred alternatives are not associated with significant impacts to the biological, socioeconomic, or physical environment, individually or in conjunction with other actions; therefore, a “Finding of No Significant Impact” is warranted.

10

2. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABC Acceptable Biological Catch ACL Annual Catch Limit ACT Annual Catch Target ALWTRP Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan AM Accountability Measure AO Administrative Order AP Advisory Panel ASM At Sea Monitoring Program ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ATGTRS Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy ATGTRT Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team BMSY Biomass at MSY Board ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board CEA Cumulative Effects Analysis CFR Code of Federal Regulations Commission Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Council Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort CV Coefficient of Variation DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act F Fishing Mortality Rate FMSY Fishing Mortality Rate at Maximum Sustainable Yield FMP Fishery Management Plan FR Federal Register FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GARFO Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office GOM Gulf of Maine ITS Incidental Take Statement LOF List of Fisheries MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MC Monitoring Committee MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey MRIP Marine Recreational Information Program MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NAO National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NEFOP Northeast Fisheries Observer Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 11

OFL Overfishing Limit OY Optimum Yield PBR Potential Biological Removal PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RHL Recreational Harvest Limit SARC Stock Assessment Review Committee SAW Stock Assessment Workshop SBA Small Business Administration SI Serious Injury SSB Spawning Stock Biomass SSBMSY Spawning Stock Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee STDN Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network TED Turtle Excluder Device USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VECs Valued Ecosystem Components VTR Vessel Trip Report

12

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 2. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 11 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 13 4. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 18 4.1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ...... 18 4.2. THE SPECIFICATIONS PROCESS ...... 18 5. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ...... 24 5.1. ALTERNATIVE SET 1: 2020-2021 SCUP CATCH AND LANDINGS LIMITS ...... 24 5.1.1. Alternative 1A: Status Quo Scup Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) ...... 24 5.1.2. Alternative 1B: Preferred Scup 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits ...... 25 5.1.3. Alternative 1C: Least Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limit (Non-Preferred) ...... 26 5.1.4. Alternative 1D: Most Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) ...... 27 5.2. ALTERNATIVE SET 2: 2020-2021 BLACK SEA BASS CATCH AND LANDINGS LIMITS ...... 27 5.2.1. Alternative 2A: Status Quo Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) 27 5.2.2. Alternative 2B: Preferred Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits ...... 29 5.2.3. Alternative 2C: Least Restrictive Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits (Non- Preferred) ...... 30 5.2.4. Alternative 2D: Most Restrictive Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits (Non- Preferred) ...... 31 5.3. TRUE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 31 5.4. CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED ALTERNATIVES: MONITORING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 32 5.4.1. Monitoring Committee Recommendations for 2020-2021 Scup Specifications ...... 32 5.4.2. Monitoring Committee Recommendations for 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Specifications ...... 33 6. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 36 6.1. MANAGED SPECIES AND NON-TARGET SPECIES ...... 36 6.1.1. Scup ...... 36 6.1.2. Black Sea Bass ...... 39 6.1.3. Non-Target Species ...... 43 6.2. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... 50 6.2.1. Physical Environment ...... 50 6.2.2. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ...... 52 6.2.3. Fishery Impact Considerations ...... 58 6.3. ESA AND MMPA PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 60 6.3.1. Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Affected by the Proposed Action ...... 62 6.3.2. Species Potentially Affected by the Proposed Action ...... 62 6.3.3. Gear Interactions and Protected Species ...... 66 6.4. HUMAN COMMUNITIES ...... 75 6.4.1. Scup Fisheries ...... 75 6.4.2. Black Sea Bass Fisheries ...... 82 7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 90 7.1. IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SCUP, BLACK SEA BASS, AND NON-TARGET SPECIES ...... 97 7.1.1. Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Scup and Non-Target Species ..... 97 7.1.2. Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Black Sea Bass and Non- Target Species ...... 103 7.2. IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON HABITAT ...... 109 7.2.1. Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Habitat...... 109 7.2.2. Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Habitat ...... 112 7.3. IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 114 7.3.1. Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Protected Species ...... 115 7.3.2. Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Protected Species ..... 124 7.4. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 133 7.4.1. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) ...... 133 7.4.2. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) ...... 137 13

7.5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...... 142 7.5.1. Consideration of the VECs ...... 142 7.5.2. Geographic Boundaries ...... 142 7.5.3. Temporal Boundaries ...... 142 7.5.4. Actions Others Than Those Proposed in this Document...... 143 7.5.5. Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects ...... 148 7.5.6. Proposed Action on all the VECs ...... 151 8. APPLICABLE LAWS ...... 152 8.1. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT (MSA) ...... 152 8.1.1 National Standards ...... 152 8.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 153 8.2. NEPA FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ...... 154 8.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ...... 160 8.4. MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT ...... 161 8.5. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT ...... 161 8.6. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ...... 162 8.7. SECTION 515 (DATA QUALITY ACT) ...... 162 8.8. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ...... 163 8.9. RELATIVE TO FEDERALISM/EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132 ...... 163 8.10. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT AND REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW ...... 163 8.10.1. Basis and Purpose of the Rule and Summary of Preferred Alternatives ...... 163 8.10.2. Regulatory Flexibility Act ...... 164 8.10.3. Regulatory Impact Review ...... 168 8.10.4. Analysis of Non-Preferred Alternatives ...... 169 9. LITERATURE CITED ...... 169 10. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED...... 181

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Council’s risk policy on overfishing...... 20 Figure 2: Flowchart for scup catch and landings limits...... 21 Figure 3: Flowchart for black sea bass catch and landings limits...... 22 Figure 4: Scup SSB and recruitment at age 0, 1984-2018 from the 2019 operational stock assessment...... 37 Figure 5: Scup total catch and fishing mortality, 1984-2018 from the 2019 operational stock assessment...... 38 Figure 6: Estimates of black sea bass spawning stock biomass and fully-recruited fishing mortality relative to the updated biological reference points from the 2019 operational stock assessment...... 41 Figure 7: Black sea bass SSB and recruitment, 1989-2018 from the 2019 operational stock assessment...... 42 Figure 8: Total black sea bass catch and fishing mortality, 1989-2018, from the 2019 operational stock assessment. (Source: NEFSC 2019)...... 42 Figure 9: Summer flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB; solid line) and recruitment at age 0 (R; vertical bars) 1980-2017...... 46 Figure 10: Total fishery catch (mt; solid line) and fully-recruited fishing mortality (F, peak at age 4; squares) of summer flounder...... 46 14

Figure 11: Proportion of scup catch by statistical area in 2018. Statistical areas marked “confidential” are associated with fewer than three vessels and/or dealers...... 77 Figure 12: Landings, ex-vessel value, and price for scup from Maine through North Carolina, 1994-2018...... 77 Figure 13: The Scup Gear Restricted Areas...... 79 Figure 14: Landings, ex-vessel value, and average price for black sea bass, ME-NC, 1994-2018...... 85 Figure 15: Proportion of black sea bass catch by statistical area in 2018 based on federal VTR data...... 86 Figure 16: Average annual ex-vessel price per pound for black sea bass compared to annual black sea bass commercial landings from Maine through North Carolina, 2010-2019, with associated linear relationship...... 139 Figure 17: Average annual ex-vessel price per pound for black sea bass from Maine through North Carolina, by year, 2010-2019, with associated linear relationship...... 140 Figure 18: Overall climate vulnerability score for Greater Atlantic species ...... 148

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: 2020-2021 scup commercial quota and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D...... 3 Table 2: Expected impacts of 2020-2021 scup quotas and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D on each VEC, relative to current conditions...... 5 Table 3: 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quotas and RHLs under alternatives 2A-2D...... 6 Table 4: Expected impacts of 2020-2021 black sea bass quotas and RHLs under alternatives 2A- 2D on each VEC, relative to current conditions...... 10 Table 5: Catch and landings limit calculations (in millions of pounds and metric tons) for the status quo alternative for scup in 2020 and 2021 (alternative 1A)...... 25 Table 6: Catch and landings limit calculations (in millions of pounds and metric tons) for the preferred alternative for scup in 2020 and 2021 (alternative 1B)...... 26 Table 7: Status quo black sea bass catch and landings limits...... 28 Table 8: Preferred 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits. All values are the same across the two years except for the OFL...... 30 Table 9: Monitoring Committee recommended 2020 and 2021 scup catch and landings limits based on the standard ABC approach...... 33 Table 10: Monitoring Committee recommended 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits under an averaged ABC...... 35 Table 11: Scup biological reference points from the 2015 benchmark stock assessment and 2019 operational stock assessment...... 38

15

Table 12: Black sea bass biological reference points from the 2016 benchmark stock assessment and 2019 operational stock assessment...... 41 Table 13: Percent of non-target species caught in observed trawls where scup or black sea bass made up at least 75% of the observed landings, 2014-2018...... 44 Table 14: Most recent stock status information for commercial non-target species identified in this action...... 48 Table 15: Current tautog fishing mortality and biomass targets and thresholds for each assessed region ...... 49 Table 16: Most recent stock status information for non-target species in the recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries...... 50 Table 17: Geographic distributions and habitat characteristics of EFH designations for benthic fish and shellfish species within the affected environment of the action...... 53 Table 18: Percent of reported commercial scup and black sea bass landings taken by gear category in 2018 based on VTR data...... 59 Table 19: Species Protected Under the ESA and/or MMPA that may occur in the Affected Environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries...... 61 Table 20: Commercial Fisheries Classification based on 2019 List of Fisheries ...... 71 Table 21: Summary of confirmed human-caused injury or mortality to fin, minke, humpback, sei, and North Atlantic right whales from 2012-20156 due to entanglement in fishing gear...... 72 Table 22: Small cetacean and pinniped species observed seriously injured and/or killed by category II bottom trawl fisheries in the affected environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries...... 74 Table 23: Statistical areas which accounted for at least 5% of the total commercial scup catch (by weight) in 2018, with associated number of trips ...... 76 Table 24: Number of dealers per state which reported purchases of scup in 2018 ...... 78 Table 25: Ports reporting at least 100,000 pounds of scup landings in 2018, based on NMFS dealer data...... 78 Table 26: Estimated recreational catch and harvest of scup, Maine - North Carolina, 2009- 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 80 Table 27: Estimated percent of scup (in numbers of fish) caught by recreational fishermen in state and federal waters, Maine - North Carolina, 2009 - 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 80 Table 28: Recreational scup harvest by state, 2016- 2018. Percentages were calculated based on numbers of fish using the revised MRIP estimates...... 81 Table 29: Scup harvest (in numbers of fish) by recreational fishing mode, Maine - North Carolina, 1981 - 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 81 Table 30: Summary of catch and landings limits, and landings for commercial and recreational black sea bass fisheries from Maine through Cape Hatteras, NC 2009 - 2019...... 84

16

Table 31: Statistical areas that accounted for at least 5% of the total commercial black sea bass catch in 2018, with associated number of trips...... 85 Table 32: Allocation of commercial black sea bass quota among states under the Commission’s FMP...... 86 Table 33: Ports reporting at least 100,000 pounds of black sea bass landings in 2018, associated number of vessels, and percentage of total commercial landings...... 87 Table 34: Dealers, by state, reporting purchases of black sea bass in 2018...... 87 Table 35: Estimated recreational black sea bass catch and harvest from Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 2009-2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 88 Table 36: Estimated percentage of black sea bass recreational landings (in numbers of fish) in state and federal waters, from Maine through North Carolina, 2009 through 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 88 Table 37: State-by-state contribution (as a percentage) to total recreational harvest of black sea bass (in number of fish), Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 2016 - 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 89 Table 38: Percent of total recreational black sea bass landings (in numbers of fish) by recreational fishing mode, Maine through North Carolina, 1981-2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates...... 89 Table 39: Recent conditions of VECs ...... 92 Table 40: Guidelines for defining the direction and magnitude of the impacts of alternatives on the VECs...... 93 Table 41: Scup quotas, RHLs, and landings over the past five years (2015-2019, in millions of pounds), and quotas and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D...... 96 Table 42: Black sea bass quotas, RHLs, and landings over the past five years (2015-2019, in millions of pounds), and quotas and RHLs under alternatives 2A-2D...... 96 Table 43: Magnitude and significance of the cumulative, additive, and synergistic effects of the preferred alternatives, as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions...... 152 Table 44: Average annual total revenues during 2016-2018 for the small businesses/affiliates likely to be affected by the proposed action, as well as average annual revenues from commercial landings of scup and/or black sea bass...... 167

17

4. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 4.1. Purpose and Need for the Action The purpose of this action is to revise the previously implemented 2020 catch and landings limits for scup and black sea bass and implement 2021 catch and landings limits for these species based on the best scientific information available as recommended by the Council's SSC. This action is needed to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield in these fisheries. The scup and black sea bass annual catch and landings limits do not roll over from one year to the next. In order to meet the FMP objectives and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), commercial quotas and RHLs must be in place by January 1 of each year. The Council and Board adopted interim 2020 catch and landings limits for these species in early 2019 (84 Federal Register 54041, 10/09/2019). These interim limits are identical to those implemented for 2019 and were intended to be replaced as soon as possible by new catch and landings limits based on operational stock assessments which were peer reviewed in August 2019 (NEFSC 2019). Interim 2020 specifications were necessary because there was not sufficient time to complete the specifications development and rule making process between the operational assessment peer review and January 1, 2020. The preferred alternatives described in this document are based on the August 2019 operational assessments and are intended to replace the interim 2020 measures and implement new catch and landings limits for 2021 for both species. 4.2. The Specifications Process The scup and black sea bass fisheries are cooperatively managed by the Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC or Commission). The Council and the Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (the Board) meet jointly each year to consider the recommendations of the SSC and the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee, as well as input from Advisory Panel members, and other information, before making recommendations for annual commercial quotas, RHLs, and other management measures for all three species (collectively referred to as annual specifications).1 The Council submits their recommended specifications to the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator to consider for implementation. The Regional Administrator will review the recommendations in this document and may revise them, if necessary, to achieve objectives the objectives of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and meet statutory requirements. The general process used by the SSC, Monitoring Committee, Council, and Board to develop 2020-2021 catch and landings limit recommendations is described in the next sections. More details on the process used to derive the status quo alternatives (alternatives 1A and 2A) and preferred alternatives (alternatives 1B and 2B) are included in section 5. Catch and Landings Limits and Council Risk Policy The MSA requires that the Council's SSC provide recommendations for ABCs, prevention of overfishing, and maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The Council's catch limit recommendations

1 More details on the SSC, MC, and Advisory Panel recommendations relevant to this action can be found at http://www.mafmc.org/briefing/october-2019.

18

cannot exceed the ABCs recommended by the SSC. Each year the SSC meets to recommend new or review existing ABCs for scup and black sea bass. In instances where an overfishing limit (OFL) can be derived from a stock assessment (as is the case for scup and black sea bass in 2020-2021), the SSC derives the ABC from the OFL using the Council’s ABC control rule and risk policy. The ABC control rule is used to determine the degree of uncertainty associated with information provided in the stock assessments for each species and assign an OFL probability distribution. For scup and black sea bass, the SSC accepted the point estimates of the OFLs from the 2019 operational stock assessments but modified their probability distributions based on considerations outlined in the September 2019 SSC meeting summary (MAFMC 2019c) and the OFL coefficient of variation (CV) discussion tables available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2019/september-9-11. The SSC modified the OFL CVs because they believe that the stock assessment models did not fully capture the uncertainty associated with the OFL point estimates. The Council’s risk policy describes the Council’s tolerance for overfishing at a given level of biomass depending on whether the stock’s life history is considered typical or atypical.2 The SSC agreed that the stock assessments for black sea bass and scup account for the life histories of those species, including the protogynous hermaphrodite life history of black sea bass; therefore, they agreed that for the purposes of the risk policy, both species have a typical life history. The risk policy also states that for stocks with spawning stock biomass (SSB) greater than or equal to SSBMSY (spawning stock biomass at maximum sustainable yield), as is the case for scup and black sea bass (section 6.1), then the ABC should be associated with a 40% probability of overfishing. If SSB is less than SSBMSY, then the probability of overfishing should decrease based on the linear relationship shown in Figure 1.3 The scup and black sea bass ABCs are divided into commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) based on the allocation percentages defined in the FMP. For scup, 77% of the total ABC is allocated to the commercial fishery as a commercial ACL and 22% to the recreational fishery as a recreational ACL. For black sea bass, 49% of the amount of the ABC that is expected to be landed is allocated to the commercial fishery as a commercial ACL and 51% to the recreational fishery as a recreational ACL. Sector-specific annual catch targets (ACTs) are set less than or equal to the ACLs to account for management uncertainty. The commercial quota and RHL are derived from the sector-specific ACTs by subtracting expected discards (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The Monitoring Committee is responsible for developing recommendations to the Council on management measures, including ACTs and expected levels of discards, to achieve the recommended catch limits for each species. Scup and black sea bass catch and landings limits are

2 An atypical stock has a life history that: a) results in a relatively high vulnerability to exploitation, and b) has not been fully addressed through the stock assessment and biological reference point development process. The SSC determines whether a stock is considered typical or atypical based on the best available information. 3 The Council approved a modification to their risk policy in December 2019. This change has not yet been implemented and it does not impact the 2020-2021 ABCs for scup and black sea bass which they recommended in October 2019. More information on the risk policy change is available in the meeting summary, briefing materials, and webinar recordings associated with the December 2019 Council meeting, which are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/meetings.

19

established on an annual basis for up to three years at a time, based on stock size projections for upcoming years. The Council’s current system of catch limits (ABCs, ACLs, and ACTs) was first implemented in 2012 (MAFMC 2011) and has been applied in the 2020-2021 recommendations described in this document. This system considers scientific and management uncertainty and is intended to ensure that recreational and commercial catches do not exceed the respective ACLs. The amount of total catch, including landings and dead discards, produced in the recreational and commercial fisheries in each year is contingent on how the combinations of fishery regulations (e.g., minimum fish size, gear requirements, possession limits) interact to achieve the commercial quotas and RHLs.

typical atypical 45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10 Probability of Overfishing 5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 B/Bmsy

Figure 1. The Council’s risk policy on overfishing.

20

Figure 2: Flowchart for scup catch and landings limits.

21

Figure 3: Flowchart for black sea bass catch and landings limits.

Accountability Measures Accountability measures (AMs) are measures that are intended to prevent ACLs from being exceeded and measures that correct or mitigate for ACL overages when they occur. The Council first implemented its system of ACLs and AMs in 2012 (MAFMC 2011). The Council modified the recreational AMs in 2013 (MAFMC 2013) and the commercial AMs in 2018 (MAFMC 2018). The regulations associated with the AMs vary by species. A brief summary is presented here. Under the current AMs, when the commercial ACL, annual coastwide quota, or quota period allocation has been or is expected to be fully landed (depending on the species), the NMFS Regional Administrator can close the EEZ to commercial fishing for the remainder of the year or quota period. Commercial landings overage repayments (in pounds) are required if landings exceed the commercial quota, irrespective of if the commercial ACL has been exceeded. Commercial ACL overages are evaluated by comparing a single year of landings and dead discards to the ACL. When the commercial ACL has been exceeded and the overage is caused by commercial fishery discards, payback requirements are dependent on stock status and whether or not the ABC was exceeded. If the current biomass is above the biomass target (BMSY), no overage payback is required. If the current biomass is above the biomass threshold (i.e., not overfished), but below the biomass target (1 ≥ B/BMSY ≥ 1/2) and the stock is not under a rebuilding plan, then a scaled payback is required if the ABC is exceeded. In that case, a scaled, single-year adjustment to the commercial ACT would be made based on stock biomass so that the adjustment is larger the closer the overall biomass is to the threshold. If the stock is overfished, under a rebuilding plan, or

22

the biological reference points are unknown, then a pound-for-pound payback is required for any non-landings overage of the commercial ACL. Recreational ACL overages are evaluated using a 3-year moving average of the total catch (landings and dead discards) compared to the 3-year average ACL over the same time period. Recreational overage adjustments, adjustments to ACTs, and/or adjustments to minimum fish sizes, seasons, and/or possession limits are used alone or in combination depending on relationship of the current biomass to the biomass threshold and target (i.e., ½ BMSY and BMSY) and whether the ACL or the ABC has been exceeded. There is no in-season closure authority for the recreational fisheries. More details on these requirements can be found in the regulations at 50 CFR § 648.123 (for scup) and 50 CFR § 648.143 (for black sea bass). Commercial Management Measures A specific list of commercial management measures, as defined in the FMP, is reviewed annually as part of the specifications process. These measures include commercial size limits, possession limits, minimum mesh sizes and other gear requirements, possession limits triggering the minimum mesh size, and exemptions to gear restrictions. In October 2019, the Council and Board reviewed and did not recommend any modifications to these measures for scup or black sea bass. Thus, no changes to the commercial measures, other than the commercial quotas for 2020 and 2021, are proposed through this action. Recreational Management Measures Each year, the Council and Board jointly adopt recreational scup and black sea bass possession limits, minimum fish sizes, and open seasons (collectively referred to as recreational management measures) for federal waters for the upcoming year. These measures are used to control fishing effort and constrain harvest. For example, shortening the season length could result in lower fishing effort for the target species and a reduction in harvest. Possession limits likewise limit the total amount of fish that can be kept by anglers. Minimum fish sizes help ensure that fish have the opportunity to spawn at least once prior to being harvested and can limit the total amount of fish available for harvest. Fish that are discarded because they are too small, caught during closed seasons, and/or in excess of the possession limit experience some mortality, though at a lower rate than harvested fish. For both scup and black sea bass, the assumed recreational discard mortality rate is 15% (i.e., it is assumed that 15% of all discarded fish die). The actual discard mortality rate can vary based on factors such as gear used, handling techniques, fight time, depth, and other factors. On average, scup and black sea bass discarded in the recreational fisheries due to regulations have an assumed 85% probability of surviving and contributing to current and future biomass. For both scup and black sea bass, the recreational fisheries have been managed for several years with a coastwide set of measures which apply throughout federal waters in the management unit and varying measures in state waters. The state waters measures are developed through a separate Commission-only process. With the approval of Framework 14 in 2019 (84 Federal Register 65699, November 29, 2019), the Council and Board have the option of using the federal conservation equivalency process to waive the black sea bass federal recreational measures in favor of the measures in the states where anglers land their catch (MAFMC 2019a). This is not an option for scup.

23

Unlike the catch and landings limits, recreational measures are typically set for the single upcoming fishing year; however, they can roll over from one year to the next if the Council and Board do not take to action to modify them. For scup and black sea bass, recreational management measures for the upcoming year are typically considered several months after the catch and landings limits are approved for the upcoming fishing year (or years). This is due to the timing of availability of recreational data for the current year. For example, preliminary recreational catch and harvest data through August 2019 were made available in October 2019. The Council and Board recommend recreational management measures for the following year late in the current year to allow for consideration of the most recent information possible. This document addresses only the recommendations for 2020-2021 scup and black sea bass catch and landings limits made by the Council and Board during their October 2019 joint meeting. It does not address recreational management measures for 2020 and beyond. Any revisions to 2020 or 2021 recreational management measures will be addressed through separate actions with associated public comment opportunities. 5. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES The alternatives described below include 2020-2021 catch and landings limits for scup (alternative set 1) and black sea bass (alternative set 2). These catch and landings limits are provisional and may be adjusted by NMFS in the final rule to implement these measures, including adjustments to account for ACL overages that were not previously accounted for. 5.1. Alternative Set 1: 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings Limits The following sections describe the four alternatives analyzed in this document for 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits. As described below, 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. 5.1.1. Alternative 1A: Status Quo Scup Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) Under this alternative, the currently implemented interim 2020 scup catch and landings limits would be maintained in 2020 and also used in 2021. These catch and landings limits are identical to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (Table 5). This would result in a commercial quota of 23.98 million pounds and an RHL of 7.37 million pounds in all four years (2018-2021) These landings limits are based on the July 2017 stock assessment update (Terceiro 2017), the SSC’s July 2017 ABC recommendations, and the Council and Board’s August 2017 recommendations. This alternative is not the preferred alternative for 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits because it does not consider the 2019 operational stock assessment projections, SSC recommended ABCs, and Council and Board recommended catch and landings limits; therefore, it is not based on the best available science.

24

Table 5: Catch and landings limit calculations (in millions of pounds and metric tons) for the status quo alternative for scup in 2020 and 2021 (alternative 1A). Measure mil lb. mt Basis OFL 41.03 18,612 2017 stock assessment update projections July 2017 SSC recommendation based on ABC 36.43 16,525 stock assessment projections and Council risk policy ABC Landings 31.35 14,221 July 2017 stock assessment projections Portion ABC Discards 5.08 2,304 July 2017 stock assessment projections Portion Commercial 28.42 12,890 78% of ABC (per FMP allocation) ACL

Commercial Commercial ACL with no deduction for 28.42 12,890 ACT management uncertainty

Projected 87.3% of ABC discards (avg. % of dead Commercial 4.43 2,011 discards from commercial fishery, 2014- Discards 2016) Commercial 23.98 10,879 Commercial ACT minus discards Quota Recreational 8.01 3,636 22% of ABC (per FMP allocation) ACL

Recreational Recreational ACL with no deduction for 8.01 3,636 ACT management uncertainty

Projected 12.7% of the ABC discards (avg. % of dead Recreational 0.65 293 discards from rec. fishery, 2014-2016) Discards Recreational 7.37 3,342 Recreational ACT minus discards Harvest Limit

5.1.2. Alternative 1B: Preferred Scup 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits Alternative 1B includes the 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits recommended by the Council and Board in October 2019 as shown in Table 6. This is the preferred alternative for scup. Their recommendations are based on the varying 2020-2021 ABCs recommended by the SSC. The ABCs are based on an SSC-modified OFL CV of 60% and the Council’s risk policy for a species with a typical life history and biomass level above BMSY, resulting in a 40% probability of overfishing (section 4.2). More information on the SSC’s recommendation is available in the September 2019 SSC meeting summary (MAFMC 2019c). The Council and Board accepted the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation that the commercial and recreational ACTs be set equal to the sector-specific ACLs, consistent with past

25 years’ recommendations (see previous section). They did not accept the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation for calculating expected discards using a 10-year average in 2020 and 2021 (described in detail in section 5.4.2). Instead, they recommended that expected discards continue to be calculated using the methodology from previous years, where projected discards are apportioned between commercial and recreational fisheries using the 3-year average percent of dead discards attributable to each sector. Table 6: Catch and landings limit calculations (in millions of pounds and metric tons) for the preferred alternative for scup in 2020 and 2021 (alternative 1B). 2020 2021 Measure Basis mil lb mt mil lb mt 2019 operational assessment OFL 41.17 18,674 35.30 16,012 projections September 2019 SSC recommendation based on stock ABC 35.77 16,227 30.67 13,913 assessment projections and Council risk policy 2019 operational assessment ABC discards 7.03 3,190 7.26 3,295 projections Commercial 27.90 12,657 23.92 10,852 78% of ABC (per FMP) ACL Commercial ACL with no Commercial 27.90 12,657 23.92 10,852 deduction for management ACT uncertainty Projected 80.7% of ABC discards (avg. % commercial 5.67 2,574 5.86 2,659 of dead discards from discards commercial fishery, 2016-2018) Commercial Commercial ACT minus 22.23 10,083 18.06 8,194 quota discards Recreational 7.87 3,570 6.75 3,061 22% of ABC (per FMP) ACL Recreational ACL with no Recreational deduction for management ACT uncertainty Projected 19.3% of the ABC discards (avg. recreational 1.36 616 1.40 636 % of dead discards from rec. discards fishery, 2016-2018) Recreational ACT minus RHL 6.51 2,954 5.34 2,424 discards

5.1.3. Alternative 1C: Least Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limit (Non-Preferred) The least restrictive alternative for scup (alternative 1C) was calculated by increasing the commercial quota and RHL under Alternative 1A by 25%, in order to provide a reasonable range of landings limits to analyze given the current stock condition. This allows the analysis to give a

26

fuller picture of the expected impacts of a range of landings limits. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 29.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 9.21 million pounds. Under this alternative, only a commercial quota and RHL (landings limits) are provided, without associated catch limits and OFLs, as this alternative was strictly calculated by increasing the commercial quota and RHL of the status quo alternative. Changes in the commercial quotas and RHLs are the focus of the impacts analysis in section 7; therefore, a meaningful comparison can be done without providing ABCs, ACLs, and ACTs for all alternatives. This alternative is not the preferred alternative for 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits because it does not consider the 2019 operational stock assessment projections, SSC recommended ABCs, and Council and Board recommended catch and landings limits; therefore, it is not based on the best available science. 5.1.4. Alternative 1D: Most Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) The most restrictive alternative for scup (alternative 1D) was calculated by reducing the preferred 2020 commercial quota and RHL under Alternative 1B by 25%, in order to provide a reasonable range of landings limits to analyze given the current stock condition. This allows the analysis to give a fuller picture of the expected impacts of a range of landing limits. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 16.67 million pounds and the RHL would be 4.88 million pounds. Under this alternative, only commercial quota and RHL (landings limits) are provided, without associated catch limits and OFLs, as this alternative was strictly calculated by reducing the commercial quota and RHL of the preferred alternative. Changes in the commercial quotas and RHLs are the focus of the impacts analysis in section 7; therefore, a meaningful comparison can be done without providing ABCs, ACLs, and ACTs for all alternatives. This alternative is not the preferred alternative for 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits because it does not consider the 2019 operational stock assessment projections, SSC recommended ABCs, and Council and Board recommended catch and landings limits; therefore, it is not based on the best available science. 5.2. Alternative Set 2: 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits The following sections describe the four alternatives analyzed in this document for 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits. 5.2.1. Alternative 2A: Status Quo Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) Alternative 2A includes the currently implemented interim 2020 black sea bass catch and landings limits. Under this alternative, these catch and landings limits would apply in both 2020 and 2021. The catch and landings limits under this alternative are shown in Table 7 and are identical to those implemented for 2018 and 2019. They are based on the 2017 recommendations of the SSC, Monitoring Committee, Council, and Board. The biomass projections provided with the 2016 benchmark assessment serve as the basis for these catch and landings limits. The ABC is based on an SSC-modified OFL CV of 60% and the Council’s risk policy for a species with a typical life history and a biomass level above BMSY (section 4.2). The SSC acknowledged that the assessment

27 conducted a thorough analysis and simulation testing of the unique life history (i.e., protogynous hermaphroditism) of black sea bass and concluded that no additional buffer for an atypical life history was needed. This alternative is not the preferred alternative for 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits because it does not account for the 2019 operational stock assessment results and the SSC’s most recent ABC recommendation; therefore, it is not based on the best available science. Table 7: Status quo black sea bass catch and landings limits. Measure Mil lb. MT Basis OFL 10.29 4,669 2016 benchmark stock assessment projections January 2017 SSC recommendation based on stock ABC 8.94 4,057 assessment projections and Council risk policy ABC Landings 80.3% of ABC, based on average 2013–2015 7.18 3,258 Portion landings as % of catch ABC Discards 19.7% of ABC, based on avg. 2013–2015 discards 1.76 799 Portion as % of catch Expected 47.2% of ABC discards portion, based on 2013- Commercial 0.83 377 2015 avg. % discards by sector Discards Expected 52.8 % of ABC discards portion, based on 2013- Recreational 0.93 422 2015 avg. % discards by sector Discards 49% of ABC landings portion (per FMP) + Commercial ACL 4.35 1,974 expected commercial discards Commercial ACL, with no deduction for Commercial ACT 4.35 1,974 management uncertainty Commercial ACT minus expected commercial Commercial Quota 3.52 1,596 discards 51% of ABC landings portion (per FMP) + Recreational ACL 4.59 2,083 expected recreational discards Recreational ACL, with no deduction for Recreational ACT 4.59 2,083 management uncertainty Recreational ACT minus expected recreational RHL 3.66 1,661 discards

28

5.2.2. Alternative 2B: Preferred Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits Alternative 2B includes the 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits recommended by the Council and Board in October 2019 as shown in Table 8. This is the preferred alternative for black sea bass. Their recommendations are based on the averaged 2020-2021 ABCs recommended by the SSC. This allows for identical catch and landings limits across the two years. The ABCs are based on an SSC-modified OFL CV of 100% and the Council’s risk policy for a species with a typical life history and biomass level above BMSY, resulting in a 40% probability of overfishing (section 4.2). More information on the SSC’s recommendation is available in the September 2019 SSC meeting summary (MAFMC 2019c). The Council and Board accepted the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation that the commercial and recreational ACTs be set equal to the sector-specific ACLs, consistent with past years’ recommendations. The Monitoring Committee agreed that the monitoring and fishery closure system is timely and has typically been successful in holding commercial landings close to the quota and that recreational management uncertainty is best considered when developing recreational minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and open seasons, which are typically analyzed through separate actions than those that implement the RHL. The Council and Board did not accept the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation for expected discards in 2020 and 2021 (described in detail in section 5.4.2). Instead, they recommended that expected discards be calculated based on the most recent three year average proportions of total (i.e., commercial and recreational) landings compared to total dead discards and the most recent three year average proportion of commercial dead discards compared to recreational dead discards. This is consistent with past practice for black sea bass. The Council and Board’s recommendation includes lower total discards, lower commercial discards, and higher recreational discards than the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation. The Monitoring Committee recommendation is based on the assumption that sector-specific discards as a percentage of sector-specific catch will be the same as the 2016-2018 average. This allows commercial discards to scale up with the increase in the quota, consistent with past trends in the fishery. The Council and Board agreed that this assumption may not hold true in 2020. They noted that the preferred commercial quota represents a 59% increase compared to 2018-2019 and would be the highest commercial quota ever implemented under joint management, which began in 1998. Given this, they did not think discards would increase in proportion with landings and rather discards as a proportion of total catch would likely decrease under higher landings limits. Under higher landings limits, they thought more fish which would otherwise be discarded would be landed. For this reason, they agreed that expected discards should be calculated based on the most recent three year average proportions of total landing to total dead discards and commercial dead discards to recreational dead discards.

29

Table 8: Preferred 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits. All values are the same across the two years except for the OFL. Measure 2020 & 2021 Basis Mil lb. MT 2020: 19.39 2020: 8,795 2019 operational stock assessment OFL 2021: 17.68 2021: 8,021 projections September 2019 SSC recommendation ABC 15.07 6,835 based on stock assessment projections and Council risk policy ABC Landings 76% of ABC, based on avg. 2016-2018 11.39 5,164 Portion discards as % of catch ABC Discards 24% of ABC, based on avg. 2016-2018 3.68 1,671 Portion discards as % of catch Expected 38% of ABC discards, based on avg. 2016- Commercial 1.40 637 2018 % of discards by sector Discards Expected 62% of ABC discards, based on avg. 2016- Recreational 2.28 1,034 2018 % of discards by sector Discards Commercial 49% of ABC landings portion (per FMP) + 6.98 3,167 ACL expected commercial discards Commercial Commercial ACL, with no deduction for 6.98 3,167 ACT management uncertainty Commercial Commercial ACT minus expected 5.58 2,530 Quota commercial discards Recreational 51% of ABC landings portion (per FMP) + 8.09 3,668 ACL expected recreational discards Recreational Recreational ACL, with no deduction for 8.09 3,668 ACT management uncertainty Recreational ACT minus expected RHL 5.81 2,634 recreational discards 5.2.3. Alternative 2C: Least Restrictive Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) The least restrictive alternative for black sea bass (alternative 2C) was calculated by increasing the preferred commercial quota and RHL under alternative 2A by 25%. This was done in order to provide a reasonable range of landings limits to analyze given the current stock condition. This allows the analysis to give a fuller picture of the expected impacts of a range of landings limits. Under this alternative, the 2020-2021 commercial quota would be 6.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 7.26 million pounds. This alternative is not the preferred alternative for 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits because it does not account for the 2019 operational stock assessment results and the SSC’s most recent ABC recommendation; therefore, it is not based on the best available science.

30

5.2.4. Alternative 2D: Most Restrictive Black Sea Bass 2020-2021 Catch and Landings Limits (Non-Preferred) The most restrictive alternative for black sea bass (alternative 2D) was calculated by decreasing the commercial quota and RHL under alternative 2B (status quo) by 25%. This was done in order to provide a reasonable range of landings limits to analyze given the current stock condition. This allows the analysis to give a fuller picture of the expected impacts of a range of landings limits. Under this alternative, the 2020-2021 commercial quota would be 2.64 million pounds and the RHL would be 2.74 million pounds. This alternative is not the preferred alternative for 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits because it does not account for the 2019 operational stock assessment results and the SSC’s most recent ABC recommendation; therefore, it is not based on the best available science. 5.3. True No Action Alternative The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order (AO) 216- 6 states that an environmental assessment must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, including a "no action" alternative. Consideration of the no action alternative is important because it shows what would happen if the proposed action is not taken; however, defining exactly what is meant by the no action alternative is often difficult. The President’s Council on Environmental Quality has explained that there are two distinct interpretations of “no action.” One interpretation is essentially the status quo, meaning no change from the current management. The other interpretation is when a proposed action simply does not take place. Determining the no action alternative for the annual commercial quotas and RHLs for scup and black sea bass is more complicated than either of these interpretations suggest. As previously stated, interim 2020 catch and landings limits have been implemented for both species. These measures were intended to be replaced as soon as possible with new catch and landings limits based on the 2019 operational stock assessments. However, if new catch and landings limits are not implemented, the interim limits would remain in place for all of 2020. Thus, the true no action alternative for both species in 2020 is identical to the status quo alternative (i.e., alternative 1A for scup and 2A for black sea bass). This is not the case for 2021 as 2021 catch and landings limits have not been implemented. Catch and landings limits for these fisheries are specific to each fishing year; the FMP does not allow for roll-over provisions if catch and landings limits are not implemented for a given year. Thus, if no action is taken and commercial quotas and RHLs are not implemented for 2021, the scup and black sea bass fisheries will operate without an identified cap on allowable catch and landings starting on January 1, 2021. For this reason, the true no action alternative for 2021 commercial quotas and RHLs is not equivalent to status quo. Status quo management for scup and black sea bass includes a set of indefinite (i.e., in force until otherwise changed) management measures, including commercial and recreational minimum fish sizes, bag limits, and reporting requirements. These measures will remain in place even if the catch and landings limits proposed in this document are not implemented. If specifications are not implemented for 2021, some current measures will remain in place, but the overall management program for those fisheries will not be identical to that of 2019 or 2020. For the purposes of this EA, the true no action alternative for commercial quotas and RHLs is defined as follows: (1) the 2020 interim quotas and RHLs would remain in place for all of 2020; (2) no quotas and RHLs would be implemented for 2021; (3) the indefinite management measures

31

(minimum fish sizes, bag limits, possession limits, permit and reporting requirements, etc.) would remain unchanged; and (4) there would be no cap on the allowable annual catch for both species (i.e., no ACLs) and landings (i.e., no commercial quotas or RHLs) as of January 1, 2021. The only regulatory controls on fishing effort and harvest in 2021 would be the indefinite measures.4 The true no action alternative for 2021 has substantial implications for scup and black sea bass fisheries in 2021. It would not allow NMFS to specify and implement ACLs, commercial quotas, and RHLs for 2021, as required by Federal regulations (50 CFR part 648) and the MSA. The no action alternative for 2021 is thus inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP, as well as its implementing regulations. It may result in overfishing or cause the ACLs to be exceeded and thus is inconsistent with the MSA. For these reasons, the true no action alternative for 2021 is not considered reasonable and is not analyzed further in this document. The alternatives for scup and black sea bass commercial quotas and RHLs are thus compared to the status quo alternative as opposed to the true no action alternative. The status quo alternative is equivalent to the 2018-2019 and interim 2020 catch and landings limits for both species. 5.4. Considered But Rejected Alternatives: Monitoring Committee Recommendations During their September 2019 meeting, the Monitoring Committee provided recommendations for 2020-2021 scup and black sea bass catch and landings limits. Their recommended expected discards for both species differs from the preferred alternatives presented in this document (alternatives 1B and 2B). The rationale for the preferred discard estimation methodology is described in section 5.1.2 for scup and section 5.2.2 for black sea bass. All other Monitoring Committee recommendations are encompassed by the preferred alternatives. Details of the Monitoring Committee’s recommendations are provided below. The Monitoring Committee recommended commercial quotas and RHLs differ from the preferred alternative by 2-8% for scup (depending on limit and year) and 6% for black sea bass; therefore, the expected impacts of the Monitoring Committee recommended quotas and RHLs on all VECs would likely be similar to those of the preferred alternatives. These recommendations are not analyzed further in this document. 5.4.1. Monitoring Committee Recommendations for 2020-2021 Scup Specifications The Monitoring Committee discussed the appropriate methodology for calculating expected scup discards in 2020 and 2021. For the past several years, projected discards from the stock assessment have been apportioned between commercial and recreational fisheries using the average percent of dead discards attributable to each sector over the previous three years based on Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) data. The Monitoring Committee felt that using a 10-year average would help smooth out year-to-year variability which can be driven by recruitment and other factors and may better estimate expected discards. Additionally, since there is a relationship between recruitment and discards, using a longer term average is more consistent with how recruitment is handled in the stock assessment projections, therefore this creates a logical consistency between the discard assumptions being used by the Monitoring Committee and aspects of the assessment projection methodology. The Monitoring Committee therefore recommended using the current method of calculating the proportion of discards by sector using a 10-year average instead of a 3-year average. The Monitoring Committee discussed that scup discards are sensitive

4 Descriptions of the regulations as detailed in the CFR are available at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

32

to large recruitment events and unlike black sea bass, landings and discards don’t have a consistent relationship for both sectors. Therefore, they agreed that it was appropriate to use a different methodology for scup compared to black sea bass. One Monitoring Committee member added that in future years the Monitoring Committee can be flexible on how to calculate discard proportions to account for factors such as large recruitment events. The resulting expected discards and the Monitoring Committee recommendation that the ACTs be set equal to their ACLs result in the catch and landings limits shown in Table 9. Table 9: Monitoring Committee recommended 2020 and 2021 scup catch and landings limits based on the standard ABC approach. 2020 2021 Measure Basis mil lb mt mil lb mt OFL 41.17 18,674 35.30 16,012 Assessment projections ABC 35.77 16,227 30.67 13,913 Assessment projections & risk policy ABC discards 7.03 3,190 7.26 3,295 Assessment projections Commercial 27.90 12,657 23.92 10,852 78% of ABC (per FMP) ACL Commercial 27.90 12,657 23.92 10,852 Set equal to commercial ACL ACT Projected 75% of ABC discards (avg. % of dead discards commercial 5.27 2,393 5.45 2,471 from commercial fishery, 2009-2018) discards Commercial 22.63 10,265 18.48 8,381 Commercial ACT minus discards quota Recreational 7.87 3,570 6.75 3,061 22% of ABC (per FMP) ACL Recreational 7.87 3,570 6.75 3,061 Set equal to recreational ACL ACT Projected 25% of the ABC discards (avg. % of dead discards recreational 1.76 798 1.82 824 from rec. fishery, 2009-2018) discards RHL 6.11 2,772 4.93 2,237 Recreational ACT minus discards 5.4.2. Monitoring Committee Recommendations for 2020-2021 Black Sea Bass Specifications During their September 2019 meeting, the Monitoring Committee had a thorough discussion of the appropriate methodology for calculating expected black sea bass discards in 2020 and 2021. For several years, they have calculated expected black sea bass discards by first dividing the ABC into a landings portion and a discards portion based on the most recent three year average proportions of total (commercial and recreational) landings and discards based on data provided by the NEFSC (the same data used in the stock assessment). The discards portion was then further divided into expected commercial discards and recreational discards based on the most recent three year average of discards by sector based on NEFSC data. The Monitoring Committee discussed whether an increase in the commercial quota, as anticipated for 2020, would be expected to cause discards to decrease because more fish could be landed, or if increased fishing effort would result in discards also increasing. Trends in commercial quotas, landings, and discards since 1998 suggest that commercial black sea bass landings closely follow changes in the quota and that discards tend to scale up or down with increases or decreases in landings. The Monitoring Committee also noted that sector-specific discards as a proportion of

33

sector-specific catch have been relatively consistent over at least the past three years, even under varying commercial quotas and RHLs and highly variable recreational harvest estimates over that time period (including two years with outlier recreational estimates). They also noted that their past approach of using the most recent three-year average proportions of total landings, total discards, and sector-specific discards has notably under-predicted discards, leading to ACL overages in both sectors in many recent years. The Monitoring Committee, therefore, agreed that consideration of a new approach to predicting black sea bass discards was warranted. The Monitoring Committee recommended that expected commercial and recreational discards in 2020-2021 be calculated based on the assumption that discards in each sector as a proportion of catch in each sector would be equal to the 2016-2018 average proportions based on NEFSC data. The calculations also factored in the requirement that 49% of the landings proportion of the ABC must be allocated to the commercial fishery and 51% to the recreational fishery. The resulting expected discard values are shown in Table 10. The Monitoring Committee agreed that this methodology is more appropriate than the previous methodology for estimating black sea bass discards as it scales discards with expected changes in landings (assuming the commercial quota and RHL will be fully landed and not exceeded), consistent with observed patterns in the fishery. It also gives equal weight to the sector-specific proportions in each of the three years, thus downplaying the influence of any potential single year outliers. The resulting discard values combined with the allocation percentages defined in the FMP and the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation that the ACTs be set equal to their ACLs result in the catch and landings limits shown in Table 10.

34

Table 10: Monitoring Committee recommended 2020-2021 black sea bass catch and landings limits under an averaged ABC. All values are the same across the two years except for the OFL. 2020 & 2021 Measure Basis Mil lb. MT 2020: 19.39 2020: 8,795 OFL Stock assessment projections 2021: 17.68 2021: 8,021 Stock assessment projections and Council risk ABC 15.07 6,835 policy Calculated based on the sector-specific discards described below and the requirement ABC Landings 10.74 4,871 that 49% of the landings portion of the ABC be Portion allocated to the commercial fishery and 51% to the recreational fishery Calculated based on the sector-specific discards described below and the requirement ABC Discards 4.33 1,964 that 49% of the landings portion of the ABC be Portion allocated to the commercial fishery and 51% to the recreational fishery Calculated based on an assumption that Expected commercial discards would be 20% of Commercial 2.96 1,343 commercial catch (2016-2018 avg. proportion Discards based on NEFSC data) Calculated based on an assumption that Expected recreational discards would be 36% of Recreational 1.37 621 recreational catch (2016-2018 avg. proportion Discards based on NEFSC data) Commercial 49% of ABC landings portion (per FMP) + 8.22 3,729 ACL expected commercial discards Commercial Commercial ACL, with no deduction for 8.22 3,729 ACT management uncertainty Commercial Commercial ACT minus expected commercial 5.26 2,387 Quota discards Recreational 51% of ABC landings portion (per FMP) + 6.85 3,106 ACL expected recreational discards Recreational Recreational ACL, with no deduction for 6.85 3,106 ACT management uncertainty Recreational ACT minus expected recreational RHL 5.48 2,484 discards

35

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment consists of those physical, biological, and human components of the environment expected to experience impacts if any of the actions considered in this document were to be implemented. This document focuses on four aspects of the affected environment, which are defined as valued ecosystem components (VECs; Beanlands and Duinker 1984). The VECs include: • Scup, black sea bass, and non-target species • Physical habitat • Protected species • Human communities The following sections describe the recent condition of the VECs. 6.1. Managed Species and Non-Target Species The following sections briefly describe the recent biological conditions of the scup and black sea bass stocks (sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2) and non-target species (section 6.1.3). Summer flounder are described in more detail than other non-target species given that they are managed under the same FMP as scup and black sea bass. 6.1.1. Scup Scup are a schooling, demersal (i.e., bottom-dwelling) species. They are found in a variety of habitats in the Mid-Atlantic. Scup EFH includes demersal waters, areas with sandy or muddy bottoms, mussel beds, and sea grass beds from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Scup undertake extensive seasonal migrations between coastal and offshore waters. They are mostly found in estuaries and coastal waters during the spring and summer. Larger individuals tend to arrive in inshore areas in the spring before smaller individuals. They move offshore and to the south, to outer continental shelf waters south of New Jersey in the fall and winter (Steimle et al. 1999, NEFSC 2015). About 50% of scup are sexually mature at two years of age and about 17 cm (about 7 inches) total length. Nearly all scup older than three years of age are sexually mature. Scup reach a maximum age of at least 14 years. They may live as long as 20 years; however, few scup older than 7 years are caught in the Mid-Atlantic (Steimle et al. 1999, NEFSC 2015). Adult scup are benthic feeders. They consume a variety of prey, including small crustaceans (including zooplankton), polychaetes, mollusks, small squid, vegetable detritus, insect larvae, hydroids, sand dollars, and small fish. The NEFSC’s food habits database lists several predators of scup, including several shark species, skates, silver hake, bluefish, summer flounder, black sea bass, weakfish, lizardfish, king mackerel, and monkfish (Steimle et al. 1999). A scup operational stock assessment was peer reviewed and accepted in August 2019. This assessment retained the model structure of the previous benchmark stock assessment, completed in 2015, and incorporated fishery catch and fishery-independent survey data through 2018, including revised recreational data provided by MRIP for 1989-2018. The following information is based on the prepublication draft of the August 2019 operational assessment prepared for use by the Council and SSC (NEFSC 2019).

36

Updated F40% and corresponding SSB40% proxy biological reference points from the 2019 operational stock assessment include a fishing mortality reference point of FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.215, a biomass reference point of SSB MSY proxy = SSB40% = 207.279 million pounds (94,020 mt), and a minimum biomass threshold of ½ SSB MSY proxy = ½ SSB40% = 103.639 million pounds (47,010 mt, Table 11, NEFSC 2019). The scup stock north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina extending north to the US-Canada border was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2018 compared to the revised reference points. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be about 411 million pounds (186,578 mt) in 2018, about 2 times the SSBMSY proxy reference point (i.e. SSB40%) of 207 million pounds (94,020 mt, Figure 4). Fishing mortality on fully selected age 3 scup was 0.158 in 2018, about 73% of the FMSY proxy reference point (F40%) of 0.215 (Figure 5). The 2015 year class is estimated to be the largest in the time series at 326 million fish, while the 2016-2018 year classes are estimated to be below average at 112 million fish, 93 million fish and 83 million fish, respectively (Figure 4, NEFSC 2019).

Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Recruitment (R)

300,000 350 275,000 250,000 300 225,000 250 200,000 175,000 200 150,000 125,000 150

SSB (mt) 100,000 100 75,000 50,000 50 R(age 0,millions) 25,000 0 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year R SSB SSBMSY

Figure 4: Scup SSB and recruitment at age 0, 1984-2018 from the 2019 operational stock assessment (NEFSC 2019).

37

Total Catch and Fishing Mortality 20,000 1.8

18,000 1.6

16,000 1.4 14,000 1.2 12,000 1.0 10,000 0.8 8,000 0.6 Total Catch Total Catch (mt) 6,000 Fishing Mortality (F) Mortality Fishing 4,000 0.4 2,000 0.2 0 0.0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year

Total Catch F FMSY = F40% = 0.215

Figure 5: Scup total catch and fishing mortality, 1984-2018 from the 2019 operational stock assessment (NEFSC 2019).

Table 11: Scup biological reference points from the 2015 benchmark stock assessment and 2019 operational stock assessment (NEFSC 2019). Reference Points and 2015 benchmark stock 2019 operational stock terminal year SSB and F assessment assessment estimates Data through 2014 Data through 2018 SSBMSY proxy = SSB40% 192.47 mil lb/ 87,302 mt 207.28 mil lb/ 94,020 mt (biomass target) ½ SSBMSY (biomass threshold defining 96.23 mil lb/ 43,651 mt 103.639 mil lb/ 47,010 mt an overfished status) 403.26 mil lb/ 182,915 mt 411 mil lb/186,578 mt (2018) Terminal year SSB (2014) 198% of SSBMSY 210% of SSBMSY FMSY proxy = F40% (threshold defining 0.220 0.215 overfishing) 0.127 (2014) 0.158 (2018) Terminal year F 42% below FMSY 27% below FMSY

38

6.1.2. Black Sea Bass Black sea bass are distributed from the Gulf of Maine through the Gulf of Mexico. Genetic studies have identified three stocks within that range. The “northern stock” is found from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and is the focus of the black sea bass sections of this document. The stocks in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are not managed by the Mid- Atlantic Council. Adult and juvenile black sea bass are mostly found on the continental shelf. Young of the year (i.e., fish less than one year old) can be found in estuaries. Adults show strong site fidelity during the summer and prefer to be near structures such as rocky reefs, coral patches, cobble and rock fields, mussel beds, and shipwrecks. Black sea bass migrate to offshore wintering areas starting in the fall. During the winter, young of the year are distributed across the shelf and adults and juveniles are found near the shelf edge. During the fall, adults and juveniles off New York and north move offshore and travel along the shelf edge to as far south as Virginia. Most return to northern inshore areas by May. Black sea bass off New Jersey to Maryland travel southeast to the shelf edge during the late fall. Black sea bass off Virginia and Maryland travel a shorter distance due east to the shelf edge, which is closer to shore than in areas to the north (Drohan et al. 2007, NEFSC 2017). Black sea bass are protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning they are born female and some later transition to males, usually around 2-5 years of age. Male black sea bass are either of the dominant or subordinate type. Dominant males are larger than subordinate males and develop a bright blue nuccal hump during the spawning season. About 25% of black sea bass are male at 15 cm (about 6 inches), with increasing proportions of males at larger sizes until about 50 cm, when about 70- 80% of black sea bass are male. Results from a simulation model highlight the importance of subordinate males in the spawning success of this species. This increases the resiliency of the population to exploitation compared to other species with a more typical protogynous life history. About half of black sea bass are sexually mature by 2 years of age and 21 cm (about 8 inches) in length. Black sea bass reach a maximum size of about 60 cm (about 24 inches) and a maximum age of about 12 years (NEFSC 2017, Blaylock and Shepherd 2016). Black sea bass in the mid-Atlantic spawn in nearshore continental shelf areas at depths of 20-50 meters. Spawning usually takes place between April and October. During the summer, adult black sea bass share habitats with tautog, hakes, conger eel, sea robins and other migratory fish species. Essential fish habitat for black sea bass consists of pelagic waters, structured habitat, rough bottom, shellfish, sand, and shell, from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Juvenile and adult black sea bass mostly feed on crustaceans, small fish, and squid. The NEFSC food habits database lists spiny dogfish, Atlantic angel shark, skates, spotted hake, summer flounder, windowpane flounder, and monkfish as predators of black sea bass (Drohan et al. 2007). A black sea bass operational stock assessment was peer reviewed and accepted in August 2019. This assessment retained the model structure of the previous benchmark stock assessment, completed in 2016 (NEFSC 2017), and incorporated fishery data and fishery-independent survey data through 2018, including revised recreational data provided by MRIP for 1989-2018. The following information is based on the prepublication draft of the August 2019 operational assessment prepared for use by the Council and SSC (NEFSC 2019).

39

As with the 2016 benchmark assessment, the 2019 operational assessment has a regional structure. The stock was modeled as two separate sub-units (north and south) divided at approximately Hudson Canyon. Each sub-unit was modeled separately and the average F and combined biomass and SSB across sub-units were used to develop stock-wide reference points. As with the 2016 benchmark assessment, the peer reviewers of the 2019 operational assessment concluded that “although the two-area model had a more severe retrospective pattern in opposite directions in each area sub-unit than when a single unit was assumed, it provides reasonable model estimates after the retrospective corrections and combining the two spatial units. Thus, even though reference points are generated and stock status determinations are conducted for each subunit, the combined projections should be used” (NEFSC 2019). Due to the lack of a stock/recruit relationship, a direct calculation of MSY and associated reference points (F and SSB) was not feasible and proxy reference points were used. SSB calculations and SSB reference points account for mature males and females. Due to the addition of a second selectivity time block for the non-trawl fleet in the 2019 operational assessment (1989-2008 and 2009-2018, compared to 1989-2015 in the 2016 benchmark assessment), the age at full selection changed from 4-7 in the 2016 benchmark assessment to 6-7 in the 2019 operational assessment (NEFSC 2019). The reference points and terminal year SSB and F estimates from the 2016 benchmark assessment and 2019 operational assessment are shown in Table 12. A comparison of the 2018 SSB and F estimates to the reference points suggests that the black sea bass stock north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2018. SSB in 2018 was estimated at 73.65 million pounds (33,407 mt, adjusted for retrospective bias), 2.4 times the updated biomass reference point (i.e., SSBMSY proxy = SSB40%=31.07 million pounds/14,092 mt). The average fishing mortality rate on fully selected ages 6-7 fish in 2018 was 0.42 (adjusted for retrospective bias), 91% of the updated fishing mortality threshold reference point (i.e., FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.46; Table 12). The 2018 estimates of F and SSB were adjusted for internal model retrospective error (Figure 6). Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the time series of estimated SSB, recruitment, fishing mortality, and catch without retrospective adjustments (NEFSC 2019). The 2011 year class was estimated to be the largest in the time series at 144.7 million fish. The 2015 year class was the second largest at 79.4 million fish. Recruitment of the 2017 year class as age 1 in 2018 was estimated at 16.0 million, well below the 1989-2018 average of 36 million fish (Figure 7, NEFSC 2019).

40

Table 12: Black sea bass biological reference points from the 2016 benchmark stock assessment and 2019 operational stock assessment (NEFSC 2019). 2016 benchmark stock 2019 operational stock Reference Points and terminal assessment assessment year SSB and F estimates Data through 2015 Data through 2018 SSBMSY proxy = SSB40% 21.31 mil lb / 9,667 mt 31.07 mil lb / 14,092 mt (biomass target) ½ SSBMSY (biomass threshold defining an 10.66 mil lb / 4,834 mt 15.53 mil lb / 7,046 mt overfished status) 48.89 mil lb / 22,176 mt (2015) 73.65 mil lb / 33,407 mt (2018) Terminal year SSB Adjusted for retrospective bias Adjusted for retrospective bias 230% of SSBMSY 240% of SSBMSY FMSY proxy = F40% 0.36 0.46 (threshold defining overfishing) 0.27 (2015) 0.42 (2018) Adjusted for retrospective bias Adjusted for retrospective bias Terminal year F Fully selected ages 4-7 Fully selected ages 6-7 25% below FMSY 9% below FMSY

Figure 6: Estimates of black sea bass spawning stock biomass and fully-recruited fishing mortality relative to the updated biological reference points from the 2019 operational stock assessment. The red filled circle with 90% confidence intervals shows the un-adjusted 2018 estimates. The open circle shows the retrospectively adjusted estimates for 2018. (Source: NEFSC 2019).

41

Figure 7: Black sea bass SSB and recruitment, 1989-2018 from the 2019 operational stock assessment. The horizontal dashed line is the updated biomass reference point. (Source: NEFSC 2019).

Figure 8: Total black sea bass catch and fishing mortality, 1989-2018, from the 2019 operational stock assessment. (Source: NEFSC 2019).

42

6.1.3. Non-Target Species The following sections describe non-target species in the commercial and recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries. Non-target species are those species caught incidentally while targeting other species. Non-target species may be retained or discarded. 6.1.3.1. Identification of Non-Target Species It can be difficult to develop accurate quantitative estimates of catch of non-target species. The intended target species for any given tow or set is not always obvious. Fishermen may intend to target one or multiple species and the intended target species may change mid-trip. For example, the seasonal distributions of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are generally similar, and these species are often caught together. In some circumstances, scup can be a non-target species in the black sea bass fishery and vice versa. It is not always clear from the data which species is the primary target, which is a secondary target, and which species are not targeted but are sometimes landed if caught incidentally. In addition, there are limitations to the data used to examine catch and discards (i.e., observer and vessel trip report [VTR] data). Observer data are available only for commercial fisheries and may not be representative of all fishing activity due to limited coverage and potential differences in behavior when observers are present. VTR data are available for commercial and for-hire fisheries. VTR data can be uncertain as they are based on fishermen’s self-reported best estimates of catch, which are not intended to be precise measurements. MRIP is the only source of recreational catch and discard data for private recreational anglers participating in the scup and black sea bass fisheries. For these reasons, a combination of quantitative and qualitative data were used here to identify non-target species in the scup and black sea bass fisheries. Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) data from 2014-2018 were analyzed to identify species caught on observed commercial trips for which scup or black sea bass made up at least 75% of the landings (by weight; a proxy for directed trips). Using this definition of a non-target species, the most common non-target species in the scup fishery include spiny dogfish, little skate, northern sea robin, black sea bass, and summer flounder. The most common non-target species in the black sea bass fishery include sea robins (striped, northern, and unknown), spiny dogfish, scup, and little skate (Table 13). With the exception of spiny dogfish, and striped sea robin, non-target species typically comprised a small portion of the overall catch on these trips. All of these species, with the exception of the sea robins, are managed by the Mid-Atlantic or New England Fishery Management Councils and/or the ASMFC. Northern and striped sea robins are not managed.

43

Table 13: Percent of non-target species caught in observed trawls where scup or black sea bass made up at least 75% of the observed landings, 2014-2018. Only those non-target species comprising at least 2% of the non-target catch are listed. % of total catch on scup % of total catch on black sea Species observed directed trips, bass observed directed trips, 2014-2018a 2014-2018a DOGFISH, SPINY 9.7% 17.3% SKATE, LITTLE 3.2% 2.0% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 2.2% 3.3% SEA BASS, BLACK 2.7% -- SCUP -- 4.9% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 2.3% 1.5% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 1% 15.3% SEA ROBIN, (UNKNOWN) 0% 3.9% a Percentages shown are aggregate totals over 2014-2018 and do not reflect the percentages of non-target species caught on individual trips. A species guild approach was used to examine non-target species interactions in the recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries from Maine through Virginia. This analysis identified species that were caught together on 5% or more of recreational trips. Black sea bass, sea robins, tautog, cunner, bluefish, summer flounder, and smooth dogfish were highly correlated with scup (J. Brust, personal communication April 2019). Scup, summer flounder, sea robins, Atlantic croaker, and tautog where highly correlated with black sea bass (NEFSC 2017). Management measures for both the commercial and recreational non-target species managed by the Mid-Atlantic or New England Fishery Management Councils (i.e., all species listed in this section except sea robins, tautog, cunner, and smooth dogfish) include AMs to address ACL overages through reductions in landings limits in following years. AMs for these species take discards into account. These measures help to mitigate negative impacts from discards in the commercial fisheries for scup and black sea bass. 6.1.3.2. Current Condition of Non-Target Species Summer Flounder As described above, summer flounder is both a commercial and recreational non-target species in the scup and black sea bass fisheries. Greater detail is provided on the current condition of summer flounder compared to the other non-target species given that summer flounder is managed as a target species in the same FMP as scup and black sea bass. The management unit for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) consists of the U.S. waters in the western Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S.- Canadian border. Summer flounder are a demersal flatfish which spawn during the fall and winter over the open ocean over the continental shelf. From October to May, larvae and postlarvae migrate inshore, entering coastal and estuarine nursery areas. Juveniles are distributed inshore and in many estuaries throughout the range of the species during spring, summer, and fall. Adult summer flounder exhibit strong seasonal inshore-offshore movements, normally inhabiting shallow coastal and estuarine waters during the warmer months of the year and remaining offshore during the colder months.

44

Summer flounder habitat includes pelagic waters, demersal waters, saltmarsh creeks, seagrass beds, mudflats, and open bay areas from the Gulf of Maine through North Carolina. Summer flounder are opportunistic feeders; their prey includes a variety of fish and crustaceans. While the predators of adult summer flounder are not fully documented, larger predators such as large sharks, rays, and monkfish probably include summer flounder in their diets (Packer et al. 1999). Spawning occurs during autumn and early winter, and the larvae are transported toward coastal areas by prevailing water currents. Development of post larvae and juveniles occurs primarily within bays and estuarine areas. Most fish are sexually mature by age 2. Summer flounder exhibit sexual dimorphism by size; most of the largest fish are females. Females can attain lengths over 90 cm (36 in) and weights up to 11.8 kg (26 lbs.; NEFSC 2017). Recent NEFSC trawl survey data indicate that while female summer flounder grow faster (reaching a larger size at the same age), the sexes attain about the same maximum age (currently age 15 at 56 cm for males, and age 14 at 65 cm for females). Unsexed commercial fishery samples currently indicate a maximum age of 17 for an 85 cm fish (M. Terceiro, personal communication, January 2017). The recent benchmark stock assessment was developed through the 66th SAW process, and peer reviewed at the 66th SARC from November 27-30, 2018 (NEFSC 2019). The assessment incorporated the revised time series of recreational catch from MRIP, which is 30% higher on average compared to the previous summer flounder estimates for 1981-2017. The MRIP estimate revisions account for changes in both the angler intercept survey and recreational effort survey methodologies. While fishing mortality rates were not strongly affected by incorporating these revisions, increased recreational catch resulted in increased estimates of stock size compared to past assessments. The biological reference points for summer flounder as revised through the SAW/SARC 66 process include a fishing mortality threshold of FMSY = F35% (as the FMSY proxy) = 0.448, and a biomass reference point of SSBMSY = SSB35% (as the SSBMSY proxy) = 126.01 million lb = 57,159 mt. The minimum stock size threshold (1/2 SSBMSY), is estimated to be 63.01 million lb (28,580 mt; Figure 9). Assessment results indicate that the summer flounder stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2017 relative to the biological reference points. Fishing mortality on the fully selected age 4 fish ranged between 0.744 and 1.622 during 1982-1996 and then decreased to 0.245 in 2007. Since 2007 the fishing mortality rate (F) has increased, and in 2017 was estimated at 0.334, below the SAW 66 FMSY proxy = F35% = 0.448 (Figure 10). The 90% confidence interval for F in 2017 was 0.276 to 0.380. SSB decreased from 67.13 million lb (30,451 mt) in 1982 to 16.33 million lb (7,408 mt) in 1989, and then increased to 152.46 million lb (69,153 mt) in 2003. SSB has decreased since 2003 and was estimated to be 98.22 million lb (44,552 mt) in 2017, about 78% of SSBMSY = 126.01 million lb (57,159 mt), and 56% above the ½ SSBMSY proxy = ½ SSB35% = 63.01 million lb (28,580 mt; Figure 9). The 90% confidence interval for SSB in 2017 was 39,195 to 50,935 mt.

45

Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Recruitment (R)

80,000 110,000 100,000 70,000 90,000 60,000 80,000 50,000 70,000 60,000 40,000 50,000 SSB (mt)SSB 30,000 40,000 R R (age 0, 000s) 20,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 R SSB SSBMSY = SSB35% = 57,159 mt 1/2 SSBMSY = 1/2 SSB35% = 28,580 mt

Figure 9: Summer flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB; solid line) and recruitment at age 0 (R; vertical bars) 1980-2017. The horizontal dashed line is the 2018 SAW66 recommended target biomass reference point proxy, SSBMSY = SSB35% = 57,159 mt. The horizontal solid line is the 2018 SAW66 recommended threshold biomass reference point proxy ½ SSBMSY = ½ SSB35% = 28,580 mt. Source: NEFSC 2019.

Total Catch and Fishing Mortality (F)

35,000 1.8

30,000 1.6 1.4 25,000 1.2 20,000 1.0 15,000 0.8

0.6 F ( age 4) 10,000 0.4 Total Catch (mt) 5,000 0.2 0 0.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Total Catch F (age 4) FMSY= F35% = 0.448

Figure 10: Total fishery catch (mt; solid line) and fully-recruited fishing mortality (F, peak at age 4; squares) of summer flounder. The horizontal solid line is the 2018 SAW66 recommended fishing mortality reference point proxy FMSY = F35% = 0.448. Source: NEFSC 2019.

46

Recruitment of juvenile summer flounder to the fishery has been below-average since about 2011, although the driving factors behind this trend have not been identified. Bottom trawl survey data also indicates a recent trend of decreasing length and weight at age, which implies slower growth and delayed maturity. These factors affected the change in biological reference points used to determine stock status. Other Commercial Non-Target Species The status of commercial non-target species relevant to this action is described below and summarized in Table 14. Spiny dogfish are jointly managed by the MAFMC and the NEFMC. The Commission also has a complementary FMP for state waters. The most recent assessment update was in 2018, which found that the stock is not overfished nor subject to overfishing. SSB was estimated to be 67% of the target BMSY proxy in 2017 (NEFSC 2018b). The Northeast skate complex includes seven skate species: Leucoraja ocellata (winter skate); Dipturis laevis (barndoor skate); Amblyraja radiata (thorny skate); Malacoraja senta (smooth skate); Leucoraja erinacea (little skate); Raja eglanteria (clearnose skate); and Leucoraja garmani (rosette skate). Little skates are the main skate species identified as non-target species in the scup and and black sea bass fisheries. Skate are mostly harvested incidentally in trawl and gillnet fisheries targeting groundfish, monkfish, and scallops. The fishing mortality reference points for skates are based on changes in biomass indices from the NEFSC bottom trawl survey. If the three- year moving average of the survey biomass index for a skate species declines by more than the average CV of the survey time series, then fishing mortality is assumed to be greater than FMSY and it is concluded that overfishing is occurring (NEFMC 2018). None of the skate species identified as non-target species in the commercial scup and black sea bass fisheries (i.e., little, clearnose, barndoor, and winter skates) are overfished or experiencing overfishing (NEFMC 2018). Northern and striped sea robins are not currently managed and have not been assessed, therefore their overfished and overfishing status is unknown (Table 14).

47

Table 14: Most recent stock status information for commercial non-target species identified in this action. Species Stock biomass status Fishing mortality rate status Not overfished in 2017; Overfishing not occurring in 2017; SUMMER FLOUNDER SSB2017 estimated at 78% of F2017 estimated at 25% below FMSY biomass target Not overfished; SSB2018 Overfishing not occurring in 2018; SCUP estimated at 198% of F2018 estimated at 27% below FMSY biomass target Not overfished; SSB2018 Overfishing not occurring in 2018; BLACK SEA BASS estimated at 240% of F2018 estimated at 9% below FMSY biomass target Not overfished; SSB2018 Overfishing not occurring in 2017; SPINY DOGFISH estimated at 67% of F2015 estimated at 17% below FMSY biomass target LITTLE SKATE Not overfished (see text) Overfishing not occurring (see text) NORTHERN SEA ROBIN Unknown (not assessed) Unknown (not assessed) STRIPED SEA ROBIN Unknown (not assessed) Unknown (not assessed)

Other Recreational Non-Target Species The status of recreational non-target species relevant to this action is described below and summarized in Table 15 and Table 16. Bluefish are jointly managed by the MAFMC and the ASMFC. The most recent operational assessment results indicated that the bluefish stock was overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2018 relative to the biological reference points. Fishing mortality on the fully selected age 2 fish was 0.146 in 2018, 80% of the updated fishing mortality threshold reference point FMSY proxy = F35% = 0.183. There is a 90% probability that the fishing mortality rate in 2018 was between 0.119 and 0.205 (NEFSC 2019).

Atlantic croaker are managed by the ASMFC. The latest stock assessment was not endorsed by an independent panel of fisheries scientists for management use; however, the panel agreed with the general results of the assessment. The panel recommended continued use of the annual "traffic light analysis" established in 2014 to monitor fishery and resource trends, and implement management measures as needed. This analysis assigns a color (red, yellow, or green) to categorize relative levels of indicators of the condition of the fish population (abundance metric) or fishery (harvest metric). For example, as harvest increases relative to its long-term mean, the proportion of green in a given year will increase and as harvest decreases, the amount of red in that year will increase. Under the Atlantic croaker FMP, state-specific management action would be initiated when the proportion of red exceeds the specified thresholds (for both harvest and abundance) over three consecutive years. A key issue causing uncertainty in the assessment results was the disagreement between recent trends in harvest and fishery independent indices of abundance. Recent harvest numbers are declining while estimated abundance from fishery independent surveys is increasing (ASMFC 2017a).

48

Tautog are managed by the ASMFC. The latest assessment (ASMFC 2016) assessed four regions (Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Long Island Sound, New Jersey/New York Bight, and Delaware/Maryland/Virginia) using landings and index data through 2015. The stock status for each region is described in Table 15. Northern and striped sea robins have not been assessed, therefore their overfished and overfishing status is unknown. Sea robins are not managed at the federal or state level. Smooth dogfish are jointly managed by ASMFC as a part of the Atlantic Coastal Sharks management plan and NMFS as a part of the Atlantic Shark Highly Migratory Species management plan. According to the most recent assessment, the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring (SEDAR 2015). Table 15: Current tautog fishing mortality and biomass targets and thresholds for each assessed region (ASMFC 2016). Region Ftarget Fthreshold F3 yr avg SSBtarget SSBthreshold SSB2015 Status Not 2,196 overfished, MA/RI 0.28 0.49 0.23 3,631 mt 2,723 mt mt overfishing not occurring Long 1,603 Overfished, Island 0.28 0.49 0.51 2,865 mt 2,148 mt mt overfishing Sound New 1,809 Overfished, Jersey/New 0.20 0.34 0.54 3,154 mt 2,351 mt mt overfishing York Bight Overfished, DE/MD/ 0.16 0.24 0.16 1,919 mt 1,447 mt 621 mt overfishing VA not occurring

49

Table 16: Most recent stock status information for non-target species in the recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries. Species Biomass status Fishing mortality rate status SCUP Not overfished Overfishing not occurring BLACK SEA BASS Not overfished Overfishing not occurring SUMMER FLOUNDER Not overfished in 2017; Not overfishing in 2017; F2017 SSB2017 estimated at 78% of estimated at 25% below FMSY biomass target BLUEFISH Overfished Overfishing not occurring ATLANTIC CROAKER Unknown Unknown SMOOTH DOGFISH Not overfished Overfishing not occurring TAUTOG MA/RI Not overfished Overfishing not occurring Long Island Sound Overfished Overfishing is occurring New Jersey/New York Bight Overfished Overfishing is occurring DE/MD/VA Overfished Overfishing not occurring NORTHERN SEA ROBIN Unknown (not assessed) Unknown (not assessed) STRIPED SEA ROBIN Unknown (not assessed) Unknown (not assessed) CUNNER Unknown (not assessed) Unknown (not assessed)

6.2. Physical Environment and Essential Fish Habitat The physical, chemical, biological, and geological components of benthic and pelagic environments are important aspects of habitat for marine species and have implications for reproduction, growth, and survival of marine species. The following sections briefly describe key aspects of physical habitats which may be impacted by the alternatives considered in this document. This information is drawn from Stevenson et al. (2004), unless otherwise noted. 6.2.1. Physical Environment Scup and black sea bass inhabit the northeast U.S. shelf ecosystem, which extends from the coast to the edge of the continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, including the slope sea offshore to the Gulf Stream. The Gulf of Maine is a semi-enclosed coastal sea, characterized by relatively cold waters and deep basins, with a patchwork of various sediment types. Georges Bank is a relatively shallow coastal plateau that slopes gently from north to south and has steep submarine canyons on its eastern and southeastern edge. It is characterized by highly productive, well-mixed waters and strong currents. The Mid-Atlantic Bight is comprised of the sandy, relatively flat, gently sloping continental shelf from southern New England to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The continental slope begins at the continental shelf break and continues eastward with increasing depth until it becomes the continental rise. It is fairly homogenous, with exceptions at the shelf break, some canyons, the Hudson Shelf Valley, and in areas of glacially rafted hard bottom.

50

The continental shelf in this region was shaped largely by sea level fluctuations caused by past ice ages. The shelf’s basic morphology and sediments derive from the retreat of the last ice sheet and the subsequent rise in sea level. Currents and waves have since modified this basic structure. Shelf and slope waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight have a slow southwestward flow that is occasionally interrupted by warm core rings or meanders from the Gulf Stream. On average, shelf water moves parallel to bathymetry isobars at speeds of 5 - 10 cm/s at the surface and 2 cm/s or less at the bottom. Storm events can cause much more energetic variations in flow. Tidal currents on the inner shelf have a higher flow rate of 20 cm/s that increases to 100 cm/s near inlets. The shelf slopes gently from shore out to between 100 and 200 km offshore where it transforms to the slope (100 - 200 m water depth) at the shelf break. Numerous canyons incise the slope and some cut up onto the shelf itself. The primary morphological features of the shelf include shelf valleys and channels, shoal massifs, scarps, and sand ridges and swales. Most of these structures are relic except for some sand ridges and smaller sand-formed features. Shelf valleys and slope canyons were formed by rivers of glacier outwash that deposited sediments on the outer shelf edge as they entered the ocean. Most valleys cut about 10 m into the shelf; however, the Hudson Shelf Valley is about 35 m deep. The valleys were partially filled as the glacier melted and retreated across the shelf. The glacier also left behind a lengthy scarp near the shelf break from Chesapeake Bay north to the eastern end of Long Island. Shoal retreat massifs were produced by extensive deposition at a cape or estuary mouth. Massifs were also formed as estuaries retreated across the shelf. Some sand ridges are more modern in origin than the shelf’s glaciated morphology. Their formation is not well understood; however, they appear to develop from the sediments that erode from the shore face. They maintain their shape, so it is assumed that they are in equilibrium with modern current and storm regimes. They are usually grouped, with heights of about 10 m, lengths of 10 - 50 km and spacing of 2 km. Ridges are usually oriented at a slight angle towards shore, running in length from northeast to southwest. The seaward face usually has the steepest slope. Sand ridges are often covered with smaller similar forms such as sand waves, megaripples, and ripples. Swales occur between sand ridges. Since ridges are higher than the adjacent swales, they are exposed to more energy from water currents and experience more sediment mobility than swales. Ridges tend to contain less fine sand, silt and clay while relatively sheltered swales contain more of the finer particles. Swales have greater benthic macrofaunal density, species richness and biomass, due in part to the increased abundance of detrital food and the less physically rigorous conditions. Sand waves are usually found in patches of 5 - 10 with heights of about 2 m, lengths of 50 - 100 m and 1 - 2 km between patches. Sand waves are primarily found on the inner shelf, and often observed on sides of sand ridges. They may remain intact over several seasons. Megaripples occur on sand waves or separately on the inner or central shelf. During the winter storm season, they may cover as much as 15% of the inner shelf. They tend to form in large patches and usually have lengths of 3 - 5 m with heights of 0.5 - 1 m. Megaripples tend to survive for less than a season. They can form during a storm and reshape the upper 50 - 100 cm of the sediments within a few hours. Ripples are also found everywhere on the shelf and appear or disappear within hours or days, depending upon storms and currents. Ripples usually have lengths of about 1 - 150 cm and heights of a few centimeters.

51

Sediments are uniformly distributed over the shelf in this region. A sheet of sand and gravel varying in thickness from 0 - 10 m covers most of the shelf. The mean bottom flow from the constant southwesterly current is not fast enough to move sand, so sediment transport must be episodic. Net sediment movement is in the same southwesterly direction as the current. The sands are mostly medium to coarse grains, with finer sand in the Hudson Shelf Valley and on the outer shelf. Mud is rare over most of the shelf, but is common in the Hudson Shelf Valley. Occasionally relic estuarine mud deposits are re-exposed in the swales between sand ridges. Fine sediment content increases rapidly at the shelf break, which is sometimes called the “mud line,” and sediments are 70 - 100% fine on the slope. On the slope, silty sand, silt, and clay predominate (Stevenson et al. 2004). Greene et al. (2010) identified and described Ecological Marine Units (EMUs) in New England and the Mid-Atlantic based on sediment type, seabed form (a combination of slope and relative depth)5, and benthic organisms.6 According to this classification scheme, the sediment composition off New England and the Mid-Atlantic is about 68% sand, 26% gravel, and 6% silt/mud. The seafloor is classified as about 52% flat, 26% depression, 19% slope, and 3% steep. Artificial reefs are another significant Mid-Atlantic habitat. These localized areas of hard structure were formed by shipwrecks, lost cargoes, disposed solid materials, shoreline jetties and groins, submerged pipelines, cables, and other materials (Steimle and Zetlin 2000). While some of these materials were deposited specifically for use as fish habitat, most have an alternative primary purpose; however, they have all become an integral part of the coastal and shelf ecosystem. In general, reefs are important for attachment sites, shelter, and food for many species, and fish predators such as tunas may be attracted by prey aggregations, or may be behaviorally attracted to the reef structure. Like all the world’s oceans, the western North Atlantic is experiencing changes to the physical environment due to global climate change. These changes include warming temperatures; sea level rise; ocean acidification; changes in stream flow, ocean circulation, and sediment deposition; and increased frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme climate events. These changes in physical habitat can impact the metabolic rate and other biological processes of marine species. As such, these changes have implications for the distribution and productivity of many marine species. Several studies demonstrate that the distribution and productivity of several species in the Mid- Atlantic have changed over time, likely because of changes in physical habitat conditions such as temperature (e.g., Weinberg 2005, Lucey and Nye 2010, Nye et al. 2011, Pinsky et al. 2013, Gaichas et al. 2015). 6.2.2. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The MSA defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” (MSA section 3). The MSA requires that Councils describe and identify EFH for managed species and “minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such

5 Seabed form contains the categories of depression, mid flat, high flat, low slope, side slope, high slope, and steep slope. 6 See Greene et al. 2010 for a description of the methodology used to define EMUs.

52 habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat” (MSA section 303 (a)(7)). The broad definition of EFH has led the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils to identify EFH throughout most of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, ranging from areas out to the shelf break to wetlands, streams, and rivers. Table 17 summarizes EFH within the affected area of this action for federally-managed species and life stages that are vulnerable to bottom tending fishing gear. EFH maps and text descriptions for these species and life stages can be found at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/essential-fish-habitat-mapper. Table 17: Geographic distributions and habitat characteristics of EFH designations for benthic fish and shellfish species within the affected environment of the action. Life Species Geographic Area Depth (meters) Habitat Type and Description Stage Gulf of Maine and bays and estuaries from Passamaquoddy Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud American Juveniles Bay to Saco Bay, Maine and from 40-180 and sand, also found on gravel and plaice Massachusetts Bay to Cape Cod sandy substrates bordering bedrock Bay, Massachusetts Bay Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and bays and estuaries from Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud American Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay, Adults 40-300 and sand, also gravel and sandy plaice Maine and from Massachusetts substrates bordering bedrock Bay to Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England, including Structurally-complex intertidal and nearshore waters from eastern sub-tidal habitats, including Maine to Rhode Island and the eelgrass, mixed sand and gravel, Mean high water- Atlantic cod Juveniles following estuaries: and rocky habitats (gravel 120 Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay; pavements, cobble, and boulder) Massachusetts Bay, Boston with and without attached Harbor, Cape Cod Bay, and macroalgae and emergent epifauna Buzzards Bay Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England, and the Structurally complex sub-tidal hard Mid-Atlantic to Delaware Bay, bottom habitats with gravel, including the following estuaries: cobble, and boulder substrates with Atlantic cod Adults 30-160 Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay; and without emergent epifauna and Massachusetts Bay, Boston macroalgae, also sandy substrates Harbor, Cape Cod Bay, and and along deeper slopes of ledges Buzzards Bay Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Atlantic Juveniles 60-140 and 400-700 Benthic habitats on sand, gravel, or continental slope south of halibut & Adults on slope clay substrates Georges Bank Gulf of Maine coastal waters and offshore banks, Georges Bank, and the Mid-Atlantic, including Atlantic sea Inshore and offshore benthic Eggs the following estuaries: 18-110 scallop habitats (see adults) Passamaquoddy Bay to Sheepscot River; Casco Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay Gulf of Maine coastal waters and Inshore and offshore pelagic and offshore banks, Georges Bank, benthic habitats: pelagic larvae and the Mid-Atlantic, including (“spat”), settle on variety of hard Atlantic sea Larvae the following estuaries: No information surfaces, including shells, pebbles, scallop Passamaquoddy Bay to Sheepscot and gravel and to macroalgae and River; Casco Bay, Massachusetts other benthic organisms such as Bay, and Cape Cod Bay hydroids

53

Life Species Geographic Area Depth (meters) Habitat Type and Description Stage Gulf of Maine coastal waters and offshore banks, Georges Bank, Benthic habitats initially attached and the Mid-Atlantic, including to shells, gravel, and small rocks Atlantic sea the following estuaries: Juveniles 18-110 (pebble, cobble), later free- scallop Passamaquoddy Bay to Sheepscot swimming juveniles found in same River; Casco Bay, Great Bay, habitats as adults Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay Gulf of Maine coastal waters and offshore banks, Georges Bank, and the Mid-Atlantic, including Atlantic sea the following estuaries: Benthic habitats with sand and Adults 18-110 scallop Passamaquoddy Bay to Sheepscot gravel substrates River; Casco Bay, Great Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay Juveniles Continental shelf from Surf zone to about Atlantic and southwestern Gulf of Maine to 61, abundance low In substrate to depth of 3 ft surfclams adults Cape Hatteras, North Carolina >38 Atlantic U.S. waters north of 41˚N latitude Sub-tidal benthic habitats under Eggs <100 wolffish and east of 71˚W longitude rocks and boulders in nests Atlantic U.S. waters north of 41˚N latitude Juveniles 70-184 Sub-tidal benthic habitats wolffish and east of 71˚W longitude A wide variety of sub-tidal sand Atlantic U.S. waters north of 41˚N latitude and gravel substrates once they Adults <173 wolffish and east of 71˚W longitude leave rocky spawning habitats, but not on muddy bottom Juveniles Primarily on Georges Bank and in Barndoor 40-400 on shelf and Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud, and Southern New England and on the skate to 750 on slope sand, and gravel substrates adults continental slope Benthic habitats with rough Continental shelf and estuarine bottom, shellfish and eelgrass Juveniles Black sea waters from the southwestern Inshore in summer beds, man-made structures in and bass Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, and spring sandy-shelly areas, also offshore adults North Carolina clam beds and shell patches in winter Inner continental shelf from New Jersey to the St. Johns River in Florida and certain bays and Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud Clearnose Juveniles certain estuaries including Raritan 0-30 and sand, but also on gravelly and skate Bay, inland New Jersey bays, rocky bottom Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bays Inner continental shelf from New Jersey to the St. Johns River in Florida and certain bays and Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud Clearnose Adults certain estuaries including Raritan 0-40 and sand, but also on gravelly and skate Bay, inland New Jersey bays, rocky bottom Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bays Burrows in semi-lithified clay Juveniles Outer continental shelf and slope substrate, may also utilize rocks, Golden and from U.S.-Canada boundary to the 100-300 boulders, scour depressions tilefish adults Virginia-North Carolina boundary beneath boulders, and exposed rock ledges as shelter Inshore and offshore waters in the 40-140 and as Sub-tidal benthic habitats on hard Gulf of Maine, on Georges Bank, shallow as 20 in sand (particularly smooth patches Haddock Juveniles and on the continental shelf in the coastal Gulf of between rocks), mixed sand and Mid-Atlantic region Maine shell, gravelly sand, and gravel

54

Life Species Geographic Area Depth (meters) Habitat Type and Description Stage Sub-tidal benthic habitats on hard Offshore waters in the Gulf of sand (particularly smooth patches Maine, on Georges Bank, and on between rocks), mixed sand and Haddock Adults 50-160 the continental shelf in Southern shell, gravelly sand, and gravel and New England adjacent to boulders and cobbles along the margins of rocky reefs Coastal waters in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and the continental shelf in the Mid- Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic Little skate Juveniles Atlantic region as far south as Mean high water-80 habitats on sand and gravel, also Delaware Bay, including certain found on mud bays and estuaries in the Gulf of Maine Coastal waters in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and the continental shelf in the Mid- Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic Mean high water- Little skate Adults Atlantic region as far south as habitats on sand and gravel, also 100 Delaware Bay, including certain found on mud bays and estuaries in the Gulf of Maine Inshore and offshore waters from Bottom habitats attached to variety Longfin Eggs Georges Bank southward to Cape Generally <50 of hard bottom types, macroalgae, inshore squid Hatteras sand, and mud Sub-tidal benthic habitats on a 50-400 in the Mid- variety of habitats, including hard Gulf of Maine, outer continental Atlantic, 20-400 in sand, pebbles, gravel, broken Monkfish Juveniles shelf in the Mid-Atlantic, and the the Gulf of Maine, shells, and soft mud, also seek continental slope and to 1000 on the shelter among rocks with attached slope algae Sub-tidal benthic habitats on hard 50-400 in the Mid- sand, pebbles, gravel, broken Gulf of Maine, outer continental Atlantic, 20-400 in shells, and soft mud, but seem to Monkfish Adults shelf in the Mid-Atlantic, and the the Gulf of Maine, prefer soft sediments, and, like continental slope and to 1000 on the juveniles, utilize the edges of slope rocky areas for feeding Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine, and Sub-tidal hard bottom habitats in the Mid-Atlantic, including Ocean pout Eggs <100 sheltered nests, holes, or rocky certain bays and estuaries in the crevices Gulf of Maine Gulf of Maine, on the continental Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic shelf north of Cape May, New habitats on a wide variety of Jersey, on the southern portion of Mean high water- Ocean pout Juveniles substrates, including shells, rocks, Georges Bank, and including 120 algae, soft sediments, sand, and certain bays and estuaries in the gravel Gulf of Maine Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, on Sub-tidal benthic habitats on mud the continental shelf north of Cape and sand, particularly in Ocean pout Adults May, New Jersey, and including 20-140 association with structure forming certain bays and estuaries in the habitat types; i.e. shells, gravel, or Gulf of Maine boulders Juveniles Continental shelf from southern Ocean and New England and Georges Bank 9-244 In substrate to depth of 3 ft quahogs adults to Virginia Offshore Outer continental shelf and slope Juveniles 160-750 Pelagic and benthic habitats hake from Georges Bank to 34° 40’N Offshore Outer continental shelf and slope Adults 200-750 Pelagic and benthic habitats hake from Georges Bank to 34° 40’N Inshore and offshore waters in the Mean high water- Intertidal and sub-tidal pelagic and Pollock Juveniles Gulf of Maine (including bays and 180 in Gulf of benthic rocky bottom habitats with

55

Life Species Geographic Area Depth (meters) Habitat Type and Description Stage estuaries in the Gulf of Maine), Maine, Long Island attached macroalgae, small the Great South Channel, Long Sound, and juveniles in eelgrass beds, older Island Sound, and Narragansett Narragansett Bay; juveniles move into deeper water Bay, Rhode Island 40-180 on Georges habitats also occupied by adults Bank 80-300 in Gulf of Offshore Gulf of Maine waters, Maine and on Pelagic and benthic habitats on the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Georges Bank; <80 tops and edges of offshore banks Pollock Adults Bay, on the southern edge of in Long Island and shoals with mixed rocky Georges Bank, and in Long Island Sound, Cape Cod substrates, often with attached Sound Bay, and macro algae Narragansett Bay Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Intertidal and sub-tidal soft bottom the Mid-Atlantic, including habitats, esp those that that provide Passamaquoddy Bay to Cape Cod shelter, such as depressions in Bay in the Gulf of Maine, muddy substrates, eelgrass, Red hake Juveniles Mean high water-80 Buzzards Bay and Narragansett macroalgae, shells, anemone and Bay, Long Island Sound, Raritan polychaete tubes, on artificial Bay and the Hudson River, and reefs, and in live bivalves (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay scallops) In the Gulf of Maine, the Great South Channel, and on the outer Sub-tidal benthic habitats in shell continental shelf and slope from 50-750 on shelf and beds, on soft sediments (usually in Red hake Adults Georges Bank to North Carolina , slope, as shallow as depressions), also found on gravel including inshore bays and 20 inshore and hard bottom and artificial reefs estuaries as far south as Chesapeake Bay Juveniles Outer continental shelf from Benthic habitats with mud and Rosette skate and approximately 40˚N to Cape 80-400 sand substrates adults Hatteras, North Carolina Continental shelf between southwestern Gulf of Maine and Benthic habitats, in association Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and with inshore sand and mud Scup Juveniles No information in nearshore and estuarine waters substrates, mussel and eelgrass between Massachusetts and beds Virginia Continental shelf and nearshore No information, and estuarine waters between Scup Adults generally Benthic habitats southwestern Gulf of Maine and overwinter offshore Cape Hatteras, North Carolina Pelagic and sandy sub-tidal benthic Gulf of Maine, including certain 40-400 in Gulf of habitats in association with sand- bays and estuaries, and on the Silver hake Juveniles Maine, >10 in Mid- waves, flat sand with amphipod continental shelf as far south as Atlantic tubes, shells, and in biogenic Cape May, New Jersey depressions Pelagic and sandy sub-tidal benthic Gulf of Maine, including certain habitats, often in bottom bays and estuaries, the southern >35 in Gulf of depressions or in association with portion of Georges Bank, and the Maine, 70-400 on sand waves and shell fragments, Silver hake Adults outer continental shelf and some Georges Bank and also in mud habitats bordering shallower coastal locations in the in the Mid-Atlantic deep boulder reefs, on over deep Mid-Atlantic boulder reefs in the southwest Gulf of Maine Offshore Gulf of Maine, some 100-400 offshore Benthic habitats, mostly on soft coastal bays in Maine and New Gulf of Maine, mud in deeper areas, but also on Smooth skate Juveniles Hampshire, and on the continental <100 inshore Gulf sand, broken shells, gravel, and slope from Georges Bank to North of Maine, to 900 on pebbles on offshore banks in the Carolina slope Gulf of Maine

56

Life Species Geographic Area Depth (meters) Habitat Type and Description Stage Benthic habitats, mostly on soft Offshore Gulf of Maine and the 100-400 offshore mud in deeper areas, but also on Smooth skate Adults continental slope from Georges Gulf of Maine, to sand, broken shells, gravel, and Bank to North Carolina 900 on slope pebbles on offshore banks in the Gulf of Maine Benthic habitats, including inshore Continental shelf and estuaries Summer estuaries, salt marsh creeks, Juveniles from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to To maximum 152 flounder seagrass beds, mudflats, and open Cape Canaveral, Florida bay areas Continental shelf from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cape Summer To maximum 152 in Adults Canaveral, Florida, including Benthic habitats flounder colder months shallow coastal and estuarine waters during warmer months Primarily the outer continental shelf and slope between Cape Spiny dogfish Juveniles Deep water Pelagic and epibenthic habitats Hatteras and Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine Female Spiny dogfish sub- Throughout the region Wide depth range Pelagic and epibenthic habitats adults Primarily in the Gulf of Maine Male sub- and on the outer continental shelf Spiny dogfish Wide depth range Pelagic and epibenthic habitats adults from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras Female Spiny dogfish Throughout the region Wide depth range Pelagic and epibenthic habitats adults Male Spiny dogfish Throughout the region Wide depth range Pelagic and epibenthic habitats adults 35-400 offshore Offshore Gulf of Maine, some Benthic habitats on a wide variety Gulf of Maine, <35 coastal bays in the Gulf of Maine, of bottom types, including sand, Thorny skate Juveniles inshore Gulf of and on the continental slope from gravel, broken shells, pebbles, and Maine, to 900 om Georges Bank to North Carolina soft mud slope 35-400 offshore Benthic habitats on a wide variety Offshore Gulf of Maine and on Gulf of Maine, <35 of bottom types, including sand, Thorny skate Adults the continental slope from inshore Gulf of gravel, broken shells, pebbles, and Georges Bank to North Carolina Maine, to 900 om soft mud slope Intertidal and sub-tidal estuarine Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and and marine habitats on fine- Southern New England, including Mean high water - White hake Juveniles grained, sandy substrates in bays and estuaries in the Gulf of 300 eelgrass, macroalgae, and un- Maine vegetated habitats 100-400 offshore Gulf of Maine, including coastal Gulf of Maine, >25 Sub-tidal benthic habitats on fine- White hake Adults bays and estuaries, and the outer inshore Gulf of grained, muddy substrates and in continental shelf and slope Maine, to 900 on mixed soft and rocky habitats slope Estuarine, coastal, and continental shelf waters from the Gulf of Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic Windowpane Mean high water - Juveniles Maine to northern Florida, habitats on mud and sand flounder 60 including bays and estuaries from substrates Maine to Maryland Estuarine, coastal, and continental shelf waters from the Gulf of Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic Windowpane Mean high water - Adults Maine to Cape Hatteras, North habitats on mud and sand flounder 70 Carolina, including bays and substrates estuaries from Maine to Maryland

57

Life Species Geographic Area Depth (meters) Habitat Type and Description Stage 0-5 south of Cape Sub-tidal estuarine and coastal Eastern Maine to Absecon Inlet, Winter Cod, 0-70 Gulf of benthic habitats on mud, muddy Eggs New Jersey (39° 22´N) and flounder Maine and Georges sand, sand, gravel, submerged Georges Bank Bank aquatic vegetation, and macroalgae Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic habitats on a variety of bottom Coastal Gulf of Maine, Georges types, such as mud, sand, rocky Bank, and continental shelf in substrates with attached macro Southern New England and Mid- Winter Mean high water - algae, tidal wetlands, and eelgrass; Juveniles Atlantic to Absecon Inlet, New flounder 60 young-of-the-year juveniles on Jersey, including bays and muddy and sandy sediments in and estuaries from eastern Maine to adjacent to eelgrass and northern New Jersey macroalgae, in bottom debris, and in marsh creeks Coastal Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and continental shelf in Intertidal and sub-tidal benthic Southern New England and Mid- habitats on muddy and sandy Winter Mean high water - Adults Atlantic to Absecon Inlet, New substrates, and on hard bottom on flounder 70 Jersey, including bays and offshore banks; for spawning estuaries from eastern Maine to adults, also see eggs northern New Jersey Coastal waters from eastern Maine to Delaware Bay, including certain bays and estuaries from Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand eastern Maine to Chincoteague Winter skate Juveniles 0-90 and gravel substrates, are also Bay, Virginia, and on Georges found on mud Bank and the continental shelf in Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal waters from eastern Maine to Delaware Bay, including certain bays and estuaries in Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand Winter skate Adults Maine and New Hampshire, and 0-80 and gravel substrates, are also on Georges Bank and the found on mud continental shelf in Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic Witch Gulf of Maine and outer 50-400 and to 1500 Sub-tidal benthic habitats with Juveniles flounder continental shelf and slope on slope mud and muddy sand substrates Witch Gulf of Maine and outer 35-400 and to 1500 Sub-tidal benthic habitats with Adults flounder continental shelf and slope on slope mud and muddy sand substrates Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Yellowtail the Mid-Atlantic, including Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand Juveniles 20-80 flounder certain bays and estuaries in the and muddy sand Gulf of Maine Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Sub-tidal benthic habitats on sand Yellowtail the Mid-Atlantic, including Adults 25-90 and sand with mud, shell hash, flounder certain bays and estuaries in the gravel, and rocks Gulf of Maine

6.2.3. Fishery Impact Considerations Only those gear types which contact the bottom impact physical habitat. The actions proposed in this document are relevant to both the commercial and recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries and the commercial scup fishery. The recreational fisheries for all three species are almost exclusively hook and line fisheries. Recreational hook and line gears generally have minimal impacts on physical habitat and EFH in this region (Stevenson et al. 2004). Weighted hook and line gear can contact the bottom, but the magnitude and footprint of any impacts resulting from

58

this contact is likely minimal. Thus, the recreational fisheries are expected to have very minor or no impacts on habitat. The commercial fisheries for all three species are primarily prosecuted with bottom trawl gear (Table 18). Table 18: Percent of reported commercial scup and black sea bass landings taken by gear category in 2018 based on VTR data. Gear Scup Black Sea Bass Bottom otter trawls 97% 72% Pots and traps 1.7% 22% Sink gillnets <1% <1% Handlines <1% 3% Other <1% each <1% each

Stevenson et al. (2004) compiled a detailed summary of several studies on the impacts of a variety of gear types on marine habitats. Conclusions relevant for this action are briefly summarized below with a focus on bottom trawl gear since this is the predominant gear type used in commercial harvest of all three species. Otter trawl doors can create furrows in sand, mud, and gravel/rocky substrates. Studies have found furrow depths that range from 2 to 10 cm. Bottom trawl gear can also re-suspend and disperse surface sediments and can smooth topographic features. It can also result in reduced abundance, and in some cases reduced diversity, of benthic species such as nematodes, polychaetes, and bivalves. It can also have short-term positive ecological impacts such as increased food value and increased chlorophyll production in surface sediments. The duration of these impacts varies by sediment type, depth, and frequency of the impact (e.g., a single trawl tow vs. repeated tows). Some studies documented effects that lasted only a few months. Other studies found effects that lasted up to 18 months. Impacts tend to have shorter durations in dynamic environments with less structured bottom composition compared to less dynamic environments with structured bottom. Shallower water, stronger bottom currents, more wave action, finer-grained sediments, and higher frequencies of natural disturbance are characteristics that make environments more dynamic (Stevenson et al. 2004). Compared to otter trawls and dredges, Stevenson et al. (2004) summarized fewer studies on other bottom tending gears such as traps. Morgan and Chuenpagdee (2003) found that the impacts of bottom gill nets, traps, and longlines were generally limited to warm or shallow-water environments with rooted aquatic vegetation or “live bottom” environments (e.g., coral reefs). These impacts were of a lesser degree than those from bottom trawls and dredges. Eno et al. (2001) found that traps can bend, smother, and uproot sea pens in soft sediments; however, sea pen communities were largely able to recover within a few days of the impact. The Mid-Atlantic Council developed some fishery management actions with the sole intent of protecting marine habitats. For example, in Amendment 9 to the Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish FMP, the Council determined that bottom trawls used in Atlantic mackerel, longfin and Illex squid, and butterfish fisheries have the potential to adversely affect EFH for some federally-managed fisheries (MAFMC 2008). As a result of Amendment 9, closures to squid trawling were developed for portions of Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons. Subsequent closures were implemented in

59 these and Veatch and Norfolk Canyons to protect tilefish EFH by prohibiting all bottom trawling activity. In addition, amendment 16 to the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP prohibits the use of all bottom-tending gear in fifteen discrete zones and one broad zone where deep sea corals are known or highly likely to occur (81 Federal Register 90246, December 14, 2016). Actions implemented in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP that affected species with overlapping EFH were considered Amendment 13 (MAFMC 2002). The analysis in Amendment 13 indicated that no management measures were needed to minimize impacts to EFH because the trawl fisheries for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass in federal waters are conducted primarily in high energy mobile sand and bottom habitat where gear impacts are minimal and/or temporary in nature. 6.3. ESA and MMPA Protected Species Numerous protected species inhabit the affected environment of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action (i.e., there have been observed/documented interactions in the fisheries or with gear types similar to those used in the fisheries (bottom trawl, pot/trap, and hook and line gear). These species are under NMFS jurisdiction and are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. Cusk are a NMFS "candidate species" under the ESA. Candidate species are those petitioned species for which NMFS has determined that listing may be warranted under the ESA and those species for which NMFS has initiated an ESA status review through an announcement in the Federal Register. If a species is proposed for listing the conference provisions under Section 7 of the ESA apply (see 50 CFR 402.10); however, candidate species receive no substantive or procedural protection under the ESA. As a result, cusk will not be discussed further in this and the following sections; however, NMFS recommends that project proponents consider implementing conservation actions to limit the potential for adverse effects on candidate species from any proposed action. Additional information on cusk can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/candidate.htm.

A summary of protected resources and critical habitat that may occur in the affected environment is provided in Table 19, followed by sections detailing which species and critical habitat are not likely to be impacted by the proposed action (section 6.3.1) and which species would be potentially impacted by the proposed action (i.e., there have been observed/documented interactions in the fishery or with gear types similar to those used in the fishery; section 6.3.2).

60

Table 19: Species Protected Under the ESA and/or MMPA that may occur in the Affected Environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Marine mammal species italicized and in bold are considered MMPA strategic stocks.1 Potentially impacted by Species Status this action? Cetaceans North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Endangered Yes Humpback whale, West Indies DPS (Megaptera Protected (MMPA) Yes novaeangliae) Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered Yes Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered Yes Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Endangered No Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus Endangered No Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Protected (MMPA) Yes Pilot whale (Globicephala spp.)2 Protected (MMPA) Yes Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Protected (MMPA) No Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Protected (MMPA) No Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Short Beaked Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Protected (MMPA) Yes Atlantic Spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) Protected (MMPA) No Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) Protected (MMPA) No Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)3 Protected (MMPA) Yes Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Protected (MMPA) Yes Sea Turtles Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered Yes Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered Yes Green sea turtle, North Atlantic DPS (Chelonia mydas) Threatened Yes Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Northwest Threatened Yes Atlantic Ocean DPS Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Endangered No Fish Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered No Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Endangered Yes Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) Gulf of Maine DPS Threatened Yes New York Bight DPS, Chesapeake Bay DPS, Carolina Endangered Yes DPS & South Atlantic DPS Cusk (Brosme brosme) Candidate Yes Pinnipeds Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) Protected (MMPA) Yes Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Harp seal (Phoca groenlandicus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) Protected (MMPA) Yes Critical Habitat North Atlantic Right Whale ESA (Protected) No Northwest Atlantic DPS of Loggerhead Sea Turtle ESA (Protected) No 1 A strategic stock is defined under the MMPA as a marine mammal stock for which: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; and/or (3) is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA (Section 3 of the MMPA of 1972). 2 There are 2 species of pilot whales: short finned (G. melas melas) and long finned (G. macrorhynchus). Due to the difficulties in identifying the species at sea, they are often just referred to as Globicephala spp.

61

Potentially impacted by Species Status this action? 3 This includes the Western North Atlantic Offshore, Northern Migratory Coastal, and Southern Migratory Coastal Stocks of Bottlenose Dolphins. See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal- protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region for further details.

6.3.1. Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Impacted by the Proposed Action Based on available information, it has been determined that this action is not likely to impact blue whales, sperm whales, shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic spotted dolphins, striped dolphins, pygmy sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, or hawksbill sea turtles. Further, this action is not likely to adversely affect any critical habitat for the species listed in Table 19. This determination was made because either the occurrence of the species is not known to overlap with the scup and black sea bass fisheries and/or there have never been documented interactions between the species and these fisheries (NMFS NEFSC 2019; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock- assessment-reports-region; http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/take_reports/nefop.html). In the case of critical habitat, this determination has been made because the scup and black sea bass fisheries will not impact the essential physical and biological features of North Atlantic right whale or loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment, or DPS) critical habitat and, and therefore, will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (NMFS 2014a; NMFS 2015a,b). 6.3.2. Species Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Action Table 19 provides a list of protected species of sea turtle, marine mammal, and fish species present in the affected environment of the scup and black sea bass fisheries, and that may also be impacted by the operation of this fishery; that is, have the potential to become entangled or bycaught in the fishing gear used to prosecute the fishery. To aid in the identification of MMPA protected species potentially affected by the action, the MMPA List of Fisheries and marine mammal stock assessment reports for the Atlantic Region were referenced (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock- assessment-reports-region;https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal- protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries). To aid in identifying ESA listed species potentially impacted by the action, the 2013 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS on the operation of seven commercial fisheries, including the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, and its impact on ESA listed species was referenced (NMFS 2013). The 2013 Opinion, which considered the best available information on ESA listed species and observed or documented ESA listed species interactions with gear types used to prosecute the 7 FMPs (e.g., gillnet, bottom trawl, and pot/trap), concluded that the seven fisheries may adversely affect, but was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species. The Opinion included an incidental take statement authorizing the take of specific

62

numbers of ESA listed species of sea turtles, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic sturgeon.7 Reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions were also issued with the incidental take statement to minimize impacts of any incidental take Up until recently, the 2013 Opinion remained in effect; however, new information indicates that North Atlantic right whale abundance has been in decline since 2010 (Pace et al. 2017). This new information is different from that considered and analyzed in the 2013 Opinion and therefore, may reveal effects from this fishery that were not previously considered. As a result, per an October 17, 2017, ESA 7(a)(2)/7(d) memo issued by NMFS, the 2013 Opinion, as well as several other fishery Opinions, has been reinitiated. However, the October 17, 2017, ESA 7(a)(2)/7(d) memo issued by NMFS, determined “for the consultations being reinitiated …allowing these fisheries to continue during the reinitiation period will not increase the likelihood of interactions with these species above the amount that would otherwise occur if consultation had not been reinitiated, because allowing these fisheries to continue does not entail making any changes to any fishery during the reinitiation period that would cause an increase in interactions with whales, sea turtles, sturgeon, or Atlantic salmon. Because of this, the continuation of these fisheries during the reinitiation period would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any whale, sea turtle, Atlantic salmon, or sturgeon species.” Until replaced, the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass FMP is currently covered by the October 17, 2017, memo. As the primary concern for both MMPA protected and ESA listed species is the potential for the fishery to interact (e.g., bycatch, entanglement) with these species it is necessary to consider (1) species occurrence in the affected environment of the fishery and how the fishery will overlap in time and space with this occurrence; and (2) data and observed records of protected species interaction with particular fishing gear types, in order to understand the potential risk of an interaction. Information on species occurrence in the affected environment of the scup and black sea bass fisheries and on protected species interactions with specific fishery gear is provided below. 6.3.2.1. Sea Turtles This section contains a brief summary of the occurrence and distribution of sea turtles in the affected environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Additional background information on the range-wide status of affected sea turtles species, as well as a description and life history of each of these species, can be found in a number of published documents, including sea turtle status reviews and biological reports (NMFS and USFWS 1995; Hirth 1997; TEWG 1998, 2000, 2007, 2009; NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2007b; Conant et al. 2009; NMFS and USFWS 2013; NMFS and USFWS 2015; Seminoff et al. 2015), and recovery plans for the loggerhead sea turtle (Northwest Atlantic DPS; NMFS and USFWS 2008),

7 The 2013 Opinion did not authorize take of ESA listed species of whales because (1) an incidental take statement cannot be lawfully issued under the ESA for a marine mammal unless incidental take authorization exists for that marine mammal under the MMPA (see 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(C)), and (2) the incidental take of ESA- listed whales by the black seabass fishery has not been authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. However, the 2013 BiOp assessed interaction risks to these species and concluded that 7 FMPs assessed, may affect but would not jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species of whales (NMFS 2013). 63

leatherback sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1992, 1998a), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (NMFS et al. 2011), and green sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 1998b). A general overview of sea turtle occurrence and distribution in waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean is provided below to assist in understanding how the scup and black sea bass fisheries may overlap in time and space with sea turtles. Maps depicting the range wide distribution and occurrence of sea turtles in the Greater Atlantic Region can be found at the following websites: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/section7/listing/index.html; http://marinecadastre.gov/; and, http://seamap.env.duke.edu/. Hard-shelled Sea Turtles In U.S. Northwest Atlantic waters, hard-shelled turtles commonly occur throughout the continental shelf from Florida to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, although their presence varies with the seasons due to changes in water temperature (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b; Braun and Epperly 1996; Mitchell et al. 2003; Braun-McNeill et al. 2008; TEWG 2009). While hard- shelled turtles are most common south of Cape Cod, MA, they are known to occur in the Gulf of Maine. Loggerheads, the most common hard-shelled sea turtle in the Greater Atlantic Region, feed as far north as southern Canada. Loggerheads have been observed in waters with surface temperatures of 7 °C to 30 °C, but water temperatures ≥11 °C are most favorable (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995b). Sea turtle presence in U.S. Atlantic waters is also influenced by water depth. While hard-shelled turtles occur in waters from the beach to beyond the continental shelf, they are most commonly found in neritic waters of the inner continental shelf (Mitchell et al. 2003; Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2002; Morreale and Standora 2005; Blumenthal et al. 2006; Hawkes et al. 2006; McClellan and Read 2007; Mansfield et al. 2009; Hawkes et al. 2011; Griffin et al. 2013). Hard-shelled sea turtles occur year-round in waters off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and south. As coastal water temperatures warm in the spring, loggerheads begin to migrate to inshore waters of the southeast United States and also move up the Atlantic Coast (Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1995c; Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2002; Morreale and Standora 2005; Griffin et al. 2013), occurring in Virginia foraging areas as early as late April and on the most northern foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine in June (Shoop and Kenney 1992). The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. The large majority leave the Gulf of Maine by September, but some remain in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas until late fall. By December, sea turtles have migrated south to waters offshore of NC, particularly south of Cape Hatteras, and further south (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995b; Hawkes et al. 2011; Griffin et al. 2013). Leatherback Sea Turtles Leatherbacks, a pelagic species, are known to use coastal waters of the U.S. continental shelf and to have a greater tolerance for colder water than hard-shelled sea turtles (James et al. 2005; Eckert et al. 2006; Murphy et al. 2006; NMFS and USFWS 2013; Dodge et al. 2014). Leatherback sea turtles engage in routine migrations between northern temperate and tropical waters (NMFS and USFWS 1992; James et al. 2005; James et al. 2006; Dodge et al. 2014). They are found in more northern waters (i.e., Gulf of Maine) later in the year (i.e., similar time frame as hard-shelled sea turtles), with most leaving the Northwest Atlantic shelves by mid-November (James et al. 2005; James et al. 2006; Dodge et al. 2014).

64

6.3.2.2. Large Whales Large whales, such as humpback, North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and minke whales are found throughout the waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. In general, these species follow an annual pattern of migration between low latitude (south of 35oN) wintering/calving grounds and high latitude spring/summer foraging grounds (primarily north of 41oN; Hayes et al. 2019; NMFS 1991, 2005, 2010, 2011a, 2012). This is a simplification of whale movements, particularly as it relates to winter movements. It is unknown if all individuals of a population migrate to low latitudes in the winter, although increasing evidence suggests that for some species (e.g., right and humpback whales), some portion of the population remains in higher latitudes throughout the winter (Brown et al. 2002; Clapham et al. 1993; Cole et al. 2013; Khan et al. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; NOAA 2008; Swingle et al. 1993; Vu et al. 2012; Hayes et al. 2019). Although further research is needed to provide a clearer understanding of large whale movements and distribution in the winter, the distribution and movements of large whales to foraging grounds in the spring/summer is well understood. Large whales consistently return to these foraging areas each year, therefore these areas can be considered important areas for whales (Baumgartner et al. 2003; Baumgartner & Mate 2003; Brown et al. 2002; Kenney & Hartley 2001; Kenney et al. 1986; Kenney et al. 1995; Mayo & Marx 1990; Payne et al. 1986; Payne et al. 1990; Schilling et al. 1992). For additional information on the biology, status, and range wide distribution of whale species, see the marine mammal stock assessment reports provided at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock- assessment-reports-region. 6.3.2.3. Small Cetaceans and Pinnipeds Table 19 lists the small cetaceans and pinnipeds that may occur in the affected environment of the scup and black sea bass fisheries. Small cetaceans can be found throughout the year in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean; however, within this range, there are seasonal shifts in species distribution and abundance. Pinnipeds are primarily found throughout the year or seasonally from New Jersey to Maine; however, increasing evidence indicates that some species (e.g., harbor seals) may be extending their range seasonally into waters as far south as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (35oN). For additional information on the biology and range wide distribution of each species of small cetacean and pinniped in Table 19, see the marine mammal stock assessment reports provided at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock- assessment-reports-region. 6.3.2.4. Atlantic sturgeon The marine range of U.S. Atlantic sturgeon extends from Labrador, Canada, to Cape Canaveral, Florida. All five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon have the potential to be located anywhere in this marine range (ASSRT 2007; Dovel and Berggren 1983; Dadswell et al. 1984; Kynard et al. 2000; Stein et al. 2004a; Dadswell 2006; Laney et al. 2007; Dunton et al. 2010, 2015; Erickson et al. 2011; Wirgin et al. 2012; Waldman et al. 2013; O’Leary et al. 2014; Wirgin et al. 2015a,b; ASMFC 2017b). Based on fishery-independent and dependent data, as well as data collected from tracking and tagging studies, in the marine environment, Atlantic sturgeon appear to primarily occur inshore of the 50 meter depth contour (Stein et al. 2004 a,b; Erickson et al. 2011; Dunton et al. 2010); however, Atlantic sturgeon are not restricted to these depths, as excursions into deeper continental shelf waters have been documented (Timoshkin 1968; Collins and Smith 1997; Stein et al. 65

2004a,b; Dunton et al. 2010; Erickson et al. 2011). Data from fishery-independent surveys and tagging and tracking studies also indicate that Atlantic sturgeon may undertake seasonal movements along the coast (Dunton et al. 2010; Erickson et al. 2011; Wipplehauser 2012); however, there is no evidence to date that all Atlantic sturgeon make these seasonal movements and therefore, may be present throughout the marine environment throughout the year. For additional information on the biology, status, and range wide distribution of each distinct population segment (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon please refer to 77 Federal Register 5880 and 77 Federal Register 5914, as well as the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team’s (ASSRT) 2007 status review of Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT 2007) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2017 Atlantic Sturgeon Benchmark Stock Assessment and Peer Review Report (ASMFC 2017b). 6.3.2.5. Atlantic salmon The wild populations of Atlantic salmon are listed as endangered under the ESA. Their freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the Androscoggin River northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys River, while the marine range of the GOM DPS extends from the GOM (primarily northern portion of the GOM), to the coast of Greenland (NMFS and USFWS 2005, 2016; Fay et al. 2006). In general, smolts, post-smolts, and adult Atlantic salmon may be present in the GOM and coastal waters of Maine in the spring (beginning in April), and adults may be present throughout the summer and fall months (Baum 1997; Fay et al. 2006; USASAC 2013; Hyvarinen et al. 2006; Lacroix and McCurdy 1996; Lacroix et al. 2004, 2005; Reddin 1985; Reddin and Short 1991; Reddin and Friedland 1993; Sheehan et al. 2012; NMFS and USFWS 2005, 2016; Fay et al. 2006). For additional information on the on the biology, status, and range wide distribution of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon please refer to NMFS and USFWS 2005, 2016; and Fay et al. 2006. 6.3.3. Gear Interactions and Protected Species Protected species are vulnerable to interactions with various types of fishing gear. Interaction risks are associated with gear type, quantity, and soak or tow time. Available information on gear interactions with a given species (or species group) is provided below. These sections are not a comprehensive review of all fishing gear types known to interact with a given species; emphasis is only being placed on the primary gear types used to prosecute the scup and black sea bass fisheries (i.e., recreational: hook and line; commercial: bottom trawl gear, for both species and pot/trap gear for black sea bass). 6.3.3.1. Recreational Fisheries Interactions Recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries are primarily prosecuted with rod and reel and handline (i.e., hook and line gear). Available information on interactions between protected species and hook and line gear is summarized below. This information is based on gear type and is not strictly limited to the recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries. In the absence of an observer program for recreational fisheries, records of recreational hook and line interactions with protected species are limited. However, as a dedicated observer program exists for all commercial fisheries, there is a wealth of information on observed protected species interactions with all fishing gear types and years of data assessing resultant population level effects of these interactions. Other sources of information, such as state fishing records, stranding databases, and marine mammal stock assessment reports, provide additional information that can assist in better understanding hook and line interaction risks to protected species. 66

Large whales have been documented entangled with hook and line gear or monofilament line (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock- assessment-reports-region). In the most recent mortality and serious injury determinations for baleen whales (2012-2016), the majority of cases identified with confirmed hook and line or monofilament entanglement did not result in the serious injury or mortality to the whale (83.0 % observed/reported whales had a serious injury value of 0; 17.0 % had a serious injury value of 0.75; none of the cases resulted in mortality). In fact, 76.0 % of the whales observed or reported with a hook/line or monofilament entanglement were resighted gear free and healthy; confirmation of the health of the other remaining whales remain unknown as no resightings had been made over the timeframe of the assessment (Henry et al. 2019). Based on this information, while large whale interactions with hook and line gear are possible, there is a low probability that an interaction will result in serious injury or mortality to any large whale species. Therefore, relative to other gear types, such as fixed gear, hook and line gear represents a low source serious injury or mortality to any large whale (Henry et al. 2019). Table 19 provides a list of small cetaceans and pinnipeds that occur in the affected environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery. Reviewing the most recent 10 years of data provided in the marine mammal stock assessment reports (i.e., 2006-2016), of these species, only bottlenose dolphin stocks have been identified (primarily through stranding records/data) as entangled in hook and line gear (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal- protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region). In some cases, these entanglements have resulted in the serious injury or mortality to the animal. Specifically, reviewing stranding data provided in marine mammal stock assessments from 2006-2016, estimated mean annual mortality for each bottlenose stock due to interactions with hook and line gear was approximately one animal (Palmer 2017; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine- mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region). Based on this, although interactions with hook and line gear are possible, relative to other gear types, such as trawl gear, hook and line gear represents a low source serious injury or mortality to any bottlenose dolphin stock. For other species of small cetaceans or pinnipeds, hook and line gear is not expected to be a source of serious injury or mortality. Interactions between ESA listed species of sea turtles and hook and line gear have been documented, particularly in nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic (e.g., Palmer 2017, STDN 2019). Interactions with hook and line gear have resulted in sea turtle injury and mortality and therefore, poses an interaction risk to these species. However, the extent to which these interactions are impacting sea turtle populations is still under investigation, and therefore, no conclusions can currently be made on the impact of hook and line gear on the continued survival of sea turtle populations. Interactions between ESA-listed species of Atlantic sturgeon and hook and line gear have been documented, particularly in nearshore waters (ASMFC 2017). Interactions with hook and line gear have resulted in Atlantic sturgeon injury and mortality and therefore, poses an interaction risk to these species. However, the extent to which these interactions are impacting Atlantic sturgeon DPSs is still under investigation and therefore, no conclusions can currently be made on the impact of hook and line gear on the continued survival of Atlantic sturgeon DPSs (NMFS 2011b; ASMFC 2017).

67

There have been no observed/documented interactions between Atlantic salmon and hook and line gear (NMFS NEFSC FSB 2019). Based on this information, hook and line gear is not expected to pose an interaction risk to any Atlantic salmon and therefore, is not expected to be source of injury or mortality to this species.

6.3.3.2. Commercial Fisheries Interactions Based on VTR data, the commercial scup and black sea bass fisheries are primarily prosecuted with bottom trawl gear (about 97% from bottom trawls for scup and about 72% for black sea bass in 2018). Pots/traps are also used in the commercial black sea bass fishery (e.g., accounting for 22% of the commercial black sea bass landings in 2018 according to VTR data). Available information on gear interactions with a given species (or species group) is provided below. These sections are not a comprehensive review of all fishing gear types known to interact with a given species; emphasis is only being placed on the primary gear types used in the scup and black sea bass fisheries and their associated interaction risk to the species under consideration. 6.3.3.2.1 Sea Turtles Bottom Trawl Gear: Sea turtles are known to interact with bottom trawl gear. Most of the observed sea turtle interactions with bottom trawl gear have occurred in the Mid-Atlantic, although there have been some sea turtle interactions with trawl gear observed on Georges Bank. As few sea turtle interactions have been observed outside the Mid-Atlantic, there is insufficient data available to conduct a robust model-based analysis of sea turtle interactions with trawl gear to produce a bycatch estimate for these regions. As a result, the following bycatch estimates are based on observed sea turtle interactions in trawl gear in the Mid-Atlantic. Green, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, and unidentified sea turtles have been documented interacting with bottom trawl gear. However, estimates are available only for loggerhead sea turtles. Warden (2011a) estimated that from 2005-2008, the average annual loggerhead interactions in bottom trawl gear in the Mid-Atlantic8 was 292 (CV=0.13, 95% CI=221-369), with an additional 61 loggerheads (CV=0.17, 95% CI=41-83) interacting with trawls, but released through a Turtle Excluder Device (TED). Of the 292 average annual observable loggerhead interactions, approximately 44 of those were adult equivalents (Warden 2011a).9 Most recently, Murray (2015) estimated that from 2009-2013, the total average annual loggerhead interactions in bottom trawl gear in the Mid-Atlantic was 231 (CV=0.13, 95% CI=182-298). 10 Of the 231 average annual observable loggerhead interactions, approximately 33 of those were adult equivalents (Murray 2015). Bycatch estimates provided in Warden (2011a) and Murray (2015) represent a decrease from the average annual loggerhead bycatch in bottom otter trawls during 1996-2004, which Murray (2008) estimated at 616 sea turtles (CV=0.23, 95% CI over the nine-year period: 367-890). This decrease is likely due to decreased fishing effort in high-interaction areas (Warden 2011a). Warden (2011b), also estimated total loggerhead interactions (with bottom otter trawl

8 Warden (2011a) defined the Mid-Atlantic as south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to approximately the North Carolina/South Carolina border. 9 Adult equivalence considers the reproductive value (i.e., expected reproductive output) of the animal (Warden 2011a.b, Murray 2013, Wallace et al. 2008). 10 Murray (2015) defined the Mid-Atlantic as the boundaries of the Mid-Atlantic Ecological Production; roughly waters west of 71oW to the North Carolina/South Carolina border) 68

gear) attributable to managed species from 2005-2008. Using NEFOP data, Warden (2011b) developed a generalized additive model of loggerhead interaction rates, which were then applied to VTRs to estimate total interactions on each VTR trip. The total loggerhead interactions on each trip were then assigned to the individual managed species that were landed on the trip (as reported in VTR data; Warden 2011b). For instance, an estimated average annual take of one loggerhead (95% CI=1-3; estimated observable, and unobservable but quantifiable) was attributed to the scup fishery, 108 loggerheads were attributed to the summer flounder fishery (95% CI=81-136), and one loggerhead was attributed to the black sea bass fishery (95% CI=0-1). Murray (2015) also provided estimates of loggerhead interactions by managed fished species from 2009-2013. Specifically, an estimated average annual take of four loggerheads (95% CI=2-7) were attributed to the scup fishery, one loggerhead was attributed to the black sea bass fishery (95% CI=1-2), and 50 loggerheads were attributed to the summer flounder fishery (95% CI=26-84) (Murray 2015). Pot/Trap Gear: Leatherback, loggerhead, green and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are known to interact with trap/pot gear. Interactions are primarily associated with entanglement in vertical lines, although sea turtles can also become entangled in groundline or surface systems. Records of stranded or entangled sea turtles indicate that fishing gear can wrap around the neck, flipper, or body of the sea turtle and severely restrict swimming or feeding (Balazs 1985; STDN 2019). As a result, sea turtles can incur serious injuries and in some cases, mortality immediately or at a later time. NMFS Northeast Region Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network database, a component of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, provides the most complete dataset of sea entanglements. Based on information provided in this database, a total of 270 sea turtle entanglements in vertical line gear were reported to the STDN and NMFS GARFO between 2009 and 2018 (STDN 2019); these cases were classified as probable (32 cases) or confirmed (238 cases) vertical line gear entanglements. Interactions involved 254 leatherback sea turtles, followed by 15 loggerhead, and one unknown sea turtle species. 6.3.3.2.2 Atlantic Sturgeon Bottom Trawl Gear: Atlantic sturgeon interactions (i.e., bycatch) with bottom trawl gear have been observed since 1989. These interactions have the potential to result in the injury or mortality of Atlantic sturgeon (NMFS NEFSC FSB 2019). Three documents, covering three time periods, that use data collected by NEFOP to describe bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon in gillnet and bottom trawl gear: Stein et al. (2004b) for 1989-2000; ASMFC (2007) for 2001-2006; and Miller and Shepard (2011) for 2006-2010. None of these documents provide estimates of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch by Distinct Population Segment. Miller and Shepard (2011), the most of the three documents, analyzed fishery observer data and VTR data to estimate the average annual number of Atlantic sturgeon interactions in gillnet and otter trawl in the Northeast Atlantic that occurred from 2006 to 2010. This timeframe included the most recent, complete data and as a result, Miller and Shepard (2011) is considered to represent the most accurate predictor of annual Atlantic sturgeon interactions in the Northeast gillnet and bottom trawl fisheries (NMFS 2013). Based on the findings of Miller and Shepard (2011), NMFS (2013) estimated that the annual bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon is 1,342 sturgeon in bottom otter trawl gear. Miller and Shepard (2011) observed Atlantic sturgeon interactions in trawl gear with small (< 5.5 inches) and large (≥ 5.5 inches) mesh sizes. Estimated mortality rates in bottom otter trawl gear were 5.0% (Miller and Shepard 2011; NMFS 2013); similar conclusions were reached in Stein et al. (2004b) and ASMFC 69

(2007) reports. However, an important consideration to these findings is that observed mortality is considered a minimum of what occurs and therefore, the conclusions reached by Stein et al. (2004b), ASMFC (2007), and Miller and Shepard (2011) are not reflective of the total mortality associated with bottom otter trawl gear. To date, total Atlantic sturgeon mortality associated with trawl gear remains uncertain. Pot/Trap Gear: To date, there have been no documented pot/trap interactions with Atlantic sturgeon (NMFS NEFSC FSB 2019). 6.3.3.2.3 Atlantic Salmon Bottom Trawl Gear: The NEFOP and At Sea Monitoring Program documented a total of 15 individual salmon incidentally caught on over 60,000 observed commercial fishing trips from 1989 through August 2013 (NMFS 2013; Kocik et al. 2014). Four out of the 15 individual salmon were observed bycaught in bottom otter trawl gear, the remainder were observed in gillnet gear (Kocik, personal communication; NMFS 2013). Since 2013, no additional Atlantic salmon have been observed in gillnet or bottom trawl gear (NMFS NEFSC FSB 2019). Based on the above information, specifically the very low number of observed Atlantic salmon interactions in trawl gear reported in the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program’s database (which includes At-Sea Monitoring data), interactions with Atlantic salmon are likely rare events (Kocik et al. 2014; NMFS NEFSC FSB 2019). Pot/Trap Gear: To date, there have been no documented pot/trap interactions with Atlantic salmon (NMFS NEFSC FSB 2019). 6.3.3.2.4 Marine Mammals Some species of marine mammals have also been observed seriously injured or killed in bottom trawl gear. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS publishes a List of Fisheries (LOF) annually, classifying U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the relative frequency of incidental serious injuries and/or mortalities of marine mammals in each fishery (i.e., Category I=frequent; Category II=occasional; Category III=remote likelihood or no known interactions; 84 Federal Register 22051, May 16, 2019). In the Northwest Atlantic, the 2019 LOF (84 Federal Register 22051, May 16, 2019) categorizes the commercial scup and black sea bass fisheries as a Category II bottom trawl (Northeast and Mid-Atlantic) fishery (Table 20).

70

Table 20: Commercial Fisheries Classification based on 2019 List of Fisheries (84 Federal Register 22051, May 16, 2019). An (*) indicates those species driving the fisheries classification. Species Observed Seriously Target Species Gears LOF Injured/Killed Bottlenose (offshore stock)*, Mid-Atlantic bottom short beaked common*, Cat. II trawl fishery Risso’s*, and white-sided dolphins; gray and harbor seals Bottlenose (offshore stock), Scup and black sea bass Risso’s, short beaked common, Northeast bottom and white-sided* dolphins; Cat. II trawl harbor porpoise; harbor, gray, and harp seals; long-finned pilot whales Atlantic mixed Black sea bass species trap/pot Cat. II Fin and humpback whales fishery

6.3.3.2.5 Large Whales Bottom Trawl Gear: With the exception of minke whales, there have been no observed interactions with large whales and bottom trawl gear (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine- mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region; https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/take_reports/nefop.html; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection- act-list-fisheries; https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/). The earliest documented bottom trawl interaction with a minke whale was in 2004, where one minke whale was found fresh dead in trawl gear attributed to the northeast bottom trawl fishery (Waring et al. 2007). In 2008, several minke whales were observed dead in bottom trawl gear attributed to the northeast bottom trawl fishery; estimated annual mortality attributed to this fishery in 2008 was 7.8 minke whales (Waring et al. 2015). Since 2008, serious injury and mortality records for minke whales in U.S. waters have shown zero interactions with bottom trawl (northeast or Mid-Atlantic) gear (Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2019; Hayes et al. 2019; Waring et al. 2015; 84 Federal Register 22051). Based on this information, large whale interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare to nonexistent. Pot/Trap Gear: The greatest entanglement risk to large whales is posed by fixed fishing gear (e.g., trap/pot gear, sink gillnet gear) with vertical or ground lines that rise into the water column (Kenney and Hartley 2001; Knowlton and Kraus 2001; Hartley et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2005;Whittingham et al. 2005a,b; Cassoff et al. 2011; Knowlton et al. 2012; NMFS 2014; Henry et al. 2015; Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2019; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock- assessment-reports-region). Any line can become entangled in the mouth (baleen), flippers, and/or tail of the whale when the animal is transiting or foraging through the water column (Johnson et al. 2005; NMFS 2014; Kenney and Hartley 2001; Hartley et al. 2003; Whittingham et al. 2005a, b; Henry et al. 2015; Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2019). The effects of entanglement to large whales range from no injury to death. The risk of injury or death in the event 71

of an entanglement may depend on the characteristics of the whale involved (species, size, age, health, etc.), the nature of the gear (e.g., whether the gear incorporates weak links designed to help a whale free itself), human intervention (e.g., the feasibility or success of disentanglement efforts), or other variables (Angliss and Demaster 1998; Johnson et al. 2005; Cassoff et al. 2011; Moore and Van der Hoop 2012; NMFS 2014; van der Hoop et al. 2016; Pettis et al. 2017; van der Hoop et al. 2017). Although the interrelationships among these factors are not fully understood, and the data needed to provide a more complete characterization of risk are not available, to date, available data indicate that entanglement in fishing gear is a significant source of serious injury or mortality for Atlantic large whales (Cassoff et al. 2011; NMFS 2014; Henry et al. 2015; van der Hoop et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2016; Henry et al. 2017; Pettis et al. 2017; van der Hoop et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2019; Sharp et al. 2019; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal- protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region). Large whale interactions (entanglements) with fishing gear have been observed and documented in the waters of the Northwest Atlantic. Although not specific to any fishery, including the scup and sea bass fishery, Table 21 summarizes confirmed serious injury or mortality to whales (i.e., humpback, fin, sei, minke, and North Atlantic right whales) from entanglement in fishing gear, including pot/trap along the Gulf of Mexico Coast, U.S. East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian Provinces from 2012 to 2016 (Henry et al. 2019). The data are specific to confirmed injury or mortality to whales from entanglement in fishing gear. As many entanglement events go unobserved, and because the gear type, fishery, and/or country of origin for reported entanglement events are often not traceable, it is important to recognize that information in Table 21 likely underestimates the rate of large whale serious injury and mortality due to entanglement. Further studies looking at scar rates for right whales and humpbacks suggest that entanglements may be occurring more frequently than the observed incidences indicate (NMFS 2014; Robbins 2009; Knowlton et al. 2012). Table 21: Summary of confirmed human-caused injury or mortality to fin, minke, humpback, sei, and North Atlantic right whales from 2012-20156 due to entanglement in fishing gear. Total Entanglement Events: Total Total Total Confirmed Average Annual Injury and Confirmed Confirmed Species Entanglement: Mortality Rate (US Entanglement: Entanglement: Non-Serious waters/Canadian Serious Injury Mortality Injury waters/unassigned waters) North Atlantic 21 34 6 5.15 (0.4/0.4/4.35) Right Whale Humpback Whale 33 70 8 7.1 (1.65/0.3/ 5.15) Fin Whale 8 4 1 1.5 (0/0.4/ 1.1) Sei Whale 0 1 0 0 Minke Whale 17 11 21 7.1 (1.9/2.55/2.65) Information is based on confirmed human-caused injury and mortality events along the Gulf of Mexico Coast, US East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian Provinces; it is not specific to US waters only. NMFS defines a serious injury as an injury that is more likely than not to result in mortality (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/serious_injury_procedure.pdf). Source: Henry et al. (2017)

As previously stated, pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS publishes an annual List of Fisheries, classifying U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the relative frequency 72

of incidental serious injurious and mortalities of marine mammals in each fishery. Large whales, especially humpback, fin, minke, and North Atlantic right whales, are known to interact with Category I and II fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. As fin and North Atlantic right whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, these species are considered strategic stocks under the MMPA. MMPA Section 118(f)(1) requires the preparation and implementation of a Take Reduction Plan for any strategic marine mammal stock that interacts with Category I or II fisheries. In response to its obligations under the MMPA, in 1996, NMFS established the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) to develop a plan (Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP or Plan)) to reduce serious injury to, or mortality of large whales, specifically, humpback, fin, and North Atlantic right whales, due to incidental entanglement in U.S. commercial fishing gear.3 In 1997, the ALWTRP was implemented; however, since 1997, the Plan has been modified; recent adjustments include the Sinking Groundline Rule and Vertical Line Rules (72 Federal Register 57104, October 5, 2007; 79 Federal Register 36586, June 27, 2014; 79 Federal Register 73848, December 12, 2014; 80 Federal Register 14345, March 19, 2015; 80 Federal Register 30367, May 28, 2015). The ALWTRP identifies gear modification requirements and restrictions for Category I and II trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions of the U.S. (designated management areas); these fisheries must comply with all regulations of the ALWTRP.11 For further details on the gear modification requirements, restrictions, and management areas under the ALWTRP see: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/whaletrp/. 6.3.3.2.6 Small Cetaceans and Pinnipeds Bottom Trawl Gear: Small cetaceans and pinnipeds are vulnerable to interactions with bottom trawl gear (Lyssikatos 2015; Chavez-Rosales et al. 2017; Hayes et al. 2017; Hayes et al. 2018; Hayes et al. 2019; 84 Federal Register 22051, May 16, 2019). Table 22 provides a list of species that have been observed (incidentally) seriously injured and/or killed by MMPA LOF Category II (occasional interactions) bottom trawl fisheries that operate in the affected environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Of the species provided in Table 22, short- beaked common dolphins and Atlantic white-sided dolphins are the most frequently observed bycaught marine mammal species in bottom trawl gear in the Greater Atlantic Region, followed by gray seals, long-finned pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, bottlenose dolphin (offshore), harbor porpoise, harbor seals, and harp seals (Lyssikatos 2015; Chavez-Rosales et al. 2017). In 2006, the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team was convened to address the incidental mortality and serious injury of long-finned pilot whales, short-finned pilot whales, common dolphins, and white-sided dolphins incidental to bottom and mid-water trawl fisheries operating in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. Because none of the marine mammal stocks of

11 The fisheries currently regulated under the ALWTRP include: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot; Atlantic blue crab trap/pot; Atlantic mixed species trap/pot; Northeast sink gillnet; Northeast anchored float gillnet; Northeast drift gillnet; Mid-Atlantic gillnet; Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet; and Southeast Atlantic gillnet (NMFS 2014b).

73

concern to the Team are classified as a “strategic stock,” nor do they currently interact with a Category I fishery, a take reduction plan was not necessary.12 In lieu of a take reduction plan, the Team agreed to develop an Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy. The Strategy identifies informational and research tasks, as well as education and outreach needs the Team believes are necessary, to decrease mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching zero. The Strategy also identifies several voluntary measures that can be adopted by certain trawl fishing sectors to potentially reduce the incidental capture of marine mammals. For additional details on the Strategy, please visit: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/atgtrp/

Table 22: Small cetacean and pinniped species observed seriously injured and/or killed by category II bottom trawl fisheries in the affected environment of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Source: MMPA LOF 84 Federal Register 22051 (May 16, 2019). Fishery Category Species Observed or reported injured/killed Harp seal Harbor seal Gray seal Long-finned pilot whales

Northeast Bottom Trawl Short-beaked common dolphin II White-sided dolphin Harbor porpoise Bottlenose dolphin (offshore) Risso’s dolphin White-sided dolphin Short-beaked common dolphin Risso’s dolphin Mid-Atlantic Bottom Trawl II Bottlenose dolphin (offshore) Gray seal Harbor seal Pot/Trap Gear: Over the past several years, observer coverage has been limited for trap/pot fisheries. In the absence of extensive observer data for these fisheries, stranding data provides the next best source of information on species interactions with trap/pot gear. Stranding data underestimates the extent of human-related mortality and serious injury because not all of the marine mammals that die or are seriously injured in human interactions are discovered, reported, or show signs of entanglement. Additionally, if gear is present, it is often difficult to definitively attribute the animal’s death or serious injury to the gear interaction, or to a specific fishery. Therefore, the conclusions below should be taken with these considerations in mind.

12 A strategic stock is defined under the MMPA as a marine mammal stock: for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA.

74

Table 19 provides the list of small cetacean and pinniped species that may occur and be affected by the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Of these species, only several bottlenose dolphin stocks have been identified as species at risk of becoming seriously injured or killed by trap/pot gear. Stranding data provides the best source of information on species interaction history with these gear types. Based on stranding data from 2007-2013, estimated mean annual mortality for each stock was less than one animal (Waring et al. 2014a; Waring et al. 2016).13 Given this information, interactions with trap/pot gear, resulting in the serious injury or mortality to small cetaceans or pinnipeds are believed to be infrequent (for bottlenose dolphin stocks) to non-existent (for all other small cetacean and pinniped species). 6.4. Human Communities The following sections summarize the commercial and recreational fisheries for scup and black sea bass. 6.4.1. Scup Fisheries Commercial Scup Fishery Commercial scup landings peaked in 1981 at 21.73 million pounds and reached a low of 2.66 million pounds in 2000 (Figure 12). In 2018, commercial fishermen landed 13.37 million pounds of scup, about 55% of the commercial quota. In 2018, about 7.26 million pounds of scup were discarded in commercial fisheries, representing a 30% decrease from 2017. Commercial discards increased from 2014-2017, peaking at about 10.42 million pounds in 2017. This was the highest number of discards since at least 1981 and resulted in the 2017 commercial ACL being exceeded by about 17% and the ABC being exceeded by about 11%, despite a quota underage. This increase in discards was likely mainly due to the large 2015 year class, which is the largest year class since at least 1984. In 2017, these scup were very abundant, but mostly too small to be landed in the commercial fishery due to the commercial minimum fish size of 9 inches total length (NEFSC 2017). The commercial scup fishery operates year-round, taking place mostly in federal waters during the winter and mostly in state waters during the summer. The commercial scup fishery in federal waters is predominantly a bottom otter trawl fishery. In 2018, about 97% of the commercial scup landings (by weight) reported on VTRs were caught with bottom otter trawls. Pots/traps accounted for about 1.7% of landings while all other gear types each accounted for less than 1% of the 2018 commercial scup landings.

13 Stranding data provided in Waring et al. (2015a), Hayes et al. (2017), Hayes et al. (2018), and Hayes et al. (2019) were not considered in estimating mean annual mortality as not all bottlenose dolphin stocks are addressed in this stock assessment report. As all bottlenose dolphin stocks are considered in Waring et al. (2014a) and Waring et al. (2016), these stock assessment reports were used to estimate mean annual mortality. Estimates of mean annual mortality were calculated based on the total number of animals that stranded between 2007-2013, and that were determined to have incurred serious injuries or mortality as result of interacting with trap/pot gear. Please note, for bottlenose dolphin stocks, Waring et al. (2014a) and Waring et al. (2016) provides two categories for trap/pot gear: (Atlantic blue) crab pot, and other pot gear. We combined the two to get an overall number of interactions associated with trap/pot gear in general. In addition, any animals released alive with no serious injuries were not included in the estimate. Also, if maximum or minimum number of animals stranded were provided, to be conservative, we considered the maximum estimated number in calculating our mean annual estimate of mortality. 75

VTR data suggest that NMFS statistical areas 537, 539, 611, 612, 613, and 616 were responsible for the largest percentage of commercial scup catch in 2018. Statistical area 539, off Rhode Island, had the highest number of trips which caught scup (Table 23, Figure 11). Over the past two decades, total scup ex-vessel revenue ranged from a low of $2.36 million in 2000 to a high of $10.77 million in 2015. In 2018, 13.37 million pounds of scup were landed by commercial fishermen from Maine through North Carolina. Total ex-vessel value in 2018 was $9.70 million, resulting in an average price per pound of $0.73. All revenue and price values were adjusted to 2018 dollars to account for inflation. In general, the price of scup tends to be lower when landings are higher, and vice versa (Figure 12). This relationship is not linear and many other factors besides landings also influence price. The highest average price per pound over the past two decades was $1.46 ($1.00 in 2018 dollars) and occurred in 1998. The lowest mean price per pound was $0.55 ($0.50 in 2018 dollars) and occurred in 2013. Over 176 federally-permitted dealers from Maine through North Carolina purchased scup in 2018. More dealers in New York purchased scup than in any other state (Table 24). At least 100,000 pounds of scup were landed by commercial fishermen in 17 ports in 6 states in 2018. These ports accounted for approximately 93% of all 2018 commercial scup landings. Point Judith, Rhode Island was the leading port, both in terms of landings and number of vessels landing scup (Table 25). The ports and communities with the greatest participation in the scup fishery are described in Amendment 13 to the FMP (MAFMC 2002). Detailed community profiles developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Social Science Branch can be found at www.mafmc.org/communities/. A federal moratorium permit is required to fish commercially for scup. In 2018, 618 vessels held commercial moratorium permits for scup. Table 23: Statistical areas which accounted for at least 5% of the total commercial scup catch (by weight) in 2018, with associated number of trips (Source: VTR data). Statistical area % of 2018 commercial scup catch Number of trips 616 27% 823 537 20% 988 539 14% 2,628 613 14% 1,217 611 8% 2,016 612 7% 627

76

Figure 11: Proportion of scup catch by statistical area in 2018. Statistical areas marked “confidential” are associated with fewer than three vessels and/or dealers.

Landed weight (lb) Ex-vessel value ($), Adjusted Price ($/lb), Adjusted 20 1.20 18 1.00 16 14 0.80 12 10 0.60 8 0.40 6

4 Price ($/lb) , Adjusted 0.20 (millionsof dollars, adjusted) 2

Landings (millionsofpounds) or value 0 0.00

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Figure 12: Landings, ex-vessel value, and price for scup from Maine through North Carolina, 1994-2018. Ex-vessel value and price are adjusted to show real 2018 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator.

77

Table 24: Number of dealers per state which reported purchases of scup in 2018. C = Confidential. State NH MA RI CT NY NJ DE MD VA NC Number of C 32 31 14 48 20 C 5 11 15 Dealers

Table 25: Ports reporting at least 100,000 pounds of scup landings in 2018, based on NMFS dealer data. C = Confidential. Port Scup Landings (lb) % of total commercial Number of scup landings vessels POINT JUDITH, RI 3,947,294 30% 136 MONTAUK, NY 2,406,758 18% 78 PT. PLEASANT, NJ 2,159,292 16% 37 NEW BEDFORD, MA 1,116,915 8% 60 STONINGTON, CT 428,232 3% 17 LITTLE COMPTON, RI 394,109 3% 11 MATTITUCK, NY 341,233 3% 4 NEW LONDON, CT 264,862 2% 10 HAMPTON, VA 258,591 2% 41 HYANNIS, MA 179,220 1% 10 NEWPORT, RI 154,140 1% 12 AMMAGANSETT, NY 153,223 1% C BELFORD, NJ 144,198 1% 20 HAMPTON BAYS, NY 134,307 1% 33 CHINCOTEAGUE, VA 132,210 1% 13 CAPE MAY, NJ 127,329 1% 24 GREENPORT, NY 102,215 1% C

Two scup gear restricted areas (GRAs) were first implemented in 2000 with the goal of reducing scup discards in small-mesh fisheries. The GRA boundaries have been modified multiple times since their initial implementation. The current boundaries are shown in Figure 13. Trawl vessels may not fish for or possess longfin squid, black sea bass, or silver hake in the Northern GRA from November 1 – December 31 and in the Southern GRA from January 1 – March 15 unless they use mesh which is at least 5 inches in diameter. The GRAs are thought to have contributed to the recovery of the scup population in the mid- to late-2000s (Terceiro and Miller 2014). As previously stated, commercial scup discards increased by 71% between 2016 and 2017, likely due to the large 2015 year class (NEFSC 2018a). Although discards decreased by about 30% in 2018, they still remain well above average. Further analysis is needed to evaluate the impact of the GRA modification on commercial scup discards in 2017 and 2018.

78

Figure 13: The Scup Gear Restricted Areas.

Recreational Scup Fishery From 1981-2018, recreational catch of scup peaked in 2017 at 41.20 million scup and landings peaked in 1986 with an estimated 30.43 million scup landed by recreational fishermen from Maine through North Carolina. Recreational catch was lowest in 1998 when an estimated 6.86 million scup were caught and 2.74 million scup were landed. Recreational anglers from Maine through North Carolina caught an estimated 30.37 million scup and landed 14.55 million scup (about 12.98 million pounds) in 2018 (Table 26). Vessels carrying passengers for hire in federal waters must obtain a federal party/charter permit. In 2018, 731 vessels held scup federal party/charter permits. Many of these vessels also held party/charter permits for black sea bass. Most recreational scup catch occurs in state waters during the warmer months when the fish migrate inshore. Between 2016 and 2018, about 96% of recreational scup landings (in numbers of fish) occurred in state waters and about 4% occurred in federal waters (Table 27). New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey accounted for over 99.9% of recreational scup harvest in 2018 (Table 28). Based on MRIP estimates, about 48% of recreational scup landings (in numbers of fish) in 2018 were from anglers who fished on private or rental boats. About 9% were from anglers fishing on party or charter boats, and about 43% were from anglers fishing from shore (Table 29).

79

Table 26: Estimated recreational catch and harvest of scup, Maine - North Carolina, 2009- 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. Year Recreational catch Recreational harvest Recreational harvest % of catch (millions of fish) (millions of fish) (millions of pounds) retained 2009 20.75 6.06 6.28 29% 2010 25.13 10.60 12.48 42% 2011 18.52 7.60 10.32 41% 2012 21.24 7.33 8.27 35% 2013 25.88 11.55 12.64 45% 2014 20.89 9.49 10.28 45% 2015 25.15 11.50 12.17 46% 2016 31.49 9.14 10.00 29% 2017 41.20 13.85 13.54 34% 2018 30.38 14.55 12.98 48%

Table 27: Estimated percent of scup (in numbers of fish) caught by recreational fishermen in state and federal waters, Maine - North Carolina, 2009 - 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. Year State waters Federal waters 2009 95.6% 4.4% 2010 94.4% 5.6% 2011 98.5% 1.5% 2012 99.7% 0.3% 2013 96.3% 3.7% 2014 96.5% 3.5% 2015 98.9% 1.1% 2016 93.5% 6.5% 2017 96.0% 4.0% 2018 96.2% 3.8% 2009-2018 average 96.6% 3.4% 2016-2018 average 95.2% 4.8%

80

Table 28: Recreational scup harvest by state, 2016- 2018. Percentages were calculated based on numbers of fish using the revised MRIP estimates. State 2016 2017 2018 2016-2018 average Maine 0% 0% 0% 0% New Hampshire 0% 0% 0% 0% Massachusetts 20% 15% 22% 19% Rhode Island 17% 10% 16% 14% Connecticut 15% 12% 21% 16% New York 40% 47% 37% 41% New Jersey 7% 16% 3% 9% Delaware 0% 0% 0% 0% Maryland 0% 0% 0% 0% Virginia 2% 0% 0% 1% North Carolina 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 29: Scup harvest (in numbers of fish) by recreational fishing mode, Maine - North Carolina, 1981 - 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. Some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding. Year Shore Party/charter Private/rental Total number 1981 17% 5% 77% 17,309,466 1982 27% 19% 54% 10,833,209 1983 48% 15% 37% 12,189,399 1984 39% 1% 59% 8,780,949 1985 17% 1% 82% 18,840,079 1986 20% 5% 75% 30,431,320 1987 13% 2% 85% 14,030,573 1988 20% 7% 73% 9,388,288 1989 25% 10% 64% 19,324,847 1990 18% 9% 74% 14,040,609 1991 31% 7% 62% 21,904,578 1992 27% 8% 65% 16,496,804 1993 17% 18% 65% 8,403,033 1994 14% 9% 77% 6,614,976 1995 31% 10% 59% 4,063,825 1996 8% 5% 86% 6,266,685 1997 18% 13% 69% 3,664,972 1998 23% 5% 72% 2,738,577 1999 14% 15% 71% 7,413,091 2000 19% 8% 73% 14,942,137 2001 33% 12% 54% 11,132,587 2002 31% 15% 54% 7,074,231 2003 17% 9% 74% 17,519,824 2004 25% 12% 63% 12,943,178 2005 24% 4% 73% 4,499,104

81

Year Shore Party/charter Private/rental Total number 2006 20% 10% 71% 5,521,170 2007 15% 8% 77% 7,459,506 2008 22% 20% 58% 5,650,033 2009 14% 18% 68% 6,064,112 2010 18% 13% 70% 10,598,648 2011 22% 7% 72% 7,598,242 2012 14% 16% 69% 7,334,845 2013 34% 15% 51% 11,547,027 2014 20% 15% 65% 9,493,673 2015 17% 8% 76% 11,498,783 2016 34% 10% 56% 9,143,579 2017 23% 11% 65% 13,845,319 2018 43% 9% 48% 14,546,549 1981-2018 23% 10% 67% 11,082,838 average 2016-2018 34% 10% 56% 12,511,816 average 6.4.2. Black Sea Bass Fisheries Commercial Black Sea Bass Fishery According to federal and state commercial fish dealer data, commercial landings of black sea bass peaked in 2017 at 3.99 million pounds, and reached a low of 1.18 million pounds in 2009. About 3.42 million pounds of black sea bass were landed by commercial fishermen in 2018, corresponding to approximately 97% of the commercial quota (Table 30). Black sea bass are a valuable commercial species. Their value has increased disproportionatly compared to moderate increases in landings in recent years. Total black sea bass ex-vessel value (adjusted to 2018 dollars to account for inflation) from Maine through North Carolina increased steadily from 1994 through 2006, followed by a few years of decline. Ex-vessel value again rose steadily from 2009 through 2018. Ex-vessel value peaked in 2017 at $12.0 million and was only slightly lower at $11.9 million in 2018. Average price per pound also increased steadily during 1994-2018 and peaked at $3.49 per pound, on average, during 2018 (Figure 14). According to federal VTR data, statistical area 616, which includes important fishing areas near Hudson Canyon, was responsible for the largest percentage of commercial black sea bass catch (landings and discards) in 2018 (i.e., 49%). Statistical area 621, off southern New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland accounted for the second highest proportion of catch (8%), followed by statistical area 537, south of Massachusetts and Rhode Island (6%), and statistical area 613, south of Long Island (5%; Table 31, Figure 15). Statistical area 539, off Rhode Island, accounted for only 4% of total catch, but had the highest number of trips which reported black sea bass catch on federal VTRs in 2018 (1,848 trips). Advisory Panel members noted that the distribution of black sea bass catch is impacted by factors such as the location of trips targeting summer flounder as the primary target and regulations in other fisheries, such as seasonal lobster closures (MAFMC 2019b). In 2018, most commercial landings from state and federally-permitted vessels occurred in New Jersey (20%) and Virginia (18%). The percentage of landings by state is driven by and closely 82

matches the state-by-state commercial quota allocations managed by the Commission (Table 32). These allocations are not contained in the Council’s FMP. States set measures to achieve their state-specific commercial quotas. At least 100,000 pounds of black sea bass were landed in each of 12 ports in 8 states from Maine through North Carolina in 2018. These 12 ports accounted for over 70% of all commercial black sea bass landings in 2018 (Table 33). Detailed community profiles developed by the NEFSC Social Science Branch can be found at www.mafmc.org/communities/. A total of 213 federally-permitted dealers from Maine through North Carolina purchased black sea bass in 2018. More dealers bought black sea bass in New York than in any other state (Table 34). A federal moratorium permit is required to fish commercially for black sea bass in federal waters. In 2018, 662 federal commercial black sea bass permits were issued. A minimum commercial black sea bass size limit of 11 inches total length has been in place since 2002. There is no federal waters black sea bass possession limit; however, states set possession limits for state waters. Federal VTR data indicate that 72% of the black sea bass caught by federal commercial permit holders from Maine to North Carolina in 2018 was caught with bottom otter trawl gear. About 18% was caught with fish pots and traps, 4% in lobster traps, and 3% with hand lines. Other gear types each accounted for 1% or less of total commercial catch. Any federally-permitted vessel which uses otter trawl gear and catches more than 500 pounds of black sea bass from January through March, or more than 100 pounds from April through December, must use nets with a minimum mesh size of 4.5-inch diamond mesh applied throughout the codend for at least 75 continuous meshes forward of the end of the net. Pots and traps used to commercially harvest black sea bass must have two escape vents with degradable hinges in the section known as the parlor. The escape vents must measure 1.375 inches by 5.75 inches if rectangular, 2 inches by 2 inches if square, or have a diameter of 2.5 inches if circular.

83

Table 30: Summary of catch and landings limits, and landings for commercial and recreational black sea bass fisheries from Maine through Cape Hatteras, NC 2009 - 2019. All values are in millions of pounds unless otherwise noted. Management 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 measure ABC -- 4.50 4.50 4.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 6.67 10.47 8.94 8.94 Commercial ------1.98 2.60 2.60 2.60 3.15 5.09 4.35 4.35 ACL Commercial 1.09 1.76 1.71 1.71 2.17 2.17 2.21 2.71 4.12 3.52 3.52 quotaa Commercial 1.18 1.68 1.69 1.72 2.40 2.18 2.46 2.59 3.99 3.41 -- landings % of commercial 108% 95% 99% 101% 111% 100% 111% 96% 97% 97% -- quota landed Recreational ------1.86 2.90 2.90 2.90 3.52 5.38 4.59 4.59 ACL RHLa 1.14 1.83 1.78 1.32 2.26 2.26 2.33 2.82 4.29 3.66 3.66 Recreational landings, 2.56 3.19 1.17 3.18 2.46 3.67 3.79 5.19 4.16 3.82 -- previous MRIP estimates % of RHL harvested (based on old 225% 174% 66% 241% 109% 162% 163% 184% 97% 104% -- MRIP estimates)b Recreational landings, 5.70 8.07 3.27 7.04 5.68 6.93 7.82 12.05 11.48 7.92 -- revised MRIP estimates a The commercial quotas and RHLs for 2006-2014 account for deductions for the Research Set Aside program. b The percent of RHL harvested is based on a comparison of the RHL to the previous or old MRIP estimates. The RHLs did not account for the new MRIP estimates, which were released in July 2018 and were not incorporated into a stock assessment until 2019; therefore, it would be inappropriate to compare past RHLs to the revised MRIP estimates.

84

Landings Ex-vessel value Avg. price/lb 14 4.00 12 3.50 10 3.00 2.50 8 2.00 6 1.50 4 1.00 Price ($/lb, adjusted) Price (millions of $, adjusted) of (millions 2 0.50

Landings (millions of lb) or Value Landings (millions of lb) Value or 0 0.00

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Figure 14: Landings, ex-vessel value, and average price for black sea bass, ME-NC, 1994-2018. Ex-vessel value and price are adjusted to real 2018 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator.

Table 31: Statistical areas that accounted for at least 5% of the total commercial black sea bass catch in 2018, with associated number of trips. Percent of 2018 Commercial Statistical Area Number of Trips Black Sea Bass Catch 616 49% 812 621 8% 300 537 6% 882 613 5% 1,037

85

Figure 15: Proportion of black sea bass catch by statistical area in 2018 based on federal VTR data. Statistical areas marked “confidential” are associated with fewer than three vessels and/or dealers.

Table 32: Allocation of commercial black sea bass quota among states under the Commission’s FMP. State Allocation (percent) Maine 0.5 New Hampshire 0.5 Massachusetts 13.0 Rhode Island 11.0 Connecticut 1.0 New York 7.0 New Jersey 20.0 Delaware 5.0 Maryland 11.0 Virginia 20.0 North Carolina 11.0 Total 100

86

Table 33: Ports reporting at least 100,000 pounds of black sea bass landings in 2018, associated number of vessels, and percentage of total commercial landings. Ports with more than 100,000 pounds of black sea bass, but fewer than three associated vessels and/or dealers are not shown. % of total Number of Pounds of black Port name commercial black vessels landing sea bass landed sea bass landed black sea bass POINT PLEASANT, NJ 415,020 12% 237 POINT JUDITH, RI 284,122 8% 2,829 OCEAN CITY, MD 253,410 7% 70 NEWPORT NEWS, VA 237,708 7% 19 BEAUFORT, NC 221,988 6% 155 NEW BEDFORD, MA 200,784 6% 858 HAMPTON, VA 198,406 6% 48 CAPE MAY, NJ 140,002 4% 125 MONTAUK, NY 137,263 4% 419 CHINCOTEAGUE, VA 106,651 3% 68

Table 34: Dealers, by state, reporting purchases of black sea bass in 2018. State MA RI CT NY NJ DE MD VA NC

Number of dealers 33 34 14 51 30 3 8 14 26

Recreational Black Sea Bass Fishery Between 1981 and 2018, recreational catch of black sea bass from Maine through Cape Hatteras, NC was lowest in 1984 at 4.73 million fish and was highest in 2017 at about 41.0 million fish. Recreational harvest in weight was highest in 2016 at 12.05 million pounds; however, harvest in numbers of fish was highest in 1986 at 19.28 million fish. Recreational harvest in weight was lowest in 1981 at 1.53 million pounds, while harvest in numbers of fish was lowest in 1998 at 1.56 million fish. In 2018, an estimated 3.99 million black sea bass, at about 7.92 million pounds, were harvested by recreational anglers from Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Table 35). In 2018, 58% of black sea bass harvested by recreational fishermen from Maine through North Carolina (in numbers of fish) were caught in state waters and about 42% in federal waters (Table 36). Most of the recreational harvest in 2018 was landed in New Jersey (26%), New York (21%), Rhode Island (18%), Massachusetts (17%), and Connecticut (10%; Table 37). For-hire vessels carrying passengers in federal waters must obtain a federal party/charter permit. In 2018, 806 party and charter boats held federal recreational black sea bass permits. About 87% of the recreational black sea bass harvest in 2018 was caught by anglers fishing on private or rental boats, about 12% from anglers aboard party or charter boats, and 1% from anglers fishing from shore (Table 38).

87

Table 35: Estimated recreational black sea bass catch and harvest from Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 2009-2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. Catch Harvest Harvest % of catch Year (millions of fish) (millions of fish) (millions of pounds) retained 2009 23.12 3.92 5.70 17% 2010 26.42 5.10 8.07 19% 2011 12.47 1.78 3.27 14% 2012 34.95 3.69 7.04 11% 2013 25.71 3.01 5.68 12% 2014 23.29 3.81 6.93 16% 2015 23.17 4.39 7.82 19% 2016 35.80 5.84 12.05 16% 2017 41.00 5.70 11.48 14% 2018 24.99 3.99 7.92 16%

Table 36: Estimated percentage of black sea bass recreational landings (in numbers of fish) in state and federal waters, from Maine through North Carolina, 2009 through 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. Year State waters Federal waters 2009 56% 44% 2010 54% 46% 2011 50% 50% 2012 63% 37% 2013 60% 40% 2014 59% 41% 2015 67% 33% 2016 56% 44% 2017 39% 61% 2018 58% 42% 2009-2018 average 56% 44% 2016-2018 average 51% 49%

88

Table 37: State-by-state contribution (as a percentage) to total recreational harvest of black sea bass (in number of fish), Maine through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 2016 - 2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. State 2016 2017 2018 2016-2018 average Maine 0% 0% 0% 0% New Hampshire 0% 0% 0% 0% Massachusetts 13% 10% 17% 13% Rhode Island 9% 6% 18% 11% Connecticut 11% 9% 10% 10% New York 52% 42% 21% 38% New Jersey 9% 26% 26% 20% Delaware 2% 2% 2% 2% Maryland 4% 3% 4% 4% Virginia 1% 2% 2% 2% North Carolina 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 38: Percent of total recreational black sea bass landings (in numbers of fish) by recreational fishing mode, Maine through North Carolina, 1981-2018, based on the revised MRIP estimates. Total Number of Fish in Year Shore Party/charter Private/rental Millions 1981 52% 19% 29% 5.85 1982 2% 57% 41% 15.04 1983 7% 62% 31% 6.89 1984 12% 29% 59% 6.39 1985 10% 35% 55% 7.98 1986 15% 52% 33% 21.33 1987 6% 15% 79% 4.26 1988 11% 26% 63% 4.69 1989 13% 30% 57% 8.65 1990 17% 30% 53% 6.01 1991 12% 31% 57% 7.28 1992 4% 39% 57% 5.89 1993 3% 56% 41% 8.00 1994 12% 34% 54% 5.54 1995 14% 49% 37% 7.64 1996 5% 64% 31% 8.33 1997 1% 73% 26% 7.41 1998 3% 43% 54% 2.17 1999 5% 14% 81% 2.18 2000 10% 26% 64% 5.17 2001 2% 42% 56% 5.61 2002 2% 33% 65% 5.34 2003 1% 34% 65% 4.86 2004 1% 18% 81% 4.53 2005 1% 21% 78% 3.47 2006 7% 21% 72% 3.10 2007 3% 30% 67% 3.02 89

Total Number of Fish in Year Shore Party/charter Private/rental Millions 2008 1% 17% 82% 3.33 2009 2% 11% 87% 4.59 2010 1% 9% 90% 6.41 2011 2% 14% 84% 2.64 2012 1% 17% 82% 4.37 2013 2% 7% 91% 3.63 2014 3% 14% 83% 4.92 2015 0% 11% 89% 5.12 2016 4% 8% 88% 6.39 2017 1% 9% 90% 6.30 2018 1% 12% 87% 4.34 1981-2018 7% 29% 64% 6.02 average 2016-2018 2% 10% 88% 5.68 average

7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES This EA analyzes the expected impacts of the alternatives on each VEC. The alternatives are compared to the current conditions of the VECs and to each other. They are compared to each other within each alternative set (i.e., the scup alternatives are compared to the other scup alternatives and the black sea bass alternatives are compared to the other black sea bass alternatives). The alternatives are not compared to a theoretical condition where the fisheries are not operating. These fisheries have occurred for many decades and are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The nature and extent of the management programs for these fisheries have been examined in detail in EAs and Environmental Impact Statements prepared for previously implemented management actions. The current conditions of the VECs are summarized in Table 39 and described in more detail in section 6. Impacts are described both in terms of their direction (negative, positive, or no impact) and their magnitude (slight, moderate, or high) based on the guidelines shown in Table 40. The recent conditions of the VECs include the biological conditions of the scup, black sea bass, non-target species, and protected species over the most recent five years (sections 6.1 and 6.3). They also include the fishing practices and levels of fishing effort and landings in commercial and recreational fisheries for scup and black sea bass over the most recent five years, as well as the economic characteristics of the fisheries over the most recent three to five years (depending on the dataset; section 6.4). They also include recent levels of habitat availability and quality (section 6.2). As described in section 5.3, scup and black sea bass catch and landings limits cannot roll over from one year to the next without a Council action. This document considers catch and landings limits for 2020-2021 only. It is possible that any of the catch and landings limits considered in this document could also be used in 2022 and beyond; however, this would require an additional rule making process and an additional NEPA analysis. Sections 7.1 - 7.4 consider the impacts of the

90 alternatives on all VECs in 2020-2021. If any of these alternatives are considered for other future years, their impacts on the VECs in those future years will be analyzed in a separate document. In general, alternatives which may result in overfishing or an overfished status for target or non- target species are considered to have negative impacts for those species. Conversely, alternatives which may result in decreased fishing mortality, ending overfishing, rebuilding to target biomass level, maintaining biomass above the target level, or maintaining fishing mortality below the threshold level are considered to have positive impacts (Table 40). As previously stated, bottom trawls and pots/traps are the predominant gear types in the commercial scup and black sea bass fisheries. The recreational fisheries use hook and line gear almost exclusively. When considering the impacts of the alternatives on the habitat VEC, emphasis is placed on the commercial fisheries due to the higher potential for impacts to physical habitat from bottom trawl gear than from hook and line gear (sections 6.2.3). Alternatives that improve the quality or quantity of habitat are expected to have positive impacts on habitat. Alternatives that degrade the quality or quantity, or increase disturbance of habitat are expected to have negative impacts (Table 40). A reduction in fishing effort is likely to decrease the time that fishing gear is in the water, thus reducing the potential for interactions between fishing gear and habitat. However, most areas where scup and black sea bass are fished have been fished by multiple fishing fleets over many decades and are unlikely to see a measurable improvement in their condition in response to a decrease in effort for an individual fishery. The impacts of the alternatives on protected species take into account impacts to ESA-listed species, as well as impacts to non-ESA listed MMPA protected species in good condition (i.e., marine mammal stocks whose PBR level have not been exceeded) or poor condition (i.e., marine mammal stocks that have exceeded or are near exceeding their PBR level). For ESA-listed species, any action that results in interactions or take is expected to have negative impacts, including actions that reduce interactions. Actions expected to result in positive impacts on ESA-listed species include only those that contain specific measures to ensure no interactions (i.e., no take). None of the alternatives considered in this document would ensure no interactions with ESA-listed species. By definition, all ESA-listed species are in poor condition and any take can negatively impact their recovery. The stock conditions for marine mammals not listed under the ESA varies by species; however, all are in need of protection. For non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks that have their PBR level reached or exceeded, negative impacts would be expected from alternatives that result in the potential for interactions between fisheries and those stocks. For species that are at more sustainable levels (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded), alternatives not expected to change fishing behavior or effort may have positive impacts by maintaining takes below the PBR level and approaching the zero mortality rate goal (Table 40). Socioeconomic impacts are considered in relation to potential changes in landings, prices, revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction. Alternatives which could lead to increased availability of target species and/or an increase in catch per unit effort (CPUE) could lead to increased landings. Increased landings are generally considered to have positive socioeconomic impacts because they could result in increased revenues (for commercial and/or for-hire vessels) and angler satisfaction (for recreational fishery participants); however, if an increase in landings leads to a decrease in price or a decrease in future availability for any of the landed species, then negative socioeconomic impacts could also occur.

91

Table 39: Recent conditions of VECs (described in more detail in section 6). Condition VEC Overfishing? Overfished? Target species Scup No No (section 6.1) Black sea bass No No Summer flounder No No Spiny dogfish No No Black sea bass No No Little skate No No Non-target species Northern sea robin Unknown Unknown (section 6.1) Striped sea robin Unknown Unknown Bluefish No Yes Atlantic Croaker Unknown Unknown Tautog No Yes, in some regions Smooth Dogfish No No Commercial fishing impacts are complex, variable, and typically adverse. Recreational fishing has minimal impacts on habitat. Habitat (section 6.2) Non-fishing activities had historically negative but site-specific effects on habitat quality. Leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are endangered; Sea turtles loggerhead (NW Atlantic DPS) and green (North Atlantic DPS) sea turtles are threatened. Atlantic salmon, shortnose sturgeon, and the New York Bight, Chesapeake, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic Fish sturgeon are endangered. Atlantic sturgeon Gulf of Maine DPS threatened. Cusk are a candidate species. All large whales in the Northwest Atlantic are protected under the MMPA. North Atlantic right, fin, blue, sei, and sperm Protected species whales are also listed as endangered under the ESA. the (section 6.3) Large whales ALWTRP was implemented to reduce humpback, North Atlantic right, and fin whale entanglement in vertical lines associated with fixed fishing gear (sink gillnet and trap/pot) and sinking groundlines. Pilot whales, dolphins, and harbor porpoise are protected under the MMPA. The Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy Small cetaceans was developed to identify measures to reduce the mortality and serious injury of small cetaceans in trawl gear. Gray, harbor, hooded, and harp seals are protected under the Pinnipeds MMPA. Commercial landings averaged 5.51 million pounds during 2014-2018, with $9.82 million average ex-vessel value for an Scup average ex-vessel price of $0.64 per pound (2018 dollars). Recreational landings during 2014-2018 averaged 11.79 million Human communities pounds. (section 6.4) Commercial landings averaged 2.97 million pounds during 2014-2018, with $9.57 million average ex-vessel value for an Black Sea Bass average ex-vessel price of $3.22 per pound (2018 dollars). Recreational landings during 2014-2018 averaged 9.24 million pounds.

92

Table 40: Guidelines for defining the direction and magnitude of the impacts of alternatives on the VECs. General Definitions Resource Direction of Impact VEC Condition Positive (+) Negative (-) No Impact (0) Alternatives that would maintain or Alternatives that Target and Overfished are projected to would maintain or are Alternatives that do not Non-target status defined result in a stock projected to result in a impact stock / Species by the MSA status above an stock status below an populations overfished overfished condition* condition* Populations at risk of Alternatives that ESA-listed Alternatives that result extinction contain specific Protected in interactions/take of Alternatives that do not (endangered) measures to ensure Species listed resources, impact ESA listed or no interactions with (endangered or including actions that species endangerment protected species threatened) reduce interactions (threatened) (i.e., no take)

Alternatives that result MMPA Stock health Alternatives that will in interactions Protected may vary but maintain takes below with/take of marine Alternatives that do not Species (not populations PBR and mammals that could impact marine mammals also ESA remain approaching the Zero result in takes above listed) impacted Mortality Rate Goal PBR

Many habitats Alternatives that Alternatives that Physical degraded from improve the quality degrade the quality, Alternatives that do not Environment / historical or quantity quantity or increase impact habitat quality Habitat / EFH effort of habitat disturbance of habitat

Highly Alternatives that Alternatives that Alternatives that do not Human variable but increase revenue and decrease revenue and impact revenue and Communities generally social well-being of social well-being of social well-being of (Socioecon- stable in recent fishermen and/or fishermen and/or fishermen and/or omic) years communities communities communities Magnitude of Impact Negligible To such a small degree to be indistinguishable from no impact Slight, as in slight positive To a lesser degree / minor A range of or slight negative) Moderately positive or impact To an average degree (i.e., more than “slight”, but not “high”) qualifiers is negative used to High, as in high positive or To a substantial degree (not significant unless stated) indicate any high negative existing Affecting the resource condition to a great degree, see 40 CFR Significant uncertainty 1508.27. Likely Some degree of uncertainty associated with the impact *Actions that will substantially increase or decrease stock size, but do not change a stock status may have different impacts depending on the particular action and stock. Meaningful differences between alternatives may be illustrated by using another attribute aside from the MSA status, but this must be justified within the impact analysis.

93 Expected Changes in Fishing Effort Under Each Alternative 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. Fishing effort is influenced by a variety of interacting factors, including regulations (catch and landings limits, possession limits, gear restrictions, seasonal closures, etc.), availability of the species in question and other potential target species, market factors such as price of various potential target species, and other factors. It is not possible to quantify with confidence how fishing effort will change under each alternative; therefore, expected changes are described qualitatively. In this document, expected changes in fishing effort under each alternative are largely based on changes in the commercial quota and RHL, assuming all other factors (availability, prices, etc.) remain similar to current conditions. It is important to note that actual fishing effort may differ from these expectations based on changes in availability, market factors, and other conditions which are difficult to predict. Under all scup alternatives (1A-1D), 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 41). 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 (1D) for scup, commercial harvest would not meet the commercial quota. However, as shown in Table 41, recreational harvest estimates for 2015-2018 based on the revised MRIP 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. 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 would be expected to result in a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings, though the magnitude of these expected changes varies across the four scup alternatives. Alternative 2D (most restrictive) would be expected to result in the largest reduction in recreational fishing effort and landings of the four scup alternatives, followed by alternative 2B (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. Under all black sea bass alternatives (i.e., alternatives 2A-2D), it was assumed that commercial landings would be very close to the commercial quota and recreational harvest would meet, but not exceed, the RHL. Unlike scup, the commercial black sea bass fishery has landed very close to commercial quota for many years (Table 42). Black sea bass are a valuable, highly available species; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that even under the quotas under alternatives 2B and 2C, which would be the highest quotas ever implemented for black sea bass, commercial landings would reach that level. It is expected that commercial fishermen will take more and longer trips to target black sea bass under this higher quota. The commercial black sea bass fishery is a limited access fishery; therefore, new participants will not be able to enter the fishery in response to this increase in quota. As shown in Table 42, recreational harvest estimates for 2015-2018 based on the revised MRIP data are higher than the 2020-2021 RHLs under all black sea bass alternatives.

94 For example, estimated recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) is 9-189% greater than the 2020-2021 RHL, depending on the alternative. For the purposes of analyzing the impacts of the 2020-2021 RHLs, it was assumed that under all black sea bass alternatives, measures would be put in place to constrain harvest to the RHL. Based on the assumptions described above, alternative 2A (status quo) would be expected to result in status quo levels of commercial black sea bass fishing effort and landings, but a reduction in recreational fishing effort and landings. Alternative 2B (preferred) would be expected to result in an increase in commercial fishing effort and landings and a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings compared to recent levels. This expected decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings is lesser in magnitude than under alternative 2A. Alternative 2C (least restrictive) would be expected to result in an increase in commercial fishing effort and landings (greater than under alternative 2B) and slightly reduced or approximately status quo levels of recreational fishing effort and landings. Alternative 2D (most restrictive) would be expected to result in a reduction in both commercial and recreational fishing effort and landings. This reduction would be greater than under all other black sea bass alternatives. Under all black sea bass alternatives, it is not expected that fishing effort would substantially shift or expand in geographic area or seasonality.

95

Table 41: Scup quotas, RHLs, and landings over the past five years (2015-2019, in millions of pounds), and quotas and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D. 2020 2021 Measure 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Alt 1A Alt 1B Alt 1C Alt 1D Alt 1A Alt 1B Alt 1C Alt 1D Com. quota 21.23 20.47 18.38 23.98 23.98 23.98 22.23 29.98 16.67 23.98 18.06 29.98 16.67 Com. landings 17.03 15.76 15.44 13.37 ------RHLa 6.80 6.09 5.50 7.37 7.37 7.37 6.51 9.21 4.88 7.37 5.34 9.21 4.88 Rec. harvest 12.17 10.00 13.54 12.98 ------(revised MRIP) a RHLs for 2015-2018 were set using stock assessments which did not account for the revisions to the MRIP data released in 2018. Table 42: Black sea bass quotas, RHLs, and landings over the past five years (2015-2019, in millions of pounds), and quotas and RHLs under alternatives 2A-2D. 2020 and 2021 Measure 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Alt 2A Alt 2B Alt 2C Alt 2D Commercial quota 2.21 2.71 4.12 3.52 3.52 3.52 5.58 6.98 2.64 Commercial landings 2.46 2.59 3.99 3.41 ------RHLa 2.33 2.82 4.29 3.66 3.66 3.66 5.81 7.26 2.74 Recreational harvest (revised MRIP) 7.82 12.05 11.48 7.92 ------a RHLs for 2015-2018 were set using stock assessments which did not account for the revisions to the MRIP data released in 2018.

96 7.1. Impacts of the Alternatives on Scup, Black Sea Bass, and Non-Target Species The following sections describe the expected impacts of each alternative on scup, black sea bass, and non-target species. Impacts are based on expected changes in fishing effort and fishing mortality under each alternative. 7.1.1. Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Scup and Non- Target Species The following sections describe the expected impacts of alternatives 1A-1D on scup and non-target species in the scup fisheries. 7.1.1.1. Impacts of Alternative 1A (Status Quo Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Scup and Non-Target Species Under alternative 1A, the 2020-2021 scup commercial quota would be 23.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 7.37 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019, resulting in constant landings limits across the four years. If the full commercial quota and RHL were to be landed under this alternative, this would allow for higher total landings than the preferred alternative (alternative 1B), which is based on the 2019 operational stock assessment and the SSC’s most recent ABC recommendation. As described in the introduction to section 7, under all scup alternatives, it is expected that recreational harvest would be constrained to the RHL and commercial landings would be approximately 15.40 million pounds per year (i.e., the 2015-2018 average) during 2020-2021. Commercial landings are expected to be 64% below the full allowable amount under this alternative (i.e., 23.98 million pounds). Thus, total landings (i.e., commercial and recreational) under this alternative would be expected to be 22.77 million pounds, which is lower than the total allowable landings in 2020 or 2021 under both this alternative and under the preferred alternative. Therefore, although total landings could exceed the levels based on the SSC’s most recent ABC recommendation if the full quota and RHL were to be harvested under this alternative, they are not expected to do so as the commercial quota is expected to be under-harvested by 64% as a result of market demand. This would represent status quo levels of commercial landings, but a moderate reduction in recreational landings (e.g., Table 41). A moderate reduction in recreational landings would be needed despite a status quo RHL due to the transition to use of the new MRIP data in management. As previously stated, 2020 is the first year that the revised MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management and these estimates are notably higher than the previous estimates. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in levels of fishing mortality that do not negatively impact the scup stock. As described in more detail in section 6.1.1, the scup stock is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1A; therefore, alternative 1A is expected to have moderate positive impacts on the scup stock. If the full ABC were to be caught under this alternative, catch would exceed the SSC recommended ABCs under the preferred alternative by 2% in 2020 and 16% in 2021. The most recent stock assessment indicates that in 2018, scup biomass was nearly double the target level and fishing mortality was 27% below the threshold level that defines overfishing (NEFSC 2019). Thus, even if the full ABC were to be harvested under this alternative, it is not expected that the scup stock

97 would become overfished or experience overfishing during 2020-2021 and moderate positive impacts would still be expected for the scup stock. These catch limits would only be in place for 2020-2021 and considering their use beyond 2021 is outside of the scope of this document. Furthermore, as previously stated, the full ABC under this alternative is not expected to be caught due to an expected commercial quota underage. Due to expected status quo levels of commercial fishing effort, interactions with commercial non- target species would likely remain similar to 2018-2019 levels. As described in section 6.1.3.2, only spiny dogfish made up at least 5% of catch in the scup commercial fishery. According to the most recent stock assessment information, spiny dogfish are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1A. Other commercial-non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Although commercial landings are expected to be below the commercial quota under this alternative, if the full ABC were to be caught under these status quo limits, catch would not be expected to result in a change in stock status of any commercial non-target species. Thus, even if the full ABC were to be caught, impacts to non-target species would be expected to be the same as those described above (i.e., slight negative to moderate positive, depending on the species). The expected reduction in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could result in decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, it is not expected to decrease to the extent that it results in any changes the stock status of recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog and bluefish, all non-target species in the recreational scup fishery have either a positive (black sea bass, summer flounder, smooth dogfish) or unknown stock status (sea robins, cunner). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing. Based on the most recent bluefish stock assessment, the bluefish stock is overfished, though overfishing is not occurring (Table 16). The levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under this alternative are not expected to change the stock status of any commercial or recreational non-target species. Therefore, when considering only those non-target species which made up at least 5% of the catch on commercial or recreational scup trips, this alternative is expected to have impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for bluefish and those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, black sea bass, summer flounder, and smooth dogfish). Other non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Compared to the other alternatives for scup, this alternative has the potential for lower total fishing effort than alternative 1C (least restrictive). Therefore the positive impacts of this alternative for scup and the non-target species with positive stock status are expected to be greater in magnitude than 1C. These positive impacts are expected to be lesser in magnitude than the preferred alternative (1B) and alternative 1D (most restrictive) because fishing effort under this alternative could be higher than under alternatives 1B and 1D. For similar reasons, the negative impacts of this alternative on non-target species with negative stock status are expected to be lesser in magnitude than alternative 1C and greater in magnitude than alternatives 1B and 1D.

98

7.1.1.2. Impacts of Alternative 1B (Preferred Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Scup and Non-Target Species Alternative 1B includes the preferred scup commercial quotas of 22.23 million pounds for 2020 and 18.06 million pounds for 2021 and RHLs of 6.51 million pounds for 2020 and 5.34 million pounds for 2021. These landings limits represent a decrease of 7-12% in 2020 and 25-28% in 2021 compared to those implemented for 2018-2019 (i.e., a 23.98 million pound commercial quota and 7.37 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial landings have fallen under the commercial quota since 2007. Because of this, it was assumed that scup commercial landings would be similar to recent years and the 2015-2018 average commercial landings of 15.40 million pounds was used as a proxy for expected commercial landings in 2020 and 2021. Conversely, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 12.98 million pounds, nearly double the 2020 RHL under this alternative. Thus, this alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage while commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo. This alternative is based on the SSC’s recommended 2020-2021 ABC, which takes into account the most recent stock assessment and is intended to prevent overfishing. Therefore, scup stock status under this alternative would be expected to remain positive (i.e., not overfished, overfishing not occurring) if the full ABC were to be harvested. As previously stated, the full ABC is not expected to be harvested as the commercial fishery is not expected to land their full quota. Thus, under both the expected levels of total catch and the full allowable ABC, the positive stock status of scup is expected to be maintained and this alternative is expected to have moderate positive impacts on the scup stock. Due to expected status quo levels of commercial fishing effort, interactions with commercial non- target species would likely remain similar to 2018-2019 levels. As described in section 6.1.3.2, only spiny dogfish made up at least 5% of catch in the scup commercial fishery. According to the most recent stock assessment information, spiny dogfish are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1B. Other commercial-non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Although commercial landings are expected to be below the commercial quota under this alternative, if the full ABC were to be caught, this would not be expected to result in a change in stock status of any commercial non-target species. Thus, even if the full ABC were to be caught, impacts to non-target species would be expected to be the same as those described above (i.e., slight negative to moderate positive, depending on the species). The expected reduction in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could result in decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, it is not expected to decrease to the extent that it results in any changes the stock status of recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog and bluefish, all non-target species in the recreational scup fishery have either a positive (black sea bass, summer flounder, smooth dogfish) or unknown stock status (sea robins, cunner). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing. Based on the most recent bluefish stock assessment, the bluefish stock is overfished, though overfishing is not occurring (Table 16). 99

The levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under this alternative are not expected to change the stock status of any commercial or recreational non-target species. Therefore, when considering only those non-target species which made up at least 5% of the catch on commercial or recreational scup trips, this alternative is expected to have impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for bluefish and those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, black sea bass, summer flounder, and smooth dogfish). Other non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Compared to the other alternatives for scup, this alternative has the potential for lower total fishing effort than alternative 1A and alternative 1C (least restrictive). Therefore the positive impacts of this alternative for scup and the non-target species with positive stock status are expected to be greater in magnitude than 1A and 1C. These positive impacts are expected to be lesser in magnitude than alternative 1D (most restrictive) because fishing effort under this alternative would be higher than under alternative 1D. For similar reasons, the negative impacts of this alternative on non-target species with negative stock status are expected to be lesser in magnitude than alternative 1A and 1C and greater in magnitude than alternative 1D. 7.1.1.3. Impacts of Alternative 1C (Least Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Scup and Non-Target Species Alternative 1C is the least restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% above the levels under the status quo alternative 1A. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 29.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 9.21 million pounds. As described in the introduction to section 7, under all scup alternatives, it is expected that recreational harvest would be constrained to the RHL and commercial landings would be approximately 15.40 million pounds per year (i.e., the 2015-2018 average) during 2020-2021. Commercial landings would be expected to be 49% below the full allowable amount under this alternative (i.e., 23.98 million pounds). Thus, total landings (i.e., commercial and recreational) under this alternative would be expected to be 24.61 million pounds, which is lower than the total allowable landings in 2020 or 2021 under both this alternative and under the preferred alternative. Therefore, although total landings could exceed the levels based on the SSC’s most recent ABC recommendation if the full quota and RHL were to be harvested under this alternative, they are not expected to do so as the commercial quota is expected to be under-harvested as a result of market demand. This would represent status quo levels of commercial landings, but a moderate reduction in recreational landings (e.g., Table 41). This alternative would be expected to result in levels of fishing mortality that do not negatively impact the scup stock. As described in more detail in section 6.1.1, the scup stock is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1C; therefore, alternative 1C is expected to have moderate positive impacts on the scup stock. If the full ABC under this alternative were to be harvested, it is not expected that the scup stock would become overfished during 2020-2021. The most recent stock assessment indicates that biomass was nearly double the target level in 2018 (NEFSC 2019). The potential total allowable catch under this alternative is not great enough that it would be expected to result in biomass declining below the threshold level that defines an overfished condition during 2020- 2021. However, according to the most recent stock assessment, fishing mortality was 27% below 100 the threshold level that defines overfishing in 2018 (NEFSC 2019). If the full ABC under this alternative were to be harvested (which, as previously stated, is not expected), and if this results in fishing mortality reaching or exceeding the threshold level, then the stock could experience overfishing in 2020-2021. This would result in slight to moderate negative impacts on the scup stock. The actual change in fishing effort which would be needed to result in the full ABC under this alternative being caught is uncertain; therefore, it is possible that overfishing may not occur even if the full ABC were caught. However, as previously stated, the full ABC is not expected to be caught due to an expected commercial quota underage. Therefore, it is most likely that this alternative would result in moderate positive impacts to the scup stock by maintaining the current positive stock status (i.e., not overfished and overfishing not occurring). Due to expected status quo levels of commercial fishing effort, interactions with commercial non- target species would likely remain similar to 2018-2019 levels. As described in section 6.1.3.2, only spiny dogfish made up at least 5% of catch in the scup commercial fishery. According to the most recent stock assessment information, spiny dogfish are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1C. Other commercial-non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Although commercial landings are expected to be below the commercial quota under this alternative, if the full ABC were to be caught, this would not be expected to result in a change in stock status of any commercial non-target species. Thus, even if the full ABC were to be caught, impacts to non-target species would be expected to be the same as those described above (i.e., slight negative to moderate positive, depending on the species). The expected reduction in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could result in decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, it is not expected to decrease to the extent that it results in any changes the stock status of recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog and bluefish, all non-target species in the recreational scup fishery have either a positive (black sea bass, summer flounder, smooth dogfish) or unknown stock status (sea robins, cunner). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing. Based on the most recent bluefish stock assessment, the bluefish stock is overfished, though overfishing is not occurring (Table 16). The levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under this alternative are not expected to change the stock status of any commercial or recreational non-target species. Therefore, when considering only those non-target species which made up at least 5% of the catch on commercial or recreational scup trips, this alternative is expected to have impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for bluefish and those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, black sea bass, summer flounder, and smooth dogfish). Other non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Of all the scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A-1D), this alternative has the potential for the highest total fishing effort. Therefore the positive impacts of this alternative for scup and the non- target species with positive stock status are expected to be lesser in magnitude than the other scup alternatives (1A, 1B and 1D). For similar reasons, the negative impacts of this alternative on non- target species with negative stock status are expected to be greater in magnitude than alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1D. 101

7.1.1.4. Impacts of Alternative 1D (Most Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Scup and Non-Target Species Alternative 1D is the most restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% below the levels under the preferred alternative (i.e., alternative 1B). The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 16.67 million pounds and the RHL would be 4.88 million pounds. As previously stated, commercial landings have fallen under the commercial quota since 2007. Because of this, it was assumed that scup commercial landings would be similar to recent years and the 2015-2018 average commercial landings of 15.40 million pounds was used as a proxy for expected commercial landings in 2020 and 2021. There is only an 8% difference between expected commercial landings and total allowable commercial landings under this alternative. Thus, the impacts of commercial fishing effort on scup and non-target species are not expected to differ whether the full commercial quota is landed or whether the lower expected amount is landed. Estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 12.98 million pounds, 166% higher than the RHL under this alternative. This alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage while commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo. This alternative would be expected to result in levels of fishing mortality that do not negatively impact the scup stock. As described in more detail in section 6.1.1, the scup stock is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1D; therefore, alternative 1D is expected to have moderate positive impacts on the scup stock. Due to expected status quo levels of commercial fishing effort, interactions with commercial non- target species would likely remain similar to 2018-2019 levels. As described in section 6.1.3.2, only spiny dogfish made up at least 5% of catch in the scup commercial fishery. According to the most recent stock assessment information, spiny dogfish are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. This positive stock status is expected to be maintained under alternative 1D. Other commercial-non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. The expected reduction in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could result in decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, it is not expected to decrease to the extent that it results in any changes to the stock status of any recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog and bluefish, all non-target species in the recreational scup fishery have either a positive (black sea bass, summer flounder, smooth dogfish) or unknown stock status (sea robins, cunner). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing. Based on the most recent bluefish stock assessment, the bluefish stock is overfished, though overfishing is not occurring (Table 16). The levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under this alternative are not expected to change the stock status of any commercial or recreational non-target species. Therefore, when considering only those non-target species which made up at least 5% of the catch on commercial or recreational scup trips, this alternative is expected to have impacts on non-target species that

102

range from slight negative (for bluefish and those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, black sea bass, summer flounder, and smooth dogfish). Other non-target species are expected to be minimally impacted by this alternative. Of all the scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A-1D), this alternative has the potential for the lowest total fishing effort. Therefore, the positive impacts of this alternative for scup and the non- target species with positive stock status are expected to be greater in magnitude than the other scup alternatives (1A, 1B and 1C). For similar reasons, the negative impacts of this alternative on non- target species with negative stock status are expected to be lesser in magnitude than alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 7.1.2. Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Black Sea Bass and Non-Target Species The following sections describe the expected impacts of alternatives 2A-2D on black sea bass and non-target species in the black sea bass fisheries. These impacts are based on expected changes in fishing effort under each alternative. As described in the introduction to section 7, under all black sea bass alternatives, it is assumed that the full quota and RHL would be landed and that fishing effort would be constrained based on those landings limits. 7.1.2.1. Impacts of Alternative 2A (Status Quo Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Black Sea Bass and Non-Target Species Under alternative 2A, the 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota would be 3.52 million pounds and the RHL would be 3.66 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019, resulting in constant landings limits across the four years. As previously stated, under all black sea bass alternatives, it is assumed that landings in each sector would be constrained to the full allowable amount. It is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of fishing effort and fishing mortality in the commercial fishery. Although the recreational fishery would also be managed with a status quo landings limit, this would require a reduction in harvest to prevent an RHL overage. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds, more than double the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, a reduction in recreational harvest would be required to prevent an overage of a status quo RHL. Alternative 2A would therefore be expected to result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and a moderate reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels. The expected levels of catch and landings under this alternative are lower than those allowed for under the SSC’s recommended 2020-2021 black sea bass ABC (represented by alternative 2B). Therefore, this alternative is more conservative than necessary to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield for black sea bass. The positive stock status of black sea bass (i.e., not overfished, overfishing not occurring) would be expected to be maintained. Therefore, this alternative is expected to have moderate positive impacts on black sea bass. Due to expected status quo levels of commercial fishing effort, interactions with commercial non- target species would likely remain similar to 2018-2019 levels. This is not expected to result in a 103

change in the stock status of an commercial non-target species. As described in section 6.1.3.2, only spiny dogfish and striped sea robins made up at least 5% of catch in the black sea bass commercial fishery. According to the most recent stock assessment information, spiny dogfish are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The stock status of striped sea robins is unknown as it has not been assessed. The expected reduction in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could result in decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, it is not expected to decrease to the extent that it results in any changes the stock status of recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog, all non-target species in the recreational black sea bass fishery have either a positive (scup, summer flounder) or unknown stock status (sea robins, due to a lack of a stock assessment). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing (Table 15). In summary, this alternative is expected to maintain the current stock status of black sea bass and all non-target species. Therefore, it is expected to have moderate positive impacts for black sea bass and impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, scup, and summer flounder). Fishing mortality for black sea bass and non-target species is expected to be higher under this alternative than under alternative 2D (most restrictive). Therefore, the positive impacts of this alternative for black sea bass and most non-target species are expected to be slightly lesser in magnitude than under alternative 2D. These slight positive impacts are expected to be greater in magnitude than the impacts of alternatives 2B and 2C (least restrictive), which would allow for higher levels of fishing effort than alternative 2A. Conversely, the expected slight negative impacts of this alternative on the tautog regions which do not have a positive stock status are expected to be slightly greater in magnitude under this alternative than under alternative 2D, but lesser in magnitude than under alternatives 2B and 2C due to expected differences in fishing effort and fishing mortality under each alternative. 7.1.2.2. Impacts of Alternative 2B (Preferred Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Black Sea Bass and Non-Target Species Alternative 2B includes the preferred 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota of 5.58 million pounds and RHL of 5.81 million pounds. These landings limits represent an increase of 59% compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 59% increase in the commercial quota would lead to a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort. Conversely, although the RHL would also increase by 59%, this would not allow for an increase in recreational fishing effort. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds, 36% higher than the RHL under this alternative. This alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage.

104

This alternative is based on the SSC’s recommended 2020-2021 ABC, which takes into account the most recent stock assessment and is intended to prevent overfishing. Therefore, black sea bass stock status under this alternative is expected to remain positive (i.e., not overfished, overfishing not occurring) and this alternative is expected to have moderate positive impacts on black sea bass. The expected increase in commercial fishing effort under this alternative could lead to increased fishing mortality for non-target species. As described in section 6.1.3, only spiny dogfish (17%), striped sea robins (15%), and scup (5%) accounted for 5% or more of total catch on black sea bass trips. Sea robins are unmanaged and their stock status is unknown as it has not been assessed. Both spiny dogfish and scup are managed at the state and federal levels. Management measures for both species include AMs which take into account discards in all commercial fisheries. Spiny dogfish and scup are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring based on the most recent stock assessment information. For all these reasons, the expected increase in commercial fishing effort under alternative 2B is not expected to change the stock status of any commercial non-target species. The expected decrease in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could lead to decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, this decrease is not expected to be great enough to change the stock status of any recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog, all non-target species in the recreational black sea bass fishery have either a positive (scup, summer flounder) or unknown stock status (sea robins, due to a lack of a stock assessment). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing (Table 15). In summary, this alternative is expected to maintain the current stock status of black sea bass and all non-target species. Therefore, it is expected to have moderate positive impacts for black sea bass and impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, scup, and summer flounder). Fishing mortality for black sea bass and non-target species is expected to be higher under this alternative than under alternatives 2A (status quo) and 2D (most restrictive). Therefore, the positive impacts of this alternative for black sea bass and most non-target species are expected to be slightly lesser in magnitude than under alternatives 2A and 2D. These slight positive impacts are expected to be greater in magnitude than the impacts of alternative 2C (least restrictive), which would allow for higher levels of fishing effort than alternative 2B. Conversely, the expected slight negative impacts of this alternative on the tautog regions which do not have a positive stock status are expected to be slightly greater in magnitude under this alternative than under alternatives 2A and 2D, but lesser in magnitude than under alternative 2C due to expected differences in fishing effort and fishing mortality under each alternative. 7.1.2.3. Impacts of Alternative 2C (Least Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Black Sea Bass and Non-Target Species Alternative 2C includes the least restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 6.98 and 7.26 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 98% increase compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). Commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is

105

assumed that a near doubling of the commercial quota would lead to an increase in commercial fishing effort. Fishing effort may not increase in direct proportion to the near doubling of the quota as black sea bass are currently highly available and fishermen may not need to fish twice as hard to land twice as many fish. Some fish which would otherwise be discarded due to quota restrictions may be landed under an increase in the quota. Conversely, although the RHL would also nearly double, this would not allow for an increase in recreational harvest. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 9% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative could require slightly reduced levels of recreational fishing effort compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. Alternatively, based on annual decisions about expected harvest in the upcoming year, it is possible that this RHL could allow for no changes in management measures (i.e., bag, size, and season limits) and recreational fishing effort could remain similar to recent levels without exceeding the RHL. As previously stated, this document does not consider recreational management measures for 2020-2021. Any changes to those measures would be made through a separate action. As previously stated, this alternative considers only landings limits, without associated OFLs and ABCs. If it is assumed that a 25% increase in the landings limits is accompanied by a 25% increase in total allowable catch, then this alternative would allow catch to exceed the SSC’s recommended 2020-2021 ABC, which is based on the most recent stock assessment and is intended to prevent overfishing. Based on projections provided with the 2019 operational stock assessment, spawning stock biomass is expected to decline from 2.4 times the target level in 2018 to 1.7 times the target level in 2021 under the SSC’s recommended ABC. Under alternative 2C, biomass would be expected to decline even further, but not to the extent that it falls below the target level as a result of the 2020-2021 catch and landings limits under this alternative. Thus, the stock is not expected to become overfished. The impacts on the fishing mortality rate are more uncertain and it is possible that overfishing could occur during 2020-2021. According to the 2019 operational stock assessment, the fishing mortality rate in 2018 was 9% below the fishing mortality reference point (i.e., the threshold level that defines overfishing; NEFSC 2019). The black sea bass stock assessment models the stock as two separate sub-regions, split approximately at Hudson Canyon. The biomass and fishing mortality reference points are calculated for the two regions combined based on a simple average across the two regions. The regional biomass and fishing mortality rate estimates are combined for comparison against these reference points. Due to this averaging approach, it is possible that regional differences in fishing effort could result in the combined fishing mortality rate exceeding the threshold under this alternative. For example, based on regional differences in fishing mortality shown in the 2019 operational assessment, if the increase in fishing mortality expected under this alternative were to occur mostly south of Hudson Canyon, this would have a greater likelihood of resulting in the combined fishing mortality rate exceeding the threshold, compared to if the increase occurred mostly north of Hudson Canyon. If the increase were to occur mostly north of Hudson Canyon, it may not result in overfishing (NEFSC 2019; Gary Shepherd, NEFSC, personal communication). Thus, this alternative could have slight negative to slight positive impacts on the

106

black sea bass stock, depending on whether or not it results in overfishing, which is uncertain. As previously stated, the stock is not expected to become overfished. If the level of fishing mortality expected under this alternative were to be maintained for many consecutive years in a row, this could eventually result in greater negative impacts to the black sea bass stock; however, as previously stated, this alternative considers only landings limits for 2020- 2021 and consideration of use of their use after 2021 is beyond the scope of this document. Because fishing mortality would be higher under this alternative than under all other black sea bass alternatives considered in this document, this alternative has a higher potential for negative impacts to the black sea bass stock compared to alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D. The expected increase in commercial fishing effort under this alternative could lead to increased fishing mortality for non-target species. As described in section 6.1.3, only spiny dogfish (17%), striped sea robins (15%), and scup (5%) accounted for 5% or more of total catch on black sea bass trips. Sea robins are unmanaged and their stock status is unknown as it has not been assessed. Both spiny dogfish and scup are managed at the state and federal levels. Management measures for both species include ACLs and AMs which take into account discards in all commercial fisheries. If the ACLs for either species are exceeded due to landings or discards, then AMs can be implemented to mitigate for any negative impacts to the stocks. Spiny dogfish and scup are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring based on the most recent stock assessment information. For all these reasons, the expected increase in commercial fishing effort under alternative 2C is not expected to change the stock status of any commercial non-target species. The potential slight decrease in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could lead to a slight decrease in fishing effort for recreational non-target species. However, this decrease is not expected to be great enough to change the stock status of any recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog, all non-target species in the recreational black sea bass fishery have either a positive (scup, summer flounder) or unknown stock status (sea robins, due to a lack of a stock assessment). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing (Table 15). In summary, this alternative is expected to have slight positive impacts on black sea bass and impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, scup, and summer flounder). Fishing mortality for black sea bass and non-target species is expected to be higher under this alternative than under all other black sea bass alternatives (i.e., alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D). Therefore, the positive impacts of this alternative for black sea bass and most non-target species are expected to be lesser in magnitude than under alternatives 2A, 2B and 2D. The expected slight negative impacts of this alternative on the tautog regions which do not have a positive stock status are expected to be slightly greater in magnitude under than under alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D, due to expected differences in fishing effort and fishing mortality. 7.1.2.4. Impacts of Alternative 2D (Most Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Black Sea Bass and Non-Target Species Alternative 2D includes the most restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 2.64 and 2.74 million pounds, respectively). These landings

107

limits represent a 25% decrease compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 25% reduction in the commercial quota would lead to a moderate reduction in commercial fishing effort. A much greater reduction in recreational fishing effort would be needed to prevent an RHL overage. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 189% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would require a notable reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. The expected levels of total catch and landings under this alternative are lower than those allowed for under the SSC’s recommended 2020-2021 black sea bass ABC (represented by alternative 2B). Therefore, this alternative is more conservative than necessary to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield for black sea bass. The positive stock status of black sea bass (i.e., not overfished, overfishing not occurring) would be expected to be maintained. Therefore, this alternative is expected to have moderate positive impacts on black sea bass. Due to the expected moderate reduction in commercial fishing effort, interactions with commercial non-target species would likely decrease compared to 2018-2019 levels. This is not expected to result in a change in the stock status of an commercial non-target species. As described in section 6.1.3.2, only spiny dogfish and striped sea robins made up at least 5% of catch in the black sea bass commercial fishery. According to the most recent stock assessment information, spiny dogfish are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The stock status of striped sea robins is unknown as it has not been assessed. The expected reduction in recreational fishing effort under this alternative could result in decreased fishing mortality for recreational non-target species. However, it is not expected to decrease to the extent that it results in any changes the stock status of recreational non-target species. With the exception of tautog, all non-target species in the recreational black sea bass fishery have either a positive (scup, summer flounder) or unknown stock status (sea robins, due to a lack of a stock assessment). Of the four assessed regions for tautog, only one has a positive stock status. The other three tautog regions are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing (Table 15). In summary, this alternative is expected to maintain the current stock status of black sea bass and all non-target species. Therefore, it is expected to have moderate positive impacts for black sea bass and impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative (for those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive (for spiny dogfish, scup, and summer flounder). Fishing mortality for black sea bass and non-target species is expected to be lower under this alternative than under all other black sea bass alternatives (i.e., alternatives 2A-2C). Therefore, the positive impacts of this alternative for black sea bass and most non-target species are expected to be greater in magnitude than under alternatives 2A-2C. The expected slight negative impacts of this alternative on the tautog regions which do not have a positive stock status are expected to be

108

slightly lesser in magnitude under than under alternatives 2A-2C due to expected differences in fishing effort and fishing mortality. 7.2. Impacts of the Alternatives on Habitat The following sections describe the expected impacts of each alternative on physical habitat. The impacts are based on expected changes in fishing effort and associated changes in interactions between fishing gear and physical habitat under each alternative. 7.2.1. Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Habitat The following sections describe the impacts of alternatives 1A-1D on habitat. 7.2.1.1. Impacts of Alternative 1A (Status Quo Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Habitat Under alternative 1A, the 2020-2021 scup commercial quota would be 23.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 7.37 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019, resulting in constant landings limits across the four years. As described in the introduction to section 7, it is expected that under this alternative, recreational harvest would be constrained to the RHL and commercial landings would be approximately 15.40 million pounds per year (i.e., the 2015-2018 average) during 2020-2021. This would represent status quo levels of commercial landings, but a moderate reduction in recreational landings (e.g., Table 41). A moderate reduction in recreational landings would be needed despite a status quo RHL due to the transition to use of the new MRIP data in management. As previously stated, 2020 is the first year that the revised MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management and these estimates are notably higher than the previous estimates. As described in section 6.2.3, the gear types used in the scup fisheries (i.e., predominantly bottom otter trawl in the commercial fishery and hook and line in the recreational fishery) can negatively impact physical habitat. The hook and line gear used in the recreational fishery generally has a lesser impact on physical habitat than the dominant commercial gear types. The status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and reduced recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative are not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. Under this alternative, fishing gear will continue to have negative impacts on habitat; however, this is not expected to result in additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the scup fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four scup alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Compared to the other alternatives for scup, this alternative has the potential for slightly lower negative impacts to habitat due to lower total fishing effort than alternative 1C (least restrictive). Alternative 1A would be expected to have slightly higher negative impacts to habitat compared to alternatives 1B (preferred) and 1D (most restrictive) given the expected reductions in fishing effort under alternatives 1B and 1D.

109

7.2.1.2. Impacts of Alternative 1B (Preferred Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Habitat Alternative 1B includes the preferred 2020 and 2021 scup commercial quotas of 22.23 million pounds and 18.06 million pounds and RHLs of 6.51 million pounds and 5.34 million pounds. These landings limits represent a decrease of 7-12% in 2020 and 25-28% in 2021 compared to those implemented for 2018-2019 (i.e., a 23.98 million pound commercial quota and 7.37 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial landings have regularly under the commercial quota since 2007. Because of this, it was assumed that scup commercial landings would be similar to recent years and the 2015-2018 average commercial landings of 15.40 million pounds was used as a proxy for expected commercial landings in 2020 and 2021. Conversely, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHLs under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 12.98 million pounds, 99%-143% higher than the RHLs under this alternative. This alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage while commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo. As described in section 6.2.3, the gear types used in the scup fisheries (i.e., predominantly bottom otter trawl in the commercial fishery and hook and line in the recreational fishery) can negatively impact physical habitat. The hook and line gear used in the recreational fishery generally has a lesser impact on physical habitat than the dominant commercial gear types. The status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and reduced recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative are not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. Under this alternative, fishing gear will continue to have negative impacts on habitat; however, this is not expected to result in additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the scup fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four scup alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Compared to the other alternatives for scup, this alternative has the potential for lower negative impacts to habitat due to lower total fishing effort than alternative 1A (status quo) and 1C (least restrictive). Alternative 1B would be expected to have slightly higher negative impacts to habitat compared to alternative 1D (most restrictive) given that alternative 1D is expected to result in lower fishing effort. 7.2.1.3. Impacts of Alternative 1C (Least Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Habitat Alternative 1C is the least restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% above the levels under the status quo alternative 1A. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 29.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 9.21 million pounds. As previously stated, commercial landings have fallen under the commercial quota since 2007. Because of this, it was assumed that scup commercial landings would be similar to recent years and the 2015-2018 average commercial landings of 15.40 million pounds was used as a proxy for expected commercial landings in 2020 and 2021. Conversely, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which 110 information is available) was estimated at 12.98 million pounds, 30% higher than the RHL under this alternative. This alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage while commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo. As described in section 6.2.3, the gear types used in the scup fisheries (i.e., predominantly bottom otter trawl in the commercial fishery and hook and line in the recreational fishery) can negatively impact physical habitat. The hook and line gear used in the recreational fishery generally has a lesser impact on physical habitat than the dominant commercial gear types. The expected levels of fishing effort under this alternative are not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. The increase in commercial fishing effort is not expected to result in impacts to habitats which were not previously impacted by fishing. Under this alternative, fishing gear will continue to have negative impacts on habitat; however, this is not expected to result in notable additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the scup fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four scup alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Compared to the other alternatives for scup, this alternative has the highest expected fishing effort and thus the highest potential for negative impacts to habitat. 7.2.1.4. Impacts of Alternative 1D (Most Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Habitat Alternative 1D is the most restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% below the levels under the preferred alternative 1B. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 16.67 million pounds and the RHL would be 4.88 million pounds. As previously stated, commercial landings have fallen under the commercial quota since 2007. Because of this, it was assumed that scup commercial landings would be similar to recent years and the 2015-2018 average commercial landings of 15.40 million pounds was used as a proxy for expected commercial landings in 2020 and 2021. Conversely, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 12.98 million pounds, 166% higher than the RHL under this alternative. This alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage while commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo. As described above, total fishing effort under alternative 1D would be expected to decrease compared to 2018-2019 levels. In theory, reduced fishing effort could result in lower levels of gear interactions with habitat; however, as described above, the areas fished for scup have been heavily fished for many years for a variety of species. As some level of impacts will continue to occur, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts on physical habitat. All four scup alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Compared to the other alternatives for scup, this alternative has the lowest expected fishing effort and thus the lowest potential for negative impacts to habitat.

111

7.2.2. Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Habitat The following sections describe the impacts of alternatives 2A-2D on habitat. 7.2.2.1. Impacts of Alternative 2A (Status Quo Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Habitat Under alternative 2A, the 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota would be 3.52 million pounds and the RHL would be 3.66 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019, resulting in constant landings limits across the four years. As previously stated, under all black sea bass alternatives, it is assumed that landings in each sector would be constrained to the full allowable amount. Therefore, it is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort. Although the recreational fishery would also be managed with a status quo landings limit, this would require a reduction in harvest to prevent an RHL overage. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds, more than double the RHL under this alternative. Alternative 2A would therefore be expected to result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and a moderate reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels. As described in section 6.2.3, the gear types used in the black sea bass fisheries (i.e., predominantly bottom otter trawl and pot/trap in the commercial fishery and hook and line in the recreational fishery) can negatively impact physical habitat. The hook and line gear used in the recreational fishery generally has a lesser impact on physical habitat than the dominant commercial gear types. The status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and reduced recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative are not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. Under this alternative, fishing gear will continue to have negative impacts on habitat; however, this is not expected to result in additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the black sea bass fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four black sea bass alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Alternative 2A could result in lower fishing effort than alternatives 2B (preferred catch and landings limits) and 2C (least restrictive catch and landings limits); therefore, the slight negative impacts of alternative 2A on habitat are expected to be lesser in magnitude that those of alternatives 2B and 2C. Alternative 2A could result in higher fishing effort than alternative 2D (most restrictive catch and landings limits); therefore, the slight negative impacts of alternative 2A on habitat are expected to be greater in magnitude that those of alternative 2D. 7.2.2.2. Impacts of Alternative 2B (Preferred Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Habitat Alternative 2B includes the preferred 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota of 5.58 million pounds and RHL of 5.81 million pounds. These landings limits represent an increase of 59% compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., 3.52 million pounds in both years). As 112

previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 59% increase in the commercial quota could lead to an increase in commercial fishing effort. Conversely, although the RHL would also increase by 59%, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort to prevent harvest an RHL overage. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was 7.92 million pounds, 36% higher than the RHL under this alternative. As described in section 6.2.3, the gear types used in the black sea bass fisheries (i.e., predominantly bottom otter trawl and pot/trap in the commercial fishery and hook and line in the recreational fishery) can negatively impact physical habitat. The hook and line gear used in the recreational fishery generally has a lesser impact on physical habitat than the dominant commercial gear types. The increase in commercial fishing effort and reduction in recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative are not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. The increase in commercial fishing effort is not expected to result in additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the black sea bass fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. It is not expected to result in impacts to habitats which were previously not impacted by fishing activities. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four black sea bass alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Alternative 2B could result in lower fishing effort than alternative 2C (least restrictive catch and landings limits); therefore, the slight negative impacts of alternative 2B on habitat are expected to be lesser in magnitude that those of alternative 2C. Alternative 2B could result in higher fishing effort than alternatives 2A (status quo) and 2D (most restrictive catch and landings limits); therefore, the slight negative impacts of alternative 2B on habitat are expected to be greater in magnitude that those of alternatives 2A and 2D. 7.2.2.3. Impacts of Alternative 2C (Least Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Habitat Alternative 2C includes the least restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 6.98 and 7.26 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 98% increase compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a near doubling of the commercial quota would lead to a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort. Conversely, although the RHL would also nearly double, this would not allow for an increase in recreational harvest. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 9% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative could require slightly reduced levels of recreational fishing effort compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. As described in section 6.2.3, the gear types used in the black sea bass fisheries (i.e., predominantly bottom otter trawl and pot/trap in the commercial fishery and hook and line in the recreational fishery) can negatively impact physical habitat. The hook and line gear used in the recreational 113

fishery generally has a lesser impact on physical habitat than the dominant commercial gear types. The increase in commercial fishing effort and potential slight reduction in recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative are not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. The increase in commercial fishing effort is not expected to result in additional impacts beyond those caused in recent years by the black sea bass fisheries and many other fisheries which operate in the same areas. It is not expected to result in impacts to habitats which were previously not impacted by fishing activities. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four black sea bass alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Alternative 2C is expected to result in the highest fishing effort of all four black sea bass alternatives; therefore, the expected negative impacts under this alternative are greater in magnitude than those under alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2D. 7.2.2.4. Impacts of Alternative 2D (Most Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Habitat Alternative 2D includes the most restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 2.64 and 2.74 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 25% decrease compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 25% reduction in the commercial quota would lead to a moderate reduction in commercial fishing effort. A much greater reduction in recreational fishing effort would be needed to prevent an RHL overage. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 189% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would require a notable reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. The scale of the needed reduction in commercial and recreational fishing effort under this alternative is not likely to result in any changes to the current conditions of physical habitat in the affected environment. This alternative would impact only the commercial and recreational black sea bass fisheries. The habitats impacted by the black sea bass fisheries are also impacted by many other fisheries. These areas will continue to be impacted by black sea bass fishing effort (though to a lesser extent) and by fishing effort in many other fisheries. For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have slight negative impacts to physical habitat. All four black sea bass alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat; however, the magnitude of these slight negative impacts varies across the four alternatives. Alternative 2D is expected to result in the lowest fishing effort of all four black sea bass alternatives; therefore, the expected negative impacts under this alternative are lesser in magnitude than those under alternatives 2A-2C. 7.3. Impacts of the Alternatives on Protected Species The following sections describe the expected impacts of each alternative on protected species. The impacts are based on expected changes in fishing effort and associated changes in the potential for interactions between fishing gear and protected species under each alternative. 114

As described in section 6.3.3, the commercial fisheries for scup and black sea bass are primarily prosecuted with bottom trawl gear, though pots/traps are also important in the black sea bass fishery. Many protected species are vulnerable to interactions with bottom trawls and/or pots/traps (section 6.3.3). The risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of protected species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. Hook and line gear is used in the recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries. ESA listed species of large whales, sea turtles, and Atlantic sturgeon, as well as MMPA protected (non-ESA listed) species of large whales and bottlenose dolphin stocks are vulnerable to interactions with hook and line gear (section 6.3.3). Hook and line interactions with other protected species identified in section 6.3 (e.g., species of small cetaceans except bottlenose dolphins, pinnipeds, Atlantic salmon) have never been observed or documented and therefore, this gear type is not expected to be source of injury or mortality to these species. 7.3.1. Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Protected Species The following sections describe the expected impacts of alternatives 1A-1D on protected species. 7.3.1.1. Impacts of Alternative 1A (Status Quo Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Protected Species Under alternative 1A, the 2020-2021 scup commercial quota would be 23.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 7.37 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019. As described in section 7.1.1, fishing effort under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. As described in more detail in section 7.1.1, this alternative could allow for an increase in commercial fishing effort compared to status quo levels; however, commercial fishing effort is expected to remain at status quo levels due to market factors. Protected species interactions with fishing gear, regardless of listing status, is greatly influenced by the amount of gear and the duration of time gear is in the water; therefore, any decrease in either of these factors will reduce the potential for protected species interactions with gear and will reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality to these species. Based on this, impacts to MMPA protected species (not also ESA-listed) and ESA listed species are considered below. MMPA (Non-ESA Listed) Species Impacts Aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of non- ESA listed marine mammals in commercial or recreational fisheries have gone beyond levels which would result in the inability of the populations to sustain themselves. More specifically, with the exception of several bottlenose dolphin stocks, PBR levels have not been exceeded for any of the non-ESA listed marine mammal species in the affected environment (section 6.3). Although several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that resulted in the exceedance of their PBR level, take reduction strategies and/or plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species. Taking into consideration the above information, and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, the impacts of alternative 1A on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from

115

slight negative to slight positive, depending on the species/stock. Some bottlenose dolphin stocks are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore, the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously noted, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of protected species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. As commercial fishing effort under alternative 1A is expected to remain unchanged and recreational fishing effort is expected to decrease from current operating conditions, alternative 1A is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks in poor condition. Specifically, the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and overlap between protected species and fishery gear, in space and time, is expected to remain unchanged for the commercial fishery and decrease for the recreational fishery relative to current conditions. Given this information, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 1A is likely to result in slight negative impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks). Alternatively, there are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded) over the last several years. For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in levels of effort that result in interaction levels that are not expected to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these non-ESA listed marine mammal species/stocks. Should future fishery management actions maintain similar operating condition as they have over the past several years, it is expected that these slight positive impacts would remain. As provided above, alternative 1A is expected to result in status quo commercial fishing effort and a decrease in recreational fishing effort relative to recent levels. Given this, and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between non- ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition (e.g., pinnipeds and small cetaceans (except for bottlenose dolphins) have never been documented/observed in hook and line gear; minke whale interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of alternative 1A on these non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are expected to be negligible to slight positive, depending on the species (i.e., continuation of current operating conditions is not expected to result in exceedance of any of these stocks/species PBR level). Based on this information, alternative 1A is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals, depending on the species. ESA Listed Species Impacts As provided in section 6.3, some ESA listed species are vulnerable to interactions with bottom trawl gear, and these interactions can result in injury or mortality. Based on this, the scup fishery is likely to result in some level of negative impacts to ESA listed species. Taking into consideration fishing behavior/effort under this alternative, as well the fact that interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species (with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any or all of these factors), we determined the level of 116

negative impacts to ESA listed species to be slight. Below, we provide support for this determination. As previously stated, under alternative 1A, fishing effort would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. As noted above, interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with amount, time, and location of gear in the water. These expected levels of fishing effort are not expected to change any of these operating conditions; therefore, alternative 1A is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these ESA-listed species. Given this and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 1A on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to slight negative, depending on the species. Overall Impacts Overall, alternative 1A is expected to have slight positive to slight negative impacts on protected species, with slight negative to slight positive impacts expected for non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight negative impacts expected for ESA-listed species. If the full commercial quota under alternative 1A were to be landed, these expected impacts on protected species would remain the same and the magnitude of impacts relative to the other alternatives would be the same; however overall catch would be increased. However as previously described, the commercial fishery has under harvested their quota since 2007 and it is not anticipated that commercial fishing effort would exceed status quo levels under this alternative due to market factors. As explained above, commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo under all scup alternatives (1A-1D), while different levels of reduction in effort would be expected in the recreational fishery. Therefore, differences in the magnitude of the impacts on protected species under each scup alternative are based on expected changes in fishing effort only in the recreational fishery. Compared to alternative 1C (least restrictive), alternative 1A is likely to result in decreased interaction risks to protected species given lower fishing effort under 1A compared to 1C. Relative to alternatives 1B (preferred) and 1D (most restrictive), effort under alternative 1A is expected to be higher and thus, relative to alternatives 1B and 1D , there this a greater likelihood of interactions with protected species under alternative 1A compared to alternatives 1B and 1D. 7.3.1.2. Impacts of Alternative 1B (Preferred Scup Catch and Landings Limits) on Protected Species Alternative 1B includes the preferred 2020 and 2021 scup commercial quotas of 22.23 million pounds and 18.06 million pounds and RHLs of 6.51 million pounds and 5.34 million pounds. As described in section 7.1.1, fishing effort under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. As described in more detail in section 7.1.1, this alternative could allow for an increase in commercial fishing effort compared to status quo levels; however, commercial fishing effort is expected to remain at status quo levels due to market factors. Protected species interactions with gear, regardless of listing status, is greatly influenced by the amount of gear and the duration of time gear is in the water; therefore, any decrease in either of these factors will reduce the potential for protected species interactions with gear and will reduce the potential for serious injury or

117

mortality to these species. Based on this, impacts to MMPA protected species (which are not also ESA-listed) and ESA listed species are considered below. MMPA (Non-ESA Listed) Species Impacts Aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of non- ESA listed marine mammals in commercial or recreational fisheries have gone beyond levels which would result in the inability of the populations to sustain themselves. Specifically, aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, the PBR level has not been exceeded for any of the non- ESA listed marine mammal species in the affected environment (section 6.3). Although several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that resulted in the exceedance of their PBR level, take reduction strategies and/or plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species. Taking into consideration the above information, and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, impacts of alternative 1B on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from slight negative to slight positive. As noted above, there are some bottlenose dolphin stocks experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore, the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously stated, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of listed species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. As commercial fishing effort under alternative 1B is expected to remain unchanged and recreational fishing effort is expected to decrease from current operating conditions, alternative 1B is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks in poor condition. Specifically, the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and overlap between listed species and fishery gear, in space and time, is expected to remain unchanged for the commercial fishery and decrease for the recreational fishery relative to current conditions. Given this information, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 1B is likely to result in slight negative impacts to non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks). Alternatively, there are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded) over the last several years. For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in levels of effort that result in interaction levels that are not expected to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these non-ESA listed marine mammal species/stocks. Should future fishery management actions maintain similar operating condition as they have over the past several years, it is expected that these slight positive impacts would remain. As provided above, alternative 1B is expected to result in status quo commercial fishing effort and a decrease in recreational fishing effort relative to the status quo. Given this, and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between non- ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition (e.g., pinnipeds and small cetaceans, except for bottlenose dolphins, have never been documented/observed in hook and line gear; minke whale 118

interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of alternative 1B on these non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are expected to be negligible to slight positive (i.e., continuation of current operating conditions is not expected to result in exceedance of any of these stocks/species PBR level). Based on this information, alternative 1B is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals. ESA Listed Species Impacts As provided in section 6.3, some ESA listed species are vulnerable to interactions with bottom trawl gear, and these interactions can result in injury or mortality. Based on this, the scup fishery is likely to result in some level of negative impacts to ESA listed species. Taking into consideration fishing behavior/effort under this alternative, as well the fact that interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species (with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any or all of these factors), we determined the level of negative impacts to ESA listed species to be slight. Below, we provide support for this determination. Fishing effort under alternative 1B would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. As noted above, interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with amount, time, and location of gear in the water. These expected levels of fishing effort are not expected to change any of these operating conditions; therefore, alternative 1B is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these ESA-listed species. Given this and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 1B on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to slight negative, depending on the species. Overall Impacts Overall, alternative 1B is expected to have slight positive to slight negative impacts on protected species, with slight negative to slight positive impacts likely for non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight negative impacts likely for ESA-listed species. If the full commercial quota under alternative 1B were to be landed, these expected impacts on protected species would remain the same and the magnitude of impacts relative to the other alternatives would be the same, however overall catch would be increased. However as previously described, the commercial fishery has under harvested their quota since 2007 and it is not anticipated that commercial fishing effort would exceed status quo levels under this alternative due to market factors. As described above, commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo under all scup alternatives (1A-1D), while different levels of reduction in effort would be expected in the recreational fishery. Therefore, differences in the magnitude of the impacts on protected species under each scup alternative are based on expected changes in fishing effort only in the recreational fishery. Compared to alternatives 1A (status quo) and 1C (least restrictive), alternative 1B is likely to result in a lower potential for interactions with protected species given lower expected fishing effort under alternative 1B compared to alternatives 1A and 1C. Relative to alternative 1D (most

119

restrictive), fishing effort under alternative 1B is expected to be higher and thus, relative to alternative 1D, alternative 1B has a higher potential for interactions with protected species. 7.3.1.3. Impacts of Alternative 1C (Least Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Protected Species Alternative 1C is the least restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% above the levels under the status quo alternative 1A. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 29.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 9.21 million pounds. As described in more detail in section 7.1.1, this alternative could allow for an increase in commercial fishing effort compared to status quo levels; however, commercial fishing effort is expected to remain at status quo levels due to market factors. Protected species interactions with gear, regardless of listing status, is greatly influenced by the amount of gear and the duration of time gear is in the water; therefore, any decrease in either of these factors will reduce the potential for protected species interactions with gear and will reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality to these species. Based on this, impacts to MMPA protected and ESA listed species are considered below. MMPA (Non-ESA Listed) Species Impacts Aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of non- ESA listed marine mammals in commercial fisheries have gone beyond levels which would result in the inability of the populations to sustain themselves. Specifically, aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, the PBR level has not been exceeded for any of the non-ESA listed marine mammal species in the affected environment (section 6.3). Although several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that resulted in the exceedance of their PBR level, take reduction strategies and/or plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species. Taking into consideration the above information, and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, the impacts of alternative 1C on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from slight negative to slight positive. As noted above, there are some bottlenose dolphin stocks experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore, the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously stated, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of listed species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. As commercial fishing effort under alternative 1C is expected to remain unchanged and recreational fishing effort is expected to decrease from current operating conditions, alternative 1C is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks in poor condition. Specifically, the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and overlap between listed species and fishery gear, in space and time, is expected to remain unchanged for the commercial fishery and decrease for the recreational fishery relative to current conditions. Given this information, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 1C is likely to result in slight negative impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks) due

120

to continued status quo levels of interactions with commercial fishing gear and continued, though potentially reduced, levels of interactions with recreational gear. Alternatively, there are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded) over the last several years. For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in levels of effort that result in interaction levels that are not expected to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these non-ESA listed marine mammal species/stocks. Should future fishery management actions maintain similar operating condition as they have over the past several years, it is expected that these slight positive impacts would remain. As provided above, alternative 1C is expected to result in status quo commercial fishing effort and a decrease in recreational fishing effort relative to recent levels. Given this, and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between non- ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition (e.g., pinnipeds and small cetaceans (except for bottlenose dolphins) have never been documented/observed in hook and line gear; minke whale interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of alternative 1C on these non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are expected to be negligible to slight positive (i.e., continuation of current operating conditions is not expected to result in exceedance of any of these stocks/species PBR level). Based on this information, alternative 1C is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals. ESA Listed Species Impacts As provided in section 6.3, ESA listed species of sea turtles, Atlantic sturgeon, and Atlantic salmon are vulnerable to interactions with bottom trawl gear, with interactions often resulting in the injury or mortality to the species. Based on this, the scup fishery is likely to result in some level of negative impacts to ESA listed species. Taking into consideration fishing behavior/effort under this alternative, as well the fact that interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species (with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any or all of these factors), we determined the level of negative impacts to ESA listed species to be slight. Below, we provide support for this determination. Fishing effort under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. As noted above, interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with amount, time, and location of gear in the water. These expected levels of fishing effort are not expected to change any of these operating conditions. Given this and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 1B on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to slight negative.

121

Overall Impacts Overall, alternative 1C is expected to have slight positive to slight negative impacts on protected species, with slight negative to slight positive impacts likely on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight negative impacts likely for ESA-listed species. If the full commercial quota under alternative 1C were to be caught, the expected slight negative impacts on protected species could increase to moderate negative impacts because overall catch would be increased, while the magnitude of impacts relative to the other alternatives would be the same. However as previously described, the commercial fishery has under harvested their quota since 2007 and it is not anticipated that commercial fishing effort would exceed status quo levels under this alternative due to market factors. As described above, commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo under all scup alternatives (1A-1D), while different levels of reduction in effort would be expected in the recreational fishery. Therefore, differences in the magnitude of the impacts on protected species under each scup alternative is based on expected changes in fishing effort only in the recreational fishery. Alternative 1C has the highest expected fishing effort, therefore, is has a higher potential for negative impacts to protected species compared to alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1D. 7.3.1.4. Impacts of Alternative 1D (Most Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Protected Species Alternative 1D is the most restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% below the levels under the preferred alternative 1B. The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 16.67 million pounds and the RHL would be 4.88 million pounds. As described in section 7.1.1, fishing effort under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. There is only an 8% difference between expected commercial landings and total allowable commercial landings under this alternative. Thus, the impacts of commercial fishing effort on protected species are not expected to differ whether the full commercial quota is landed or whether the lower expected amount is landed. Protected species interactions with gear, regardless of listing status, is greatly influenced by the amount of gear and the duration of time gear is in the water; therefore, any decrease in either of these factors will reduce the potential for protected species interactions with gear and will reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality to these species. Based on this, impacts to MMPA protected and ESA listed species are considered below. MMPA (Non-ESA Listed) Species Impacts Aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of non- ESA listed marine mammals in commercial fisheries have gone beyond levels which would result in the inability of the populations to sustain themselves. Specifically, aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, the PBR level has not been exceeded for any of the non-ESA listed marine mammal species in the affected environment (section 6.3). Although several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that resulted in the exceedance of their PBR level, take reduction strategies and/or plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species. Taking into consideration the above information, and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, 122

impacts of alternative 1D on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from slight negative to slight positive. As noted above, there are some bottlenose dolphin stocks experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore, the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously stated, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of listed species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. As commercial fishing effort under alternative 1D is expected to remain unchanged and recreational fishing effort is expected to decrease from current operating conditions, alternative 1D is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks in poor condition. Specifically, the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and overlap between listed species and fishery gear, in space and time, is expected to remain unchanged for the commercial fishery and decrease for the recreational fishery relative to current conditions. Given this information, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 1D is likely to result in slight negative impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks) due to continued status quo levels of interactions with commercial fishing gear and continued, though potentially reduced, levels of interactions with recreational gear. Alternatively, there are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded) over the last several years. For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in levels of effort that result in interaction levels that are not expected to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these non-ESA listed marine mammal species/stocks. Should future fishery management actions maintain similar operating condition as they have over the past several years, it is expected that these slight positive impacts would remain. As provided above, alternative 1D is expected to result in status quo commercial fishing effort and a decrease in recreational fishing effort relative to recent levels. Given this, and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between non- ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition (e.g., pinnipeds and small cetaceans, except for bottlenose dolphins, have never been documented/observed in hook and line gear; minke whale interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of alternative 1D on these non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are expected to be negligible to slight positive (i.e., continuation of current operating conditions is not expected to result in exceedance of any of these stocks/species PBR level). Based on this information, alternative 1D is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals. ESA Listed Species Impacts As provided in section 6.3, ESA listed species of sea turtles, Atlantic sturgeon, and Atlantic salmon are vulnerable to interactions with bottom trawl gear, with interactions often resulting in the injury or mortality to the species. Based on this, the scup fishery is likely to result in some level of negative impacts to ESA listed species. Taking into consideration fishing behavior/effort under this alternative, as well the fact that interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated 123 with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species (with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any or all of these factors), we determined the level of negative impacts to ESA listed species to be slight. Below, we provide support for this determination. Alternative 1D would result in no changes to the commercial quotas and RHLs compared 2019. Fishing effort under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. As noted above, interaction risks with protected species are strongly associated with amount, time, and location of gear in the water. These expected levels of fishing effort are not expected to change any of these operating conditions. Given this and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; see section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 1D on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to slight negative. Overall Impacts Overall, alternative 1D is expected to have slight positive to slight negative impacts on protected species, with slight negative to slight positive impacts likely on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight negative impacts likely for ESA-listed species. As described above, commercial fishing effort would be expected to remain status quo under all scup alternatives (1A-1D), while different levels of reduction in effort would be expected in the recreational fishery. Therefore, differences in the magnitude of the impacts on protected species under each scup alternative is based on expected changes in fishing effort only in the recreational fishery. Relative to alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C, alternative 1D is expected to result in the least negative impacts to protected species due to the least amount of fishing effort and resulting potential for interactions expected among the alternatives. 7.3.2. Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Protected Species The following sections describe the expected impacts of alternatives 2A-2D on protected species. 7.3.2.1. Impacts of Alternative 2A (Status Quo Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Protected Species Under alternative 2A, the 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota would be 3.52 million pounds and the RHL would be 3.66 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019, resulting in constant landings limits across the four years. As previously stated, under all black sea bass alternatives, it is assumed that landings in each sector would be constrained to the full allowable amount. Therefore, it is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort. Although the recreational fishery would also be managed with a status quo landings limit, this would require a reduction in harvest to prevent an RHL overage. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds, more than double the RHL under this alternative. Alternative

124

2A would therefore be expected to result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and a moderate reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent levels. Impacts to MMPA-Protected Species (Not ESA Listed) The impacts of this alternative on non-ESA listed marine mammals vary by species, as described below. Aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of non- ESA listed marine mammals in commercial or recreational fisheries have gone beyond levels which would result in the inability of the populations to sustain themselves. More specifically, with the exception of several bottlenose dolphin stocks, PBR levels have not been exceeded for any of the non-ESA listed marine mammal species in the affected environment (section 6.3). Although several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that resulted in the exceedance of their PBR level, take reduction strategies and/or plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species. Taking into consideration the above information and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, the impacts of alternative 2A on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from slight negative to slight positive, depending on the species/stock. Some bottlenose dolphin stocks are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously noted, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of protected species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. Given the status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and reduced recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative, alternative 2A is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to these non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks in poor condition. Specifically, the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and overlap between protected species and fishery gear, in space and time, is expected to remain unchanged for the commercial fishery and decrease for the recreational fishery relative to current conditions. Given this, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 2A is likely to result in slight negative impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks). Alternatively, there are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level over the last several years (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded). For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in levels of effort that result in interaction levels that are not expected to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these non-ESA listed marine mammal species/stocks. Should future fishery management actions maintain similar operating condition as they have over the past several years, it is expected that these slight positive impacts would remain. As provided above, alternative 2A is expected to result in status quo commercial fishing effort and a decrease in recreational fishing effort relative to recent levels. Given this, and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between non- 125

ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition (e.g., pinnipeds and small cetaceans except for bottlenose dolphins have never been documented/observed in hook and line gear; minke whale interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare; section 6.3.3), the impacts of alternative 2A on these non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are expected to be negligible to slight positive, depending on the species (i.e., continuation of current operating conditions is not expected to result in exceedance of any of these stocks/species PBR level). Based on this information, alternative 2A is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals, depending on the species. Impacts to ESA-Listed Species As previously stated, any interactions with ESA-listed species, even under status quo or reduced levels of fishing effort, are considered to have some level of negative impacts to these species. As noted above, interaction risks to protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species. Fishing effort under alternative 2A is expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and decrease for the recreational fishery. Given this, alternative 2A is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to any ESA listed species. Based on this information, and information provided in section 6.3, specifically the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; fixed gear poses the greatest entanglement risk to large whales; section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 2A on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to moderate negative, depending on the species. Overall Impacts In summary, alternative 2A is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non- ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to moderate negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species. The expected levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under alternative 2A, and thus the potential for interactions with protected species, are lower than under alternatives 2B (preferred) and 2C (least restrictive) but higher than under alternative 2D (most restrictive). As such, alternative 2A has a lesser potential for negative impacts to protected species than alternatives 2B and 2C and a higher potential for negative impacts to protected species than alternative 2D. 7.3.2.2. Impacts of Alternative 2B (Preferred Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) on Protected Species Alternative 2B includes the preferred 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota of 5.58 million pounds and RHL of 5.81 million pounds. These landings limits represent an increase of 59% compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., 3.52 million pounds in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 59% increase in the commercial quota could lead to an increase in commercial fishing effort. It is expected that commercial fishermen would take more and longer trips to target black sea bass under this higher quota. The commercial black

126

sea bass fishery is a limited access fishery; therefore, new participants will not be able to enter the fishery in response to this increase in quota. Dealer and VTR data from 2009-2018 suggest that in years with higher quotas, bottom trawl gear accounted for a higher proportion of total commercial landings and pots/traps accounted for a lesser proportion of total commercial landings compared to years with lower quotas. For example, the lowest quotas during 2009-2018 occurred during 2009-2012. During those years, bottom trawl gear accounted for around 38-44% of total commercial black sea bass landings and pots/traps accounted for about 33-39%. In comparison, the highest quotas during those years occurred during 2016-2018 when around 52-61% of total commercial black sea bass landings could be attributed to bottom trawl gear and around 21-26% to pot/trap gear. Fishermen have said that trawlers are better able to take advantage of increases in quota as they can land higher volumes than vessels using pot/trap gear. This can be especially beneficial when the price of black sea bass drops (usually temporarily) in response to sudden increases of fish on the market. For this reason, it is expected that a 59% increase in the commercial quota under this alternative could lead to an increase in fishing effort for all components of the commercial black sea bass fishery; however, fishing effort with trawl gear may increase to a greater extent than fishing effort with pot/trap gear. Conversely, although the RHL would also increase by 59%, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would require a reduction in recreational fishing effort to prevent an RHL overage. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was 7.92 million pounds, 36% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Thus, this alternative would be expected to result in a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and a moderate reduction in recreational fishing effort, compared to recent levels. Impacts to MMPA-Protected Species (Not ESA Listed) Taking into consideration the above information and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, the impacts of alternative 2B on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from moderate negative to slight positive, depending on the species/stock. Some bottlenose dolphin stocks are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously noted, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of protected species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. As previously stated, commercial effort under alternative 2B is expected to moderately increase but recreational effort is likely to be moderately reduced. Therefore, new or elevated interaction risks with recreational fishing are not expected; however, this same conclusion cannot be made for the commercial fishery. As the commercial fishery is predominately prosecuted with bottom trawl and pot/trap gear, and bottlenose dolphin stocks have been observed/documented seriously injured or killed in these gear types, any increase in commercial fishing effort with these gear types has the potential to result in increased interactions with these species. Specifically, should the increase in effort result in an increase in the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and/or overlap between protected species and fishery gear, in space and 127

time, interactions have the potential to increase. Based on this information, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 2B is likely to result in slight to moderate negative impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks). For non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded), recent fishery interaction levels have not appeared to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these marine mammal species/stocks. Alternative 2B would be expected to result in moderately reduced recreational fishing effort, but moderately increased commercial effort relative to current conditions. As commercial effort has the potential to increase under alternative 2B, interactions with marine mammals could increase compared to status quo conditions. It is difficult to predict how a moderate increase in commercial black sea bass fishing effort would impact interaction rates. It is possible that increases in interactions for some species may occur that could impair these marine mammal stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level (i.e., takes could exceed PBR levels), but it is also possible that the effort increase under this alternative would not impact the ability of some stocks/species to remain at optimum sustainable levels (i.e., takes may remain below PBR levels). Based on this, the outcomes of alternative 2B on MMPA protected species in good condition are uncertain; however, given that management measures under alternative 2B will not maintain similar operating condition in the fishery as they have over the past several years (e.g., potential for a moderate increase in the total number of tows or the duration of time gear is set), we cannot say with confidence that the indirect positive impacts afforded under status quo conditions will remain under this alternative. Given this, the impacts of alternative 2B on non-ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition are likely to range from slight negative (if PBR levels are approached or exceeded) to slight positive (if PBR levels are not exceeded), depending on the species and the actual increase in interaction rates, which as previously stated is uncertain. Impacts to ESA-Listed Species As previously stated, any interactions with ESA-listed species are considered to have negative impacts to these species. As noted above, interaction risks to protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species. As previously stated, fishing effort under alternative 2B is expected to moderately increase for the commercial fishery and moderately decrease for the recreational fishery compared to current conditions. Based on this information, and information provided in section 6.3, specifically the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; fixed gear poses the greatest entanglement risk to large whales; section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 2B on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to high moderate negative (i.e., more negative than moderate negative but less negative than high negative), depending on the species due to the expected moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and continued recreational fishing effort, though at reduced levels. Overall Impacts In summary, alternative 2B is expected to have moderate negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed marine mammals, depending on the species/stock and whether its PBR level is 128

exceeded as a result of the expected increase in fishing effort, which is uncertain. Alternative 2B is expected to have negligible to high moderate negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species. The expected levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under alternative 2B, and thus the potential for interactions with protected species, are lower than under alternative 2C (least restrictive) but higher than under alternatives 2A (status quo) and 2D (most restrictive). As such, alternative 2B has a higher potential for negative impacts to protected species than alternatives 2A and 2D, but a lower potential for negative impacts than alternative 2C. 7.3.2.3. Impacts of Alternative 2C (Least Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Protected Species Alternative 2C includes the least restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 6.98 and 7.26 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 98% increase compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42); therefore, it is assumed that a near doubling of the commercial quota would lead to a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort. Given high availability of black sea bass, a large increase in fishing effort would likely not be necessary to harvest the full quota under this alternative. This increase in effort would be greater in magnitude than under alternative 2B; however, it would still be considered moderate as opposed to high due to the high availability of black sea bass. It is expected that commercial fishermen would take more and longer trips to target black sea bass under this higher quota. The commercial black sea bass fishery is a limited access fishery; therefore, new participants will not be able to enter the fishery in response to this increase in quota. Dealer and VTR data from 2009-2018 suggest that in years with higher quotas, bottom trawl gear accounted for a higher proportion of total commercial landings and pots/traps accounted for a lesser proportion of total commercial landings compared to years with lower quotas. For example, the lowest quotas during 2009-2018 occurred during 2009-2012. During those years, bottom trawl gear accounted for around 38-44% of total commercial black sea bass landings and pots/traps accounted for about 33-39%. In comparison, the highest quotas during those years occurred during 2016-2018 when around 52-61% of total commercial black sea bass landings could be attributed to bottom trawl gear and around 21-26% to pot/trap gear. Fishermen have said that trawlers are better able to take advantage of increases in quota as they can land higher volumes than vessels using pot/trap gear. This can be especially beneficial when the price of black sea bass drops (usually temporarily) in response to sudden increases of fish on the market. For this reason, it is expected that a 59% increase in the commercial quota under this alternative could lead to an increase in fishing effort for all components of the commercial black sea bass fishery; however, fishing effort with trawl gear may increase to a greater extent than fishing effort with pot/trap gear. Conversely, although the RHL would also nearly double, this would not allow for an increase in recreational harvest. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 9% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative could require slightly reduced levels of recreational fishing effort compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. Alternatively, based on annual decisions about expected harvest in the upcoming year, it is possible that this RHL could allow for no changes in management 129

measures (i.e., bag, size, and season limits) and recreational fishing effort could remain similar to recent levels without exceeding the RHL. As previously stated, this document does not consider recreational management measures for 2020-2021. Any changes to those measures would be made through a separate action. In summary, this alternative would be expected to result in a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and status quo to slightly reduced levels of in recreational fishing effort. Impacts to MMPA-Protected Species (Not ESA Listed) Taking into consideration the above information and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, the impacts of alternative 2C on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from high (but not significant) negative to slight positive, depending on the species/stock. Some bottlenose dolphin stocks are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously noted, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of protected species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. As previously stated, commercial effort under alternative 2C is expected to moderately increase but recreational effort is likely to remain unchanged or be slightly reduced. Therefore, new or elevated interaction risks with recreational fishing are not expected; however, this same conclusion cannot be made for the commercial fishery. As the commercial fishery is predominately prosecuted with bottom trawl and pot/trap gear, and bottlenose dolphin stocks have been observed/documented seriously injured or killed in these gear types, any increase in commercial fishing effort with these gear types has the potential to result in increased interactions with these species. Specifically, should the increase in effort result in an increase in the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and/or overlap between protected species and fishery gear, in space and time, interactions have the potential to increase. Based on this information, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 2C is likely to result in moderate to high negative (but not significant) impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks). For non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded), recent fishery interaction levels have not appeared to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these marine mammal species/stocks. Alternative 2C would be expected to result in status quo or slightly reduced levels of recreational fishing effort, but moderately increased commercial effort relative to current conditions. As commercial effort has the potential to increase under alternative 2C, interactions with marine mammals could increase compared to status quo conditions. It is difficult to predict how a moderate increase in fishing effort would impact interaction rates. It is possible that increases in interactions for some species may occur that could impair these marine mammal stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level (i.e., takes may exceed PBR levels), but it is also possible that the effort increase under this alternative would not impact the ability of some stocks/species to remain at optimum sustainable 130

levels (i.e., takes may remain below PBR levels). Based on this, the outcomes of alternative 2C on MMPA protected species in good condition are uncertain; however, given that management measures under alternative 2C will not maintain similar operating condition in the fishery as they have over the past several years (e.g., potential for a moderate increase in the total number of tows or the duration of time gear is set), we cannot say with confidence that the indirect positive impacts afforded under status quo conditions will remain under this alternative. Given this, the impacts of alternative 2C on non-ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition are likely to range from slight moderate negative (if PBR levels are reached or exceeded) to slight positive (if PBR levels are not exceeded), depending on the species and the actual change in interactions, which as previously stated, is uncertain. Impacts to ESA-Listed Species As previously stated, any interactions with ESA-listed species are considered to have negative impacts to these species. As noted above, interaction risks to protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species. As previously stated, fishing effort under alternative 2C is expected to moderately increase for the commercial fishery and slightly decrease or remain unchanged for the recreational fishery compared to current conditions. Based on this information, and information provided in section 6.3, specifically the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; fixed gear poses the greatest entanglement risk to large whales; section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 2C on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to high negative (but not significant), depending on the species due to the expected moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and status quo or slightly reduced levels of recreational fishing effort. Overall Impacts In summary, alternative 2C is expected to have high (but not significant) negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to high (but not significant) negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species and the scale of the actual increase in interactions, which is uncertain. Alternative 2C is expected to result in greater negative impacts to protected species than any of the other black sea bass alternatives considered in this document (i.e., alternatives 2A-2D), as this alternative is associated with the greatest potential increase in fishing effort. 7.3.2.4. Impacts of Alternative 2D (Most Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) on Protected Species Alternative 2D includes the most restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 2.64 and 2.74 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 25% decrease compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 25% reduction in the commercial quota would lead to a moderate reduction in commercial fishing effort. A much greater reduction in recreational fishing effort

131 would be needed to prevent an RHL overage. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 189% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would require a notable reduction in recreational fishing effort compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. Impacts to MMPA-Protected Species (Not ESA Listed) The impacts of this alternative on non-ESA listed marine mammals vary by species, as described below. Aside from several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of non- ESA listed marine mammals in commercial or recreational fisheries have gone beyond levels which would result in the inability of the populations to sustain themselves. More specifically, with the exception of several bottlenose dolphin stocks, PBR levels have not been exceeded for any of the non-ESA listed marine mammal species in the affected environment (section 6.3). Although several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that resulted in the exceedance of their PBR level, take reduction strategies and/or plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species. Taking into consideration the above information and the fact that there are non-listed marine mammal stocks/species whose populations may or may not be at optimum sustainable levels, the impacts of alternative 2D on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are likely to range from slight negative to slight positive, depending on the species/stock. Some bottlenose dolphin stocks are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore the continued existence of these stocks/species is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to the species/stocks ability to recover from this condition. As previously noted, the risk of an interaction is strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, the time the gear is in the water (e.g., tow time), and the presence of protected species in the same area and time as the gear, with risk of an interaction increasing with increases in of any of these factors. Given the reduced commercial and recreational fishing effort expected under this alternative, the amount of gear in the water, soak or tow times, and overlap between protected species and fishery gear, in space and time, is expected to decrease relative to current conditions. However, interactions would still be expected to occur, even at reduced levels. Given this, and the information provided in section 6.3.3, alternative 2D is likely to result in slight negative impacts to non-listed marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., bottlenose dolphin stocks). Alternatively, there are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level over the last several years (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded). For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in levels of effort that result in interaction levels that are not expected to impair the stocks/species ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. These fishery management measures, therefore, have resulted in indirect slight positive impacts to these non-ESA listed marine mammal species/stocks. Should future fishery management actions maintain similar operating condition as they have over the past several years, it is expected that these slight positive impacts would remain. As provided above, alternative 2D is expected to result in a decrease in commercial and recreational fishing effort relative to recent levels. Given this, and the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types 132

used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between non-ESA listed marine mammal species in good condition (e.g., pinnipeds and small cetaceans except for bottlenose dolphins have never been documented/observed in hook and line gear; minke whale interactions with bottom trawl gear are expected to be rare; section 6.3.3), the impacts of alternative 2D on these non-ESA listed species of marine mammals are expected to be negligible to slight positive, depending on the species (i.e., the expected levels of fishing effort are not expected to result in exceedance of any of these stocks/species PBR level). Based on this information, alternative 2D is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals, depending on the species. Impacts to ESA-Listed Species As previously stated, any interactions with ESA-listed species, even under reduced levels of fishing effort, as expected under this alternative, are considered to have some level of negative impacts to these species. As noted above, interaction risks to protected species are strongly associated with the amount of gear in the water, gear soak or tow time, as well as the area of overlap, either in space or time, of the gear and a protected species. Fishing effort under alternative 2D is expected to decrease for the commercial and recreational fisheries. Given this, alternative 2D is not expected to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to any ESA listed species. Based on this information, and information provided in section 6.3, specifically the fact that the potential risk of interacting with gear types used in the commercial and recreational fishery varies between ESA listed species (e.g., listed species of large whales have never been documented/observed in bottom trawl gear; fixed gear poses the greatest entanglement risk to large whales; section 6.3.3), the impacts of Alternative 2D on ESA listed species is expected to be negligible to slight moderate negative (i.e., less negative than moderate negative, but more negative than slight negative), depending on the species. Overall Impacts In summary, alternative 2D is expected to have slight negative to slight positive impacts on non- ESA listed marine mammals and negligible to slight moderate negative impacts on ESA-listed species, depending on the species. Of all the black sea bass alternatives considered in this document (i.e., alternatives 2A-2D), alternative 2D has the lowest potential for negative impacts to protected species as it is associated with the lowest expected commercial and recreational fishing effort. 7.4. Socioeconomic Impacts of the Alternatives The following sections describe the expected socioeconomic impacts of each alternative. The impacts are based on expected changes in commercial revenues, for-hire revenues, fishing opportunities, efficiency of fishing operations, and angler satisfaction. 7.4.1. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Set 1 (Scup Catch and Landings Limits) The following sections describe the expected socioeconomic impacts of alternatives 1A-1D.

133

7.4.1.1. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 1A (Status Quo Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) Under alternative 1A, the 2020-2021 scup commercial quota would be 23.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 7.37 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019. As described in section 7.1.1, landings under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. It is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial landings and thus status quo levels of commercial revenues, assuming prices, market demand, and other factors affecting revenues remain unchanged. As described in section 6.4.1, the commercial scup fishery has many participating dealers and fishermen across the region. By allowing for continued status quo levels of commercial revenues, this alternative is expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery. As described in section 7.1.1, the potential for higher commercial landings under this alternative would likely not lead to a change in stock status and thus no change in availability would be expected. Under this alternative there would be no increase in opportunity compared with the current status quo, however market conditions could change in 2020 and 2021 which could lead to increased commercial harvest. Harvesting the expected status quo landings or harvesting the full commercial quota under this alternative would both be expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the fishery. Although the recreational fishery would also be managed with a status quo landings limit under this alternative, this would require a reduction in harvest to prevent an RHL overage. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, a reduction in recreational harvest would be required to prevent an overage of a status quo RHL. Alternative 1A would therefore be expected to result in reduced recreational harvest of scup, reduced party/charter trips targeting scup, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. This would be expected to result in moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. As described in the introduction to section 7, commercial landings are expected to be the same under all scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A-1D); however, recreational harvest is expected to vary across all scup alternatives. Therefore, the socioeconomic impacts of the scup alternatives differ only in their expected impacts to the recreational fishery. Because recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be lower under this alternative than under alternative 1C (least restrictive), the magnitude of the negative impacts to the recreational fishery are expected to be greater in magnitude than under alternative 1C. This alternative would allow for higher recreational landings than alternatives 1B (preferred) and 1D (most restrictive); thus, it is expected to have lesser negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery compared to alternatives 1B and 1D.

134

7.4.1.2. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 1B (Preferred Scup Catch and Landings Limits) Alternative 1B includes the preferred 2020 and 2021 scup commercial quotas of 22.23 million pounds and 18.06 million pounds and RHLs of 6.51 million pounds and 5.34 million pounds. As described in section 7.1.1, landings under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. It is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial landings and thus status quo levels of commercial revenues, assuming prices, market demand, and other factors affecting revenues remain unchanged. As described in section 6.4.1, the commercial scup fishery has many participating dealers and fishermen across the region. By allowing for continued status quo levels of commercial revenues, this alternative is expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery. Although commercial landings are expected to be below the commercial quota, the decreased quotas under this alternative compared to the status quo would represent a decrease in opportunity compared with current conditions. This decrease in the total allowable commercial landings could be considered a slight negative socioeconomic impact if market conditions change in 2020 and 2021 which could lead to increased commercial harvest. However, harvesting the expected status quo landings or harvesting the full commercial quota under this alternative would both be expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the fishery. Due to the expected reduction in recreational scup harvest, alternative 1B would be expected to result in reduced party/charter trips targeting scup, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. This would be expected to result in moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery that are equivalent across the scup alternatives (1A-1D) and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Commercial landings are expected to be identical across all scup alternatives; therefore, the socioeconomic impacts of the scup alternatives differ only in their expected impacts to the recreational fishery. Because recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be lower under this alternative than under alternatives 1A (status quo) and 1C (least restrictive), the magnitude of the negative impacts to the recreational fishery are expected to be greater in magnitude than under alternatives 1A and 1C. This alternative would allow for higher recreational landings than alternative 1D (most restrictive); thus, it is expected to have lesser negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery compared to alternative 1D. 7.4.1.3. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 1C (Least Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) Alternative 1C is the least restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% above the levels under the status quo alternative (alternative 1A). The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 29.98 million pounds and the RHL would be 9.21 million pounds. As described in section 7.1.1, landings under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. It is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial landings and thus status quo levels of commercial

135 revenues, assuming prices, market demand, and other factors affecting revenues remain unchanged. As described in section 6.4.1, the commercial scup fishery has many participating dealers and fishermen across the region. By allowing for continued status quo levels of commercial revenues, this alternative is expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery. Although commercial landings are expected to be below the commercial quota, the quotas under this alternative would represent an increase in opportunity compared with current conditions. Market conditions could change in 2020 and 2021 which could lead to increased commercial harvest. Harvesting the expected status quo landings or harvesting the full commercial quota under this alternative would both be expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the fishery, though the magnitude of these moderate positive impacts would be greater if the full commercial quota were to be landed compared to the lower expected amount. Due to the expected reduction in recreational scup harvest, alternative 1C would be expected to result in reduced party/charter trips targeting scup, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. This would be expected to result in moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery that are equivalent across the scup alternatives (1A-1D) and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Commercial landings are expected to be identical across all scup alternatives; therefore, the socioeconomic impacts of the scup alternatives differ only in their expected impacts to the recreational fishery. Because recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be higher under this alternative than under all other scup alternatives, the magnitude of the negative impacts to the recreational fishery are expected to be lesser in magnitude than under alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1D. 7.4.1.4. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 1D (Most Restrictive Scup Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) Alternative 1D is the most restrictive alternative for scup 2020-2021 specifications and reflects a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% below the levels under the preferred alternative (alternative 1B). The 2020-2021 commercial quota under this alternative would be 16.67 million pounds and the RHL would be 4.88 million pounds. As described in section 7.1.1, landings under this alternative would be expected to remain at status quo levels for the commercial fishery and undergo a moderate reduction in the recreational fishery. It is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial landings and thus status quo levels of commercial revenues, assuming prices, market demand, and other factors affecting revenues remain unchanged. As described in section 6.4.1, the commercial scup fishery has many participating dealers and fishermen across the region. By allowing for continued status quo levels of commercial revenues, this alternative is expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery. Although commercial landings are expected to be below the commercial quota under this alternative, the quotas under this alternative would represent a decrease in opportunity compared with current conditions. Market conditions could change in 2020 and 2021 which could lead to commercial harvest of the full allowable quota, which is 8% higher than the expected harvest, but

136

lower than the status quo quota. Harvesting the expected status quo landings or harvesting the full commercial quota under this alternative would both be expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the fishery , though the magnitude of these moderate positive impacts would be greater if the full commercial quota were to be landed compared to the lower expected amount. Due to the expected reduction in recreational scup harvest, alternative 1D would be expected to result in reduced party/charter trips targeting scup, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. This would be expected to result in moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery that are equivalent across the scup alternatives (1A-1D) and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Commercial landings are expected to be identical across all scup alternatives; therefore, the socioeconomic impacts of the scup alternatives differ only in their expected impacts to the recreational fishery. Because recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be lower under this alternative than under alternatives 1A (status quo), 1B (preferred), and 1C (least restrictive), the magnitude of the negative impacts to the recreational fishery are expected to be greater in magnitude than under alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 7.4.2. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Set 2 (Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) The following sections describe the expected socioeconomic impacts of alternatives 2A-2D. 7.4.2.1. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 2A (Status Quo Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) Under alternative 2A, the 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota would be 3.52 million pounds and the RHL would be 3.66 million pounds, identical to the landings limits implemented for 2018 and 2019, resulting in constant landings limits across the four years. As previously stated, under all black sea bass alternatives, it is assumed that landings in each sector would be constrained to the full allowable amount. It is assumed that this alternative would result in status quo levels of commercial landings and thus status quo levels of commercial revenues, assuming prices, market demand, and other factors affecting revenues remain unchanged. As described in section 6.4.2, the commercial black sea bass fishery is a valuable fishery with many participating dealers and fishermen across the region. By allowing for continued status quo levels of commercial revenues, this alternative is expected to have continued moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery. Although the recreational fishery would also be managed with a status quo landings limit under this alternative, this would require a reduction in harvest to prevent an RHL overage. 2020 is the first year that the new MRIP estimates will be fully incorporated into management. As previously stated, the revised recreational harvest estimates are much higher than the previous estimates and are also much higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds, more than double the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, a reduction in recreational harvest would be required to prevent an overage of a status quo RHL. Alternative 2A

137

would therefore be expected to result in reduced recreational harvest of black sea bass, reduced party/charter trips targeting black sea bass, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. This would be expected to result in moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Because commercial and recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be lower under this alternative than under alternatives 2B (preferred) and 2C (least restrictive), the positive impacts to the commercial fishery are expected to be lesser in magnitude than under alternatives 2B and 2C and the magnitude of the negative impacts to the recreational fishery are expected to be greater in magnitude than under alternatives 2B and 2C. This alternative would allow for higher commercial and recreational landings than alternative 2D (most restrictive); thus, it is expected to have greater positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and lesser negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery compared to alternative 2D. 7.4.2.2. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 2B (Preferred Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits) Alternative 2B includes the preferred 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota of 5.58 million pounds and RHL of 5.81 million pounds. These landings limits represent an increase of 59% compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, a 59% increase in the commercial quota could lead to a comparable increase in commercial landings. As described in section 6.4.2, the commercial black sea bass fishery is a valuable fishery with many participating dealers and fishermen across the region. A 59% increase in total allowable commercial landings could therefore have notable socioeconomic benefits; however, this may translate into a less than 59% increase in commercial revenues if the increase in landings results in a decrease in price. Any change to the 2020 commercial quota, compared to the interim quota currently in place (i.e., 3.52 million pounds), would occur mid-year in 2020. In 2017, the black sea bass commercial quota increased by 54% mid-year (82 Federal Register 24078, May 25, 2017). Advisors have noted that this resulted in a quick increase in the amount of black sea bass on the market, which cause the price to drop. This price drop is clearly visible in the average price data shown in Figure 14. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that a similar drop in price may occur if the preferred commercial quota is implemented mid-year in 2020. This could offset some of the socioeconomic benefits of this alternative if, for example, fishermen must catch more fish to compensate for the drop in price. However, a comparison of average price per pound and landings, as well as input from fishermen and dealers, suggests that any price drops due to increases in landings are temporary and that the price usually increases again. The average black sea bass price per pound has been generally increasing for at least the past 10 years (Figure 16 and Figure 17). For these reasons, this alternative is expected to have moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery compared to recent conditions. Although the RHL would also increase by 59%, estimated recreational harvest under the revised MRIP data is notably higher than the RHL under this alternative. For example, recreational harvest 138 in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds, 36% higher than the RHL under this alternative. This alternative would require a reduction in recreational harvest compared to recent levels to prevent harvest an RHL overage. This would be expected to result in reduced recreational harvest of black sea bass, reduced party/charter trips targeting black sea bass, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. This would be expected to result in moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Because commercial and recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be lower under this alternative than under alternative 2C (least restrictive), the positive impacts to the commercial fishery are expected to be lesser in magnitude than under alternative 2C and the magnitude of the negative impacts to the recreational fishery are expected to be greater in magnitude than under alternative 2C. This alternative would allow for higher commercial and recreational landings than alternatives 2A (status quo) and 2D (most restrictive); thus, it is expected to have greater positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and lesser negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery compared to alternatives 2A and 2D.

3.80 2018 3.60 2019 2016 3.40 2017 2015 3.20 2014 2013 3.00 2012 2011 vessel price pound price per vessel - 2.80 y = 4E-07x + 2.2683 R² = 0.816

($, adjusted 2018 values) adjusted ($, to 2.60 2010 Avg. ex Avg. 2.40 1 2 3 4 5 Landings (mil. lb) Figure 16: Average annual ex-vessel price per pound for black sea bass compared to annual black sea bass commercial landings from Maine through North Carolina, 2010-2019, with associated linear relationship. Prices for 2010-2017 are adjusted to 2018 values based on the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator. 2019 values are not adjusted. Data source: dealer data (CFDERS).

139

3.80

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00 vessel price pound price per vessel

- 2.80

y = 0.1025x - 203.33 ($, adjusted 2018 values) adjusted ($, to 2.60

Avg. ex Avg. R² = 0.8731 2.40 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Figure 17: Average annual ex-vessel price per pound for black sea bass from Maine through North Carolina, by year, 2010-2019, with associated linear relationship. Prices for 2010-2017 are adjusted to 2018 values based on the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator. 2019 values are not adjusted. Data source: dealer data (CFDERS).

7.4.2.3. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 2C (Least Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) Alternative 2C includes the least restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 6.98 and 7.26 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 98% increase compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a near doubling of the commercial quota could lead to a comparable increase in commercial landings. This potential increase in landings is great enough that it may result in a decrease in price; therefore, it is unlikely that a near doubling in allowable commercial landings would lead to a doubling of commercial revenues. Any change to the 2020 commercial quota, compared to the interim quota currently in place (i.e., 3.52 million pounds), would occur mid-year in 2020. In 2017, the black sea bass commercial quota increased by 54% mid-year (82 Federal Register 24078, May 25, 2017). Advisors noted that this resulted in a quick increase in the amount of black sea bass on the market, which cause the price to drop. This price drop is clearly visible in the average price data shown in Figure 14. A similar price drop could occur under alternative 2C. This could offset some of the socioeconomic benefits of this alternative if, for example, fishermen must catch more fish to compensate for the drop in price. However, a comparison of average price per pound and landings, as well as input from fishermen and dealers, suggests that any price drops due to increases in landings are temporary and that the price usually increases again. The average black sea bass price per pound has been generally increasing for at least the past 10 years (Figure 16 and Figure 17). For these reasons, this alternative

140

is expected to have moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery compared to recent conditions. Conversely, although the RHL would also nearly double, this would not allow for an increase in recreational harvest. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 9% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative could require slightly reduced levels of recreational fishing harvest compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. If this alternative requires changes to the recreational management measures (e.g., possession limits, minimum fish sizes, and open/closed seasons) to restrict harvest, then this alternative could have slight negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery due to a slight reduction in fishing opportunities and angler satisfaction, and potentially also a slight reduction in party/charter revenues. If this alternative allows for the use of status quo management measures, then this alternative could have slight positive socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery by allowing for continued status quo levels of recreational harvest, fishing opportunities, party/charter revenues, and angler satisfaction. In recent years, status quo management measures have been justified despite the previous year’s harvest exceeding the upcoming year’s RHL due to considerations such as uncertainty in the MRIP data and expected changes in availability due to varying year class strengths. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and slight negative to slight positive socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Commercial and recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be higher under this alternative than under all other black sea bass alternatives considered in this document (i.e., alternatives 2A-2D); therefore, this alternative has the highest potential for positive socioeconomic impacts to the commercial fishery and the lowest potential for negative socioeconomic impacts to the recreational fishery. 7.4.2.4. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 2D (Most Restrictive Black Sea Bass Catch and Landings Limits; Non-Preferred) Alternative 2D includes the most restrictive 2020-2021 black sea bass commercial quota and RHL considered in this document (i.e., 2.64 and 2.74 million pounds, respectively). These landings limits represent a 25% decrease compared to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (i.e., a 3.52 million pound commercial quota and 3.66 million pound RHL in both years). As previously stated, commercial black sea bass landings have closely followed the quota for many years (e.g., Table 42), therefore, it is assumed that a 25% reduction in the commercial quota would lead to a comparable reduction in commercial landings. This would be expected to result in a decrease in commercial revenues, compared to recent years. As such, this alternative could have slight to moderate negative impacts for the commercial fishery. A much greater reduction in recreational harvest would be needed to prevent an RHL overage. For example, recreational harvest in 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) was estimated at 7.92 million pounds under the revised MRIP methodology, 189% higher than the RHL under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would require a notable reduction in recreational harvest compared to recent years (e.g., Table 42) to prevent an RHL overage. This would be expected to result in reduced recreational harvest of black sea bass, reduced

141

party/charter trips targeting black sea bass, reduced party/charter revenues, and reduced angler satisfaction compared to recent levels. Due to the likely scale of the needed decrease, this would be expected to result in high to moderate negative impacts for the recreational fishery. In summary, this alternative is expected to result in slight to moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fishery and moderate to high negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fishery. Commercial and recreational landings (and thus revenues, fishing opportunities, and angler satisfaction) are expected to be lower under this alternative than under all other black sea bass alternatives considered in this document (i.e., alternatives 2A-2D); therefore, this alternative has the highest potential for negative impacts for the commercial and recreational fisheries. 7.5. Cumulative Effects Analysis A cumulative effects analysis is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1508.7). The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis is to consider the combined effects of many actions on the human environment over time that would be missed if each action were evaluated separately. Council on Environmental Quality guidelines recognize that it is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action from every conceivable perspective. Rather, the intent is to focus on those effects that are truly meaningful. The following remarks address the significance of the expected cumulative impacts as they relate to the federally managed scup and black sea bass fisheries. 7.5.1. Consideration of the VECs The following sections discuss the significance of the cumulative effects on the following VECs: • Scup, black sea bass, and non-target species • Physical environment and EFH • Protected species • Human communities 7.5.2. Geographic Boundaries The analysis of impacts focuses on actions related to the commercial and recreational harvest of scup and black sea bass. The Western Atlantic Ocean is the core geographic scope for each of the VECs. The core geographic scopes for the managed species is the management units for scup and black sea bass described in section 6.1. For non-target species, those ranges may be expanded and would depend on the range of each species in the Western Atlantic Ocean. For habitat, the core geographic scope is focused on EFH within the EEZ but includes all habitat utilized by scup, black sea bass, and non-target species in the Western Atlantic Ocean. The core geographic scope for protected species is their range in the Western Atlantic Ocean. For human communities, the core geographic boundaries are defined as those U.S. fishing communities in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina directly involved in the commercial or recreational harvest or processing of scup and black sea bass (section 6.4). 7.5.3. Temporal Boundaries Overall, while the effects of the historical scup and black sea bass fisheries are important and considered in the analysis, the temporal scope of past and present actions for scup, black sea bass and non-target species and other fisheries, the physical environment and EFH, and human

142

communities is primarily focused on actions that occurred after FMP implementation (1996 for scup and black sea bass). For protected species, the scope of past and present actions is focused on the 1980s and 1990s (when NMFS began generating stock assessments for marine mammals and sea turtles that inhabit waters of the U.S. EEZ) through the present. The temporal scope of future actions for all VECs extends about five years beyond implementation of these changes (i.e., 2025). The dynamic nature of resource management for these species and lack of information on projects that may occur in the future make it difficult to predict impacts beyond this timeframe with any certainty. The impacts discussed in this section are focused on the cumulative effects of the proposed action (i.e., the suite of preferred alternatives) in combination with the relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions over these time scales. 7.5.4. Actions Others Than Those Proposed in this Document The impacts of the alternatives considered in this document are described in sections 7.1 through 7.4. The sections below briefly summarize meaningful past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions other than the alternatives considered in this document. Some past actions are still relevant to the present and/or future actions. Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP Actions - Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions for scup and black sea bass management include the establishment of the original FMP, all subsequent amendments and frameworks, and the setting of annual specifications (annual catch limits and measures to constrain catch and harvest). Amendments 8 and 9 (both in 1996) added scup and black sea bass to the Summer Flounder FMP with commercial quotas, RHLs, minimum fish size limits, gear restrictions, permits, and reporting requirements. Additional amendments and framework actions have allowed for or required reduced fishing mortality rates for these species, commercial quota transfers, research set-aside, gear restrictions (including implementation of the scup gear restricted areas), protection of the spawning classes, and reducing discards. Amendment 15 established ACLs and AMs consistent with the 2007 revisions to the Magnuson- Stevens Act. Related to this requirement, the Council annually implements or reviews catch and landings limits for each species consistent with the recommendations of the SSC, and reviews other management measures as necessary to prevent catch limits from being exceeded and to meet the objectives of the FMP. The recreational AMs were modified in 2014 through Amendment 19 and the commercial AMs were modified in 2018 through Framework 13. The revised time series of recreational data prompted re-evaluation of the allocations between the commercial and recreational sectors defined within the FMP. In October 2019, the Council and Commission initiated an amendment to consider modifications to these allocations. This amendment will be developed over the next few years. In October 2019, the Council initiated a joint action with the Commission to consider revisions to the state by state black sea bass commercial quota allocations. These allocations are currently included in the Commission’s FMP, but not the Council’s FMP. The new action will consider adding these allocations to the Council’s FMP and will consider several alternatives to adjust the

143 current allocation percentages based on current distribution and abundance information as well as other factors, including socioeconomic considerations. The MSA is the statutory basis for federal fisheries management. To the degree with which this regulatory regime is complied, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future federal fishery management actions on the VECs should generally be associated with positive long-term outcomes. Constraining fishing effort through regulatory actions can have negative short-term socioeconomic impacts. These impacts are sometimes necessary to bring about long-term sustainability of a resource, and as such should promote positive effects on human communities in the long-term. Generally, these actions have had slight negative impacts on habitat, due to continued fishing operations which impact physical habitat; however, some actions have had direct or indirect long-term positive impacts on habitat by protecting important habitats. FMP actions have also had a range of impacts on protected species, including generally slight negative impacts on ESA-listed species, and a range of impacts on non ESA-listed marine mammals from slight negative to slight positive, depending on the species. Other Fishery Management Actions - Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future In addition to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, many other FMPs and associated fishery management actions for other species have impacted these VECs over the temporal scale described in section 7.5.3. These include FMPs managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and to a lesser extent the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Actions associated with other FMPs and omnibus amendments have included measures to regulate fishing effort for other species, measures to protect habitat and forage species, and fishery monitoring and reporting requirements. For example, the NEFMC's omnibus habitat amendment revised EFH and habitat area of particular concern designations for NEFMC-managed species; revised or created habitat management areas, including gear restrictions to protect vulnerable habitat from fishing gear impacts; and established dedicated habitat research areas. This action is expected to have overall positive impacts on habitat and EFH, with expected long-term positive implications for target and non-target species, while having mixed socioeconomic impacts on various user groups. The MAFMC's omnibus forage amendment, implemented in 2017, established a commercial possession limit for over 50 forage species which were previously unmanaged in federal waters. This action is thought to have ongoing positive impacts to target, non-target, and protected species by protecting a forage base for these populations and limiting the expansion of any existing fishing effort on forage stocks. The convening of take reduction teams for marine mammals over the temporal scope described in section 7.5.3 has had positive impacts for marine mammals via recommendations for management measures to reduce mortality and injury to marine mammals. These actions have had indirect positive impacts on target species, non-target species, and habitat as they have improved monitoring of fishing effort and reduced the amount of gear in the water. These measures have had indirect negative impacts on human communities through reduced fishery efficiency. In the reasonably foreseeable future, the MAFMC and NEFMC are considering modifications to observer coverage requirements through an omnibus amendment that considers measures that would allow the Councils to implement industry-funded monitoring coverage in some FMPs above 144

levels required by the Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology in order to assess the amount and type of catch, monitor annual catch limits, and/or provide other information for management. This action could have long-term positive impacts on target species, non-target species, and protected species through improved monitoring and scientific data on these stocks. This could potentially result in negative socioeconomic impacts to commercial fishing vessels due to increased costs. As with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP actions described above, other FMP actions have had positive long-term cumulative impacts on managed and non-target species because they constrain fishing effort and manage stocks at sustainable levels. As previously stated, constraining fishing effort can have negative short-term socioeconomic impacts and long-term positive impacts. These actions have typically had slight negative impacts on habitat, due to continued fishing operations preventing impacted habitats from recovering; however, some actions had long-term positive impacts through designating or protecting important habitats. FMP actions have also had a range of impacts on protected species, including generally slight negative impacts on ESA-listed species, and slight negative to slight positive impacts on non ESA-listed marine mammals, depending on the species. Non-Fishing Impacts Non-fishing activities that introduce chemical pollutants, sewage, or suspended sediment into the marine environment or result in changes in water temperature, salinity, or dissolved oxygen, pose a risk to all VECs. The impacts of most nearshore human non-fishing activities are localized in the areas where the activities occur. Examples of these activities include agriculture runoff, port maintenance, beach nourishment, coastal development, marine transportation, marine mining, dredging, and the disposal of dredged material. Wherever these activities co-occur, they are likely to work additively or synergistically to decrease habitat quality and as such may indirectly constrain the sustainability of target, non-target, and protected species. Decreased habitat suitability tends to reduce the tolerance of these VECs to the impacts of fishing effort. Partial mitigation of this outcome through regulations that reduce fishing effort could negatively impact human communities. The overall impact on the affected species and their habitats on a population level is unknown, but are likely to range from no impact to slight negative, depending on the species, since many of these populations have a limited or minor exposure to these local non-fishing perturbations. Agricultural runoff may be much broader in scope and the impacts of nutrient inputs to the coastal system may be larger in magnitude; however, the impact on productivity of the managed, non-target, and protected species is not quantifiable. Non-fishing activities permitted under other federal agencies (e.g., beach nourishment, offshore wind facilities, etc.) require examinations of potential impacts on the VECs. The MSA imposes an obligation on other federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce on actions that may adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.930). NMFS and the eight regional fishery management councils engage in this review process by making comments and recommendations on federal or state actions that may affect habitat for their managed species and by commenting on actions likely to adversely impact EFH. Non-fishing activities must also meet the mandates under the ESA,

145

specifically Section 7(a)(2)14, which insures that agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species and their critical habitat. Federal agencies also must consult under the MMPA on non-fishing federal actions to determine if an incidental harassment authorization is needed. This all serves to minimize the extent and magnitude of indirect negative impacts those actions could have on resources under NMFS’ jurisdiction. In recent years, offshore wind energy and oil and gas exploration have become more relevant in the Greater Atlantic region. They are expected to impact all VECs, as described below. Construction activities may have both direct and indirect impacts on marine resources, ranging from temporary changes in availability of habitat to injury and mortality. Noise from both construction and operation could have both behavioral and physiological effects on certain species, depending on their sensitivity and exposure rates. Turbines and cables for wind energy may influence water currents and electromagnetic fields, which can affect patterns of movement for various species (target, non-target, protected). Habitats directly at the turbine and cable sites would be affected, and there could be scouring concerns around turbines. If the turbine placement changes vessel traffic patterns, they could potentially increase the risk of vessel strikes on protected species. Impacts on human communities will be mixed – there will be social and economic benefits due to jobs associated with construction and maintenance, and replacement of some electricity generated using fossil fuels with renewable sources. It should be noted that noise and ship strike concerns are not specific to offshore energy development and could also be associated with other non- fishing activities such as port maintenance, beach nourishment, coastal development, marine transportation, marine mining, dredging, and the disposal of dredged material There may be negative effects on fishing activities in terms of effort displacement, or making fishing more difficult or less efficient near the turbines or cables. Fisheries which use hook and line gear and target species which prefer physical structure, such as black sea bass, may see benefits due to increased availability of physical habitats as wind turbine foundations will create additional structured habitat. If a shift in effort occurs in the region due to displacement, gear interaction risks to protected species both within the immediate areas of the wind farms, as well as within waters surrounding the farms, could change. The extent of these impacts to protected species is dependent on the fisheries response to the wind farm. There are currently no operational wind farms in Mid-Atlantic waters. However, there is one operational wind farm in Rhode Island state waters and 2,058 square nautical miles in federal waters off Massachusetts through North Carolina have been leased for offshore wind energy development. Offshore construction of the two-turbine Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project is expected to begin in spring or summer 2020. Construction of three additional projects off southern New England (Vineyard Wind, Bay State Wind, and South Fork Wind) could begin over the next few years. Additional areas have been leased and will have site assessments in the next few years. These projects could have slight negative impacts on EFH, as well as target, non-target species, protected species, and fishing communities. However, as previously stated, there could be some long-term benefits to black sea bass if the turbine foundations serve as habitat for black sea bass.

14 “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an “agency action”) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.”

146

For oil and gas, this timeframe would include leasing and possible surveys. Seismic surveys impact the acoustic environment within which marine species live. They have uncertain effects on fish behaviors that could cumulatively lead to negative population level impacts. For protected species, the severity of these behavioral or physiological impacts is based on the species’ hearing threshold, the overlap of this threshold with the frequencies emitted by the survey, as well as the duration of time the surveys would operate, as these factors influence exposure rate. The science on this is fairly uncertain. If marine species are affected by seismic activities, then so in turn the fishermen targeting these species would be affected. However, there would be an economic component in the form of increased jobs where there may be some positive effects on human communities. The overall impact of offshore wind energy and oil and gas exploration on the affected species and their habitats on a population level is unknown, but likely to range from no impact to moderate negative, depending on the number and locations of projects that occur, as well as the effects of mitigation efforts. Global climate change affects all components of marine ecosystems, including human communities. Physical changes that are occurring and will continue to occur to these systems include sea-level rise, changes in sediment deposition; changes in ocean circulation; increased frequency, intensity and duration of extreme climate events; changing ocean chemistry, and warming ocean temperatures. Emerging evidence demonstrates that these physical changes are resulting in direct and indirect ecological responses within marine ecosystems which may alter the fundamental production characteristics of marine systems (Stenseth et al. 2002). Climate change will potentially exacerbate the stresses imposed by fishing and other non-fishing human activities. Results from the Northeast Fisheries Climate Vulnerability Assessment indicate that climate change could have impacts on Council-managed species that range from negative to positive, depending on the adaptability of each species to the changing environment (Hare et al. 2016). This assessment determined that scup have a moderate vulnerability to climate change. The exposure of scup to the effects of climate change was determined to be “very high” due to the impacts of ocean surface temperature, ocean acidification, and air temperature. Exposure to all three factors occurs during all life stages. Scup have seasonal inshore/offshore and north/south migrations. As warming continues, the availability of winter (offshore/southern) and summer (inshore/northern) habitat may increase and therefore may result in positive impacts on scup distribution, abundance and recruitment. Scup were determined to have low biological sensitivity to climate change, given their life history, spawning behavior, and relatively long life span. Black sea bass had a high overall vulnerability to climate change. The exposure of black sea bass to the effects of climate change was determined to be "very high" due to the impacts of ocean surface temperature, ocean acidification, and air temperature. Exposure to all three factors occurs during all life stages. Black sea bass occur in coastal areas during warm months and migrate offshore in cold months and thus are exposed to changes occurring both in offshore and inshore waters. The distributional vulnerability for black sea bass was also rated as "high." The biological sensitivity of black sea bass to climate change was ranked as "moderate" (Hare et al. 2016).15

15 Climate vulnerability profiles for individual species are available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/climate/northeast-fish-and-shellfish-climate-vulnerability/index

147

Overall climate vulnerability results for additional Greater Atlantic species, including some of the non-target species identified in this action, are shown in Figure 18 (Hare et al. 2016). Climate change is expected to have impacts that range from positive to negative depending on the species. However, future mitigation and adaptation strategies may mitigate some of these impacts. The science of predicting, evaluating, monitoring and categorizing these changes continues to evolve. The social and economic impacts of climate change will depend on stakeholder and community dependence on the fisheries, and their capacity to adapt to change. Commercial and recreational fisheries may adapt in different ways, and methods of adaptation will differ among regions. In addition to added scientific uncertainty, climate change will introduce implementation uncertainty and other challenges to effective conservation and management (MAFMC 2014).

Figure 18: Overall climate vulnerability score for Greater Atlantic species, with scup and black sea bass highlighted with red boxes. Overall climate vulnerability is denoted by color: low (green), moderate (yellow), high (orange), and very high (red). Certainty in score is denoted by text font and text color: very high certainty (>95%, black, bold font), high certainty (90–95%, black, italic font), moderate certainty (66–90%, white or gray, bold font), low certainty (<66%, white or gray, italic font). Figure source: Hare et al. 2016.

7.5.5. Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects In determining the magnitude and significance of the cumulative effects, the additive and synergistic effects of the proposed action (i.e., the suite of preferred alternatives), as well as past, present, and future actions, must be taken into account. The following sections describe the expected effects of these actions on each VEC. Those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions which may impact the VECs, and the direction of those potential impacts, are summarized in section 7.5.4.

148

7.5.5.1. Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects on Managed Species and Non-Target Species Past fishery management actions taken through the respective FMPs have had a positive cumulative effect on the managed species. It is anticipated that the future management actions described in section 7.5.4 will have additional indirect positive effects on the managed species through actions which reduce and monitor bycatch, protect habitat, and protect the ecosystem services on which the productivity of managed species depends. Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are truly meaningful to the managed species have had positive cumulative effects. Catch limits, commercial quotas, and RHLs for scup and black sea bass have been specified to ensure that these rebuilt stocks are managed sustainably and that measures are consistent with the objectives of the FMP under the guidance of the MSA. Recreational and commercial management measures (e.g., possession limits, size limits, seasons, and gear restrictions) are also used to control fishing mortality. The impacts of annual specification of catch limits and other management measures are largely dependent on how effective those measures are in meeting the objectives of preventing overfishing and achieving optimum yield, and on the extent to which mitigating measures are effective. The proposed actions described in this document would positively reinforce the past and anticipated positive cumulative effects on the managed species by achieving the objectives specified in the respective FMPs. Therefore, the proposed action would have a positive, but not significant, effect on the managed species in consideration with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (section 7.5.4). 7.5.5.2. Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects on Physical Environment Past fishery management actions taken through the respective FMPs and annual specifications process have had positive cumulative effects on habitat. The actions have constrained fishing effort both at a large scale and locally and have implemented gear requirements which may reduce impacts on habitat. As required under these FMP actions, EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern were designated for the managed stocks. It is anticipated that the future management actions described in section 7.5.4 will result in additional direct or indirect positive effects on habitat through actions which protect EFH and protect ecosystem services on which these species’ productivity depends. These impacts could be broad in scope. All the VECs are interrelated; therefore, the linkages among habitat quality, managed and non-target species productivity, and associated fishery yields should be considered. For habitat, there are direct and indirect negative effects from actions which may be localized or broad in scope; however, positive actions that have broad implications have been, and will likely continue to be, taken to improve the condition of habitat. Some actions, such as coastal population growth and climate change may impact habitat and ecosystem productivity; however, these actions are beyond the scope of NMFS and Council management. As described in section 7.2, the impacts of the proposed actions on habitat are expected to have slight negative impacts. The preferred alternatives are expected to maintain (for scup) or increase (for black sea bass) commercial fishing effort and reduce recreational fishing effort compared to 2019. The impacted areas have been fished for many years with many different gear types and therefore will not likely be further impacted by these measures. Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are truly meaningful to habitat have had cumulative effects ranging from slight negative to slight positive. Therefore, the relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the proposed action, are cumulatively

149

expected to have slight negative to slight positive, but not significant effects on habitat (section 7.5.4.). 7.5.5.3. Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects on Protected Species Given their life history, large changes in protected species abundance over long time periods, and the multiple and wide-ranging fisheries management actions that have occurred, the cumulative impacts on protected species were evaluated over a long time frame (i.e., from the early 1970s when the MMPA and ESA were implemented through the present). Past fishery management actions have contributed to this long-term trend toward positive cumulative effects on protected species through the reduction of fishing effort and implementation of gear requirements, and thus a reduction in potential interactions. It is anticipated that future management actions, summarized in section 7.5.4, will result in additional indirect positive effects on protected species. These impacts could be broad in scope. The preferred alternatives could result in increased commercial fishing effort for black sea bass; however they are not expected to change the timing or location of fishing effort. As described in section 7.3, this is expected to have impacts on protected species that range from high moderate negative to slight positive, depending on the species. Overall, the relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the proposed action, are cumulatively expected to have positive, but not significant effects on most protected species (section 7.5.4). 7.5.5.4. Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects on Human Communities Past fishery management actions taken through the respective FMPs have had both positive and negative cumulative socioeconomic effects by benefiting domestic fisheries through sustainable fishery management practices while also sometimes reducing the ability of some individuals to participate in fisheries. Sustainable management practices are, however, expected to yield broad positive impacts to fishermen, their communities, businesses, and the nation as a whole. It is anticipated that the future management actions described in 7.5.4 will result in positive effects for human communities due to sustainable management practices, although additional indirect negative effects on some communities could occur if management actions result in reduced revenues. Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are truly meaningful to human communities have had overall positive cumulative effects. Catch limits, commercial quotas, and RHLs for each of the managed species have been specified to ensure that these rebuilt stocks are managed in a sustainable manner and that management measures are consistent with the objectives of the FMPs under the guidance of the MSA. Recreational and commercial management measures (such as the season and possession limit measures considered in this document) are also used to constrain catch and to ensure that the fisheries are managed efficiently and benefit the human communities that rely on them. The impacts from annual specification of management measures on the managed species are largely dependent on how effective those measures are in meeting their intended objectives and the extent to which mitigating measures are effective. Quota overages may alter the timing of commercial fishery revenues such that revenues can be realized a year earlier. Impacts to some fishermen may be caused by unexpected reductions in their opportunities to earn revenues from commercial fisheries in the year during which the overages are deducted. Similarly, recreational fisheries may have decreased harvest opportunities due to reduced harvest limits as a result of overages and more restrictive management measures (e.g., minimum fish size, possession limits, fishing seasons) implemented to address overages. 150

Despite the potential for negative short-term effects on human communities, positive long-term effects are expected due to the long-term sustainability of the managed stocks. Therefore, the proposed action would have a positive, but not significant effect on human communities when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (section 7.5.4). 7.5.6. Proposed Action on all the VECs The Council’s preferred alternatives (i.e., the proposed action) are described in section 5. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action on the VECs are described in sections 7.1 through 7.4. The magnitude and significance of the cumulative effects, including additive and synergistic effects of the proposed action, as well as past, present, and future actions, have been taken into account (section 7.5.5). When considered in conjunction with all other pressures placed on the fisheries by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the preferred alternatives are not expected to result in any significant impacts, positive or negative. The preferred alternatives for 2020 and 2021 scup and black sea bass catch and landings limits are expected to have moderate positive impacts on scup and black sea bass, slight negative to moderate positive impacts on non-target species (depending on the species), slight negative impacts on habitat, high moderate negative to slight positive impacts on protected species (depending on the species), and moderate negative to moderate positive impacts on human communities (depending on the sector, recreational or commercial). The preferred alternatives are consistent with other management measures that have been implemented in the past for these fisheries. These measures are part of a broader management scheme for the scup and black sea bass fisheries. This management scheme has helped rebuild stocks and ensure long-term sustainability, while minimizing environmental impacts. Management actions should be taken in a manner that will optimize the conditions of managed species, habitat, and human communities. Consistent with NEPA, the MSA requires that management actions be taken only after consideration of impacts to the biological, physical, economic, and social dimensions of the human environment. Given this regulatory environment, and because fishery management actions must strive to create and maintain sustainable resources, impacts on all VECs from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions have generally been positive and are expected to continue in that manner for the foreseeable future. This is not to say that some aspects of the VECs are not experiencing negative impacts, but rather that when considered as a whole and as a result of the management measure implemented in these fisheries, the overall long-term trend is positive. There are no significant cumulative effects associated with the preferred alternatives based on the information and analyses presented in this document and in past FMP documents (Table 43). Cumulatively, through 2025, it is anticipated that the preferred alternatives will result in a range of non-significant impacts on all VECs ranging from negative to positive.

151

Table 43: Magnitude and significance of the cumulative, additive, and synergistic effects of the preferred alternatives, as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Net Impact of Past, Present, and Significant Impact of the VEC Current Status Reasonably Cumulative Preferred Actions Foreseeable Future Effects Actions Scup and black Positive Positive Moderate positive None sea bass (section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2) (section 7.5.5.1) (section 7.1) Slight negative to Positive, unknown, or moderate positive, Non-target negative, depending on Positive depending on None Species the species (section 7.5.5.1) species (section 6.1.3.2) (section 7.1) Impacted by a variety of Slight negative to fishing and non-fishing Slight negative Habitat slight positive None activities (section 7.2) (section 7.5.5.2) (section 6.2) High moderate negative to slight Protected Varies by species Positive for most positive, depending None Species (section 6.3) (section 7.5.5.3) on species (section 7.3) Important commercial Moderate negative to and recreational Mixed, but generally Human moderate positive, fisheries for both positive None Communities depending on sector species (section 7.5.5.4) (section 7.4) (section 6.4)

8. APPLICABLE LAWS 8.1. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 8.1.1 National Standards Section 301 of the MSA requires that FMPs contain conservation and management measures that are consistent with the ten National Standards. The Council continues to meet the obligations of National Standard 1 by adopting and implementing conservation and management measures that will continue to prevent overfishing, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) for scup, black sea bass, and the U.S. fishing industry. To achieve OY, both scientific and management uncertainty are addressed when establishing catch limits. The Council developed recommendations that do not exceed the ABC recommendations of the SSC, which explicitly address scientific uncertainty. The Council considered management uncertainty and other social, economic, and ecological factors, when recommending ACTs. The Council uses the best scientific information available (National Standard 2) and manages scup and black sea bass throughout their range (National Standard 3). These management measures do not discriminate among residents of different states (National Standard 4) and they do not have economic allocation as their sole purpose (National Standard 5). The measures account for variations in the fisheries (National Standard 6) and avoid unnecessary duplication (National Standard 7). They take into account the fishing communities (National Standard 8) and they promote safety at sea (National Standard 10). The proposed actions are consistent with National Standard 9, which addresses bycatch in

152

fisheries. The Council has implemented many regulations that have indirectly reduced fishing gear impacts on EFH (section 6.2.3). By continuing to meet the National Standards requirements of the MSA through future FMP amendments, framework actions, and the annual specification setting process, the Council will insure that cumulative impacts of these actions will remain positive overall for the managed species, the ports and communities that depend on these fisheries, and the Nation as a whole. 8.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment EFH assessments are required for any action that is expected to have an adverse impact on EFH, even if the impact is only minimal and/or temporary in nature (50 CFR Part 600.920 (e) (1-5)). Description of Action As previously described, the proposed action (i.e., the preferred alternatives) would implement catch and landings limits for the commercial and recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries for 2020-2021. The proposed actions are described in more detail in section 5. Potential Adverse Effects of the Action on EFH As previously stated, the commercial scup and black sea bass fisheries predominantly use bottom otter trawl and pot/trap gear. The recreational fisheries use hook and line gear almost exclusively. The types of habitat impacts caused by these gears are summarized in section 6.2.3. As described in section 7, under the preferred alternative for scup (i.e., alternative 1B), the commercial quota would decrease by 7% in 2020 and 25% in 2021 and RHL would decrease by 12% in 2020 and 28% in 2021 compared to 2019. As described in section 7.1.1.2, commercial scup fishing effort appears to be influenced more by market demand than by the quota and commercial landings may remain below the quota under this alternative. It is assumed that commercial fishing effort for scup would remain similar to past years under this alternative; however, due to the transition to use of the new MRIP data and the 7-25% (2020-2021) decrease in the RHL, recreational fishing effort would be expected to decrease notably under the preferred RHL. Under the preferred alternative for black sea bass (i.e., alternative 2B), the 2020-2021 commercial quota and RHL would increase by 59% compared to 2019. This is expected to lead to a notable increase in commercial fishing effort. However, despite the 59% increase in the RHL, recreational fishing effort would need to be notably reduced in 2020 and 2021 compared to recent years to prevent an RHL overage due to the use of the new MRIP data (section 7.1.2.2). Therefore, the preferred black sea bass alternative would be expected to result in a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and a moderate decrease in recreational fishing effort. Under the expected changes in fishing effort for both species, the locations of fishing are not expected to change and the amount of gear in the water and duration of time that gear is in the water are not expected to increase substantially in a manner that would cause meaningful increased negative impacts on habitat. The habitats that are impacted by the scup and black sea bass fisheries have been impacted by many fisheries over many years. The levels of fishing effort expected under the preferred alternatives are not expected to cause additional habitat damage beyond that generated by these fisheries in the past and by other fisheries that operate in the same areas. Thus, the proposed action is expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat and EFH.

153

Proposed Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Impacts of This Action Measures in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP which impact EFH were considered Amendment 13 (MAFMC 2002). The analysis in Amendment 13 indicated that no management measures were needed to minimize impacts to EFH because the trawl fisheries for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass in federal waters are conducted primarily in high energy mobile sand habitat where gear impacts are minimal and/or temporary in nature. Hook and line are the principal gears used in the recreational fishery for all three species. These gears have minimal adverse impacts on EFH in the region (Stevenson et al. 2004). These characteristics of the fisheries have not changed since Amendment 13. None of the alternatives included in this document were designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on EFH. Section 6.2.3. lists examples of management measures previously implemented by the Council with the intent of minimizing the impacts of various fisheries on habitat. None of these measures substantially restrict the summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass fisheries. Conclusions Overall, the preferred alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on EFH; therefore, an EFH consultation is required. 8.2. NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations state that the determination of significance using an analysis of effects requires examination of both context and intensity, and lists ten criteria for intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). In addition, the companion manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A provides sixteen criteria (the same ten as the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations and six additional) for determining whether the impacts of a proposed action are significant. Each criterion is discussed below with respect to the proposed action and considered individually as well as in combination with the others. 1. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause both beneficial and adverse impacts that overall may result in a significant effect, even if the effect will be beneficial? The expected impacts of the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1B and 2B) are fully described in section 7. The preferred alternatives are not expected to result in significant impacts on any VECs, nor will they result in overall significant effects, either beneficial or adverse. The preferred alternatives would establish 2020-2021 catch and landing limits for scup and black sea bass that are consistent with FMP objectives and the recommendations of the SSC, the Council, and the Board. These limits are designed to prevent the stocks from becoming overfished and to prevent overfishing from occurring. As such, they are expected to have moderate positive impacts on scup and black sea bass (section 7.1). The preferred alternatives are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass fishing effort and landings, status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort and landings, and decreased recreational fishing effort and harvest for both species. They are not expected to result in notable changes in the spatial and/or temporal distribution of fishing effort. These expected changes in fishing effort are not expected to change the stock status of any non- target species compared to current conditions. As such, they are expected to have slight negative

154 to moderate positive impacts on non-target species, depending on the alternative and species (section 7.1). The expected changes in fishing effort are also not expected to change the status of any protected species and they are not expected to cause substantial additional damage to physical habitat, beyond that caused by many fisheries which have operated in the affected environment for many years. As such, the preferred alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts on habitat (section 7.2) and slight negative to slight positive impacts on protected species, depending on the species (section 7.3). The preferred alternatives are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass harvest, status quo levels of commercial scup harvest, and decreased recreational harvest for both species. Therefore, they are expected to result in moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for the commercial fisheries and moderate negative socioeconomic impacts for the recreational fisheries for both species. 2. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly affect public health or safety? The preferred alternatives are not expected to alter the manner in which the industry conducts fishing activities. Therefore, no changes in fishing behavior that would affect safety are anticipated. The preferred alternatives will not adversely impact public health or safety. 3. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in significant impacts to unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas? It is not likely that the preferred alternatives would result in substantial impacts to unique areas. Many types of fishing occur in the impacted areas. Although an increase in black sea bass commercial fishing effort is expected under one of the preferred alternatives, neither preferred alternative is expected to result in a change to the spatial or temporal scope of fishing effort. Although it is possible that historic or cultural resources such as shipwrecks could be present, vessels try to avoid interactions between fishing gear and physical structures due to the potential loss or entanglement of fishing gear. 4. Are the proposed action’s effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be highly controversial? The preferred alternatives are based on measures contained in the FMP, which have been in place for many years. The scientific information upon which the alternatives are based has been peer reviewed and is the most recent information available (section 4.2). Thus, the measures contained in this action are not expected to be highly controversial. 5. Are the proposed action’s effects on the human environment likely to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks? The impacts of the preferred alternatives on the human environment are described in section 7. The preferred alternatives are not expected to alter fishing methods or activities or to substantially increase fishing effort or the spatial and/or temporal distribution of current fishing effort. The impacts to target, non-target, and protected species, as well as to habitats and human communities, will continue to be monitored. The preferred alternatives are not expected to have highly uncertain effects or to involve unique or unknown risks on the human environment.

155

6. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration? The preferred alternatives are not expected to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. When new stock assessments or other biological information becomes available, the catch and landings limits proposed in this document will be adjusted consistent with the FMP and MSA. Specifications are routine adjustments and the adjustments undertaken herein are similar to those taken in the past. None of these specifications results in significant effects, nor do they represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The impact of any future changes will be analyzed as to their significance in the process of developing and implementing them. 7. Is the proposed action related to other actions that when considered together will have individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts? As discussed in section 7.5, the preferred alternatives are not expected to have individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant impacts. The preferred alternatives, together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not expected to result in significant cumulative impacts on the biological, physical, and human components of the environment. 8. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources? The impacts of the preferred alternatives on the human environment are described in section 7. Although the preferred alternatives could result in some changes in fishing effort (i.e., an increase in commercial black sea bass fishing effort and a decrease in recreational fishing effort for scup and black sea bass), they are not expected to notably alter the manner in which the fisheries operate. Although there are shipwrecks present in the area where fishing occurs, including some registered on the National Register of Historic Places, vessels try to avoid fishing interactions between fishing gear and physical structures, including shipwrecks, due to possible loss or entanglement of fishing gear. Therefore, it is not likely that the preferred alternatives would adversely affect the historic resources listed above. 9. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on endangered or threatened species, or their critical habitat as defined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973? A variety of gear types are used in the scup and black sea bass fisheries. Bottom otter trawls account for the majority of commercial catch for both species, followed by pots/traps for black sea bass. The recreational fisheries use hook and line almost exclusively. All these gear types are known to interact with endangered and threatened species (section 6.3.3). As described in section 7, the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1B and 2B) are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass fishing effort, status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort, and decreased recreational fishing effort for both species. They are not expected to result in notable changes in the spatial and/or temporal distribution of fishing effort. As described in section 7.3, the levels of fishing effort under the preferred alternatives are expected to result in slight negative to high moderate negative impacts for ESA-listed species because they are expected to continue to result in the potential for interactions between fishing gear and ESA- listed species and they are not expected to contribute to the recovery of these populations. They

156

are not expected to result in any changes fishing operations in a manner that would notably increase interaction rates with ESA listed species. This action falls within the range of impacts considered in the Batched Fisheries Biological Opinion, of which the summer flounder, scup, and sea bass fishery is considered (December 16, 2013). However, in a memorandum dated October 17, 2017, GARFO's Protected Resources Division reinitiated consultation on the Batched Biological Opinion. As part of the reinitiation, the 2017 memo determined that allowing this fishery to continue during the reinitiation period will not violate ESA sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) because it will not “….increase the likelihood of interactions with listed species above the amount that would otherwise occur if consultation had not been reinitiated, because allowing these fisheries to continue does not entail making any changes to any fishery during the reinitiation period that would cause an increase in interactions with whales, sea turtles, sturgeon, or Atlantic salmon. Because of this, the continuation of the summer flounder, scup, and sea bass fishery during the reinitiation period would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any whale, sea turtle, Atlantic salmon, or sturgeon species.” Until replaced, the summer flounder, scup, and sea bass fishery FMP is currently covered by the October 17, 2017, memo. As described in section 6.3.1, the preferred alternatives is not likely to adversely affect any critical habitat designated for listed species. Given this, the scup and black sea bass fisheries will not adversely effect the essential physical and biological features of North Atlantic right whale or loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic DPS) critical habitat and therefore, will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species (NMFS 2013; NMFS 2014a; NMFS 2015a,b). 10. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for environmental protection? The preferred alternatives are not expected to alter fishing methods or activities such that they threaten a violation of federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed measures have been found to be consistent with other applicable laws (sections 8.3 - 8.10). 11. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect stocks of marine mammals as defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act? As described in section 7, the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1B and 2B) are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass fishing effort, status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort, and decreased recreational fishing effort for both species. They are not expected to result in notable changes in the spatial and/or temporal distribution of fishing effort. Bottom otter trawls account for most commercial catch of both species, followed by pots/traps for black sea bass. These are the gears of primary concern for interactions with MMPA protected species. Hook and line, the primary recreational gear type, has minimal interactions with protected species (section 6.3.3.1). As described in section 6.3, some marine mammal stocks/species are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels. These stocks/populations are not at an optimum sustainable level and therefore, their continued existence is at risk. As a result, any potential for an interaction is a detriment to their ability to recover from this condition. As

157 interactions with non-ESA listed marine mammals are possible under the preferred alternatives, the proposed action is likely to result in slight to moderate negative impacts to marine mammal stocks/species in poor condition (i.e., those that are experiencing levels of interactions that have resulted in exceedance of their PBR levels). There are also many non-ESA listed marine mammals that, even with continued fishery interactions, are maintaining an optimum sustainable level (i.e., PBR levels have not been exceeded) over the last several years. For these stocks/species, it appears that the fishery management measures that have been in place over this timeframe have resulted in interaction levels that are not expected to impair their ability to remain at an optimum sustainable level. The expected changes in fishing effort under the preferred alternative for scup are not expected to change the interaction risk for marine mammals to the extent that the PRB levels are exceeded for any stocks which previously had not had their PBR levels exceeded. However, the preferred alternative for black sea bass is expected to result in a moderate increase in commercial fishing effort and the interaction rates that will result from this increased fishing effort are uncertain. If interactions increase to the extent that PBR levels are exceeded for stocks which have not previously had their PBR levels exceeded, this could result in slight negative impacts for those stocks. As such, the impacts of the preferred alternatives on non-ESA listed species of marine mammals with positive stock status are expected to range from slight negative (if PBR levels are exceeded) to slight positive (if PBR levels are not exceeded). In summary, as described in more detail in section 7.3, the expected levels of fishing effort under the preferred alternatives are expected to result in moderate negative to slight positive impacts for non-ESA listed marine mammals, depending on the alternative and species. 12. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect managed fish species? The impacts of this action on managed fish species, including target and non-target species, are described in section 7.1. The preferred catch and landings limits are designed to prevent overfishing of scup and black sea bass, resulting in expected positive impacts for those species. With the exception of several tautog regions and some unassessed stocks, most non-target species are not currently overfished and not experiencing overfishing (section 6.1.3). As described in section 7, although the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternative 1B and 2B) are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass fishing effort, status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort, and decreased recreational fishing effort for both species, these changes are not expected to impact the stock status of any non-target species. As such, the preferred alternatives are not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on managed target or non-target fish species. 13. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect essential fish habitat as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act? The proposed action is not expected to cause substantial damage to EFH as defined under the MSA and identified in the FMPs. As previously stated, the commercial fisheries are primarily prosecuted with bottom trawl gear, followed by pots/traps. The recreational fisheries are almost entirely hook and line. These gear types, particularly bottom otter trawls, can adversely impact EFH (section 6.2.3). As described in section 7, the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternative 1B and 2B) are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass fishing effort, status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort, and decreased recreational fishing effort for both species. However, the fishing

158 methods and fishing locations are not expected to be notably altered. As described in section 7.2, the areas fished for scup and black sea bass have been fished for many years, and are unlikely to be degraded further as the result of the levels of fishing effort that are expected under the proposed action. The proposed actions are expected to result in slight negative impacts to habitat as the result of continued interactions between fishing gear and habitat (section 7.2). 14. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect vulnerable marine or coastal ecosystems, including but not limited to, deep coral ecosystems? The preferred alternatives are not expected to have significant impacts on the natural or physical environment, including vulnerable marine or coastal ecosystems. The preferred alternatives are not expected to alter fishing methods or activities or to substantially increase fishing effort or the spatial and/or temporal distribution of current fishing effort. The areas fished for scup and black sea bass have been fished for many years, and for a variety of species, and this action is not expected to change the locations of fishing activity. While some fishing takes place near the continental slope/shelf break where deep sea corals may be found in and around the submarine canyons, much of this area in the Mid-Atlantic is now protected by a prohibition on bottom-tending gear in the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep Sea Coral Protection Area (81 Federal Register 90246; December 14, 2016). A proposed rule to establish similar coral protections off New England published on January 2, 2020 (85 Federal Register 285). The preferred alternatives are not expected to alter fishing patterns relative to this protected area or in any other manner that would lead to adverse impacts on deep sea coral or other vulnerable marine or coastal ecosystems. 15. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect biodiversity or ecosystem functioning (e.g., benthic productivity, predator-prey relationships, etc.)? The impacts of the scup and black sea bass fisheries on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning have not been assessed; however, the impacts to components of the ecosystem (e.g., non-target species, habitat, and protected species) have been considered. As described in section 7, the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternative 1B and 2B) are expected to result in increased commercial black sea bass fishing effort, status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort, and decreased recreational fishing effort for both species. The preferred alternatives are not expected to result in a change in the recent spatial/temporal distribution of effort. These expected levels of effort are not likely to negatively impact the stock status of non-target species (section 7.1), they are not likely to cause additional habitat damage beyond that previously caused by a variety of fisheries (section 7.2), and they are not expected to jeopardize any protected species (section 7.3). They are, however, not expected to contribute to the recovery of any endangered or threatened species. For these reasons, the preferred alternatives are not expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the affected area. 16. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in the introduction or spread of a nonindigenous species? The proposed action would implement scup and black sea bass catch and landings limits for 2020 and 2021. There is no evidence or indication that these fisheries have ever resulted in the introduction or spread of nonindigenous species. The preferred alternatives are not expected to alter fishing methods or activities and they are not expected change the spatial and/or temporal

159

distribution of current fishing effort. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the preferred alternatives would result in the introduction or spread of a non-indigenous species. DETERMINATION In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis contained in the supporting Environmental Assessment prepared for 2020-2021 scup and black sea bass specifications, it is hereby determined that these specifications will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment as described above and in the supporting Environmental Assessment. In addition, all beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach the conclusion of no significant impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement for this action is not necessary.

______April 9, 2020______Regional Administrator for GARFO, NMFS, NOAA Date

8.3. Endangered Species Act On December 16, 2013, NMFS issued a batched fisheries Biological Opinion on the operation of seven commercial fisheries, including the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery. The batched fisheries Biological Opinion concluded that the actions considered would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. On October 17, 2017, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the batched Biological Opinion due to updated information on the decline of North Atlantic right whale abundance. Section 7(d) of the ESA prohibits federal agencies from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency action that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternatives during the consultation period. This prohibition is in force until the requirements of section 7(a)(2) have been satisfied. Section 7(d) does not prohibit all aspects of an agency action from proceeding during consultation; non-jeopardizing activities may proceed as long as their implementation would not violate section 7(d). Per the October 17, 2017, memo, it was concluded that allowing those fisheries specified in the batched Biological Opinion to continue during the reinitiation period will not increase the likelihood of interactions with ESA listed species above the amount that would otherwise occur if consultation had not been reinitiated. Based on this, the memo concluded that the continuation of these fisheries during the reinitiation period would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species. Taking this, as well as our analysis of the proposed action into consideration, we do not expect the proposed action, in conjunction with other activities, to result in jeopardy to any ESA listed species. This action does not represent any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the FMP that would affect the development or implementation of reasonable and prudent measures during the consultation period. NMFS has discretion to amend its MSA and ESA regulations and may do so at any time subject to the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws. As a result, the Council has preliminarily determined that fishing activities

160

conducted pursuant to this action will not affect endangered and threatened species or critical habitat in any manner beyond what has been considered in prior consultations on this fishery. NMFS conducted additional analyses to consider the potential effects of the proposed action to listed species. The analysis considers the commercial and recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries, the different gear types used, effort, timing and location of the fishing activity. This analysis is documented in the Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consistency Assessment and 7(d) determination memo issued in March 2020. Specifically, NMFS conducted additional analysis of the commercial pot/trap black sea bass fishery due to concern that the proposed quota increase could result in an increase in vertical lines that could result in impacts, beyond what has previously been considered, to the North Atlantic right whale population. NMFS reviewed the available data on the pot/trap fishery, specifically number of participants, trips, seasonality, location, and landings, which, at this time, is the best available proxy for effort. Based on the additional analysis, relative to what was considered in the 2013 Opinion, NMFS determined that the measures proposed will not: (1) Introduce effort to new parts of the resource; (2) change the type (i.e., trawl, pot/trap, hook and line) or amount of gear set in the water; or (3) change where and when the fishery operates. Given this, the proposed action is extremely unlikely to introduce new or elevated interaction risks to listed species, including the North Atlantic right whale, and therefore, the number or severity of interactions with ESA listed species is extremely unlikely to increase. In addition, as the proposed action will not change the nature and overall operation of the fishery, consistent with the previous consultations, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat. Taking these factors into consideration, NMFS determined in its March 2020 memo that the proposed action is extremely unlikely to result in impacts to ESA-listed species or critical habitat that go above and beyond those considered in previous consultations completed by NMFS (i.e., 2013 Batched Opinion, September 17, 2014 Loggerhead Critical habitat memo, May 16, 2016 Green sea turtle DPS memo), and thus, determined that the proposed action is consistent with NMFS October 17, 2017, 7(a)(2) determination, and will not violate section 7(d) of the ESA. 8.4. Marine Mammal Protection Act Section 6.3 lists and describes the marine mammal species which inhabit the affected environment of this action. As described in section 6.3, various marine mammal species have the potential to interact with the gear types used in the scup and black sea bass fisheries (i.e., bottom trawl, pots/traps, and hook and line gear). The impacts of the proposed measures on marine mammals (section 7.3) are consistent with the provisions of the MMPA. The preferred alternatives would not alter existing measures to protect marine mammals. A final determination of consistency with the MMPA will be made by NMFS during rulemaking for this action. 8.5. Coastal Zone Management Act The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, provides measures for ensuring productive fishery habitat while striving to balance development pressures with social, economic, cultural, and other impacts on the coastal zone. The Council will submit this document to NMFS. NMFS will determine whether the proposed actions are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the coastal zone management programs for each state (Maine through North Carolina).

161

8.6. Administrative Procedure Act Sections 551-553 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act establish procedural requirements applicable to informal rulemaking by federal agencies. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure public access to the Federal rulemaking process and to give the public notice and opportunity to comment before the agency promulgates new regulations. The Administrative Procedure Act requires solicitation and review of public comments on actions taken in the development of an FMP and subsequent amendments and framework adjustments. There were many opportunities for public review, input, and access to the rulemaking process during the development of the proposed management measures described in this document and during development of this document. This action was developed through a multi-stage process that was open to review by affected members of the public. The public had the opportunity to review and comment on development of the preferred alternatives during the following meetings: • August 29, 2019 Advisory Panel meeting in Linthicum, Maryland. • September 9-11, 2019 SSC meeting in Baltimore, Maryland. • September 16-17, 2019 Monitoring Committee meeting in Baltimore, Maryland. • September 24, 2019 Advisory Panel webinar meeting. • October 8-9, 2019 joint meeting of the Council and Board in Durham, NC. The public will have further opportunity to comment on this document and the proposed management measures once NMFS publishes a request for comments notice in the Federal Register. 8.7. Section 515 (Data Quality Act) Utility of Information Product The proposed action would implement catch and landings limits for the commercial and recreational scup and black sea bass fisheries for 2020 and 2021. This document includes a description of the alternatives considered, the preferred actions and rationale for selection, and any changes to the implementing regulations of the FMP. As such, this document enables the implementing agency (NMFS) to make a decision on implementation of annual specifications and this document serves as a supporting document for the proposed rule. The preferred alternatives were developed consistent with the FMP, MSA, and other applicable laws. They were developed through a multi-stage process that was open to review by affected members of the public. The public had the opportunity to review and comment on management measures during a number of public meetings (section 8.6). The public will have further opportunity to comment on this action once NMFS publishes a request for comments notice in the Federal Register. Integrity of Information Product This information product meets the standards for integrity under the following types of documents: Other/Discussion (e.g. Confidentiality of Statistics of the MSA; NOAA Administrative Order 216- 100, Protection of Confidential Fisheries Statistics; 50 CFR 229.11, Confidentiality of information collected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act).

162

Objectivity of Information Product The category of information product that applies here is “Natural Resource Plans.” Section 8 describes how this document was developed to be consistent with any applicable laws, including the MSA. The analyses used to develop the alternatives (i.e., policy choices) are based upon the best scientific information available. The most up to date information was used to develop the EA which evaluates the impacts of those alternatives (section 7). The specialists who worked with these core data sets and population assessment models are familiar with the most recent analytical techniques and are familiar with the available data and information relevant to the scup and black sea bass fisheries. The review process for this specifications document involves Council, NEFSC, GARFO, and NMFS headquarters. The NEFSC technical review is conducted by senior level scientists with specialties in fisheries ecology, population dynamics, biology, economics, and social anthropology. The Council review process involves public meetings at which affected stakeholders can comment on proposed management measures. Review by GARFO is conducted by those with expertise in fisheries management and policy, habitat conservation, protected resources, and applicable laws. Final approval of this document and clearance of the rule is conducted by staff at NOAA Fisheries Headquarters, the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 8.8. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act concerns the collection of information. The intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to minimize the federal paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, state and local governments, and other persons, as well as to maximize the usefulness of information collected by the federal government. There are no changes to the existing reporting requirements previously approved under this FMP for vessel permits, dealer reporting, or vessel logbooks. This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 8.9. Relative to Federalism/Executive Order 13132 This document does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. 8.10. Regulatory Flexibility Act And Regulatory Impact Review This section provides analysis to address the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. These two mandates are addressed together as many of their requirements are duplicative. In addition, many of their requirements duplicate those of the MSA and/or NEPA; therefore, this section contains several references to previous sections of this document. 8.10.1. Basis and Purpose of the Rule and Summary of Preferred Alternatives This action is taken under the authority of the MSA and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. Section 4.1 includes the NEPA purpose and need for this action. As described in more detail in section 5, the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternative 1B for scup and 2B for black sea bass) include catch and landings limits for scup and black sea bass in 2020 and 2021 based on the recommendations of the SSC, the Council, and the Board. For scup, this includes commercial quotas of 22.23 million

163

pounds in 2020 and 18.06 million pounds in 2021 and RHLs of 6.51 million pounds in 2020 and 5.34 million pounds in 2021. For black sea bass, the Council adopted identical landings limits across the two years, including a 2020-2021 commercial quota of 5.58 million pounds and a 2020- 2021 RHL of 5.81 million pounds. Additional non-preferred alternatives were also considered. All alternatives are described in detail in section 5. For the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, only the preferred alternatives and those non-preferred alternatives which would minimize negative impacts to small businesses are considered (section 8.10.4). 8.10.2. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act, enacted in 1980 and codified at 5 U.S.C. 600-611, was designed to place the burden on the government to review all new regulations to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purposes, they do not unduly inhibit the ability of small entities to compete. The Regulatory Flexibility Act recognizes that the size of a business, unit of government, or nonprofit organization can have a bearing on its ability to comply with federal regulations. Major goals of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are to: 1) increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small business; 2) require that agencies communicate and explain their findings to the public; and 3) encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act emphasizes predicting significant adverse impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities, as well as consideration of alternatives that may minimize negative impacts to small entities, while still achieving the objective of the action (section 8.10.4). When an agency publishes a proposed rule, it must either, (1) certify that the action will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities, and support such a certification with a factual basis demonstrating this outcome, or (2) if such a certification cannot be supported by a factual basis, prepare and make available for public review an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The sections below provide supporting analysis to assess whether the proposed regulations will have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 8.10.2.1. Description and Number of Entities to Which the Rule Applies The entities (i.e., the small and large businesses) that may be affected by this action include fishing operations with federal moratorium (commercial) permits and/or federal party/charter permits for scup and/or black sea bass. Private recreational anglers are not considered “entities” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, thus economic impacts on private anglers are not considered here. For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR §200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million, for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A business primarily engaged in for-hire fishing is classified as small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7 million.

164

Vessel ownership data16 were used to identify all individuals who own fishing vessels. Vessels were then grouped according to common owners. The resulting groupings were then treated as entities, or affiliates, for purposes of identifying small and large businesses which may be affected by this action. Affiliates were identified as primarily commercial fishing affiliates if the majority of their revenues in 2018 came from commercial fishing. Some of these affiliates may have also held party/charter permits. Affiliates were identified as primarily for-hire fishing affiliates if the majority of their revenues in 2018 came from for-hire fishing. Some of these affiliates may have also held commercial permits. Based on this grouping, a total of 645 commercial affiliates reported revenue from scup and/or black sea bass landings in at least one year during 2016-2018. Based on combined receipts in 2018, 634 (98%) of these commercial affiliates were classified as small businesses and 11 (2%) were classified as large businesses. A total of 384 affiliates were identified as small businesses which may be impacted by this action (i.e., they held scup and/or black sea bass moratorium and/or for- hire permits in 2016-2018) but reported no revenues from commercial or recreational in 2018. These 384 affiliates are not discussed further in this section. 364 for-hire affiliates generated revenues from recreational fishing in at least one year during 2016- 2018. All these affiliates were categorized as small businesses based on their 2018 revenues. It is not possible to determine what proportion of their revenues came from fishing for an individual species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of scup and black sea bass as recreational species in the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England, revenues generated from these species are likely important for many of these firms at certain times of the year. 8.10.2.2. Economic Impacts on Regulated Entities The expected impacts of the proposed action were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches to the extent possible. Effects on profitability associated with the proposed measures should be evaluated by looking at the impact of the measures on individual business entities’ costs and revenues. Changes in gross revenues were used as a proxy for profitability. Where quantitative data were not available, qualitative analyses were conducted. Expected Impacts on Commercial Entities The 634 potentially impacted small businesses had average total annual revenues of $1.2 million and $24,534 on average in annual revenues from commercial landings of scup and/or black sea bass during 2016-2018. On average, scup and black sea bass accounted for 8% of the total revenues for these 634 small businesses. The 11 potentially impacted large businesses had average total annual revenues of $128.1 million and $57,853 on average in annual revenues from commercial landings of scup and/or black sea bass during 2016-2018. On average, scup and black sea bass accounted for less than 1% of the total revenues for these 11 large businesses. Due to the higher dependence on scup and black sea bass for the small commercial businesses compared to the large businesses, the small businesses may feel the effects of this action to a greater extent than the large businesses. Likewise, as shown in Table 44, the smaller of the small

16 Affiliate data for 2016-2018 were provided by the NMFS NEFSC Social Science Branch.

165

businesses (based on average annual total revenues) tended to have a greater reliance on scup and black sea bass than the larger small businesses. These smaller affiliates may feel the effects of this action to a greater extent than the larger small businesses which derive a lower proportion of their annual revenues from black sea bass and scup. Although scup and black sea bass contributed to 8% of the annual revenues for the small business on average and less than 1% for the large businesses, some individual businesses had a higher dependence on these species. For example, 25 of the 634 small commercial businesses (4%) received at least 50% of their average total annual incomes from commercial scup and black sea bass landings during 2016-2018 according to the affiliate database. The affiliates with a higher dependence on scup and black sea bass will experience the effects of this action to a greater extent than those with a lower dependence on these species. The economic impacts of the preferred alternatives on all potentially impacted commercial affiliates were evaluated primarily based on expected changes in revenues. Actual revenues in 2020-2021 will depend on a variety of factors, including the commercial quotas and other management measures (e.g., possession limits); management measures for other commercially- harvested species; availability of scup, black sea bass, and other species; market factors (e.g., price of scup and black sea bass compared to alternative species), weather, and other factors. As described in more detail in section 7.4, the preferred scup alternative (alternative 1B) is expected to result in similar levels of commercial scup landings and revenues as over the past several years. Commercial scup landings appear to be influenced more by market facts than the annual commercial quota. The preferred 2020-2021 scup quotas represent a decrease from 2018- 2019; however, they will not decrease to the extent that they are expected to impact commercial landings, which have been below the quotas since 2007. In general, the preferred 2020-2021 scup quotas are expected to have moderate positive impacts for both the small and large business identified above because they are expected to result in revenues similar to those over the past several years. The preferred alternative for black sea bass (i.e., alternative 2B) is expected to have generally moderate positive socioeconomic impacts for all participants because it would allow for increased commercial landings and revenues. Some of these positive impacts may be partially offset if an increase in landings results in a decrease in price. In addition, some commercial fishery participants may be better able to take advantage of this increase than others. For example, vessels using trawl gear may be able to land more black sea bass per trip than those using pots/traps. However, when considered as a whole, all potentially impacted small and large commercial fishing businesses are expected to benefit from the preferred black sea bass alternative.

166

Table 44: Average annual total revenues during 2016-2018 for the small businesses/affiliates likely to be affected by the proposed action, as well as average annual revenues from commercial landings of scup and/or black sea bass. Only those businesses which reported commercial fishing revenue during 2016-2018 are shown. 2016-2018 avg. Average annual revenues Scup and/or black annual total 2016-2018 avg. Count of from scup and/or sea bass revenues revenue total revenues (all affiliates black sea bass as proportion of (millions of firms combined) (all firms gross revenues dollars) combined) <0.25 361 67,700 4,780 9% 0.25 to <1 146 511,938 37,377 7% 1 to <2 64 1,443,188 52,567 4% 2 to <5 38 3,174,468 104,339 3% 5 to <10 12 6,817,146 23,219 0% 10+ 13 28,226,970 58,806 0% All 634 1,200,210 24,534 8%

Expected Impacts on Recreational Entities As previously stated, 364 for-hire fishing affiliates were identified as small businesses which may be impacted by this action and reported revenues from any fishing activity in 2018. All these affiliates were categorized as small businesses based on their revenues in 2018. These 364 small businesses had average total annual revenues of $228,982 during 2016-2018. Their average revenues from recreational for hire fishing (for a variety of species) was $227,527. Average annual revenues from for-hire fishing ranged from less than $10,000 for 108 affiliates to over $1,000,000 for 15 affiliates. On average, recreational fishing accounted for 96% of the total revenues for these 364 small businesses, according to the affiliate database. It is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues for these for-hire affiliates came from fishing activities for an individual species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of scup and black sea bass as recreational species in the Mid-Atlantic and New England (section 6.4), revenues generated from these species are likely important to many of these firms, at least at certain times of the year. For-hire revenues are impacted by a variety of factors, including regulations and demand for for- hire trips for scup, black sea bass, and other potential target species; weather; the economy; and other factors. As described in section 7.4, if recreational harvest of scup and black sea bass were to be constrained to the 2020-2021 RHLs under the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternative 1B for scup and 2B for black sea bass), this would require a notable reduction in landings compared to recent levels. For example, scup harvest would need to decrease by 50% in 2020 and 59% in 2021 compared to 2018 (the most recent complete year for which information is available) and black sea bass harvest would need to decrease by 27%. Given the popularity of scup and black sea bass in this region, this could result in a decrease in for-hire trips, decreased for-hire revenues, and overall moderate negative impacts to recreational for-hire businesses. These impacts would be greater in magnitude for the for-hire businesses which depend more heavily on scup and/or black

167

sea bass. As previously stated, it is not possible to determine the relative importance of these species compared to other species for the potentially impacted for-hire affiliates. 8.10.3. Regulatory Impact Review Executive Order 12866 requires a Regulatory Impact Review in order to enhance planning and coordination with respect to new and existing regulations. This Executive Order requires the Office of Management and Budget to review regulatory programs that are considered to be “significant.” Executive Order 12866 requires a review of proposed regulations to determine whether or not the expected effects would be significant, where a significant regulatory action is one that may: • Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, • Adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities, • Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, • Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof, or • Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. As shown in section 6.4, the collective sum of the commercial ex-vessel value for scup and black sea bass species is much less than $100 million per year. Assuming average 2016-2018 price per pound for each species (i.e., $0.66 for scup and $3.31 for black sea bass, adjusted to 2018 values), and assuming the commercial quotas in 2020 and 2021 are fully landed for each species, the maximum ex-vessel value could be $23.53 million in 2020 and $22.75 million in 2021. These are considered the maximum values because, as previously stated, the commercial scup fishery has under-harvested the commercial quota for many years and the average black sea bass price per pound may decrease in response to increased landings during 2020-2021 (sections 7.4.1.2 and 7.4.2.3). Data on for-hire revenues by species are not available. As previously stated, the NEFSC affiliate database suggests that during 2016-2018, total for-hire revenues for all 364 potentially impacted for-hire affiliates combined averaged $82.82 million per year from all recreational species. The contribution of scup and black sea bass to these revenues is unknown. Although they are important recreational species, it is unlikely that they accounted for most of the $82.82 million in for-hire revenues for the 364 potentially impacted for-hire affiliates. Based on this information, it is extremely unlikely that the preferred alternatives would have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more. This action is consistent with previous actions by the Council and NMFS, and there is no known conflict with other agencies. There are no known impacts on any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. There are no known conflicts with other legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. The preferred alternatives are largely based on measures previously implemented for other Council managed species and are not precedent-setting or novel.

168

8.10.4. Analysis of Non-Preferred Alternatives When considering the economic impacts of the alternatives under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866, consideration should also be given to those non-preferred alternatives which would result in higher net benefits or lower costs to small entities while still achieving the stated objective of the action. As described in section 7.4, alternatives 1A (scup status quo), 1C (scup least restrictive), and 2C (black sea bass least restrictive) could allow for higher commercial and recreational landings than the preferred alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1B and 2B). Therefore, they would be expected to have higher net benefits to small entities compared to the preferred alternatives. However, these alternatives would not meet the objective of this action (section 4.1), as they would allow for catches that exceed the ABCs recommended by the SSC, which are intended to prevent overfishing and are based on the best available scientific information.

9. LITERATURE CITED Angliss, R.P. and D. P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals Taken Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations: Report of the Serious Injury Workshop 2 April 1997, Silver Spring, Maryland. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-13, January 1998. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2007. Special report to the Atlantic Sturgeon Management Board: Estimation of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch in coastal Atlantic commercial fisheries of New England and the Mid-Atlantic. August 2007. 95 p. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2016. 2016 Tautog Stock Assessment Update. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/589e1d3f2016TautogAssessmentUpdate_Oct2016.pdf. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2017a. 2017 Atlantic Croaker Stock Assessment Peer Review. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/59c2ba88AtlCroakerAssessmentPeerReviewReport_May2017.pdf. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2017b. 2017 Atlantic sturgeon benchmark stock assessment and peer review report. October 18, 2017. 456 pp. ASSRT (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team). 2007. Status review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 p. Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-54:387-429. Baum, E.T. 1997. Maine Atlantic Salmon - A National Treasure. Atlantic Salmon Unlimited. Hermon, Maine. Baumgartner, M.F., T.V.N. Cole, R.G. Campbell, G.J. Teegarden and E.G. Durbin. 2003. Associations between North Atlantic right whales and their prey, Calanus finmarchicus, over diel and tidal time scales. Marine Ecological Progress Series. 264: 155–166. Baumgartner, M.F. and B.R. Mate. 2003. Summertime foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales. Marine Ecological Progress Series. 264: 123–135. Beanlands, G.E., and P. N. Duinker. 1984. Ecological framework adjustment for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management. 8:3.

169

Beardsall, A. B., K. D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004a. Atlantic sturgeon marine distribution and habitat use along the northeastern coast of the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 133: 527-537. Beardsall, J.W., M. F. McLean, S. J. Cooke, B. C. Wilson, M. J. Dadswell, A. M. Redden, and M. J. W. Stokesbury. 2013. Consequences of incidental otter trawl capture on Survival and Physiological Condition of Threatened Atlantic Sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 142:1202– 1214. Blaylock, J. and G.R. Shepherd. 2016. Evaluating the vulnerability of an atypical protogynous hermaphrodite to fishery exploitation: results from a population model for black sea bass (Centropristis striata). Fishery Bulletin 114(4): 476-489. Blumenthal, J.M., J.L. Solomon, C.D. Bell, T.J. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, M.S. Coyne, A.C. Broderick, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Satellite tracking highlights the need for international cooperation in marine turtle management. Endangered Species Research. 2:51-61. Braun, J., and S.P. Epperly. 1996. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in southern Georgia waters, June 1991. Gulf of Mexico Science. 1996(1):39-44. Braun-McNeill, J., and S.P. Epperly. 2002. Spatial and temporal distribution of sea turtles in the western North Atlantic and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico from Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Marine Fisheries Review. 64(4):50-56. Braun-McNeill, J., C.R. Sasso, S.P.Epperly, C. Rivero. 2008. Feasibility of using sea surface temperature imagery to mitigate cheloniid sea turtle–fishery interactions off the coast of northeastern USA. Endangered Species Research. 5: 257–266. Brown, M.B., O.C. Nichols, M.K. Marx, and J.N. Ciano. 2002. Surveillance of North Atlantic right whales in Cape Cod Bay and adjacent waters. Final report to the Division of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. September 2002. 29 p. Chavez-Rosales S, Lyssikatos MC, Hatch J. 2017. Estimates of cetacean and pinniped bycatch in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, 2011-2015. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 17-16; 18 p. Available from: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/. Clapham, P.J., L.S. Baraff, C.A. Carlson, M.A. Christian, D.K. Mattila, C.A. Mayo, M.A. Murphy and S. Pittman. 1993. Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the southern Gulf of Maine. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 71: 440-443. Cole, T. V. N., P. Hamilton, A. G. Henry, P. Duley, R. M. Pace III, B. N. White, T. Frasier. 2013. Evidence of a North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mating ground. Endangered Species Research. 21: 55–64. Collins, M. R. and T. I. J. Smith. 1997. Distribution of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in South Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17: 995-1000. Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2009. 222 p. Dadswell, M. 2006. A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with comparisons to populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries. 31: 218-229. Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, LeSuer 1818. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 14.

170

Dodge, K.L., B. Galuardi, T. J. Miller, and M. E. Lutcavage. 2014. Leatherback turtle movements, dive behavior, and habitat characteristics in ecoregions of the northwest Atlantic Ocean. PLOS ONE. 9 (3) e91726: 1-17. Dovel, W.L. and T.J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River Estuary, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal. 30: 140-172. Dunton, K.J., A. Jordaan, K.A. McKown, D.O. Conover, and M.J. Frisk. 2010. Abundance and distribution of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) within the northwest Atlantic Ocean, determined from five fishery-independent surveys. Fishery Bulletin. 108:450-465. Dunton, K.J., A. Jordaan, D. O. Conover, K.A. McKown, L. A. Bonacci, and M. G. Frisk. 2015. Marine Distribution and Habitat Use of Atlantic Sturgeon in New York Lead to Fisheries Interactions and Bycatch. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 7:18–32. Drohan, A.F., J. P. Manderson, D. B. Packer. 2007. Essential fish habitat source document: black sea bass, Centropristis striata, life history and habitat characteristics, 2nd edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 200; 68 p. Eckert, S.A., D. Bagley, S. Kubis, L. Ehrhart, C. Johnson, K. Stewart, and D. DeFreese. 2006. Internesting and postnesting movements of foraging habitats of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 5(2): 239-248. Eno, N.C., D.S MacDonald, J.A.M. Kinnear, S.C Amos, C.J. Chapman, R.A Clark, F.P.D Bunker, Munro, C. 2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 58:11-20. Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin. 93: 254-261. Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, F.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995b.Winter distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the summer flounder trawl fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science. 56(2): 547-568. Erickson, D. L., A. Kahnle, M. J. Millard, E. A. Mora, M. Bryja, A. Higgs, J. Mohler, M. DuFour, G. Kenney, J. Sweka, and E. K. Pikitch. 2011. Use of pop-up satellite archival tags to identify oceanic- migratory patterns for adult Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Mitchell, 1815. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 27: 356–365. Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, and J. Trial. 2006. Status review for anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 294 pages. Gaichas, S., J. Hare, M. Pinsky, G. DePiper, O. Jensen, T. Lederhouse, J. Link, D. Lipton, R. Seagraves, J. Manderson, and M. Clark. 2015. Climate change and variability: a white paper to inform the Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Council on the impact of climate change on fishery science and management. Second draft. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm/ Greene, J.K., M.G. Anderson, J. Odell, and N. Steinberg, eds. 2010. The Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems. Phase One. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern U.S. Division, Boston, MA. Available at: www.conservationgateway.org Griffin, D.B., S. R. Murphy, M. G. Frick, A. C. Broderick, J. W. Coker, M. S. Coyne, M. G. Dodd, M. H. Godfrey, B. J. Godley, L. A. Hawkes, T. M. Murphy, K. L. Williams, and M. J. Witt. 2013. Foraging habitats and migration corridors utilized by a recovering subpopulation of adult female loggerhead sea turtles: implications for conservation. Marine Biology. 160: 3071–3086. Hare, J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, M.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B. Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental

171

Shelf. PLoS ONE 11(2). Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146756. Hartley, D., A. Whittingham, J. Kenney, T. Cole, and E. Pomfret. 2003. Large Whale Entanglement Report 2001. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, updated February 2003. Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, L.-F. Lopez-Jurado, P. Lopez Suarez, S.E. Merino, N. Varo-Cruz, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Phenotypically linked dichotomy in sea turtle foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. Current Biology. 16: 990-995. Hawkes, L.A., M.J. Witt, A.C. Broderick, J.W. Coker, M.S. Coyne, M. Dodd, M.G. Frick, M.H. Godfrey, D.B. Griffin, S.R. Murphy, T.M. Murphy, K.L. Williams, and B.J. Godley. 2011. Home on the range: spatial ecology of loggerhead turtles in Atlantic waters of the USA. Diversity and Distributions. 17: 624– 640. Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson , K. Maze-Foley , and P. E. Rosel. 2017. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments 2016. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-241. Hayes, S.A, E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. Rosel. 2018. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment-2017. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-245. Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel. 2019. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2018. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-258. Henry, A.G., T.V.N. Cole, L. Hall, W. Ledwell, D. Morin, and A. Reid. 2016. Serious injury and mortality and determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States east coast and Atlantic Canadian provinces, 2010-2014. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 16- 10; 51 p. Henry, A.G., T.V.N. Cole, M. Garron, W. Ledwell, D. Morin, and A. Reid. 2017. Serious injury and mortality and determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States east coast and Atlantic Canadian provinces, 2011-2015. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 17- 19; 57 p. Henry, A., M. Garron, A. Reid, D. Morin, W. Ledwell, and T.V.N. Cole. 2019. Serious injury and mortality and determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States east coast and Atlantic Canadian provinces, 2012-2016. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 19-13; 54 p. Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). USFWS Biological Report 97(1): 1-120. Hyvarinen, P., P. Suuronen and T. Laaksonen. 2006. Short-term movement of wild and reared Atlantic salmon smolts in brackish water estuary – preliminary study. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 13(6): 399 -401. James, M.C., R.A. Myers, and C.A. Ottenmeyer. 2005. Behaviour of leatherback sea turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272: 1547-1555. James, M.C., S.A. Sherrill-Mix, K. Martin, and R. A. Myers. 2006. Canadian waters provide critical foraging habitat for leatherback sea turtles. Biological Conservation. 133: 347-357. Johnson, A. J., G. S. Salvador, J. F. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. D. Kraus, S. C. Landry, and P. J. Clapham. 2005. Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales, Marine Mammal Science 21(4): 635-645. Kenney, J., and D. Hartley. 2001. Draft large whale entanglement summary 1997-2001. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, updated October.

172

Kenney, R.D., M.A.M. Hyman, R.E. Owen, G.P. Scott and H.E. Winn. 1986. Estimation of prey densities required by western North Atlantic right whales. Marine Mammal Science. 2: 1–13. Kenney, R.D., H.E. Winn and M.C. Macaulay 1995. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research. 15: 385–414. Khan, C., T.V.N. Cole, P. Duley, A. Glass, M. Niemeyer, and C. Christman. 2009. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) 2008 Results Summary. NEFSC Reference Document 09-05. 7 p. Khan, C., T. Cole, P. Duley, A. Glass, and J. Gatzke. 2010. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) 2009 Results Summary. NEFSC Reference Document 10-07. 7 p. Khan, C., T. Cole, P. Duley, A. Glass, and J. Gatzke. 2011. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) 2010 Results Summary. NEFSC Reference Document 11-05. 6 p. Khan C., T. Cole, P. Duley, A. Glass, and J. Gatzke, J. Corkeron. 2012. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) 2011 Results Summary. NEFSC Reference Document 12-09; 6 p. Knowlton, A.R., P.K. Hamilton, M.K. Marx, H.M. Pettis, and S.D. Kraus. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 466:293-302. Kocik. J.F., S.E. Wigley, and D. Kircheis. 2014. Annual bycatch update Atlantic salmon 2013. U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee Working Paper 2014:05. Old Lyme, CT. 6 p. (cited with permission of authors). Kynard, B., M. Horgan, M. Kieffer, and D. Seibel. 2000. Habitat used by shortnose sturgeon in two Massachusetts rivers, with notes on estuarine Atlantic sturgeon: a hierarchical approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 129: 487-503. Lacroix, G.L. and P. McCurdy. 1996. Migratory behavior of post-smolt Atlantic salmon during initial stages of seaward migration. Journal of Fish Biology. 49: 1086-1101. Lacroix, G. L, P. McCurdy, and D. Knox. 2004. Migration of Atlantic salmon post smolts in relation to habitat use in a coastal system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 133(6):1455-1471. Lacroix, G.L. and D. Knox. 2005. Distribution of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) postsmolts of different origins in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine and evaluation of factors affecting migration, growth, and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 62: 1363–1376. Laney, R.W., J.E. Hightower, B.R. Versak, M.F. Mangold, W.W. Cole Jr., and S.E. Winslow 2007. Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured during cooperative winter tagging cruises, 1988–2006. Pages 167-182. In: J. Munro, D. Hatin, J. E. Hightower, K. McKown, K. J. Sulak, A. W. Kahnle, and F. Caron, (editors), Anadromous sturgeons: Habitats, threats, and management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56, Bethesda, MD. Lucey, S. M. and J. A. Nye. 2010. Shifting species assemblages in the northeast US continental shelf large marine ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 415: 23-33. Lyssikatos, M.C. 2015. Estimates of cetacean and pinniped bycatch in Northeast and mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, 2008-2013. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 15-19; 20 p.

173

MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2002. Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. 552 p. + append. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/fisheries/fmp/sf-s-bsb MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2008. Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. 461 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/SMB_Amend_9_Vol_1.pdf. MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2011. Amendment 15 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. 383 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/fisheries/fmp/sf-s-bsb MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2013. Amendment 19 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. 116 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Recreational-AM-Amendment-EA_September-2013.pdf MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2014. Workshop Report: East Coast Climate Change and Fisheries Governance Workshop. March 19-21, 2014, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2014/east-coast-climate-change-and-fisheries-governance- workshop. MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2018. Framework Adjustment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. 136 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/sfsbsb-commercial-AM-FW-draftEA.pdf. MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2019a. Framework Adjustment 14 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/sf-s- bsb. MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2019b. Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Performance Report, August 2019. 9 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/sf-s-bsb. MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2019c. Report of the September 2019 SSC meeting. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2019/september-9-11. Mansfield, K.L., V.S. Saba, J. Keinath, and J.A. Musick. 2009. Satellite telemetry reveals adichotomy in migration strategies among juvenile loggerhead sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic. Marine Biology. 156:2555-2570. Mayo, C.A., and M.K. Marx. 1990. Surface foraging behaviour of the North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, and associated zooplankton characteristics. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68: 2214– 2220. McClellan, C.M., and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life history. Biology Letters. 3:592-594 Miller, T. and G. Shepard. 2011. Summary of discard estimates for Atlantic sturgeon. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Population Dynamics Branch, August 2011. Mitchell, G.H., R.D. Kenney, A.M. Farak, and R.J. Campbell. 2003. Evaluation of occurrence of endangered and threatened marine species in naval ship trial areas and transit lanes in the Gulf of Maine and offshore of Georges Bank. NUWC-NPT Technical Memo 02-121A. 113 p. Morgan, L. E. and R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. Waters. Pew Science Series. Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/reports/2003/05/01/shifting-gears-addressing-the-collateral-impacts-of-fishing-methods-in-us- waters Moore, M.J. and J. M. van der Hoop. 2012. The Painful Side of Trap and Fixed Net Fisheries:

174

Chronic Entanglement of Large Whales. Journal of Marine Biology, Volume 2012, Article ID 230653, 4 pages Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 2005. Western North Atlantic waters: Crucial developmental habitat for Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation Biology. 4(4):872-882. Murphy, T.M., S.R. Murphy, D.B. Griffin, and C. P. Hope. 2006. Recent occurrence, spatial distribution and temporal variability of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in nearshore waters of South Carolina, USA. Chelonian Conservation Biology. 5(2): 216-224. Murray, K.T., 2008. Estimated average annual bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in US Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996–2004, second ed. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 08-20, p. 32. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0820 Murray, K.T. 2013. Estimated loggerhead and unidentified hard-shelled turtle interactions in mid-Atlantic gillnet gear, 2007-2011. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NM-225. 20 p. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/ Murray, K.T. 2015. The importance of location and operational fishing factors in estimating and reducing loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in U.S. bottom trawl gear. Fisheries Research. 172: 440– 451. NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 2018. Framework Adjustment 5 to the Northeast Skate Complex FMP. Newburyport, MA. NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2015. 60th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment (60th SAW) assessment report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 15-08; 870 p. NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2017. 62nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (62nd SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 17-03; 822 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543- 1026, or online at http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/. NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2018a. Scup Data Update for 2018. 19 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Scup_2018_Data_Update_V2.pdf. NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2018b. Update on the Status of Spiny Dogfish in 2018 and Projected Harvests at the Fmsy Proxy and Pstar of 40%. Report to the Mid-Atlantic Scientific and Statistical Committee. 82 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/2018-Status-Report-for-spiny- dogfish.pdf NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2019. Operational Assessment of the Black Sea Bass, Scup, Bluefish, and Monkfish Stocks, Updated Through 2018. Prepublication copy prepared for use by Fishery Management Council staff and SSC. 164 p. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Operational- Assessments-for-Black-Sea-Bass_Scup_Bluefish.pdf. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991. Final recovery plan for the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 105 p. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Revision- recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by the Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 137 p. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Final recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Prepared by the Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 121 p.

175

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011a. Final recovery plan for the sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Prepared by the Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 108 p. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011b. Bycatch Working Group Discussion Notes. NMFS Sturgeon Workshop, Alexandria, VA. February 11, 2011. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Implementation of Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, Spiny Dogfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Northeast Skate Complex, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish, and Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fisheries. Available at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/section7/bo/actbiops/batchedfisheriesopinionfinal 121613.pdf NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014a. NMFS-Greater Atlantic Region (GARFO) Memo to the record: Determination regarding reinitiation of Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on 12 GARFO fisheries and two Northeast Fisheries Science Center funded fisheries research surveys due to critical habitat designation for loggerhead sea turtles. Memo issued September 17, 2014. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan: Vertical Line Rule. National Marine Fisheries Service. May 2014. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015a. Endangered Species Act Section 4(b)(2) Report: Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Southeast Regional Office, December 2015. http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2016/January/16narwchsection4_b__2_report012616.p df NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015b. North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Source Document for the Critical Habitat Designation: A review of information pertaining to the definition of “critical habitat” Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Southeast Regional Office, July 2015. NMFS NEFSC FSB (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Sampling Branch). 2019. Northeast Fisheries Observer Program: Incidental Take Reports. Omnibus data request + supplemental data for 2018. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 58 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 65 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 139 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 84 p.

176

NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 50 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 102 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Second revision. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 325 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 91 p. NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Draft Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). NMFS, USFWS, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 156 p. + appendices. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008. High numbers of right whales seen in Gulf of Maine: NOAA researchers identify wintering ground and potential breeding ground. NOAA press release. December 31, 2008. Nye, J. A., T. M. Joyce, Y.O. Kwon, and J.S. Link. 2011. Silver hake tracks changes in Northwest Atlantic circulation. Nature Communications. 2:412. O’Leary, S.J., K. J. Dunton, T. L. King, M. G. Frisk, and D.D. Chapman. 2014. Genetic diversity and effective size of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhinchus oxyrhinchus, river spawning populations estimated from the microsatellite genotypes of marine-captured juveniles. Conservation Genetics. 15(5):1173-1181. Pace, R.M., Corkeron, P.J., Kraus, S.D. (2017). State–space mark–recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecol. Evo. 1-12. Packer, D. B, S. J. Griesbach, P. L. Berrien, C. A. Zetlin, D. L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. Palmer, D. 2017. Developing the Protected Resources Affected Environment for Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Greater Atlantic Region Policy Series 17-01. NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office - www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/policyseries/. 74p. Payne, P.M., J.R. Nicholas, L. O'Brien and K.D. Powers. 1986. The distribution of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine in relation to densities of the sand eel, Ammodytes americanus. Fishery Bulletin. 84: 271-277. Payne, P.M., D.N. Wiley, S.B. Young, S. Pittman, P.J. Clapham, and J.W. Jossi. 1990. Recent fluctuations in the abundance of baleen whales in the southern Gulf of Maine in relation to changes in selected prey. Fishery Bulletin. 88: 687-696.

177

Pettis, H.M., Pace, R.M., Hamilton, P.K. (2018). North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2018 Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. www.narwc.org. Pinsky, M.L., B. Worm, M.J. Fogarty, J.L. Sarmiento, and S.A. Levin. 2013. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science. 341(6151): 1239-1242. Reddin, D.G. 1985. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) on and east of the Grand Bank. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science. 6(2):157-164. Reddin, D.G and P.B. Short. 1991. Postsmolt Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Labrador Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 48:2-6. Reddin, D.G and K.D. Friedland. 1993. Marine environmental factors influencing the movement and survival of Atlantic salmon. 4th Int. Atlantic Salmon Symposium. St. Andrews, N.B. Canada. Robbins, J. 2009. Scar-based inference into the Gulf of Maine humpback whale entanglement: 2003-2006. Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. NOAA Contract #EA133F04SE0998. SEDAR. 2015. SEDAR 39 Stock Assessment Report: HMS Atlantic smooth dogfish. North Charleston (SC): SEDAR. Seminoff, J.A., C.D. Allen, G.H. Balazs, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H.L. Hass, S.A. Hargrove, M. Jensen, D.L. Klemm, A.M. Lauritsen, S.L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E.E. Possardt, S. Pultz, E. Seney, K.S. Van Houtan, and R.S. Waples. 2015. Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum: NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-539. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, March 2015. Sheehan, T.F., D.G. Reddin, G. Chaput and M.D. Renkawitz. 2012. SALSEA North America: Apelagic ecosystem survey targeting Atlantic salmon in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 69(9):1580-1588. Schilling, M. R., I. Seipt, M. T. Weinrich, S. E. Frohock, A. E. Kuhlberg, and P. J. Clapham. 1992. Behavior of individually-identified sei whales Balaenoptera borealis during an episodic influx into the southern Gulf of Maine in 1986. Fishery Bulletin. 90:749–755. Shoop, C.R., and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs. 6:43-67. STDN (Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network). 2016. Northeast Region Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network Summary of Entanglement/Disentanglement Data from 2002-2016. Unpublished report compiled by NMFS NERO. STDN (Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network). 2019. Northeast Region Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network Summary of Entanglement/Disentanglement Data from 2002-2018. Unpublished report compiled by NMFS Greater Atlantic Region’s Protected Resources Division. Steimle, FW, Zetlin CA, Berrien PL, Johnson DL, Chang S. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Scup, Stenotomus chrysops, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 149; 39 p. Steimle, FW, and CA Zetlin. 2000. Reef habitats in the middle Atlantic bight: abundance, distribution, associated biological communities, and fishery resource use. Marine Fisheries Review. 62: 24-42.. 62: 24- 42. Stein, A. B., K. D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004b. Atlantic sturgeon marine bycatch and mortality on the continental shelf of the Northeast United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 24: 171-183.

178

Stenseth, N.C, Mysterud, A., Otterson, G., Hurrell, J.W., Chan, K., and M. Lima. 2002 Ecological Effects of Climate Fluctuations. Science 297(5585); 1292-1296. Stevenson, D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J. McCarthy, M. Pentony. 2004. Characterization of the fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on Essential Fish Habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-181; 179 p. Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pitchford, W.A. McLellan, and D.A. Pabst. 1993. Appearance of juvenile humpback whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Marine Mammal Science.. 9: 309- 315. Terceiro M. 2017. Stock Assessment of Scup for 2017. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/5Scup_2017_Assesssment_Update.pdf. Terceiro, M., A. Miller. 2014. Commercial fishery scup discarding and the Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). White paper for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 30 p. TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the Western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409:1-96. TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444: 1-115. TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555: 1-116. TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575: 1-131. Timoshkin, V. P. 1968. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser sturio L.) caught at sea. Journal of Ichthyol. 8(4): 598. USASAC (U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee). 2013. Annual reports 2001 through 2012. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. Vu, E., D. Risch, C. Clark, S. Gaylord, L. Hatch, M. Thompson, D. Wiley, and S. Van Parijs. 2012. Humpback whale song occurs extensively on feeding grounds in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Aquatic Biology.14(2):175–183. Waldman, J.R., T. King, T. Savoy, L. Maceda, C. Grunwald, and I. Wirgin. 2013. Stock origins of subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, in a non-natal estuary, Long Island Sound. Estuaries and Coasts. 36:257–267. Warden, M.L. 2011a. Modeling loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions with US Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear for fish and scallops, 2005–2008. Biological Conservation. 144: 2202–2212. Warden, M.L. 2011b. Proration of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in US Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawls for fish and scallops, 2005-2008, by managed species landed. NEFSC Reference Document 11-04; 8 p. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/ Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley. 2007. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-201. Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, editors. 2014a. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments—2013. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS- NE-228. 475 p.

179

Waring, G.T., F. Wenzel, E. Josephson, M.C. Lyssikatos. 2014b. Serious Injury Determinations for Small Cetaceans and Pinnipeds Caught in Commercial Fisheries off the Northeast U.S. Coast, 2007-2011. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 14-13; 26 p. Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, editors. 2015. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments 2014. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/atl2014_final.pdf Waring, G.T. , E. Josephson , K. Maze-Foley , and P. E. Rosel. 2016. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments 2015. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-238. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/atlantic2015_final.pdf Weinberg, J. R. 2005. Bathymetric shift in the distribution of Atlantic surfclams: response to warmer ocean temperature. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 62(7): 1444-1453. Whittingham, A., D. Hartley, J. Kenney, T. Cole, and E. Pomfret. 2005a. Large Whale Entanglement Report 2002. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, updated March 2005. Whittingham, A., M. Garron, J. Kenney, and D. Hartley. 2005b. Large Whale Entanglement Report 2003. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, updated June 2005. Wippelhauser, G.S. 2012. A Regional Conservation Plan For Atlantic Sturgeon in the U. S. Gulf of Maine. Prepared on behalf of Maine Department of Marine Resources, Bureau of Science. NOAA Species of Concern Grant Program Award #NA06NMF4720249A. Wirgin, I., L. Maceda, J.R. Waldman, S. Wehrell, M. Dadswell, and T. King. 2012. Stock origin of migratory Atlantic sturgeon in the Minas Basin, Inner Bay of Fundy, Canada, determined by microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA analyses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 141(5): 1389-1398. Wirgin, I., M. W. Breece , D. A. Fox , L. Maceda , K. W. Wark, and T. King. 2015a. Origin of Atlantic sturgeon collected off the Delaware coast during spring months. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 35: 20–30. Wirgin, I., L. Maceda, C. Grunwald, and T. L. King. 2015b. Population origin of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus by-catch in U.S. Atlantic coast fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology 86(4):1251–1270.

180

10. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED In preparing this document, the Council consulted with NMFS, the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, USFWS, and the states of Maine through North Carolina through their membership on the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils. The advice of NMFS GARFO personnel was sought to ensure compliance with NMFS formatting requirements. Copies of this document and other supporting documents are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901, (302) 674-2331, http://www.mafmc.org/.

181