Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Atlantic Mackerel, Butterfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Spiny Dogfish, Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass, Tilefish, Surfclam, and Ocean Quahog Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures Omnibus Amendment; Scoping Process, 12314-12316 [E9-6468]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
12314
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices
outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on
GMRI herring EFP.’’ Comments may
also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978)
281–9135.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cheryl McGarrity, Fishery Management
Specialist, phone: 978–281–9174, fax:
978–281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Science and Research Director for
NMFS’s Northeast Fisheries Science
Center selected the proposal submitted
by GMRI under the 2008–2009 Atlantic
Herring Research Set–Aside (RSA)
Program entitled: ‘‘Effects of Fishing on
Herring Aggregations,’’ which would
assess the effects of midwater trawling
on herring aggregations. An EFP was
issued to conduct this work in 2008,
and this EFP would authorize
exemptions for Year 2 of this research.
The proposed research would examine
the ability to evaluate potential impacts
of midwater trawling on Atlantic
herring aggregations through the use of
hydroacoustics. Due to concern that
other fishing vessels, particularly other
herring midwater trawl vessels, fishing
in the study area could interfere with
the survey, GMRI submitted an EFP
application to conduct its research
during the midwater gear restriction
period, thereby ensuring other midwater
trawl vessels will not be fishing in the
study area.
GMRI requests that a pair of trawl
vessels perform midwater trawling for
up to four sampling trips (each of 5-days
duration) using standard midwater trawl
gear in Areas 1A and 1B between June
1 and September 30, 2008, to evaluate
the behavioral response of isolated
herring schools to midwater trawls.
During a sampling trip, the research
team would sequentially perform a
series of acoustic surveys, conduct
midwater pair trawling, then perform
another series of acoustic surveys;
which would take less than 72 hr.
Vessels would conduct five or fewer
tows per day, with each tow lasting 2 to
4 hr. All trawling operations would be
monitored by GMRI staff. All herring
caught during the survey would be
deducted from GMRI’s Area 1A and 1B
herring RSA allocations of 2,976,240 lb
(1,350 mt) and 661,380 lb (300 mt),
respectively. Vessels conducting the
survey would not be allowed to exceed
their Area 1A or Area 1B RSA
allocations.
The subject EFP would exempt
vessels fishing for herring in
Management Area 1A and Management
Area 1B from quota closures and herring
trip possession limits, as specified at 50
CFR 648.201 and 648.204, respectively.
It would also exempt vessels from the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
01:06 Mar 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
seasonal Management Area 1A trawl
gear restriction period (restriction
period), as defined at § 648.202(a). Fish
caught during research trips would be
landed under the set–aside quota
awarded to GMRI. Herring caught as
part of this research would be deducted
from the RSA quota, not from the
commercial quota.
Regulations under the Magnuson–
Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act require publication of
this notification to provide interested
parties the opportunity to comment on
applications for proposed EFPs. The
applicant may place requests for minor
modifications and extensions to the EFP
throughout the year. EFP modifications
and extensions may be granted without
further notice if they are deemed
essential to facilitate completion of the
proposed research and minimal so as
not to change the scope or impact of the
initially approved EFP request.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 19, 2009.
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–6409 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XO02
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council; Atlantic Mackerel, Butterfish,
Atlantic Bluefish, Spiny Dogfish,
Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea
Bass, Tilefish, Surfclam, and Ocean
Quahog Annual Catch Limits and
Accountability Measures Omnibus
Amendment; Scoping Process
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
notice of public scoping meetings;
requests for comments.
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council)
announces its intention to prepare, in
cooperation with NMFS, an EIS in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act to assess
potential effects on the human
environment of alternative measures to
address the new Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act requirements for annual catch limits
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(ACLs) and accountability measures
(AMs) in an Omnibus Amendment to
the fishery management plans (FMPs)
for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish,
Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish,
summer flounder, scup, black sea bass,
tilefish, surfclams, and ocean quahogs.
Loligo and Illex squid are exempt from
these new requirements because they
have annual life cycles and not subject
to overfishing.
This notice announces a public
process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed, and for
identifying the significant issues related
to the implementation of ACLs and AMs
for these fisheries. This notice is to alert
the interested public of the scoping
process, the development of the Draft
EIS, and to provide for public
participation in that process.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on
May 15, 2009. Three public scoping
meetings will be held during this
comment period. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for dates, times, and
locations.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
sent by any of the following methods:
• E-mail to the following address:
Omnibus.NOI@noaa.gov;
• Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T.
Furlong, Executive Director, MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council,
Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South
New Street, Dover, Delaware 19904–
6790. Mark the outside of the envelope
‘‘Omnibus Amendment: National
Standard 1 Requirements Scoping
Comments’’; or
• Fax to (302) 674–5399.
The scoping document may also be
obtained from the Council office at the
previously provided address, or by
request to the Council by telephone
(302) 674–2331, or via the Internet at
https://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/
comments/comments.htm.
Comments may also be provided
verbally at any of the three public
scoping meetings. See Supplementary
Information for dates, times, and
locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Daniel T. Furlong, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Room 2115
Federal Building, 300 S. New St., Dover,
DE 19904–6790, (telephone 302–674–
2331).
The
management units for Atlantic
mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish,
spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup,
black sea bass, tilefish, surfclams, and
ocean quahogs vary, but span the range
from the eastern coast of Florida in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices
western Atlantic Ocean northward to
the U.S.-Canadian border. The specific
management units for each species, are
contained in the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic Bluefish;
Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup,
and Black Sea Bass; Tilefish, and
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMPs.
Meetings
Three scoping meetings to facilitate
public comment will be held on the
following dates and locations:
1. April 14, 2009, 7:00 p.m., The
Sanderling Resort and Spa, 1461 Duck
Rd., Duck, NC 27949;
2. April 21, 2009, 7:00 p.m., NYSDEC
Marine Resources, 205 N. Belle Mead
Rd, Ste 1 East Setauket, NY 11733.
3. May 4, 2009, 7:00 p.m., Crowne
Plaza Old Town Alexandria, 901 N.
Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia
22314;
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aid should be directed to M.
Jan Bryan (302–674–2331 ext 18) at least
5 days prior to the meeting date.
Issues Identified for Discussion Under
this Amendment
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Various Methods for Calculating
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)
In an effort to be compliant with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, National
Standard 1(NS 1), and Guidelines (50
CFR 600.310), the Council will seek to
develop formulaic approaches, known
as control rules, that can be consistently
applied to derive ABC relative to the
status of the stock and the level of
scientific uncertainty surrounding the
stock status estimate. The following are
examples of ABC control rules that the
Council may further develop for use in
managing the aforementioned species.
However, the Council may deviate from
these examples and develop additional
ABC control rule approaches, consistent
with their description in the NS 1
Guidance. The Council will rely heavily
on its Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) during development
and implementation of ABC control
rules and it will be the SSC that is
responsible for application of the final
control rules to recommend either
annual or multi-year ABCs for target
species stocks.
For example, ABC for all of the target
stocks could be prescribed through a set
of tiers designed to classify each stock
based on the amount or level of
information available, type of stock
assessment conducted, current stock
VerDate Nov<24>2008
01:06 Mar 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
status, and/or other relevant factors.
Within each tier, a pre-defined set of
control rules would be used to calculate
the overfishing level (OFL) and ABC. In
addition to an overarching tiered
approach, species-specific approaches
to developing control rules could be
applied to one, some, or all of the stocks
in the fisheries. For example, a
probability-based ABC control rule
could be applied where ABC is reduced
from OFL based on a higher likelihood
of achieving the target fishing mortality
rate of FMSY, or FREBUILD if the stock is
under a rebuilding plan. An ABC
control rule based on a fixed percentage
could also be applied. For example,
ABC could be set at 75 percent of the
OFL (ABC = 0.75 OFL) or some other
fixed percentage value. An approach
based on maintaining some specified
level of maximum spawning potential
(MSP) of a stock could also be applied.
Various Methods for Establishing ACLs
The Council will seek to develop
control rules that can be consistently
applied to derive ACLs relative to the
status of the stock and the level of
management uncertainty or
implementation error surrounding the
stock status estimate. The following are
examples of ACL control rules that the
Council may further develop for use in
managing the aforementioned stocks in
the fisheries. ACLs may be established
at the fishery level, sector level, or sub
sector level. The Council may deviate
from these examples and develop other
ACL control rule approaches, consistent
with the NS 1 Guidelines. Approaches
to developing ACL control rules could
be applied to one, some, or all the stocks
in the fisheries. For example, a
probability-based ACL control rule
could be applied where ACL is reduced
from ABC based on a higher likelihood
of achieving the target fishing mortality
rate of FMSY, or FREBUILD if the stock is
under a rebuilding plan. An ACL
control rule based on a fixed percentage
could also be applied. For example,
ACL could be set at 75 percent of the
ABC (ACL = 0.75 ABC) or some other
fixed percentage value. An approach
based on maintaining some level of MSP
of a stock could also be applied.
Various Approaches to Establishing
AMs
The Council will develop AMs that
are designed to prevent ACLs from
being exceeded, in the case of proactive
AMs, and AMs that are triggered when
an ACL is exceeded, in the case of
reactive AMs. The Council may also
consider development of annual catch
target (ACT) control rules, which are
proactive AMs, to establish catch targets
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12315
that further insure that the ACL has a
low likelihood of being exceeded and,
thus, that reactive AMs will be
triggered. The following are examples of
the type of measures that may be
considered by the Council. The Council
has considerable latitude in developing
the specific measures that will be
considered in the Omnibus
Amendment.
For one, some, or all of the stocks in
the fisheries with recreational measures
under Council management jurisdiction
(i.e. summer flounder, scup, black sea
bass, Atlantic bluefish, tilefish, and
Atlantic mackerel) the Council will
consider reactive AMs that would be
triggered if the ACL is exceeded or
proactive AMs which are designed to
prevent exceeding the ACL, or both. The
recreational catch limit is the sum of the
recreational catch limit and recreational
discards. Reactive AMs could include
the deduction of all or some of the prior
year overage to reduce the subsequent
year’s recreational catch limit. Proactive
AMs for the recreational fishery could
include the setting of an ACT that is less
than the ACL and designed to buffer
against exceeding the ACL. This may be
useful in the recreational fishery, where
timely inseason management is
typically not possible. Percentage-based
or probability-based approaches similar
to those described above for ABC and
ACL could be utilized as a mechanism
to set ACTs. Methods that directly
account for the frequency ACLs could
be exceeded (performance-based), will
also be considered, to ensure that ACLs
are only rarely exceeded. Inseason
fishery closures could also be
considered. While most recreational
data are insufficient to informatively
predict when a closure may be
appropriate, the current regulations for
most recreational fisheries under the
Council’s jurisdiction do not provide
the ability to close the season during the
fishing year, even if an overage has
occurred or is projected to occur if the
fishery remains open. While it is not
expected that projections would be
utilized to close recreational fisheries
inseason, being able to reduce the
magnitude of an overage may be a tool
considered by the Council.
For one, some, or all of the stocks in
the fisheries with commercial measures
under Council management jurisdiction,
the Council will consider reactive AMs
which that would be triggered if the
ACL is exceeded, or proactive AMs that
are designed to prevent exceeding the
ACLs. While some stocks have these
measures in their FMPs, others do not.
The commercial catch limit is the sum
of the commercial quota and
commercial discards. Reactive AMs for
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
12316
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices
the commercial fishery could include
deducting all or some of the prior year
commercial overage (in weight) from the
subsequent year’s commercial catch
limit.
Proactive AMs for the commercial
fishery could include adjustable trip
limits, as a method to prevent ACLs
from being exceeded. When a given
percent of the commercial catch limit
(in weight) is reached, trips limits in the
fishery for that species could be
decreased until the total commercial
catch limit is reached. The fixed
percentage at which trip limits would
drop would vary depending on which
species the limit applies to, and the trip
limits themselves would be speciesspecific. Other proactive AMs could
include inseason closures when quotas
are projected to be attained. Many
Council-managed species already have
in place such measures; however, the
Council may consider additional
approaches or modification of existing
reporting requirements in support of
improving inseason fishery
management.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Other Considerations
The Council could consider
establishing a periodic formal review by
the SSC, which would provide the
opportunity to revise ABC control rules
every few years after a control rule has
been implemented. For example, a 5year time period could be used. The
Council may also identify a broader
approach to inclusion of species in its
FMPs that may or may not require
conservation or management, but that
may be relevant in trying to further
ecosystem management in the fishery.
While not required, the Council could
identify and include non-target stocks
and/or ecosystem components in its
FMPs. The Council may also consider
ecosystem issues in the development of
the catch limit framework for any of the
stocks in the fisheries. Any allocation
issues relating to the development of
ABC, ACL, or AMs could also be
considered by the Council.
The Council may deviate from these
examples and develop additional
approaches, consistent with their
description in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, NS1, and the NS 1 Guidelines. The
above issues under consideration are
described in greater detail in the
scoping document itself; copies may be
obtained from the Council (see
ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at https://
www.mafmc.org.mid-atlantic/
comments/comments.htm.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
01:06 Mar 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
Dated: March 19, 2009
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–6468 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Order (1) Pursuant to Section 4(c) of
the Commodity Exchange Act,
Permitting the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange to Clear Certain Over-theCounter Agricultural Swaps and (2)
Pursuant to Section 4d of the
Commodity Exchange Act, Permitting
Customer Positions in Such ClearedOnly Contracts and Associated Funds
To Be Commingled With Other
Positions and Funds Held in Customer
Segregated Accounts
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Order.
SUMMARY: By petition dated April 21,
2008 (Petition), the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange Inc. (CME), a registered
derivatives clearing organization (DCO),
and the Board of Trade of the City of
Chicago, Inc. (CBOT), a designated
contract market, requested permission
to clear certain over-the counter (OTC)
swap agreements (swaps) in corn,
wheat, and soybeans. Authority for
granting this request is found in Section
4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(Act).1 The Petition also requested
permission pursuant to Section 4d of
the Act 2 to allow CME and futures
commission merchants (FCMs) clearing
through CME to commingle positions in
those cleared-only OTC swaps (clearedonly contracts) and funds associated
with those positions with positions and
funds otherwise required to be held in
a customer segregated account. The
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (Commission) has
reviewed public comments and the
entire record in this matter and it has
determined to issue an order granting
the requested permission, subject to
certain terms and conditions.
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Phyllis P. Dietz, Associate Director,
202–418–5449, pdietz@cftc.gov,
Division of Clearing and Intermediary
Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581.
17
27
PO 00000
U.S.C. 6(c).
U.S.C. 6d.
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The CME/CBOT Petition
CME, the DCO that provides clearing
services for CBOT, and CBOT jointly
submitted a Petition requesting that the
Commission issue an exemptive order
under Section 4(c) of the Act.3 The
order would grant CME approval to
clear OTC corn basis swaps and corn,
wheat, and soybean calendar swaps, and
it would permit CBOT to list those
products for ‘‘clearing-only.’’ 4 The
contract size for the basis and calendar
swaps would be the same as that for
corn, wheat, and soybean futures—5,000
bushels. Each of the proposed clearedonly contracts would be cash settled, in
contrast to the corresponding futures
contracts which are physically settled.
Part 35 of the Commission’s
regulations 5 exempts, subject to
conditions, swap agreements and
eligible persons entering into such
agreements from most provisions of the
Act.6 The term ‘‘swap agreement’’ is
defined to include, among other types of
agreements, a ‘‘basis swap’’ and a
‘‘commodity swap.’’ 7 Part 35 was
promulgated pursuant to authority
conferred upon the Commission in
Section 4(c) of the Act to exempt certain
transactions in order to explicitly permit
certain off-exchange derivatives
transactions and thus promote
innovation and competition.8 A number
of exemptions and exclusions for offexchange derivatives transactions were
subsequently added to the Act by the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act
of 2000,9 but none apply to agricultural
contracts.10
Part 35 requires, among other things,
that a swap agreement not be part of a
fungible class of agreements that are
3 A copy of the petition is available on the
Commission’s Web site at https://www.cftc.gov/.
4 The suite of OTC agricultural swap products
that CBOT proposes to list for clearing-only is
comprised of corn basis swap contracts for the
following regions: Northeastern Iowa, Northwestern
Iowa, Southern Iowa, Eastern Nebraska, Eastern
South Dakota, and Southern Minnesota; and corn,
wheat, and soybean calendar swaps.
5 17 CFR Part 35 (Commission regulations are
hereinafter cited as ‘‘Reg. l’’).
6 Jurisdiction is retained for, among other things,
provisions of the Act proscribing fraud and
manipulation. See Reg. 35.2.
7 Reg. 35.1(b)(1)(i). ‘‘Commodity’’ is defined in
Section 1a(4) of the Act to include a variety of
specified agricultural products, ‘‘and all other goods
and articles, except onions... and all services, rights,
and interests in which contracts for future delivery
are presently or in the future dealt in.’’
8 See 58 FR 5587 (Jan. 22, 1993). Section 4(c) of
the Act was added by Section 502(a) of the Futures
Trading Practices Act of 1992, Public Law 102–546,
106 Stat. 3590 (1992).
9 Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
10 See, e.g., Sections 2(d), (g) and (h) of the Act,
7 U.S.C. 2(d), (g), and (h).
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12314-12316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6468]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XO02
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Atlantic Mackerel,
Butterfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Spiny Dogfish, Summer Flounder, Scup,
Black Sea Bass, Tilefish, Surfclam, and Ocean Quahog Annual Catch
Limits and Accountability Measures Omnibus Amendment; Scoping Process
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS); notice of public scoping meetings; requests for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council)
announces its intention to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, an EIS in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to assess
potential effects on the human environment of alternative measures to
address the new Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
measures (AMs) in an Omnibus Amendment to the fishery management plans
(FMPs) for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny
dogfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, tilefish, surfclams,
and ocean quahogs. Loligo and Illex squid are exempt from these new
requirements because they have annual life cycles and not subject to
overfishing.
This notice announces a public process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed, and for identifying the significant issues
related to the implementation of ACLs and AMs for these fisheries. This
notice is to alert the interested public of the scoping process, the
development of the Draft EIS, and to provide for public participation
in that process.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on
May 15, 2009. Three public scoping meetings will be held during this
comment period. See Supplementary Information for dates, times, and
locations.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent by any of the following
methods:
E-mail to the following address: Omnibus.NOI@noaa.gov;
Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T. Furlong, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal
Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, Delaware 19904-6790. Mark the
outside of the envelope ``Omnibus Amendment: National Standard 1
Requirements Scoping Comments''; or
Fax to (302) 674-5399.
The scoping document may also be obtained from the Council office
at the previously provided address, or by request to the Council by
telephone (302) 674-2331, or via the Internet at https://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/comments/comments.htm.
Comments may also be provided verbally at any of the three public
scoping meetings. See Supplementary Information for dates, times, and
locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel T. Furlong, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 S. New St.,
Dover, DE 19904-6790, (telephone 302-674-2331).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The management units for Atlantic mackerel,
butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup,
black sea bass, tilefish, surfclams, and ocean quahogs vary, but span
the range from the eastern coast of Florida in the
[[Page 12315]]
western Atlantic Ocean northward to the U.S.-Canadian border. The
specific management units for each species, are contained in the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic Bluefish; Spiny
Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; Tilefish, and
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMPs.
Meetings
Three scoping meetings to facilitate public comment will be held on
the following dates and locations:
1. April 14, 2009, 7:00 p.m., The Sanderling Resort and Spa, 1461
Duck Rd., Duck, NC 27949;
2. April 21, 2009, 7:00 p.m., NYSDEC Marine Resources, 205 N. Belle
Mead Rd, Ste 1 East Setauket, NY 11733.
3. May 4, 2009, 7:00 p.m., Crowne Plaza Old Town Alexandria, 901 N.
Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314;
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should
be directed to M. Jan Bryan (302-674-2331 ext 18) at least 5 days prior
to the meeting date.
Issues Identified for Discussion Under this Amendment
Various Methods for Calculating Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)
In an effort to be compliant with the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
National Standard 1(NS 1), and Guidelines (50 CFR 600.310), the Council
will seek to develop formulaic approaches, known as control rules, that
can be consistently applied to derive ABC relative to the status of the
stock and the level of scientific uncertainty surrounding the stock
status estimate. The following are examples of ABC control rules that
the Council may further develop for use in managing the aforementioned
species. However, the Council may deviate from these examples and
develop additional ABC control rule approaches, consistent with their
description in the NS 1 Guidance. The Council will rely heavily on its
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) during development and
implementation of ABC control rules and it will be the SSC that is
responsible for application of the final control rules to recommend
either annual or multi-year ABCs for target species stocks.
For example, ABC for all of the target stocks could be prescribed
through a set of tiers designed to classify each stock based on the
amount or level of information available, type of stock assessment
conducted, current stock status, and/or other relevant factors. Within
each tier, a pre-defined set of control rules would be used to
calculate the overfishing level (OFL) and ABC. In addition to an
overarching tiered approach, species-specific approaches to developing
control rules could be applied to one, some, or all of the stocks in
the fisheries. For example, a probability-based ABC control rule could
be applied where ABC is reduced from OFL based on a higher likelihood
of achieving the target fishing mortality rate of FMSY, or
FREBUILD if the stock is under a rebuilding plan. An ABC
control rule based on a fixed percentage could also be applied. For
example, ABC could be set at 75 percent of the OFL (ABC = 0.75 OFL) or
some other fixed percentage value. An approach based on maintaining
some specified level of maximum spawning potential (MSP) of a stock
could also be applied.
Various Methods for Establishing ACLs
The Council will seek to develop control rules that can be
consistently applied to derive ACLs relative to the status of the stock
and the level of management uncertainty or implementation error
surrounding the stock status estimate. The following are examples of
ACL control rules that the Council may further develop for use in
managing the aforementioned stocks in the fisheries. ACLs may be
established at the fishery level, sector level, or sub sector level.
The Council may deviate from these examples and develop other ACL
control rule approaches, consistent with the NS 1 Guidelines.
Approaches to developing ACL control rules could be applied to one,
some, or all the stocks in the fisheries. For example, a probability-
based ACL control rule could be applied where ACL is reduced from ABC
based on a higher likelihood of achieving the target fishing mortality
rate of FMSY, or FREBUILD if the stock is under a
rebuilding plan. An ACL control rule based on a fixed percentage could
also be applied. For example, ACL could be set at 75 percent of the ABC
(ACL = 0.75 ABC) or some other fixed percentage value. An approach
based on maintaining some level of MSP of a stock could also be
applied.
Various Approaches to Establishing AMs
The Council will develop AMs that are designed to prevent ACLs from
being exceeded, in the case of proactive AMs, and AMs that are
triggered when an ACL is exceeded, in the case of reactive AMs. The
Council may also consider development of annual catch target (ACT)
control rules, which are proactive AMs, to establish catch targets that
further insure that the ACL has a low likelihood of being exceeded and,
thus, that reactive AMs will be triggered. The following are examples
of the type of measures that may be considered by the Council. The
Council has considerable latitude in developing the specific measures
that will be considered in the Omnibus Amendment.
For one, some, or all of the stocks in the fisheries with
recreational measures under Council management jurisdiction (i.e.
summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic bluefish, tilefish, and
Atlantic mackerel) the Council will consider reactive AMs that would be
triggered if the ACL is exceeded or proactive AMs which are designed to
prevent exceeding the ACL, or both. The recreational catch limit is the
sum of the recreational catch limit and recreational discards. Reactive
AMs could include the deduction of all or some of the prior year
overage to reduce the subsequent year's recreational catch limit.
Proactive AMs for the recreational fishery could include the setting of
an ACT that is less than the ACL and designed to buffer against
exceeding the ACL. This may be useful in the recreational fishery,
where timely inseason management is typically not possible. Percentage-
based or probability-based approaches similar to those described above
for ABC and ACL could be utilized as a mechanism to set ACTs. Methods
that directly account for the frequency ACLs could be exceeded
(performance-based), will also be considered, to ensure that ACLs are
only rarely exceeded. Inseason fishery closures could also be
considered. While most recreational data are insufficient to
informatively predict when a closure may be appropriate, the current
regulations for most recreational fisheries under the Council's
jurisdiction do not provide the ability to close the season during the
fishing year, even if an overage has occurred or is projected to occur
if the fishery remains open. While it is not expected that projections
would be utilized to close recreational fisheries inseason, being able
to reduce the magnitude of an overage may be a tool considered by the
Council.
For one, some, or all of the stocks in the fisheries with
commercial measures under Council management jurisdiction, the Council
will consider reactive AMs which that would be triggered if the ACL is
exceeded, or proactive AMs that are designed to prevent exceeding the
ACLs. While some stocks have these measures in their FMPs, others do
not. The commercial catch limit is the sum of the commercial quota and
commercial discards. Reactive AMs for
[[Page 12316]]
the commercial fishery could include deducting all or some of the prior
year commercial overage (in weight) from the subsequent year's
commercial catch limit.
Proactive AMs for the commercial fishery could include adjustable
trip limits, as a method to prevent ACLs from being exceeded. When a
given percent of the commercial catch limit (in weight) is reached,
trips limits in the fishery for that species could be decreased until
the total commercial catch limit is reached. The fixed percentage at
which trip limits would drop would vary depending on which species the
limit applies to, and the trip limits themselves would be species-
specific. Other proactive AMs could include inseason closures when
quotas are projected to be attained. Many Council-managed species
already have in place such measures; however, the Council may consider
additional approaches or modification of existing reporting
requirements in support of improving inseason fishery management.
Other Considerations
The Council could consider establishing a periodic formal review by
the SSC, which would provide the opportunity to revise ABC control
rules every few years after a control rule has been implemented. For
example, a 5-year time period could be used. The Council may also
identify a broader approach to inclusion of species in its FMPs that
may or may not require conservation or management, but that may be
relevant in trying to further ecosystem management in the fishery.
While not required, the Council could identify and include non-target
stocks and/or ecosystem components in its FMPs. The Council may also
consider ecosystem issues in the development of the catch limit
framework for any of the stocks in the fisheries. Any allocation issues
relating to the development of ABC, ACL, or AMs could also be
considered by the Council.
The Council may deviate from these examples and develop additional
approaches, consistent with their description in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, NS1, and the NS 1 Guidelines. The above issues under consideration
are described in greater detail in the scoping document itself; copies
may be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at
https://www.mafmc.org.mid-atlantic/comments/comments.htm.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 19, 2009
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-6468 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
