[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76874-76890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30394]
[[Page 76873]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment
17A; Emergency Rule To Delay Effectiveness of the Snapper-Grouper Area
Closure; Final Rule and Temporary Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 76874]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 0907271170-0576-03]
RIN 0648-AY10
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 17A
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 17A to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule establishes an
annual catch limit (ACL) of zero for red snapper, which means all
harvest and possession of red snapper in or from the South Atlantic
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is prohibited, and for a vessel with a
Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper, harvest and possession of red snapper is prohibited in
or from State or Federal waters. This rule also implements an area
closure for South Atlantic snapper-grouper that extends from southern
Georgia to northern Florida where harvest and possession of all
snapper-grouper species is prohibited (except when fishing with black
sea bass pots or spearfishing gear for species other than red snapper),
and requires the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing
for snapper-grouper species with hook and line gear north of 28[deg] N.
latitude in the South Atlantic EEZ. Additionally, Amendment 17A
establishes a rebuilding plan for red snapper and requires a monitoring
program as the accountability measure (AM) for red snapper. The
intended effects of this rule are to end overfishing of South Atlantic
red snapper and rebuild the stock.
DATES: This rule is effective December 3, 2010, except for the
amendments to Sec. 622.35, which are effective January 3, 2011, and
the amendments to Sec. 622.41, which are effective March 3, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and Record of Decision
(ROD) may be obtained from Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office,
NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701: telephone 727-
824-5305; fax 727-824-5308.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305;
fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery
is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and
implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622.
Background
On July 29, 2010, NMFS published a notice of availability for
Amendment 17A and requested public comment (75 FR 44753). On August 13,
2010, NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 17A and
requested public comment (75 FR 49447). NMFS approved Amendment 17A on
October 27, 2010. The rationale for the measures contained in Amendment
17A is provided in the amendment and in the preamble to the proposed
rule and is not repeated here.
Effectiveness of Management Measures
Prohibition on Harvest and Possession of Red Snapper
The prohibition on the harvest and possession of red snapper in the
South Atlantic EEZ, and in State or Federal waters for a person on
board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/
headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, and
the prohibition on the sale or purchase of red snapper harvested from
or possessed in the South Atlantic (including State and Federal waters)
for a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial permit for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, will be effective December 3,
2010.
The interim rule implementing these red snapper prohibitions will
expire on December 5, 2010. Therefore, to prevent a lapse in these
prohibitions, these measures must become effective on or before
December 5, 2010.
A red snapper benchmark assessment was completed through the
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process in late October
2010, which provides additional information on the effectiveness of
these prohibitions. A final report of the assessment was published on
October 25, 2010, and is available at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2024_SAR_October%202010_26.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. The
assessment indicates that red snapper are overfished and undergoing
overfishing and that the current harvest prohibition for red snapper is
providing substantial protection to the stock. A lapse could also lead
to more severe harvest reductions for the snapper-grouper fishery as a
whole with associated adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Snapper-Grouper Area Closure
The new benchmark assessment (SEDAR 24) has recently been completed
for red snapper and has been reviewed by the Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) and will be considered by the Council at
their meeting in December 2010. The assessment has determined that red
snapper are overfished and experiencing overfishing, but the stock is
in better condition than indicated by the previous assessment (SEDAR
15) with the magnitude of overfishing less than what was indicated in
the previous assessment. Results of the new assessment suggest less
restrictive management measures, such as a smaller area closure, would
be adequate to end overfishing of red snapper. Therefore, NMFS is
considering using the emergency action authority under section 305(c)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to address the implications of the new
assessment and to provide the Council time to determine whether
modifications should be made to the red snapper management measures
based upon the results of SEDAR 24, if appropriate.
Circle Hooks
NMFS is delaying the requirement in Sec. 622.41(n) to use non-
stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for South Atlantic snapper-
grouper with hook-and-line gear and natural baits north of 28[deg] N.
latitude for 3 months. The circle hook requirement will be effective
March 3, 2011. This delay in effectiveness will provide additional time
for manufacturers and retail outlets to prepare for the demand for
these newly required products and will provide time for commercial and
recreational fishers to comply with these new gear requirements.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 138 comments on Amendment 17A and the proposed rule,
including 1 comment from a State agency, 1 comment from a Federal
agency, 1 petition signed by 45 individuals, 5 letters from non-
governmental organizations, one of which was endorsed by 30,388
[[Page 76875]]
individuals who support approval of Amendment 17A, and 130 comments
from individuals (including 41 copies of an identical postcard from an
Amendment 17A opposition postcard campaign). Of these comments, 111
expressed opposition to Amendment 17A, 24 expressed support, and 3
comments were unrelated to Amendment 17A actions. Specific comments
relevant to the actions contained in the amendment and the rule as well
as NMFS' respective responses, are summarized below.
Comment 1: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 4 non-
governmental organizations are concerned that the rebuilding schedule
favors fishermen to the maximum extent, rather than balancing benefits
to the resource and socioeconomic impacts on the fishing community. The
EPA suggests that fishing pressure from fisheries for species that co-
occur with red snapper should be reduced in order to reduce red snapper
bycatch, and red snapper bycatch should be kept as landings and counted
towards the co-occurring species' fishery quotas. Additionally, the EPA
suggests that adaptive management measures should be applied over the
recovery period; however, such adaptive management measures should
balance impacts on the fishing community and on the resource.
Response: Thirty-five years is the maximum rebuilding schedule
recommended for South Atlantic red snapper based on the Magnuson-
Stevens Act National Standard 1 Guidelines and is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to rebuild the fishery as quickly as
possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the
needs of fishing communities, and other factors. The Council chose this
schedule recognizing that based on the information provided to them
from SEDAR 15, a total red snapper harvest prohibition alone was not
sufficiently restrictive to end overfishing and that shorter rebuilding
schedules would require impractical reductions in red snapper bycatch.
NMFS acknowledges the cumulative effects of the Amendment 17A
proposed regulations, recent fisheries regulations, and other
circumstances other than regulations (rise in fuel costs, decrease in
dock space, national economic recession leading to a decrease in for-
hire trips, etc.) will likely have negative economic and social effects
on snapper-grouper fishermen. By choosing the 35-year rebuilding
schedule, negative socioeconomic impacts will be minimized to the
extent practicable while still achieving conservation objectives,
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The shortest possible rebuilding schedule (15 years) would require
most or all of the EEZ and State waters be closed to fishing over the
15-year period to eliminate all incidental mortality of red snapper.
The significant and irreversible socioeconomic impacts of such an
action makes a 15-year rebuilding schedule impractical. While the 25-
year schedule evaluated in the amendment would have less adverse
socioeconomic effects when compared to a 15-year rebuilding plan, such
effects are not warranted by the limited biological benefits of
achieving the rebuilding goal just 10 years earlier than under the 35-
year rebuilding schedule.
It is not possible to implement a shorter rebuilding schedule
without significantly increasing the magnitude of negative
socioeconomic impacts. Because red snapper are widely distributed and
co-occur with other snapper-grouper species, even slight increases in
the rate at which the red snapper stock rebuilds greatly increases the
need for more restrictive management measures. Economic analyses
indicate it is unlikely that the future benefits of rebuilding the red
snapper stock more quickly would outweigh the short-term costs
associated with the more restrictive regulations required by shorter
rebuilding schedules.
The Council is exploring, through Amendment 22 to the Snapper-
Grouper FMP, alternative strategies for managing red snapper catch and
bycatch as the stock rebuilds, which could include a bycatch retention
policy if that is determined to be a feasible option.
Comment 2: Two commenters expressed support for the exemption to
fish with black sea bass pots within the snapper-grouper closed area.
One commenter expressed opposition to this exemption. The EPA
questioned how ``ghost fishing'' with black sea bass pots was addressed
in the Council's decision to allow the use of black sea bass pots
within the closed area.
Response: The majority of the black sea bass component of the
snapper-grouper fishery is north of the closed area, and only a small
percentage of red snapper are taken in black sea bass pots. Therefore,
the Council determined this gear type was sufficiently selective so
that it may be deployed within the closed area without adversely
affecting the rebuilding efforts of red snapper. Allowing this gear
also helps to offset, to some degree, some of the negative
socioeconomic impacts expected from the area closure.
During its March 2010 meeting, after the draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) was filed with the EPA for publication in the Federal
Register, the Council chose not to exempt the use of black sea bass
pots within the closed area, citing concerns about the ``ghost
fishing'' that takes place in lost pots and the potential interactions
with protected species. However, at its June 2010 meeting, the Council
modified its decision to allow the use of black sea bass pots, because
they are a highly selective gear type that could be used to fish for
species other than red snapper within the closed area without affecting
red snapper rebuilding. Additionally, the Council is developing
Amendment 18A to the FMP, which includes actions to limit the number of
black sea bass pots allowed per vessel, thereby limiting participation
in the black sea bass component of the snapper-grouper fishery, and
requires pots to be returned to port at the completion of a fishing
trip. If approved, these controls should limit effort shift into the
black sea bass component of the snapper-grouper fishery, minimizing the
occurrence of black sea bass pot ``ghost fishing'' on snapper-grouper
species, and interactions with protected species.
Comment 3: Two commenters expressed support for the exemption to
use spearfishing gear within the snapper-grouper closed area when
fishing for species other than red snapper. One commenter expressed
opposition to this exemption. The EPA expressed concerns with the
exemption related to potential collection of undersized fish, exceeding
quotas, and spearfishing injury.
Response: Overall, spearfishing gear is considered a highly
selective gear type that is least likely to produce red snapper bycatch
or bycatch mortality, and it is the most selective gear type available
if the user is well-versed in species identification. Therefore, the
use of spearfishing gear within the closed area for species other than
red snapper is unlikely to adversely affect red snapper rebuilding
efforts, while helping to offset, to a small degree, some of the
negative socioeconomic impacts expected from the area closure.
Amendment 17A analyses conclude that spearfishing does have the
potential to remove greater biomass of reef fish than rod and reel
fishing. Spearfishing has been shown to result in the removal of larger
fish from the population than with rod and reel. According to the
biological impact analysis in Amendment 17A, removing larger fish from
a population can have a negative effect on overall ecosystem health by
altering the composition of the natural
[[Page 76876]]
communities; however, any such effect is expected to be more than
offset by the conservation benefits derived from the hook-and-line gear
prohibition within the area closure. If the use of spearfishing gear
increases as a result of this exemption, it may be reasonable to assume
incidences of spear-related injuries may also increase. However, the
Council determined the potential negative impacts of allowing the use
of spearfishing gear did not outweigh the potential offset of negative
socioeconomic impacts that may result from the area closure.
Comment 4: Eighteen commenters expressed support for the
requirement to use non-stainless steel circle hooks north of 28[deg] N.
latitude with live bait. Three commenters expressed opposition to the
circle hook requirement, citing that it would inhibit effective harvest
of certain species and would incur a significant economic burden. The
EPA expressed support of the requirement, but stated that regulatory
discard mortalities are often related to barotrauma caused by rapid
surfacing rather than hooking injuries, and certain species such as
yellowtail snapper and mangrove snapper are not readily caught with
circle hooks.
Response: Many studies indicate that hooking injuries are a major
source of mortality in red snapper. Requiring circle hooks in the area
of the South Atlantic EEZ north of 28[deg] N. latitude may help reduce
discard mortality of red snapper where they are most abundant, although
the exact amount is not quantifiable at this time. However, the Council
concluded that taking advantage of any reasonable method to reduce red
snapper bycatch mortality is warranted considering its overfished
condition.
Barotrauma is also cited as a significant cause of bycatch
mortality for red snapper. NMFS previously considered a Council-
approved measure to use venting tools for snapper-grouper species to
reduce bycatch mortality caused by barotraumas in Amendment 16 to the
FMP. The measure requiring the use of venting tools was disapproved
based on data indicating the benefits of venting are not clear for all
species, including red snapper, and venting could potentially cause
harm in some cases. NMFS determined that additional guidance is needed
to identify species that would benefit from venting to ensure the
maximum benefit is provided to these species. If future research on the
use of venting tools, and/or any other barotrauma mitigation methods,
indicate red snapper would benefit from the required use of such tools
or techniques, the Council has the option to consider the issue again
in a future FMP amendment.
During the development of Amendment 17A, some constituents
expressed concern that circle hooks would preclude them from being able
to catch some specific fish species including yellowtail snapper and
mangrove snapper due to the physical structure of a fish's mouth and
the way the fish takes bait. The majority of the species of concern are
landed south of 28[deg] N. latitude where red snapper are less
abundant; therefore, the Council chose to limit the circle hook
requirement to areas north of 28[deg] N. latitude.
Comment 5: The EPA supported fishery-independent monitoring for red
snapper, as well as fishery-dependent monitoring where fishermen work
together with researchers.
Response: The Council chose to require implementation of a fishery-
independent monitoring program for red snapper to augment and expand
the existing fishery-independent data program for snapper-grouper
because fishery-independent data can be less variable and more
verifiable than fishery-dependent data. The choice to utilize a
fishery-independent monitoring program for red snapper does not in any
way infer that fishery-dependent data collection programs may not be
used for monitoring red snapper in the South Atlantic. The AM chosen by
the Council and approved by NMFS includes a fishery-dependent data
gathering component that will be used to monitor catch per unit effort
(CPUE) throughout the rebuilding process. Furthermore, it is likely
that in the future, some research and monitoring efforts may be
designed to include hybrid sampling programs that use both fishery-
independent and fishery-dependent data gathering methods.
Comment 6: If the approved rebuilding schedule is not adequate in
minimizing socioeconomic impacts, the EPA recommended additional
offsets be considered by NMFS and the Council for fishery participants
of all demographics, particularly any affected minority and low-income
fishermen.
Response: Amendment 17A contains a detailed analysis of potential
socioeconomic impacts of the actions to end overfishing of red snapper
and rebuild the stock to a sustainable level. The Council has chosen,
and NMFS has approved, alternatives intended to minimize, to the extent
practicable, adverse socioeconomic impacts as required under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. A Fishery Impact Statement (FIS) and a Social
Impact Analysis (SIA) were completed as part of the Amendment 17A
development process. The SIA included an analysis of potential impacts
of this rule on low-income and minority groups. The full FIS and SIA
can be found in Appendix U of Amendment 17A. The alternatives chosen
are also projected to effectively end overfishing of South Atlantic red
snapper and rebuild the population within the designated rebuilding
timeframe.
A new benchmark assessment for red snapper conducted through the
SEDAR process (SEDAR 24; 2010) indicates the stock is undergoing
overfishing and is overfished to lesser degrees than estimated in the
previous SEDAR assessment (SEDAR 15) and in Amendment 17A. Therefore,
additional action may be appropriate to further minimize the
unavoidable adverse economic impacts of ending overfishing and
rebuilding the stock. The Council will review the results of SEDAR 24
at their December 2010 meeting and may propose additional actions at
that time, as appropriate.
Comment 7: The EPA and one individual requested a discussion of
potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill event on red
snapper and the fishing community.
Response: Thus far, there has been no indication that oil from the
Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, which occurred on April 20, 2010, has
made its way into South Atlantic waters. The spill remained
concentrated in the northern Gulf of Mexico before it was capped and is
no longer considered a significant threat for dispersing oil.
Therefore, implementation of Amendment 17A is not expected to be
impacted by oil spill-related events that have transpired in the Gulf
of Mexico over the past 7 months.
Comment 8: Seventeen commenters specifically oppose the prohibition
on harvest and possession of red snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ and
in State waters for vessels holding Federal snapper-grouper permits.
Five commenters specifically support the prohibition on red snapper
harvest.
Response: The 2008 red snapper SEDAR stock assessment (SEDAR 15)
concluded that red snapper are overfished and undergoing overfishing.
When a determination is made that a stock is experiencing overfishing
or is overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the
Council to develop a plan to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The
prohibition on red snapper harvest and possession implemented through
Amendment 17A is required to meet this statutory mandate. SEDAR 15
indicates a harvest
[[Page 76877]]
prohibition in State and Federal waters alone is not capable of ending
overfishing because many red snapper taken incidentally when harvesting
other snapper-grouper species do not survive capture and release. For
this reason, NMFS also is approving the Council's proposal to establish
an area closure within which all harvest and possession of snapper-
grouper is prohibited (except when fishing with black sea bass pots or
spearfishing gear for species other than red snapper). These management
measures are expected to end overfishing as required by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
Comment 9: Twenty-two commenters specifically oppose the snapper-
grouper area closure, and three commenters support it.
Response: Based on the results of the SEDAR 15 benchmark
assessment, prohibiting the harvest of red snapper alone will not end
overfishing because red snapper are often incidentally captured and
discarded while fishermen are targeting co-occurring species.
Additionally, the release mortality of red snapper is very high.
Therefore, to sufficiently reduce the overall mortality of red snapper
enough to end overfishing and rebuild the stock, NMFS approved a
prohibition on all harvest and possession of red snapper in the South
Atlantic EEZ and also approved an area closure within which harvest and
possession of all snapper-grouper species is prohibited except when
using spearfishing gear or black sea bass pots to fish for species
other than red snapper.
The area closure alternative proposed by the Council and approved
by NMFS encompasses an area where large amounts of red snapper are
harvested. Furthermore, the preferred area closure minimized to the
extent practicable the unavoidable adverse economic impacts of ending
overfishing as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 17A also
includes an action to require a fishery-independent monitoring program
to track the progress of rebuilding efforts, in order to reduce the
size of the area closure and allow the harvest of red snapper as the
stock rebuilds.
A new benchmark assessment just completed for red snapper, SEDAR
24, indicates the stock is undergoing overfishing and is overfished to
a lesser degree than estimated in SEDAR 15. Therefore, additional
action may be appropriate to further minimize the unavoidable adverse
economic impacts of ending overfishing and rebuilding the stock. The
Council will review the results of SEDAR 24 at their December 2010
meeting and may propose additional actions at that time, as
appropriate.
Comment 10: Two commenters stated the proposed area closure could
push effort inshore or offshore and thus negatively impact juvenile
populations of red snapper and other coastal fisheries, and/or
deepwater snapper-grouper species.
Response: The extent to which effort may shift as a result of the
proposed area closure is not known so it is not possible to quantify
the impact of such a shift on snapper-grouper species. However, any
such effort shift is not expected to have a significant adverse impact
on red snapper rebuilding or on the status of other deepwater snapper-
grouper species. The red snapper harvest prohibition is expected to
reduce the handling time of red snapper, as fishermen will no longer
need to measure fish to determine if they are of legal size. If fishing
effort moves closer to shore, then it is expected that the survival of
discarded red snapper and other snapper-grouper species would be
greater than for fish discarded in deeper water because depth-related
discard mortality would be less in shallow water. The model used to
develop the closed area alternatives was designed to account for
reduced inshore release mortality in the closed area as well as in all
areas around the closure.
Effort shifts into water deeper than the closed area may be
mitigated by the deepwater snapper-grouper closure that is proposed in
Amendment 17B to the FMP. (Amendment 17B and proposed implementing
regulations are available for public comment through November 22, 2010,
and November 26, 2010, respectively.) This proposed deepwater closure
would prohibit harvest of six deepwater snapper-grouper species beyond
a depth of 240 ft (73 m), which is also the seaward boundary of the
Amendment 17A area closure. These species include snowy grouper,
blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, queen snapper,
and silk snapper. In addition to prohibiting harvest and possession of
the previously mentioned species, Amendment 17B also prohibits the
possession and harvest of speckled hind and warsaw grouper. If
Amendment 17B is approved and implemented, prohibiting the harvest and
possession of these species beyond a depth of 240 ft (73 m) greatly
diminishes the incentive to fish for deepwater snapper-grouper.
Comment 11: One commenter expressed concern regarding a potential
influx of imported seafood as a result of the red snapper harvest
restrictions.
Response: The prohibition on the harvest and possession of red
snapper and the closure of certain areas in the South Atlantic to
snapper-grouper fishing under Amendment 17A are estimated to result in
an annual reduction of approximately 213,000 lb (96,615 kg) of
commercially harvested snapper-grouper, of which about 120,000 lb
(54,431 kg) are red snapper, based on expected harvest resulting from
regulations implemented through Amendment 16 to the FMP. Total imports
of snappers and groupers into the U.S. have been increasing and
averaged approximately 48,000,000 lb (21,772,434 kg) between 2003 and
2007. Within this aggregate weight of snapper-grouper imports, the
amount of red snapper imported into the U.S. cannot be estimated with
the current available information. It is recognized that fish dealers,
restaurants, and other establishments may substitute imports for
snappers and groupers harvested in U.S. waters as a result of the
prohibition on the harvest and possession of red snapper and the area
closure. However, the reduction in the domestic landings of snapper-
grouper is not expected to trigger an influx of imported snappers and
groupers, because the amount of such reduction is small relative to the
amount of imported snappers and groupers (about 0.44 percent of
imports).
Comment 12: Thirty-one commenters opposed the red snapper
management measures in Amendment 17A based on potential adverse
economic impacts. Several of these commenters are concerned there is an
inadequate economic analysis of the impacts on the recreational fishing
community in the amendment.
Response: Amendment 17A and associated final environmental impact
statement, regulatory flexibility act analysis, regulatory impact
review, and social impact assessment/fishery impact statement
thoroughly analyze the potential economic impacts of the Council's
proposed red snapper management measures, based on the best scientific
information available. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council
and NMFS to end the overfishing of red snapper. SEDAR 15 indicates the
stock is being fished at five times the sustainable rate, and that
significant reductions in mortality, 76 percent, are needed to end
overfishing and rebuild the population. The adverse short-term economic
impacts of such reductions are unavoidable. However, SEDAR assessments
indicate the stock is producing only a fraction of its potential yield
and that the long-term economic benefits of stock rebuilding are
expected
[[Page 76878]]
to be substantial. A framework amendment is being developed to allow
for adjustments to the closed area, as appropriate, based on the
results of a new benchmark assessment (SEDAR 24). Additionally, draft
Amendment 22 to the FMP will explore new approaches for managing red
snapper catch and bycatch as the stock rebuilds that may allow the
Council to provide for some level of red snapper harvest over time.
Comment 13: Eighty-two commenters stated the data used in
determining the magnitude of red snapper overfishing, and general
population estimates, are flawed. Several of the same commenters also
questioned the adequacy and reliability of recreational landings data
currently available to fishery managers.
Response: Amendment 17A is based upon the SEDAR 15 assessment, and
the assessment was completed in 2008 using data through 2006. SEDAR 15
found the South Atlantic red snapper stock is overfished and undergoing
overfishing.
Data used for the assessment consists of records of commercial
catches provided by dealer and fishermen reports since the 1940s,
headboat fishery catch records from the Southeast Headboat Survey since
1972, and recreational catch records from the Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) since 1981. MRFSS conducts
telephone surveys of coastal households and for-hire businesses, as
well as in-person access-point angler intercept surveys. These surveys
are used to collect information on recreational fishery participation,
fishing effort, and catch, in addition to demographic, social, and
economic characteristics of the participants. NMFS recognizes that
MRFSS data are highly uncertain for infrequently encountered species
and is working with recreational and for-hire fishermen to explore
novel approaches to address this issue through the Marine Recreational
Information Program (MRIP). SEDAR 15 also includes U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service recreational fisheries survey data from 1960, 1965,
and 1970. Landings and effort information are provided by dealer and
fishermen reports and surveys. Information on catch lengths and ages is
provided by fishing port sampling programs that support the catch
statistics programs. Information on biological characteristics, such as
age, growth, and reproduction, is provided by various research studies.
All of the data used in the assessment are described in the SEDAR 15
red snapper stock assessment report available on the SEDAR Web site at
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/. The SEDAR Web site also provides
extensive supporting documentation that describes data collection
programs and research findings.
SEDAR is a cooperative process initiated in 2002 to improve the
quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the South
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. SEDAR is managed by the
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic Regional Fishery
Management Councils in coordination with NMFS and the Atlantic and Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commissions. SEDAR seeks improvements in the
scientific quality of stock assessments and greater relevance of
information available to address existing and emerging fishery
management issues. SEDAR emphasizes constituent and stakeholder
participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment
process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed
stock assessments. SEDAR is organized around three workshops. The first
is a data workshop where data sets are documented, analyzed, and
reviewed and data for conducting assessment analyses are compiled. The
second is an assessment workshop where quantitative population analyses
are developed and refined and population parameters are estimated. The
third is a review workshop where a panel of independent experts reviews
the data and assessment and recommends the most appropriate values of
critical population and management quantities. All SEDAR workshops are
open to the public. Public testimony is accepted in accordance with
each fishery management council's standard operating procedures.
Workshop times and locations are noticed in advance through the Federal
Register.
The findings and conclusions of each SEDAR workshop are documented
in a series of reports, which are ultimately reviewed and discussed by
the appropriate Council and its SSC. At its June 2008 meeting, the
Council's SSC determined that the SEDAR 15 is based upon the best
available science. In July 2010, NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science
Center (SEFSC) certified the conservation and management measures in
Amendment 17A are based upon the best scientific information available.
SEDAR 15 is controversial with fishermen who feel the findings
contradict their experience of encountering more and larger red snapper
in recent years. Landings and discard data corroborate fisher reports
that catches increased between 2007 and 2009. A spike in 2007 discards
and 2008-2009 landings is likely due to a strong year class, which
occurred in 2006. Even so, the age structure of the red snapper
population is severely truncated (there are not enough older fish). Red
snapper live to at least 54 years of age, but the SEDAR 15 indicates
that most red snapper are less than 10 years old.
The SEFSC evaluated the concerns raised by fishermen regarding
SEDAR 15 and subsequent analyses. The SEFSC concluded that altering
model assumptions based on fishermen's concerns would impact the
magnitude of required harvest reductions but would not change the
assessment conclusions regarding the status of red snapper. Overfishing
is occurring and must be addressed within the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
A new red snapper SEDAR stock assessment (SEDAR 24) was completed
in late October 2010, and evaluated more recent catch data than that
used in SEDAR 15. The results of SEDAR 24 also support the SEDAR 15
conclusion that red snapper is overfished and experiencing overfishing,
although the rate of overfishing may be lower than the rate from SEDAR
15. The Council's SSC reviewed SEDAR 24 and the Council will review
SEDAR 24 and the SSC's recommendations at their next meeting during the
week of December 5, 2010. The Council is poised to take action at that
time to make any needed adjustments to the area closure as appropriate.
Comment 14: Two commenters, including the State of Florida, felt
actions related to limiting the harvest of red snapper should be
postponed until the 2010 benchmark assessment is completed.
Response: The Council is scheduled to receive the results of the
2010 SEDAR benchmark stock assessment for red snapper (SEDAR 24) at the
December 2010 Council meeting. However, red snapper continue to be
overfished and undergoing overfishing and the prohibition on the
harvest and possession of red snapper must be effective by December 5,
2010, to avoid a lapse in those prohibitions implemented through the
interim rule. Additionally, implementation of Amendment 17A cannot be
further delayed based on the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to
prepare and implement an FMP amendment to end overfishing and implement
conservation and management measures to rebuild red snapper. SEDAR 24
findings support the current prohibitions on the harvest and possession
of red snapper, and indicate a lapse in these prohibitions
[[Page 76879]]
could lead to more severe harvest reductions for the snapper-grouper
fishery as a whole with associated adverse socioeconomic impacts. The
assessment also indicates the snapper-grouper area closure included in
Amendment 17A is larger than necessary to end overfishing and rebuild
the stock, and NMFS is considering using the emergency action authority
under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to address the
implications of the new assessment, as appropriate, and to provide the
Council time to determine whether modifications should be made to the
area closure based upon the new assessment. The Council will consider
the SEDAR 24 results at their December 2010 meeting, and determine
whether or not a modification to the area closure is warranted. If so,
adjustments to the area closure will be promulgated through a
regulatory amendment.
Comment 15: One commenter attributed red snapper overfishing to the
shrimp trawl fisheries off the southeast United States and recommended
a 2-year ban on shrimp trawling in the South Atlantic.
Response: No evidence exists that shrimp trawl fleets in the South
Atlantic EEZ capture juvenile red snapper. Confusion about shrimp
bycatch likely results from evidence that the fishery for penaeid
shrimp (pink, white, and brown shrimp), in the Gulf of Mexico, catches
a high level of juvenile red snapper. However, no evidence exists that
the penaeid shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic has the same level of
red snapper bycatch. In fact, the Southeast Area Monitoring and
Assessment Program--South Atlantic Coastal Survey has not documented
any red snapper caught during shallow-water trawl studies since 2007,
and no more than two red snapper in any year during 1995-2007.
Comment 16: Four commenters stated the commercial sector is
responsible for the current overfished and overfishing status of red
snapper and expressed support for banning commercial red snapper
fishing, while allowing recreational red snapper fishing to continue.
Response: SEDAR 15 and SEDAR 24 indicate that red snapper is
overfished and experiencing overfishing. The commercial sector is
responsible for approximately 20 to 25 percent of the total red snapper
landings in the South Atlantic based on data collected since 2006;
thus, the number of red snapper taken by the recreational sector far
exceeds the amount taken by the commercial sector. Therefore,
overfishing would continue if management measures were only applied to
the commercial sector. The measures implemented through this final rule
must apply to both the commercial and recreational sectors to
effectively end the overfishing of red snapper.
Comment 17: One commenter stated they do not typically see red
snapper when fishing off the east coast of Florida.
Response: Amendment 17A and its implementing regulations were
developed based upon the SEDAR 15 (2008) assessment, which shows that
red snapper are overfished and undergoing overfishing. The stock
assessment also indicates red snapper abundance is significantly lower
now than it has been in previous decades. Most of the stock is
currently concentrated in areas off of northern Florida and southern
Georgia. Overfishing of the species has possibly diminished the range
of the species and has led to decreased encounter rates in areas where
red snapper once may have been plentiful, including the Florida Keys.
This final rule is intended to end the overfishing of red snapper and
rebuild the stock to sustainable levels.
Comment 18: Twelve commenters offered several alternative
management methods for red snapper including bag limits, trip limits,
reduced size limits, slot sizes, seasonal area closures, spawning
season closures, artificial reef establishment, venting tool
requirements, circle hooks with wire appendages, state-by-state quotas,
and a voluntary buy-out program.
Response: Amendment 4 to the FMP (1991), implemented a 20-inch
(50.8 cm) total length (TL) minimum size limit and a 2-fish red snapper
bag limit within a 10-fish snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit in an
effort to reduce harvest of red snapper. Unfortunately the
implementation of a size limit and bag limit was not enough to end the
overfishing of red snapper at the time, and overfishing continued
despite the implementation of a limited access program for the
commercial snapper-grouper fishery via Amendment 8 to the FMP (1998).
In developing red snapper management measures in Amendment 17A, the
Council considered an option to allow red snapper harvest based on a
quota for the commercial sector, a quota for the for-hire sector
(utilizing electronic logbooks), and a quota for the private
recreational sector (based on a quota tag system administered by the
states), with dead discards inshore of 98 ft (73 m) to be subtracted
from the overall allowable harvest level before quotas are established.
The suggested AM for this alternative stated that once the catch limits
are reached in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, bottom fishing
would be prohibited beyond 98 ft (73 m). However, based on catch rates
of landed and discarded red snapper in 2007 and 2008, the allowable
catch for each sector would be estimated to be met in less than one
month.
Furthermore, allowing the level of harvest outlined above would
require extensive observer coverage, implementation of electronic
logbooks, and establishment of a tagging system. Not all states possess
the administrative resources needed to implement a tagging program at
this time. Discarded red snapper would require close tracking, and
harvest and release-mortality rates would need to be applied to the
discards to ensure total removals allocated to states and sectors are
not exceeded. The SSC has strongly opposed tracking discards as a means
of monitoring fishery catch levels and depending on self-reported
discards may create a disincentive to report, if the fishery closes as
a result of these self-reported data. However, the Council is exploring
through draft Amendment 22 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, alternative
strategies for managing red snapper catch and bycatch (including a fish
tag program) that may allow the Council to provide for some level of
red snapper harvest over time as the stock rebuilds.
Several commenters suggested reducing the minimum size limit from
20 inches (50.8 cm) TL to 16 inches (40.6 cm) TL, establishing a slot
limit or eliminating the size limit altogether. These minimum size
limit modifications were considered by the Council but were removed
from detailed analysis and moved to the considered but rejected portion
of the amendment because they would not end overfishing. Reduction or
elimination of a minimum size limit could increase the magnitude of
total removals because a greater number of fishermen would be able to
fill the 2-fish bag limit with fish that formerly were discarded and
survived the trauma of capture.
Reductions in the bag limits were also considered by the Council
and NMFS. Reduction in the bag limit to 1 fish per person (resulting in
a 5-percent reduction in harvest with a 40-percent release mortality
rate) or a vessel limit of 4 fish per vessel per day (resulting in a 3-
percent reduction for private recreational vessels and a 34-percent
reduction for headboats) would not be sufficient to end overfishing
based on the results of SEDAR 15.
Another option discussed by the Council was a seasonal-area closure
for
[[Page 76880]]
all snapper-grouper species with a total prohibition on harvest and
possession of red snapper. A seasonal area closure for all snapper-
grouper species may be effective in reducing bycatch mortality of red
snapper for the duration of the closure; however, bycatch mortality
would be expected to resume during the open season. Based on the
results from SEDAR 15, a very large seasonal snapper-grouper area
closure would be required to end red snapper overfishing, and thus
would incur greater negative socioeconomic impacts than the current
area closure in Amendment 17A. Moreover, the longer the open season,
the larger the closed area would need to be to account for increased
bycatch mortality of red snapper. Because of these factors, the Council
did not consider seasonal area closures a feasible option for ending
overfishing in this case. This does not, however, preclude the future
use of seasonal-area closures as a management measure.
Suggestions concerning the establishment of more artificial reefs
have been made several times throughout the amendment's development
process. Some studies suggest that artificial reefs increase
populations of red snapper while others suggest artificial reefs
attract fish in general. As artificial reefs are usually well marked,
the stock could be negatively impacted by making large concentrations
of red snapper more accessible to fishermen. Regardless, the reduction
needed to end overfishing and rebuild red snapper would not be achieved
by creating more artificial reefs as the only management measure.
Requiring the use of venting tools was previously considered in
Amendment 16 to the FMP. This requirement was disapproved based on
public comments and new information opposing the use of venting tools,
along with scientific studies that suggest the use of venting tools may
actually increase mortality of some species depending on capture depth.
Furthermore, the requirement for the possession and use of venting
tools was determined to be overly broad and not in accordance with the
administrative record developed for Amendment 16. Required use of
venting tools in the snapper-grouper fishery may be considered again in
the future if guidance is provided on the tools that should be used,
the appropriate techniques for venting, and the species that benefit
most from venting. NOAA is funding a collaborative workshop to be
hosted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in spring
2011 to examine how best to reduce barotrauma in recreational
fisheries.
One commenter recommended the use of circle hooks with a wire
appendage be required for the snapper-grouper fishery. Appendaged
circle hooks were discussed in the biological analysis for the circle
hook action in Amendment 17A. The analysis cites one study that
compared circle hooks and J-hooks with and without wire appendages and
their effects on reducing the catch of small and gut-hooked snapper by
recreational fishers in the Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand. However, the
Council and NMFS did not choose to pursue a requirement for appendaged
hooks until additional information on their use and effectiveness
becomes available. A circle hook workshop will be held May 4-6, 2011,
in Miami, Florida, and more information on this workshop may be found
at: http://www.circlehooksymposium.org/. NMFS' approval of the
requirement to use non-stainless steel circle hooks north of 28[deg] N.
latitude does not preclude the Council or NMFS from considering the use
of appendaged circle hooks in the future.
The Council discussed the establishment of a buy-out program for
commercial snapper-grouper fishermen in Georgia. A buy-out program for
the commercial sector would require a great deal of planning, time,
funds, and acceptance from fishery participants. Because of these
limiting factors and the need to act to end overfishing promptly, a
buy-out program was not pursued by the Council or NMFS during the
Amendment 17A development process. The Council considered alternatives
that would allocate the red snapper ACL by state and sector. The
Council moved these alternatives to the considered but rejected section
of the amendment because the Council determined that both a harvest
prohibition and an area closure for snapper-grouper species was needed
to end red snapper overfishing. The Council may consider alternatives
for allocating red snapper harvest among states and sectors when the
stock rebuilds to a biomass level that would support some level of
harvest.
Comment 19: One fishing association submitted a comment, endorsed
by 12 commenters, stating the comment period on the proposed rule
intentionally ended 2 days before the SEDAR 24 assessment results
became public. This comment also stated NMFS' scientific position
changed when the decision was made to conduct a full benchmark
assessment instead of an update to the SEDAR 15 (2008) assessment,
implying an admission that SEDAR 15 (2008) was not based upon the best
scientific information available. The same commenter stated that SEDAR
15 did not use a ``continuity run.''
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act required the Council to develop
a plan to end overfishing within one year, if notified of a stock's
overfished status prior to July 12, 2009. Therefore, waiting to
implement Amendment 17A until after the new stock assessment (SEDAR 24)
is completed would further delay this required action. NMFS is aware of
the coincidental timelines associated with the completion of SEDAR 24
and the implementation of Amendment 17A. The Council and NMFS are
prepared to act expeditiously to modify management measures if the
Council concludes that the results of SEDAR 24 indicate such an
adjustment is appropriate.
SEDAR 15 (2008) concluded that red snapper is overfished and
undergoing overfishing, requiring the Council to prepare a plan
amendment to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. During the
amendment's development, fishermen expressed concern that SEDAR 15 did
not capture the spike in discards and landings that occurred during
2007-2009 because the assessment considered data only through 2006. In
order to include these landings and apply additional statistical
methods to the analysis, the SEDAR steering committee requested SEDAR
replace the scheduled red snapper assessment update with a new
benchmark assessment (SEDAR 24). SEDAR 15 (2008) was subjected to an
external review by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) and was
also reviewed by the Council's SSC, both of which approved the
assessment report. Furthermore, in a memorandum dated July 22, 2010,
the SEFSC certified that Amendment 17A is based upon the best
scientific information available.
Continuity runs of SEDAR 15 with the red snapper assessment
conducted in 1997 were not performed because such runs would have been
based upon prior research that used several assumptions, such as a 15-
year life span for red snapper, which are now known to be inaccurate.
The results of the new SEDAR 24 benchmark assessment support the
SEDAR 15 conclusion that red snapper is overfished and experiencing
overfishing, although the rate of overfishing appears to be lower than
estimated in the SEDAR 15 assessment. Although the SEDAR 24 assessment
shows some signs of stock improvement, overfishing is still occurring
and must be addressed within the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. The SEDAR 24 findings support the current red snapper harvest
[[Page 76881]]
prohibitions and indicate a lapse in these prohibitions could lead to
more severe harvest reductions for the snapper-grouper fishery as a
whole, with associated adverse socioeconomic impacts. NMFS and the
Council are prepared to act expeditiously to modify management measures
if the results of SEDAR 24 indicate such an adjustment is appropriate.
Comment 20: One commenter stated that closing an area will open the
same area to fishing by foreign fleets.
Response: Closing an area to snapper-grouper fishing under
Amendment 17A will not open up that area to fishing by foreign fleets.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the Federal Government to regulate
fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (3 to 200 nautical miles
offshore), and it prohibits foreign fishing in the EEZ unless
specifically conducted pursuant to an international fishery agreement
and permit.
Comment 21: Two commenters stated the fishing mortality at maximum
sustainable yield (FMSY) proxy approved by NMFS is
inadequate and does not follow the SSC's FMSY proxy
recommendation.
Response: Stock assessments have not been able to reliably estimate
the MSY of South Atlantic red snapper. In such cases, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act National Standard 1 Guidelines direct regional fishery
management councils to adopt other measures of reproductive capacity as
reasonable MSY proxies. In 1998, through Amendment 11 to the Snapper-
Grouper FMP, the Council defined the MSY of red snapper to equal the
yield associated with fishing at FMSY or
F30[percnt]SPR.
At its December 2008 meeting, the Council's SSC discussed the
positive and negative effects of maintaining the current proxy for
FMSY (F30[percnt]SPR)
versus establishing a new proxy for FMSY at
F40[percnt]SPR. Some SSC members
supported the CIE's recommendation, based on SEDAR 15, to use
F40[percnt]SPR and cited literature
and examples that showed that F40[percnt]SPR
is a more appropriate proxy for FMSY. Other SSC members
stated F30[percnt]SPR should be
maintained because it was approved by the Council for red snapper and
other species in Amendment 11 to the FMP, and its corresponding
steepness value (the magnitude of recruitment) is approximately 0.90,
which was close to the estimated value of 0.95 in the base model.
The Council was very concerned about the implications of
establishing a proxy that has not been previously used for red snapper.
Specifying F40[percnt]SPR as a new
proxy could set a precedent that is not appropriate for all species in
the snapper-grouper fishery management unit. After thoroughly
considering the implications associated with the more conservative
alternative FMSY proxy of
F40[percnt]SPR, as well as input from
their SSC and NMFS, the Council elected to take no action to change the
current definition of the FMSY proxy. Amendment 17A
specifies the numerical value for MSY associated with this definition
as 2,431,000 lb (1,102,683 kg), whole weight, based on the most recent,
completed, red snapper stock assessment at the time of final Council
action (SEDAR 15 2008).
The more conservative FMSY proxy of
F40[percnt]SPR recommended by the SSC
would have resulted in a lower MSY value equal to 2,304,000 lb
(1,102,683 kg), whole weight, and would have required greater harvest
reductions to end overfishing and rebuild the stock on schedule.
Choosing that proxy would have resulted in increased adverse economic
impacts from ending overfishing on fishing communities. Therefore, the
Council recommended that the SEFSC conduct a comprehensive review of
how FMSY proxies should be applied across all southeastern
fisheries, and that the decision to apply a specific FMSY
proxy be made at the regional level rather than on a species-by-species
basis.
Comment 22: Three commenters state Amendment 17A fails to specify
an acceptable biological catch (ABC) or ABC control rule for red
snapper.
Response: The SSC provided an overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC
recommendations in terms of pounds of fish at its June 2008 meeting,
but the SSC did not have an ABC control rule to assist them with
estimating ABC and indicated that they considered the values to be
``interim'' until more robust methods for estimating these parameters
could be made available. At its December 2008 SSC meeting, the SSC
considered the guidance given in the proposed Magnuson-Stevens Act
National Standard 1 Guidelines and rescinded all estimates of ABC from
its June 2008 meeting (except for an ABC of zero for speckled hind and
warsaw grouper). The SSC also recommended at its December 2008 meeting
that the ABC levels for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red snapper
be set consistent with the rebuilding plans for those species until
they can be further amended on better scientific information. The SSC
met in March and June of 2009 to determine ABC control rules for data
rich species, and met in April and August of 2010 to identify the
protocol for determining the ABC for data poor species. The SSC
recommended that current ABC levels for red snapper be set consistent
with the rebuilding plan until they can be further amended.
Comment 23: Two commenters stated that by choosing to rely on an
OFL based on the FMSY proxy of
F30[percnt]SPR, which is equivalent to
146,939 lb (66,650 kg), and then setting the ABC at 97 percent of the
Council's OFL, or 144,000 lb (65,317 kg), the Council set the ABC for
red snapper well above the SSC-recommended OFL of 104,124 lb (47,230
kg). Furthermore, the commenter states the Council's ABC of 144,000 lb
(65,317 kg) is also well above the 101,000 lb (45, 813 kg) catch level
that is based on the rebuilding plan under the SSC's recommended
FMSY proxy.
Response: Section 1.4.2 of Amendment 17A discusses the SSC's
recommendation of ABC and OFL. Initially, the SSC recommended an
interim OFL and ABC for red snapper equal to the yield at 75 percent
FMSY. At its December 2008 meeting, the SSC withdrew its OFL
and ABC recommendations, and instead recommended the ABC level be set
consistent with the rebuilding plan in Amendment 17A, which specifies
an FOY equal to 98 percent FMSY (98 percent
F30[percnt]SPR) and rebuilds the stock
in 35 years. Therefore, ABC is consistent with the rebuilding plan
outlined in Amendment 17A.
Comment 24: One commenter stated that Amendment 17A violates the
requirement for the Council to set ACLs that do not exceed the ABC
recommendation of the SSC.
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to develop
ACLs that may not exceed the fishing level recommendation of its SSC.
The National Standard 1 Guidelines state that the SSC recommendation
most relevant to ACLs is ABC, as both are levels of annual catch. The
SSC's ABC recommendation for red snapper is that the ABC should be
consistent with the rebuilding plan. Therefore, the ABC is specified as
an FOY equal to 98 percent FMSY (98 percent
F30[percnt]SPR) and rebuilds in 35
years. This allows a total red snapper mortality (in the form of dead
discards) of 144,000 lb (65,317 kg) whole weight in year one of
rebuilding. Total mortality is calculated from rebuilding projections
of spawning stock biomass, recruitment, allowable removals from the
population, and probability of stock recovery, under different fishing
mortality rates developed by the SEFSC. This rebuilding plan is
consistent with the current FMSY proxy
(F30[percnt]SPR), which requires a 76
percent reduction in harvest of red snapper. The Council's preferred
alternative in Amendment
[[Page 76882]]
17A establishes an ACL of 0 lb (0 kg) based on landed catch.
The Council considered including both landed catch and discards in
the specification of the red snapper ACL; however, the SSC concluded
that existing data collection and reporting systems are not adequate to
support monitoring discarded red snapper in the commercial and
recreational fisheries and expressed concern that doing so may create
an incentive for fishermen to under-report red snapper discards.
Comment 25: Two commenters stated the AMs specified in Amendment
17A are based on the ACL, which includes landings only (all red snapper
landings would be prohibited under this final rule), and therefore are
not adequate because they do not correspond to total mortality.
Additionally, the amendment does not include AMs that will be triggered
annually if the total mortality exceeds the ABC.
Response: Through this final rule, NMFS establishes an ACL of zero
for red snapper, which is applied to directed harvest. Therefore, a
year-round closure is created for commercial and recreational harvest
of red snapper throughout the entire South Atlantic EEZ. Additionally,
the results of SEDAR 15 required the Council to reduce the bycatch
mortality of red snapper in order to end overfishing. The Council thus
imposed a 4,827 square mile (7,763 square km) closed area from Cape
Canaveral, Florida, to southern Georgia to all snapper-grouper fishing
(except when using black sea bass pots or spearfishing gear) to achieve
the fishing mortality reduction required by SEDAR 15.
The Council considered including both landed catch and discards in
the specification of the red snapper ACL; however, the SSC concluded
that existing data collection and reporting systems are not adequate to
support monitoring discarded red snapper in the commercial and
recreational fisheries and expressed concern that doing so may create
an incentive for fishermen to under-report red snapper discards.
Prohibiting all directed harvest of red snapper is the most
stringent AM that could be implemented for the species. The preferred
red snapper AM alternative includes a provision for tracking catch per
unit effort (CPUE) via fishery-dependent and fishery-independent
monitoring programs, and periodically evaluating the CPUE data to
determine if adjustments to the ACL and management measures are
appropriate. If the data indicate an adjustment is warranted, action
could be taken expeditiously through a framework amendment. The Council
did consider establishing annual catch targets (ACTs) as part of the
accountability mechanism for red snapper. However, the commercial and
recreational harvest of red snapper is prohibited, therefore, it was
determined that ACTs are not necessary at this time. It is anticipated
that red snapper harvest will be allowed in the future, at which time
the Council may consider establishing ACTs.
Comment 26: One commenter stated Amendment 17A violates the
Magnuson-Stevens Act because it does not clearly specify an OFL for red
snapper.
Response: According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1
Guidelines, OFL is an annual amount of catch that corresponds to the
estimate of maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) applied to a
stock or complex's abundance. Amendment 11 to the FMP defines MFMT as
the yield at FMSY where
F30[percnt]SPR is the default
FMSY proxy. Amendment 17A retains the status quo proxy for
FMSY at F30[percnt]SPR,
which when applied to the red snapper stock would be the equivalent to
the OFL. The numerical value of this parameter will change annually as
stock biomass increases in response to the rebuilding plan, and is
estimated as 2,431,000 lb (1,102,683 kg), whole weight, when the stock
is at equilibrium based on the SEDAR 15 assessment.
Comment 27: Two commenters stated Amendment 17A management measures
are based on unsubstantiated discard mortality assumptions, and
unrealistic compliance rates.
Response: The discard mortality rates used in Amendment 17A are
provided by the SEDAR 15 (2008) assessment. The stock assessment
evaluated findings from numerous studies to estimate release mortality
of red snapper. SEDAR 15 (2008) panel participants considered a
previous assessment of the red snapper population along the Atlantic
coast that used point estimates of 10 percent and 25 percent for
release mortality based on observations by NMFS personnel. These
estimates are low when compared to data in the 2009 Gulf of Mexico Red
Snapper Assessment Update to SEDAR 7 (2004). Panel members also
considered recent observer data collected from the headboat sector on
the Atlantic coast and commercial sectors on the Atlantic coast and in
the Gulf of Mexico. After examining the results from the many different
release mortality studies, SEDAR 15 (2008) recommended the release
mortality be set at 40 percent (30 to 50 percent selectivity range) for
the recreational sector and 90 percent (80 to 100 percent selectivity
range) for the commercial sector. Discard mortality was evaluated
through sensitivity runs and was not a significant factor in the
fishing mortality or abundance estimates.
Varying degrees of compliance were discussed by the Council and
NMFS, and were included in the model estimates of harvest reductions
needed to end overfishing. The model used compliance assumptions
ranging from 100 percent to 80 percent. Data on compliance rates as
they relate to closed areas in the snapper-grouper fishery are limited.
The fishery does not require vessel monitoring systems, and therefore
does not have a highly accurate method to predict compliance for the
subject closure. The Council determined it was reasonable to assume a
compliance rate of 90 percent or less at this time, and adjust
rebuilding measures as appropriate in response to new information.
Therefore, the model scenarios incorporating less than 90 percent
compliance were used to inform their selection of the preferred closed
area alternative. NMFS agrees with this determination and concluded the
conservation and management measures proposed in Amendment 17A are
based on the best scientific information available.
Comment 28: One commenter stated the SEFSC disagreed with the
Council's decision to base its selected catch limits necessary to end
overfishing on a ``very high recruitment'' scenario.
Response: The Council and SEFSC considered projections with very
high recruitment to be a reasonable approach as the 2008 and 2009 red
snapper landings in the U.S. South Atlantic were much higher than have
been observed in recent years, and high landings followed a spike in
discards, which occurred in 2007. As the majority of fish being landed
are near the legal limit of 20 inches (50.8 cm) TL and age information
from red snapper collected in 2009 indicated approximately 80 percent
of the fish were age 3 and 4, there was evidence that the high landings
are being driven by a particularly strong year-class entering the
fishery. At its September 2009 meeting, the Council expressed concern
that rebuilding projections in Amendment 17A did not consider recent
high recruitment since the SEDAR 15 assessment only included landings
data through 2006. As a result, the Council stated the projections
could underestimate the magnitude of expected discards, and the yield
at target fishing mortality could be higher. In response, the Council
requested new projections, which incorporate the high recruitment that
appears to have occurred in 2006.
[[Page 76883]]
To examine the effects of such a pulse of recruitment on
projections, the SEFSC produced projections where the 2006 year-class
was inflated to one of three levels, corresponding to 50 percent, 100
percent, and 150 percent of the maximum recruitment event observed in
the SEDAR 15 assessment over the years 1974-2006. The three levels were
labeled as ``high'', ``very high'', and ``extremely high.''
At the September 2009 Council meeting, the SEFSC advised the
Council the use of ``very high'' recruitment estimates were most
appropriate for red snapper in the South Atlantic. While the SSC
expressed concern in its Consensus Statements and Report from the
December 2009 Meeting that adoption of the ``very high'' recruitment
estimate was overly optimistic, they acknowledged that assumptions
regarding recent recruitment pulses would be tested in SEDAR 24. That
assessment, which was completed in late October 2010, confirms that
notably strong year classes occurred in 2006 and 2007.
Comment 29: Three commenters stated that Amendment 17A fails to
take into account management uncertainty when establishing management
measures to end overfishing.
Response: The Council and NMFS considered management uncertainty
during the deliberative process of choosing management measures
intended to end overfishing of red snapper and rebuild the stock within
the specified timeframe. The Council and NMFS utilized a specialized
model to estimate the percentage reductions gained in total red snapper
mortality under various scenarios. Each scenario took into account the
effects of management uncertainty that could result from impacts of
recently implemented regulations, estimated compliance rates, and
variations in offshore and inshore release mortality rates. These
assumptions are discussed in detail in Appendix E of Amendment 17A.
Comment 30: Two commenters stated that Amendment 17A actions
prioritize the minimization of socioeconomic harm over conservation.
Response: Amendment 17A was developed by the Council and NMFS
pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to end overfishing of red
snapper and rebuild the overfished stock within the specified
rebuilding schedule. NMFS must also minimize, to the extent
practicable, the unavoidable negative socioeconomic impacts of
achieving these conservation objectives. The Council chose, and NMFS
approved, the management measures that best minimized these
socioeconomic impacts without compromising conservation objectives.
Because red snapper is part of a multispecies fishery, the SEDAR 15
assessment indicated that bycatch mortality is high, and that an area
closure for all snapper-grouper fishing was necessary to end
overfishing. The size of the area closure was the subject of extensive
deliberation. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that the
preferred area closure, based on SEDAR 15 assessment results, is the
best balance between ending overfishing and minimizing economic harm.
Data uncertainty surrounding SEDAR 15 made the Council's task of
designating appropriate rebuilding goals and management measures for
red snapper very difficult. Subsequently, the Council has been
criticized for choosing reference points and management measures that
are either not conservative enough, or too conservative. Amendment 17A
has been cited as being overly optimistic in its assumptions and
capacity to rebuild the stock. However, the recently completed SEDAR
assessment (SEDAR 24) affirms that red snapper are overfished and are
undergoing overfishing. The results of SEDAR 24 will be presented to
the Council at their December 2010 meeting. At that time, they may
choose to adjust the management measures, which may be done through a
regulatory amendment according to the Snapper-Grouper FMP Framework
Procedures.
Comment 31: One commenter stated that Amendment 17A fails to
include bycatch in the ACL.
Response: Establishing an ACL of zero, based on landed catch, would
not require monitoring dead discards in order to monitor the ACL. The
SSC has opposed on several occasions including dead discards as part of
the ACL since discard data are self-reported and there is greater
uncertainty with discard data than with estimates of landings. The
alternative ACL specification was also zero, but it included landings
and dead discards. This option would require NMFS to monitor discarded
red snapper in the commercial and recreational sectors for the purposes
of tracking the ACL; though discard data will be recorded and monitored
via the fishery-independent monitoring program intended to track
rebuilding progress. At its March 2009 meeting, the SSC indicated their
recommendation of acceptable biological catch of zero for speckled hind
and warsaw grouper was based on landed catch only due to concern about
monitoring discards. The SSC expressed concerns when discussing ACLs
based on dead discards for speckled hind and warsaw grouper at its
March 2009 meeting. The SSC was not only concerned about the accuracy
of discard data from the recreational and commercial sectors but also
the possibility that some members of the fishing community might under-
report discarded fish if they believed further restrictions might be
imposed if levels of dead discards became elevated. Based on this
recommendation from the SSC, the Council and NMFS determined an ACL
equal to zero, based on landed catch only, would be the most
appropriate ACL value for red snapper in the South Atlantic. Estimates
of dead discards are incorporated in a model to determine reductions in
mortality needed to end red snapper overfishing. The model was used by
Council to reduce bycatch and end overfishing of red snapper through
the establishment of a closed area where the harvest of all snapper-
grouper species would be prohibited with all gear types except black
sea bass pots and spearfishing gear.
Comment 32: Two commenters stated that several of the options
chosen by the Council as preferred alternatives were not included in
the DEIS. As a result, the alternatives did not receive adequate review
and analysis, and were not subject to appropriate public notice, review
and comment, as required by law.
Response: One alternative contained in the FEIS was not identified
as a separate alternative in the DEIS, but it was included in the range
of alternatives considered and analyzed in the DEIS. This red snapper
management measure, Alternative 3E, was identified by the Council as
its preferred snapper-grouper area closure alternative at its June 2010
meeting after reviewing public comments on the DEIS, as well as new
information on the reduction in total mortality needed to end
overfishing as defined by the status quo FMSY proxy of
F30SPR. As this reduction was slightly
less than that required by the formerly preferred
F40SPR proxy, the Council included a new,
preferred area closure alternative that encompassed a smaller area
reflective of the reduced harvest reductions needed under the status
quo FMSY proxy. The environmental impacts of Alternative 3E
fell within the scope of those evaluated in the DEIS for the closure
alternatives considered, and thus did not necessitate the publication
of a supplemental DEIS.
Comment 33: Two commenters stated that NMFS chose to move forward
with approval of the rebuilding plan and management measures in
Amendment 17A despite a statement from the SSC that the proposed
management
[[Page 76884]]
measures may not be sufficient to end overfishing of red snapper. One
commenter stated the FEIS does not address the SSC's concerns with
whether or not Amendment 17A would end overfishing.
Response: In its Consensus Statement and Report for the December
2009 Council meeting, the SSC stated that none of the management
options in draft Amendment 17A appear to prevent overfishing because
the analyses and alternatives are based on overly optimistic
assumptions regarding the steepness of the stock-recruit curve, a
``very high recruitment'' pulse in 2006, as well as expected rates of
compliance and effort shifting. However, SSC representatives speaking
to these issues during the Council's December 2009 Snapper-Grouper
Committee meeting acknowledged the SSC's conclusion assumed that the
rate of overfishing was defined using a more conservative
FMSY proxy (F40SPR) than the
status quo proxy of F30SPR, that
steepness was defined based on their recommendation for short-term
projections but it has relatively little impact on the effectiveness of
management measures in ending overfishing, and that assumptions
regarding recent recruitment pulses were not overly risky because they
would be tested in the new benchmark assessment SEDAR 24. SEDAR 24,
which was completed in late October 2010, confirms that notably strong
year classes occurred in 2006 and 2007.
While rates of compliance and effort shifting remain difficult to
predict, the Council determined it was reasonable to assume a
compliance rate of 90 percent or less at this time, and adjust
rebuilding measures as appropriate in response to new information.
Therefore, the model scenarios incorporating less than 90 percent
compliance were used to inform the Council's selection of the preferred
closed area alternative. The Council also determined any effort
shifting would not be expected to have a significant adverse impact on
the red snapper rebuilding plan because the management measures
proposed in Amendment 17B, if approved, would greatly diminish the
incentive to target snapper-grouper species in deep water and discard
mortality would be reduced if effort shifted to inshore waters. NMFS
agrees with these assumptions and certified that the conservation and
management measures in Amendment 17A are based on the best available
scientific information.
The new SEDAR assessment (SEDAR 24) also supports these
assumptions, indicating the rate of overfishing is likely lower than
that estimated by the base run in SEDAR 15 and that the red snapper
stock is in better shape than portrayed by SEDAR 15. The Council will
review the results of SEDAR 24 at their December 2010 meeting and may
propose additional action at that time, as appropriate.
Comment 34: One commenter stated the FEIS fails to disclose and
analyze the fundamental flaws in the scenarios relied upon to determine
that the management measures will reduce fishing mortality below the
OFL, especially with regard to bycatch mortality estimates and
projected compliance rates.
Response: The biological analysis for management actions in
Amendment 17A and its associated FEIS, specifically Appendix E of the
document, provides details regarding the analytical model used to
develop the area closure alternatives. Appendix E also provides
information on the limitations associated with the model's assumptions,
which were used in determining reductions in total mortality provided
by the proposed area closures. The report accompanying the model
compares projected removal rates under the following scenarios with or
without: (1) Elimination of directed and/or targeted trips due to
regulations; (2) changes in overall release mortality; (3) distinct
inshore release mortality; and (4) varying compliance rates. Projected
reductions in total removals were computed from baseline 2005-2007 data
compiled from commercial logbook, MRFSS, and headboat logbook data for
the U.S. South Atlantic. In various scenarios, baseline removals were
reduced as a function of trip elimination, spatial and bathymetric
closures, and changes in release mortality. As with most projections,
certain assumptions must be made to produce meaningful results. The
assumptions made in the model analysis used to determine what level of
harvest reduction could be achieved under the various area closure
alternatives, are based upon the best available information from SEDAR
15, and recommendations by the Council's SSC. Any assumptions used to
operate the model, which predicted overall harvest reductions possible
under various red snapper management measure alternatives, were
disclosed and subjected to public, SSC, and SEFSC review.
Comment 35: One commenter stated that the FEIS fails to consider:
The impacts of not selecting an explicit OFL that is derived from the
SSC-recommended MSY proxy; the impacts of setting the ABC above the OFL
that is derived from the SSC-recommended FMSY proxy; the
impacts of basing the ABC on the rebuilding plan as opposed to basing
it on an ABC control rule that incorporates scientific uncertainty
contained within the overfishing level; and the impacts on bycatch and
stopping overfishing with using an ACL that is based on landings only.
Response: Amendment 17A and its associated FEIS include analyses of
the potential impacts of all alternatives on the biological, economic,
social, and administrative environments, including the ``No Action''
alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Analyses include the impacts of adopting a new definition for the
FMSY proxy versus retaining the status quo FMSY
proxy. The FEIS for Amendment 17A satisfies all NEPA requirements.
Section 1.4.2 of Amendment 17A discusses the SSC's recommendation
of ABC and OFL. At its December 2008 meeting, the SSC recommended the
ABC level be set consistent with the rebuilding plan in Amendment 17A.
Therefore, the ABC is specified to equal FOY, which is
defined as 98 percent FMSY (98 percent
F30SPR), during the rebuilding schedule.
This allows a total red snapper mortality of 144,000 lb (65,317 kg)
whole weight in year one of rebuilding based on the status quo
FMSY proxy of F30SPR, which
requires a 76 percent reduction in red snapper harvest.
According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1
Guidelines, OFL is an annual amount of catch that corresponds to the
estimate of MFMT applied to a stock or complex's abundance. Amendment
11 to the FMP defines MFMT as the yield at FMSY where
F30SPR is the default FMSY
proxy. Amendment 17A retains the status quo proxy for FMSY
at F30SPR, which when applied to the red
snapper stock would be the equivalent to OFL. The numerical value of
this parameter will change annually as stock biomass increases in
response to the rebuilding plan, and is estimated as 2,431,000 lbs (ww)
when the stock is at equilibrium based on the SEDAR 15 assessment.
Therefore, ABC is less that OFL, since OFL is based on the status quo
proxy for FMSY and ABC is specified to equal FOY,
which is defined as 98 percent of the status quo proxy for
FMSY.
The Council considered including both landed catch and discards in
the specification of the red snapper ACL; however, the SSC concluded
that existing data collection and reporting systems are not adequate to
support monitoring discarded red snapper in the commercial and
recreational fisheries and expressed concern that doing so
[[Page 76885]]
may create an incentive for fishermen to under-report red snapper
discards.
Classification
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that
Amendment 17A is necessary for the conservation and management of the
snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an FEIS for this amendment. A notice of availability
for the FEIS was published on August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51458). A copy of
the ROD is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS prepared a FRFA, as required by 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, for this final rule. The FRFA incorporates by
reference the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary
of the significant issues raised by public comments, NMFS responses to
those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action. A copy of the analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The FRFA follows.
No comments specific to the IRFA were received. However, several
comments were submitted on the economic effects of the proposed rule.
Most comments stated the proposed rule would have devastating economic
effects on the fishing industry. Some comments noted that the proposed
rule would create undue hardships on for-hire crew, support industries,
and associated communities. Other comments stated that the economic
analysis underestimated the adverse economic effects of the proposed
rule on the for-hire sector in particular and the recreational sector
in general.
The economic analysis conducted for the proposed rule estimated the
expected quantitative effects of each alternative to the extent
possible. Qualitative discussions of expected effects were provided
where data or analytical techniques were not available. The analysis
focused on the expected change in economic value, where economic value
was measured by net operating revenues for commercial and for-hire
vessels and consumer surplus for recreational anglers. An expenditure
analysis was also conducted to provide some insights into the
distributional effects of the proposed rule. This analysis examined the
direct and indirect effects (sales/output, income/value-added, and
full-time employment) of revenue reductions on the commercial sector
and of target trip reductions on the recreational sector due to the
proposed rule. The economic analysis concluded that, with the exception
of the no action alternatives, practically all alternatives would
result in short-run adverse economic effects on fishers, support
industries, and associated communities. The adverse economic effects
would be borne mostly by commercial and for-hire operations in
northeast Florida and Georgia. Some alternatives to the proposed rule
would be expected to result in lower adverse economic effects but would
not achieve the Council's objective for that particular action. Other
alternatives to the proposed rule would achieve the Council's
objectives but were projected to result in larger adverse economic
effects.
NMFS agrees with the Council's choice of preferred alternatives as
those which would be expected to best achieve the Council's objectives
while minimizing to the extent practicable the adverse effects on
fishers, support industries, and associated communities.
No changes in the final rule were made in response to public
comments.
The final rule, which consists of several actions, would introduce
changes to the management of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper
fishery. This rule would prohibit all commercial and recreational
harvest and possession of red snapper year-round in the South Atlantic
EEZ. Prohibition of the harvest and possession of red snapper applies
in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal
charter vessel/headboat or commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species
are harvested, i.e., in State or Federal waters. Furthermore, this rule
would prohibit commercial and recreational harvest and possession of
all snapper-grouper species year-round in an area that includes
commercial logbook grids 2880, 2980, and 3080 between 98 ft (16
fathoms; 30 m) and 240 ft (40 fathoms; 73 m), except when snapper-
grouper (other than red snapper) are harvested with (a) black sea bass
pots that have a valid identification tag attached, or (b) spearfishing
gear. The prohibition on possession does not apply to a person aboard a
vessel that is in transit with other snapper-grouper species on board
and with fishing gear appropriately stowed. Finally, this rule would
require the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for
snapper-grouper with snapper-grouper hook-and-line gear and natural
baits north of 28[deg] N. latitude.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the final
rule.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been
identified. The final rule would not alter existing reporting, record
keeping, or other compliance requirements, except when the vessel is in
transit across the closed area, during which, fishing gear must be
appropriately stowed, or when the vessel is selected for the fishery-
independent monitoring program to track the progress of red snapper.
This final rule is expected to directly affect commercial
harvesting and for-hire fishing operations. The Small Business
Administration has established size criteria for all major industry
sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters and for-hire operations.
A business involved in fish harvesting 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 $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111,
finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-
hire vessels, the other qualifiers apply and the annual receipts
threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
In 2003-2007, an average of 944 vessels per year was permitted to
operate in the commercial snapper-grouper sector. Of these vessels, 749
held transferable permits and 195 held non-transferable permits. On
average, 890 vessels landed 6.43 million lb (2.92 million kg) of
snapper-grouper and 1.95 million lb (0.88 million kg) of other species
on snapper-grouper trips. Total dockside revenues from snapper-grouper
species stood at $13.81 million (2007 dollars) and from other species,
at $2.30 million (2007 dollars). Considering revenues from both
snapper-grouper and other species, the average revenues per vessel were
$18,101. An average of 27 vessels per year harvested more than 50,000
lb (22,680 kg) of snapper-grouper species per year, generating at
least, at an average price of $2.15 (2007 dollars) per pound, dockside
revenues of $107,500. Vessels that operate in the snapper-grouper
fishery may also operate in other fisheries, the revenues of which
cannot be determined with available data and are not reflected in these
totals.
Although a vessel that possesses a commercial snapper-grouper
permit can harvest various snapper-grouper species, not all permitted
vessels landed all of the snapper-grouper species most affected by this
amendment, i.e. red snapper, gag, vermilion snapper, black sea bass,
black grouper, and red grouper. The following average number of vessels
landed the subject species in 2003-
[[Page 76886]]
2007: 292 vessels landed gag, 253 vessels landed vermilion snapper, 220
vessels landed red snapper, 237 vessels landed black sea bass, 323
vessels landed black grouper, and 402 vessels landed red grouper.
Combining revenues from snapper-grouper and other species on the same
trip, the average revenue (2007 dollars) per vessel for vessels landing
the subject species were $20,551 for gag, $28,454 for vermilion
snapper, $22,168 for red snapper, $19,034 for black sea bass, $7,186
for black grouper, and $17,164 for red grouper.
Based on revenue information, all commercial vessels directly
affected by the final rule are considered small entities.
The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee
on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual
angler (head) basis. In 2003-2007, an average of 1,635 vessels was
permitted to operate in the snapper-grouper for-hire sector, of which
82 are estimated to have operated as headboats. Within the total number
of vessels, 227 also possessed a commercial snapper-grouper permit and
are included in the summary information provided on the commercial
sector. The charterboat annual average gross revenue is estimated to
range from approximately $62,000-$84,000 for Florida vessels, $73,000-
$89,000 for North Carolina vessels, $68,000-$83,000 for Georgia
vessels, and $32,000-$39,000 for South Carolina vessels. For headboats,
the corresponding estimates are $170,000-$362,000 for Florida vessels,
and $149,000-$317,000 for vessels in the other States.
Based on these average revenue figures, all for-hire operations
directly affected by the final rule are considered small entities.
Some fleet activity may exist in both the commercial and for-hire
snapper-grouper sectors but its extent is unknown, and all vessels are
treated as independent entities in this analysis.
All entities that are expected to be directly affected by the final
rule are considered small entities.
The final rule is expected to reduce short-run harvests and fishing
opportunities of commercial and for-hire vessels that, in turn, would
reduce their short-run revenues and profits. In the following
discussion, net operating revenue is considered equivalent to profit.
Prohibiting all commercial and recreational harvest and possession
of red snapper year-round in the South Atlantic EEZ and prohibiting all
commercial and recreational harvest and possession of other species
(except when caught with spearfishing gear or black sea bass pots that
have a valid identification tag issued by the RA attached) in the
snapper-grouper fishery year-round in the area that includes commercial
logbook grids 2880, 2980, and 3080 between 98 ft (16 fathoms; 30 m) and
240 ft (40 fathoms; 73 m) is expected to reduce net operating revenues
of commercial vessels operating in the South Atlantic by an average of
approximately $430,000 (4.8 percent), assuming the no action
alternatives in Amendment 17B to the FMP, or $931,000 (10.3 percent)
when combined with the preferred alternatives in Amendment 17B to the
FMP. This measure is also expected to reduce the net operating revenues
of for-hire vessels operating in the South Atlantic by approximately
$5.04 million. Most of the effects would be borne by commercial and
for-hire vessels operating in northeast Florida and Georgia, and would
comprise a significant portion of these vessels' net operating
revenues. Moreover, most of the effects would fall on commercial
vessels using vertical lines and on headboats. However, it is highly
probable that the effects on headboats are overestimated due to
overestimation of affected target trips by headboats.
Exempting from the closed area prohibition the harvests of snapper-
grouper species, except red snapper, caught with spearfishing gear or
black sea bass pots that have valid identification tags would mitigate
the effects of the area closures on commercial vessels. These effects
are already incorporated in the estimated effects of the fishing
prohibition on red snapper and fishing prohibition on snapper-grouper
in the closed area.
Requiring the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing
for snapper-grouper species with snapper-grouper hook-and-line gear
north of 28[deg] N. latitude is expected to increase the fishing costs
of some commercial and for-hire vessels. Depending on the physical
structure of a fish's mouth and the way that the fish takes bait, the
circle hook requirement may reduce the harvest of some desired species.
The potential cost increase and harvest reduction cannot be estimated,
although they are deemed to be relatively small considering that circle
hooks are already used on some vessels.
The estimated short-run reductions in the net operating revenues of
the directly affected small entities, particularly for-hire vessels,
may be considered substantial. Small entities operating off of
northeast Florida and Georgia are expected to bear most of the short-
run adverse economic effects, with these effects comprising a
significant portion of their net operating revenues.
For the various red snapper management measures, there were 15
alternatives, and three sub-alternatives considered. Four of the
alternatives and one of the sub-alternatives including: (1) The red
snapper prohibition; (2) the snapper-grouper area closure; (3) the red
snapper ACL; and (4) the red snapper AM, comprise the final action.
The first alternative for each of the elements of the final action
was the no action alternative, which would not conform to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements to end the overfished and overfishing
conditions of red snapper. The second alternative to the final action
would prohibit all commercial and recreational harvest and possession
of red snapper year-round in the South Atlantic EEZ. This alternative
has been determined to be insufficient to rebuild the red snapper stock
within the specified timeframe due to discard mortalities when fishing
for co-occurring snapper-grouper species. The third alternative to the
final action would close four logbook grids and would close all water
depths in the four subject areas. This alternative would result in
larger short-run adverse economic effects than the final action. The
fourth alternative to the final action would close four logbook grids
and would close more water depths in the shallower parts of the four
subject areas. This alternative would result in larger short-run
adverse economic effects than the final action. The fifth alternative
to the final action is similar to the final action, except that it
would close four, instead of three, logbook grids. This alternative
would result in slightly larger short-run adverse economic effects than
the final action. The sixth alternative to the final action would close
four logbook grids and would close more water depths in the deeper
parts of the four subject areas. This alternative would result in
larger short-run adverse economic effects than the final action. The
seventh alternative to the final action differs from the final action
by closing four additional areas and all water depths in the subject
seven areas. This alternative would result in substantially larger
short-run adverse economic effects than the final action. The eighth
alternative to the final action differs from the final action by
closing four additional areas and more water depths in the shallower
parts of the subject seven areas. This alternative would result in
substantially larger short-run adverse economic effects than the final
action. The ninth alternative to the final action differs
[[Page 76887]]
from the final action by closing four additional areas. This
alternative would result in substantially larger short-run adverse
economic effects than the final action. The tenth alternative to the
final action differs from the final action by closing four additional
areas and more water depths in the deeper parts of the subject seven
areas. This alternative would result in substantially larger short-run
adverse economic effects than the final action. The eleventh
alternative to the final action would, in combination with any of the
alternatives that would prohibit harvest and possession of red snapper
and close four or seven areas to snapper-grouper fishing, allow harvest
and possession of snapper-grouper species (except red snapper) with
bottom longline gear in the closed areas deeper than 50 fathoms (91 m).
Relative to the final action, this alternative would have smaller
adverse effects on commercial vessels and no effects on for-hire
vessels. Three sub-alternatives, including the final action, were
considered for vessels transiting through the closed areas. The first
sub-alternative would be less restrictive than the final action by not
requiring that fishing gear be appropriately stowed when vessels
transit through the closed areas. This alternative would slightly
mitigate the adverse economic effects of the closed areas, but it could
compromise the effectiveness of enforcing regulations in the closed
areas. The second sub-alternative to the final action would be less
restrictive than the final action for vessels with wreckfish on board.
This alternative would particularly avoid the potential unintended
adverse effects on vessels fishing for wreckfish, but it could also
compromise the effectiveness of enforcing regulations in the closed
areas.
Three alternatives, including the final action, were considered for
requiring the use of circle hooks. The first alternative to the final
action, the no action alternative, would not require the use of circle
hooks, and so would not entail any additional fishing cost. On the
other hand, it would not take advantage of the potential afforded by
circle hooks in reducing discard and bycatch mortality of red snapper,
particularly in the center of the red snapper fishing area. The second
alternative to the final action would require the use of circle hooks
throughout the South Atlantic EEZ and not just north of 28[deg] N.
latitude, as in the final action. This alternative could entail higher
fishing costs than the final action. It could also lower vessel
revenues when some species cannot be effectively caught with circle
hooks, particularly in the southern areas where red snapper harvest is
relatively low.
In addition to the foregoing actions, Amendment 17A also considered
various alternatives for modifying the MSY proxy and establishing a
rebuilding schedule, a rebuilding strategy, and a monitoring program
for red snapper.
The Council elected to take no action to modify the status quo
FMSY proxy for red snapper, which is
F30SPR. The final action on rebuilding
strategy for red snapper would define a rebuilding strategy that sets
the rebuilding goal equal to SSBMSY and sets the catch rate
equal to FOY, which is 98 percent FMSY
(98%F30SPR), and specify an ACL based on
landings, equal to zero in 2010 and beyond 2010 until modified. OY at
equilibrium would be 2,425,000 lb (1,099,961 kg) whole weight. The
final action on monitoring programs is to establish a fishery-
independent monitoring program to track the progress of red snapper.
Sampling would include deployment of chevron traps, cameras, and
snapper-grouper hook-and-line at randomly selected stations.
The Council considered modifying the status quo FMSY
proxy for red snapper at the advice of their SSC. Specifically, they
evaluated the impacts of adopting a more conservative proxy of
F40SPR, which would provide more
assurance that overfishing would be ended and the stock rebuilt within
the specified timeframe. However, after thoroughly considering the
implications associated with this more conservative proxy, as well as
input from their SSC and NMFS, they elected to take no action to change
the status quo definition of MSY. Amendment 17A specifies the numerical
value associated with this definition as 2,431,000 lbs (ww) based on
the most recent, completed, red snapper stock assessment at the time of
final Council action (SEDAR 15 2008). Instead, the Council recommended
that the SEFSC conduct a comprehensive review of how FMSY
proxies should be applied across all southeastern fisheries and are
considering developing a more generic amendment to evaluate changing
the MSY/MSY proxy for red snapper and other species, because it would
allow the Council to achieve some level of consistency, where
applicable, in defining MSY/MSY proxies across many species. Four
alternatives, including the final action, were considered for the red
snapper rebuilding schedule. The first alternative to the final action,
the no action alternative, would not define a rebuilding schedule for
red snapper. Considering that a previous rebuilding schedule expired in
2006 and the stock is overfished, this alternative would not meet the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. The second alternative to the final
action would define a rebuilding schedule equal to 15 years, which is
the shortest possible period to rebuild in the absence of fishing
mortality. Even if retention of red snapper is prohibited, red snapper
would still be caught since they have temporal and spatial coincidence
with other species fishermen target. Because release mortality is
estimated to be very high for red snapper, a 15-year rebuilding time
period would require most of the EEZ to be closed to fishing for a
majority of the snapper-grouper species to eliminate all incidental
mortality of red snapper. The significant and irreversible
socioeconomic impacts of such an action, which may or may not be
recouped in the long run, make a 15-year schedule impracticable. The
third alternative to the final action would define a rebuilding
schedule equal to 25 years, which is the mid-point between the shortest
possible (15 years) and maximum recommended (35 years) timeframe to
rebuild the stock. This alternative would require more stringent
regulations in the short run and thus more short-run adverse economic
effects than the final action. Economic analyses indicate there is a
fairly low level of likelihood that the future benefits of recovering
the red snapper stock more quickly would outweigh the short-term costs
to the red snapper fleet and the larger snapper-grouper fleet
associated with the more restrictive regulations required by shorter
rebuilding schedules.
Nine alternatives, including the final action, were considered for
the rebuilding strategy, including the ACL and AM. With the exception
of the no action alternative, each alternative includes two sub-
alternatives for the ACL, and each ACL in turn includes three
alternatives for the AM. The three AM alternatives, which all include
monitoring programs, are identical for all alternatives and sub-
alternatives, so they do not merit additional discussions here.
The rebuilding strategy is closely linked to the proxy for
FMSY since the goal is to rebuild the stock to its
reproductive capacity at MSY (SSBMSY). The current MSY
definition requires a 76 percent reduction in total mortality of red
snapper in order to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. Because the
Council used a tiered approach in the development of Amendment 17A,
maintaining the status quo FMSY proxy influenced the suite
of
[[Page 76888]]
rebuilding strategy alternatives from which the Council could choose a
preferred. Thus, the range of applicable alternatives was ultimately
narrowed to those based on the status quo FMSY proxy of
F30SPR (rebuilding strategy Alternatives
6-9). Rebuilding strategy Alternatives 2-5 are based on an
FMSY proxy of F40SPR, and
therefore, became technically inconsistent with red snapper management
reference points after the Council decided to take no action to modify
the FMSY proxy. The Council chose a rebuilding strategy that
sets the rebuilding goal equal to SSBMSY and sets the catch
rate equal to FOY, which is 98%FMSY
(98%F30SPR), with an ACL equal to zero
based on landings only. Under this rebuilding strategy, the fishery
would have a 53 percent chance of rebuilding to SSBMSY on
schedule.
The first alternative to the final action, the no action
alternative, would not specify an ACL and so would not meet the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. In addition, it would set the
rebuilding catch rate equal to FOY at a level equivalent to
85 percent F40SPR such that OY at
equilibrium equals 2,196,000 lb (996,089 kg) whole weight, which is
technically inconsistent with the Council's decision to maintain the
status quo FMSY proxy of
F30SPR. The second alternative to the
final action would define a red snapper rebuilding strategy that sets
FOY at a level equivalent to 85 percent
F40SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals
2,199,000 lb (997,450 kg) whole weight, which is technically
inconsistent with the Council's decision to maintain the status quo
FMSY proxy of F30SPR. The
first sub-alternative would base the ACL on landings, with the ACL
equal to zero in 2010. This is identical to the final action. The
second sub-alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the
ACL equal to 89,000 lb (40,370 kg) whole weight in 2010. This would
still require prohibition of red snapper harvest by both the commercial
and recreational sectors. In addition, this would require monitoring of
dead discards so that total removal would not exceed the ACL. The
difficulty of monitoring dead discards, together with the likelihood
that self-reported discards would be understated, raises concerns
regarding the eventual effectiveness of the rebuilding strategy. The
third alternative to the final action would define a red snapper
rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to
75 percent F40SPR such that OY at
equilibrium equals 2,104,000 lb (954,358 kg) whole weight, which is
technically inconsistent with the Council's decision to maintain the
status quo FMSY proxy of
F30SPR. The second sub-alternative would
base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to 79,000 lb (35,834
kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative raises similar issues of
concern associated with the monitoring of dead discards. The fourth
alternative to the final action would define a red snapper rebuilding
strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 65 percent
F40SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals
1,984,000 lb (899,927 kg) whole weight, which is technically
inconsistent with the Council's decision to maintain the status quo
FMSY proxy of F30SPR. The
first sub-alternative is identical to the final action. The second sub-
alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to
68,000 lb (30,844 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative raises
similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead
discards. The fifth alternative to the final action would define a red
snapper rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level
equivalent to 97 percent F40SPR such that
OY at equilibrium equals 2,287,000 lb (1,037,366 kg) whole weight,
which is technically inconsistent with the Council's decision to
maintain the status quo FMSY proxy of
F30SPR. The first sub-alternative is
identical to the final action. The second sub-alternative would base
the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to 68,000 lb (30,844 kg)
whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative raises similar issues of
concern associated with the monitoring of dead discards. The sixth
alternative to the final action would define a red snapper rebuilding
strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 85 percent
F30SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals
2,392,000 lb (1,084,993 kg) whole weight. This alternative would imply
more restrictive measures than the final action in the short run,
resulting in larger short-run adverse economic effects and potentially
lower long-run benefits because of a lower OY. The first sub-
alternative is identical to the final action. The second sub-
alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to
125,000 lb (56,699 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative
raises similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead
discards, although the higher ACL than that of previous sub-
alternatives would tend to mitigate but not erase such concerns. The
seventh alternative to the final action would define a red snapper
rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to
75 percent F30SPR such that OY at
equilibrium equals 2,338,000 lb (1,060,499 kg) whole weight. This
alternative would imply more restrictive measures in the short run,
resulting in lower short-run adverse economic effects and potentially
higher long-run benefits because of a lower OY. The first sub-
alternative is identical to the final action. The second sub-
alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to
111,000 lb (50,349 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative
raises similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead
discards, although the higher ACL than that of some previous sub-
alternatives would tend to mitigate but not erase such concerns. The
eighth alternative to the final action would define a red snapper
rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to
65 percent F30SPR such that OY at
equilibrium equals 2,257,000 lb (1,023,758 kg) whole weight. This
alternative would imply more restrictive measures than the final action
in the short run, resulting in lower short-run adverse economic effects
and potentially lower long-run benefits because of a lower OY. The
first sub-alternative is identical to the final action. The second sub-
alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to
97,000 lb (43,998 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative raises
similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead
discards, particularly that the ACL is lower than that of some previous
sub-alternatives.
Three alternatives, including the final action, were considered for
the red snapper monitoring program. The first alternative, the no
action alternative, would not entail any additional cost by utilizing
existing data collection programs. However, existing data collection
programs may not be adequate to collect vital information on red
snapper during the time harvest of the species is prohibited. The
second alternative to the final action would establish a red snapper
fishery-dependent monitoring program involving for-hire vessels. This
alternative offers some potential as does the final action in
collecting the needed information on red snapper, especially during the
period when harvest of the species is prohibited. Although the near
ideal approach is to combine this alternative with the final action,
funding for both may not be available on a continuing basis.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare an FRFA, the agency shall
publish one or more guides to
[[Page 76889]]
assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate
such publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' As part of
this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also
serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be
sent to all vessel permit holders and permitted dealers in the South
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the
30-day delay in effective date for the management measures that
implement the prohibitions on harvest and possession of red snapper in
the South Atlantic. Red snapper are overfished and undergoing
overfishing. An interim rule implementing these measures was
promulgated on January 4, 2010 (74 FR 63673, December 4, 2009),
extended on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 27658, May 18, 2010), and will expire
on December 5, 2010. The persons affected by these management measures
have been provided with notice and the opportunity to comment on these
measures via the public comment period for the proposed interim rule,
Amendment 17A, and the proposed rule for Amendment 17A, and they are
aware of the intent of the Council and NMFS to continue the existing
prohibitions immediately upon expiration of the interim rule. To
prevent a lapse in these prohibitions, amendments to Sec. 622.32,
Sec. 622.37, Sec. 622.39, and Sec. 622.45 must become effective on
or before December 5, 2010.
A red snapper benchmark assessment (SEDAR 24) was completed in late
October 2010, which provides additional information on the
effectiveness of these prohibitions. The assessment indicates that red
snapper are overfished and undergoing overfishing and that the current
harvest prohibition for red snapper is providing substantial protection
to the stock. Furthermore, the new assessment indicates a strong year
class entered the fishery in 2006, and fishermen are aware that there
are more young red snapper available than in previous years. Therefore,
should a lapse occur in these prohibitions, it is expected that there
would be very high fishing pressure on an unusually strong year class,
which needs to be protected to help rebuild the stock. A lapse could
also lead to more severe harvest reductions for the snapper-grouper
fishery as a whole with associated adverse socioeconomic impacts. For
all of these reasons, a waiver of the 30-day delay of effective date
for these measures is necessary.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: November 30, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as
follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 622.32, paragraph (b)(3)(vi) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.32 Prohibited and limited-harvest species.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) Red snapper may not be harvested or possessed in or from the
South Atlantic EEZ. Such fish caught in the South Atlantic EEZ must be
released immediately with a minimum of harm. In addition, for a person
on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter
vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been
issued, the provisions of this closure apply in the South Atlantic,
regardless of where such fish are harvested, i.e., in State or Federal
waters.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 622.35, paragraph (l) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.35 Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.
* * * * *
(l) Area closure for South Atlantic snapper-grouper. (1) No person
may harvest or possess a South Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from the
South Atlantic EEZ in the closed area defined in paragraph (l)(2) of
this section, except a person harvesting South Atlantic snapper-grouper
(see Sec. 622.32(b)(3) for the current prohibitions on the harvest and
possession of red snapper and other snapper-grouper species) with
spearfishing gear or with a sea bass pot that has a valid
identification tag issued by the RA attached, as specified in Sec.
622.6(b)(1)(i)(B). This prohibition on possession does not apply to a
person aboard a vessel that is transiting through the closed area with
fishing gear appropriately stowed as specified in paragraph (l)(3) of
this section.
(2) The area closure for South Atlantic snapper-grouper is bounded
by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point North lat. West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................... 28[deg]00'00'' 80[deg]00'00''
B............................... 28[deg]00'00'' 80[deg]10'57''
C............................... 29[deg]31'40'' 80[deg]30'34''
D............................... 30[deg]02'03'' 80[deg]50'45''
E............................... 31[deg]00'00'' 80[deg]35'19''
F............................... 31[deg]00'00'' 80[deg]00'00''
G............................... 30[deg]52'54'' 80[deg]00'00''
H............................... 30[deg]27'19'' 80[deg]11'41''
I............................... 29[deg]54'31'' 80[deg]15'51''
J............................... 29[deg]24'24'' 80[deg]13'32''
K............................... 28[deg]27'20'' 80[deg]00'00''
A............................... 28[deg]00'00'' 80[deg]00'00''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (l)(1) of this section, continuous
transiting or transit through means that a fishing vessel crosses the
area closure on a constant heading, along a continuous straight line
course, while underway, making way, not anchored, and by means of a
source of power at all times (not including drifting by means of the
prevailing water current or weather conditions). Fishing gear
appropriately stowed means--
(i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks
are disconnected and stowed below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All
buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on
deck.
(ii) A trawl or try net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be
disconnected from such net and must be secured.
(iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net must be left on the drum.
Any additional such nets not attached to the drum must be stowed below
deck.
(iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait)
used with an automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, trolling gear,
handline, or rod and reel must be disconnected and stowed separately
from such fishing gear. A rod and reel must be removed from the rod
holder and stowed securely on or below deck.
(v) A crustacean trap or golden crab trap cannot be baited. All
buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on
deck.
(vi) Other stowage methods may be authorized by the Regional
Administrator in the future. These would be published in the Federal
Register and become effective at that time.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 622.37, paragraph (e)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 76890]]
Sec. 622.37 Size limits.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Red snapper--20 inches (50.8 cm), TL, however, see '
622.32(b)(3)(vii) for the current prohibition on the harvest and
possession of red snapper.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 622.39, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(viii) are revised
and paragraph (d)(1)(ix) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.39 Bag and possession limits.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Snappers, combined--10. However, excluded from this 10-fish
bag limit are cubera snapper, measuring 30 inches (76.2 cm), TL, or
larger, in the South Atlantic off Florida, and red snapper and
vermilion snapper. (See Sec. 622.32(b)(3)(vii) for the prohibition on
harvest and possession of red snapper and Sec. 622.32(c)(2) for
limitations on cubera snapper measuring 30 inches (76.2 cm), TL, or
larger, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ off Florida.)
* * * * *
(viii) South Atlantic snapper-grouper, combined--20. However,
excluded from this 20-fish bag limit are tomtate, blue runner, and
those specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii), and (ix) of this
section.
(ix) No red snapper may be retained.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 622.41, the introductory text in paragraph (n) is revised
and paragraph (n)(2) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.41 Species specific limitations.
* * * * *
(n) Required gear in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery.
For a person on board a vessel to harvest or possess South Atlantic
snapper-grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, the vessel must
possess on board and such person must use the gear as specified in
paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) Non-stainless steel circle hooks. Non-stainless steel circle
hooks are required to be used when fishing with hook-and-line gear and
natural baits north of 28E N. lat.
0
7. In Sec. 622.45, paragraph (d)(10) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.45 Restrictions on sale and purchase.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(10) No person may sell or purchase a red snapper harvested from or
possessed in the South Atlantic, i.e., State or Federal waters, by a
vessel for which a Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper has been issued.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-30394 Filed 12-3-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P