**7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

This section provides the scientific and analytical basis for comparing
the alternatives described in Section 3.0 above. The potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects on the biological, socioeconomic, and
administrative environments for each management alternative are
described below. This section also describes: 1) any unavoidable adverse
effects resulting from the proposed action, 2) the relationship between
short-term uses of the human environment and long-term productivity, and
3) any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources resulting
from implementation of the proposed action.

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.8) define direct effects as those
"which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place".
Indirect effects are defined as those "which are caused by the action
and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable". Cumulative effects are defined as "impacts on
the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action
when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions".

> **7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Biological and Physical
> Environment**
>
> **7.1.1 Action 1**

Changing the trip limit in the southern zone will not impact stock
status. Biological protection is provided through setting the TAC and
preventing overages. There are no expected impacts to the physical
environment.

**7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Economic Environment**

> **7.2.1 Action 1**

[Alternative 1 (status quo)]{.underline}

**Alternative 1** (status quo) specifies 3,500-pound trip limits for
April-November in the southern zone (Florida east coast) even though
Amendment 15 (implemented August 8, 2005) changed the fishing year from
April-March to March-February. After November, other trip limits apply.

[Alternative 2 (**preferred**)]{.underline}

Preferred **Alternative 2** corrects the inconsistency in Amendment 15.
**Alternative 2** specifies 3,500-pound trip limits for March-November
in the southern zone (Florida east coast) and is consistent with
Amendment 15 (implemented August 8, 2005) which changed the fishing year
from April-March to March-February.

Under both alternatives, after December 1^st^ and until 75% of the
adjusted allocation is taken, vessels are able to take an unlimited
amount on weekdays and 1,500 pounds on weekend days. More restrictive
trip limits apply after 75% of the adjusted allocation is taken. After
100% of the adjusted allocation is taken, the trip limit is reduced to
500 pounds in the southern zone through the end of the fishing year. No
closure occurs for the commercial fishery for Atlantic migratory group
Spanish mackerel.

**Alternative 2** assures that fishermen will be able to fish in March
under the 3,500-pound trip limit. It is expected to provide increased
total landings stability for communities and increased financial
stability for fishermen and their families.

> **7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Social Environment**

Generally speaking, any closure in Spanish mackerel fisheries will
directly impact snapper grouper fisheries that remain open at the time
of the closures. Fishermen in Florida will target other species if
mackerel closes (e.g., gag grouper, golden tilefish, amberjack, or the
mixed snapper fishery which exists in Southeast Florida). There would
still be economic consequences because an average mackerel trip is more
valuable than an average snapper grouper trip. Also, significant trip
cost differences exist for each fishery (Ben Hartig personal
communication).

> **7.3.1 Action 1**

How different economic values are categorized is shown in Figure 3.
Non-use value refers to the value associated with option, bequest, and
existence values.

**Figure 3**. Chart describing how different economic values of marine
resources are typically categorized.

Source: Adapted from Scholtz and Fujita (2001).

[Alternative 1 (status quo)]{.underline}

**Alternative 1** (status quo) specifies 3,500-pound trip limits for
April-November in the southern zone (Florida east coast) even though
Amendment 15 (implemented August 8, 2005) changed the fishing year from
April-March to March-February. After November, other trip limits apply.
Despite the inconsistency in Amendment 15, which may have implications
to the contrary, the fishery appears to have behaved much as it did in
the past in terms of landings, landings per trip, and number of trips,
judging by available data.

[Alternative 2 (**preferred**)]{.underline}

Preferred **Alternative 2** corrects the inconsistency in Amendment 15.
**Alternative 2** specifies 3,500-pound trip limits for March-November
in the southern zone (Florida east coast) and is consistent with
Amendment 15 (implemented August 8, 2005) which changed the fishing year
from April-March to March-February. After December 1^st^ and until 75%
of the adjusted allocation is taken, vessels are able to take an
unlimited amount on weekdays and 1,500 pounds on weekend days under both
alternatives. More restrictive trip limits apply after 75% of the
adjusted allocation is taken. After 100% of the adjusted allocation is
taken, the trip limit is reduced to 500 pounds in the southern zone
through the end of the fishing year, and no closure occurs for the
commercial fishery for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel.
**Alternative 2** assures that fishermen will be able to fish in March
under the 3,500-pound trip limit. It is expected to provide increased
total landings stability for communities and increased financial
stability for fishermen and their families.

[Non-Use Value]{.underline}

Because there are no changes to the TAC implied by Action 1, there are
no expected changes to non-use value.

4.  **Direct and Indirect Effects on the Administrative Environment**

**Alternative 2** compared to **Alternative 1 under Action 1** would
require an initial minimal increase in administrative burden associated
with changing the current regulations (document revision and review, and
information dissemination).

Under the proposed action current administrative burdens include tasks
completed by the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils; NOAA Fisheries; NOAA GC; and law
enforcement agencies. The Councils have conducted document preparation,
meetings, public hearings, and information dissemination. NOAA Fisheries
and NOAA GC have been involved in document preparation, meetings, data
analysis, and document review. Law enforcement is involved in various
aspects.

> **7.5 Mitigation Measures**

No revenue losses are expected as a result of Action 1 so no mitigation
measures are necessary.

> **7.6 Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts on the environment that result
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Amendment 13C to the
Snapper Grouper FMP became effective on October 23, 2006. This amendment
ends overfishing of snowy grouper, golden tilefish, vermilion snapper,
and black sea bass through new regulations for the commercial and
recreational fisheries. Some of these proposed management measures will
be phased-in over 3 years. These regulations are expected to reduce
immediate net revenue to the commercial fishery. However, in the
long-term biomass levels are expected to increase resulting in increased
economic benefits to harvesters (commercial and recreational),
non-consumptive users, and society (as existence and bequest values
increase).

Short-term cumulative losses from implementation of the Amendment 13C
harvest restrictions are projected to vary from \$0.73 to \$1.08 million
during the first year and third year of implementation respectively.
This represents 12.3% and 18.1% of status quo net dockside revenue
respectively. Status quo income represents the total revenue earned from
all species from trips where any of the four species being regulated
under Amendment 13C are harvested. Of the vessels harvesting the four
species, 313 to 324 vessels would be expected to incur immediate,
short-term losses from the combined effect of the preferred
alternatives.

Vessels that fish for snapper grouper also participate in the Atlantic
Spanish mackerel fishery. A total 323 people, or 51 percent of
individuals with an unlimited snapper grouper permit, also own a Spanish
mackerel permit. A majority of these people live in Florida (79 percent)
while less than 1 percent, 3 percent, and 16 percent live in Georgia,
South Carolina, and North Carolina, respectively. Due to the short-term
losses expected for the snapper grouper fishery, it is expected that
some snapper grouper fishermen will participate more heavily in the
mackerel fisheries than they otherwise would in other years. This Action
assures that fishermen will be able to fish under the 3,500-pound trip
limit in March when there are few other fishing opportunities. For
example, the red porgy fishery is closed January through April, and the
gag and black grouper fisheries are closed in March and April.

No revenue losses are expected as a result of Action 1 so no increases
in cumulative effects are expected.

> **7.7 Unavoidable Adverse Effects**

The proposed action will not have unavoidable and immediate adverse
effects on fishery participants because it will not result in reduced
harvest and revenue.

> **7.8 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term
> Productivity**

Assigning catch limits in the southern zone for one month earlier in the
year (**Alternative 2, Action 1**) than under status quo (**Alternative
1, Action 1**) should improve short-term economic and social stability
in the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery. **Alternative
2 under Action 1** is not expected to alter short- or long-term
productivity of the biological resource.

> **7.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources**

Irreversible commitments are defined as commitments which cannot be
reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long-term, whereas irretrievable
commitments are lost for a period of time. There are no irreversible
commitments for this framework action.

> **7.10 Any Other Disclosures**

No additional disclosures are needed or known for the actions proposed
in this amendment.

**8 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT**

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrative
Order 216-6 (NAO 216-6) (May 20, 1999) contains criteria for determining
the significance of the impacts of a proposed action. On July 22, 2005,
NOAA published a Policy Directive with guidelines for the preparation of
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In addition, the CEQ
regulations at 40 C.F.R. Section 1508.27 state that the significance of
an action should be analyzed both in terms of "context" and "intensity".
Each criterion listed below is relevant to making a finding of no
significant impact and has been considered individually, as well as in
combination with the others. The significance of this action is analyzed
based on the NAO 216-6 criteria, the recent Policy Directive from NOAA,
and CEQ's context and intensity criteria. These include:

**1) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to jeopardize the
sustainability of any target species that may be affected by the
action?\
**\
[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action and its impact on target
species are controlled by a quota; when the quota is met, the fishery is
closed.  The expansion of a 3,500 pound trip limit off Florida to
include March, when no trip limit currently exists, may allow the
fishery to remain open later in the year.\
\
**2)  Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to jeopardize the
sustainability of any non-target species?\
**\
[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action to adjust the timing of
commercial trip limits is administrative in nature. There may be some
minor benefit to non-target species.  The commercial fishery would be
more restricted in its daily effort through a trip limit during the
month of March.

**3) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause substantial
damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitat
(EFH) as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in
FMPs?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not reasonably
expected to cause substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats
and/or EFH. The conclusion in the EFH Assessment (Section 9.9) is that
this action will have no additional impact on EFH. This action will not
change the measures put in place under Amendment 10 to reduce impacts on
EFH. Specifically, this action does not allow changes in access to
essential fish habitat for coastal migratory pelagic species (sandy
shoals of capes and offshore bars, high profile rocky bottom and barrier
island ocean-side waters, from the surf to the shelf break zone, but
from the Gulf Stream shoreward, including *Sargassum*, all coastal
inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular importance
to coastal migratory pelagics).

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

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not reasonably
expected to have a substantial adverse impact on public safety or
health. The proposed action extends catch limits to the first month of
the new season, and this is not expected to adversely impact public
health or safety.

**5) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect
endangered or threatened species, their critical habitat, marine
mammals, or other non-target species?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not expected to
adversely affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or
critical habitat of these species. Section 9.4 describes potential
interactions between endangered species and fishermen that harvest
coastal pelagics. Section 9.9 discusses essential fish habitat for
coastal migratory pelagics and Section 9.6 discusses potential marine
mammal interactions. The proposed action to extend Atlantic migratory
group Spanish mackerel trip limits is not expected to adversely affect
endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of
these species.

**6) Can the proposed action be expected to have a substantial impact on
biodiversity and/or ecosystem function within the affected area (e.g.,
benthic productivity, predator-prey relationships, etc.)?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not expected to have
a substantial impact on biodiversity and/or ecosystem function within
the affected area. Section 6.1 references descriptions of the affected
area including the benthic habitat and biological parameters of the
Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel resource. Action 1 is largely
an administrative change and does not propose changes to fishing
mortality levels. Therefore, no additional impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystem function are expected as a result of these actions.

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

[Response]{.underline}: No, this action does not propose any significant
social or economic impacts interrelated with natural or physical
environmental effects. Impacts of the proposed action are presented in
Section 7.0 of this document. The proposed action improves stability of
the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel fishery through extension
of trip limits with no change in the TAC. This action does not have
significant social or economic impacts interrelated with natural or
physical environmental effects.

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

[Response]{.underline}: No, the effects on the quality of the human
environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The proposed
action will extend the trip limits for the Atlantic migratory group
Spanish mackerel fishery, which will have positive impacts on the
long-term sustainability and stability of the two fisheries. Sections
7.2 and 7.3 assess the economic and social impacts of the proposed
action, and Section 7.6 describes the potential cumulative effects of
the action on the human environment. Overall, the proposed action is
expected to have a positive impact on long-term economic and social
sustainability, and thus, be beneficial for the human environment and is
not likely to be highly controversial.

**9) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in
substantial impacts to unique areas, such as historic or cultural
resources, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers,
essential fish habitat, or ecologically critical areas?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not reasonably
expected to result in substantial impacts to unique areas, park land,
prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, essential fish
habitat, or ecologically critical areas. Section 9.9 discusses potential
impacts to essential fish habitat and there are no substantial impacts
expected as a result of the proposed action. Unique areas, park land,
prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically
critical areas are not located within the affected area; therefore,
there are no impacts on these components of the environment from the
proposed action.

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

[Response]{.underline}: No, the effects on the human environment are not
likely to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. This
action proposes an extension of trip limits with no change in the TAC.
This action is proposed to increase landings stability. While there is
no way to accurately predict the changes fishermen and those affected by
the proposed action will react, the effects on the human environment are
not highly uncertain, nor do they involve unique or unknown risks. The
effects and risks are reasonably well understood. The expected impacts
on the human environment are outlined in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 as well as
Section 7.6 (Cumulative Effects).

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

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not related to other
actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant
impacts. Section 7.6 describes the cumulative effects expected on the
human environment as a result of the proposed action. The proposed
action does not result in cumulative impacts because no decrease in
revenue will result. The Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel
fishery has been impacted by past and present actions and is likely to
continue to be impacted by actions in the future. However, the action
proposed is expected to improve economic stability.

**12) Is the proposed action likely to adversely affect districts,
sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or
destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical
resources?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action does not adversely
affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places nor is
it expected to cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,
cultural, or historical resources because they are not located in the
affected area.

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

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not reasonably
expected to result in the introduction or spread of a non-indigenous
species. The proposed action is not expected to introduce or spread any
non-indigenous species more than fishing under current regulations
would.

**14) Is the proposed action likely to establish a precedent for future
actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle
about a future consideration?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not likely to
establish a precedent for future action with significant effects, and it
does not represent a decision in principle about future consideration.
The proposed action sets trip limits for future years. However, the
availability of new stock assessment information could be used to
propose new actions to change the TACs and changing biological and
economic understanding of the fishery could prompt the Council to alter
trip limits. Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to establish a
precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a
decision in principle about a future consideration.

**15) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a
violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for
the protection of the environment?**

[Response]{.underline}: No, the proposed action is not reasonably
expected to threaten a violation of Federal, State, local law, or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

**16) Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in
cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on the
target species or non-target species?**

[Response]{.underline}:

No, the proposed action is not reasonably expected to result in
cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on the
target species or non-target species. The direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of the proposed action have been discussed in
Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.6. In general, this action will maintain
sustainable management approaches and increase economic stability, which
will have long-term positive impacts on target and non-target species.

**DETERMINATION:**

In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis
contained in the supporting Environmental Assessment prepared for
framework action to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP, it is hereby
determined that this framework action will not significantly impact the
quality of the human environment as described above and in the
supporting Environmental Assessment. In addition, all beneficial and
adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach the
conclusion of no significant impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this action is not necessary.

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

Regional Administrator Date

Southeast Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

**9 OTHER APPLICABLE LAW**

Number range CHAPTERThe MSFCMA (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) provides the
authority for U.S. fishery management. However, fishery management
decision-making is also affected by a number of other federal statutes
designed to protect the biological and human components of U.S.
fisheries, as well as the ecosystems within which those fisheries are
conducted. This environmental assessment is an integrated document that
combines analyses necessary for the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive Order 12866:
Regulatory Planning and Review.

NEPA requires all federal actions such as the formulation of fishery
management plans to be evaluated for potential environmental and human
environment impacts, and for these impacts to be assessed and reported
to the public. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate a range of
alternatives. For this amendment, the Council conducted an Environmental
Assessment, which is a concise statement that determines whether the
proposed amendment will have a significant impact on the environment.

The RFA requires federal agencies to assess the impacts of regulatory
actions implemented through notice and comment rulemaking procedures on
small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental entities,
with the goal of minimizing adverse impacts of burdensome regulations
and record-keeping requirements on those entities. These analyses, which
describe the type and number of small businesses affected, are provided
in Section 5 and will be published in the *Federal Register* in full or
in summary for public comment and submitted to the chief counsel for
advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

To comply with E.O. 12866, NMFS prepares a Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR) for all fishery regulatory actions that either implement a new
fishery management plan or significantly amend an existing plan. RIRs
provide a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits to society
associated with proposed regulatory actions, the problems and policy
objectives prompting the regulatory proposals, and the major
alternatives that could be used to solve the problems. These analyses
can be found in Section 4 of this amendment.

Other major laws affecting federal fishery management decision-making
are summarized below.

> **9.1 Administrative Procedures Act**

All federal rulemaking is governed under the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II), which
establishes a "notice and comment" procedure to enable public
participation in the rulemaking process. Under the APA, NMFS is required
to publish notification of proposed rules in the *Federal Register* and
to solicit, consider, and respond to public comment on those rules
before they are finalized. The APA also establishes a 30-day waiting
period from the time a final rule is published until it takes effect.

> **9.2 Coastal Zone Management Act**

Section 307(c)(1) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of
1972, as amended, requires that federal activities that affect any land
or water use or natural resource of a state's coastal zone be conducted
in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved
state coastal management programs. The requirements for such a
consistency determination are set forth in NOAA regulations at 15 C.F.R.
part 930, subpart C. NMFS has determined that this action is consistent
with the Coastal Zone Management programs of the States of Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina to the maximum extent
practicable. This determination will be submitted to the responsible
state agencies by NMFS under Section 307 of the CZMA during the public
hearing stage.

> **9.3 Data Quality Act**

The Data Quality Act (DQA) (Public Law 106-443) effective October 1,
2002, requires the government to set standards for the quality of
scientific information and statistics used and disseminated by federal
agencies. Specifically, the Act directs the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy
and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing
the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information
disseminated by federal agencies". Such guidelines have been issued,
directing all federal agencies to create and disseminate agency-specific
standards to: (1) ensure information quality and develop a
pre-dissemination review process; (2) establish administrative
mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of
information; and (3) report periodically to OMB on the number and nature
of complaints received.

> **9.4 Endangered Species Act**

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section
1531 et seq.), requires that federal agencies use their authorities to
conserve endangered and threatened species. The ESA requires NMFS, when
proposing a fishery action that "may affect" critical habitat or
endangered or threatened species, to consult with the appropriate
administrative agency (itself for most marine species, the USFWS for all
remaining species) to determine the potential impacts of the proposed
action. Consultations are concluded informally when proposed actions
"may affect but are not likely to adversely affect" endangered or
threatened species or designated critical habitat. Formal consultations,
including a biological opinion, are required when proposed actions may
affect and are "likely to adversely affect" endangered or threatened
species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If jeopardy or
adverse modification is found, the consulting agency is required to
suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives.

An informal Section 7 consultation was conducted on the original Coastal
Migratory Pelagic Resources (CMPR) FMP (February, 1983). NOAA Fisheries
concluded that the management measures proposed in the CMPR FMP were not
likely to adversely affect any listed species under the ESA. The
consultation, however, did not analyze the effects of the fishery
itself.

The effects of the coastal pelagics fishery on endangered and threatened
species were first considered in an April 28, 1989 biological opinion,
which analyzed the effects of all commercial fishing activities in the
Southeast Region as part of a formal Section 7 consultation on NOAA
Fisheries' Marine Mammal Authorization Program. The biological opinion
concluded that commercial fishing activities in the southeastern United
States were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species. The incidental take of ten Kemp's
ridley, green, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles; 100 loggerhead sea
turtles; or 100 shortnose sturgeon was allotted to each fishery
identified in the Incidental Take Statement (ITS). Pelagic hook-and-line
and gill-net fisheries were two of the fisheries identified. The amount
of incidental take was later amended by a July 5, 1989 opinion, which
reduced the amount of take to only ten documented Kemp's ridley, green,
hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles; 100 loggerhead sea turtles; or
100 shortnose sturgeon for all commercial fishing activities conducted
in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fisheries combined.

On November 6, 1991, a formal Section 7 consultation on Amendment 6 to
the FMP was initiated. The resulting August 19, 1992, opinion on the
effects of commercial fishing activities under the Coastal Migratory
Pelagic Resources FMP and Amendment 6 found that the regulatory actions
were not likely to adversely affect listed species. Additionally,
fishing activities conducted under the authority of the FMP may affect,
but were not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of listed sea
turtles. An incidental take allowance, with associated reasonable and
prudent measures, terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations
were issued. Incidental take levels for listed species for all fisheries
in the United States established in the July 5, 1989 biological opinion
were retained. Nevertheless, consultation was to be reinitiated if the
total documented incidental take of Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill or
leatherback turtles meets or exceeds five or twenty-five loggerhead
turtles, for the combined gill-net and hook-and-line fisheries for
coastal migratory pelagics. The reasonable and prudent measures to
minimize the impacts on listed species by hook-and-line and gill-net
fisheries for pelagics included:

1\. A regional observer program will be implemented to document
incidental injury and mortality of listed species. With the exception of
off bottom trawls, hook-and-line, and trap fisheries, all southeast U.S.
fisheries need additional investigation. This program should emphasize
monitoring of gill-net and longline fisheries where the least amount of
information is available and the potential for adverse impacts to sea
turtles appears the greatest.

2\. Regulations should be promulgated to reduce/eliminate mortalities in
any fisheries where the take of endangered and threatened species
exceeds levels specified in the Incidental Take Statement (ITS).

3\. All incidents of take of endangered or threatened species will be
reported to NMFS within 10 days of the take. The report shall include a
description of the animal's condition at the time of release.

4\. Any sea turtle incidentally taken must be handled with due care to
prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to
the water as provided in 50 CFR Part 227.72

\(e\) (1) (I).

Subsequent consultations conducted on amendments to the CMPR FMP and
emergency actions have been informal, finding that the regulatory
changes resulting from those actions would not alter the findings under
the biological opinion on Amendment 6 to the FMP.

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, re-initiation of consultation is required
if: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take
statement is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not previously considered; (3) the identified action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological
opinion; or (4) a new species is listed, the identified activity is
subsequently modified, or critical habitat is designated that may be
affected by this activity.

NOAA Fisheries has no data indicating the take specified in the August
20, 1992, incidental take statement has been exceeded. However, over the
twelve years that have elapsed since then, new information regarding the
status of listed species and the effect actions have on them has become
available. Additionally, the fishery for coastal pelagic resources may
affect a new species listed as endangered, the smalltooth sawfish.
Critical habitat for the northern right whale was also designated after
the 1992 consultation (58 FR 28793, June 3, 1994). Based on this
information, NOAA Fisheries believes reinitiation of formal consultation
is warranted. SERO's SFD will request SERO's PRD conduct a Section 7
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA on the impacts of the actions in
Amendment 15. A biological opinion will be developed for Amendment 15
and will include previous actions under the CMP FMP that have occurred
subsequent to the last biological opinion.

**9.5 Executive Orders**

**9.5.1 E.O. 12630: Takings**

The Executive Order on Government Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights that became effective March
18, 1988, requires that each federal agency prepare a Takings
Implication Assessment for any of its administrative, regulatory, and
legislative policies and actions that affect, or may affect, the use of
any real or personal property. Clearance of a regulatory action must
include a takings statement and, if appropriate, a Takings Implication
Assessment. There are no takings implications from the proposed action.
This measure is categorically excluded per Attorney General guidelines.

**9.5.2 E.O. 13089: Coral Reef Protection**

The Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection requires federal agencies
whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems to identify those
actions; utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance
the conditions of such ecosystems; and, to the extent permitted by law,
ensure that actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out do not
degrade the condition of that ecosystem. There are no implications to
coral reefs by the action proposed.

**9.5.3 E.O. 13132: Federalism**

The Executive Order on Federalism requires agencies in formulating and
implementing policies, to be guided by the fundamental Federalism
principles. The Order serves to guarantee the division of governmental
responsibilities between the national government and the states. No
Federalism issues have been identified relative to the proposed action.
Therefore, consultation with state officials under this Executive Order
is not necessary.

**9.5.4 E.O. 13158: Marine Protected Areas**

This Executive Order requires federal agencies to consider whether their
proposed action(s) will affect any area of the marine environment that
has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws
or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the
natural or cultural resource within the protected area. This action
would have no impacts to marine protected areas.

> **9.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act**

The MMPA established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the
taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high
seas, and on the importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products
into the United States. Under the MMPA, the Secretary (authority
delegated to NMFS) is responsible for the conservation and management of
cetaceans and pinnipeds (other than walruses). The Secretary of the
Interior is responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar
bears, manatees, and dugongs.

Part of the responsibility NMFS has under the MMPA involves monitoring
populations of marine mammals to make sure they stay at optimum levels.
If a population falls below its optimum level, it is designated as
"depleted," and a conservation plan is developed to guide research and
management actions to restore the population to healthy levels.

In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA, to govern the taking of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. This amendment
required the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal
stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, development and implementation
of take-reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being
maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to
interactions with commercial fisheries, and studies of pinniped-fishery
interactions.

Under Section 118 of the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries must publish, at least
annually, a List of

Fisheries (LOF) that places all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of
three categories: (1) Frequent (Category I), (2) occasional (Category
II), or (3) remote (Category III) based on the level of incidental,
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs in each
fishery. The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether
participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain
provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and
take reduction plan requirements. The Southeast Atlantic gill-net
fishery (i.e., the Florida East Coast king and Spanish mackerel gill-net
fishery and the Southeast U.S. Atlantic coastal shad gillnet fishery)
and the Gulf of Mexico gill-net fishery (i.e., the Gulf of Mexico king
and Spanish mackerel gill-net fishery, the Gulf of Mexico inshore
gill-net fishery, and the Gulf of Mexico coastal gill-net fishery) are
both listed as a Category II fisheries (69 FR 48407). No changes in
these fishery's classifications were proposed in the 2004 proposed LOF
(69 FR 71, April 13, 2004).

The Southeast Atlantic gill-net fishery is regulated in part under the
Atlantic Large Whale Take

Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), which was finalized in 1999. The ALWTRP was
developed to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality of right,
humpback, and fin whales from incidental interactions with commercial
fisheries. The ALWTRP was modified in 2002 to prohibit straight sets of
gill nets at night in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area \[from 32°00'N
(near Savannah, Georgia) south to 27°51'N (near Sebastian Inlet,
Florida) from the shore eastward to 80°00'W\] from November 15 through
March 31 (67 FR 184, September 23, 2002). The Team was recently
reconvened and is currently considering further measures to reduce the
interaction of large whales with gill nets.

A Bottlenose Take Reduction Team was convened in November 2001 to reduce
the risk of serious injury and mortality of bottlenose dolphins from
incidental interactions with commercial fisheries. The team agreed upon
consensus recommendations on May 7, 2002, with addendum's in April 2003.
A draft plan and proposed rule are being prepared, which may include
some measures affecting CMP gill-net fisheries in the future (i.e., gear
marking).

> **9.7 Paperwork Reduction Act**

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
regulates the collection of public information by federal agencies to
ensure that the public is not overburdened with information requests,
that the federal government's information collection procedures are
efficient, and that federal agencies adhere to appropriate rules
governing the confidentiality of such information. The PRA requires NMFS
to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget before
requesting most types of fishery information from the public.

Permit application processes are not being changed by this amendment,
and no new reporting requirements or burdens are being proposed.
Therefore, NMFS does not need to submit an additional request for
information collection to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

> **9.8 Small Business Act**

The Small Business Act of 1953, as amended, Section 8(a), 15 U.S.C.
634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a) and (d); Public Laws 95-507 and 99-661,
Section 1207; and Public Laws 100-656 and 101-37 are administered by the
Small Business Administration. Because most businesses associated with
fishing are considered small businesses, NMFS must make an assessment of
how those regulations will affect small businesses. Implications to
small businesses are discussed in Section 6, herein.

> **9.9 Essential Fish Habitat**

The amended M-SFCMA included new EFH requirements, and as such, each
existing, and any new, FMP must describe and identify EFH for the
fishery, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on that EFH
caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the
conservation and enhancement of that EFH. In 1999, a coalition of
several environmental groups brought suit challenging the agency's
approval of the EFH FMP amendments prepared by the Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean, New England, North Pacific, and Pacific Fishery Management
Councils (American Oceans Campaign *et al.* v. Daley *et al.*, Civil
Action No. 99-982(GK)(D.D.C. September 14, 2000). The court found that
the agency's decisions on the EFH amendments were in accordance with the
M-SFCMA, but held that the EAs on the amendments were in violation of
the NEPA and ordered NOAA Fisheries to complete new, more thorough NEPA
analyses for each EFH amendment in question.

Consequently, NOAA Fisheries entered into a Joint Stipulation with the
plaintiff environmental organizations that called for each affected
Council to complete EISs rather than EAs for the action of minimizing
adverse effects of fishing to the extent practicable on EFH. See AOC v.
Evans/Daley *et al.*, Civil No. 99-982 (GK)(D.D.C. December 5, 2001).
However, because the court did not limit its criticism of the EAs to
only efforts to minimize adverse fishing effects on EFH, it was decided
that the scope of these EISs should address all required EFH components
as described in Section 303 (a)(7) of the M-SFCMA. To address these
requirements the GMFMC has, under separate action, drafted an EIS to
analyze within each fishery a range of potential alternatives to: (1)
describe and identify EFH for the fishery; (2) identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of such EFH; and (3) identify
measures to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of
fishing on such EFH.

The SAFMC's EFH Comprehensive Amendment (FSEIS/EA) was not challenged
and included the following EFH and EFH-HAPC designations (Note: The
Council completed the document October 1998; the regulations were
effective 7/14/00):

Essential fish habitat (EFH) for coastal migratory pelagic species
includes sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars, high profile rocky
bottom and barrier island ocean-side waters, from the surf to the shelf
break zone, but from the Gulf Stream shoreward, including *Sargassum*.
In addition, all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats
of particular importance to coastal migratory pelagics (for example, in
North Carolina this would include all Primary Nursery Areas and all
Secondary Nursery Areas). In addition, the Gulf Stream is an essential
fish habitat because it provides a mechanism to disperse coastal
migratory pelagic larvae. For king and Spanish mackerel and cobia,
essential fish habitat occurs in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic
Bights.

Areas which meet the criteria for Essential Fish Habitat -- Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPCs) include sandy shoals of Capes
Lookout, Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras from shore to the ends of the
respective shoals, but shoreward of the Gulf stream; The Point, The
Ten-Fathom Ledge, and Big Rock (North Carolina); The Charleston Bump and
Hurl Rocks (South Carolina); The Point off Jupiter Inlet (Florida);
*Phragmatopoma* (worm reefs) reefs off the central east coast of
Florida; nearshore hard bottom south of Cape Canaveral; The Hump off
Islamorada, Florida; The Marathon Hump off Marathon, Florida; The "Wall"
off of the Florida Keys; Pelagic *Sargassum*; and Atlantic coast
estuaries with high numbers of Spanish mackerel and cobia based on
abundance data from the ELMR Program. Estuaries meeting this criteria
for Spanish mackerel include Bogue Sound and New River, North Carolina;
Bogue Sound, North Carolina (Adults May-September salinity \>30 ppt);
and New River, North Carolina (Adults May-October salinity \>30 ppt).
For cobia they include Broad River, South Carolina and Broad River,
South Carolina (Adults & juveniles May-July salinity \>25ppt).

The proposed action extends current Atlantic migratory group Spanish
mackerel trip limits to March, the first month in the new fishing year.
The trip limit changes will not impact the TAC and will have no
additional impact on EFH or EFH-HAPCs. Therefore, there are no
expectations of adverse effects to EFH in this amendment.

**10 LIST OF PREPARERS**

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries
Service

Kate Quigley -- Fishery Economist John Vondruska -- Fishery Economist

Gregg Waugh -- Deputy Executive Director Stephen Branstetter -- Fishery
Biologist

Sue Gerhart -- Fishery Biologist

**11 REFERENCES**

ASMFC. 2005. 2005 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Spanish
Mackerel. Prepared by the Spanish Mackerel Plan Review Team. Approved
November 1, 2005.

Collette, B. B. and J. L. Russo. 1979. An introduction to the Spanish
mackerels, genus *Scomberomorus*. In Nakamura and Bullis (eds.),
Proceedings: Colloquium on the Spanish and king mackerel resources of
the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 4. p.
3-16.

Gentner, B., M. Price and S. Steinback. 2001. Marine Angler Expenditures
in the Southeast Region, 1999. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-48.

GMFMC/SAFMC. 1985. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan and
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic
Resources (Mackerels). Prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils, April 1985. Available from: SAFMC, 4055
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

Haab, T. C., J. C. Whitehead, and T. McConnell. 2001. The Economic Value
of Marine Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-466.

Hartig, Ben. September 2006. Personal communication.

Holland, S. M., A. J. Fedler, and J. W. Milon. 1999. The Operation and
Economics of the Charter and Headboat Fleets of the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic Coasts. University of Florida Office of
research, Technology, and Graduate Education. Report prepared for the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Grant Number NA77FF0553.

Jepson, M., K. Kitner, A. Pitchon, W. W. Perry, and B. Stoffle. 2006.
Potential Fishing Communities in the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida: An
effort in baseline profiling and mapping. South Atlantic Fisheries
Management Council. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

MSAP. (Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel) 1996. 1996 Report of the
Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel. Prepared by the Mackerel Stock
Assessment Panel.

MSAP. 2003. 2003 Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel. Prepared
by the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel at the Panel Meeting Held May
19-21, 2003.

Mayo, D. A. 1973. Rearing, growth, and development of the eggs and
larvae of seven scombrid fishes from the Straits of Florida. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 138 pp.

McEachran, J. D. and J. H. Finucane. 1979. (Abstract). Distribution,
seasonality, and abundance of larval king and Spanish mackerels in the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In Nakamura and Bullis (eds.), Proceedings:
Colloquium on the Spanish and king mackerel resources of the Gulf of
Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 4. p. 3-16.

Powell, D. 1975. Age, growth, reproduction in Florida stocks of Spanish
mackerel, *Scomberomorus maculates*. Florida Marine Research Publication
No. 5. 21 pp.

Schekter, R. C. 1971. Food habits of some larval and juvenile fishes
from the Florida current near Miami, Florida. MS Thesis, University of
Miami, Coral Gables. 85 pp.

Scholtz, A. and R. Fujita. 2001. Supplementary Report: Social and
Economic implications of a Channel Island Marine Reserve Network.
Environmental Defense. Oakland, CA.

Vondruska, J. and W. O. Antozzi. 1999. U.S. markets and trade in king
mackerel and other large mackerel. NMFS, Fisheries Economics Office,
9721 Executive Center Drive, North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432,
SERO-ECON-99-08. April 13, 1999.

Wollam, M.B. 1970.  Description and distribution of larvae and early
juveniles of king mackerel, *Scomberomorus cavalla* (Cuvier), and
Spanish mackerel, *S. maculatus* (Mitchill); (Pisces: Scombridae); in
the Western North Atlantic. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Lab. Tech. Serv. 61. 
35 pp.