6/28/07

**FINAL**

**AMENDMENT 27 TO THE REEF FISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**AND**

**AMENDMENT 14 TO THE SHRIMP FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, REGULATORY
IMPACT REVIEW, AND REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS)**

**JUNE 2007**

![](media/image1.png)

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100

Tampa, Florida 33607

813-348-1630

813-348-1711 (fax)

888-833-1844 Toll Free

<gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org>

www.gulfcouncil.org

![](media/image2.png){width="1.3423611111111111in"
height="1.3652777777777778in"}

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Regional Office

263 13^th^ Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

727-824-5308

727-824-5305 (fax)

[http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov](http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/)

This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No.
NA05NMF4410003.

This page intentionally left blank

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT v](#__RefHeading___Toc170713901)

[DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DSEIS) COVER SHEET
vi](#__RefHeading___Toc170713902)

[TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DSEIS viii](#__RefHeading___Toc170713903)

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix](#__RefHeading___Toc170713904)

[FISHERY IMPACT STATEMENT xxv](#__RefHeading___Toc170713905)

[1.0 INTRODUCTION 1](#__RefHeading___Toc170713906)

[1.1 Purpose and Need for Action 1](#__RefHeading___Toc170713907)

[1.2 History of Management 4](#__RefHeading___Toc170713908)

[**1.2.1 History of Red Snapper Management (and other relevant reef fish
management)** 4](#__RefHeading___Toc170713909)

[**1.2.2 History of Shrimp Management**
11](#__RefHeading___Toc170713910)

[2.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 1](#__RefHeading___Toc170713911)

[Action 1. Measures to revise the red snapper rebuilding plan and end
overfishing of red snapper by 2009 or 2010.
1](#__RefHeading___Toc170713912)

[Action 2. Post-hurricane reduction in directed recreational fishery
effort/landings assumed for Action 1 TAC alternatives.
21](#__RefHeading___Toc170713913)

[Action 3. Establish separate bag limit restrictions for the captain and
crew of for-hire vessels 25](#__RefHeading___Toc170713914)

[Action 4. Reduce the red snapper minimum size limit in the commercial
fishery 26](#__RefHeading___Toc170713915)

[Action 5. Modify fishing gear restrictions
29](#__RefHeading___Toc170713916)

[Action 6. Establish a Target Reduction Goal for Juvenile Red Snapper
Mortality in the Shrimp Fishery of the northern and western Gulf of
Mexico 35](#__RefHeading___Toc170713917)

[Action 7. Consider establishing shrimp fishing restrictions to reduce
effort to achieve a fishing mortality reduction target for juvenile red
snapper in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico established in Action
6 42](#__RefHeading___Toc170713918)

[Action 8. Establish a framework procedure to adjust shrimp fishing
effort in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico
48](#__RefHeading___Toc170713919)

[3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
51](#__RefHeading___Toc170713920)

[3.1 Description of the Red Snapper Fishery
51](#__RefHeading___Toc170713921)

[**3.1.1 General Features** 51](#__RefHeading___Toc170713922)

[**3.1.2 The Commercial Red Snapper Fishery**
51](#__RefHeading___Toc170713923)

[**3.1.3 The Recreational Red Snapper Fishery**
54](#__RefHeading___Toc170713924)

[3.2 Description of the Shrimp Fishery 56](#__RefHeading___Toc170713925)

[3.3 Description of the Affected Physical Environment
63](#__RefHeading___Toc170713926)

[3.4 Description of the Affected Biological Environment
67](#__RefHeading___Toc170713927)

[**3.4.1 Red Snapper and Reef Fish** 67](#__RefHeading___Toc170713928)

[**3.4.2 Shrimp** 77](#__RefHeading___Toc170713929)

[**3.4.3 Protected Species** 78](#__RefHeading___Toc170713930)

[3.5 Description of the Economic and Social Environment
79](#__RefHeading___Toc170713931)

[**3.5.1 Economic Environment** 79](#__RefHeading___Toc170713932)

[**3.5.2 Social Environment** 125](#__RefHeading___Toc170713933)

[3.6 Administrative Environment 156](#__RefHeading___Toc170713934)

[**3.6.1 Federal Fishery Management** 156](#__RefHeading___Toc170713935)

[**3.6.2 State Fishery Management** 157](#__RefHeading___Toc170713936)

[4.0 BYCATCH PRACTICABILITY ANALYSES 157](#__RefHeading___Toc170713937)

[4.1 Penaeid Shrimp Fishery 158](#__RefHeading___Toc170713938)

[4.2 Red Snapper Fishery 179](#__RefHeading___Toc170713939)

[5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 200](#__RefHeading___Toc170713940)

[5.1 Action 1. Reduce the total allowable catch of the directed
commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries and adjust regulations
used to manage the recreational quota 200](#__RefHeading___Toc170713941)

[**5.1.1** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Physical Environment**
200](#__RefHeading___Toc170713942)

[**5.1.2** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Biological/Ecological
Environment** 202](#__RefHeading___Toc170713943)

[**5.1.3** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Economic/Social
Environment** 209](#__RefHeading___Toc170713944)

[**5.1.4** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Administrative Environment**
230](#__RefHeading___Toc170713945)

[5.2 Action 2: Post-hurricane reduction in directed recreational fishery
effort/landings assumed for Action 1 TAC alternatives
234](#__RefHeading___Toc170713946)

[**5.2.1** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Physical Environment**
235](#__RefHeading___Toc170713947)

[**5.2.2** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Biological/Ecological
Environment** 235](#__RefHeading___Toc170713948)

[**5.2.3** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Economic/Social
Environment** 236](#__RefHeading___Toc170713949)

[**5.2.4** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Administrative Environment**
239](#__RefHeading___Toc170713950)

[5.3 Action 3: Establish separate bag limit restrictions for the captain
and crew of for-hire vessels 240](#__RefHeading___Toc170713951)

[**5.3.1** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Physical Environment**
240](#__RefHeading___Toc170713952)

[**5.3.2** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Biological/Ecological
Environment** 241](#__RefHeading___Toc170713953)

[**5.3.3** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Economic/Social
Environment** 242](#__RefHeading___Toc170713954)

[**5.3.4** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Administrative Environment**
244](#__RefHeading___Toc170713955)

[5.4 Action 4. Reduce the red snapper minimum size limit in the
commercial fishery 244](#__RefHeading___Toc170713956)

[**5.4.1.** **Direct and indirect effects on physical environment**
244](#__RefHeading___Toc170713957)

[**5.4.2** **Direct and indirect effects on biological/ecological
environment** 246](#__RefHeading___Toc170713958)

[**5.4.3** **Direct and Indirect Effects on the Economic/Social
Environment** 247](#__RefHeading___Toc170713959)

[**5.4.4** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Administrative Environment**
254](#__RefHeading___Toc170713960)

[5.5 Action 5. Modify fishing gear restrictions
255](#__RefHeading___Toc170713961)

[**5.5.1.** **Direct and indirect effects on physical environment**
255](#__RefHeading___Toc170713962)

[**5.5.2** **Direct and indirect effects on biological/ecological
environment** 257](#__RefHeading___Toc170713963)

[**5.5.3** **Direct and Indirect Effects on the Economic/Social
Environment** 261](#__RefHeading___Toc170713964)

[**5.5.4** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Administrative Environment**
265](#__RefHeading___Toc170713965)

[5.6 Shrimp Actions 6, 7, and 8 266](#__RefHeading___Toc170713966)

[**5.6.1** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Physical Environment**
267](#__RefHeading___Toc170713967)

[**5.6.2** **Direct and Indirect Effects on Biological Environment**
268](#__RefHeading___Toc170713968)

[**5.6.3** **Direct and Indirect Effects on the Economic/Social
Environment** 270](#__RefHeading___Toc170713969)

[**5.6.4** **Direct and Indirect Effects on the Administrative
Environment** 277](#__RefHeading___Toc170713970)

[5.7 Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEA)
277](#__RefHeading___Toc170713971)

[5.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 293](#__RefHeading___Toc170713972)

[5.9 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity
294](#__RefHeading___Toc170713973)

[5.10 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Enforcement Measures
294](#__RefHeading___Toc170713974)

[5.11 Irreversible and irretrievable Commitments of Resources
296](#__RefHeading___Toc170713975)

[5.12 Any Other Disclosures 296](#__RefHeading___Toc170713976)

[6.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW 297](#__RefHeading___Toc170713977)

[6.1 Introduction 297](#__RefHeading___Toc170713978)

[6.2 Problems and Issues in the Fisheries
297](#__RefHeading___Toc170713979)

[6.3 Objectives 297](#__RefHeading___Toc170713980)

[6.4 Description of the Fisheries 297](#__RefHeading___Toc170713981)

[6.5 Impacts of Management Alternatives
297](#__RefHeading___Toc170713982)

[**6.5.1** **Action 1: Directed Red Snapper TAC**
298](#__RefHeading___Toc170713983)

[**6.5.2** **Action 2: Post-hurricane Reduction in Directed Fishery
Effort Assumed for Action 1 TAC Alternatives**
298](#__RefHeading___Toc170713984)

[**6.5.3** **Action 3: For-Hire Captain and Crew Bag Limit**
299](#__RefHeading___Toc170713985)

[**6.5.4** **Action 4: Commercial Minimum Size Limit**
299](#__RefHeading___Toc170713986)

[**6.5.5** **Action 5: Fishing Gear Modifications**
299](#__RefHeading___Toc170713987)

[**6.5.6** **Action 6: Target reduction goal for juvenile red snapper
mortality in the shrimp fishery of the northern and western Gulf of
Mexico** 300](#__RefHeading___Toc170713988)

[**6.5.7** **Action 7: Consider establishing shrimp fishing restrictions
to reduce effort to achieve a fishing mortality reduction target for
juvenile red snapper in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico
established in Action 6** 301](#__RefHeading___Toc170713989)

[**6.5.8** **Action 8: Framework procedure to adjust shrimp fishing
effort in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico**
319](#__RefHeading___Toc170713990)

[6.6 Private and Public Costs 321](#__RefHeading___Toc170713991)

[7.0 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS
323](#__RefHeading___Toc170713992)

[7.1 Introduction 323](#__RefHeading___Toc170713993)

[7.2 Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency is Being
Considered 323](#__RefHeading___Toc170713994)

[7.3 Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule 324](#__RefHeading___Toc170713995)

[7.4 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which
the Proposed Rule Will Apply 324](#__RefHeading___Toc170713996)

[7.5 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities which will be Subject to the Requirement
and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for the Preparation of the
Report or Records 327](#__RefHeading___Toc170713997)

[7.6 Identification of All Relevant Federal Rules which May Duplicate,
Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rule
327](#__RefHeading___Toc170713998)

[7.7 Substantial Number of Small Entities Criterion
327](#__RefHeading___Toc170713999)

[7.8 Significant Economic Impact Criterion
327](#__RefHeading___Toc170714000)

[7.9 Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule and
Discussion of how the Alternatives Attempt to Minimize Economic Impacts
on Small Businesses 329](#__RefHeading___Toc170714001)

[8.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAW 333](#__RefHeading___Toc170714002)

[8.1 Administrative Procedures Act 333](#__RefHeading___Toc170714003)

[8.2 Coastal Zone Management Act 334](#__RefHeading___Toc170714004)

[8.3 Data Quality Act 334](#__RefHeading___Toc170714005)

[8.4 Endangered Species Act 335](#__RefHeading___Toc170714006)

[8.5 Executive Orders 336](#__RefHeading___Toc170714007)

[8.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act 338](#__RefHeading___Toc170714008)

[8.7 Paperwork Reduction Act 339](#__RefHeading___Toc170714009)

[8.8 Essential Fish Habitat 339](#__RefHeading___Toc170714010)

[8.9 Small Business Act 340](#__RefHeading___Toc170714011)

[8.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 340](#__RefHeading___Toc170714012)

[8.11 National Marine Sanctuaries Act 341](#__RefHeading___Toc170714013)

[9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 342](#__RefHeading___Toc170714014)

[10.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE
AMENDMENT/SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT
343](#__RefHeading___Toc170714015)

[11.0 PUBLIC HEARING LOCATIONS AND DATES
344](#__RefHeading___Toc170714016)

[12.0 REFERENCES 345](#__RefHeading___Toc170714017)

[13.0 INDEX 361](#__RefHeading___Toc170714018)

[14.0 GLOSSARY 364](#__RefHeading___Toc170714019)

[15.0 TABLES FROM SECTION 6.5.7.1 367](#__RefHeading___Toc170714020)

[APPENDIX A: SCOPING INFORMATION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT
REJECTED 1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714021)

[APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN RED SNAPPER FISHING
MORTALITY RESULTING FROM VARIOUS RECREATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT
MEASURES 1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714022)

[APPENDIX C: ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO REEF FISH FISHERY
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 27 ON THE SPORTFISHING SECTOR: ANALYSIS
SUMMARY (WITH SIX NEW ALTERNATIVES), 04/02/2007
1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714023)

[APPENDIX D: AVERAGE NET REVENUE PER ANGLER DAY FOR HEAD BOATS IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO, 3/8/07 1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714024)

[APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM THE 2002/3 GULF OF MEXICO CHARTER
BOAT ECONOMIC SURVEY (FHS ADD ON), 2/28/07
1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714025)

[APPENDIX F. NEPA comments from EPA on the DSEIS for Amendment 27 to the
Reef Fish FMP and Amendment 14 to the Shirmp FMP
1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714026)

[APPENDIX G. Responses to EPA's comments on the DSEIS for Amendment 27
to the Reef Fish FMP and Amendment 14 to the Shrimp FMP
1](#__RefHeading___Toc170714027)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc170713901 .anchor}ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS
DOCUMENT

AP Advisory Panel

AHRSAP Ad Hoc Red Snapper Advisory Panel

Council Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort

EA Environmental Assessment

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FMP Fishery Management Plan

GCEL General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation

GOM Gulf of Mexico

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

IFQ Individual Fishing Quota

ITQ Individual Transferable Fishing Quota

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

LASAF Limited Access System Administrative Fund

MP Million Pounds

M-SFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

NMFS NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service

OY Optimum Yield

QS Quota Shares

RA Regional Administrator

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

RFFMP Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan

RIR Regulatory Impact Review

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SEP Socioeconomic Panel

SSBR Spawning Stock Biomass Per Recruit

SPR Spawning Potential Ratio

SMZ Special Management Zone

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act

USCG United States Coast Guard

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc170713902 .anchor}FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (FSEIS) COVER SHEET

# Responsible Agencies and Contact Persons {#responsible-agencies-and-contact-persons .Nromal}

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) 813-348-1630

2203 North Lois Avenue 813-348-1711 (fax)

Tampa, Florida 33619-2272 [gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org]{.underline}

Wayne Swingle (<wayne.swingle@gulfcouncil.org>)
http://www.gulfcouncil.org

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 727-824-5305

Southeast Regional Office 727-824-5308 (fax)

263 13^th^ Avenue South
[http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov](http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/)

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Roy Crabtree (Roy.Crabtree@noaa.gov)

# Name Of Action {#name-of-action .Nromal}

Joint Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan and
Amendment 14 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan

# Type Of Action {#type-of-action .Nromal}

\(X\) Administrative ( ) Legislative

( ) Draft (X) Final

**Filing Dates With The Environmental Protection Agency ()**

Notice of intent to prepare DSEIS published on: on October 5, 2005 (70
FR 57859), and amended on January 10, 2006 (71 FR 1519).

**DSEIS filed with EPA on:** April 13, 2007

**DSEIS comment period ended on:** June 4, 2007

**EPA comments on DSEIS -- Appendix F**

**Responses to EPA Comments on DSEIS -- Appendix G**

**ABSTRACT**

The Gulf of Mexico red snapper stock is overfished and undergoing
overfishing. The status of this stock is influenced not only by fishing
mortality rates in the commercial and recreational red snapper
fisheries, but also by red snapper bycatch mortality rates in the shrimp
trawl fishery. The red snapper catch and bycatch rates of all fisheries
must be substantially reduced to end overfishing between 2009 and 2010,
which is the time frame in which the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council) committed to ending overfishing in the red snapper
rebuilding plan. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
implemented interim measures to temporarily address overfishing of red
snapper during 2007 while the Council develops additional measures to
end overfishing and rebuild the red snapper stock in this Joint
Amendment 27/14 to the Council's Shrimp and Reef Fish Fishery Management
Plans (Amendment 27/14). This rule set the directed red snapper TAC (6.5
MP), put in place recreational measures to constrain harvest to the
recreational quota while allowing the season to remain unchanged,
reduced the commercial minimum size limit to 13 inches TL, and
established a target reduction goal for juvenile red snapper mortality
in the shrimp fishery of the western Gulf of Mexico. These interim
measures are supported by a recent District Court opinion, which found
the current red snapper rebuilding plan was based on flawed assumptions.

The primary purpose of Amendment 27/14 is to revise the rebuilding plan
strategy to incorporate additional red snapper catch and bycatch
reduction measures that have a reasonable probability of successfully
ending overfishing and rebuilding the red snapper stock on schedule.
Alternative measures considered in this DSEIS, which is integrated in
Amendment 27/14 are grouped under the following actions: 1) reduce the
total allowable catch of the directed commercial and recreational red
snapper fisheries, and adjust regulations used to manage the
recreational quota, accordingly; 2) consider any potential
post-hurricane reductions in directed fishery effort and landings when
evaluating TAC alternatives in Action 1; 3) establish separate bag limit
restrictions for the captain and crew of for-hire vessels; 4) reduce the
red snapper minimum size limit in the commercial fishery; 5) modify
fishing gear restrictions; 6) establish a target red snapper bycatch
mortality reduction goal for the shrimp fishery of the western gulf of
Mexico; 7) define seasonal closure restrictions that can be used to
manage shrimp fishing effort in relation to the target red snapper
bycatch mortality reduction goal; and 8) establish a framework procedure
to streamline the management of shrimp fishing effort in the western
Gulf of Mexico. The measures identified as preferred in this DSEIS are
expected to minimize to the extent practicable the unavoidable adverse
impacts of ending overfishing on affected fisheries and fishing
communities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc170713903 .anchor}TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR FSEIS

The table of contents and sections comprising the FSEIS are as follows:

Cover Sheet

Introduction with Purpose and Need Section 1 Purpose and Need for
Management Alternatives including the Section 2 Management Alternatives

proposed actions

Affected Environment Section 3 Affected Environment

Bycatch Practicability Analyses Section 4 Bycatch Practicability
Analyses

Environmental Consequences Section 5 Environmental Consequences

List of Preparers Section 9 List of Preparers

List of Agencies, Organizations, Section 10 List of Agencies,
Organizations,

and Persons to whom copies and Persons to whom copies of the SEIS

of the statement are sent are sent

Public Hearings Section 11 Public Hearing Locations and Dates

References Section 12 References

Index Section 13 Index

Tables Section 14 Tables

Figures Section 15 Figures

Appendices Appendix A -- Scoping Information and

Alternatives Considered, but Rejected

> Appendix B -- Estimated Red Snapper Discards for Various Management
> Alternatives in Joint Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish FMP/Amendment 14
> to the Shrimp FMP
>
> Appendix C -- Evaluation of Reduced Minimum Size Limits for the
> Recreational Red Snapper Fishery

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc170713904 .anchor}EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

**Purpose and Need**

The Gulf of Mexico red snapper stock is overfished and undergoing
overfishing. Red snapper are taken as catch and bycatch in the
commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries, and also taken as
bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery. The considerable
influence of all three fisheries on the status of red snapper challenges
fishery managers to balance competing interests and goals in rebuilding
the red snapper stock. The red snapper rebuilding plan established in
1990 has been revised and lengthened several times in response to new
data and assessments that have provided a better understanding of stock
biomass and influencing factors, including shrimp trawl bycatch
mortality. The most recent red snapper stock assessment (SEDAR 7 2005)
indicates red snapper catch and bycatch levels in both the directed red
snapper and shrimp fisheries are likely to jeopardize the success of the
latest rebuilding plan implemented in 2005, which is designed to end
overfishing between 2009 and 2010, and rebuild the stock to the biomass
that would maximize the yield of the fishery by the year 2032. The
assessment indicates the red snapper fishing mortality rate of the
western Gulf shrimp fishery is highest, followed by that of the eastern
Gulf recreational red snapper fishery, then the western Gulf commercial
red snapper fishery. The eastern and western fisheries are separated by
the Mississippi River delta (SEDAR 7 2005).

In response to this information, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council) initiated the development of this Joint Amendment
27/14 to the Reef Fish and Shrimp Fishery Management Plans (Joint
Amendment 27/14). The NMFS implemented interim measures to temporarily
address overfishing of red snapper during 2007 while the Council
develops additional measures to end overfishing and rebuild the red
snapper stock in Amendment 27/14. This rule set the directed red snapper
total allowable catch (TAC) at 6.5 MP, put in place recreational
measures to constrain harvest to the recreational quota while allowing
the season to remain unchanged, reduced the commercial minimum size
limit to 13 inches, and established a target reduction goal for juvenile
red snapper mortality in the shrimp fishery of the western Gulf of
Mexico.

The interim measures are supported by a recent Court Opinion, which
found the current red snapper rebuilding plan was based on flawed
assumptions, should have considered the practicability of additional
bycatch reduction in the shrimp trawl fishery, and does not demonstrate
a 50% probability of rebuilding the red snapper stock by 2032. The
interim measures are temporary and insufficient alone to achieve the
overfishing and rebuilding objectives of the current red snapper
rebuilding plan. Thus, the purpose of Amendment 27/14 is to revise the
rebuilding plan strategy to incorporate additional red snapper catch and
bycatch reduction measures that have a reasonable probability of
successfully ending overfishing and rebuilding the red snapper stock on
schedule.

Amendment 27/14 proposes to reduce the red snapper catch and bycatch of
all fisheries to end overfishing between 2009 and 2010 and rebuild the
red snapper stock by 2032 in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding
plan. Actions evaluated include selecting a rebuilding plan and setting
a TAC consistent with the plan, constraining the recreational harvest to
a level consistent with this sector's quota, and reducing bycatch and
discard mortality in the directed red snapper and shrimp fisheries.
Because the commercial fishery currently operates under an individual
fishing quota program, harvest is constrained by the number of shares
allocated and requires no further action. The amendment is also intended
to satisfy the Court requirement to put in place a revised red snapper
rebuilding plan no later than December 12, 2007. Consequently, if the
revised red snapper rebuilding plan proposed in this amendment cannot be
implemented by December 12, 2007, then additional rulemaking may be
required to implement one or more of the measures evaluated in this
amendment on an interim basis until Joint Amendment 27/14 can be
implemented.

**Preferred Alternatives**

Amendment 27/14 considers the environmental consequences of a range of
temporary measures to address overfishing of red snapper during 2007.
The measures identified as preferred would be:

1)  Revise the red snapper rebuilding plan. Maintain a constant TAC at
    5.0 million pounds (MP) between 2008 and 2010; the commercial quota
    would be 2.55 MP, and the recreational quota would be 2.45 MP. After
    2010, TAC would correspond to the level of catch associated with
    fishing at a rate that produces MSY (proxy = 26 percent SPR).
    Management measures to achieve the 2.45 MP recreational quota would
    be a two-fish bag limit, 16-inch minimum size limit and, June
    1-September 15 recreational fishing season (107 days). Review and
    adjust the rebuilding plan and directed fishery management measures,
    as necessary, based on periodic stock assessments and Magnuson-Act
    mandates (i.e., annual catch limits). ;

2)  Consider a potential 10 percent post-hurricane reductions in
    directed fishery effort and landings when evaluating alternative
    TACs in Action 1;

3)  Reduce the recreational red snapper bag limit from four fish per
    person per day to two fish per person per day, and prohibit the
    captain and crew of for-hire vessels from retaining the recreational
    bag limit;

4)  Reduce the commercial minimum size limit from 15 inches to 13 inches
    total length;

5)  Require the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when using
    natural baits, and require the use of venting tools and dehooking
    devices when participating in all commercial and recreational reef
    fish fisheries;

6)  Establish a target reduction of red snapper shrimp trawl bycatch
    mortality on red snapper 74 percent less than the average of
    benchmark years of 2001-2003 with a reduction in this target to 60
    percent on or before 2032;

7)  Establish if necessary a seasonal closure beginning on the same
    start date as the closure of the EEZ off Texas in the 10 to
    30-fathom zone of selected areas within statistical subzones 10-21
    in the Gulf of Mexico. The need for the closure and its extent and
    duration will be determined based on the annual evaluation of the
    level of shrimp effort and associated red snapper mortality. Any
    closure would be implemented in accordance with the framework
    outlined in Action 8 taking into consideration the mortality
    reductions associated with improved BRDs and other gear
    improvements; and

8)  Establish a framework procedure to adjust the effort target and
    closed season for the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico within
    the scope of the preferred alternatives identified in Actions 6
    and 7. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) will conduct
    an annual assessment of the previous year's shrimp effort from the
    10 to 30-fathom area in the Gulf (Statistical Subzones 10-21) and
    determine the area and duration of a closure and report this to the
    Regional Administrator for administrative action.

The full range of alternative measures considered in this amendment is
described in Section 2.0. Additional alternatives considered but
eliminated from more detailed study are described in Appendix A, along
with the rationale for their elimination.

**Affected Environment**

The physical, biological, social, economic, and administrative resources
affected by the proposed temporary measures are described in Section
3.0, and summarized below.

**Physical Environment**

The measures proposed in this Amendment would apply to the directed red
snapper and shrimp trawl fisheries in federal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico (Gulf). The Gulf is a semi-enclosed, oceanic basin connected to
the Atlantic Ocean by the Straits of Florida and to the Caribbean Sea by
the Yucatan Channel. Federal waters extend to 200 nautical miles
offshore from the nine-mile seaward boundary of the states of Florida
and Texas, and the three-mile seaward boundary of the states of Alabama,
Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Table 3.4.1 summarizes the physical environment utilized by red snapper
during each stage of its life history. Red snapper eggs and larvae are
pelagic, while juveniles are found associated with bottom features or
over barren bottom. Adult red snapper are found in submarine gullies and
depressions; over coral reefs, rock outcrops, and gravel bottoms; and
are associated with oilrigs and other artificial structures. Adult
penaeid shrimp are found in nearshore and offshore silt, mud, and sand
bottoms while juveniles are found inhabiting estuaries.

**Biological/Ecological Environment**

Red snapper demonstrate the typical reef fish life history pattern.
Adult females mature as early as 2 years and most are mature by 4 years
(Schirripa and Legault 1999). Red snapper have been aged up to 57 years,
but most caught by the directed fishery are 2- to 4-years old. Penaeid
shrimp have short life spans (\~ 1 year) and have either demersal (brown
and white shrimp) or pelagic (pink shrimp) eggs. The proposed temporary
measures also are likely to indirectly affect many other species of reef
fish, as well as sea turtles and the smalltooth sawfish (NMFS 2005c).
All of these species occur in the affected area and are described in
Section 3.4.

**Social/Economic Environment**

The reef fish fishery and its red snapper component are composed of
commercial and recreational sectors. Within the commercial sector are
fishing vessels, dealers, support industries, and fishing communities.
Recreational anglers participate in the reef fish fishery through
several fishing modes, such as shore, private/rental, charter boats, and
headboats. Charter boats and headboats comprise the for-hire fishery. In
addition, there are also fishing communities that provide a place of
residence, business, or employment associated with the recreational
pursuit of reef fish.

As with the commercial reef fish sector, the commercial shrimp trawl
fishery is comprised of fishing vessels, dealers, support industries,
and fishing communities. Most federally permitted shrimp vessels are
based in the western Gulf and mostly target brown shrimp. However, with
changes in the market, increased operating costs, and damage from
hurricanes, many facets of this fishery are changing and will have
important consequences to the associated fishing communities.

There are approximately 1,075 commercially permitted reef fish vessels.
On January 1, 2007, the commercial red snapper individual fishing quota
(IFQ) program was implemented where fishermen were awarded red snapper
shares based on their catch history. Prior to the IFQ program, this
fishery was managed through a license system, of which 136 entities held
red snapper Class 1 licenses, and 628 entities held red snapper Class 2
licenses. There are 227 dealers possessing permits to buy and sell reef
fish species. In the for-hire industry, there are approximately 1,500
permitted reef fish vessels, of which, approximately 225 also have
commercial reef fish permits. The number of commercial vessels
participating in the Gulf shrimp fishery is not known. But 2,666 vessels
are expected to qualify for moratorium permits, and of these vessels,
1,806 were active (i.e., had Gulf shrimp landings) in 2005.

> **Administrative Environment**

The M-SFCMA divides responsibility for managing federal fisheries in the
Gulf of Mexico between the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and the
Council. The Secretary has delegated this management authority to NMFS.
NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, the U. S. Coast Guard, and various
state agencies enforce fishery regulations.

**Environmental Consequences**

Detailed analyses of the environmental consequences of all alternatives
considered in Amendment 27/14 and integrated DSEIS are presented in
Section 5.0. The following tables (Tables a-h) summarize the overall
effect of the alternatives relative to either the preferred or no action
alternative for the physical, biological, economic, social, and
administrative environments over the short term (3-5 years) versus the
long term (5^+^ years). Whether the overall effect is positive,
negative, or neutral relative to the no action or preferred alternative
(labeled with an "x") is indicated with a "+", "-", or "0" sign,
respectively. In addition, the table summarizes the cumulative effects
and unavoidable adverse effects.

Table a: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 1 alternatives respective to the preferred alternative
(bold). Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the
preferred alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively.
"na" represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates
preferred, "st" is short-term, and "lt" is long-term.

+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
| Action 1. Revise    | Env  |    |     |    |       | Cum | Un    |
| the red snapper     | iron |    |     |    |       | eff | avoid |
| rebuilding plan and | ment |    |     |    |       | ect | ad    |
| end overfishing of  |      |    |     |    |       |     | verse |
| red snapper by 2009 |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| or 2010.            |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
|                     | Phys | B  | E   | S  | Admin |     |       |
|                     |      | io | con | oc |       |     |       |
+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
| Alt. 1: No Action - | st - | st | st  | st | st 0  | st  | st +  |
| Do not revise the   |      | -  | +   | +  |       | +   |       |
| rebuilding plan,    | lt - |    |     |    | lt -  |     | lt -  |
| maintain constant   |      | lt | lt  | lt |       | lt  |       |
| 9.12 MP TAC until   |      | -  | -   | -  |       | -   |       |
| 2032; maintain      |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| 16-inch minimum     |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| size limit, 4-fish  |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| bag limit, and      |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| recreational        |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| fishing season from |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| April 21 through    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| October 31 (194     |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| days).              |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
| Alt. 2: Revise the  | st - | st | st  | st | st 0  | st  | st +  |
| red snapper         |      | -  | +   | +  |       | +   |       |
| rebuilding plan;    | lt - |    |     |    | lt -  |     | lt -  |
| maintain constant   |      | lt | lt  | lt |       | lt  |       |
| TAC of 7.0 MP       |      | -  | -   | -  |       | -   |       |
| between 2008 and    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| 2032; adjust bag    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| limit, size limit,  |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| and season to       |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| obtain necessary    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| reductions for      |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| recreational quota  |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
| **Pref. Alt. 3:     | x    | x  | x   | x  | x     | x   | x     |
| Revise the red      |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| snapper rebuilding  |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| plan; maintain a    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| constant TAC of 5.0 |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| MP between 2008 and |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| 2010; after 2010,   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| TAC correspond to   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| catch associated    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| with F~26%\ SPR~;   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| adjust bag limit to |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| 2 fish; adjust size |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| limit and season to |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| needed reductions   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| for recreational    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| quota**             |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
| Alt. 4: Revise the  | st + | st | st  | st | st 0  | st  | st -  |
| red snapper         |      | +  | -   | -  |       | -   |       |
| rebuilding plan;    | lt + |    |     |    | lt +  |     | lt +  |
| maintain a constant |      | lt | lt  | lt |       | lt  |       |
| TAC of 3.0 MP       |      | +  | -   | +  |       | +   |       |
| between 2008 and    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| 2010; after 2010,   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| TAC correspond to   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| catch associated    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| with ~F26%\ SPR~;   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| adjust bag limit,   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| size limit, and     |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| season to obtain    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| needed reductions   |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| for recreational    |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
| quota               |      |    |     |    |       |     |       |
+---------------------+------+----+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

If bycatch could be successfully reduced to levels necessary under the
'linked' rebuilding plans (**Alternatives 1** and **2**), stock recovery
(B/B~msy~ \> 1.0) would be faster and occur well in advance of the 2032
rebuilding deadline. However, based on rebuilding projections conducted
by the SEFSC in January through March 2007 and management alternatives
under consideration in this amendment, it is impractical to assume
bycatch can be reduced to the extent required in **Alternatives 1** and
**2** in order to rebuild the stock. 'Delinked' rebuilding strategies
(**Preferred Alternative 3** and **Alternative 4**) make realistic
assumptions about reductions in bycatch. Under these assumptions, TACs
no greater than 5 to 5.5 MP could be implemented from 2008 through 2010
to end overfishing. The rebuilding plan summarized in **Preferred
Alternative 3** assumes fishing mortality on red snapper resulting from
shrimp trawl bycatch will be reduced by 74 percent, while **Alternative
4** assumes fishing mortality on red snapper from shrimp trawl bycatch
will be reduced by 50 percent. Currently, a 74 percent reduction in
shrimp trawl bycatch appears achievable. Measures in Actions 7 and 8
would ensure this source of bycatch is constrained to this level. All
the alternatives require the stock condition be assessed periodically to
ensure the stock is recovering within the constraints of the rebuilding
plan. **Preferred Alternative 3 and Alternatives 2** and **4** all
contain suboptions to constrain the recreational harvest to the
recreational quota (See Section 2.0 for details). In general, for a
given TAC, the more restrictive bag and size limits are, the longer the
fishing season can be. Additionally, the Council is not proposing
measures to reduce or eliminate the recreational minimum size limit. In
the short-term, lowering the minimum size limit is expected to speed
stock recovery by a very small amount. However, over the long-term, TACs
associated with lower minimum size limits are expected to be slightly
less than TACs with a 16-inch recreational minimum size limit.

Table b: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 2 alternatives relative to the no action alternative.
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates no action,
"st" is short-term, and "lt" is long-term.

+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| Action 2:          | En  |    |     |    |       | Cum | Unavoid |
| Post-hurricane     | vir |    |     |    |       | eff | adverse |
| reduction in       | onm |    |     |    |       | ect |         |
| directed fishery   | ent |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| effort assumed for |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| Action 1 TAC       |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| alternatives.      |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
|                    | P   | B  | E   | S  | Admin |     |         |
|                    | hys | io | con | oc |       |     |         |
+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| Alt. 1: No action  | x   | x  | x   | x  | x     | x   | x       |
| -- Do not take     |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| into consideration |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| any potential      |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| post-hurricane     |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| reductions in      |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| directed fishery   |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| effort and         |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| landings           |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| Alt. 2 Assume a    | st  | st | st  | st | st 0  | st  | st +    |
| 25-percent         | -   | -  | +   | +  |       | +   |         |
| reduction in       |     |    |     |    | lt -  |     | lt -    |
| post-hurricane     | lt  | lt | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| fishing effort and | -   | -  | -   | -  |       | -   |         |
| landings           |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| **Pref. Alt. 3     | st  | st | st  | st | st 0  | st  | st +    |
| Assume a           | -   | -  | +   | +  |       | +   |         |
| 10-percent         |     |    |     |    | lt -  |     | lt -    |
| reduction in       | lt  | lt | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| post-hurricane     | -   | -  | -   | -  |       | -   |         |
| fishing effort and |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
| landings**         |     |    |     |    |       |     |         |
+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+

The 2005 hurricane season was the busiest and costliest on record,
resulting in significant physical and economic damage to coastal
communities. The MRFSS fishing effort and landings data suggest some
decrease in effort has occurred since Hurricane Katrina due to the
direct effects of hurricanes, as well as increased fuel costs.
**Alternative 1** would maintain the no action baseline for fishing
effort (2001-03). No reductions in fishing effort would be assumed and
the Council would need to select one of the management alternatives
summarized in Action 1 for reducing red snapper harvest. This
alternative would have the same impacts on the physical environment as
those described in Action 1. **Alternative 2** and **Preferred
Alternative 3** would assume a 25-percent and 10-percent reduction in
fishing effort, respectively (which is assumed to correspond to a
25-percent and 10-percent reduction in landings, respectively), when
analyzing alternatives for reducing red snapper fishing mortality. The
NMFS, in developing interim regulations for 2007, assumed a 10 percent
reduction in landings would occur from hurricane impacts. However, the
magnitude of reductions varies by fishing sector, and it is unknown how
long post-hurricane reductions in landings and fishing effort may
continue into the future.

Table c: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 3 alternatives relative to the preferred alternative (bold).
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates preferred,
"st" is short-term, and "lt" is long-term.

+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Action 3:        | En  |    |      |     |       | Cum  | Unavoid |
| Captain and crew | vir |    |      |     |       | ef   | adverse |
| bag limit        | onm |    |      |     |       | fect |         |
|                  | ent |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
|                  | P   | B  | Econ | Soc | Admin |      |         |
|                  | hys | io |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Alt. 1: No       | st  | st | st - | st  | st 0  | st + | st +    |
| action --        | -   | -  |      | +   |       |      |         |
| Captain(s) and   |     |    | lt - |     | lt -  | lt - | lt -    |
| crew may retain  | lt  | lt |      | lt  |       |      |         |
| a daily bag      | -   | -  |      | -   |       |      |         |
| limit            |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| ## Pre           | x   | x  | x    | x   | x     | x    | x       |
| f. Alt. 2: Bag l |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| imit for captain |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| (s) and crew of  |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| for-hire vessels |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
|  is zero {#pref. |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| -alt.-2-bag-limi |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| t-for-captains-a |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| nd-crew-of-for-h |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ire-vessels-is-z |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ero .unnumbered} |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+

The 0-red snapper bag limit proposed in **Preferred Alternative 2** for
the captain and crew of for-hire vessels would increase the probability
the recreational red snapper regulations proposed in **Action 1,
Preferred Alternative 3**, will sufficiently constrain the recreational
fishery to its quota. As a result, this alternative would reduce the
likelihood more severe restrictions would be imposed on the recreational
fishery in the future to end overfishing and rebuild the red snapper
stock on schedule. In addition, the preferred alternative, in
conjunction with the **Action 1** preferred alternative, would allow the
recreational season to remain open longer.

Table d: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 4 alternatives relative to the preferred alternative (bold).
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates preferred,
"st" is short-term, and "lt" is long-term.

+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Action 4:        | En  |    |      |     |       | Cum  | Unavoid |
| Commercial       | vir |    |      |     |       | ef   | adverse |
| minimum size     | onm |    |      |     |       | fect |         |
| limit            | ent |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
|                  | P   | B  | Econ | Soc | Admin |      |         |
|                  | hys | io |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Alt. 1: No       | st  | st | st - | st  | st 0  | st - | st -    |
| action. Maintain | -   | -  |      | -   |       |      |         |
| 15-inch TL       |     |    | lt - |     | lt -  | lt - | lt -    |
| commercial       | lt  | lt |      | lt  |       |      |         |
| minimum size     | -   | -  |      | -   |       |      |         |
| limit            |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| ## Pre           | x   | x  | x    | x   | x     | x    | x       |
| f. Alt. 2: Reduc |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| e commercial min |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| imum size limit  |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| to 13-inches TL  |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| {#pref.-alt.-2-r |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| educe-commercial |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| -minimum-size-li |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| mit-to-13-inches |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| -tl .unnumbered} |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Alt. 3:          | st  | st | st + | st  | st 0  | st + | st +    |
| Eliminate        | +   | +  |      | -   |       |      |         |
| commercial       |     |    | lt + |     | lt +  | lt + | lt +    |
| minimum size     | lt  | lt |      | lt  |       |      |         |
| limit            | +   | +  |      | +   |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+

Although **Alternative 3** would reduce overfishing to a slightly
greater extent than would **Preferred Alternative 2**, the biological
benefits of **Alternative 3** are not expected to outweigh the adverse
social effects that alternative would create by exacerbating conflict
between the commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries. Some
members of the recreational sector believe it is inequitable to reduce
or eliminate the commercial minimum size limit without similarly
reducing or eliminating the recreational minimum size limit. The Council
is not selecting as preferred measures to reduce or eliminate the
recreational minimum size limit. As explained in **Action 1**, TACs
associated with lower minimum size limits in the long term are expected
to be slightly less than TACs with a 16-inch recreational minimum size
limit.

Table e: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 5 alternatives relative to the preferred alternative (bold).
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates preferred,
"st" is short-term, and "lt" is long-term.

+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Action 5:        | En  |    |      |     |       | Cum  | Unavoid |
| Fishing gear     | vir |    |      |     |       | ef   | adverse |
| restrictions     | onm |    |      |     |       | fect |         |
|                  | ent |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
|                  | P   | B  | Econ | Soc | Admin |      |         |
|                  | hys | io |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| ## Alt.          | st  | st | st + | st  | st +  | st + | st +    |
| 1: No action - d | -   | -  |      | +   |       |      |         |
| o not implement  |     |    | lt - |     | lt -  | lt - | lt -    |
| further fishing  | lt  | lt |      | lt  |       |      |         |
| gear changes to  | -   | -  |      | -   |       |      |         |
| reduce bycatch { |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| #alt.-1-no-actio |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| n---do-not-imple |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ment-further-fis |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| hing-gear-change |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| s-to-reduce-byca |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| tch .unnumbered} |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| ## Pr            | x   | x  | x    | x   | x     | x    | x       |
| ef. Alt. 2: Requ |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ire the use of c |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ircle hooks, ven |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ting tools and d |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| e-hooking device |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| s in reef fish f |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| isheries {#pref. |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| -alt.-2-require- |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| the-use-of-circl |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| e-hooks-venting- |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| tools-and-de-hoo |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| king-devices-in- |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| reef-fish-fisher |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ies .unnumbered} |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Alt. 3: Require  | st  | st | st 0 | st  | st 0  | st 0 | st 0    |
| a minimum hook   | 0   | 0  |      | 0   |       |      |         |
| size             |     |    | lt 0 |     | lt 0  | lt 0 | lt 0    |
|                  | lt  | lt |      | lt  |       |      |         |
|                  | 0   | 0  |      | 0   |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+

**Preferred Alternative 2** would require the use of circle hooks,
venting tools, and dehooking devices when harvesting reef fish from the
EEZ. This gear would reduce the level of discard mortality for reef
fishes. For **Preferred Alternative 2** and **Alternative 3**,
suboptions indicate the extent this gear could be required in the
fishery (Options a-d). The preferred suboption for **Preferred
Alternative 2** is all commercial and recreational reef fish fisheries.
**Alternative 1** would not require any additional gear or gear
modifications for the directed red snapper fishery or reef fish fishery
to reduce regulatory discard mortality. However, many reef fish
fishermen are thought to use circle hooks and dehooking devices, and
they are required in the commercial and for-hire reef fish fisheries
through Amendment 18A for aiding in releasing incidentally caught
protected species. **Alternative 3** would require a minimum hook size
while fishing for red snapper and/or reef fish. Larger hooks would
reduce the number of undersized fish caught in the fishery; however,
because of a lack of standardization in hook sizes between
manufacturers, this requirement could be confusing for the fishing
public.

Table f: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 6 alternatives relative to the preferred alternative (bold).
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates preferred,
"st" is short-term, "lt" is long-term, "DF" indicates the directed red
snapper fishery, and "SF" indicates the shrimp trawl fishery.

+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| Action 6: Target       | Env  |    |    |   |      | C  | Un    |
| reduction goal for     | iron |    |    |   |      | um | avoid |
| juvenile red snapper   | ment |    |    |   |      | ef | ad    |
| mortality in the       |      |    |    |   |      | fe | verse |
| shrimp fishery of the  |      |    |    |   |      | ct |       |
| northern and western   |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| Gulf of Mexico         |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
|                        | Phys | B  | Ec | S | A    |    |       |
|                        |      | io | on | o | dmin |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | c |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| Alt. 1: No Action --   | SF   | SF | SF | S | SF   | SF | SF    |
| do not establish a     |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
| target reduction goal  | st - | st | st |   | st   | st | st -  |
| for the shrimp fishery |      | -  | +  | s | +-   | -  |       |
|                        | lt - |    |    | t |      |    | lt -  |
|                        |      | lt | lt | + | lt + | lt |       |
|                        | DF   | -  | -  |   |      | -  | DF    |
|                        |      |    |    | l | DF   |    |       |
|                        | st 0 | DF | DF | t |      | DF | st -  |
|                        |      |    |    | - | st 0 |    |       |
|                        | lt 0 | st | st |   |      | st | lt -  |
|                        |      | -  | 0  | D | lt 0 | 0  |       |
|                        |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
|                        |      | lt | lt |   |      | lt |       |
|                        |      | -  | -  | s |      | -  |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | - |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| ## Alt. 2:             | SF   | SF | SF | S | SF   | SF | SF    |
|  Target reduction of s |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
| hrimp trawl bycatch mo | st - | st | st |   | st - | st | st -  |
| rtality on red snapper |      | -  | +  | s |      | -  |       |
|  50 percent less than  | lt - |    |    | t | lt - |    | lt -- |
| the benchmark years of |      | lt | lt | + |      | lt |       |
|  2001-2003. {#alt.-2-t | DF   | -  | -  |   | DF   | -  | DF    |
| arget-reduction-of-shr |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
| imp-trawl-bycatch-mort | st 0 | DF | DF | t | st 0 | DF | st -  |
| ality-on-red-snapper-5 |      |    |    | - |      |    |       |
| 0-percent-less-than-th | lt 0 | st | st |   | lt 0 | st | lt -  |
| e-benchmark-years-of-2 |      | -  | 0  | D |      | -  |       |
| 001-2003. .unnumbered} |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
|                        |      | lt | lt |   |      | lt |       |
|                        |      | -  | -  | s |      | -  |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | - |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| Alt. 3: Target         | SF   | SF | SF | S | SF   | SF | SF    |
| reduction of shrimp    |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
| trawl bycatch          | st - | st | st |   | st - | st | st -  |
| mortality on red       |      | -  | +  | s |      | -  |       |
| snapper 60 percent     | lt - |    |    | t | lt - |    | lt -- |
| less than the          |      | lt | lt | + |      | lt |       |
| benchmark years of     | DF   | -  | -  |   | DF   | -- | DF    |
| 2001-2003.             |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
|                        | st 0 | DF | DF | t | st 0 | DF | st -  |
|                        |      |    |    | - |      |    |       |
|                        | lt 0 | st | st |   | lt 0 | st | lt -  |
|                        |      | -  | 0  | D |      | -  |       |
|                        |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
|                        |      | lt | lt |   |      | lt |       |
|                        |      | -  | -  | s |      | -  |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | - |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| ## Alt. 4: T           | SF   | SF | SF | S | SF   | SF | SF    |
| arget reduction of red |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
|  snapper shrimp trawl  | st 0 | st | st |   | st 0 | st | st 0  |
| bycatch mortality on r |      | 0  | 0  | s |      | 0  |       |
| ed snapper 74 percent  | lt 0 |    |    | t | lt 0 |    | lt 0  |
| less than the benchmar |      | lt | lt | 0 |      | lt |       |
| k years of 2001-2003.  | DF   | 0  | 0  |   | DF   | 0  | DF    |
| {#alt.-4-target-reduct |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
| ion-of-red-snapper-shr | st 0 | DF | DF | t | st 0 | DF | st 0  |
| imp-trawl-bycatch-mort |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
| ality-on-red-snapper-7 | lt 0 | st | st |   | lt 0 | st | lt 0  |
| 4-percent-less-than-th |      | 0  | 0  | D |      | 0  |       |
| e-benchmark-years-of-2 |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
| 001-2003. .unnumbered} |      | lt | lt |   |      | lt |       |
|                        |      | 0  | 0  | s |      | 0  |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| ## Alt.                | SF   | SF | SF | S | SF   | SF | SF    |
|  5: Target reduction o |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
| f red snapper shrimp t | st 0 | st | st |   | st 0 | st | st 0  |
| rawl bycatch mortality |      | 0  | 0  | s |      | 0  |       |
|  on red snapper 74 per | lt 0 |    |    | t | lt 0 |    | lt 0  |
| cent less than the ben |      | lt | lt | 0 |      | lt |       |
| chmark years of 2001-2 | DF   | 0  | 0  |   | DF   | 0  | DF    |
| 003 -- adjust percenta |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
| ge as appropriate afte | st 0 | DF | DF | t | st 0 | DF | st 0  |
| r subsequent assessmen |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
| ts. {#alt.-5-target-re | lt 0 | st | st |   | lt 0 | st | lt 0  |
| duction-of-red-snapper |      | 0  | 0  | D |      | 0  |       |
| -shrimp-trawl-bycatch- |      |    |    | F |      |    |       |
| mortality-on-red-snapp |      | lt | lt |   |      | lt |       |
| er-74-percent-less-tha |      | 0  | 0  | s |      | 0  |       |
| n-the-benchmark-years- |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
| of-2001-2003-adjust-pe |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
| rcentage-as-appropriat |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| e-after-subsequent-ass |      |    |    | l |      |    |       |
| essments. .unnumbered} |      |    |    | t |      |    |       |
|                        |      |    |    | 0 |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+
| ## Pref. Alt. 6: Ta    | x    | x  | x  | x | x    | x  | x     |
| rget reduction of red  |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| snapper shrimp trawl b |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| ycatch mortality on re |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| d snapper 74 percent l |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| ess than the benchmark |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
|  years of 2001-2003 -- |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
|  adjust percentage to  |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| 60 percent by 2032. {# |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| pref.-alt.-6-target-re |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| duction-of-red-snapper |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| -shrimp-trawl-bycatch- |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| mortality-on-red-snapp |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| er-74-percent-less-tha |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| n-the-benchmark-years- |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| of-2001-2003-adjust-pe |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| rcentage-to-60-percent |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
| -by-2032. .unnumbered} |      |    |    |   |      |    |       |
+------------------------+------+----+----+---+------+----+-------+

The 2005 assessment for red snapper indicated a need for a 74 percent
reduction in shrimp trawl bycatch mortality compared to average levels
experienced during the 2001-2003 period in order to maintain the current
rebuilding plan for red snapper and end overfishing between 2009 and
2010. However, as a result of changing economic conditions in the shrimp
fleet leading to declines in effort and reductions in bycatch through
currently used BRDs, it is anticipated that F in 2007 will be
approximately 72 percent below the 2001-2003 average. Thus targets
identified in **Alternatives 2** or **3** would establish a target
mortality reduction that has probably already been achieved. The Council
also expects effort and participation in the fishery to continue to
decline due to potential reductions in permits from the implementation
of the shrimp vessel permit moratorium and the current external factors
impacting the shrimp fishery, which are anticipated to continue at least
through 2012. Thus the reduction target in **Alternative 4 and** **5**,
as well as, **Preferred Alternative 6** may also be achieved by 2008. If
future conditions in the shrimp fishery were to change such that effort
were to increase, the target bycatch reduction set in **Alternative 4
and 5**, as well as, **Preferred Alternative 6** would keep this fishery
in line with reductions in F needed to rebuild the red snapper stock.

Table g: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 7 alternatives relative to the preferred alternative (bold).
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates preferred,
"st" is short-term, "lt" is long-term, "DF" indicates the directed red
snapper fishery, and "SF" indicates the shrimp trawl fishery.

+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| Action 7:         | En  |     |     |    |       | Cum | Unavoid |
| Seasonal closure  | vir |     |     |    |       | eff | adverse |
| restrictions for  | onm |     |     |    |       | ect |         |
| shrimp fishery    | ent |     |     |    |       |     |         |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
|                   | P   | Bio | E   | S  | Admin |     |         |
|                   | hys |     | con | oc |       |     |         |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| ## Al             | SF  | SF  | SF  | SF | SF    | SF  | SF      |
| t. 1: No action - |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| - do not consider | st  | st  | st  | st | st +  | st  | st -    |
|  establishing fis | -   | -   | +   | +  |       | -   |         |
| hing restrictions |     |     |     |    | lt -  |     | lt --   |
| .  {#alt.-1-no-ac | lt  | lt  | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| tion-do-not-consi | -   | -   | -   | -  | DF    | -   | DF      |
| der-establishing- |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| fishing-restricti | DF  | DF  | DF  | DF | st 0  | DF  | st 0    |
| ons. .unnumbered} |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
|                   | st  | st  | st  | st | lt 0  | st  | lt -    |
|                   | -   | -   | 0   | 0  |       | 0   |         |
|                   |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
|                   | lt  | lt  | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
|                   | -   | -   | -   | -  |       | -   |         |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| **Pref. Alt. 2:   | x   | x   | x   | x  | x     | x   | x       |
| Establish a       |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| seasonal closure  |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| beginning on the  |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| same start date   |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| as the closure of |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| the EEZ off Texas |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| in the 10 to      |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| 30-fathom zone of |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| selected areas    |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| within            |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| statistical zones |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| 10-21 in the Gulf |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| of Mexico. The    |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| extent and        |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| duration          |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| determined by the |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| annual evaluation |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| of shrimp effort  |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| and red snapper   |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| mortality**.      |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| Alt. 3: Establish | SF  | SF  | SF  | SF | SF    | SF  | SF      |
| a seasonal        |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| closure within    | st  | st  | st  | st | st -  | st  | st 0    |
| January 1-April   | -   | 0   | +   | +  |       | 0   |         |
| 30 in the 10 to   |     |     |     |    | lt -  |     | lt -    |
| 30-fathom zone    | lt  | lt  | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| within            | -   | 0   | +   | +  | DF    | 0   | DF      |
| statistical zones |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| 10-21. The extent | DF  | DF  | DF  | DF | st 0  | DF  | st 0    |
| and duration      |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| determined by the | st  | st  | st  | st | lt 0  | st  | lt 0    |
| annual evaluation | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  |       | 0   |         |
| of shrimp effort  |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| and red snapper   | lt  | lt  | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| mortality.        | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  |       | 0   |         |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+
| Alt. 4: Establish | SF  | SF  | SF  | SF | SF    | SF  | SF      |
| a seasonal        |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| closure within    | st  | st  | st  | st | st -  | st  | st 0    |
| October           | -   | 0   | +   | +  |       | 0   |         |
| 1-November 30 in  |     |     |     |    | lt -  |     | lt -    |
| the 10 to         | lt  | lt  | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| 30-fathom zone    | -   | 0   | +   | +  | DF    | 0   | DF      |
| within            |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| statistical zones | DF  | DF  | DF  | DF | st 0  | DF  | st 0    |
| 10-21. The extent |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| and duration      | st  | st  | st  | st | lt 0  | st  | lt 0    |
| determined by the | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  |       | 0   |         |
| annual evaluation |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
| of shrimp effort  | lt  | lt  | lt  | lt |       | lt  |         |
| and red snapper   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  |       | 0   |         |
| mortality.        |     |     |     |    |       |     |         |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+----+-------+-----+---------+

Because of the relatively high bycatch of juvenile red snapper in the
shrimp trawl fishery, managers have, on several occasions, considered
alternatives to minimize such bycatch through area and seasonal
closures. **Preferred Alternative 2** would provide for a potential
closure in the northern and western Gulf (Statistical Subzones 10-21)
within the 10 to 30-fathom zone in conjunction with the beginning of the
Texas Closure, which closes the entire EEZ off Texas from typically May
15 to July 15. Closures established under this alternative could
alleviate fishing mortality problems stemming from shifts in fishing
effort to Louisiana mid-shelf regions during the Texas Closure each
year, which could occur under **Alternatives 3** and **4**. **Preferred
Alternative 2** and **Alternatives 3** and **4** would be implemented in
accordance with the framework outlined in Action 8.

Table h: Summary comparison of environmental consequences associated
with Action 8 alternatives relative to the preferred alternative (bold).
Positive, negative, and neutral effects relative to the preferred
alternative are described with +, -, or 0 signs, respectively. "na"
represents none identified or not applicable, "x" indicates preferred,
"st" is short-term, and "lt" is long-term.

+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| Action 8:        | En  |    |      |     |       | Cum  | Unavoid |
| Framework        | vir |    |      |     |       | ef   | adverse |
| procedure for    | onm |    |      |     |       | fect |         |
| shrimp fishery   | ent |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
|                  | P   | B  | Econ | Soc | Admin |      |         |
|                  | hys | io |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| #                | st  | st | st 0 | st  | st -  | st 0 | st 0    |
| # Alt. 1: No act | 0   | 0  |      | 0   |       |      |         |
| ion -- no framew |     |    | lt - |     | lt -  | lt - | lt -    |
| ork {#alt.-1-no- | lt  | lt |      | lt  |       |      |         |
| action-no-framew | -   | -  |      | -   |       |      |         |
| ork .unnumbered} |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+
| ## P             | x   | x  | x    | x   | x     | x    | x       |
| ref. Alt. 2: Est |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ablish a framewo |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| rk to adjust the |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
|  effort target a |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| nd closed season |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
|  within the scop |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| e of alternative |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| s identified in  |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| Actions 6 and 7. |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
|  {#pref.-alt.-2- |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| establish-a-fram |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ework-to-adjust- |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| the-effort-targe |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| t-and-closed-sea |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| son-within-the-s |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| cope-of-alternat |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| ives-identified- |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| in-actions-6-and |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
| -7. .unnumbered} |     |    |      |     |       |      |         |
+------------------+-----+----+------+-----+-------+------+---------+

The framework mechanism of **Preferred Alternative 2** would allow the
Council (at its discretion) to more quickly manage shrimp effort through
a seasonal closure, if the timing and geographic extent of such a
closure fell within the scope of those evaluated in Actions 6 and 7.

**Major Conclusions and Areas of Controversy**

Red snapper management decisions are always controversial, primarily
because multiple sources of fishing mortality influence the status of
the red snapper stock. The directed fishery, comprised of the commercial
and recreational sectors, and the shrimp trawl fishery have different
management goals and objectives. Some red snapper fishery participants
view the shrimp fishery as the major impediment to red snapper stock
recovery, and oppose any additional restrictions on directed red snapper
harvest. Some shrimp fishery participants perceive additional
restrictions on shrimp trawl bycatch as unfair given the substantial
decline in effort and profitably this fishery has experienced in recent
years due to competition from imported shrimp, increased fuel prices,
and damage to vessels from hurricanes. In actuality, the relative
contributions of the red snapper and shrimp fisheries to red snapper
bycatch mortality are area dependent. During 2001-03, the red snapper
fishery was responsible for the majority of red snapper mortality in the
eastern Gulf, and the shrimp fishery was responsible for the majority of
red snapper mortality in the western Gulf (See Section 3.4.1.2).

There is also controversy within the red snapper fishery related to the
implementation of differential minimum size limits. Some recreational
anglers had perceived NMFS' proposal in the interim rule to reduce the
commercial red snapper minimum size limit as unfair, unless the agency
also reduced the recreational red snapper minimum size limit. Scientific
analyses suggest both red snapper and commercial fishery participants
would benefit from reducing the minimum size limit in the commercial
fishery because the high discard mortality rate of that fishery
nullifies any benefit that would be derived from protecting smaller size
fish. However, reducing the minimum size limit in the recreational
fishery would not benefit the red snapper stock or stock recovery
because the discard mortality rate of the recreational fishery is
substantially lower than that of the commercial fishery. SEDAR 7 (2005)
estimates the red snapper discard mortality rate ranges from 71 percent
(eastern Gulf) to 82 percent (western Gulf) in the commercial red
snapper fishery, and from 15 percent (eastern Gulf) to 40 percent
(western Gulf) in the recreational red snapper fishery. While the
discard mortality rate of the commercial fishery is much higher than
that of the recreational fishery, the total number of red snapper
released by the recreational fishery during 2001-2003 was substantially
higher than that of the commercial fishery. While the Council has
considered smaller size limits in Action 1, it has selected to maintain
the recreational size limit of 16-inches total length as part of its
Action 1 preferred alternative.

Controversy over these management issues is exacerbated at this time
because the affected fisheries are still recovering from the damaging
effects of the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. Although data from MRFSS
2006 showed little reduction in catch and effort, license sales, charter
trip bookings, and other indicators of effort appear to be down,
especially since the implementation of the Interim Rule that included a
2-fish bag limit. Because of this information and the year-to-year
uncertainty in the MRFSS data, the Council believed that a continued
assumption of a 10% reduction in effort due to hurricanes and other
economic conditions was warranted, at least until the updated stock
assessment is received in 2009. While measures to address overfishing
will adversely affect the social and economic environments in the short
term, the adverse social and economic effects of not taking action to
address overfishing and rebuild the stock are expected to be more severe
in the long term. The preferred alternatives identified in this joint
amendment are expected to benefit red snapper fishermen, fishing
communities, and the Gulf states in the long term, and help the fishery
produce the greatest overall net benefit to the Nation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc170713905 .anchor}FISHERY IMPACT STATEMENT

Regulations impose restrictions on fishery participants, which can
result in adverse effects on fishermen and fishing communities.
Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan and Amendment 14
to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan (FMP) proposes to: (1) Implement
measures to revise the red snapper rebuilding plan and end overfishing
by 2009 or 2010 through a reduction in the total allowable catch (TAC)
with concomitant reductions in the recreational bag limit and fishing
season (Action 1); (2) Assumes a reduction in directed fishing effort
for red snapper as a result of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 and the
elimination of the bag limit for captain and crew of for-hire vessels
(Actions 2 and 3); (3) Reduces bycatch in the directed red snapper
fishery by reducing the commercial minimum size limit and requiring the
use of circle hooks, venting tools, and dehooking devices (Actions 4 and
5); (4) Establishes target bycatch reduction goals for juvenile red
snapper caught in the shrimp fishery and a framework procedure to
implement time and area closures to meet the target reduction goals.

Management measures to reduce the TAC for red snapper are expected to
have substantial short-term impacts on the commercial and recreational
fisheries. Reducing TAC from 9.12 MP to 5.0 MP is expected to reduce the
recreational fishing season from 194 days to approximately 107 days and
reduce the bag limit from 4 fish to 2 fish. Likewise the commercial
share of TAC will drop from 4.65 MP to 2.55 MP. Since the commercial red
snapper fishery is regulated by an IFQ program the impacts would come
only from the reduced harvest. On the other hand, these reductions
coupled with a constant fishing mortality rate (F) strategy will allow
TAC to recover to approximately 10.0 MP by 2012 to 2013 and ultimately
to approximately 17.2 MP at maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
Consequently, it is likely that the long-term benefits to the stock and
the users, both commercial and recreational, outweigh the short-term
impacts of the reduced TAC.

Although the actions to assume a reduced amount of effort or to actually
reduce effort as with Action 2 (post-hurricane reduction); Action 3
(eliminating the bag limit for captains and crew of for-hire vessels);
and Actions 6, 7, and 8 (setting a framework procedure to cap fishing
mortality through time/area closures to reduce effort in the shrimp
fishery) would have unique, albeit minimal impacts, these impacts would
be indirect in that they primarily influence the TAC and the associated
bag limit and fishing season in Action 1. In fact, there would likely be
no immediate impacts from Actions 6, 7, and 8 because it appears that
the effort target has essentially been met, and there is no information
that would indicate that effort is likely to increase in the near future
due to high fuel costs and low shrimp prices. Additionally, the need for
and extent of time/area closures will be evaluated in the future through
a separate process. The same is true for actions to reduce bycatch
through reducing the commercial minimum size limit (Action 4) and
requiring circle hooks, venting tools, and dehooking devices (Action 5).
These actions would reduce fishing mortality, but they would have a
minimal impact on TAC, extending the recreational fishing season, and
increasing bag limits.

This page intentionally left blank