Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1621 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 080225283–81561–02] 

RIN 0648–AU28 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 14 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 14 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and 

submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council). This 

rule establishes eight marine protected 

areas (MPAs) in which fishing for or 

possession of South Atlantic snappergrouper are prohibited. The prohibition 

on possession does not apply to a 

person aboard a vessel that is in transit 

with fishing gear appropriately stowed. 

The proposal in Amendment 14 to 

prohibit shark bottom longlines within 

these MPAs has been implemented by 

NMFS in a separate rulemaking. The 

intended effects of this final rule are to 

protect a portion of the population and 

habitat of long-lived, slow growing, 

deepwater snapper-grouper from fishing 

pressure to achieve a more natural sex 

ratio, age, and size structure within the 

proposed MPAs, while minimizing 

adverse social and economic effects. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 12, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

may be obtained from Kate Michie, 

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 

13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Michie, 727–824–5305. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery off the southern 

Atlantic states is managed under the 

FMP. The FMP was prepared by the 

Council and is implemented under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

On June 6, 2008, NMFS published a 

notice of availability of Amendment 14 

and requested public comment (73 FR 

32281). On July 16, 2008, NMFS 

published the proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 14 and request 

public comment on the proposed rule 

(73 FR 40824). NMFS approved 

Amendment 14 on September 2, 2008. 

The rationale for the measures 

contained in Amendment 14 is provided 

in the amendment and the preamble to 

the proposed rule and is not repeated 

here. Because the Atlantic shark fishery 

is managed by NMFS under the 

Consolidated Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan, the Council’s 

proposed prohibition on the use of 

shark bottom longlines in the MPAs was 

implemented by NMFS’ Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Division in a 

separate final rule published June 24, 

2008 (72 FR 35778). 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 12 comments on 

Amendment 14 and the proposed rule, 

9 of which opposed proposed actions or 

suggested alternate management 

measures. Following is a summary of 

the comments and NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: Three commenters stated 

opposition to the establishment of the 

St. Lucie Hump MPA, otherwise known 

as Seabass Rocks. Two of the three 

commenters are concerned this MPA 

was designated based on the input of 

one commercial fisherman rather than 

through a consensus-based approach. 

These commenters also believe best 

available science was not used in the 

decision making process. Another 

commenter opposed to the St. Lucie 

Hump MPA indicated the claim that the 

area contains ‘‘prime habitat and 

spawning area for snapper-grouper 

populations’’ is simply not true and, 

therefore, no snapper-grouper species 

would benefit from its closure. 

Response: NMFS believes the St. 

Lucie Hump MPA has the potential to 

contain snapper-grouper species, based 

on documentation of the presence of 

suitable habitat by the Southeast Area 

Monitoring and Assessment Program 

and public testimony that speckled 

hind, snowy grouper, and Warsaw 

grouper are present in the area. The 

supporting Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) was reviewed by the 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center and 

found to be based in the best scientific 

information available. Establishing the 

St. Lucie Hump MPA is expected to 

protect these species from fishing 

pressure within its borders and, over the 

long-term, promote a more natural sex 

ratio, age, and size structure. 

Additionally, loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles may occur in this 

area and would, therefore, benefit from 

localized protection from incidental 

hook-and-line capture. 

Comment 2: Protected areas ‘‘can 

create undue stress on the 

environment’’, and the MPAs will not 

solve the overall problem. The 

commenter also states opposition to the 

MPAs based on the perceived cost of 

their enforcement, and believes those 

costs would outweigh the biological 

benefits associated with MPAs. 

Response: The Council’s goal in 

establishing these deepwater MPAs was 

to develop a management measure that 

would complement existing 

management measures and add further 

protection to deepwater snappergrouper. The Council does not consider 

the MPAs a stand-alone means of 

management for the snapper-grouper 

fishery, but considers them a logical 

extension of protective measures 

already in place. 

Effective enforcement of MPAs is 

critical to their success in achieving 

biological objectives and the 

maintenance of a positive public 

attitude toward them. For the MPAs to 

be an effective management tool, local 

compliance and self monitoring will be 

necessary. After considering all 

potential effects including costs of 

enforcement, the Council voted to 

approve the establishment of designated 

MPA sites based in part on the 

expectation that biological benefits will 

outweigh costs associated with 

enforcement in the long-term. 

Comment 3: One commenter opposed 

the establishment of MPAs based on the 

perceived overburdened work 

environment of the United States Coast 

Guard and the Department of Homeland 

Security, stating that these agencies 

should be utilized to patrol U.S. waters 

for illegal immigrants and illegal drug 

trafficking activities rather than 

enforcement of MPAs. 

Response: NMFS agrees that United 

States Coast Guard and the Department 

of Homeland Security resources should 

be directed toward enforcement efforts 

their department administrators believe 

are most appropriate at any given time. 

Furthermore, NMFS realizes that self 

monitoring and local compliance within 

and around the MPAs will be essential 

for their long-term success. 

Comment 4: The closure would be 

‘‘devastating to all communities along 

the coast of Florida, especially here in 

the Keys...if such a great area were shut 

off to fishing.’’ This commenter also 

stated the comment period for such a 

closure was too short. 

Response: It is NMFS’ understanding 

that several fishery participants may 

have interpreted the depth-contour line, 

shown on the map illustrating the MPA 

1622 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

boundaries in the Fishery Bulletin and 

the proposed rule, as the area to be 

designated as one large MPA. This is not 

the case however, and NMFS has taken 

steps to clarify the map illustrating the 

small areas that do represent the 

designated MPA sites, as shown in 

Figure 1. 

The comment periods for the Draft 

Environment Impact Statement (DEIS), 

the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS), Amendment 14 and 

the proposed rule are dictated by the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All 

comment periods for this action were 

created in accordance with those 

requirements. 

Comment 5: One commenter stated 

general opposition to any management 

measures that would further restrict 

recreational hook-and-line fishing for 

deepwater snapper-grouper species in 

Federal waters of the South Atlantic. 

Response: NMFS recognizes the many 

restrictions placed on recreational 

fishermen in the South Atlantic region, 

however, it is the agency’s 

responsibility to protect fishery 

resources and associated habitat, with 

an emphasis on protecting those that are 

overfished, undergoing overfishing or 

approaching an overfished condition. A 

consensus-based approach involving a 

multi-stakeholder group was used to 

determine the MPA sites with an effort 

to chose locations that would provide 

optimal biological benefits while 

limiting, to the extent practicable, any 

adverse economic effects on the fishery. 

The MPAs being implemented through 

this rule are expected to yield long-term 


ER13JA09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1623 

benefits for several species that are 

currently overfished, undergoing 

overfishing and/or approaching an 

overfished condition, in keeping with 

the goals and objectives of the FMP for 

the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the 

South Atlantic Region. 

Comment 6: The No Action 

Alternatives for each action were not 

analyzed in the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), nor was the 

increasing price of fuel and its effect on 

enforcement of the MPAs. The 

commenter also stated there was a 

failure to describe the economic impacts 

of the MPA alternatives on recreational 

fishermen and associated community 

businesses, and the economic analysis 

relied on questionable trip data from 

2005–2007 for South Carolina. Two 

commenters asked why establishing 

more near-shore and off-shore manmade fishing reefs to counteract 

economic impacts of Amendment 14 

had not been considered. 

Response: A No Action Alternative 

does not have economic impacts beyond 

the status quo, i.e. the fishery without 

the MPA. However, if recent increases 

in fuel prices have caused some 

commercial and/or charter fishing 

operators to permanently move out of 

areas to be designated as MPAs, the 

displacement of fishermen caused by 

the MPAs and the associated adverse 

economic impact will be less than the 

displacement and adverse economic 

impact caused by MPAs prior to the 

price-induced displacement. 

The RFA is concerned with the 

expected direct effects of regulatory 

action on small entities and defines 

three types of small entities: small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions. While 

the businesses that support the 

recreational fishing industry may be 

small business entities, recreational 

anglers do not qualify as small entities 

under any of the classifications defined 

by the RFA. Further, no associated 

community businesses would be 

directly affected by the proposed rule. 

Consequently, the IRFA was correct in 

not including recreational anglers or 

associated community businesses in the 

analysis. The small entities that could 

be directly affected by this rule are 

small businesses in the commercial 

fishing and for-hire industries with 

permits to fish for and possess South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper species in the 

EEZ. These entities have been identified 

and included in the analysis. 

Regarding the use of South Carolina 

trip data from 2005–2007, neither the 

IRFA nor Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR) used or relied on that trip data to 

estimate and compare the economic 

impacts of the alternatives for this 

amendment. 

The Council did vote to establish an 

experimental deepwater artificial reef 

MPA called the Charleston Deep 

Artificial Reef MPA. The establishment 

of this deep artificial reef will facilitate 

research studies focused on answering 

questions about the practicability and 

effectiveness of deepwater artificial 

reefs. Once more research is conducted 

on this and other offshore artificial 

reefs, deploying additional materials to 

establish deepwater artificial reefs may 

be considered in a future amendment. 

Comment 7: One commenter provided 

three suggestions to improve 

management of the snapper-grouper 

fishery in lieu of MPAs. The first 

suggestion is to impose trip limits on all 

fish that have a quota. The second is to 

do away with all size limits to avoid 

wasting the resource. The third 

suggestion is to require every fisherman 

to declare whether they are part of the 

recreational or commercial sector in 

order to reduce instances of recreational 

fishermen selling bag limit caught fish 

and, thus, counting those fish against 

the commercial quota. 

Response: Commercial trip limits 

have been implemented for several 

snapper-grouper species in the South 

Atlantic such as greater amberjack, red 

porgy, snowy grouper, and golden 

tilefish. Adjustment to current trip 

limits and additional trip limits may be 

considered in future actions. 

Minimum size limits are generally 

used to maximize the yield of each fish 

recruited to the fishery and to protect a 

portion of a stock from fishing mortality. 

The idea behind maximizing yield is to 

identify the size that best balances the 

benefits of harvesting fish at larger, 

more commercially valuable sizes 

against losses due to natural mortality. 

Protecting immature and newly mature 

fish from fishing mortality provides 

them increased opportunities to 

reproduce and replace themselves 

before they are captured. If the size limit 

chosen is larger than the size at first 

reproduction for the species in question, 

then a sufficient pool of spawners could 

be retained even if fishing pressure is 

heavy. There are many negative aspects 

of size limits too, but the benefits of any 

management measure depends on the 

species. NMFS uses a broad range of 

management measures for snappergrouper species because of the diversity 

of species and habitats. 

Sale of bag limit quantities of 

snapper-grouper is being addressed 

through Amendment 15B to the FMP for 

the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the 

South Atlantic Region. In Amendment 

15B the Preferred Alternative under 

‘‘Modifications to Sales Provisions’’ 

states: ‘‘A South Atlantic SnapperGrouper harvested in the EEZ on board 

a vessel that does not have a valid 

Federal commercial permit for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper, or a South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper possessed 

under the bag limits, may not be sold or 

purchased. A person aboard a vessel 

with both a for-hire vessel permit and a 

Federal commercial snapper-grouper 

permit is considered to be fishing as a 

charter when fishing as described in 50 

CFR 622.2. Snapper-grouper caught on 

such a trip may not be sold or 

purchased.’’ Amendment 15B is under 

review and, if approved, would be 

expected to be implemented in 2009. 

Comment 8: One commenter stated 

general support of the establishment of 

the MPAs in the South Atlantic region. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

establishment of these MPAs is likely to 

protect a portion of the population 

(including spawning aggregations) and 

habitat of long-lived, slow-growing, 

deepwater snapper-grouper species from 

directed fishing pressure to achieve a 

more natural sex ratio, age, and size 

structure within the proposed MPAs, 

while minimizing adverse social and 

economic effects. 

Comment 9: One agency issued a 

letter of support for the action but also 

urged NMFS to develop a detailed plan 

for specific research and monitoring 

actions and enforcement and outreach/ 

education objectives for each of the 

MPAs. 

Response: The effects of the Type II 

MPAs will be monitored through the 

assessment of spawning aggregations, 

tracking fish movement, identifying fish 

population demographics, and by 

determining age distribution, nursery 

grounds, migratory patterns, and 

mortality rates for dominant harvested 

fish stocks. Furthermore, the Council’s 

web site will be expanded to provide 

comprehensive education and outreach 

products on MPAs (e.g., regulations, 

publications, research and monitoring 

information, law enforcement activities, 

news releases, high resolution video and 

photographs, maps, etc.). 

Comment 10: One agency asked 

whether the MPAs would be established 

for a set term, indeterminately, or if they 

would exist until monitoring 

demonstrates recovery, and whether or 

not the MPA sites are adaptable to 

incorporate any identified 

modifications. The agency also noted 

that the ‘‘Dear Reviewer’’ letter 

accompanying the FEIS, sent out to 

interested parties, was dated June 2, 

2008, but the amendment itself was 

dated July 2007, and requested 

clarification on this discrepancy. 

1624 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: The MPAs will exist unless 

and/or until future actions to modify or 

eliminate one or all of them are 

implemented through the amendment 

process. If new information becomes 

available, suggesting an MPA should be 

altered in any way, such changes would 

be addressed through the amendment 

process as well. 

The ‘‘Dear reviewer’’ letter sent to 

interested parties and commenters was 

attached to a copy of the FEIS and was 

dated June 2, 2008, while the finalized 

amendment is dated July 2007. This 

discrepancy stemmed from the action to 

prohibit the use of shark bottom 

longline gear within the MPAs. The 

HMS Division manages the shark 

bottom longline fishery and, therefore, 

implemented the action to prohibit the 

gear in the MPAs in their Amendment 

2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. 

However, the Council approved 

Amendment 14 before HMS 

Amendment 2 was finalized and chose 

to move forward by submitting 

Amendment 14 for Secretarial review in 

July of 2007. In an effort to implement 

compatible regulations with 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP on the same timeline, NMFS 

waited to disseminate the Amendment 

14 FEIS until after the notice of 

availability (NOA) for Amendment 2 

FEIS was published. Subsequently, the 

process of Secretarial review for 

Amendment 14 was not initiated until 

June of 2008 when the ‘‘Dear reviewer’’ 

letter was issued. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Southeast Region, 

NMFS determined that Amendment 14 

is necessary for the conservation and 

management of the South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper fishery and is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared an FRFA for this 

action. The FRFA incorporates the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA), a summary of the significant 

economic issues raised by public 

comments, NMFS’ responses to those 

comments, and a summary of the 

analyses completed to support the 

action. A summary of the analyses 

follows. 

In summary, this final rule will 

establish eight Type II MPAs in the 

South Atlantic EEZ. The objective of 

this rule is to assist in the recovery of 

overfished stocks and persistence of 

healthy fish stocks, fisheries and 

habitats. 

Four issues associated with the 

economic analysis were raised through 

public comment on the proposed rule. 

Additional comments were received 

which did not pertain to the economic 

analysis. A complete summary of these 

comments and NMFS’ responses is 

provided in the Comments and 

Responses section of this rule. No 

changes were made to the final rule as 

a result of public comment. The first 

issue raised on the economic analysis 

was that the IRFA did not include an 

economic analysis. Although an 

analysis of the expected economic 

effects of the proposed rule and 

significant alternatives was conducted, 

the IRFA did not contain a description 

of the analysis conducted or provide an 

in-depth presentation of the results. 

Because of the absence of harvest and 

effort data at the small areal scale 

necessary to quantitatively assess 

harvests in the specific areas of the 

proposed MPAs, the analysis of the 

expected social and economic effects of 

the proposed rule relied upon the 

results of an iterative survey 

methodology called a modified Delphi 

method. Under this methodology, 

individuals familiar with the various 

fishing sectors and areas under 

consideration were surveyed to identify 

the potential effects of MPAs and 

determine an ordinal ranking system 

that was used to compare the economic 

impacts of the various MPA alternatives. 

This FRFA corrects the omission in the 

IRFA by including an explanation of 

why the Delphi method was used, 

providing a description of the Delphi 

process, and reporting the resulting 

forecasts of the expected adverse 

economic impacts of the various 

alternatives. 

The second issue raised on the 

economic analysis was that the analysis 

of the No Action Alternatives did not 

include consideration of the effects of 

the recent increases in fuel prices, 

which have caused some fishermen to 

relocate from the deep-water areas, 

including areas to be designated as 

MPAs, to areas closer to shore. The 

comment stated that the displacement of 

fishing pressure has reduced catch and 

revenues from these future MPAs and, 

therefore, the No Action Alternatives 

would have adverse economic impacts 

that have not been evaluated. NMFS 

agrees that increasing fuel prices have 

impacted fishing practices in both the 

recreational and commercial sectors, 

affecting both the number of trips 

fishermen take and the location of their 

fishing activity. NMFS disagrees, 

however, that the IRFA analysis is 

deficient because an assessment of the 

economic effects of increasing fuel costs 

for the No Action Alternatives was not 

explicitly conducted. This comment 

suggests a misunderstanding of the no 

action baseline and the analytical 

objective of the analysis. The no action 

baseline consists of an assessment of 

what the relevant fisheries and entities 

would be like if the rule is not adopted, 

otherwise known as the status quo. The 

analytical objective of the analysis is to 

determine the effects a rule or 

alternative is expected to have relative 

to the baseline. Thus, the analytical 

objective in evaluating the expected 

effects of an action is not to identify the 

absolute level of economic performance, 

but, rather, to identify the expected 

amount and direction (gain or loss) of 

change. Although increasing fuel prices 

may alter fishing behavior and reduce 

the profitability of small businesses in 

the fishing industry, such effects would 

continue to occur under the No Action 

Alternatives. As a result, because the No 

Action Alternatives would not impose 

any new restrictions on the fisheries, 

they would not result in any additional 

economic impacts beyond those 

expected to occur under the status quo, 

which includes the snapper-grouper 

fishery without the MPAs, but with 

rising fuel costs, and other economic 

pressures. Thus, while knowledge of 

baseline conditions (status quo) is 

important to identifying the effects of 

alternatives to the status quo, the No 

Action Alternatives would not result in 

any change in these baseline conditions. 

It should also be noted that, due to the 

methodology employed, neither fuel 

costs nor any other cost considerations, 

were explicitly used in the effects 

analysis. However, such effects were 

assumed to be implicitly factored into 

the determinations of potential effects of 

the MPAs and resultant ordinal ranking 

of alternatives. Because of their 

experience and knowledge of the 

fisheries and areas under consideration, 

the participants in the modified Delphi 

process were assumed to be cognizant of 

current fishing costs, travel distances, 

and other appropriate fishing factors 

and trends, and are assumed to have 

included these considerations in their 

determination of the effects of the 

alternative MPAs. Finally, from a 

practical perspective, it should be noted 

that if recent fuel price increases have 

caused fishermen to permanently move 

out of areas that will be designated as 

MPAs, the additional displacement and 

associated adverse economic effects as a 

result of MPA designation will be less 

than the effects which would occur 

absent any fuel price-induced 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1625 

displacement because an MPA would 

not displace effort that no longer exists. 

The third issue raised on the 

economic analysis was that the analysis 

failed to describe the economic impacts 

of the MPA alternatives on recreational 

fishermen and associated community 

businesses. The RFA is concerned with 

the expected direct effects of regulatory 

action on small entities and defines 

three types of small entities: small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions. While 

the businesses that support the 

recreational fishing industry may be 

small business entities, recreational 

anglers do not qualify as small entities 

under any of the classifications defined 

by the RFA. Further, no associated 

community businesses would be 

directly affected by the proposed rule. 

Consequently, the IRFA was correct in 

not including recreational anglers or 

associated community businesses in the 

analysis. The small entities that could 

be directly affected by this rule are 

small businesses in the commercial 

fishing and for-hire industries with 

permits to fish for and possess South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper species in the 

EEZ. These entities have been identified 

and included in the analysis. 

The fourth issue raised on the 

economic analysis was that the 

economic analysis utilized faulty 

assumptions of fishing pressure. The 

comment implied, using 2005 through 

2007 data for South Carolina, that the 

analysis assumed all trips occurring in 

Federal waters constituted pressure on 

the snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS 

disagrees with this comment. When 

evaluating the expected economic 

effects of a proposed rule, NMFS uses a 

measure of directed effort and not total 

effort. Proxies for directed effort include 

target trips (trips that target a particular 

species), catch trips (trips that catch a 

particular species), or harvest trips (trips 

that harvest a particular species but do 

not include catch and release trips). 

These measures of directed effort 

typically constitute a small portion of 

total effort. For example, for the 

snapper-grouper fishery from 1999 

through 2003, catch trips comprised the 

largest portion of total trips, yet equaled 

only approximately 15 percent of total 

trips. Additionally, because the analysis 

of the expected economic effects of the 

alternative MPAs used the modified 

Delphi methodology, as described 

above, rather than a traditional 

quantitative analysis, neither the IRFA 

nor the RIR used or relied on specific 

trip data to estimate and compare the 

economic impacts of the alternatives for 

this amendment. 

No duplicative, overlapping, or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. 

This rule will regulate commercial 

fishermen and for-hire fishing operators 

who fish for snapper-grouper species in 

eight areas to be designated as Type II 

MPAs in the South Atlantic EEZ. These 

eight MPAs are the Snowy Grouper 

Wreck, Northern South Carolina, Edisto, 

Georgia, North Florida, St. Lucie Hump, 

East Hump, and Charleston Deep 

Artificial Reef Type II MPAs. 

Current regulations require 

commercial vessels to have a Federal 

permit in order for persons aboard to 

possess South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

species in the South Atlantic EEZ in 

excess of the recreational bag limit (50 

CFR 622.4). For-hire vessels that fish for 

snapper-grouper in the EEZ, which are 

subject to recreational bag limits, are 

also required to have a Federal permit. 

As of August 18, 2008, 771 commercial 

fishing vessels had active South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper permits, 142 of which 

were trip-limited and 629 of which were 

unlimited. Similarly, there were 1,513 

charter-fishing vessels with an active 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper species. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small business in the 

finfish fishing or charter-fishing 

industry as one that is independently 

owned and operated, is not dominant in 

its field of operation, and has annual 

receipts not in excess of $4 million for 

finfish fishing (NAICS 114111) or $6.5 

million in charter fishing (NAICS 

487210). It is assumed for this analysis 

that each permit represents a small 

business. Thus, it is estimated that there 

are 771 small businesses in finfish 

fishing and 1,513 in charter-fishing that 

catch South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

species in the South Atlantic EEZ. 

The U.S. Atlantic EEZ is divided into 

statistical areas referred to herein as 

grids. The eight MPAs will be located 

within nine grids with one of the MPAs, 

Snowy Grouper Wreck, occurring in two 

grids and the others located in single 

grids. Of the seven MPAs to be 

contained within single grids, the size of 

the respective MPAs represents from 

0.25 percent to 3.26 percent of the area 

of the grid where it is located. The one 

MPA contained within two grids 

comprises 2.48 percent of the combined 

area of the two grids. 

Under current regulations, all 

fishermen with a Federal commercial 

permit to catch South Atlantic snappergrouper species are required to maintain 

a fishing logbook and submit a trip 

report for every fishing trip related to 

that permit. Among the information that 

is required is the vessel name and 

identification number, gear used, 

pounds caught and sold of each species, 

and the numeric code of the grid where 

the majority of the catch of each species 

was made. Fishermen are not required 

to report the longitudes and latitudes 

where the snapper-grouper species were 

caught within a grid, so the smallest 

unit of fishing area is the grid. 

The initial analysis of the expected 

economic impacts of the MPA 

alternatives considered quantifying the 

expected effects by identifying the total 

snapper-grouper catch in the respective 

grid containing the MPA or any portion 

of the MPA and assuming that the catch 

originating from the MPA was between 

0 to 100 percent of the total catch in the 

grid. This approach would have 

established upper and lower bounds on 

the potential level of catch affected by 

each MPA designation. For example, the 

Preferred Alternative for the Edisto 

MPA (Alternative 1) is contained within 

grid 3279. This approach would have 

estimated that 0 to 100 percent of the 

vessels with recorded fishing activities 

in that grid and 0 to 100 percent of the 

landings of snapper-grouper species 

recorded from that grid would be 

affected by the MPA. However, all of the 

MPAs considered comprised relatively 

small portions of their respective grids. 

The Preferred Alternative for the Edisto 

MPA, for example, represents only 1.65 

percent of the total area within the grid 

in which it lies. As a result, this 

approach would not have produced 

meaningful estimates of the expected 

effects of the alternative MPAs and was 

rejected. 

The second approach to quantifying 

the expected economic impacts 

considered assuming that the vessel 

participation and harvest from each 

alternative MPA was proportional to the 

percentage of area of the MPA relative 

to the total area in the grid. For 

example, because the Preferred 

Alternative for the Edisto MPA 

represents 1.65 percent of the area of 

grid 3279, this approach would have 

assumed that the designation of this 

area as an MPA would affect 1.65 

percent of the snapper-grouper vessels 

that reported landings in that grid and 

reduce the total snapper-grouper 

landings in that grid by 1.65 percent. 

This method, however, was rejected 

because it assumed each grid was a 

homogeneous area of physical, chemical 

and biological characteristics or habitat 

resulting in identical types and rates of 

fishing effort and harvest everywhere 

within the grid, conditions which are 

known with certainty not to be true. 

Consequently, it was decided that an 

adequate quantitative evaluation of the 

1626 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

economic impacts using traditional 

techniques was not possible. 

Because the empirical data do not 

exist at the spatial scale necessary to 

quantify the number of small entities 

that would be affected and adverse 

economic impacts of the various MPAs, 

a second best alternative, a modified 

Delphi approach, was developed to 

assess the expected socioeconomic 

effects of each of the proposed 

alternatives and support ranking of the 

alternatives. The Delphi method has 

been applied in the management of 

other natural resources and advocated 

for use in fishery management. 

The Delphi method is an experiment 

in group communication among a panel 

of experts with expertise representative 

of diverse geographic areas. It involves 

repetitive response, discussion and 

judgment among a panel of diverse 

experts with the purpose of resulting in 

a sound collective opinion. The 

technique allows experts to deal 

systematically with a complex problem 

or task where relevant empirical data is 

lacking. The particular Delphi 

experiment developed for this 

amendment was a modified Delphi, 

which consisted of three rounds: a 

Policy Delphi, a traditional iterative 

Delphi, and a cross-impact analysis. 

Twelve experts, representing 

expertise from the Carolinas to the 

Florida Keys, participated in the Delphi 

experiment. They were selected based 

on a spectrum of fishing and researching 

backgrounds with different perspectives 

on the policy issue of MPAs, including 

stakeholders with commercial, for-hire, 

and recreational fishing interests, as 

well as others with expertise covering 

marine resources administration, 

anthropology, biology, economics, 

enforcement, and protected marine 

resources. This was a priority in order 

to represent contrasting viewpoints of 

different stakeholders. Their viewpoints 

were treated as expert testimony and 

systematically disseminated to the rest 

of the panel of experts so that each 

panelist could consider other 

viewpoints and discuss them. 

The first phase was a Policy Delphi, 

which culminated in a comprehensive 

list of positive and negative effects (i.e. 

benefits and costs, advantages and 

disadvantages) of implementing a Type 

II MPA in general. Although the 

diversity of experts created instances of 

divergence regarding the direction 

(positive, negative, or neutral) of 

individual effects during Round One, 

the panel generally displayed strong 

majority support on the direction and 

level of impacts resulting from the 

implementation of Type II MPAs. 

This and the following four 

paragraphs identify and describe the 

economic impacts of Type II MPAs in 

general, which were identified and 

described by the expert panelists during 

Round One of the Delphi experiment. 

According to the panelists, negative 

impacts on small businesses would be 

realized mainly in the form of 

displacement costs on commercial and 

for-hire vessels that currently, but 

would no longer be able to, fish in areas 

designated as Type II MPAs. These 

displacement costs were divided into 

the following categories: catch and 

landings changes, trip-level search and 

associated costs, crowding and 

congestion costs, and personal safety 

costs. 

The most obvious and direct 

displacement cost would be the cost to 

commercial and charter-fishing vessels 

that historically catch snapper-grouper 

species in the areas designated as MPAs. 

These vessels would lose the revenues 

that come from sales of species caught 

in those areas and customer trips to 

those areas. To reduce the loss of catch 

and associated revenue, vessels would 

have to travel to new fishing locations, 

maybe target new species, or even learn 

new types of fishing. These new triplevel decisions would have a direct 

impact on trip-related variable costs as 

well as time-related opportunity costs. 

In particular, fuel usage and costs would 

likely change. The immediate search for 

profitable alternative fishing grounds 

could result in additional fuel 

expenditures and lost opportunities to 

fish, especially if those grounds require 

vessels to travel greater distances and 

avoid traveling through closed areas in 

order not to be caught with snappergrouper species in the MPAs. However, 

vessels could actually use less fuel if the 

new fishing grounds were closer to 

shore. If displaced fishermen purchase 

new gear or modify existing gear and 

lack experience with the new/modified 

gear, it could take time for them to 

become proficient and improve profits. 

Related displacement costs could be 

congestion, increased harvest and user 

conflicts in areas outside an MPA, and 

decreased personal safety. Additional 

fishing pressure in areas surrounding an 

MPA might further stress already 

overfished species, and vessels may 

experience lower catch rates per unit of 

effort as they compete for the limited 

biomass in the open fishing areas. This 

could create incentives for additional 

capital expenditures, such as for fish 

finding equipment. Additionally, user 

conflicts may develop and gear may be 

lost due to entanglement. The panel 

suggested that the farther displaced 

vessels had to move inshore, the more 

conflict could result with recreational 

vessels. MPA regulations could cause 

fishermen to incur extra risk to personal 

safety as they seek new and unfamiliar 

fishing grounds or employ unfamiliar 

fishing techniques. However, if the 

MPAs were in deepwater areas, there 

could be a decrease in personal risk to 

crew and paying passengers if vessels 

moved closer to shore. The short-term 

revenue losses could translate into longterm income gains and reduced 

variability of revenue. In the long run, 

benefits could be realized if spillover 

effects are assumed to affect aggregate 

harvest levels in the remaining fishable 

areas as stocks become healthier. 

Increased protection of the spawning 

stock biomass may lead to more natural 

population structures with older and 

larger individuals and greater genetic 

diversity. As a result, there could be 

increased harvestable biomass, 

increased dispersal, and greater 

recruitment to the remaining open areas 

in the fishery. These attributes likely 

would lead to a reduction in the annual 

variation in the biomass of deepwater 

stocks and the resulting harvests and 

revenues. If spillover occurs, then the 

abundance and harvest levels in 

surrounding areas will become less 

variable. The amount of economic 

benefit that would eventually be derived 

due to spillover effects from the MPA 

depends on a myriad of biological and 

economic factors specific to species in 

question and the vessels that target 

them. Future harvest increases may not 

be realized exclusively by the fishermen 

who were displaced by designation of 

an MPA. 

Round Two of the Delphi experiment 

required panelists to group and rank the 

effects listed in the previous round. A 

time dimension was introduced to 

distinguish immediate (less than one 

year) impacts of implementing a Type II 

MPA from medium (one to five years) 

and long-term (over five years) impacts. 

The results were groupings of effects 

ranked on their expected overall 

impacts throughout various time 

periods after implementation of Type II 

MPAs In General. 

The primary objective of Round Three 

was to differentiate the socioeconomic 

consequences of the alternatives for 

each proposed MPA in Amendment 14. 

A weighted scoring system was used 

based on the results from the previous 

rounds. In Delphi method terminology, 

this scoring system is an impact 

analysis. Each panelist was asked to 

estimate the impact of each group of 

effects in each time period on a scale 

from negative three to plus three, with 

a score of zero representing a neutral 

impact. Negative 3 represented a high 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1627 

adverse economic impact, negative two 

a moderate adverse economic impact, 

and negative 1 a minimal adverse 

economic impact. Similarly, 3 

represented a high beneficial economic 

impact, 2 a moderate beneficial 

economic impact, and 1 a minimal 

beneficial economic impact. A score of 

zero represented neutral or no impact. 

One of the groups of effects was impact 

on commercial, charter-fishing and 

recreational fishermen. Overall impact 

scores for each grouping of effects in 

each time period were calculated with 

a probabilistic consensus model that 

enabled a test for agreement in 

responses among panelists. Relative 

weights based on the rankings of effects 

from Round Two were used to calculate 

the overall weighted impact scores in 

each time period that were employed to 

compare the alternatives associated with 

the Amendment 14 MPA sites. The 

Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test produces a 

nonparametric statistic that was used to 

formally test for differences in scores 

among the alternatives. The No Action 

alternative was not explicitly evaluated 

by the panelists and was defined to have 

a score of zero because it represented no 

change from baseline (or status quo) 

economic conditions. 

Snowy Grouper Wreck Type II MPA 

Alternatives 

Alternative 1, the Preferred 

Alternative, will establish the Type II 

Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA located off 

North Carolina in the area that is bound 

by the following coordinates: The 

northwest corner at 33°25’N, 77°4.75’W; 

northeast corner at 33°34.75’N, 

76°51.3’W; southwest corner at 

33°15.75’N, 77°0’W; and the southeast 

corner at 33°25.5’N, 76°46.5’W. It 

comprises an area approximately 143 

square nautical miles and is located 

approximately 55 nautical miles 

southeast of Southport, North Carolina. 

Alternative 2, a rejected alternative, 

would have established a Type II MPA 

that protects the Snowy Grouper Wreck 

off North Carolina in the area that is 

bound by the following coordinates: The 

northwest corner at 33°23.35’N, 77°4’W; 

northeast corner at 33°33.25’N, 

76°50.5’W; southwest corner at 

33°14.1’N, 76°59.35’W; and the 

southeast corner at 33°24’N, 

76°45.75’W. The MPA would have 

comprised an area approximately 144 

square nautical miles and been located 

approximately 57 nautical miles 

southeast of Southport. 

Alternative 3, another rejected 

alternative, was the No Action 

Alternative and would not have 

established the Type II Snowy Grouper 

Wreck MPA. It would not generate any 

economic impacts beyond the baseline. 

Alternative 3 would not protect the fish 

that are still present on the snowy 

grouper wreck and other wrecks and 

natural bottom sites within the area 

from directed fishing pressure. By 

allowing fishing to continue as is, it is 

less likely that the natural size and age 

structure of the deepwater stocks will be 

restored, which reduces the long-term 

benefits of increased catches and 

associated revenues. 

The MPA created by Preferred 

Alternative 1 is situated a little further 

inshore than the MPA created by 

rejected Alternative 2 and contains more 

hard-bottom habitat than Alternative 2. 

The MPAs created by Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 include an area ranging 

from 150 meters (492 feet) to 300 meters 

(984 feet) deep. Alternative 1 also 

includes a shallow area ranging from 60 

meters (197 feet) to 100 meters (328 

feet), and Alternative 2 includes a 

deeper area exceeding 300 meters (984 

feet) in depth. Both of the alternatives 

contain a wreck that was once the site 

of a known aggregation of snowy 

grouper, which was believed to be 

targeted heavily by a few individuals in 

the late 1990s and fished down. 

According to the commercial fishing 

industry, the areas of Alternatives 1 and 

2 hold many snowy grouper, speckled 

hind, gag, and red porgy. It is reported 

that red grouper, graysby, and hogfish 

have also been caught at the snowy 

grouper wreck. Information from public 

hearings indicates that the snowy 

grouper wreck is mostly fished by 

commercial snapper-grouper fishermen 

out of Little River, SC, and the ports of 

Carolina Beach and Southport, NC. This 

area is also heavily fished by fishermen 

who troll for tuna, marlin, dolphin, and 

wahoo during certain times of the year. 

The charter fishing industry may also 

be impacted by Alternatives 1 and 2 

because they would have to target these 

bottom snapper-grouper species in other 

areas, potentially increasing fishing 

pressure on other sites. It may also have 

a negative effect because these longer 

trips are usually built into the annual 

round of these boats, designated for 

specialized fishermen. 

The results of the Delphi experiment 

forecast moderate to minimal adverse 

economic impacts from either Preferred 

Alternative 1 or rejected Alternative 2, 

with impacts ranging from immediate, 

moderate, adverse impacts of -1.94 to 

-1.57 to less than minimal adverse 

impacts of -0.14 after 5 years. 

The Delphi approach forecasts higher 

adverse economic impacts of Preferred 

Alternative 1 than those of Alternative 

2 due to greater displacement effects. 

This result corroborated expert 

testimony from Round One that 

suggested Preferred Alternative 1 

encroaches into the mid-shelf region 

and would affect more fishing 

operations than Alternative 2. 

Commercial activity in the outer 

continental shelf of Alternative 2 is 

relatively light (about 6 boats) while 

more than 12 additional commercial 

vessels and an unknown number of 

charter-fishing operators regularly fish 

for snapper and shallow-water groupers 

in the mid-shelf region of Preferred 

Alternative 1. Expert testimony revealed 

that no significant recreational effort 

exists within the Snowy Grouper Wreck 

MPA alternatives. Although the Delphi 

results forecast the same long-term 

adverse economic impacts for 

Alternatives 1 and 2, the Council 

expects the biological benefits of 

Preferred Alternative 1 would be greater 

than those of Alternative 2. 

Northern South Carolina Type II MPA 

Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 2 will establish 

a Type II MPA in the area bounded by 

the following coordinates: The 

northwest corner at 32°53.5’ N, 

78°16.75’ W; the northeast corner at 

32°53.5’ N, 78°4.75’ W; the southwest 

corner at 32°48.5’N, 78°16.75’ W; and 

the southeast corner at 32°48.5’ N, 

78°4.75’ W. It comprises an area 

approximately 50 square nautical miles 

and is located approximately 54 

nautical miles from Murrells Inlet, SC. 

Alternative 1, a rejected alternative, 

would have established a Type II MPA 

in the area bounded by the following 

coordinates: The northwest corner at 

33°8.5’N, 77°54’W; the northeast corner 

at 33°8.5’N, 77°42’W; the southwest 

corner at 33°3.5’N, 77°54’W; and the 

southeast corner at 33°3.5’N, 77°42’W. 

The MPA would have had an area 

approximately 50 square nautical miles 

and been located approximately 61 

nautical miles from Murrells Inlet. 

Alternative 3, another rejected 

alternative, would have established a 

Type II MPA in the area bounded by the 

following coordinates: The northwest 

corner at 33°2.75’N, 79°52.75’W; the 

northeast corner at 33°9.25’N, 

77°43.5’W; the southwest corner at 

32°58.83’N, 77°48.83’W; and the 

southeast corner at 33°5.3’N, 77°39.9’W. 

The MPA would have been located 

approximately 65 nautical miles from 

Murrells Inlet and been approximately 

50 square nautical miles in size. 

Alternative 4, the rejected No Action 

Alternative, would have not established 

a Type II MPA off northern South 

Carolina. It would generate no economic 

impacts beyond the baseline. 

1628 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

The MPAs of Preferred Alternative 2 

and rejected Alternatives 1 and 3 are 

areas of low relief that were previously 

heavily trawled by roller rigs before they 

were prohibited in 1989 through 

Snapper Grouper Amendment 1 

(SAFMC 1988). Fishermen refer to the 

area as ‘‘smurfville’’ because it holds 

many small vermilion snapper. 

Information received during the public 

input process indicates that this area is 

fished mostly in the winter and that it 

holds deepwater species like snowy 

grouper and speckled hind as well as 

other snapper-grouper species such as 

red porgy, triggerfish, and gag. 

The MPAs of rejected Alternative 1 

and Preferred Alternative 2 run east to 

west, while rejected Alternative 3 runs 

parallel to shore. Alternatives 1 and 3 

share an area ranging in depth from 70 

to 140 meters (230 to 460 feet). The 

MPA that would have been created by 

Alternative 1 would have included more 

shallow water ranging from 40 to 80 

meters (131 to 262 feet) deep, while that 

of Alternative 3 would have included a 

greater area of deep water (100–150 

meters (328–492 feet)). Waters in the 

MPA created by Preferred Alternative 2 

are from 50 to 180 meters (164 to 591 

feet) deep. The depth profiles of 

Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar, but the 

MPA created by Preferred Alternative 2 

is located farther offshore and includes 

deeper water than Alternative 1. 

Southeast Area Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (SEAMAP) data 

indicate the presence of hard bottom 

within Alternatives 1 through 3, with 

Preferred Alternative 2 and rejected 

Alternative 1 having the highest 

occurrence of known hard bottom. 

These data show that snowy grouper 

can be found in all the alternatives 

while speckled hind have only been 

found in Alternative 2. Marine 

Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and 

Prediction (MARMAP) program data 

indicate many mid-shelf snappergrouper species such as gray triggerfish, 

red porgy, knobbed porgy, and 

vermilion snapper are also found within 

all three alternatives for this MPA. 

Many mid-shelf species including 

vermilion snapper have been found in 

spawning condition in these areas. 

The results of the Delphi experiment 

forecast Preferred Alternative 2 would 

have the largest immediate and 

medium-term adverse economic impacts 

due to the largest displacement costs. 

Rejected Alternative 3 is inferior to 

Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 

1 in the long-term because it would 

have adverse economic impacts as 

compared to the others’ beneficial 

economic impacts in the long-term. 

Although Preferred Alternative 2 is 

forecast to have larger adverse economic 

impacts than Alternatives 1 and 3 and 

smaller beneficial economic impacts 

than Alternative 1, it is expected to have 

greater biological benefit because it has 

more hard-bottom habitat and spawning 

areas for snowy grouper, golden grouper 

and blueline tilefish. 

Edisto Type II MPA Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 1 will establish 

a Type II MPA in the area bounded by 

the following coordinates: The 

northwest corner at 32°24’N, 79°6’W; 

the northeast corner at 32°24’N, 

78°54’W; the southwest corner at 

32°18.5’N, 79°6’W; and the southeast 

corner at 32°18.5’N, 78°54’W. It will be 

oriented perpendicular to the coast and 

located approximately 45 nautical miles 

southeast of the Charleston, SC, harbor. 

Its area is approximately 50 square 

nautical miles. According to public 

testimony, it is heavily fished by 

commercial and headboat fishermen. 

Alternative 2, a rejected alternative, 

would have established a Type II MPA 

in the area bounded by the following 

coordinates: The northwest corner at 

32°17’N, 79°3’W; the northeast corner at 

32°24.75’N, 78°54.2’W; the southwest 

corner at 32°13.5’N, 78°59.5’W; and the 

southeast corner at 32°21’N, 

78°50.83’W. It would have oriented the 

MPA along the shelf break and been 50 

nautical miles southeast of Charleston, 

SC, harbor. The MPA would have had 

an area of 50 square nautical miles. 

Alternative 3, the rejected No Action 

Alternative, would not have established 

a Type II MPA off central South 

Carolina. It would generate no economic 

impacts beyond the baseline. 

The MPAs of Preferred Alternative 1 

and rejected Alternative 2 include an 

area ranging in depth from 80 meters 

(262 feet) to 140 meters (459 feet). The 

MPA created by Alternative 1 is 

perpendicular to the shoreline and 

includes more shallow water ranging 

from 45 to 80 meters (148 to 262 feet) 

deep. Alternative 2 would have created 

an MPA that runs parallel to the 

shoreline and includes additional water 

60–150 meters (197–492 feet) deep. 

The Delphi results forecast minimal to 

moderate adverse economic impacts 

during the first year of implementation 

of either Preferred Alternative 1 or 

rejected Alternative 2 due to immediate 

displacement costs. After the first year, 

these displacement effects would lessen 

to zero to minimal and after 5 years 

there would be beneficial economic 

impacts. Preferred Alternative 1 would 

have larger adverse economic impacts 

during the first 5 years of 

implementation and larger beneficial 

economic impacts after 5 years. 

Although Preferred Alternative 1 is 

forecast to have larger adverse economic 

impacts than Alternative 2 for the first 

5 years, it is expected to have a larger 

biological benefit because it has more 

hard-bottom habitat than Alternative 2. 

Georgia Type II MPA Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 1 will establish 

a Type II MPA off Georgia in the area 

bounded by the following coordinates: 

The northwest corner at 31°43’N, 

79°31’W; the northeast corner at 

31°43’N, 79°21’W; the southwest corner 

at 31°34’N, 79°39’W; and the southeast 

corner at 31°34’N, 79°29’W. It is located 

approximately 69 nautical miles 

southeast of the mouth of Wassaw 

Sound, GA, and has an area of 

approximately 100 square nautical 

miles. 

Alternative 2, a rejected alternative, 

would have established a Type II MPA 

off the Georgia coast in the area that is 

bounded by the following coordinates: 

The northwest corner at 31 38’N, 79 

41’W; the northeast corner at 31 38’N, 

79 31’W; the southwest corner at 31 

28’N, 79 41’W; and the southeast corner 

at 31 28’N, 79 31’W. It would have 

located the MPA approximately 65 

nautical miles southeast of Wassaw 

Sound and, like the Preferred 

Alternative, have had an area of 100 

square nautical miles. 

Alternative 3, the rejected No Action 

Alternative would have not established 

a Type II MPA off the Georgia coast. It 

would not generate any economic 

impacts beyond the baseline. 

Preferred Alternative 1 runs parallel 

to shore and includes waters ranging 

from 90 to 300 meters (295 to 984 feet) 

deep, while Alternative 2 includes an 

area with a wider depth range from 65 

to 380 meters (213 to 1,247 feet) deep. 

Input received from the public hearing 

process indicates that golden tilefish are 

often caught within both Preferred 

Alternative 1 and rejected Alternative 2. 

The vast majority of fishing that occurs 

in the area of Alternatives 1 and 2 is 

trolling for pelagic species such as tuna 

and dolphin. The area is occasionally 

fished commercially for snapper 

grouper species, but lies east of an area 

called Triple Ledge that is an important 

area for the finfish fishing industry. 

The Delphi results forecast minimal to 

moderate immediate adverse economic 

impacts from Preferred Alternative 1 

and rejected Alternative 2, with slightly 

larger adverse impacts caused by 

Alternative 2. Similarly, Alternative 2 

would have larger adverse economic 

impacts in the medium-term and 

smaller beneficial impacts after 5 years 

than the preferred alternative. The 

Council expects larger biological benefit 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1629 

from Preferred Alternative 1 because it 

has more hard-bottom habitat than 

Alternative 2. 

North Florida Type II MPA 

Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 4 will establish 

a Type II MPA off north Florida in the 

area bounded by the following 

coordinates: The northwest corner at 

30°29’N, 80°14’W; the northeast corner 

at 30°29’N, 80°2’ W; the southwest 

corner at 30°19’N, 80°14’W; and the 

southeast corner at 30°19’N, 80°2’W. It 

is located approximately 60 nautical 

miles off the mouth of the St. Johns’s 

River near Jacksonville, FL, and is 

approximately 100 square nautical miles 

in size. Alternative 1, a rejected 

alternative, would have established a 

Type II MPA off the north Florida coast 

in the area that is bounded by the 

following coordinates: The northwest 

corner at 30 29’N, 80 18’W; the 

northeast corner at 30 29’N, 80 8’W; the 

southwest corner at 30 19’N, 80 18’W; 

and the southeast corner at 30 19’N, 80 

8’W. It would have located the MPA 

approximately 57 nautical miles off the 

mouth of the St. John’s River and is 

about 100 square nautical miles in size. 

Rejected Alternative 2 would have 

established a Type II MPA off the north 

Florida coast in the area that is bounded 

by the following coordinates: The 

northwest corner at 30 5’N, 80 25’W; the 

northeast corner at 30 5’N, 80 15’W; the 

southwest corner at 29 55’N, 80 25’W; 

and the southeast corner at 29 55’N, 80 

15’W. It would have located the MPA 

approximately 47 nautical miles east of 

St. Augustine, FL, and would have been 

about 100 square nautical miles in size. 

Alternative 3, a rejected alternative, 

would have established a Type II MPA 

off the north Florida coast in the area 

that is bounded by the following 

coordinates: The northwest corner at 29 

36.3’N, 80 12.5’W; the northeast corner 

at 29 40’N, 79 50’W; the southwest 

corner at 29 17.3’N, 80 8.3’W; and the 

southeast corner at 29 21.3’N, 79 

45.5’W. The MPA would have been 

approximately 506 square nautical miles 

in size and located approximately 43 

nautical miles off New Smyrna Beach, 

FL. 

Rejected Alternative 5 would have 

established a Type II MPA off north 

Florida in the area bounded by the 

following coordinates: The northwest 

corner at 30§ 5’ N, 80§ 16’ W; the 

northeast corner at 30§ 5’ N, 80§ 6’ W; 

the southwest corner at 29§ 55’ N, 

80§ 16’ W; the southeast corner at 

30§ 55’ N, 80§ 6’ W. Similar to 

Alternative 2, the MPA would have 

been located approximately 55 nautical 

miles east of St. Augustine, and like 

Preferred Alternative 1 and rejected 

Alternatives 2 and 4, the MPA would 

have been about 100 square nautical 

miles in size. 

Alternative 6, another rejected 

alternative, would have established a 

Type II MPA off north Florida in the 

area bounded by the following 

coordinates: The northwest corner at 

29§ 36.3’ N, 80§ 15’ W; the northeast 

corner at 29§ 40’ N, 79§ 52.5’ W; the 

southwest corner at 29§ 17.3’ N, 

80§ 10.8’ W; the southeast corner at 

29§ 21.3’ N, 79§ 48’ W. Like Alternative 

3, it would have located the MPA off 

New Smyrna Beach, but about 45 

nautical miles from that location. Also, 

like Alternative 3, the MPA would have 

been about 506 square nautical miles in 

size. 

The rejected No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 7, would have not 

established a Type II MPA off north 

Florida. It would not generate any 

economic impacts beyond the baseline. 

The Delphi results forecast moderate 

to high adverse economic impacts in the 

first year for Preferred Alternative 4 and 

rejected Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 and 

minimal to moderate immediate adverse 

impacts for rejected Alternatives 3 and 

6. From 1 to 5 years, minimal to 

moderate adverse impacts would be 

incurred from Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 6, 

with zero to minimal adverse impacts 

caused by Alternatives 3 and 6. None of 

the alternatives were forecast to have 

positive long-term economic impacts, 

and Alternatives 1 through 5 were 

forecast to generate zero to minimal 

adverse economic impacts after 5 years. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 were proposed to 

the Council by the Habitat Advisory 

Panel. Input received during the public 

scoping and meeting process indicated 

that these alternatives are heavily fished 

both commercially and recreationally 

for mid-shelf snapper-grouper species 

and that there are few deepwater species 

found in either area. Alternatives 4 and 

5 were modifications suggested by the 

Council to capture a greater amount of 

deepwater habitat. Alternative 6 is 

similar to Alternative 3 but located 

closer to shore. Alternative 3 is a site 

proposed at a public hearing held in the 

affected area. Although Alternatives 3 

and 6 have smaller adverse economic 

impacts than Preferred Alternative 4, 

the preferred alternative is expected to 

yield a larger biological benefit. 

St. Lucie Hump Type II MPA 

Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 1 will establish 

a Type II MPA protecting St. Lucie 

Hump in the area bounded by the 

following coordinates: The northwest 

corner at 27°8’N, 80°W; the northeast 

corner at 27°8’N, 79°58’W; the 

southwest corner at 27°4’N, 80°W; and 

the southeast corner at 27°4’N, 79°58’W. 

The MPA will be located approximately 

9 nautical miles southeast of St. Lucie, 

FL, and have a size of 8 square nautical 

miles. It is located in water 66 to 69 

meters (216 to 234 feet) deep. 

The No Action Alternative, rejected 

Alternative 2, would have not 

established the St. Lucie Hump Type II 

MPA. It would not generate any 

economic impacts beyond the baseline. 

According to input received from the 

Council’s advisors and through the 

public scoping and hearing process, the 

MPA created by Alternative 1 represents 

an area that is very habitat rich with 

many speckled hind, juvenile snowy 

grouper, Warsaw grouper, and mid-shelf 

species such as sea bass, red porgy, and 

red snapper present. The MPA will be 

located between two inlets that make 

the area less popular to fish than other 

hard-bottom areas such as Pushbutton 

Hill. However, it is heavily targeted by 

fishermen who troll for pelagic species. 

The Council considered other possible 

sites, but only Alternative 1 came out of 

the public process used to identify 

potential sites. 

The results of the Delphi experiment 

forecast minimal to moderate adverse 

economic impacts during the first year 

of implementation, followed by zero to 

minimal adverse impacts in the 

medium-term and zero to minimal 

beneficial economic impacts after 5 

years. 

East Hump Type II MPA Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 1 will establish 

a Type II MPA protecting the East Hump 

in the area bounded by the following 

coordinates: The northwest corner at 

24°36.5’N, 80°45.5’W; the northeast 

corner at 24°32’N, 80°36’W; the 

southwest corner at 24°32.5’N, 80°48’W; 

and the southeast corner at 24°27.5’N, 

80°38.5’W. The MPA will be located 

approximately 13 nautical miles 

southeast of Long Key, FL, and about 50 

square nautical miles in size. 

The No Action Alternative, rejected 

Alternative 2, would not have 

established an MPA in this area. It 

would not generate any economic 

impacts beyond the baseline. 

The East Hump MPA is an area of 

very rich habitat. The MPA is located in 

waters that are 194 to 296 meters (636 

to 971 feet) deep, while the tops of the 

humps are 155 to 165 meters (509 to 541 

feet) deep. The Council considered 

other possible sites, such as the 

Islamorada Hump, but only Alternative 

1 came out of the public process used 

to identify potential sites. The 

Islamorada Hump site is a much more 

1630 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

popular fishing site. According to expert 

testimony, an MPA directly off the coast 

of the so-called ‘‘Fishing Capital of the 

World’’ would have led to extensive 

displacement costs to the fishing 

industry. 

The results of the Delphi experiment 

forecast zero to minimal adverse 

economic impacts from Preferred 

Alternative 1 during the first year of 

implementation, followed by beneficial 

economic impacts after the first year. 

After 5 years, there would be a minimal 

to moderate beneficial economic impact. 

The following insights from the panel 

reflect the possible dynamics associated 

with the East Hump MPA. There are 

ample fishing opportunities in the 

Florida Keys. Initially, increased search 

and learning costs might be incurred by 

displaced commercial and charter 

fishing fishermen. Over time the 

abundance of fishing opportunities in 

the Keys would allow them to regain 

their level of past fishing catch, likely 

targeting the same species. Some 

congestion effects might take place in 

nearby areas. However, bottom 

fishermen should benefit from stock 

rejuvenation in the long term. 

Charleston Deep Artificial Reef Type II 

MPA Alternatives 

Preferred Alternative 1 will establish 

an experimental artificial reef Type II 

MPA off the Coast of South Carolina in 

the area identified by the following 

boundaries: The northwest corner at 

32°4’ N, 79°12’W; the northeast corner 

at 32°8.5’N, 79°7.5’W; the southwest 

corner at 32°1.5’N, 79°9.3’W; and the 

southeast corner at 32°6’N, 79°5’W. The 

MPA will be located about 50 nautical 

miles southeast of Charleston Harbor, 

SC. It will have an area of 21 square 

nautical miles and be in waters from 

100 to 150 meters (328 to 492 feet) deep. 

The No Action Alternative, rejected 

Alternative 2, would have not 

established a Charleston Deep Artificial 

Reef MPA. It would not generate any 

economic impacts beyond the baseline. 

Throughout the many rounds of 

public meetings the Council held 

regarding MPAs, one of the most 

common sentiments from members of 

the public was that the Council use 

artificial reefs instead of natural habitat 

as MPAs and/or build more artificial 

reefs to mitigate for the loss of natural 

bottom that has been designated as an 

MPA. Preferred Alternative 1 was 

developed by Council staff and 

biologists from the State of South 

Carolina who looked to avoid hardbottom habitat from SEAMAP data 

while locating the site just offshore 

where other artificial reefs were being 

studied. 

The results of the Delphi experiments 

forecast no adverse economic impacts 

and zero to minimal beneficial 

economic impacts from Preferred 

Alternative 1. 

Summary of Impacts of Preferred Type 

II Alternatives 

This rule will establish eight Type II 

MPAs: Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA, 

Northern South Carolina MPA, Edisto 

MPA, Georgia MPA, North Florida 

MPA, St. Lucie Hump MPA, East Hump 

MPA, and Charleston Deep Artificial 

Reef MPA. Fishing for or possession of 

any snapper-grouper species within any 

of the MPAs will be prohibited. It will 

regulate commercial fishers and charterfishing operators who fish for snappergrouper species in the eight areas of the 

South Atlantic EEZ to be designated as 

Type II MPAs. Four of the MPAs that 

will be established by this rule, Snowy 

Grouper Wreck, Northern South 

Carolina, Edisto, and North Florida, are 

expected to have significant adverse 

economic impacts during their first year 

after implementation. However, no 

significant adverse economics impacts 

are expected after the first year for any 

of the eight MPAs. 

In an attempt to minimize the adverse 

economic impacts of the rule, all MPAs 

considered were identified by a process 

that extensively involved scientists, 

fishermen, and the public. A Habitat 

Advisory Panel, consisting of scientists 

and fishermen, assembled available data 

to identify locations that would provide 

the greatest biological benefit to 

snapper-grouper species. Experts on 

MPAs traveled throughout the South 

Atlantic region and discussed the 

benefits of MPAs with the public. Public 

input during the scoping process and 

the public hearings revealed that closure 

of certain sites would generate intense 

public disapproval. The Council 

realized the implementation of those 

sites would create a degree of 

controversy that would impede 

implementation of the closures and 

compliance. Following public input, the 

Council employed a bottom-up process 

where stakeholders proposed sites that 

would reduce potential adverse social 

and economic effects yet still achieve 

the biological objectives. As an example, 

the Council worked with fishermen in 

the Florida Keys following the Council’s 

proposed placement of an MPA on the 

popular location referred to as the 

Islamorada Hump. The proposal 

generated intense controversy due to the 

popularity of fishing at this site. The 

Council worked with the local fishing 

community to propose a nearby site that 

would achieve the biological objectives 

of the MPA designation, invoke less 

controversy, and have lower adverse 

economic impact than the originally 

proposed site. This approach was 

replicated, where necessary, for all the 

MPAs that will be established by this 

final rule. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: January 7, 2009 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE 

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH 

ATLANTIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 622 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 622.2, the definition of ‘‘MPA’’ 

is added in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. 

* * * * * 

MPA means marine protected area. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 622.35, paragraph (i) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.35 Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area 

closures. 

* * * * * 

(i) MPAs. (1) No person may fish for 

a South Atlantic snapper-grouper in an 

MPA, and no person may possess a 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper in an 

MPA. However, the prohibition on 

possession does not apply to a person 

aboard a vessel that is in transit with 

fishing gear appropriately stowed as 

specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this 

section. In addition to these restrictions, 

see § 635.21(d)(1)(iii) of this chapter 

regarding restrictions applicable within 

these MPAs for any vessel issued a 

permit under part 635 of this chapter 

that has longline gear on board. MPAs 

consist of deepwater areas as follows: 

(i) Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA is 

bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 

order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 33°25′ 77°04.75′ 

B 33°34.75′ 76°51.3′ 

C 33°25.5′ 76°46.5′ 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1631 

Point North lat. West long. 

D 33°15.75′ 77°00.0′ 

A 33°25′ 77°04.75′ 

(ii) Northern South Carolina MPA is 

bounded on the north by 32°53.5′ N. 

lat.; on the south by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on 

the east by 78°04.75′ W. long.; and on 

the west by 78°16.75′ W. long. 

(iii) Edisto MPA is bounded on the 

north by 32°24′ N. lat.; on the south by 

32°18.5′ N. lat.; on the east by 78°54.0′ 

W. long.; and on the west by 79°06.0′ W. 

long. 

(iv) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef 

MPA is bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 32°04′ 79°12′ 

B 32°08.5′ 79°07.5′ 

C 32°06′ 79°05′ 

D 32°01.5′ 79°09.3′ 

A 32°04′ 79°12′ 

(v) Georgia MPA is bounded by rhumb 

lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 31°43′ 79°31′ 

B 31°43′ 79°21′ 

C 31°34′ 79°29′ 

D 31°34′ 79°39′ 

A 31°43′ 79°31′ 

(vi) North Florida MPA is bounded on 

the north by 30°29’ N. lat.; on the south 

by 30°19’ N. lat.; on the east by 80°02’ 

W. long.; and on the west by 80°14’ W. 

long. 

(vii) St. Lucie Hump MPA is bounded 

on the north by 27°08’ N. lat.; on the 

south by 27°04’ N. lat.; on the east by 

79°58’ W. long.; and on the west by 

80°00’ W. long. 

(viii) East Hump MPA is bounded by 

rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 24°36.5′ 80°45.5′ 

B 24°32′ 80°36′ 

C 24°27.5′ 80°38.5′ 

D 24°32.5′ 80°48′ 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 24°36.5′ 80°45.5′ 

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (i)(1) 

of this section, transit means direct, 

non-stop progression through the MPA. 

Fishing gear appropriately stowed 

means— 

(i) A longline may be left on the drum 

if all gangions and hooks are 

disconnected and stowed below deck. 

Hooks cannot be baited. All buoys must 

be disconnected from the gear; however, 

buoys may remain on deck. 

(ii) A trawl or try net may remain on 

deck, but trawl doors must be 

disconnected from such net and must be 

secured. 

(iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net 

must be left on the drum. Any 

additional such nets not attached to the 

drum must be stowed below deck. 

(iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, 

sinker, flasher, or bait) used with an 

automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, 

handline, or rod and reel must be 

disconnected and stowed separately 

from such fishing gear. A rod and reel 

must be removed from the rod holder 

and stowed securely on or below deck. 

(v) A crustacean trap, golden crab 

trap, or sea bass pot cannot be baited. 

All buoys must be disconnected from 

the gear; however, buoys may remain on 

deck. 

[FR Doc. E9–497 Filed 1–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 080302360–7686–03] 

RIN 0648–AT91 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crab Fisheries; Groundfish Fisheries 

of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off 

Alaska; Individual Fishing Quota 

Program; Western Alaska Community 

Development Quota Program; 

Recordkeeping and Reporting; 

Permits; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule, correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects the 

regulatory text of a final rule published 

on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 76136). 

Among its measures, the final rule will 

implement new recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements; a new electronic 

groundfish catch reporting system, the 

Interagency Electronic Reporting 

System, and its data entry component, 

eLandings. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other 

applicable law. 

DATES: Effective January 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patsy A. Bearden, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish 

fisheries of the exclusive economic zone 

off Alaska under the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (collectively, FMPs). 

General provisions governing fishing by 

U.S. vessels in accordance with the 

FMPs appear at subpart H of 50 CFR 

part 600. 

Need for Corrections 

In FR Doc. E8–29625, published in 

the Federal Register on December 15, 

2008 (73 FR 76136), the following errors 

occur in §§ 679.4 and 679.5. This 

document corrects those errors. 

NMFS is correcting the heading for 

the table in § 679.4(a)(1) by removing 

the phrase ‘‘If program permit or card 

type is:’’ and replacing it with ‘‘If 

program permit type is:’’. This 

correction is necessary because, as 

described in the supplemental proposed 

rule, NMFS no longer issues permit 

cards. 

Section 679.4(e)(2) was revised in the 

final rule, but NMFS inadvertently 

deleted the phrase ‘‘legible copy of’’ a 

permit and replaced it with ‘‘copy of’’ 

a permit. In a final rule published May 

19, 2008 (73 FR 28733), NMFS no longer 

required an original permit onboard a 

vessel or onsite at a shoreside facility, 

but required a ‘‘legible copy’’ of a 

permit. However, NMFS inadvertently 

omitted the word ‘‘legible’’ in the 

supplemental proposed rule. 

Section 679.5(c)(1)(vi)(B)(3) is an intext table and describes the distribution 

of the yellow logsheet of the daily 

cumulative production logbooks 

(DCPLs). This correction removes check 

marks from the columns for catcher/ 

processor longline or pot gear, catcher/ 

processor trawl gear, and motherships 

that were mistakenly included in the 

supplemental proposed rule and the