Amendment No. 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF QF MEXICO UNITED STATES WATERS INCLUDES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW AUGUST, 1988 ;- GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL LINCOLN CENTER, SUITE 881 ,401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 (813) 228-281' I. Introduction A fishery management plan for the shrimp fishery in the GuJf of Mexico was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and was implemented as federal regulation on May 15, l 981. The principal thrust of the plan was to enhance yield in volume and value by deferring harvest of small shrimp to provide for growth. This was achieved by establishing a cooperative Tortugas shrimp sanctuary with the State of Florida to close to shrimp trawling an area where small pink shrimp comprise the majority of the population most of the time. A cooperative 45-day seasonal closure was established with the State of Texas to protect smaJl brown shrimp emigrating from bay nursery areas. An area of Florida Bay was zoned seasonally for either shrimp or stone crab fishing to·avoid gear conflict. Amendment No. l provided the Regional Director of NMFS with the authority after conferring with the Council to adjust by regulatory amendment the size of the Tortugas sanctuary or extent of the Texas closure or to eliminate either closure for one year. Amendment No. 2 updated catch and economic data -in th~ FMP, and Amendment No. 3 resolved another shrimp-stone crab gear ·conflict on the west central Florida coast. Amendment No. 4 identifies additional problems which have developed in the fishery and revises the objectives of the FMP accordingly. The annual review process for the Tortugas sanctuary is simplified, and the Council and Regional Director review for the Texas closure is extended to February Jst. White shrimp taken in the EEZ are to be landed in accord with a state's size possession regulations to provide consistency and facility of enforcement with the State of Louisiana. This latter action is to be implemented at such time when Louisiana provides for an incidental catch of undersized white shrimp in the fishery for seabobs. II. Description and Utilization Pattern& U.S. commercial landings of Gulf shrimp from 1980 to 1986 ranged from a record of 304 million pounds (live weight) in 1986 to 198 million pounds in 1983. The seven-year average was 244 million pounds. The exvessel value of landings in 1986 was $600 million. All U.S. shrimp landings for the five-year period 1981-1985 averaged 306 million pounds. Supply cannot meet the demand, and imports have made up the difference. Each year since J 982 imports have set a ·new record, reaching 400 miJlion pounds in 1986. Gulf shrimp abundance continues to be the result of recruitment, largely controlled by environmental driving forces. In recent years the development of a strong inshore (bay) fishery on juvenile shrimp, whose growth potential has not been reached, has resulted in lower recruitment to the offshore fishery and lessened the potential for increasing yield by deferring harvest in offshore waters. In 1986 some 62 million brown shrimp at a size of 90 to 150 tails per pound were taken in Texas bays between April l and May J.5 before the opening of the bay season. Texas law provides for a limited daily vessel catch for bait purposes. Ill. Issues To Be Adcressed l. There have been economic and social changes and changes in fishing patterns since implementation of the FMP. 2. The FMP objectives need revision due to introduction of new problems in the fishery. 3. The annual review process should be streamlined and criteria for change of regulations do not address some issues •. 4. Regulations of some states are inconsistent with FMP regulations. 5. Shrimp trawls continue to catch and drown endangered species of sea turtles. IV. Proposed Action l. Additional problems which affect management .of the Gulf shrimp fishery are identified in this amendment. 2. An objective is revised to include minimizing surface as well as underwater obstructions to shrimp vessels. 3. The aMual review process for the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary is revised to eliminate the requirement for aMual publication of an intent not to modify the extent of the sanctuary. 4. The annual review process for the seasonal closure to shrimping off Texas is revised to add criteria and provide additional time for review. 5. White shrimp taken in the EEZ are to be landed in accord with a state's size possession regulations. 6. Expansion of the sea turtle educational and headstart programs where appropriate are recommended. ACTION 1: PROBLEMS IN THE FISHERY Section 8.3 is revised as follows: 8.3 Problems in the fishery The Cculcil hu identified the following problems associated with the fishery and the present management regime has prepared the plan objectives where poaible to address and alleviate them. In a free access fishery a management regime to maximize protein yield and economic return to the fisherman is of importance. 1. Conflict among user groups as to area and size at which strimp are to be harvested. 2. Discard of shrimp through the wasteful practice of cuJling. 2 ' ' J. The continuing decline in the quality and quantity of estuarine and associated inland habitats. 4. Conflicts with other fisheries such as the stone crab fishery in southern Florida, the groundfish fishery of the north central Gulf, and the Gulf's reef fish fishery. 5. Incidental captlre of sea turtles. 6. Loss of gear and trawling grounds due to man-made obstructions. 7. Partial lack of basic data needed for management. 8. Increasing catch of small shrimp in inshore waters. 9. Pulse fishing resulting from seasonal closure. 10. Loss of access to productive shrimp fishing ground$;j)ff Mexico. 11. Possible loss of shrimp to Mexico through transbomdary migration. 12. Competition in shrimp sizes targeted by management with prevalent sizes produced by foreign mariculture operations. 13. Inconsistency in some state and federal regulations. 14. Excessive fishing effort employed in the fishery. 1.5. Limited enforcement capabilities. Rationale: One former objective regarding the Jack of compr~hensive, coordinated, and easily ascerntainable management authorities has been deleted. Problems numbered eight through 15 are added as being presently applicable to the fishery. Loss of trawlable area is broadened to include surface as well as underwater obstructions. ACTION 2: SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Section 8.4.1 Specific Management Objectives is revised as follows: 8.4.1 Specific Management Objectives The following are the specific management objectives of this plan and are proposed to the appropriate authorities in charge of Gulf of Mexico shrimp resources. These objectives are to: 1. Optimize the yield from shrimp reauited to the fishery. 2. Encowage habitat protection measures to prevent undue loss of shrimp habitat. 3. Coordinate the development of shrimp management measures by the GuJf of Mexico Fishery Management Council with the shrimp management programs of the several states, where feasible. 3 4. Promote consistency with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine ·-:> MammaJ Protection Act. 5. Minimize the incidentaJ capta.re of finfish by shrimpers, when appropriate. 6. Minimize conflicts between shrimp and stone crab fishermen. 7. Minimize adverse effects of obstructions to shrimp trawling. 8. Provide for a statistical reporting system. Rationale: Objective 7 previously addressed only underwater obs true t10n~. Surface obstructions such as unlighted platforms or buoys are now included because they present a hazard to fishing activities. ACTION 3: TOR TUGAS SHRIMP SANCTUARY Section 8.5.1.1, Measure 1, paragraphs 4 through 7 are revised as follows: NMFS will monitor the Tortugas shrimp fishery and advise the Regional Director and Council of the findings by JuJy I.5th of each year. The Council may utili7.e its Scientific and StatisticaJ Committee and Advisory Panel to review and advise on the findings. The Regional Director shall have the authority, after consultation with the Council, to implement action to revise this management measure through the Regulatary Amendment process. Criteria to be considered in reaching the decision to amend the regulations include: 1. Changes in pounds of shrimp caught and/or gross and/or net exvessel vaJue to the inGJstry resulting from the closure. 2. Adverse effects from an inaease in fishing pressure in other areas as a result of the closure which causes a deaease in catch per unit·of effort. J. Identification of areas (a) within the sanctuary containing an abundance of shrimp of harvestable sia, or (b) outside the sanctuary con~ shrimp populations too small for harvest. 4. Adverse effects from stress on support facilities for the shrimp fleet because of fleet migration resulting from the clostre. ). Any other information determined by the Regional Director to be relevant. The Regional Director may, after determining that benefits may be increased or adverse impacts be decreased, take either of the following actions to achieve the goaJs and objectives of the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan consistent with the National Standards and other applicable federal laws. The first action is considered to be less drastic and may be employed where a lesser degree of change is required. 4 I. Modify by no more than ten percent the geographical scope of the extent of the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary in the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico south of latitude 26° North. 2. Eliminate the closure of the EEZ off Florida for one season. If the Regional Director decides that either of the above actions is necessary, he shaU by August I .5th publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER his intent to take such action, the proposed effective date, and the duration of such action. Rationale: Studies conducted on the Tortugas ground:; ovt!r the past 35 y~ar~ consistently show that the sanctuary protects small shrimp which will eventually recruit to the fishery. The need for the annual review proc~!:is of the same data and for publication of intent not to modify the sanctuary is unnecessary. A monitoring report provided annuaUy by NMFS should be sufficient to trigger action when conditions change in the fishery. This action reduces the annual assessment to a monitoring process and eliminates the requirement that the Regional Director annually publish his intent to take no action. Criterion one is revised to redefine the dollars received as gross and/or net exvessel value to the industry, to consider profitability to the operating vessels as well as total potential yield. Expected Economic Impact: The elimination of publication of intent co take no action to revise the sanctuary will eliminate some paperwork and publication costs to NMFS. Consideration of vessel returns from the existing sanctuary framework would provide Council and NMFS with a better understanding of the economic impact of adjusting the sanctuary. In that this consideration leads to better decisions, this action is expected to have a positive but unquantifiable • economic effect. Rejected Alternative: No Action Rationale: An annual assessment of biological, ecological, and sl.lciological data would continue to be required. After review by the Regional Director and recommendation by the Council, the Regional Director would continue to be required to publish notice of his intent to take action or not co take action, a costly and time consuming exercise. Expected Economic Impact: Unnecessary paperwork and publication cos cs would continue to occur. Full evaluation of economic impact to individual fishermen would not be specified. ACTION •: COOPERATIVE SEASONAL CLOSURE TO SHRIMPING OFF TEXAS Section 8 • .5.l.l, Measure 2, paragraphs l through ; are revised as follows: Measure 2: Establish with the State of Texas a cooperative closure of the Gulf waters under Texas jurisdiction and the adjacent U.S. EEZ when a substantial portion of the brown shrimp in these waters weighs less than a count of 61 tails to the pound (39 heads-on stw'imp to the powid). The U.S. Department of Commerce will close the EEZ, and the time of closing should correspond to the closure by Texas of its Gulf waters. CloSlre normally occurs . June 1st to July I.5th; however, the effects of climatic variation on shrimp 5 growth may necessitate flexibility in the closing and opening dates to provide for a closure of no more than 60 days. Provision is to be made to allow taking of royal red shrimp beyond the 100 fathom contour (where brown shrimp do not occur). NMFS will monitor biological, economic, ecological, and sociological data collected through implementation of the plan and provided by other s...-veys and research. NMFS will assess both the adverse impacts and benefits derived from the seasonal closure in the EEZ and advise the Regional Director and the Council of the findings by December 15th. The Cowicil may~ its Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel to review and advise on the findings. The Regional Director shall have the authority, after consultation with the Council, to implement action to revise this management measure through the Regulatory Amendment process. Criteria to be considered in reaching the decision to amend the regulations include: 1. Changes in pounds of shrimp caught and/or gross and/or net exvessel value to the industry resulting from the closure on a state by state basis. 2. Adverse effects from an increase in fishing pressure as a result of the cloStre which causes a deaease in catch per \Slit effort. 3. Adverse effects from stress on support facilities for the shrimp fleet because of fleet migration or any other changes in work patterns resulting from the closre. 4. Any other information determined by the Regional Director to be relevant. The Regional Director may, after determining that benefits may be increased or adverse impacts be decreased, take either of the following actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan consistent with the National Standards and other applicable Federal laws. The first action is considered to be less drastic and may be employed where a lesser degree of change is required. l. 2. Modify the geographical scope of the extent of the seasonal closure of the EEZ off Texas west of a line beginning at latitude 29° 32' 06.7&•• north, lo~itude 93° 47' If l .699" west, crawn in the general direction of 166.6 true and ending at the seaward limit of.the EEZ at latitude 26° 11' 2'" north, longitooe 9-fl ,3' 00" west. (This line is an extension of the boundary of Texas and Louisiana through the territorial sea into the EEZ.) Eliminate the cloS1.re of the EEZ off Texas for one season. The Regional Director shall by February 1st of the following year publish his intent to take action as provided in l and 2 above er not to take action. Rationale: This action revises the date by which the NMFS assessment of th~ • fishery is due from December 1st to December 15th. This allows a needed 6 .. additional two week period for NMFS to complete the report. The date by which the Regional Director must publish intent to revise or not co revise i::. moved from January 15th to February 1st. This permits the C:iuncil sufficient time to convene its Scientific and Statistical Cornmi ttee and Advisory Panels and to meet in January to develop a recommendation. The Regional Director is also given time to review the recommendation, determine the course of acLion, and publish the notice. Criterion one is revised to redefine the dollars received as gruss and/ur ne c exvessel value to the industry. This would allow consideration uf the profitability to the operating vessels as well as total potential yield. Criteria 2 and 3 are revised to assure that the impact on the Texas shrimp fleet is considered as well as the impact in other areas. Expected Economic Impact: The proposed change extends the time for review and decision-making to a more realistic schedule at no change in costs. Revision of criteria to be considered to include economic impacts to individual vessels and to Texas as well as other states will increase the effectiveness of the current framework provisions at little or no additional administrative costs. To the extent that this economic information is incorporated into the decision-making process, positive economic impacts are expected. Rejected Alternative: No Action Rationale: Without a change in dates NMFS, the Council, and Regii..mal Director would continue to be locked in a near impossible Lime frame to develop, review, and act on the report. The Christmas holiday season within the review period creates a delay in convening the . Advisory Panel and Scientific and Statistical Committee until early January. The wording of the criteria to be considered in review has been interpreted as being limited to consideration of only overall total yield to the fishery, disregarding the impact on the individual fishermen .. Expected Economic Impacts: Current costs would remain unchanged; however, the results of the evaluation would suffer from rushed preparation and insufficient analysis. Since value types would not be specified, there would likely be less economic information available on which to base decisions which could result in unidentified economic impacts. ACTION,: COORDINATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS ri Section 8.5.1.3 is revised by adding a new measure .5A as follows: . ~- espective state shall be in accordance with that state's landing and possession { Measure ,A: White shrimp taken in the EEZ and transported into a VJ-C laws with respect to size. This action to be implemented when LC:MJisiana law provides for a bycatch of undersize white shrimp in the seabob fishery. Rationale: The fishery for white shrimp in Louisiana is important (Table I). In September of 1984 Louisiana established a minimum size of 100 shrinip to the pound which is difficult to enforce at dockside when there are no size limils in the EEZ. Shrimp smaller than JOO count have low value and have not achieved growth potential. Fishing such small shrimp results in grow th over! ishing. 7 Yield per recruit analysis recently developed by NMFS SEFC Galveston Laboratory suggests that yield can be enhanced by delay of the harvest of these small white shrimp until May, if natural mortality rates are low. In 1985, there were approximately 2 million pounds of shrimp smaller than Louisiana's minimum count size taken from state waters (Areas 12-17) and another l .7 million pounds taken from adjacent federal waters for a total of 3.7 million pounds. With an average value of $0.43 per pound, the yield would be $1 .59 million. If deferred harvest increased yield by 19-37 percent to a larger and more valuable shrimp ($0.8' per pounq), the yield ~ould be 4.4-5.0 million pounds at $3.7-4.25 million or an increase of 700 thousand to 1.3 million pounds at a value of $595 thousand to $1.1 million. Mortality rates are not exact and recruitment and growth will vary depending on environmental conditions. ln the example used, a mortality rate of 0.03 was used and the spread of gain is from using different sizes of shrimp at commencement of the model in November. ln this simulation, fishermen could have gained up to an additional J.3 million pounds of shrimp valued at $1.1 miJli on by deferring harvest from January until May. Most of the small white shrimp occur within Louisiana's three-mile territorial waters; however, dockside enforcement is difficult if fishermen claim the catch was made legally in federal waters. This enforcement difficulty prompted the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to request that the minimum count size limit apply to shrimp taken in federal waters and landed in Louisiana. ln December and January small white shrimp are driven by cold fronts from the inshore water to warmer waters offshore. While Louisiana protects these very small shrimp within its territorial waters, the presence of unprotected small shrimp in the EEZ has made Louisiana law ineffective. Shrimp legally taken in federal waters in accord with the Shrimp FMP may be landed regardless of conflicting state regulations. ln 1986 and 1987 Louisiana issued 57 citations for taking undersized shrimp where fishermen were caught in the act of catching them in Louisiana waters. This does not include the instances where enforcement officers encountered undersize shrimp on the dock or on a boat not in the act of fishing. As explained in the FMP, the use of a minimum size limit for shrimp in mixed stocks can be wasteful when it results in culling, i.e., the retention of larger individuals and discard of the smaller, dead individuals. However, a minimum size limit can be effective if it prevents fishing mortality on small shrimp. Small white shrimp occur in schools and would constitute a directed fishery rather than an unwanted bycatch during this period. lt is unlikely that they would be culled and discarded in a fishery directed at larger shrimp. Large shrimp are uncommon inshore in December and January in the areas where the small white shrimp are found. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi have minimum size counts of 47, 68, and 68 respectively, for whole white shrimp taken from their waters. SmaJJer shrimp taken elsewhere may be legaJJy landed in these states. Few small white shrimp occur in federal waters off these states, however. For example, in 1985 of the 1.7 million pounds of white shrimp 100 count or smaller taken in the EEZ all 8 but . a bout 30,000 pounds came from Statistical Areas 12 through 17 (Lou1S1ana). Because these states have size regulations which apply only to shrimp taken in their waters, the possession consistency would apply only to fishermen possessing or Janding shrimp in Louisiana. Texas has no size counts but closes its Gulf waters out co seven fathoms from December 16 through February l to protect these shrimp. This action would permit Louisiana to enforce its minimum 100 count size possession limit at the dock. It would also provide. some flexibility in the federal regulations in the event that the Louisiana Legislature saw fit to change this law next year. Additionally, Louisiana has two exceptions to white shrimp size limit: it does not apply to bait shrimp nor to any shrimp taken during 'the spring season. The other Gulf states' size limit regulations apply only to shrimp taken in their jurisdiction and possession of smaller shrimp taken elsewhere is allowed. However, this alternative would allow the other Gulf states the flexibility to enforce their size limits on all shrimp landed in their jurisdictions if they changed their regulations to do so.~. Fishermen in western Louisiana advise that seabobs, a small species of shrimp, are frequently mixed with small white shrimp resulting in a mixed catch which is difficult to separate. (Seabobs are harvested at an average size of about 120 count and constitute a locally important fishery (Table 2].) Although seabobs are usually a directed fishery with modified trawls, a mix of small white shrimp is not uncommon (Figure 1). Seabobs are usually taken close to shore but may be found in substantial numbers in channels off shore as far as seven miles. By allowing a limited bycatch of undersized white shrimp in a traw 1 fishery fur seabobs, the disruption of the seabob fishery could be reduced or avoided. The implementation of this measure is reserved until Louisiana establishes regulations to provide for such bycatch. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries statistics reveal the issuance of 49,920 shrimp gear licenses in 1987, all of which would have access to the white shrimp fishery. Of these, 8,26.5 licenses were issued to vessels 26 feet or more in length which have the potential to participate in the near shore Gulf fishery for seabobs. Expected Economic Impact: As an example of the economic impact of this measure, in 198.5 there were 1.7 million pounds of white shrimp of 100 count or smaller caught in the EEZ and landed. The value was J.5 to 50 cents per pound or $600,000 to $8.50,000 depending on size. The extent to which this was a directed fishery is not known nor is it known what amount of these shrimp will continue to be caught but discarded. If directed fishing and fishing mortality for these small shrimp is decreased and natural mortality is low, this measure could result in an increased yield per recruit. This would apply not only to EEZ waters but to Louisiana territorial waters as well by more effective enforcement. Approximately two million pounds of white shrimp sma11er than 100 count valued from $700,000 to $1.0 million were landed from Louisiana waters in 198.5. The effect of this 9 proposed action would be to reduce the catch of these smaH shrimp and increase a later catch of larger, more valuable shrimp which survive. The number of fishing craft involved in landing these shrimp is unknown. Whether foregoing the $1.J to $1.85 million worth of shrimp greater than 100 count from state and federal waters will result in a corresponding or greater increase in the catch of larger shrimp later on is unknown but is the presumption. Benefits from the current state regulation would be enhanced since their enforcement would be more effective in protecting the small shrimp in state waters. Summary: The following list itemizes the additional information requested by the Regional Director in his letter of rejection of the previous submission of Shrimp Amendment 4. 1. Landings: Louisiana white shrimp landings 1957-l 986 are shown in Table l; 53 million pounds (headless) were landed in I 986. Th.ere were 12.7 and 4.5 million pounds of seabobs landed in 1986 and 1987 (Table 2). 2. Participants: The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ltcense statistics reveal the issuance of 49,920 shrimp gear licenses in 1987, all of which would have access to the white shrimp fishery. Of these, 8,265 licensed boats 26 feet or more in length have the potential to participate in the near shore fishery for seabobs. 3. Number of Cases Dropped: During the calendar years 1986 and l 987, a total of 57 citations ·were issued for undersized shrimp and over 80 percent of these were either nol pros or no further action was taken. The 57 citations were in instances where the fisherman was actually caught in the act of taking undersized shrimp in Louisiana waters. In other instances where enforcement agents encountered undersized shriniµ on a dock or on a boat that was not engaged in fishing, no citation could be issued and no record of such instances was maintained. 4. Culling Capability: Culling 120 count white shrimp from a mixed catch of seabobs ot the same size would be tedious and labor intensive. Therefore, this action would be implemented after Louisiana establishes a provision for bycatch of small white shrimp in the fishery for seabobs. 5. Financial Impact on Seabob Fishery: If implementation of this action occurs after Louisiana has provided for a bycatch, there would be no impact on the seabob fishery. Over the last five years, the average annual value of the Louisiana seabob fishery is $3.l million (Table 2). 6. Same Information for Other States: Because other Gulf states do not have possession or landing regulations for size of shrimp taken bey,md their jurisdiction, fishermen landing in those states would be unaffected, and enforcement efforts by those states would remain unaffected. 7. Cost Benefits: Yield per. recruit plots on small, overwintering white shrimp simulated by the SEFC indicated an increase in yield at low winter natural mortality rates of 0.07 and 0.03 by postponing fishing until May. If, however, the natural mortality rate is 0.1.5, a better yield is obtained by fishing in January (see 8 below). 10 8. Increase in Catch and Revenue: If the natural mortality rates are low (as they are thought to be) increased yield could be up to t.3 million pounds valued at $1 .1 million. 9. Impact of Deferring Catch: By deferring harvest 3 months, ch~ potential yield to the fisherman would be increased 37 percent in volun1e and 73 percen c in value, which far exceeds any reasonable discount rate. l O. Effect on Operating Practices, Costs, Culling, and Market De111and: Catches of small white shrimp generally occur in December and January ~ hen there are few inshore shrimping opportunities ocher than seabobs. ~ome larger brown shrimp may be taken offshore by larger vessels. An allowable bycatch of small white shrimp would not disrupt the fishery for seabobs. Market demand for small shrimp is being partially met by imports of pond-raised shrimp from China albeit at some unknown cost to domestic fishermen. I l. Effects on Directed Fishing for White Shrimp and Sea'bobs, Financial Situation of Those Affected: Because there are few available shrirup during December and January, small white shrimp constitute the predominance of the shrimp taken during this period. Most vessels are small, owner-operated boats with few other shrimp fishing alternc1tives other than seabobs at this time. However, they would have the opportunity to participate in the deferred and enhanced harvest in May. Rejected Alternative 1: Set a minimum size limit of 100 whole shrimp to the pound for white shrimp taken in the EEZ. Rationale: This option would have· been consistent with Louisiana's law except for the exclusion of shrimp taken for bait or during the spring open season. It would have been inconsistent with the other states; though because the size is smaller, it would not change the current practices there. The effect of a specified count would provide less flexibility in the event a state were to change its law to be incompatible. Expected Economic Impacts: This action would achieve the same results as the preferred option but would provide less flexibility. It could result in additional costs in further amendment to the FMP if Louisiana or other states revised their count laws. Rejected Alternative 2: No action, i.e., no minimum. size limit for white shrimp. Rationale: With no change, the fishery for small white shrimp over I 00 count would continue in the EEZ off Louisiana (legally) and in Louisiana waters (illegally). At-sea enforcement of Louisiana's law is difficult, and the area of capture is almost impossible to prove at the dock. If the catch of 3.7 M of white shrimp over 100 count can be deferred until they return to inshore waters at a larger and more valuable size, substantial gains in yield would be accomplished. Expected Economic Impact: Louisiana would continue to face difficulties in enforcement. Small white shrimp, perhaps up to 3.7 M ($1,295,000 to 11 $1,850,000) would be landed with the claim that they were caught in the 1::1:.Z at some cost to increased, later landings of larger individuals. Rejected Alternative J: Establish a cooperative seasonal closure of ~tat~ crnd federal waters where and when small shrimp are present. Rationale: This action would protect small shrimp by establishing a closure uf inshore waters of the EEZ during some winter period. Larger shrin,µ uf 0th1:::r species would not be available in the.closed area. Louisiana regulatiuns would differ but would be compatible, however. Expected Economic Impact: Evaluating the economic i111pact uf Lhi~ alternative would require a detailed analysis of the underlying biological production factors as well as identification of the number and degree of fishing craft impacted. This has not been done. Since Louisiana officials indicate that Louisiana's regulations are not compatible with this manage111en t approach and are not likely to be changed to become so, it is not necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of-a non-feasible alternative. ~ 12 Figure l Source: NMFS SEFC WHITE SHRIMP - SEABOB ANALYSIS (1) t(ll) LU I-- gm I 3 m (J) 0 700 z :> ml 0 a. 'ill LL a 4(JJ (J) 0 D) z a: aJJ (J) :J 0 Ill) :c . 0 J (J) um w . I-- gJ) I 3 em en 0 700 z :-J em a a. fa) u. 0 GJ CJ) C :m I 2IIJ ,m I: I OFFSHORE AREAS 15 - 17 ~ VHITE C>l0O count> ■ SEABOB M M I 1984 ~ VHITE ()100 count> 10 ■ SEABOB M ~ M M 1986 13 1987 . (J) DI) tD 21"l0 a m am ffi ?l50 (J) (1) amo I 1"l0. z ::> 0 I~ Cl. 1250 11. a l(D) (f) 0 1':jQ a - z 8 SE cc en 2 ato :J 0 0 I I ,, :'• Tab1e 1 Shrimp C.tch (huds•off) in millions of pounds and million.a of dollars ~, ., LouisiarJI S'or;,'1.em ~u. ,,;i/ lrovn !:!hi~I AU ~IZIS~II A~~ S12ec Les X.IK I2Si1 Qll la ~ 2ft Ia ~ ~ ~ ~ 1957 11 7 1958 11 16 1959 17 10 7 17 11 6 36 1960 19 10 9 18 11 7 39 17 uz -, '~ 1961 10 5 s 6 4 z 18 9 55 Z!3 1962 8 3 5 15 8 7 26 14 54 :..z 1963 18 8 10 38 22 16 57 22 110 51 196.lt 10 6 s 31 20 11 41 2l 95 so 1965 19 9 10 23 16 8 43' - 22 116 109 1966 21 l2 9 22 14 8 ,.,. 28 103 74 1967 33 18 16 ll ll 7 Sl 27 130 81 1968 29 ll 16 17 10 7 47 29 114 82 1969 27 ll 16 30 11 12 57 37 118 · 92 1970 32 16 16 31 11 12 "' 41 136 ~ 1971 35 16 19 31 19 l2 66 Sl 134 l~. 1972 34 17 l7 26 11 8 62 60 132 147 1973 23 11 l2 19 14 6 45 58 105 153 1974 23 11 12 19 l2 7 46 ,.. 107 123 1975 19 9 10 l7 ll 5 41 55 100 162 1976 41 21 20 26 19 7 67 122 129 265 1977 50 30 20 32 21 11 15 132 16'6 289 1978 52 3S ll 33 26 7 87 1.54 155 318 1979 41 27 14 22 17 .5 61 195 125 386 1980 21 19 10 32 24 I 61 "5 133 343 1911 41 29 lt 35 24 11 87 111 171 405 t91t 40 19 zz 27 19 8 70 191 130 417 1913 32 13 lt ZI ll I 62 111 120 391 1981t ,.. 19 25 35 24 11 83 195 162 431 1985 47 25 22 43 30 13 95 198 167 406 1916 55 32 23 53 35 17 116 293 193 566 14 '-!eat' T9TI L962 ~96 3 L:164 t965 L966 1967 1968 t969 !.970 L97 L t972 L97 3 !.974 t975 !.976 L977 L978 1979 L980 L98l 1982 !.98 l !.984 l.985 L986 1987 Table 2 Louiqiana Seabob Landingq LandiQS (Headq Oil. lli~ L,463,5:1? t,90L,388 689, s·H 280,764 566,206 4!.4,979 18!.,868 525,823 472,979 L,980,480 267,LJS L,19!.,450 2,202,Sll 3,440,071 3,978,835 734,264 4,955,lJII 1,787,160 5,870,495 9,951,199 6,268,226 l,62l,975 4,727,154 6,448,ll2 6,718,912 12,708,149 4,462,241 15 and Valueq (SOU"C'Ce Dollat" ·1alue 360, 377 126,J~0 61,294 63,317 UJ9,417 101,143 4",840 LJ2,933 92,523 280,068 ]0, 5 l 5 4ll,9l0 t,405,837 l , 4J, ~-, 5 5 5 t,592,227 • 229,452 1,348,674 1,097,244 l, 691, IHHJ 13,422,477 2,751,052 2,051,712 2, 11. 9, 5"6 l 2,441,861 2,512,975 5,139,282' 3,432,801 , ...... t"'.: ., .... - ' ?<~i: ::..· TT. 2s· J, L-: 3. J~ 3. 2 1 L ~':' .J. 2 ➔ 3. 2 l J. 2 J J. 2 J ;J. ~ 4 3. L ~ 3. 3 ~ 3,o-+ J. 4 !. 0. 4 0 0. ]l 0,27 0.29 L6 3 L 35 0.44 0.S7 0. 4 S 0. l'3 J. J3 0, 4 !. 0.77 ACTION 6: ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION Section 8.5.1.4 Measure 7 is revised as follows: Measure 7: The Council recommends that NMFS develop and implement an educational program to inform the shrimp industry of the following: 1. Current status of the sea turtle populations which are identified by the Endangered Species Act on its endangered or threatened list. 2. Known locations in U.S. waters frequented by sea· turtle species described above. J. Proper methods of resuscitation and return to the sea of incidentally captured sea turtles. 4. Shrimp trawling procedures to reduce the catch and mortality of sea turtles. ..:: : ,. Potential penalties for violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Cou,cil also recommends an expansion of the sea turtle head start and research programs under NMFS, where appropriate, with federal and private participation and funding in compliance with ESA, the goal being to remove sea turtles from the endangered or threatened species list. Fmding of this program should be through participation by governmentaJ and shrimp industry entities, domestic or foreign, and any other industries who negatively impact the ability to remove these species from the endangered or threatened species lists as identified by the ESA. Rationale: All of the sea turtles that inhabit the United States Gulf of Mexico are listed either as threatened or endangered and must be protected. The shrimp fishermen, therefore, need to be informed of the necessity of following good conservation practices in relation to this species. NOAA has implemented measures intended to reduce catch and mortality of endangered and threatened sea turtles in the shrimp fishery. This action is taken under the provisions of ESA and would supersede any less restrictive measures which could be implemented under the Magnuson Act. The Council is concerned that factors other than shrimp fishing wiU continue to contribute to the decline of endangered and threatened populations of sea turtles in the Gulf. The above recommendations are intended to enhance action by NOAA and support the shrimp industry in activities to restore sea turtle populations. Expected Economic Impact: A suitable increase in the educational program could cost $100,000 per year. If additional turtle eggs become available from Mexico and if the scientific community endorsed an expansion of the existing head start program, the number of turtles released might be doubled at a public and private cost of about $200,000 per year. Benefits would be in the reestablishment of an endangered species. Rejected Alternative 1: Limit trawl duration to 90 minutes or less on vessels not equipped with TEDs in areas where sea turtles frequently occur. 16 Rationale: NOAA action to require gear modification under ESA supersedes Council authority for less restrictive measures under the Magnuson Act. Expected Economic [mpact: The efficiency of trawl fishing would be reduced by some unknown amount at a cost to the vessel operation. ACTION 7: OBSTRUCTIONS TO SHRIMP TRAWLING Section 8.5.1.7 Measure 10 is revised to read as follows: Measure 10: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will attempt to reduce, where feasible, the loss of offshore trawlable bottom and hazards to trawl vessels by establishing within GMFMC, a committee to monitor and review construction of offshore reefs and surface obstructions, with attention to the needs of the reef fish and shrimp user groups. Rationale: [n the Gulf shrimp fishery, there is a considerable loss of gear and time associated with trawls becoming entangled on artilkial underwater obstructions. The adverse effect of these obstructions m1Jst be minimized in a way consistent with other national interests. Placement of unlighted surface structures creates a hazard to night operation of vessels. This action broadens the Council's interest to advising the appropriate agencies regarding the presence or placement of unmarked or hazardous surface or subsurface obstructions in navigable waters. Expected Economic Impact: Only a slight increase in administrative costs is expected in Council operation with a slight loss in overaJI staff efficiency due to reordering of priorities necessary to cope with the additional workload. Elimination of trawl obstructions and hazards to navigation would enhance vessel efficiency and safety to some unknown degree. V. Environmental Consequences Physical Environment The actions proposed in this amendment have no adverse impact on the physical environment. Fishery Resource and Human Environment The effect of these actions is to simplify and clarify procedures for regulatory amendment of the principal management measures, i.e., the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary and the cooperative seasonal closure off Texas. The establishment of a white shrimp size consistency provides compatibility with Louisiana law and reduces the effect of growth overfishing. Effect on Endangered Species and Marine Mammals NMFS has determined that this action will not have any adverse impact on threatened or endangered species or marine mammals. On October 1, 1987, NOAA 's final regulations became effective which require use of trawling efficiency devices (TEOs) on shrimp trawls in U.S. waters when and where sea . turtles are expected to occur. This action was taken under the ESA which 17 provides more extensive authority than exists under the Magnuson Act for these species. The actions proposed as part of this amendment are compatible with those implemented under ESA and would enhance recovery of the endangered species of sea turtles, if enacted. Effect on Wetlands The proposed ac lion will have no effect on any flood µlain:,, wellands, Lrdils, or rivers. VI. Shrimp Habitat Recognizing that au species are dependent on the quantity and quality of their essential habitats, it is the policy of the Gulf Fishery Management Council to: Protect, restore,. and improve habitats upon which~mmercial and recreational marine fisheries depend, to increase their extent and to improve their productive capacity for the benefit of present and future generations. (For purposes of this policy, habitat is defined to include all those things physical, chemical, and biological that are necessary to the productivity of the species being managed). This policy shall be supported by three policy objectives which are to: (1) Maintain the current quantity and productive capacity ·of habitats supporting important commercial and recreationaJ fisheries, including their food base. (This objective may be accomplished through the recommendation of no loss and minimization of environmental degradation of existing habitat). (2) Restore and rehabilitate the productive capacity of habitats which have already been degraded. • (3) Create and develop productive habitats where increased fishery productivity will benefit society. The Council shall assume an aggressive role in the protection and enhancement of habitats important to marine and anadromous fish. It shall actively enter federal decision-making processes where proposed actions may otherwise compromise the productivity of fishery resources of concern to the Council. The habitat requirements of shrimp and the Council's habitat and protection policy were originally described in Sections 4 . .S and 8 • .5.1.2 of the FMP as revised November, 1981. The weakest link in the life cycle of shrimp is the estuarine phase of growth. Natura! and man-induced alterations of the fragile environment have removed much of the area that would be considered suitable shrimp habitat. Natural wetland losses result from forces such as erosion, sea level rises, subsidence, and accretion. According to Lindall, et al. ( 1979), the major man-induced activities that impact environmental gradients in the estuarine zone are: 18 \ j , I. construction and maintenance of navigation channd:s; 2. discharges from wastewater plants and industries; J. dredge and fill for land use development; 4. agricultural runoff; 5. ditching, draining, or impounding wetlands; 6. oil spills; 7. thermal discharges; 8. mining, particularly for phosphate and petroleum; 9. entrainment and impingement from electric generating stations; 10. dams; • • II. marinas; 12. alteration of freshwater inflows to estuaries; I J. saltwater intrusion; and 14. non-point-source discharges of contaminants. The amount of remaining wetlands suitable for shrir11p productiun in the Gulf of Mexico has not been quantified. However, Alexander, ec al. (1986} estimated that only about 5.2 million acres of salt marsh-;1resh marsh, and swamp wetlands remain. This represents about 46 percent of the wetlands of these types that remain in the conterminous United States. The overall rate of wetland losses similarly is not known since adequate mapping programs and baseline data are not available. However, Alexander, et al. (1986) estimated that for the last 25 years, coastal wetlands have been depleted at an average rate of 20,000 acres per year. This rate may be even higher in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Gagliano (1984) has estimated that natural and man­ induced forces contribute to a yearly land loss, including marsh, of more than 50 square miles per year. Natural wetland losses are difficult to control since often major environmental manipulations are required, for example, rediverting Mississippi River flows over marshes that are deteriorating. Other options relate to mitigation· of wetland losses by restoration, generation, or enhancement of habitat (Lindall, et al., l 979). Mitigation, however, often is not desirable since some of the mitigation technologies are still poorly understood. Wetland creation technology is an emerging science that requires more development before it can be routinely applied (Mager and Thayer, 1986). As technology improves and mitigation options expand, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) will use its authorities to stimulate the incorporation of appropriate mitigation as a management tool when habitat losses cannot otherwise be avoided. Man-induced wetland losses also are difficult to quantify, but can be controlled by state and/or federal regulatory agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, has responsibility to regulate wastewater discharges and the Corps of Engineers (COE) manages a program which regulates physical wetland alterations (dredging, filling, impounding, etc.). The amount of shrimp habitat affected by EPA's program is unknown, but data on the effect of the COE's regulatory program in the Southeast are available (Mager and Hardy, in press). Mager and Keppner (1987) have provided data which show that a sample of 6,354 permit applications and COE projects between 1981 and 1986 proposed the alteration of almost 278,000 acres of wetlands in the Southeast. 19 Mager and Thayer (1986) have analyzed five years of data on the COE'::; program and provided proposed alterations by state, by habitat type, and by the type of alterations involved (Tables 3 and 4). For tht! Gulf States, almost 174,000 acres of wetland losses were proposed by more than 4,000 projects. This provides an indication of the significance of the COE's program and the cumulative effect of wetland losses. Environmental agencies such as the National Marine f i~h~ries Service (NMFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the EPA analyze proiects proposing wetland alterations for potential im~cts to resour ces under their purview. This is similar to the function of the GMFMC's Habi cal Committee. These recommendations are submitted to tht! COE where they are included in a public interest review which determines whether or not a permit would be issued for a given alteration. NMFS data reveal that their recommendations on more than 4,000 projects in the Gulf States would have resulted in the conservation of about 128,000 acres of wetlands and the restoration and generation of more than 109,000 acres of wetlands (Mager and Thayer, 1986). = It is evident that the conservation of shrimp habitat relies heavily on whether the recommendations of agencies such as the NMFS and the GMFMC's Habitat Committee are incorporated into permitting decisions. Mager (in press) surveyed 8.57 projects where permits had been issued by COE Districts in the Southeast to find out if NMFS recommendations had been incorporated by the COE into issued permits. While treatment varied by district, NMFS recommendations were fully accepted .50 percent, partially accepted 24 percent, and rejected 26 -percent of the time. ln terms of habitat, 22,054 acres of wetlands were proposed for alteration by the 857 projects, the NMFS accepted alterations in 9,061 acres, and the COE issued permits to alter 11,617 acres or 2,556 acres more than NMFS had recommended. In view of the above, it is evident that the continued cumulative loss of wetlands should be minimized by giving greater weight to wetland values in the COE public interest reviews. The GMFMC will use its authorities through its Habitat Committee, to support state and federal environmental agencies in their habitat conservation efforts and will directly engage the regulatory agencies on significant actions which affect shrimp habitat. The goal is to insure that shrimp habitat losses are kept to the minimum and that efforts for appropriate mitigation strategies are supported. The quantitative effects of habitat loss and degradation on shrimp production are unknown; however, information is available on the kind of environment necessary for shrimp survival (Idyll, et al., 1967). Turner ( l 977) observed that the yield of shrimp in Louisiana's estuaries is directly related to the acreage of marsh, while that from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico is directly related to the acreage of marsh and submerged grassbeds. He found no relationship between yields and estuarine water surface, average water depth, or volume. His findings concur with the observations of Barrett and Gillespie (1973) that annual brown shrimp production in Louisiana is correlated with the acreage of marsh with water above 10 ppt salinity, but not with acres of estuarine water above 10 ppt salinity. These findings suggest that the brown, white, and pink shrimp yields in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico depend on the survival of the estuarine marshes, and grassbeds in their natural state. These areas not only provide postlarval, juvenile, and subadult shrimp with food dnd 20 protection from predation, but they help to maintain an essential gradient between fresh and salt water. Smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, an emergent intertidal grass, provides important habitat for juvenile brown shrimp (Zimmerman, et al., 1984). Thus, shoreline development which displaces this vegetation affects production. Costello, et al., (1986) found early juvenile pink shrimp in Florida Bay to be most abundant in shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) beds and less abundant in turtle grass (Thalassia testudinium). Shoal grass·grows in an estuarine habitat while turtle grass occurs in higher seawater salinities. Thus, water management which alters salinity patterns could cause displacement of one sea grass by another that is less favorable as a habitat for pink shrimp. There is some evidence that Everglades water management may have contributed to the recent replacement of shoal grass by turtle grass in areas of Florida Bay. 21 ! I .. ­.. .. • .! .. • • ~ .. I .. .. ., :. J ... • 1 -• • .! • .. • .. .. = :a: & • . ... .. ~ ... I, . -•• .. -• ... ... • ~-. .. .. -• .., ... ., • .. ... ....... . ...: ,..., ...: .. ~,.. 0 "" .. -...... ... . ii .. -. . -· ... .. -••• ... .. . .. •i:5~~i~ ,.. .. ,..~. .. .. •-!=S;! .; ....... 4! •• , ... • I 1 .... -: ~ !iii . ... . . . ... -. . . ! • i .., ..... . . . ,: !I= .. ..... . ... 22 ti! ": ·­--­•• . ... .......... !!~i-·· ... ,;. ... • . ... .. ... . ... ... • . • • • ; . ... "' I ... . ... ... i ... ;i . • i . = .. .. ::: i . ... • .. • ... I l ! l , I .. ... "'-'-'• ....... -- 170,0 ~ ---·~ u,., w rill Sua H• Ut,Z m.o 0 0,1 Jl,6 45,7 mu 0.4 1,3",7 0 0 llo,t , .. u .. a7,Z IJ,7 7\,7 J7l,l l,OU,t ... , 11,6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jlo,l i.1., o.a 11.a u, .• llZ,7 ZlU IJ.4 :a,.o :,Jt1., ll. "!l.1 :.::J.1 0 . . ..., 87,7 L71J ... lo57.0 -a., 00,7 1u.1 z.m.o lwia ~ 21%.0 l».O 0,4 l,QH.O ~- -- •• , z,w.o ... ..,u., .... ..,.. "4,t l,IJt,7 U.. l,ZIS,I w =--- IGZ,7 2,D . 4,m.o 7,ltll,t ~ IJ7,5 ... o o.i t,5 • , a •- 11.a ~ 1,7 LOl,5 ~-- 1,,1-6 ... I.JI .. OJ Ul,9 1%,0 OJ ,aJ,6 ),I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1'5.0 0 l.J 0 Z75.7 0 0 0 IO.O 1.s 40 .. , .. IO,t l,l JDJ •• 1 a., ,., "'·' 175,5 111,7 z., OJ 111 .. 0 t.J 0 1.0 O,l .. , 11.0 ,., Sia hLl 0 0 &J 0 Sllo6 J.1,31.J l,llD,S 17J 0 J.t SU& From Mager and Thayer (1986) 23 0 0 1•.J • llO,l • ,;. : ,o,,.o ••o .J. l 0 21.4 •• 7 l.V,,5 Jlt,6 4,/ol7,5 l,lit0.4 ffl,l 0 3',l M . l,W.O U . l,111,7 Z,3'6.0 l,KJ., o • 16,5 m,. 1.-., ,,m.o 1,:.a,. ».a,.z 1,:11., 0 0 161,S ll,t O O,Z LU ~.a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l,J 0 0 0 ) a.o 4J 5D.O U.7 U&,S 11.J 0 "·' LZ.O Lf,4 ~.z .., .. l,7 "·' 0 lo,l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l,l 0 J.J l4S.O 1. JJL.a l,Z 0 271,7 .0 0 0 0 J.a '.ll,7 •. 1 VII. CONCLUSIONS o Mitigating Measures Related to the Proposed Action None o Unavoidable Adverse Effects None o Relationship Between Local, Short-Term Users of the Resource "rnd Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Compatible federal and state white shrimp regulations will better enable Louisiana to enforce its size limit at the dock, thus discouraging the catch of very small, low value shrimp with high potential for gro~th. This action defers harvest until the shrimp can provide a higher but unquantifiable yield. Overall estimated economic impact of preferred alternatives 111ay be summarized as follows: Action I - Problems in the Fishery: No impact. Action 2 - Specific Management Objectives: No impact. Action J - Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary: Small decrease in administrative costs and better economic evaluation of framework criteria resulting in better decisions and probable positive economic impact. Action 4 - Cooperative Seasonal Closure to Shrimping Off Texas: No change in administrative costs but a more thorough economic evaluation in the annual review of the fishery resulting in better decisions and probable positive economic impact. Action 5 - Coordination of state and federal regulations (size for 'Nhite shrimp): Loss of $600,000 to $850,000 in shrimp from the EEZ with some unknown gain in deferred catch of larger individuals. The deferred gain is expected to exceed the loss. A simulation based on 1985 catch data suggests a gain of $1.1 million. Action 6 - Endangered Species Protection: Federal cost of $100,000 per year for educational program and possible public and private cost of $200,000 for expanding head start program if and when feasible. Benefit is possible increase in turtle survival having unknown value to society at large. Action 7 - Obstructions to Shrimp Trawling: Slight cost, possible safety benefits, unquantifiable. 24 o Effect on Small Businesses This action, if promulgated, will not have a significant adverse i111pact 0n a subs can tial number of small entities. The major impact from this proposed action would be on small business entities engaged in harvesting white shrimp off Louisiana. There are approximately 50,000 shrimp gear licenses issued in Louisiana 1..1f which approximately 8,000 are for vessels 26 feet or more in length. The ldtter have the capability of fishing offshore for white shrii-np and seabobs. These vessels are typically owner operated and may be valued from $50,000 tu $500,000. The effect of Action 5 would be to enhance catch in pounds and value by deferring fishing until shrimp are both larger in size and more valuable. All vessels presumably would have the opportunity to participa~e in the enhanced yield and therefore share in the benefits of the action. = By reserving implementation of Action 5 until the State of Louisiana provides for a bycatch of small white shrimp in the seabob fishery, no advers4= 1111pact on this fishery is expected to occur. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Copies of the proposed action were provided to the four Gulf states with coastal management programs. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida found the action to be consistent. No response was received from Alabama. o Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources None o Enforcement Costs 0 The actions proposed in this amendment do not materially alter federal enforcement costs. The compatible size limit for white shrimp should rcdui,;e enforcement costs by the State of Louisiana by providing the opportunity tor dockside enforcement. Vessel Safety The actions do not impose requirement for use of unsafe (or other) gear nor do they direct fishing effort to periods of adverse weather conditions. A seasonaJ opening of productive fishing waters off Texas is an attraction co shrimp trawlers ·and promotes a concentration of vessels along the 400-rnile coast line. The brown shrimp fishery is seasonally productive and normally results in an accumulation of fishing vessels during periods of high yield. 25 Recommendation Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact In view of the analysis presented in this document, I have determined that the proposed action in this amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Gulf Shrimp would not significantly affect the qua Ii ty of the human environrnen t with specific reference to the criteria contained in NDM 02-10 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Accor-dingly, the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed action l!:i nut necessary. Approved: =-....----­ Title Responsible Agencies Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 (813) 228-2815 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee Shrimp Advisory Panel Coastal Zone Management Programs Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Center Date Fisheries Operations Branch - Southeast Regional Office Trade Associations: Texas Shrimp Association Louisiana Shrimp Association Concerned Shrimpers of Louisiana American Shrimp Processors Association Center for Environmental Education 26 ( . j List of Preparers Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Terrance R. Leary, Biologist Paul J. Hooker, Ph.D., Economist National Marine Fisheries Service - Southeast Regional Office Andreas Mager, Jr. Location and Date of Public Hearings July 28 July 29 July 30 August 4 August 5 August 6 Galveston, Texas, Jury Assembly Room, Courthouse Port Arthur, Texas, Justice Court, 525 Lakeshore Driv~ Cameron, Louisiana, Cameron Elementary School Houma, Louisiana, Council Meeting Room, Cour~use Annex Lafitte, Louisiana, Firemen's Hall Biloxi, Mississippi, Assembly Room, Biloxi Cultural Center Literature Cited Alexander, C. E., M.A. Broutman, and D. W. Field. 1986. An inventory uf coastal wetlands of the USA. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini:mation, Washington, D.C. 14 p. Costello, T. J., D. M. Allen, and J. H. Hudson. 1986. Distribution, seasonal abundance, and ecology of juvenile northern pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, in the Florida Bay area. NOAA Technical memorandum NMFS-SEFC-l 61. June, 1986. Gagliano, S. M. 1984. Comments on the socioeconomic and environ111~ntal influences of offshore oil and gas activity on the Louisiana coastal zone. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on the Panama Canal-Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Houma. Klima, Edward F. 1987. Personal communication, NMFS, SEFC, Galveston Laboratory, Galveston, Texas. Idyll, C. P., O. C. Tabb, and B. Yokel. 1967. The value of estuaries to shrimp. p. 83-90. (n J. O. Newsom (ed.) Proceedings of the Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. July 19-20, l 967. Lindall, W. N., Jr., A. Mager, Jr., G. W. Thayer, and D. R. Ekb ... rg. 1979. Estuarine habitat mitigation planning in the southeast, p. 129-135. In G. A. Swanson, techn. coord. The mitigation symposium: A national workshop on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Range Experimental Station General Technical Report RM-65. 27 Mager, Andreas, Jr. In Press. Treatment of National Marine Fisherie~ Sen'ICe rec0rnmendations by the Corps of Engineers in the southeast regiun lif the United States from 1981 through 1985. Proceedings uf Lht 14th Ar1nuc:1l Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. May 14-15, 1987, Tar11pa, Florida. Mager, A., Jr., and G. W. Thayer. 1986. Quantification uf Nau011al Mdrine Fisheries Service habitat conservation efforts in the southeast region 0[ the United States from 1981 through I 985. Marine Fisheries Review. 480): 1-8. Mager, A., Jr., and E. J. Keppner. 1987. National Marine fisheries Service habitat conservation efforts in the coastal southeastern United Stales fur 1986. p. 49-70 ln N. V. Brodtmann, Jr., (ed.) Fourth Water Quality and Wetlands Management Conference. September 24-25, 1987, New Orieans. Mager, A., Jr., and L. H. Hardy. ln Press. Proceedings of the Natiunal Symposium: Mitigation of lmpacts and Losses. October 8-10, I 986, New Or leans, Louisiana. = Zimmerman, R. J., T. J. Minello, and G. Zamora, Jr. 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat and brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, in a Galveston Bay salt marsh. Fish., BuJl. U.S. 81:32.5-336. 28 SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO UNITED STATES WATERS INCLUDES ENVIRONMENT AL ASSESSMENT AND REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW FEBRUARY 1990 GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL LINCOLN CENTER, SUITE 881 5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 813-228-2815 I. Introduction A fishery management plan for the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and was implemented as federal regulation on May 15, 1981. The principal thrust of the plan was to enhance yield in volume and value by deferring harvest of small shrimp to provide for growth. This was achieved by establishing a cooperative Tortugas shrimp sanctuary with the State of Florida to close to shrimp trawling an area where small pink shrimp comprise the majority of the population most of the time. A cooperative 45-day seasonal closure was established with the State of Texas to protect small brown shrimp emigrating from bay nursery areas. An area of Florida Bay was zoned seasonally for either shrimp or stone crab fishing to avoid gear conflict. Amendment No. 1 provided the Regional Director of NMFS with the authority after conferring with the Council to adjust by regulatory amendment the size of the Tortugas sanctuary or extent of the Texas closure or to eliminate either closure for one year. Amendment No. 2 updated catch and economic data iii.Abe FMP, and Amendment No. 3 resolved another shrimp-stone crab gear conflict on the west central Florida coast. Amendment No. 4 identified additional problems which developed in the fishery and revised the objectives of the FMP accordingly. The annual review process for the Tortugas sanctuary was simplified, and the Council and Regional Director review for the Texas closure was extended to February 1st. White shrimp taken in the EEZ were to be landed in accord with a state's size possession regulations to provide consistency and facility of enforcement with the State of Louisiana. This latter action was to have been implemented at such time when Louisiana provided for an incidental catch of undersized white shrimp in the fishery for seabobs. This proposed action was disapproved with the recommendation that it be resubmitted under the expedited 60-day Secretarial review schedule after Louisiana provided for a bycatch of undersized white shrimp in the directed fishery for seabobs. II. Description and Utilization Patterns U.S. commercial landings of Gulf shrimp averaged 255 million pounds (live weight) during the period 1983 to 1987. Landings in 1988 were 226 million pounds down 12 percent from 257 million pounds in 1987. The exvessel value of landings was $414 million. All U.S. shrimp landings for the five-year period 1983-1987 averaged 330 million pounds. Supply cannot meet the demand, and imports have made up the difference. Each year since 1982 imports have set a new record, reaching 504 million pounds in 1988 (NMFS statistics). Gulf shrimp abundance continues to be the result of recruitment, largely controlled by environmental driving forces. In recent years the development of a strong inshore (bay) fishery on juvenile shrimp, whose growth potential has not been reached, has resulted in lower recruitment to the offshore fishery and lessened the potential for increasing yield by deferring harvest in offshore waters. Requirements to modify trawl gear or trawling procedures to protect threatened or endangered species of sea turtles by the Secretary of Commerce under the Endangered Species Act have caused social and economic disruption in the Gulf shrimp fishery. III. Issue To Be Addressed Regulations of some states are inconsistent with FMP regulations. IV. Proposed Action White shrimp taken in the EEZ and transported into Louisiana are to be landed in accord with Louisiana's size possession regulations when possessed within the jurisdiction of that state. PROBLEMS IN THE FISHERY The Council has identified the following problems associated with the fishery and the preserit management regime has prepared the"lfl'an objectives where possible to address and alleviate them. l. Conflict among user groups as to area and size at which shrimp are to be harvested. 2. Discard of shrimp through the wasteful practice of culling. 3. The continuing decline in the quality and quantity of estuarine and associated inland habitats. 4. Conflicts with other fisheries such as the stone crab fishery in southern Florida, the groundfish fishery of the north central Gulf, and the Gulf's reef fish fishery. 5. Incidental capture of sea turtles. 6. Loss of gear and trawling grounds due to man-made obstructions. 7. Partial lack of basic data needed for management. 8. Increasing catch of small shrimp in inshore waters. 9. Pulse fishing resulting from seasonal closure. 1 O. Loss of access to productive shrimp fishing grounds off Mexico. 11. Possible loss of shrimp to Mexico through transboundary migration. 12. Competition in shrimp sizes targeted by management with prevalent sizes produced by foreign mariculture operations. 13. Inconsistency in some state and federal regulations. 2 14. Excessive fishing effort employed in the fishery. 15. Limited enforcement capabilities. SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The following are the specific management objectives of this plan. l. Optimize the yield from shrimp recruited to the fishery. 2. Encourage habitat protection measures to prevent undue loss of shrimp habitat. 3. Coordinate the development of shrimp management measures by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council with the shrimp management programs of the several states, where f~sible. 4. Promote consistency with the Endangered Species Acland the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 5. Minimize the incidental capture of finfish by shrimpers, when appropriate. 6. Minimize conflicts between shrimp and stone crab fishermen. 7. Minimize adverse effects of obstructions to shrimp trawling. 8. Provide for a statistical reporting system. ACTION: COORDINATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Section 8.5. l.3 is revised by adding a new measure 5A as follows: Measure 5A: White shrimp taken in the EEZ will be subject to the minimum size landing and possession limits of the State of Louisiana when possessed within the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. Rationale: The fishery for white shrimp in Louisiana is important, ranging from 22 to 53 million pounds in recent years (Table l). In September 1984, Louisiana established a minimum size of 100 shrimp to the pound which is difficult to enforce at dockside when there are no size limits in the EEZ. Shrimp smaller than 100 count have low value and have not achieved growth potential. Fishing such small shrimp results in growth overfishing. The 1989 shrimp stock assessment conducted by the Galveston Laboratory of the Southeast Fisheries Center stated, in part, in reference to white shrimp: "The average size of landed white shrimp has decreased since 1960. "Growth is temperature dependent. Growth data are sparse for November to February. A dramatic increase in growth of overwintering juveniles occurs with spring warmin g. 3 "Best estimates of natural mortality have ranged from .20-.35 cm on a monthly basis, and the midpoint of 0.275 was selected for use in VPA analysis. Due to a shortage of the necessary data, the estimates for the winter months are poor. "There is growth overfishing in the white shrimp fishery. (Growth overfishing is defined as the condition which exists when the age at entry is less than that which will support maximum yield.)" Yield per recruit analysis recently developed by NMFS SEFC Galveston Laboratory suggests that yield can be enhanced by delay of the harvest of these small white shrimp until May, if natural mortality rates are low. In 1985, there were approximately 2 million pounds of shrimp smaller than Louisiana's minimum count size taken from state waters (Areas 12-17) and another l.7 million pounds taken from adjacent federal waters for a total of 3.7 million pounds. With an average value of $0.43 per pound, the yield would be $1.59 million. If deferred harvest increased yie.ld by 19-37 percent to a larger and more valuable shrimp ($0.85 per pound), the yield would be 4.4-5.0 million pounds at $3.7-4.25 million or an increase of 700 thousand to l.3 million pounds at a value of $595 thousand to $1.l million. Md'frality rates are not exact and recruitment and growth wiU vary depending on environmental conditions. In the example used, a mortality rate of 0.03 was used and the spread of gain is from using different sizes of shrimp at commencement of the model in November. In this simulation, fishermen could have gained up to an additional 1.3 million pounds of shrimp valued at $1.1 million by deferring harvest from January until May. Most of the small white shrimp occur within Louisiana's three-mile territorial waters; however, dockside enforcement is difficult if fishermen claim the catch was made legally in federal waters. This enforcement difficulty prompted the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to request that the minimum count size limit apply to shrimp taken in federal waters and landed in Louisiana. In December and January small white shrimp are driven by cold fronts from the inshore water to warmer waters offshore. While Louisiana protects these very small shrimp within its territorial waters, the presence of unprotected small shrimp in the EEZ has made Louisiana law ineffective. Shrimp legally taken in federal waters in accord with the Shrimp FMP may be landed regardless of conflicting state regulations, In 1986 and 1987 Louisiana issued 57 citations for taking undersized shrimp where fishermen were caught in the act of catching them in Louisiana waters. This does not include the instances where enforcement officers encountered undersize shrimp on the dock or on a boat not in the act of fishing. As explained in the FMP, the use of a minimum size limit for shrimp in mixed stocks can be wasteful when it results in culling, i.e., the retention of larger individuals and discard of the smaller, dead individuals. However, a minimum size limit can be effective if it prevents fishing mortality on small shrimp. Small white shrimp occur in schools and would constitute a directed fishery rather than an unwanted bycatch during this period. It is unlikely that they would be culled and discarded in a fishery directed at larger shrimp. Large shrimp are uncommon inshore in December and January in the areas where the. small white shrimp are found. 4 This proposed action will have no effect on the other four Gulf states. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi have minimum size counts of 47, 68, and 68 respectively, for whole white shrimp taken from their waters. Texas has no size counts but closes its Gulf waters out to seven fathoms from December 16 through February l to protect these shrimp. Smaller shrimp taken elsewhere may be legally landed in these states. Few small white shrimp occur in federal waters off these states, however. For example, in 1985 of the 1.7 million pounds of white shrimp 100 count or smaller taken in the EEZ all but about 30,000 pounds came from Statistical Areas 12 through 17 (Louisiana). This action would permit Louisiana to enforce its minimum 100 count size possession limit at the dock. Louisiana has two exceptions to white shrimp size limit: it does not apply to bait shrimp nor to any shrimp taken during the spring season. The other Gulf states' size limit regulations apply only to shrimp taken in their jurisdiction and possession of smaller shrimp taken elsewhere is allowed. Seabobs, a small species of schooling shrimp, may be mixed with small white shrimp resulting in a mixed catch which is difficult to separate. (Seabobs are harvested at an average size of about 120 count and constitute a locally important fishery [Table 2].) Although seabobs are usually a directed fishery with modified trawls, a mix of small white shrimp is not uncommon. Seabob-s are usually taken close to shore but may be found in substantial numbers in channels off shore as far as seven miles. Because of the possible disruption of the directed fishery for seabobs, the Council requested on submission of Amendment 4 that implementation of the white shrimp size compatibility with Louisiana be implemented at such time as that state made provision for an allowable bycatch of undersized white shrimp in the seabob fishery, NMFS went a step further and rejected this measure pending the action by Louisiana, suggested the size apply only to Louisiana shrimp, and requested additional data. At the recommendation of the Council, the Louisiana Legislature in 1989 passed a bill which allows a bycatch of up to ten percent in a directed seabob fishery (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4), Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries statistics reveal the issuance of 49,920 shrimp gear licenses in 1987, all of which would have access to the white shrimp fishery. Of these, 8,265 licenses were issued to vessels 26 feet or more in length which have the potential to participate in the near shore Gulf fishery for sea bobs. Expected Economic Impact: As an example of the economic impact of this measure, in 1985 there were 1.7 million pounds of white shrimp of 100 count or smaller caught in the EEZ and landed. The value was 35 to 50 cents per pound or $600,000 to $850,000 depending on size. The extent to which this was a directed fishery is not known nor is it known what amount of these shrimp will continue to be caught but discarded. 5 If directed fishing and fishing mortality for these small shrimp is decreased and natural mortality is low, this measure could result in an increased yield per recruit. This would apply not only to EEZ waters but to Louisiana territorial waters as well by more effective enforcement. Approximately two million pounds of white shrimp smaller than 100 count valued from $700,000 to $1.0 million were landed from Louisiana waters in 1985. The effect of this proposed action would be to reduce the catch of these small shrimp and increase a later catch of larger, more valuable shrimp which survive. Specific bycatch rates of small white shrimp in the seabob fishery are not available, but the American Shrimp Processors Association (formerly American Shrimp Canners and Processors Association) concurs with the 10 percent limit, based on the seabob harvest processed by its member facilities. Therefore, the Council concludes that this action will not have a negative economic impact on participants in the seabob fishery (Exhibit 5). The number of fishing craft involved in landing these shrimp is unknown. Whether foregoing the $1.3 to $1.85 million worth of shrimp greater than 100 count from state and federal waters will result in a corresporuiing or greater increase in the catch of larger shrimp later on is unknown but is the presumption. Benefits from the current state regulation would be enhanced since their enforcement would be more effective in protecting the small shrimp in state waters. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has provided this additional information on economics of the white shrimp fishery and relative importance of the white shrimp and seabob fisheires to Louisiana, information on the size distribution of white shrimp in Louisiana offshore waters and the adjacent EEZ and these numbers have not changed significantly from those in the earlier submission of this amendment, although there are year to year fluctuations. The shrimp fishery is Louisiana's most valuable fishery and Louisiana contributes significantly to the Gulf Shrimp Fishery shrimp having in excess of 50 percent of the total Gulf landings; white shrimp are a major component" of Louisiana's shrimp fishery. While white shrimp are landed in Louisiana year round, peak production occurs during late September through early January with a smaller secondary peak occurring during May and early June. Between 1980 and 1986, Louisiana's white shrimp landings ranged from 32 million to 53 million pounds, making up about 44 percent of Louisiana's total shrimp landings. Seabobs are also a component of the Louisiana Shrimp Fishery, however they are of minor importance when compared to brown and white shrimp. Seabob landings from 1980 to 1986 ranged from 3.6 million pounds to 12.4 million pounds or about 3.5 percent of Louisiana's total shrimp landings. From a value prospective, white shrimp make up more than 50 percent of the total value of Louisiana's shrimp crop while seabobs contributed about two percent from 1980 to 1986. Summary: The following list itemizes the additional information requested by the Regional Director in his letters of rejection of the previous submissions of Shrimp Amendment 4. l. Landings: Louisiana white shrimp landings 1978-1988 are shown in Exhibit 1; 53 million pounds (headless) were landed in 1986. There were 12.7, 4.5, and 3.1 million pounds of seabobs landed 1986, 1987, and 1988 (Exhibit 2). 6 which would have access to the white shrimp fishery. Of these, 8,265 licensed boats 26 feet or more in length have the potential to participate in the near shore fishery for seabobs. 3. Number of Cases Dropped: During the calendar years 1986 and 1987, a total of 57 citations were issued for undersized shrimp and over 80 percent of these were either nol pros or no further action was taken. The 57 citations were in instances where the fisherman was actually caught in the act of taking undersized shrimp in Louisiana waters. In other instances where enforcement agents encountered undersized shrimp on a dock or on a boat that was not engaged in fishing, no citation could be issued and no record of such instances was maintained. 4. Culling Capability: Culling 120 count white shrimp from a mixed catch of seabobs of the same size would be tedious and labor intensive. Therefore, this action is implemented after Louisiana established a provision for 10 percent allowable bycatch of small white shrimp in the directed fishery for seabobs. 5. Financial Impact on Seabob Fishery: Because implementation of this action occurs after Louisiana has provided for a bycatch, there is to be no impact on the seabob fishery. Over five recent years, the average annual value of the Louisiana seabob fishery is $3.2 million (Exhibit 2). 6, At the recommendation of NMFS, this action is to apply only to Louisiana whose law (Exhibit 4) has specified a minimum count size of 100 shrimp to the pound except (a) during the spring open season as specified by Louisiana regulations, (b) when taken under permit for bait as prescribed by Louisiana regulations, or (c) when taken as bycatch not to exceed ten percent in a directed fishery for seabobs, the directed fishery being defined as- one in which more than 50 percent of the catch by weight is seabobs. 7. Cost Benefits: Yield per recruit plots on small, overwintering white shrimp simulated by the SEFC indicated an increase in yield at low winter natural mortality rates of 0.07 and 0.03 by postponing fishing until May. If, however, the natural mortality rate is 0.15, a better yield is obtained by fishing in January (see 8 below). Because enforcement can be accomplished dockside, costs to the state will be decreased considerably. 8. Increase in Catch and Revenue: If the natural mortality rates are low (as they are thought to be) increased yield could be up to 1.3 million pounds valued at $1.1 million. A short term loss of $600,000 to $850,000 could be replaced by the longer term gain of $1.l million. 9. Impact of Deferring Catch: By deferring harvest 3 months, the potential yield to the fisherman would be increased 37 percent in volume and 73 percent in value, which far exceeds any reasonable discount rate. • 1 O. Effect on Operating Practices, Costs, Culling, and Market Demand: Catches of small white shrimp generally occur in December and January when there are few inshore shrimping opportunities other than seabobs. Some larger brown shrimp may be taken farther offshore by larger vessels. An allowable bycatch of small white shrimp will not disrupt the 7 fishery for seabobs. Market demand for small shrimp is being partially met by imports of pond-raised shrimp from China albeit at some unknown cost to domestic fishermen. Shrimp processors have endorsed the action. 11. Effects on Directed Fishing for White Shrimp and Seabobs, Financial Situation of Those Affected: Because there are few available shrimp during December and January, small white shrimp constitute the predominance of the shrimp taken during this period. Most vessels are small, owner-operated boats with few other shrimp fishing alternatives other than seabobs at this time. However, they would have the opportunity to participate in the deferred and enhanced harvest of white shrimp in May. 12. Costs of culling small white shrimp from larger white shrimp in the fall season in Louisiana waters when count applies, is not known. The requirement already exists under Louisiana law but is unenforceable because of current inconsistency of federal regulations in the EEZ. Rejected Alternative 1: Set a minimum size limit of 100 whot-e=shrimp to the pound for white shrimp taken in the EEZ. Rationale: This option would have been consistent with Louisiana's law except for the exclusion of shrimp taken for bait or during the spring open season. It would have been inconsistent with the other states; though because the size is smaller, it would not change the current practices there. The effect of a specified count would provide less flexibility in the event a state were to change its law to be incompatible. Expected Economic Impacts: This action would achieve the same results as the preferred option but would provide less flexibility. It could result in additional costs in further amendment to the FMP if Louisiana or other states revised their count laws. Rejected Alternative 2: No action, i.e., no mm1mum size limit for white shrimp. Rationale: With no change, the fishery for small white shrimp over l 00 count would continue in the EEZ off Louisiana (legally) and in Louisiana waters (illegally). At-sea enforcement of Louisiana's law is difficult, and the area of capture is almost impossible to prove at the dock. If the catch of 3.7 M of white shrimp over 100 count can be deferred until they return to inshore waters at a larger and more valuable size, substantial gains in yield would be accomplished. Expected Economic Impact: Louisiana would continue to face difficulties in enforcement. Small white shrimp, perhaps up to 3.7 M ($1,295,000 to $1,850,000) would be landed with the claim that they were caught in the EEZ at some cost to increased, later landings of larger individuals. Rejected Alternative 3: Establish a cooperative seasonal closure of state and federal waters where and when small shrimp are present. Rationale: This action would protect small shrimp by establishing a closure of inshore waters of the EEZ during some winter period. Larger shrimp of other 8 species would not be available in the closed area. Louisiana regulations would differ but would be compatible, however. The seabob fishery during this period would be lost. Expected Economic Impact: Evaluating the economic impact of this alternative would require a detailed analysis of the underlying biological production factors as well as identification of the number and degree of fishing craft impacted. This has not been done. Since Louisiana officials indicate that Louisiana's regulations are not compatible with this management approach and are not likely to be changed to become so, it is not necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of a non-feasible alternative. Rejected Alternative 4: White shrimp taken in the EEZ and transported into a respective state shall be in accordance with that state's landing and possession laws with respect to size. Rationale: The regulation would apply uniformly throughout the Gulf EEZ and would enhance the landing laws of all five states, if applicable. Since no other Gulf state has possession laws applicable to shrimp taKe.B.- beyond its jurisdiction, the proposed action would apply only in Louisiana waters. NMFS considers this to be open-ended with respect to these states and recommends that the proposed rule be specific to Louisiana. Expected Economic Impact: Same as the preferred alternative. VII. CONCLUSIONS o Mitigating Measures Related to the Proposed Action None o Unavoidable Adverse Effects None o Relationship Between Local, Short-Term Users of the Resource and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Compatible federal and state white shrimp regulations will better enable Louisiana to enforce its size limit at the dock, thus discouraging the catch of very small, low value shrimp with high potential for growth. This action defers harvest until the shrimp can provide a higher but unquantifiable yield. Estimated economic impact of the preferred alternative • may be summarized as follows: Coordination of state and federal regulations (size for white shrimp): Loss of $600,000 to $850,000 in shrimp from the EEZ with some unknown gain in deferred catch of larger individuals. The deferred gain is expected to exceed the loss. A simulation based on 1985 catch data suggests a gain of $ l. l million. 9 o Ef feet on Small Businesses This action, if promulgated, will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major impact from this proposed action would be on small business entities engaged in harvesting white shrimp off Louisiana. There are approximately 50,000 shrimp gear licenses issued in Louisiana of which approximately 8,000 are for vessels 26 feet or more in length. The latter have the capability of fishing offshore for white shrimp and seabobs. These vessels are typically owner operated and may be valued from $50,000 to $500,000. The effect of the action would be to enhance catch in pounds and value by deferring fishing until shrimp are both larger in size and more valuable. All vessels presumably would have the opportunity to participate in the enhanced yield and therefore share in the benefits of the action. By implementating the action after the State of LouisiamPprovided for a bycatch of small white shrimp in the seabob fishery, no adverse impact on this fishery is expected to occur. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Copies of the proposed action were provided to Louisiana which found the action to be consistent. No other state will be affected. o Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources None o Enforcement Costs 0 The actions proposed in this amendment do not materially alter federal enforcement costs. The compatible size limit for white shrimp should reduce enforcement costs by the State of Louisiana by providing the opportunity for dockside enforcement. Vessel Safety The actions do not impose requirement for use of unsafe (or other) gear nor do they direct fishing effort to periods of adverse weather conditions. Recommendation Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact In view of the analysis presented in this document, I have determined that the proposed action in this amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Gulf Shrimp would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment with specific reference to the criteria contained in NDM 02 10 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, the preparation of .a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed action is not necessary. 10 Approved: """""'"" Title Responsible Agencies Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 540 l West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 813-228-2815 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee Shrimp Advisory Panel Coastal Zone Management Programs Louisiana National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Center Date Fisheries Operations Branch - Southeast Regional Office Trade Associations: Texas Shrimp Association Louisiana Shrimp Association Concerned Shrimpers of Louisiana American Shrimp Processors Association Center for Environmental Education Southeastern Fisheries Association List of Preparers Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Terrance R. Leary, Biologist Paul J. Hooker, Ph.D., Economist Antonio B. Lamberte, Ph.D., Economist Location and Date of Public Hearings July 28, 1988 Galveston, TX, Jury Assembly Room, Courthouse July 29, 1988 Port Arthur, TX, Justice Court, 525 Lakeshore Drive July 30, 1988 Cameron, LA, Cameron Elementary School August 4, 1988 Houma, LA, Council Meeting Room, Courthouse Annex August 5, 1988 Lafitte, LA, Firemen's Hall August 6, 1988 Biloxi, MA, Assembly Room, Biloxi Cultural Center September 14, 1989 'New Orleans, LA, Crowne Plaza Holiday Inn 11 EXHIBIT l Louisiana Catch of White Shrimp (Source NMFS Statistics) (Millions of Pounds) Year Total Offshore Inshore 1978 33 26 7 1979 22 17 5 1980 32 24 8 1981 35 24 11 ~ 1982 27 19 8 1983 26 18 8 1984 35 24 11 1985 43 30 13 1986 53 35 17 1987 40 26 14 1988 34 20 14 A-I Year 1978 1979 1980 1981 I 982 1983 1984 I 985 1986 1987 1988 EXHIBIT 2 Louisiana Seabob Landings and Values Whole Weight in Millions of Pounds and Millions of Dollars (Source NMFS Statistics) Weight Value 3.8 1.1 5.9 3.7 10.0 13.4 6.3 2.8 3.6 "CL~! 4.7 2.1 6.5 2.4 6.7 2.5 12.7 5.1 4.5 3.4 3.1 2.5 A-2 ,1,-g,,.,... • 11,J,< S.C:><.. SIC"'l'".,. Exh i bi c 3 ;State af 11:ouisiana OEPAATa.4ENT Cf/ 'MI.OUFE ANr ~IS~E~IE5 "OST ~Cl 101 BATON ROUGE. I-' 70UI July ll, 1989 Mr. William o. Chauvin, Chairman Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council c-.- 3401 w. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 Dear Bill: c..~ C.•~ 11 .... JUL .. - - 1 ,. 1.- ... ,..,.;* - ...,~34 For the past several years, touisiana has been working with t~e Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Councill a.nd -:::e National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) in an effort to ;e1: a minimum size count on white shrimp taken in the Excli.;.si·:e Economic Zone (EEZ) to aid Louisiana in enforcement of i:s similar regulation. While the Council acted favorably on r..ouisiana' s request, the NMFS rejected the minimum white shri:r1p count provision of Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery. In a December 5, 1988 letter you said the reason given by NMFS for rejecting the white shrimp measure in Amendment 4 was that the measure would create an open­ ended deferral to changes in state size count laws that would not be reviewable for conformance with the FMP. You also said that the NMFS suggested that the Council might wish to reconsider and resubmit the white shrimp count portion of the amendment after Louisiana developed a provision for bycatch of small white shrimp in the seabob fishery. The 1988 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature considered a bill to allow up to a 10\ undersized white shrimp catch in a directed seabob fishery. This bill has now been passed by both Houses of the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Louisiana is now requesting the Council resubmit the white shrimp measure of Amendment 4 to NMFS for their consideration. A-3 ~=- ~L~:~am D. Chauvin ? a;-: .,;,J:.:/ ~ ~, ~ 389 '/VS :mah Sincerely, u u.) L ltu.., /)cw.. ~ ~ Virginia Van Sickle, Secretary cc: La. Wildlife and Fisheries Commissio~ Mr. Jerry ClarJc Mr. Williams. "Corky" Perret Mr. Philip Bowman Shrimp Task Force A-4 Exh i bi t 4 0QC•ijAl!f • "114;1 ••., ;er S••••~n. '099 .. cul II~~ NO, 1491 ,, •1~•rsr11r•r1vr ~•rr1 All ACT r, tll'll"G •l'ld reenact•·•• 56;498 re11tlvt to anr'"'SI, to provide •or ·, 1i,,f tttlCll'II Cll'I tnri~ taltffl or i,o1se11aa, ,na co proyfdf for rtltttd rlllltt•r•. It it tr1eted oy t~t ~19f1l1tur1 of LO\oflltne; itct•on I. I.S, 56:491 ii nereay ~ enG rtentcttcl to rttd H foll QWII ~oe. Siu limit a. 01.1rlnt tne 1pr1,,. Ot:191" .. ,. .. O.fl~ in •.s. 56:491(1>, !litre tlllll Cle no llalteclon •• to co.a'lt on any telt••t•r 111r1,. c11te,n or held in PIK••••fon, •• , ... ,:IOtleHfO,, COIIIC °" •.• ,, .. ur liflitt ,.,,.,,,. llltll 1v1r, .. l'IO mor• ,,..,. one lllol'drN 1pac ,...,,,. to tllt po.,.rd. Sucl'I count 111all IIIPlY to tne tali,,. er .,..,,aaion of 1uc11 111r,,. eooere • vaa1tl or 1c th• deck or to cna PQelffllCllft ,, •• anrt-.. Wf'len 1110re tl'IM fifty percent of th• catch ir, .. ,the ia ... DOM, than I-··- IH0 .. 011 l:ly•cuel'I of wno.t'liHd ljflltt ... ,.,. tlllll be pert11IUtd In an --.nc not to ••cNd CM perce,nt 1:1y wetgnc of en• total catch. c. TIie rncrtctlon 11 ,o CO\llt IW'Ovfclltd ,,, •·•· S6:4tl<I> 111111 P'IOC 1ppty to "lff =oo." (Xfl,ll'lopenewa liroyeri>, 1110 ~litd "111 aarDel", i.ftfcn 111ey De tnon or totel tl'lr0&4fl cOla9rcf1~l cn.,.,..11 !ft tiff 1e1t0f'I only,,, OYCtl- .,cer1. There.,,.,, IN no 1IH 111111 .,, Ille 111r,,. tallon In u1, IIIIIIV'er ,:>reacrf~ In I.I. 96:4'7(1), lect10ft z. n,ta Act 111111 Decca. •""tlve w,o,, ,,,,,.,.,.... Cly cne 1overnor or, If MC lllf'ltCII Dy tllt tovel"nlf', w,o,, eapfr1tflfl of tne tfllW for 9llll co IMCClllle I•• .i1howt 1i1n1Cl,j/'f Dy the ...... rMr, •• proviellt ,,, Article Ill, lffCIOf'I ,. of ,~. COf'IICICwCiOl'I of Lo..,htlf\l, PllSIOIMT o, flll IINATI GO'-lllllCII OP THI STAT! o, LCl.lllfAIA IN12 Hl1497 DAfl 06/20/19 fll'II 1S:27rS4 IILL IY PATTI flSMlNG/Sllli,W, / Ll"ITS SALTWATII S..alNP TACIM 01 ,OSIIIIIO 17 06108119 11 lnrolllG/111Nd • NwM a,t·l.,,.t1 ,, .. , caaan co Gov ,., .... .,..ev,l •N" 6' 16 C6J07t59 " 1ec1iwed fr• SeNrt wtcnowc ... ...,,ta •NJ 4J ,, 06101159 S ltld; ·pe11N; ,,,,. ldlltCld; ltnt co HOU&e D, voct: ,, •• 03' •• ,, 000 .,., 17 14 05/]0/at S •-.orud "'°"'' LIi lwrll\l tll'IINl(I); reed; INIIICI co Jrd r11dl1'11 ·SJ S 13 05/Z9/lf S •..-arcee f1voraly; •11: reed I referred co LIi lwrll\l ·I.I 4t tl 0,,z,, .. I lece,vld In Sen;l/l;reld tac I ZrO ti• ay clcle;referr• to IIA Tl.laA4 IIICIUICI I • SJ 44 11 05/24119 11 ·•-: lllllnded: paaaad; c I ue ldoptlG; Hf'lt ,. s.neu Cly IIOtl of TIAI OM NATI 001 •11,1 JI 10 0St21o/19 II NOWI. floor ... •1nt1 ldopted ·N,1 la 09 0,,2-,1• N CtllOCI ,, t~• c1t11'41r •HJ JI OI 05/ZZ/lt M •••I recwr, co c1,.,..r ••Jecc co call •NJ ZS 07 0S/Z1/lt H leN 1¥ title; 1/1; ICClon Cleftrrtd ·NJ 27 06 05/11/19 N •1ec1; .,,.rff&N; INHld to Jrd rtldl"f • r1twlar c1lend1r •NJ 21 05 os,17119 N leporctd f1vor1ely C1J•O> c•> •NJ 6"' A-5 ' ,. ' - - . . .... Exhibit 5 ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ r;l~(!)~~~~~ ~~~©~~~11~©~ (Formerly: American Shrimp C1nn1r1 end Proceuon Associat,onl P. 0. Box 50774. New Orleans, LA 70150 • Phone 504-368-16?1 1\~~~ ,iv December l4, 1989 Mr. Jerry Clarke Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Piaheries P.O. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898•9000 Dear Jerry: We are writing thi ■ letter to express our aupport for Amendment 4 0£ th• shrimp fishery management plan. Specifically, wear• in agreement that the count aise limitation proposed in this amendment for white shrimp will be beneficial to our industry for the reasons given in the rationale of the amendment, particularly that of aaaisting the state of Louisiana with its enforcement of the state count laws. Purther, we agree that the ten percent by-catch provision for the seabob directed fishery that was adopted by tne Louisiana legisla~ure, which allows up to ten percent incidental catch while fishing for aeabobs, ia appropriate, conaidering our experience with the seabot> harveat processed by our member facilitiea. If I can be of any &!aist.ance in furthering paaaage of this amendment, please call on me. WDC/pmm Sincerely, William o. Chauvin Executive Director A-6