Amendment No. 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

7/2/02 AMENDMENT NUMBER 10 TO FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, U.S. WATERS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW ~ INITIAL REGULA TORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS t.. ~. AND SOCIAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT JULY 2002 ~~(~~ GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL THE COMMONS AT RIVERGATE 3018 U.S. HIGHWAY 301 NORTH, SUITE 1000 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33619-2266 813-228-2815 FAX: 813-225-7015 e-mail: gulfcouncil~gulfcouncil.org This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration A ward and NAI7FC2203. ~ ,--' AP BCR BRD CPUE CZMA EEZ EFH EIS ESA FEIS FMP GMFMC HAPC IRFA MMS MP M-SFCMA MSY NEPA NM2 NPV NMFS NMSA RA RFA RIR SEAMAP ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT Shrimp Advisory Panel Benefit/Cost Ratio Bycatch Reduction Device Catch Per Unit Effort Coastal Zone Management Act Exclusive Economic Zone Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement Endangered Species Act Final Environmental Impact Statement ~ ,.:.. Fishery Management Plan Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Habitat Areas of Paricular Concern Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Mineral Management Service Milion Pound Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act Maximum Sustainable Yield National Environmental Policy Act Square Nautical Miles Net Present Value National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Sanctuaries Act Regional Administrator ofNMFS Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Regulatory Impact Review Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program 1 ~. SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center ofNMFS SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SLF Shrimp Landings File SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SSAP Shrimp Stock Assessment Panel SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee TAC Total Allowable Catch T ALFF Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing TED Turtle Excluder Device USCG United States Coast Guard YPR Yield Per Recruit ~ 1..' 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " i 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1 2.0 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 Seasonal Closures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~y��6.3.3 Proposed Alternative - Require the installation ofNMFS-certified BRDs that meet or exceed the bycatch reduction criteria established by the Council in each net used aboard vessels trawling for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ east of Cape San BIas, Florida (85°30' W. Longitude). Exempted are vessels trawling for royal red shrimp beyond the 100- fathom contour and vessels trawling for groundfish or butterfish. A single try net with a headrope length of 16 feet or less per vessel and no more than two rigid-frame roller trawls limited to 16 feet or less, such as those used in the Big Bend area of Florida are also exempted. Bycatch reduction criteria shall be as follows: .............................................. 32 Option a. BRDs must reduce the bycatch of finfish by at least 30% by weight ...................................................32 Rejected Option b. BRDs must reduce the bycatch of fmitsh (by number or weight) by at least 20% or (30%,40%, or 50%) .......32 Rejected Option c. BRDs must reduce the bycatch of all species (by number or weight) by at least 20% or (30%, 40%, or 50%) .......32 Rejected Option d. No bycatch reduction criteria are specified. . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.3.4 Rejected Alternative - Require the use ofBRDs as specified in Sections 6.3.1 or 6.3.2 above, only in areas of the EEZ north of 26° N. Latitude (the dividing line between Statistical Subareas 3 and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.3.5 Rejected Alternative - Require the use of BRDs as specified in Sections 6.3.3 above, only in areas of the EEZ north of 26° N. Latitude (the dividing line between Statistical Subareas 3 and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33...-6.4 Rejected Alternative - Status Quo - do not implement furher bvcatch reduction requirements on the west coast of Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48