Amendment No. 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico

AMENDMENT 3 TO THE REEF FISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE REEF FISH RESOURCES OF THE GULF OF MEXICO (Includes Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Proposed Rule) FEBRUARY 1991 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Linèoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 813-228-2815 Financial assistance for producing this amendment was provided by grant funds from the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under Public Law 94-265, the Magnuson Conservation and Management Act. ! / HISTORY OF MAAGEMENT (\ The Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan was implemented in November 1984. The implementing regulations, designed to rebuild decliing reef. fih stocks, included: (1) prohibitions on the use of fish traps, roller trawls, and powerhead equipped spear guns withi an ins~ore stressed area; (2) a minum size liit of 13 inches total length for red snapper; and (3) data reporting requirements. The Council in 1990, through Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, implemented for red snapper a 7 fish receational bag liit and a 3.1 milon pound commercial quota. Together these measures were expected to reduce fishing mortality by 20 percent and begi rebuilding the population. However, analyses available to the Council during development of Amendment 1 indicated that additional red snapper harvest restrictions would be necessary in the future to achieve the 20 percent SPR goal. by the year 2000. The Council alo implemented a framework procedure (descibed in Secion 4) for makig annual management changes through a reguatory amendment accmpanied by a regulatory impact review and environmental assessment. r \' At the direction of the Council the Reef Fish Scientifc Assessment Panel met in March and reviewed the 1990 NMFS Red Snapper Stock Asessment. The new assessment was based on recent findings that juvenile red snapper remain vulnerable to shrimp trawls for their first two years of lleinstead of just one year, as Was previously assumed. The recommendation of the panel at that time was to close the directed fishery beuse the acceptable biologica catch (ABC) was being harvested as bycatch of the shrimp trawl fishery. At the April. Reef Fish Management Committee meeting it was recommended to the Council that, in conjunction with NMFS, a.serres of scientifc meetings be held to review more thoroughy available data. Based on . the results of the industry and scientific reviews plus public comment from 13 public hearings, the Council submitted a reguatory amendment to NMS on October 15, 1990, proposing a 2.57 mion pound quota, and a 6-fih per person daily receational bag liit for red snapper, including a 50-percent reduction in shrimp trawl bycatch of juvenile red snapper by 1993, as the first such change proposed under the Amendment 1 framework procedure. On November 1, 1990, National Marine Fisheries Service notified the Council it was holding the proposed action in abeyance until its recommendation could berecnsideredjn light of recent amendments to the Magnuson Act and new information on potentia errors in hitorica red snapper landings. The Council at its meeting in Novembbr 1990, modifed its previous proposal and resubmitted the regulatory amendment to NMFS on December 3, 1990, with recmmendations for implementing a 2.0 mion pound commercial quota, a 2-fihreceationalbagliit for the 1991 fishing year, and a 50-percent reduction in shrimp trawl bycatchof juvenÎe red snapper by 1994. On January 3, 1990, NMS again notifed the Council it was not proceeding with implementation of the regulatory amendment until addltional analyses could be further addressed pertaining to 1) alternative ways to reduce shrimp trawler bycatch of red snapper without violating recent amendments to the Magnuson Act; 2) geographica aloctions of the recreational bag liit that consider past fihig practices and catches; 3) diferential bag liits for värioussectors of the rèceational fishery; 4) seasonal closures of segments of the red snapper recreational fishery that might enable bag liits to increase during specifc periods without exceeding anticipated harvest levels; 5) changes in size liits (including no size liit) that might lead to increased bag liits and quotas; and 6) deductions from the direced commercia landing quota to offset incidental fishing mortalty after the commercial quota has been reached. , 1 The Council intends to address the above items at its March 1991 meeting and to re-evaluate its previous recommendations for 1991 allocations. In addition, upon petition from representatives of the Florida grouper fishery at the November 1990 Council meeting the Council requested on November 16, 1990, that the Secretary of Commerce implement an emergency rule to transfer speckled hind from the sha1ow~water grouper to the deep water grouper complex, allowing the retention and landing of speckled hind for the remainder of the fishing year. The emergency action was implemented on December 12, 1990. 2. MAAGEMENT OBJECTIVE AN OPTIMUM YIELD The primary objective and definition of Optimum Yield for the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan is to stabile long term population levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least 20 percent spawning potential ratio. Definition of Overfishing The following is the definition of overfishing contained in the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). 1. A reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished when it is below the level of 20 percent SPR. 2. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished, overfishing is defined as harvesting at a rate that is not consistent with a program that has been established to rebuild the stock or stock complex to the 20 percent SPR leveL. 3. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is not overfished, overfishing is defined as a harvesting rate that if continued would lead to a state of the stock or stock complex that would not at least allow a harvest of optimum yield on a continuing basis (SPR). 3. PROBLEMS REOUIRING PLAN AMENDMENT The target date of January 1, 2000, established by Amendment 1. to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan for achieving 20 percent SPR is unattainable for red snapper. Consequently, the Council has proposed to modif the current target date to the year 2007 to rebuild the red snapper stock to optimum yield without closing the directed fishery. The speckled hind (Kitty Mitchell) is a deep-water grouper species that was classified as a shallow water species in Amendment 1. With closure of the shallow-water grouper fishery, significant quantities of speckled hind are being wasted because they are dead or moribund upon capture but cannot be landed. Consequently, the Council proposes to reclassif speckled hind as a deep-water grouper for quota monitoring purposes to prevent future reoccurrences of this loss. 2 4. REEF FISH FRAMEWORK PROCEDURE AS SPECIFIED IN THE FMP Optimum Yield (OY) can be achieved with annual total allowable catch (TAC) specifications for each species or species group. The Council has established a framework procedure where, on an annual basis, a scientific working group wil establish an ABC range and the Council wil set a TAC and prescribe fishing restrictions annually to attain the management goal of OY for implementation by the Regional Director (RD) of NMFS prior to the beginning of a fishing year. Procedure for Specifcation of TAC: 1. Prior to April 1 each year or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD, the Southeast Fisheries Center of NMFS (SEFC) wil: a) update or complete biological and economic assessments and analyses of the present and future condition of the stocks for red snapper and other reef fish stock or stock complex; b) assess to the extent possible the current SPR levels for each stock; c) estimate fishing mortality (F) in relation to F(20 percent SPR); d) estimate annual surplus production F(max) or other population parameters deemed appropriate; e) summarize statistics on the fishery for each stock or stock complex; f) specif the geographical variations in stock abundance, mortality, recruitment, and age of entry into the fishery for each stock or stock complex; and g) analyze social and economic impacts of any specification demanding adjustments of allocations, quotas, or bag liits. 2. The Council wil convene a Scientific Stock Assessment Panel, appointed by the Council, that wil, as a workig group, review the SEFC assessment( s), current harvest statistics, economic, social, and other relevant data. It wil prepare a written report to the Council specifing a range of ABC for each stock or stock complex which is in need of catch restrictions for attaining or maintaining OY. The ABCs are catch ranges that wil be calculated for those species in the management unit that have been identified by the Council, NMFS, or the working panel as in need of catch restrictions for attaining or maintaining OY. The range of ABCs shall be calculated so as to achieve reef fish population levels at or above the 20 percent SPR goal by January 1, 2000. For stock or stock complexes where data in the SEFC reports are inadequate to compute an ABC based on the spawning stock biomass per recruit model, the above working group wil use other available information as a guide in providing their best estimate of an ABC range that should result in at least a 20 percent SPR leveL. TheABC ranges wil be established to prevent an overfished stock from further declie. To the extent possible a risk analysis should be conducted indicating the probabilties of attaining or exceeding the stock goal of20 percent SPR, the annual transitional yields (i.e., catch streams) calculated for each level of fishing mortality within the ABC range, and the economic and social impacts associated with those levels. The workig group report wil include recommendations on bag liits, size limits, specific gear liits, season closures, and other restrictions required to attain management goals, along with the economic and social impacts of such restrictions, and the research and data collection necessary to improve the assessments. The working group may also recommend additional species for future analyses. 3. The Council wil conduct a public hearing on the workig group report(s) at, or prior, to the timè it is considered by the Council for subsequent action. Other public hearings may also be held. The Council wil request review of the report( s) by its Reef Fish Advisory Panel and Standing Scientific and Statistical Committees and may convene these groups to provide advice before taking action. 3 4. The Council in selecting a TAC level for each stock or stock complex for which an ABC range has been identified wil, in addition to taking into consideration the recommendations provided for in (1), (2), and (3), utilize the following criteria: a. Set TAC within or below the ABC range or set a series of annual TACs to obtain the ABC level within three years or less. b. Subdivide the TACs into commercial and recreational allocations which maxize the net benefits of the fishery to the nation. The allocations wil be based on historical percentages harvested by each user group during the base period of 1979- 1987. However, if the harvest in any year exceeds the TAC due to either the recreational or commercial user group exceeding its allocation, subsequent allocations pertaining to the respective user group wil be adjusted to assure meeting the January 1,2000, spawning stock biomass per recruit (SPR) goal. 5. The Council wil provide its recommendations to the RD for any specifications in TACs for each stock or stock complex, quotas, bag liits, trip liits, size liits, closed seasons, and gear restrictions necessary to attain the TAC, along with the reports, a regulatory impact review and environmental assessment of impacts, and the proposed regulations before October 15 or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD. 6. Prior to each fishing year or other such time as agreed upon by the RD and Council, the RD wil review the Council's recommendations and supporting information; and, if he concurs that the recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the National Standards, and other applicable law, he shall forward for publication notice of proposed TACs and associated harvest restrictions by November 1 or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD (providing up to 30 days for additional public comment). The RD wil take into consideration all information received and wil forward for publication in the Federal Register the notice of final rule by December 1 or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD. . 7. Appropriate regulatory changes that may be implemented by notice action include: a. The TACs for each stock or stock complex that are designed to achieve a specific level of ABC within the first year, or annual levels of TAC designed to achieve the ABC level within three years. b. Bag limits, size liits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, and quotas designed to achieve the TAC leveL. 4 5. SPAWNING POTENTL RATIO (SPR) Spawning potential ratio is an index of a population's health as measured by the biological abilty of the adult fish to produce spawn or eggs. A particular estimated level of SPR is directly dependent on the estimated number of living adult fish (or females) which in turn is controlled by the prevailg fishing mortality exerted on the population. This biological spawning abilty can be measured in terms of total adult fish biomass (number alive x average weight), gonad biomass (number alive x average gonad weight), or eggs produced (number alive x average number of eggs spawned) for each age class of fish. A generation of fish in a population must produce the same number of adult fish in the next generation for a population to persist without decline or, in other words, be in equilbrium. General population dynamics theory is based on the premise that populations tend to achieve levels of equilbrium given constant environmental conditions; however, environmental fluctuations prevent this from happening in most cases. Fishing reduces the number of adults surviving from a given number of recruits by reducing their lie expectancy. - As a consequence to prevent population collapse, the egg to recruit survival probabilty and/or the fecundities of the survivors must rise in response to the fishing-induced lowered abundance of adults (Goodyear 1989). Clearly, the above population mechanisms allow a population to be harvested without damagig its biological potentiaL. However, as harves.t pressure grows (fishing mortality increases), a point is reached where the population loses more fish through harvesting than it can replenish, and overfishing occurs. A population can also exist at an equilbrium level below its optimum level and can increase in size if fishing mortality is reduced. Various measures of optimal fishing have been defined whereby fishing greater than the optimal level results in overfishing. The concepts of maxum sustainable yield (MSY) and maximum yield per recruit (YPR) are the two most common measures of optimal fishing. For reasons set forth in Amendment 1, the measure of optimal fishing for reef fish was chosen to be 20 percent SPR, which in a YPR context results in management advice similar to that needed to achieve maximum YPR. . Calculation of SPR is similar to calculation of YPR except, instead of attempting to maximize yield from a year class of fish, achieving a certain level of spawning potential is attempted. This spawning potential is estimated as the fraction Or ratio of spawning abilty of the species when being fished divided by the spawning abilty of the species under conditions of no fishing mortality, i.e., only natural mortality occurs. The SPR of a population is then controlled by the fishing mortality exerted on each age class of fish. 5 6. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ACTION ONE: TARGET DATE A. Preferred Alternatives Preferred Alternative 1: Establish a target date of January 1,2007, for rebuilding the red snapper stock to 20 percent SPR. Discussion: This alternative changes the target date for rebuilding red snapper only; all other reef fish species maintain the target date of January 1, 2000, established in Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish FMP, unless modified under provisions of Preferred Alternative 2. The target date of January 1, 2000, for achieving 20 percent SPR is unattainable for the red snapper fishery. Consequently, the Council has proposed to modif the target year to 2007 to provide a rebuilding schedule that can stil rebuild the resource in a reasonable period. The November 1990 Regulatory Amendment, proposing a 2.0 milion pound commercial quota, a 2-fish recreational bag liit, and a 50 percent reduction in shrimp trawl bycatch in 1994, would reach the goal in 2006. Although the SPR goal could be reached in 2001 with a complete closure of the directed red snapper fishery beginning in 1991, and a 50 percent reduction in the shrimp trawl bycatch beginning in 1994, the Council chose to extend the target date to 2007 and alow catches to continue, but at a reduced rate, to lessen the social and economic burdens associated with a complete closure of the red snapper fishery. Since projections of future stock size depend on assumptions of equilbrium conditions that usually do not exist in a marine environment, the Council proposed a target date of 2007 to provide suffiCient flexibilty to accommodate minor variations in population recovery. This alternative creates no direct biological, economic, or social impacts on the fishery or its environment because it establishes only an administrative guide to accompany the management actions proposed and evaluated through the framework regulatory amendment procedure established by Amendment 1. Preferred Alternative 2: Future changes to target dates that have been established for rebuilding overfished reef fish stocks to the 20 percent SPR goal may be respecifed under the framework procedure at the time management action is proposed. Discussion: This alternative would provide for modification of the target date through the framework procedure established by Amendment 1. Since new data in future assessments or changes in the projection model wil indicate that management adjustments are necessary to rebuild overfished stocks, it should be recognized that this new information may justif, or even necessitate, changing the target date. The purpose of the framework procedure is to allow timely management adjustments to changing conditions or scientific assessment advice. In this environment of constantly changing conditions, flexibilty in adjusting the target date is needed to provide for timely management action. 6 The dynamics of reef fish resources, in general, are poorly known because of the paucity of biostatistical information, particularly regarding fishing effort, age and sex composition of the catch, maturity, fecundity, and the magnitude and spatiotemporal distribution of trawl bycatch. Despite the use of the bes.t information available, the Council recognizes that considerable uncertainty accompanies stock assessments and, particularly, long-term resource projections. Substantially more data collection and research efforts are needed to understand the dynamics of the reef fish fisheries. In addition, the use of long-term projections for establishing annual management measures is fraught with difficulties; environmental influences and changes in fishing effort are not predictable. The only population that is currently modeled to project a target date for rebuilding is red snapper. Since projected target dates for rebuilding red snapper are dependent on the parameters of the model, such as age structure, future advice to the Council on allowable biological catches wil depend on parameter changes in the projection model and stock assessments. This alternative would allow the Council to respecif the target date in accordance with proposed management measures without having to initiate a separate plan amendment with a separate regulatory amendment just to accomodate changes in assessment advice. . There are too many species in the reef fish complex that are, or could, become overfished and in need of rebuilding for the Council to continue to establish management measures such as bag and size liits, quotas, and trip liits through the framèwork procedure but be tied to establishing appropriate target dates by plan amendment. This alternative provides flexibilty to accommodate future changes in available data, prediction model parameters, and scientific advice and, therefore, would avoid the problems associáted with choosing a fixed target date. As assessment advice on the condition of an overfished resource changes, that advice can be used not only to set management action for the following year, but also to respecify the target date for attainment of the goal. Since assessment advice can be expected to change as better information is obtained, it is reasonable for the Council to respecif a target date each time assessment advice changes substantially and new management action must be proposed to rebuild an overfished resource. Management changes made through the framework procedure are effected as a regulatory amendment, complete with a regulatory impact analysis and environmental assessment. The NMFS, and the Secretary, retain authority to review and accept or reject a recommended change in any of the framework measures, including the target date, therefore this alternative ensures continued compliance with National Standard 1 and NMFS' guidelies for preventing overfishing and for establishing an acceptable rebuilding program for an overfished resource. The target date is just one component of the integrated management system envisioned by the Council in Amendment 1, and its omission as one of the framework measures was an oversight. This alternative also allows the specification of separate rebuilding periods for each reef fish species at the time they are determined to be overfished. Not all species are overfished to the same degree and it may possible to restore some more quickly than others. 7 Preferred Alternative 3: An upper limit shall be established for the setting of target dates under the framework procedure such that a rebuilding period cannot exceed the time perIod equivalent to 1.5 times the biological generation time of the species under consideration. Discussion: This alternative constrains the choice of target date based on a particular biological characteristic of the species being managed; the generation time. Generation time is defined as the age at which the average female achieves half of her expected lietime egg production. This alternative was chosen because it provides an objective basis for the specification of separate rebuilding periods for each reef fish species. The selection of a generation time multiple of 1.S is somewhat arbitrary but appears to be a reasonable choice at this time. The biological lie span of red snapper encompasses more than 30 ages and results in a generation time of about 14 years (the actual generation time for each species, including red snapper, is to be determined by the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel). An assumed generation time of 14 years may exist for red snapper which would indicate that future target dates could not exceed the year 2011 (14 years * 1.S generation time = 21 years), assuming a base starting year of 1990. The Council chose this alternative because it provided for a biological constraint to the selection of target dates and prevents future framework changes to the target date beyond a fixed date, preventing the establishment of a changing goal as would occur with rejected alternative 2 below. B. Rejected Alternatives Reiected Alternative 1: Status quo -- Maintain the target date of January 1, 2000, that was established in Amendment 1 for rebuilding the red snapper stock to 20 percent SPR. Discussion: The target date of January 1, 2000, is, for all practical purposes, unattainable for red snapper. Given the constraint put on the Council by the most recent amendment to the MFCMA that prevents regulation of shrimp trawl bycatch before 1994, there are no actions that can be taken to restrict red snapper fishing mortality that wil achieve the 20 percent SPR goal by the year 2000. Complete closure of the directed fishery in 1992, with reductions in shrimp bycatch rangig from SO to 100 percent in 1994, would achieve 20 percent SPR in 2001. This alternative was rejected because of the unattainable liitations imposed by the target date of January 1,2000. Reiected Alternative 2: Establish a target date to be some multiple, for example 1.0 - 1.5, of the length of a stock's modeled age structure. This alternative requires the selection of a specifc year or range of years for a target date based on the characteristics of the population model used to project a species recovery period. For red snapper, which has a model age structure of 12 years (age classes 0,1,2, . . . ,11 +), this alternative would establish a target date range of 2002 - 2008, equivalent to 1 - 1.5 times the age structure or 12 - 18 years from the baseline date of 1990. Discussion: This alternative provides for choice of a target date based on the characteristics of the model used to provide management advice. The projected rebuilding schedule for an overfished stock is dependent primarily on the age structure used in the projection model; for red snapper the age structure currently used is 12 years but can extend up to 30 years. Therefore, advice to the Council relative to ABC, which is constrained by a target date, can change dramatically depending 8 on the age structure used in future assessments. This alternative would resolve the problems associated with specifing a fixed target date without accounting for potential changes in the age structure used. However, this alternative would not accommodate other potential effects caused by changes in the stock assessment parameters not related to age structure. Long-term projections with the current model indicate the red snapper stock can be rebuilt to 20 percent SPR within a time period equivalent to 1.5 times the length of its age structure with moderate reductions in fishing mortality. The target date of 2002, equivalent to a single multiple of the age structure, is projected to be achieved with a closure of the directed fishery and a 50 percent reduction in shrimp trawl bycatch in 1994 (similar to Rejected Alternative 1). The target date of 2008, equivalent to 1.5 times the age structure length, is projected to be achieved with a 2.57 milon pound quota, a 4-fish recreational bag liit, and 50 percent reduction in trawl bycatch. The important feature of this measure is that if the population model is changed through an extension of the age structure, the target date would automatically be extended so that the previously implemented management program would stil achieve 20 p'erceilt SPR within the time period set by the new target date. Thus, instead of a model change forcing a change in the ABC and consequently more restrictive management measures because of a fixed target date, the model change would establish a new target date to accommodate the existing management program. The Council rejected this alternative because it potentially could establish a constantly changing target date, and it would not account for other potential model changes that could affect the rebuilding period. Thus, this alternative may not sufficiently resolve the problem currently presented by a fixed target date, and the Council could again be forced into a plan amendment to change the target date. Rejected Alternative 3: Have no target date for rebuilding overfished reef fish stocks. Discussion: There are concerns that the current data base for red snapper is insufficient at this time to instil a great deal of confidence in long-term projections (GMFMC 1990). Accompanying this uncertainty is the risk of making a management decision, based on long-term projections alone, that could have unnecessary and .irretrievable negative social and economic impacts. No long-term projections of population trends are available for the other reef fish species so consequently it may not be possible to determine their rebuilding progress with the SPR index relative to any target date. A means for projecting future recruitment is necessary to predict future population levels, and reliable stock-recruit relationships for conducting such projections are not available. The Council has expressed its intention to monitor the red snapper population by evaluating annual stock assessments. If spawning stock size should decrease indicating the stock is not rebuilding as planned, the Council can adjust management measures as necessary to ensure that the red snapper stock continues to rebuild toward the goal of 20 percent SPR at an acceptable rate. The Council rejected this alternative because NOAA General Counsel has advised that the guidelies require the specification of a recovery period for any overfished stock and the establishment of a target date was considered to provide a more focused management program. 9 ACTION TWO: SPECKLED HIND Preferred Alternative: Transfer the speckled hind (Kitty Mitchell) from the shallow-water quota category to the deep-water quota category. Discussion: This action is necessary to prevent waste of a valuable resource. Currently, after the shallow-water grouper fishery closes, fishermen reported significant quantities of speckled hind being harvested in deep water that could not be retained and must be discarded dead. Because of the depths associated with their harvest all fish boated are affected by embolism and are not liely to survive upon release. In Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan speckled hind is included in the shallow-water grouper category. When the shallow-water grouper quota was filed and the inshore fishery closed on November 8, 1990, the fleet moved offshore to fish under the deep-water grouper quota and reported catches of large speckled líind as part of the snowy/misty/yellowedge deep water grouper complex. Fishermen report that up to 30-40 percent of their deep-water harvest consist of speckled hind. Further evidence that this species is a deep-water fish can be found in the text "A Field Guide to Atlantic Coast Fishes of North America. 1989, Robins, C. R. and G. C. Ray, Houghton Miffln Company," which identifies the speckled hind habitat as: "Rocky ledges and sea mounts with good current, mainly at depths of about 180 m (600 feet). Page 133". Unfortunately, landings of speckled hind have not been identified uniquely in the state or federal statistical landings reporting programs. Currently, speckled hind are categorized as "miscellaneous grouper" by Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) and have been counted under the shallow-water quota. However, this problem wil be corrected soon because a new FDNR species code list including speckled hind was available for use by wholesale dealers December 1, 1990. With this change in the FDNR landings reporting program, the identification of speckled hind landings wil be much improved. Most harvest is landed in Florida because this species is rare in the northwestern Gulf (Hoese, H. D., and R. H. Moore, 1977, Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico: Texas. Louisiana. and Adiacent Waters, Texas A&M Press, Page 172), and is restricted to offshore hard bottoms east of the Mississippi Delta area (Walls, J. G., 1975, Fishes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico, T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Page 170). Reiected Alternative: Status quo -- Maintain speckled hind asa shallow-water grouper. Discussion: The Council rejected this alternative because it resulted in continued wastage of a fishery resource. Currently, once the shallow-water grouper fishery closes, significant quantities of speckled hind are discarded dead because of the depths associated with their harvest. Very few speckled hind appear to be taken in shallow water, and consequently, all fish boated are affected by embolism and are not likely to survive upon release. 10 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental Consequences A. Physical Environment To the extent that can be ascertained, the action proposed in this amendment wil have no impact on. the physical environment. B. Fishery Resource The changes to the process for modifing the target date proposed in this amendment are necessary for more timely management as intended by the establishment of the framework procedure under Amendment 1. These changes wil provide improved monitoring and management of overfished reef fish stocks. The change in target date for red snapper .from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2007, is necessary because the year 2000 goal is unattainable. The 2.007 target date accommodates the currently proposed action of a 2.0 milon pound commercial quota and a 2-fish recreational bag limit that was submitted to NMFS and wil be implemented by regulatory amendment. Subsequent respecification of target dates for reef fish under the framework measure would be based on scientific advice from the Scientific Assessment PaneL. The action to reclassif speckled hind as a deep water grouper wil not result in increased fishing mortality, but would only assure that the resource that is harvested is utiled. The Council believes that the potential waste could be substantial with status quo and should not be allowed to continue. C. Human Environment The change in the target date for red snapper wil allow continuation of a directed fishery while rebuilding the overfished stock to optimum yield levels and thus be beneficial to the fishing industry. The changes in the process for future modifications to the target date wil provide for more timely management and greater benefits to the industry. Historically speckled hind have not been aggegated in the landings data. However, beginning in 1991, speckled hind wil be uniquely identified through the Florida Trip Ticket System; few speckled hind are landed outside of Florida. As the landings data on speckled hind are accumulated, there may be adjustments to the allowable shallow- and deep-water grouper quotas. D. Effect on Endangered Species and Marine Mammals NOAA has initiated consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding the impact of this proposed action on endangered and threatened species. A biological opinion resulting from that consultation found that neither the directed fisheries nor the proposed action wil jeopardize the recovery of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. E. Effect on Wetlands The proposed action wil have no effect on flood plains, wetlands, or rivers. 11 F. Mitigating Measures Related to the Proposed Action This amendment provides for timely management of the reef fish stocks and monitoring capabilty to rebuild overfished stocks. The change in the red snapper target date provides for continuation of the directed fishery and provides benefits to both the commercial and recreational fisheries. Speckled hind are being transferred to the deep-water grouper category because most of them are taken in waters of 100 fathoms or greater. Fish taken from such depths invariably are dead when they reach the surface; however, because they are included in the shallow-water grouper category retention of these fish presently is ilegal once the shallow-water grouper quota has been met and the shallow-water fishery is closed. This results in the waste of a resource that would otherwise have food and market value. G. Unavoidable Adverse Affects The modifications to the target date and the process for future changes in the target date and the reclassification of speckled hind to the deep-water grouper category do not create unavoidable adverse affects. H. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources There are no irreversible commitments of resources caused by implementation of this amendment. Finding of No Signifcant Environmental Impact The proposed amendment is not a major action having significant impact on the quality of the marine or human environment of the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed action is an adjustment of the original regulations of the FMP to set a target date for rebuilding overfished reef fish stocks as set forth in Amendment 1. The proposed action should not result in impacts significantly different in context or intensity from those described in the environmental impact statement and environmental assessment published with the regulations implementing the FMP and Amendment 1. Having reviewed the environmental assessment and available information relative to the proposed actions, I have determined that there wil be no significant environmental impact resulting from the proposed actions. Accordingly, the preparation of a formal environmental impact statement on these issues is not required for this amendment by Section 102(2)( c) of the National Environmental Policy Act or its implementing regulations. Approved: Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Date RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 813-228-2815 12 8. OTHER APPLICABLE LAW Impacts on Other Fisheries Data available to the Council indicate this amendment wil have no impacts on other fisheries. Habitat Concerns Reef fish habitats and related concerns were described in the FMP and Amendment 1. Vessel Safety Considerations There are no fishery conditions, management measures, or regulations contained in this amendment that would result in the loss of harvesting opportunity because of crew and vessel safety effects of adverse weather or ocean conditions. No concerns have been raised by the people engaged in the fishery or the Coast Guard that the proposed management measUres directly or indirectly pose a hazard to crew or vessel safety under adverse weather or ocean conditions. Therefore, there are no procedures for making management adjustments in the amendment due to vessel safety problems because no person wil be precluded from a fair or equitable harvesting opportunity by the management measures set forth. . No vessel wil be forced to participate in the fishery under adverse weather or ocean conditions as a result of the imposition of management regulations set forth in this amendment. Therefore, no management adjustments for fishery access wil be provided. There are no procedures proposed to monitor, evaluate, and report on the effects of management measures on vessel or crew safety under adverse weather or ocean conditions. Coastal Zone Consistency Section 307(c)(I) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that all federal activities which directly affect the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed changes in federal regulations governing reef fish in the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico wil make no changes in federal regulations that are inconsistent with either existing or proposed state regulations. While it is the goal of the Council to have complementary management measures with those of the states, federal and state administrative procedures vary and regulatory changes are unlikely to be fully instituted at the same time. This amendment is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management programs of the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi to the maximum extent possible; Texas does not have an approved Coastal Zone Management program. This determination has been submitted to the responsible state agencies under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act administering approved Coastal Zone Management programs in the states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. 13 Paperwork Reduction Act The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to control paperwork requirements imposed on the public by the federal government. The authority to manage information collection and record keeping requirements is vested with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This authority encompasses establishment of guidelines and policies, approval of information collection requests, and reduction of paperwork burdens and duplications. The Council proposes, through this amendment, to establish no additional permit or data collection programs, therefore, no reporting burden on the public or cost to the government wil be incurred through this amendment. Federalism No federalism issues have been identified relative to the actions proposed in this amendment and associated regulations. The affected states have been closely involved in developing the proposed management measùres and the principal state officials responsible for fisheries management in their respective states have not expressed federalism related opposition to adoption of this amendment. Therefore preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order. 12612 is not necessary. 9. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS The following scientific research and data needs have been identified with assistance from the scientific and industry advisory panels. Biological Needs a statistically designed survey to evaluate the magnitude of red snapper bycatch in the trawl fisheries and its impact on the red snapper population estimates of release mortality rates evaluate shrimp bycatch data from the Texas Parks and Wildlie shrimp survey further analysis of SEAMAP and groundfish survey length frequencies and catch rates an index of spawning stock size fecundity and maturity by age information evaluation of the current and historical levels of offshore trawlig vessels fishing the Gulf and fishing effort by geographical area and water depth a statistically designed survey of bycatch reduction from each of the approved TEDs determine natural mortality rate(s), especially for juvenile fish 14 Socioeconomic Needs identif levels of participation in the reef fish multi-species fishery local and regional economic assessment of the shrimp bycatch and impacts of restricting bycatch a detailed sociological study of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery relevant social variables added to the MRFSS data collection program currently maintained by NMFS to provide an understanding of red snapper anglers special studies to address decision making behavior of user groups regarding various regulatory alterriatives for decision makers to consider and implement more palatable regulations descriptive studies of the commercial red snapper fishery and their communities documenting variabilty within recreational and commercial fisheries regarding harvest, profitabilty, motivations, and satisfactions Social Impact Assessment Needs The Council has two sociologists on the Reef Fish Scientific Assessment Panel to provide advice on social impacts of potential management action. However their participation cannot and should not be regarded as a substitute for a relevant social impact research program sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Social scientists are concerned with knowing about the composition of marine fisheries (recreational and commercial), how they are organized in groups and how they wil liely react to proposed changes in the management regime. In addition to demographic characterizations of fisheries, it is important to understand patterns of participation and how proposed changes wil impact their livelihood and lifestyle. From a recreational standpoint, we are interested in variation in the angler population with regard to benefits sought and satisfaction. We are interested in impacts on peoples and their communities over time 'in order to understand displacement of user groups and succession in fisheries. By observing and monitoring how segments of the marine fisheries industry differentially cope and adapt to management actions over time, more effective implementation and management is possible. While the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandates an understanding of the social impacts of fisheries management, little research data is available to managers regarding red snapper or any other Gulf fishery for that matter. Currently, there is no social research program in support of fisheries management within NMFS. Furthermore, there is considerable misunderstanding of the social component relative to the component of marine fisheries management. These two components should not be in opposition; rather, they should provide an inextricable tie between understanding social impacts and achieving biological goals. When decision makers lack a predictive understanding of what is palatable to various segments of the fishery and lose the ability to reach a negotiated allocation, resource protection goals may not be achieved. Also, without an understanding of management measures palatable to various user groups, scientific 15 assessment panels may be less than effective in providing decision assistance to the Gulf Council. Acquisition of appropriate research data wil require support on a continuing basis, not as a "single shot band aid" whenever management decisions reach a crisis level that demands social input. Finally, there is the matter of what We know or do not know about the social component of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery. There are no previous social studies regarding the commercial fishery, the recreational private-boat fishery, and the recreational charter/party boat angler fishery. We have little understanding of how these various groups wil be impacted by the proposed management scenarios or how they wil respond in their fishing activity. Methodologies exist to explore these matters but have never been supported in the past. From a MARFIN research project completed in the last three years regarding the charter and party boat industry in the Gulf of Mexico, we know something about the distribution of these two fisheries in the United States, the lieliood of their being impacted by rulemaking and how important red snapper is to their respective boat operations. Major "hotspots" for the Gulf of Mexico charter boat fishery would be Texas, Alabama and Florida where 11 of 26 boats (42%), 15 of 32 boats (47%), and 128 of 536 b,oats (24%), respectively, that target snapper (all species), target them equal to or more than 50 percent of the time. In Texas, 16 of the 16 party boats that target snapper (all species), did so more than 50 percent of the tIie. In Florida, over one-half (32 of 58) of the headboats that targeted snapper (all species), did so equal to or more than 50 percent of the time. We have no information on what these operators are liely to do in the face of new regulations and/or closure. Some operators reported that they favored bag limits over size limits. Social impacts assessment information must be collected prior to crisis conditions déveloping. Social scientists need feedback regarding likely management needs so appropriate studies can begin now. Research funding support must be made available to achieve the goals specified in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 10. REFERENCES Goodyear, C. P. 1988. Recent trends in the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished report CRD 87/88-16. Available from National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. Goodyear, C. P., and P. Phares. 1990. Status of red snapper stocks of the Gulf of Mexico: Report for 1990. Unpublished report CRD 89/90-05. Available from National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1990. Regulatory Amendment of the reef fish fishery management plan: October 1990. Unpublished report available from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 881, Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. Nichols, S. (editor). 1990a. Report of the workshop to evaluate potential management alternatives for reducing directed effort and shrimp trawl bycatch of red snapper. Workshop held at National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula Laboratory, May 15-17, 1990. Unpublished report available from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 881, Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. 16 Nichols, S. 1990b. The spatial and temporal distribution of the bycatch of red snapper by the shrimp fishery in the offshore waters of the U~S. Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished report available from National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula Facilty, Post Office Drawer 1207, Pascagoula, Mississippi 39568- 1207. Reef Fish Scientific Assessment Panel (RFSAP). 1990. Final report of the reef fish assessment paneL June 1990. Panel meeting held at National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami Laboratory, June 19-21, 1990. Unpublished report available from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 881, Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. .! PUBLIC REVIEW . A total of five public hearings were scheduled to obtain public comments on this plan amendment with one of the hearings to be held during the Gulf Council meeting on Wednesday, January 23, 1991, in Houston, Texas. Copies of this Amendment and the associated Regulatory Impact Review may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council offce, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 881, Tampa, Florida 33609, 813-228-2815. The public hearings, with the exception of the one conducted during the Council meeting, were held at the following dates and places: Monday. December 10. 1990 Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service 12175125th Street North Largo, Florida Tuesday. December 11. 1990 Mobile Civic Center 401 Civic Center Drive . Mobile, Alabama Wednesday. December 12. 1990 Powell Auditorium Nichols State University Thibodaux, Louisiana Thursday. December 13. 1990 Moody Civic Center 2102 Seawall Boulevard Galveston, Texas LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council: Scientific and Statistical Committee Reef Fish and Shrimp Advisory Panels Reef Fish Scientific Assessment Panel Coastal Zone Management Programs: Louisiana Mississippi Alabama Florida National Marine Fisheries Service: Southeast Fisheries Center Southeast Regional Office 17 APPENDIX REGULTORY IMPACC REEW FOR PLA AMENDMENT 3 TO TIE REEF FISH FISHERY MAAGEMENT PLA FEBRUARY 1991 GULF OF MEXCO FISHERY MAAGEMENT COUNCI UNCOLN CENTR, SUIT 881 541 WEST KENNEDY BOULEAR TAMA, FLORIA 33609 831-228-2815 1. INTODUCTON The National Mare Fisheries Servce (NMFS) requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for al regulatory actions that are of public interest. The RIR does thee thgs: 1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a proposed or fial regulatory action, 2) it provides a review of the problems and policy objectives promptig the reguatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problem, and 3) it ensures that the reguatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers al avaiable alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most effcient and cost effective way. The RIR also serves as the basis for detenng whether any proposed reguations are major under criteria provided in Executive Order 12291 (E.O. 12291) and whether the proposed regulations wi have a signcant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibilty Act of 1980 (RFA). Th RIR analyzes the probable impacts that the proposed alternatives for the Reef Fish Fisheiy Management Plan (FMP) would have on the commercial and recreational diected red snapper fishery. 2. LONG-TERM GOAL OF FISHERY MAAGEMENT The Council adopted Optium Yield (OY) as the long-tenn goal in the fishery. The Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan defies OYas ". . . any harvest level for each species (of reef fish) which maintains, or is expected to maintai, over tie a surval rate of biomass into the stock of spawng age to achieve at least a 20 percent spawng potential ratio (SPR), relative to the SPR that would occur with no fishig." In ths sense, the Council's long-tenn program is to acmeve any harest level subject to a constraint of at least a 20 percent SPR. Pursuant to NMFS guidelies (CFR Part 602.11), the Council also adopted an overfshig defution as follows: 1. A reef fish stock or stock complex is overfshed when it is below the level of 20 percent of the spawng stock biomass per recruit that would occur in the absence of fishig. 2. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is overfshed, overfshi~ is defied as harestig at a rate that is not consistent with a program that has been establihed to rebuid the stock or stock complex to the 20 percent spawng stock biomass per recruit leveL. 3. When a reef fish stock oI stock complex is not overfhed, overfshiS! is defied as a harvestig rate that if contiued would lead to a state of the stock or stock complex that would not at least alow a harest of OY on a contiuig basis." A-I 3. PROBLEM IN TIE FISHERY Many reef fish species are currently "overfshed." Red snapper, for one, has been overfhed at least since 1984 (RFSAP, 1990). The Council recognzed ths problem in Amendment 1, and consequently adopted the objective of rebuildig the reef fih stock complex. The rebuidig target consists of two components-- a mium SPR level of 20 percent, and a rebuildig period that ends by the year 2000. The Council accordingly proposed varous restrctive measures (now in effect) on several reef fish species. It also established a procedure to revise anualy the Total Alowable Catch (TAC) for each species or species group. Although the Council can set any TAC level it deems appropriate, it has to choose one that is with or below a range of Alowable Biological Catch (ABC) startg in 1993. The ABC range is to be established by a scientic stock assessment panel. The most recent assessment of the red snapper stock indicates that achievig the Council's rebuilding target for red snapper would require st:gent restrctions on both the red snapper and shrp fisheries. These restrctions would result in substantial negative social and economic impacts on fishery partcipants durig the rebuilding period, and long-tenn benefits from these measures could not outweigh short-tenn losses. In a recent reguatory amendment, the Council proposed to set the 1991 TAC for directed red snapper harvest at approxiately 65 percent of the 1990 TAC though a 2.0 MP commercial quota and a 2 fish recreational bag lit. It also proposed to reduce bycatch by SO percent in 1994. The NMFS, however, decided not to implement the proposed measures unti analysis of certáin issues is considered by the Council. Although ths proposal would have relatively less negative impacts on the fishery partcipants at least before 1994, it could not achieve the stock rebuildig target for red snapper. Presently, the general problem in the management of red snapper involves the balancing of the stock recovery rate with the degree of negative impacts on the fishery partcipants. The stock recovery rate is inversely related to short-tenn negative impacts but directly related to long-term positive impacts on fishery partcipants. The range of management alternatives isa function of the nature of the general problem. The nature of the problem is determed by the followig: 1) knowledge of the red snapper and shrp fisheries, 2) stock rebuidig target, and 3) available measures to effect bycatch reduction. Knowledge of the red snapper stock is contiualy updated though an annual stock assessment. Past stock assessments have seived as guides to Council actions. In conjunction with the TAC settg for 1991, the Council proposes a SO percent reduction in bycatch but sets th target to be effective begig in 1994. An earlier date for bycatch reduction is prohibited by a recent Congressional action. Ths parcular Plan Amendment addresses the stock rebuiding target date. 4. MAAGEMEN MEAURES Although the proposed measures do not have diect impacts on fishery partcipants, the choice of a rebuildig target consttais the Council's choice of management measures that wi have diect impacts on resource users. When more specifc measures are proposed later under a regulatory amendment, their economic impacts wi be subsequently estiated and analyzed. For the present A-2 purpose, a possible regulatory measure that may be adopted under each of the proposed alternatives is analyzed to enable comparison of the relative costs and benefits of each option. The partcular measure analyzed for each option is only one of many that can acmeve the target SPR for a partcular target year. Only impacts of measures affectig the red snapper fihery are quantied. No adequate inormation for other species exists to allow quantication of impacts. 5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACC 5.1. Target Date for Rebuidig Reef Fish Stoc 5.1.1. General Discussion of Preferred and Rejected Measures Preferred Alternative 1: Establih a taget date of Janucu 1, 2007 for rebuidig red snapper stock to 20 percent SPR. Relative to the current target of 20 percent SPR by the year 2000, this option provides the Council with greater flexibilty than the status quo in balancing the achievement of the recovery rate and the economic consequences of regulatory measures. It is not precisely known to what extent ths rebuilding period exposes the stock to greater lieliood of collapse, especially if intial TACs are set at relatively high levels. If the risk of stock collapse is higher under ths alternative, both short and long-term losses can result. To avoid ths eventuality, a frequent monitorig of the fishery wi be requied. This appears to be feasible for red snapper. . Extension of the rebuilding period for stock recovery would allow a TAC that is higher than that allowable under the status quo. Under ths scenario, the short-term profitabilty of the commercial sector and benefit level of the recreational sector may be higher relative to the status quo. TI, of course, means that higher benefits from a fully recovered stock are postponed. Preferred Alternative 2: Futue chges to target dates tht have been establihed for rebuidig overhed reef fih stock to the 20 percent SPR goal may be respecied under the frework procedure at the tie magement action is proposed. Fishermen target many reef fish species simultaneously at varyg degrees. At the same tie, several reef fish stocks are currently at diferent levels relative to their respective overfshig condition. Also, some species may be more resilent than others to fihery exploitation. Thus, forcing one rebuilding. period for all reef fish species as currently adopted in the Reef Fish Management Plan could have undue impacts on some stocks and on the fihermen. TIs parcular option, on the contrary, can address these impacts on a more appropriate maner, parcularly as more inormation about the species and fishig industr becomes available. To some extent, the problem of balancing the recovery rate and the economic consequences of associated management measures can be addressed in a way that befits the biology of and indusny dependence on a reef fish species. Whe ths option offers management flexibilty, there are accompanyig problems. In balancing the negative impacts on fishery partcipants and recovery of the stock, more weight may be given to one or the other based on short-term fluctuations in the status of the stock or knowledge of the A-3 fishery. It is possible that if a reef fish species has been severely overfshed since the last settg of a recovery target date, the rebuilding period may be lengtened to avoid imposing strgent restrctions on harvest. Such action could sacrice long-tenn gais for lesser short-tenn losses since recovery would be less liely. Conversely, a shorter period could be chosen to rebuild the stock that would require imposing strgent restrctions. Under ths latter scenario, the long-tenn gais may be more than enough to cover short-tenn losses. However, under an open access system of management, the projected future gains wi be eventually dissipated as more effort is applied on the stocks. In addition, the distrbution of gains may not favor those who incured the intial losses. Preferred Alternative 3: An upper lit sha be establihed for the settg of taget dates under the frework procedure such tht a rebuidig perod canot exceed the tie perod equivaent to 1.5 ties the biological genertion tie of the species under considertion. Th option specifcally ties the maxium rebuilding period to the biology of a reef fih species. To some extent, th addresses the concern that the target period may be modied on the basis of short-tenn fluctuations in the stock. One major problem posed by ths option is the choice of an appropriate numerical multiple (1.5 in the present case) applied on a stock's generation tie. One multiple may be appropriate for one species, say red snapper, but its application to another species may be problematic in tenns of achievig an "acceptable" balance between the rebuildig period and economic consequences of measures embedded in the target period for rebuildig the stock. The specifc biological and economic implications of ths maxum for each species depend on the current status of the stock and the fishery dependent on it. Reiected Alternative 1: Statu quo - Maita the target date of Januæy 1, 2000 tht was establihed in Amendment 1 for rebuidig the red snapper stock to 20 percent SPR. For red snapper, ths target is achievable Oiùy though the imposition of strgent restrctions on both the directed red snapper and shrp fisheries. These restrctions should commence by 1991 and remain thoughout the rebuiding period. In an earlier analysis of impacts, it was estiated that closure of the directed red snapper fishery and a 10-month closure of the shrp fihery startg 1991 would result in net losses rangig from $44 mion to $278 mion. The lower number corresponds to cooperative state and federal closures whie the higher one corresponds to closure of only the EEZ. These losses would be borne by the recreational red snapper anglers and the ex-vessel sectors of both commercial red snapper and shrp fisheries. No estiates of impacts on the processing and trade sectors or on the consumers were calculated. Two recent developments have complicated the attainent of ths target. First, the Council recently proposed under a regulatory amendment a TAC of 2.0 MP commercial quota and a 2 fih recreational bag lit for the directed fishery for 1991. Second, Congress recently amended the Magnuson Act to preclude. the imposition of any restrctive measures on the shrp fishery to conserve red snapper unti 1994. Given these new policy developments, the balancing of the rebuilding target with economic consequences is practicaly impossible to achieve for ths alternative. A-4 The acmevement of the rebuilding target for other reef fish species is not detennable in the absence of projections regardig the status of the stocks. Consequently, the program of balancing the rebuilding target with economic consequences of potential measures canot be addressed. Reiected Alternative 2. Establih a taget date to be some multiple, for exple 1.0 - 1.5, of the lengt of a stocks modeled age strctue. TI altertive requies the selection of a spcic year or rage of year for a taget date based on the chctertics of the popultion model used to project a species recover perod. For red snapper, which ha a model age strcte of 12 year (age clses 0,1;2,. . ., 11+), th altertive would establih a taget date rage of 2002 - 2008, equivalent to 1 - 1.5 ties the age strctue or 12 - 18 year from the basele date of 1990. Relative to status quo, ths option provides the Council with greater flexibilty in balancing the acmevement of the rebuilding target and the economic consequences of regulatory measures. 1Ïs option automatically shortens or lengtens the rebuilding period as the fishery models change due to inclusion of more or better inomation. Currently, only red snapper has been adequately modeled. Specifg the rebuilding target for all reef fish species to coincide with that for red snapper may not be appropriate. 1Ïs option, on the other hand, offers flexibilty in the choice of a rebuilding period for each of the reef fih species, partcularly as more inonnation about these species becomes available. Extension of the rebuilding period for stock recovery would allow a TAC that is close tq cUlent harvest levels. In ths way, the short-tem profitabilty of the commercial sector and the benefit level of the recreational sector may not be substantially affected. TIs, of course, means that higher benefits from a fully recovered stock are postponed. Reiected Alternative 3. Have no taget date for rebuidig overhed reef fih stock. Among the proposed alternatives, ths option is the least restrctive from the standpoint of the stock rebuilding measures to be adopted by the Council. It does not conform, however, to NMFS guidelies with respect to the rebuilding of an overfshed stock. Without a target date, the 20 percent SPR target assumes the role of a broad guide for fishery management. Optium yield in ths case mayor may not be. attained depending on the nature of management measures adopted. Under ths option, the Council has wider latitude in designg its management strategy to take into account short-tenn negative impacts on the fishery parcipants. However, if the short-term negative impacts are not balanced with stock recovery rates, long-term benefits may be forgone. 5.1.2. Comparative Analysis of Preferred and Reiected Measures for Red Snapper There are five measures compared. These are measures that could be imposed under: a) Preferred Option 1; b) Preferred Option 3; c) Rejected Option 1; d) Rejected Option 2a (lower lit); and, e) Rejected Option 2b (upper lit). Preferred Option 2 and Rejected Option 3 are too general, and are therefore not included in the ensuig comparison. The same technque as in previous analysis (Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Regulatory Amendment to the Reef Fish FMP, 1990) is used here in estiatig economic impacts. A-5 The use of Preferred Option 3 for comparison purposes needs some clarication. As proposed, ths option merely imposes an upper lit on the choice of a recovery period. Currently, 1.5 ties the generation tie for red snapper means that the termal period for the stock's recovery is 2011 if the maxium were chosen. The analysis that follows simply compares the impacts of 2011 versus 2007 as the termal year for stock recovery period. Thus, the comparon should not be constred to mean that Preferred Option 3 is an alternative to Preferred Option 1. Table 1 gives a description of the alternatives analyzed. The basis for comparson is a set of measures consistig of the followig TAC: 2.0 MP commercial quota and 2 fish recreational bag lit. Th TAC is maitaied thoughout the policy period (1992-2020). Al alternatives assume ths TAC for 1991 as well as a 50 percent reduction in bycatch starg in 1994. The baselie scenaro was chosen to conform to the Council's proposed TAC for red snapper -- as of the date of tts document. Although the actual TAC for 1991 is sti under deliberation by the Council and may dier from the previous proposal, it is wort notig that the choice of a baselie scenaro does not affect the relative rankg of compared options. In earlier analysis, 2015 was used as the tennal year for all alternatives. For the present analysis, 2020 was chosen in order to allow at least about 10 years of less restrctive measures for each alternative to better quanti potential benefits. Durig the rebuilding period, the TAC chosen for each target date alternative is the maxium possible that would enable the acruevement of at least a 20 percent SPR by the end of the rebuilding period. Thereafter, a quota of 6 MP each for the commercial and recreational sectors is assumed. Ths assumed quota is the allowable maxium to maintain an SPR level of no less than 20 percent under the assumption of a 50 percent bycatch reduction. No consideration is-given to the possible impacts of the 50 percent bycatch reduction on the shrp fishery parcipants. Additionally, signcant changes in the market. for red snapper are ruled out. In terms of total net benefit changes, longer rebuilding periods are associated with higher benefits (Table 2). The major reason for tts is that rugher TACs are penntted with longer rebuildig periods. Additionally, the allowable TAC after SPR reaches 20 percent is the same for al options, since each option assumes the same level of bycatch reduction. It may alo be observed from Table 2 that the long-term impacts of options with shorter rebuilding periods (Rejected Options 1 and 2a) are sensitive to the discountig rate used: long-term impacts are positive at a lower discountig rate and negative at a higher discountig rate. Ths sensitivity aries because rugher discountig rates place more weight on short-term losses and less weight on long-term benefits. Among the options compared, the Preferred Option occupies a middle rankg in both short-and long-temm impacts. Relative to the baselie scenario, the five-year impacts of the Preferred Option are zero due to the equalty of the T AC under both scenarios. Its long-term (1992-2020) impacts range from about $30 mion to $82 mion depending on the discountig rate used. Table 3 shows the dierential impacts of the dierent options on the commercial and recreational sectors of the red snapper fishery. For the commercial harvest (ex-vessel) sector, the rang of options is invariant to the discountig rate used. At a 5 percent discountig rate, the highest net benefit change of $60.6 mion corresponds to the rebuildig period that ends in 2008. Shorter and longer rebuilding periods have lower net benefit changes. At a 10 percent discountig rate, the highest net benefit change of $26.1 mion occurs with the rebuiding period that also termates in the year 2008. The recreational sector, on the other hand, experiences invariably increasing net benefit changes with extended rebuilding periods, regardless of the discountig rate. For the recreational fishery, the highest net benefit change of $30.8 mion (at 10 percent A-6 discountig rate) or $55.1 mion (at 5 percent discountig rate) is associated with the longest rebuilding period (2011). The Preferred Option has middle rankg for both the commercial and recreational sectors. As can be deduced from Table 2, the Preferred Option would not have an annual impact of $100 mion or more on fishery partcipants. In addition, it is liely to impact only a few number of fishery partcipants relative to the baselie scenario. In fact if the base scenaro materiales pursuant to the regulatory amendment currently under deliberation, the five-year impact of the Preferred Option would be ni. The long-tenn economic impacts would be positive. It may also be noted that the liely impacts of the options considered. would be confed to the reef fih fisheiy with the Gulf region. Spilover effects on adjacent fishig areas, parcularly.the area under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council would be mial, and would be maiy indiect though the regulation's effects on market price for reef fish. A reduction in harest in the Gulf could raise price high enough to induce more intensive fishig in the South Atlantic area. Th increase effort ,could be partally addressed by restrctive regulations that may be imposed in that area. The Council selected the Preferred Option because ths option offerred the best balance among biological conservation, short-tenn negative economic impacts, and long-tenn positive economic impacts on fishery partcipants. 5.2. Specked Hid Preferred Alternative: Trafer the specked hid (Ktt Mitchell) from the shalow-water quota category. Apparently, speckled hid has been misclassifed as part of the shalow water grouper species. There are several implications of ths misclassifcation. First, the shallow-water quota may have been overcounted. Second, landings of ths species for the period of the ban on harest of shallow water groupers are foregone. The extent of quota overcountig as well as the extent of the foregone landings is not known. However, foregone revenues to the shallow-water and deepwater fishennen ensued from ths misclassifcation. Ths preferred alternative attempts to redress the situation. In the sense that revenues have already been foregone, ths alternative can only prevent furter economic loss in the succeeding fishig year. Although it is possible that fish not harested ths year may lower the cost of fihig in the followig year, a signcant level of mortality of the caught and released fish would probably prevent it. At any rate, ths alternative is liely to result in benefits relative to the status quo. / Reiected Alternative: Statu quo - Maita specked hid as a shaow-water grouper. category Maintaing the present categorization of speckled hid would mean a contiuing reduction in benefits to the users of ths resource. 6. CONCLUSION A discussion along general lies was attempted on the potential impacts of the alternatives as they A-7 apply to all reef fish species under management. However, more specifc analysis of impacts was performed as the measures relate to red snapper. In comparg the diferent options, it was determed that the Preferred Option occupies a middle rankg in terms of generatig benefits to the economy. The net effects on the fihery partcipants of each option do not exceed $100 mion anually. Relative to the base case scenario, the Preferred Option is not expected to signcantly affect a substantial number of fishery partcipants. The impacts of ths plan amendment on adjacent fishig area is expected to be miaL. 7. REFERECES Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1990. Reguatory impact analysis for the reguatory amendment to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Unpublihed report avaiable from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 881, Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. ' . Reef Fish Scientic Assessment PaneL. 1990. Final report of the reef fish assessment panel, June 1990. Panel meetig held at National Marie Fisheries SeIVce, Miam Laboratory, June 19-21, 1990. Unpublished report available from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 881, Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. Kemmerer, Andrew J. 1990. Letter to Mr. Wayne Swigle. Avaiable from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 881, Licoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. A-8 Table 1 DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR RED SNAPPER Management Commercial Receationa Bycatch Target Yea Option Fishery Fishery Reduction SPR=20% Baselie 2.0 MP quota for 2 fih bag for 50% for 1994+ 2007 1992-2020 1992-2020 . . . Preferred Option 3 2.95 MP quota for 6 fih bag for 50% for 1994+ 2011 1992-2011 1992-2011 6.0 MP quota for 6.0 MP quota for 2012+ 2012+ Rejected Option 1 Closure for Closure for 50% for 1994+ 2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 6.0 MP quota for 6.0 MP quota for 2002 + 2002 + Rejected Option 2a 2.0 MP quota for 2 fih bag for 50% for 1994+ 2002 1992-1993 1992- 1 993 Closure for Closure for 1994-2002 1994-2002 6.0 MP quota for 6.0 MP quota for 2003 + 2003+ Rejected Option 2b 2.57 MP quota for 4 fih bag for 50% for 1994+ 2008 1992-2008 1992-2008 6.0 MP quota for 6.0 MP quota for 2009 + 2009+ \ Notes 1. The policy period is 1992-2020. The startg year was chosen as it was deemed that measures under th plan amendment would be adopted startg in 1992. The tennal year (2020) was chosen in order to allow at least about ten years of less resmctive management regie under each option. 2. The baselie TAC was chosen in consideration of an earlier Counci proposal to impose such TAC level for the 1991 fihig year. All options assume the baseline TAC for 1991. The base case difers from the preferred option only in the sense that the former maintain the same TAC thoughout the policy peod whie the latter assumes a 6 MP quota each for the commercial and recreational sectors begig in 2008, a year after the 20 percent SPR is reached. All options assume a 6 MP quota each for the commercial and recreational sectors notig the fact that th is the maxium allowable haivest tht maintain the SPR level at 20 percent when a 50% bycatch reduction is realzed. 3. Preferred Option 3 is considered as an alternative only in the sense that it offers an option to extend the recovery period to about 2011 (i.e., 1.5 ties the biological generation tie for red snapper). A-9 Table 2 APPROXIMATE TOTAL CHANGES IN NET BENEFITS TO THE RED SNAPPER FISHERY (Milon Dollars) Baseline: 2.0 MP Commercial Quota, 2 Fish Recreational Bag Lit in 1992-2020, 50 Percent Reduction in Bycatch in 1994+ Preferred Preferred Rejected Rejected Rejected Period Option Option 3 Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b 2007- -2011" -2001- -2002- -2008 5 Percent Disountig Rate 1992-1996 0.0 21.7 - 48.0 - 27.8 11.6 1992-2011 30.7 55.0 0.5 1.4 52.4 1992-2020 82.3 106.5 52.1 53.0 104.0 10 Percent Discountig Rate 1992-1996 0.0 19.2 - 42.0 - 23.2 10.3 1992-2011 13.0 39.9 - 25.8 - 18.6 31.5 1992-2020 29.5 56.3 - 9.4 - 2.2 48.0 Notes 1. The policy period is 1992-2020. The startg year was chosen as it was deemed that measures under th plan amendment wocld be adopted startg in 1992. The tennal year (2020) was chosen in order to allow at least about ten years of less restrctive management regie under each option. 2. The baseline TAC was chosen in consideration of an earlier Counci proposa to impose such TAC level for the 1991 fihi year. All options assume the baselie TAC for 1991. The base case difers from the preferred option Oiùy in the sense tht the former maintain the same TAC thoughout the policy period whie the latter assumes a 6 MP quota each for the commercial and recreational sectors begi in 2008, a year afer the 20 percent SPR is reached. All options assume a 6 MP quota each for the. commercial and recreational sectors notig the fact that th is the maxium alowable harvest that maitain the SPR level at 20 percent when a 50% bycatch reduction is realied. 3. Preferred Option 3 is considered as an alternative Oiùy in the sense that it offers an option to extend the recoveiy perod to about 2011 (i.e., 1.5 ties the biological generation tie for red snapper). A-I0 Table 3 APPROXIMATE CHAGES IN NET BENEFITS TO THE COMMERCIA AND RECRETIONAL RED SNAPPER FISHERY (Milon Dollars) Baseline: 2.0 MP Commercial Quota, 2 Fish Receational Bag Lit in 1992-2020, 50 Percent Reduction in Bycatch in 1994+ Preferred Preferred Rejected Rejected Rejected Option Option 3 Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b Period -2007- -2011- -2001- -2002- -2008 Comitll Rec'l Comm'l Rec' Comm'l Rec' Comm'l Rec'l Comm'l Rec'l 5 Percent Discountig Rate 1992- 1 996 0.0 0.0 10.4 11.3 - 28.8 - 19.2 - 16.7 - 11. 4.9 6.7 1992-2011 19.6 11.1 16.2 38.8 - 3.3 3.8 - 1.5 2.9 25.4 27.0 1992-2020 54.8 27.5 51.4 55.1 31.9 20.2 33.7 19.3 60.6. 43.4 10 Percent Discountig Rate 1992-1996 0.0 0.0 9.2 10.0 - 25.2 - 16.8 - 13.9 - 9.3 4.4 5.9 1992-2011 8.3 4.7 14.3 25.6 - 17.9 - 7.9 - 12.9 - 5.7 14.9 16.6 1992-2020 19.5 10.0 25.5 30.8 - 6.7 - 2.7 - 1.7 - 0.5 26.1 21.9 Notes 1. The policy period is 1992-2020. The startg year was chosen as it was deemed tht measures under th plan amendment would be adopted startg in 1992. The term year (2020) was chosen in order to allow at least about ten years of less restrctive management regie under each option. 2. The baselie TAC was chosen in consideration of an earlier Counci proposa to impose such TAC level for the 1991 fihig year. All options assume the baseline TAC for 1991. The base case difers from the preferred option only in the sense tht the fonner maintain the same TAC thoughout the policy period whie the latter assumes a 6 MP quota each for the commercial and recreational sectors begig in 2008, a year afer the 20 percent SPR is reached. Al options assume a 6 MP quota each for the commercial and recreational sectors noti the fact tht th is the maxium alowable harvest that maintai the SPR level at 20 percent when a 50% bycatch reduction is realized. 3. Prefered Option 3 is considered as an alternative only in the sense tht it offers an option to extend the recovery period to about 2011 (i.e., 1.5 ties the biological generation tie for red snapper). A-ll Billing Code: 3510-22 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic ~nd Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 641 (Docket No. J RIN Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMY: NOAA issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). This proposed rule would remove speckled hind from the species managed as shallow-water groupers (all groupers other than jewfish and deep-water groupers) and add it to the species managed as deep-water groupers (yellowedge, misty, warsaw, and snowy grouper) . In addition, Amendment 3 proposes to (1) extend the target date for rebuilding the red snapper resource in the Gulf of Mexico from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2007; and (2) add to the management measures that may be implemented or modif ied via the FMP' s framework procedure the setting of target dates for rebuilding overfished reef fish stocks, with an upper limit for the rebuilding periods not exceeding 1.5 times the generation time of the species under consideration. The intended effects of this rule and 1 Amendment 3 are to place speckled hind in the species group to which it properly belongs, to provide the Council with a target date for red snapper that is attainable, and to provide the Council with necessary flexibility in the rebuilding program for reef fish. DATES: Written comments must be received (Insert date 45 days after date of filinq at the Office of the Federal Reqister) . ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of Amendment 3, which includes a regulatory impact review/environmental assessment (RIR/EA), and a minority report that objects to the proposed upper limit for the rebuilding periods should be sent to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, suite 881, Tampa, FL 33609. Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to Robert A. Sadler, Southeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 9450 Koger Boulevard, st. Petersburg, FL 33702. FOR FURTHER INFORMTION CONTACT: Robert A. Sadler, 813-893 3722. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMTION: The rèef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP prepared by the Council and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 641, under the authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Speckled Hind 2 The implementing regulations include speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhavi) as a shallow-water grouper After the commercial quota for shallow-water grouper was reached and the commercial shallow-water grouper fishery was closed on November 8, 1990, a significant increase was noted in the catch of speckled hind by vessels targeting deep wa ter groupers. Speckled hind reportedly represented from 30 to 40 percent of the groupers being taken after the closure. Because speckled hind are taken, from relatively deep water, there is a high rate of mortality when they are released. Thus, during the closure, the resource was being wasted. The Council found that the waste of speckled hind owing to its inclusion in the shallow-water grouper category consti tuted an emergency. The Secretary concurred and promulgated an emergency rule, effective for 90 days commencing December 11, 1990, transferring speckled hind from the shallow-water to the deep-water grouper category. Amendment 3 would make that transfer permanent. The categories used in the FMP reflect a bathymetric association for the shallow- and deep-water groupers However, no specific depth zone was established to separate the two groups. The groups are principally distinguished by ecological distribution, with the deep-water groupers generally found further offshore in deeper waters beyond reef areas. Speckled hind are found on the outer reefs, 3 mainly at depths of 100 fathoms or greater, and occur as a significant component of the deep-water fishery. The magnitude of catches of speckled hind during the shallow-water grouper closure in a fishery that was not taking any appreciable amounts of other shallow-water groupers strongly indicates that speckled hind is not properly classified as shallow-water groupers. Change in Target Date As part of a rebuilding program, Amendment. 1 to the FMP established a target date of January 1, 2000, for attaining a spawning potential ratio (SPR) for reef fish resources of 20 percent. (In Amendment 1, the Council's goal was expressed in terms of a spawning stock biomass per recruit ratio (SSBR) of 20 percent. Both SPR and SSBR refer to the same index of population status. SPR is technicaiiy a more ¡ correct reference to spawning stock index and is used in the most recent stock assessment.) Because of the current depleted status of the red snapper resource, closure of the red snapper directed fishery would have to be imposed immediately and significant reductions in the harvest of juvenile red snapper as bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery would have to be imposed by January 1, 1993, in order to meet the SPR goal by 2000. A recent amendment to the Magnuson Act, Pub. L. 101-627, prohibits mandatory reductions in the shrimp trawl bycatch of red snapper before January 1, 1994. However, even with a 4 prohibition of directed red snapper fishing commencing January 1, 1991, and a total reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch of red snapper commencing January 1, 1994, the SPR goal would not be met by 2000. The Council is acutely aware that immediate action is required to reduce the fishing mortality of red snapper but is unable to propose any management measures for red snapper under the framework procedure established in Amendment 1 that are consistent with the time frame for attaining the SPR objective of the FMP. Accordingly, Amendment 3 proposes to extend the target date for red snapper to January 1, 2007. The target date for other species of reef fish would not be changed. Although the SPR goal could be reached in 2001 with a complete closure of the directed red snapper fishery beginning in 1991 and a 50 percent reduction in the shrimp trawl bycatch beginning in 1994, the Council chose to extend the target date to 2007 and allow catches to continue, but at a reduced rate, to lessen the social and economic burdens associated with a complete closure of the red snapper fishery. A reduced recreational bag limit and commercial quota, implemented commencing in 1991, in combination with a 50 percent reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch of juvenile red snapper after January 1, 1994, will enable attainment of the SPR objective by 2007. 5 Change in Framework Procedure The FMP, as amended, contains a procedure for specification of total allowable catch and adjustment of management measures. The target dates for rebuilding reef fish stocks are not included among the management measures that may be adjusted via the framework procedure. Lack of flexibility in this regard has contributed to significant delays in implementing necessary conservation measures on red snapper. The dynamics of the reef fish resources, paucity of biological data on the resource, paucity of economic and social data on fishermen, and the difficulties in making long-term predictions militate against fixed target dates Accordingly, Amendment 3 proposes to add target dates to the / management measures that may be changed under the framework procedure, with the constraint that a target date may not provide for a rebuilding period that exceeds 1.5 times the generation time for the species being considered. Generation time is the age at which the average female fish achieves half of her expected lifetime egg production. This constraint provides an upper limit for the selection of an appropriate target date. As with all changes recommended by the Council via the framework procedure, the changes in target dates would have to be consistent with the obj ecti ves of the FMP, the 6 national standards, and other applicable law and would be available for public comment. No regulatory changes are proposed to add changes in target dates to the management measures that may be implemented or modified via the framework procedure or to implement the change in the target date for red snapper. However, the Council is expected to submit a regulatory amendment under the framework procedure that (1) will reduce the harvest of red snapper in the directed fishery commencing in 1991; and (2) in combination with future actions, will attain the SPR obj ecti ve by 2007. Addi tional information on the proposed transfer of speckled hind to the shallow-water grouper category, the proposed change in the target date for rebuilding the red snapper resource, and the proposed adjustment, within limitations based on the generation time for each species, of target dates via the framework procedure are contained in Amendment 3- Additional information on the objections to the limitations on target dates via the framework procedure are contained in the minor i ty report. The availability of Amendment 3 and the minor i ty report was announced in the FEDERAL REGISTER on February , 1991 (56 FR ) . Classification section 304 (a) (1) (D) (ii) of the Magnuson Act, as amended by Public Law 99-659, requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish regulations proposed by a 7 Council wi thin 15 days of receipt of an FMP amendment and regulations. At this time, the Secretary has not determined that Amendment 3, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the Magnuson Act, and other applicable law. The Secretary, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period. This proposed rule is exempt from the procedures of E.O. 12291 under section 8 (a) (2) of that order. It is being reported to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why it is not possible to follow the procedures of that order. The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA, has initially determined that this proposed rule is not a "major rule" requiring the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis under E.O. 12291. This proposed rule, if adopted, is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, producti vi ty, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. 8 The Council prepared a regulatory impact review (RIR) which concludes that this rule, if adopted, over the short term, would have negligible economic effects on the commercial and recreational sectors of the red snapper fishery. Over the long term, positive benefits to the commercial and recreational sectors of the red snapper fishery will be approximately $29.5 million to $82.5 million at 10 percent and 6 percent discount rates , respectively. In addition, the RIR concludes that this rule, if adopted, would affect few participants in the fishery. Accordingly, the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared. The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA may be obtained at the address listed above and comments on it are requested. The Council has determined that this rule will be implemented in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal zone management programs of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Texas does not participate in the coastal zone management program. These determinations have been submitted for 9 review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 12612. List of Subiects in 50 CFR Part 641 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 641 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 641 -- REEF FISH FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO 1. The authority citation for part 641 continues to read as follows: Authori ty: 16 U.S.C. 1a01 et seq. 2. In § 641.25, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: § 641.25 Commercial quotas. * * * * * (b) Yellowedge, misty, warsaw, and snowy grouper and speckled hind (deep-water groupers), combined - 1.8 million pounds. * * * * * 10