Stone Crab Amendment 1

F I NAL
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE STONE CRAB FISHERY
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
SEPTEMBER,
1981
GULF OF MEXICO F I SHERY MANAGEMENT COUNC I L
LINCOLN CENTER, SU l T E 881
5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33609
2.0
SUMMARY
The harvest of stone crabs i n t h e Gulf o f Mexico i s managed by t h e Fishery Management Plan f o r t h e
Stone Crab Fishery o f t h e Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP has resolved an armed c o n f l i c t between crab
fishermen and t r a w l fishermen.
The FMP was published i n t h e Federal Register on A p r i l 3, 1979, and
was Implemented by t h e Secretary of Commerce on September 14, 1979. An Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was prepared on t h e FMP and was f i l e d w i t h t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA). The FMP
i s a multiyear p l a n which remains fn e f f e c t u n t l l amended.
The Gulf of Mexico F lshery Management Counci I now proposes t o amend t h e FMP t o provide f o r f l e x i b i I ity
i n amending regulations, t o modify t h e r e p o r t i n g requirements and t o d e l e t e exceptions p e r t a i n i n g t o
l i v e b a i t shrimping.
Although t h e FMP considers t h e resource throughout i t s range from F l o r i d a t o Texas, t h e area which i s
regulated under t h i s FMP i s confined t o t h e waters of t h e west coast o f F l o r i d a , i n c l u d i n g t h e Keys,
The purpose of r e s t r i c t i n g t h e rnanagei n t h e f ishery conservation zone ( 9 naut i c a l t o 200 miles).
ment regime t o t h i s area i s because very few stone crabs a r e taken I n other areas and n o ' r e g u l a t i o n i s
needed a t t h i s t i m e i n these areas.
The regulations which were d i f f e r e n t from those i n e f f e c t by
F l o r i d a were implemented i n t h e waters o f t h e t e r r i t o r f a l sea.
S p e c i f i c Management Objectives o f t h e FMP
(I)
Provide f o r an o r d e r l y stone crab f i s h e r y by reducing c o n f l i c t between stone crab and shrimp
f ishermen.
The c o n f l i c t which erupted i n t o violence during t h e 1977-1978 season i s t h e prime reason f o r
development o f t h e plan a t t h a t time. The proposed regulations of t h e p l a n which were selected
t o achieve t h i s o b j e c t i v e were developed w i t h input by both shrimp and crab fishermen i n an
attempt t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t as f a i r l y as posslble.
(2) E s t a b l i s h an e f f e c t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t i n g system.
The FMP would r e q u i r e user groups t o r e p o r t information r e l a t i v e t o harvesting and u t i l i z a t i o n
o f t h e resource which i s essent i a l t o e f f e c t i v e f ishery conservation and management.
(3)
A t t a i n f u l l u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e resource.
T h i s i s an expanding f i s h e r y and t h e management regime provides f o r growth and development.
However, mln ima I r e s t r l c t ions wh ich a r e necessary f o r stock conservat ion a r e appl 1 ed.
(4)
Promote u n i f o r m i t y o f r e g u l a t i o n s throughout t h e management area.
The Counci I, S t a t e o f F l o r i d a , and National Park Service w i I I have standardized r e g u l a t i o n s f o r
t h e f i s h e r y when it serves a useful purpose t o do so.
Maximum Sustainable Y i e l d (MSY)'
The MSY f o r t h e stone crab f i s h e r y o f t h e west coast of F l o r i d a was calculated t o be 2.4 m i l l i o n
pounds. The l a r g e s t canmercial harvest o f stone crabs was during t h e 1977-1978 season when 2.1
m i l l i o n pounds were landed. The s c i e n t i f i c biological information fn t h e p l a n indicates t h a t harvest
from t h e f i s h e r y i s s t i l I we1 I below t h e actual amount o f annual harvest t h a t can be taken without
r e s u l t i n g i n o v e r f i s h i n g and d e c l i n e i n abundance o f f u t u r e annual crops.
The MSY stated here I s t h e
best mathematical estimate (as required by law) based on c u r r e n t a v a i l a b l e catch data through t h e
1979-1980 season.
Optimum Sustainable Y i e l d (OY)
The OY i s designated as a l l harvested a d u l t stone crabs i n t h e management area between October 5 and
(Thls w i l l be approximately
May 15 t h a t have a claw s i z e o f 7.0 centimeters (2-3/4 inches) o r greater.
2.4 m i l l i o n pounds of claw weight.)
Management Measures included I n t h e FMP a r e as follows:
1.0
2.0
3.0
Harvest p r a c t i c e s
1.1
Minimum claw s i z e o f 2-3/4
1.2
Declawed crab bodies should be returned t o t h e water and not landed.
1.3
A l l vessels and boats a r e required t o shade t h e l i v e crab box from d i r e c t sun1 ight.
1.4
Harvest o f both claws allowed.
1.5
I t i s i l l e g a l t o p u l l another person's traps.
Fishing season
2.1
Closed season between May 15 and October 15.
2.2
The grace period f o r t r a p placement i s t e n days p r i o r t o t h e season and f o r recovery i s f i v e
days a f t e r t h e season.
2.3
Legal t o p u l l t r a p s only during d a y l i g h t hours.
Gear r e s t r i c t i o n s
3.1
4.0
5.0
6.0
inches.
Degradable panels required i n nondeteriorating traps.
Vessel enumeration
4.1
A I l f lshing vessels o r boats I n t h e FCZ must be enumerated.
4.2
Fishermen be c l a s s i f i e d as f u l l - t i m e o r part-time.
Information r e p o r t i n g
5.1
Monthly dealer/processor r e p o r t i n g o f pounds, value, s i z e c l a s s of fishermen's and processed
products.
5.2
Monthly submlsslon o f d a i l y t r i p t i c k e t s by a l l f Ishermen r e p o r t i n g catch, t r a p s pul led
d a i l y , number o f t r a p s and catch zone.
Steps t o r e s o l v e t h e gear c o n f l i c t
6.1
E s t a b l i s h a l i n e o f separation.
6.2
P r o h i b i t shrimp t r a w l ing inshore o f t h e l i n e January 1 t o May 20.
6.3
D i s t r i b u t e c h a r t s and d e s c r i p t ion o f l i n e including loran coordinates.
6.4
A1 low I i m i ted supervlsed exploratory shrlmp f i s h i n g i n s i d e o f I 1 ne January 1 t o May 20.
6.5
Recommend s t a t e adoption o f 6.1
6.6
Permi t l i v e b a l t shrimp1 ng lnshore o f l i n e .
6.7
Requi r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n mark! ngs on l i v e b a l t vessels.
and 6.2
I n t e r r l t o r l a l waters.
A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r Amendment Number 1 are:
A.
I f no a c t i o n were taken, t h e FMP would remain unchanged. Thls would preclude
No Action.
modifying t h e l i n e o f separation i n a t i m e l y manner I n order t o provide a more equitable
Unnecessary canml tments o f human resources ww i d be cont i nued by
s o l u t i o n t o t h e conf I i ct.
f lshermen and federal agenci es I n data c o l l e d i o n and analysis and f o r enforcement.
Although, bonaf ide l i v e bal t shrimpi ng i s not I Ikel y t o occur i n t h e FCZ inshore o f t h e I i ne
during January t o May because productive shrimpi ng areas a r e aval l a b l e lnshore o f t h e FCZ
( n l ne n a u t i c a l m i les), t h i s p o t e n t i a l loophole may be abused by others c r e a t i n g renewed
conf I i c t and loss o f production o f a d u l t shrimp.
Further, t h e measure and r e g u l a t i o n a r e
I n c o n f l i c t w l t h t h e provisions o f t h e shrimp plan.
B.
D e l e t e A l l FMPProvisions.
T h l s a c t l o n w o u l d r e s u l t i n s l g n i f i c a n t adverse i m p a c t s t o t h e
environment, user groups and resources.
C.
Delete A1 I Reporting Requirements. The data t o be c o l iected i n t h e preferred a l t e r n a t i v e i s
necessary f o r stock assessment (dealer r e p o r t s ) and f o r monitoring assessment o f t h e I l n e
( f Ishermen reports).
D.
Specify S p e c i f i c Areas f o r L i v e B a i t Shrimping.
Thls a c t l o n i s not necessary as t h l s a c t i v i t y I s regulated under t h e provislons o f t h e shrimp plan and as no p r o h i b i t i o n s a r e placed
on t h l s a c t i v i t y elsewhere i n t h e Gulf FCZ o r i n s t a t e waters.
E.
Delete t h e provisions estabi i s h i ng t h e 111 Ine o f separationI1 and Incorporate i n l i e u thereof
a procedure whereby these provisions could be r e i n s t a t e d by f i e l d order i f t h e c o n f l i c t
erupts.
Whi l e t h l s a l t e r n a t i v e appears t o have some m e r i t from a c o s t savl ngs standpol nt,
t h e Counci I does not be1 i eve It t o be a v i a b l e o p t i o n and f e e l s t h a t r e s o l u t l o n o f t h e
r e s u l t i n g c o n f l i c t s would be much m r e expensive.
Testimony a t p u b l i c hearings has i n d i cated t o a degree t h e condltlons reponsible f o r t h e armed conf lid st11 I e x i s t , even though
shrimpi ng i s presently prohlbi t e d lnshore o f t h e l i n e from January 1 t o Way 20, as a r e s u l t
o f v i o l a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g provl sions.
The Councl I has concluded t h a t t h e provl sions
would have t o be r e i n s t a t e d annual i y t o prevent armed c o n f l i c t .
This conclusion i s supported by pub1Ic t e s t l m n y and through di scussions w l t h advi sory panel members.
I f t h e c o n f l l c t involved only local crabbers and local shrimp fishermen posslbly t h l s a l t e r native would work, as general i y these persons respect t h e others gear and r i g h t o f access.
However, as many of t h e shrimp vessels a r e from o u t o f s t a t e ports, ranging from North
Carol Ina t o Texas, t h e IIk e l Ihood o f obtai n l ng vo iuntary c m p l lance and respect o f each
o t h e r ' s r i g h t s I s severely I lmlted.
Since t h e e x i s t i n g provisions e s t a b i i shing t h e I1ne have been very successful i n r e s o l v i ng
t h e c o n f l l c t , and slnce most o f t h e i n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n would r e s u l t
I n immediate resumption o f t h e c o n f l i c t , i t i s not considered a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e a t t h i s
time. Another basic problem w i t h such an a l t e r n a t i v e I s t h a t I t s implementation could be
manipulated by a m i n o r i t y group o f crabbers who could take a c t i o n t o cause implementation
e a r l y I n t h e season when t h e measure 1s not r e a l l y necessary t o prevent gear losses.
F.
Provide a procedure f o r amending t h e r e g u l a t i o n s s e t t l n g t h e terms and conditions o f t h e
fIll n e o f s e p a r a t i ~ n . ~ f Such f u t u r e changes would be through use o f t h e regulatory amendment
process. The proposed a c t i o n would provide flexibility t o t h e FMP by Incorporating a p r o v i s l o n f o r amendment I n t h e f u t u r e o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s e t t i n g t h e p o s l t i o n o f t h e I l n e o f
separation i f needed. The proposed a c t ion would a l low modlf i c a t ion o f t h e l l n e o f separat i o n w i t h i n a period o f 90 t o 120 days, r a t h e r than t h e 280 days required f o r p l a n and regul a t l o n amendment. Since t h e r e a r e only 225 days between t h e end o f one f ishlng season and
implementation o f t h e l i n e of separation closure i n t h e next season, m o d i f i c a t i o n by p l a n
amendment i s not p r a c t i c a l
.
The a c t i o n would apply t o t h e l i n e establlshed i n t h e plan t o resolve t h e c o n f l l c t between
user groups.
Shrlmplng I s p r o h l b i t e d shoreward o f t h e l l n e durlng t h e perlod January 1 s t t o
May 20th.
The l l n e was s e t based on t h e econanic and s o c i o l o g i c a l impacts on t h e two user
Based on t h e a v a i l a b l e Informatlon, t h e l Ine was s e t as equitably as
groups affected.
possible. Data c o l l e c t e d through monitorlng t h e f i s h e r y and through research may provide
Information t o a l l o w a more e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n through m o d i f f c a t i o n of t h e c l o s u r e period o r
t h e p o s i t l o n o f t h e I lne. Thls proposed a c t ion would a1 low t h e Counci l and Regional
D i r e c t o r o f NMFS t o do so I n a t l m e l y manner.
G.
Modify t h e r e p o r t i n a requirements o f t h e FMP t o s ~ e c i f vt h a t mandatorv r e ~ o r t l n as h a l l be
r e q u i r e d only o f those p a r t i c i p a n t s I n t h e f i s h e r y who a r e randomly selected t o report,
r a t h e r than by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e fishery.
T h i s a c t i o n would decrease t h e r e p o r t i n g
burden on t h e fishermen and government sector while s t i l l providlng adequate lnformatlon f o r
management purposes.
H.
Delete t h e exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimplng.
The proposed a c t l o n would d e l e t e any
reference from t h e plan and regulations. Such a c t i v i t y would be managed under t h e p r o v l sfons o f t h e shrimp plan.
The o r i g l n a l exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimping was made because t h i s a c t i v l t y was a l lowed I n
some areas o f s t a t e waters inshore of t h e l i n e o f separation.
Subsequent t o t h l s action,
t h e plan f o r t h e shrimp f l s h e r y has been Implemented and has established a sanctuary o r
shrimp nursery ground i n t h e FCZ where a l l shrlmping I s p r o h i b i t e d throughout t h e year. A
p o r t i o n o f t h e l i n e of separation ( p o i n t D t o p o i n t E, F l g u r e 12-21 a l s o serves as t h e boundary o f t h e nursery ground. The S t a t e o f F l o r i d a proh i b l t s a l l shrimping I n t h e nursery
ground by s t a t e statute, b u t a1 lows l i v e ba it shrlmping i n other areas under c e r t a i n
restrlctlons.
The exception i n t h e Stone Crab FMP r e s u l t s I n a c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e provistons
o f t h e shrimp plan. T r a d l t l o n a l ly, no b a i t shrimplng has occurred I n t h e FCZ inshore o f t h e
l ine, but has been r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e t e r r i t o r i a l sea. The shr Imp p l a n a l lows cont inuation o f
t h l s a c t i v f t y I n t h e t e r r l t o r i a l sea. The shrimp plan and EIS documents t h e Impacts o f t h l s
prohibition.
A d e t a i l e d discussion o f these alternatives i s provided i n Section 12.0 o f Amendment Number 1.
3.0
CONTENTS
1.0
PREFACE
2.0
SUMMARY
3.0
CONTENTS
4.0
INTRODUCTION
5.0
DESCRIPTION OF STOCKS C O M P R I S I E THE MANAGEMENT U N l T
6.0
DESCRl P T l ON OF HABITAT OF STOCK COMPRI S l NG THE MANAGEMENT U N l T
7.0
F I SHERY MANAGEMENT JURI SD I C T I ON,
8.0
DESCRIPTI ON OF F I SH IE ACT I V IT I ES AFFECT IE THE STOCK COMPRI S I ffi T H E MANAGEMENT U N l T
9.0
DESCRIPTI ON OF ECONCMlC CHARACTER1STlCS OF THE F l SHEW
LAWS, AND POL l C l ES
10.0
DESCRIPTI ON OF T H E BUS1 NESSES, MAFKETS AND OffiAN I Z A T I ONS ASSOCI ATED WITH THE F I SHEW
1 1.0
DESCRIPTI ON OF SOCl AL AND CULTURAL FRPMEWORK OF DOMESTIC F I SHEFNEN AND THE1 R COMMUNITI ES
12.0
DETEFNINATION OF OPTIMUM Y I E L D
13.0
MEASURES, REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS,
14.0
SPECIFICATION AND SOURCE OF PERTAINENT FISHERY DATA
15.0
RELATI ONSHIP OF THE RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO E X I S T I NS APPLICABLE LAW AND P O L I C I ES
16.0
COUNCIL REVIEW AND M O N I T O R I E OF THE PLAN
17.0
REFERENCES
18.0
APPENDIX
OR RESTRICT1 ONS SPEC1 F I ED TO ATTAI N MANAGEMENT CBJECTIVES
4.0
INTRODUCTION
T h i s Amendment Number 1 t o t h e Stone Crab FMP i s designed t o accanpl ish t h e f o l lowing:
(1)
p r o v i d e a procedure f o r amending t h e r e g u l a t i o n s s e t t i n g t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s of t h e
I t l i n e of separation."
Such f u t u r e changes would be through use of t h e r e g u l a t o r y amendment
process;
(2)
modify t h e r e p o r t i n g requirements of t h e FMP t o spec1 f y t h a t mandatory r e p o r t i n g shal I be
r e q u i r e d o n l y of those participants i n t h e f i s h e r y who a r e random1y s e l e c t e d t o r e p o r t ,
r a t h e r t h a n by a1 l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e f i s h e r y and t o modify r e g u l a t i o n s t o p e r m i t shoreslde
enforcement of r e p o r t i n g req ui rements r a t h e r t h a n at-sea enforcement;
(3)
d e l e t e t h e exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimplng which w i 1 1 be managed under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
t h e shrimp plan;
(4)
t o make such e d i t o r i a l changes t o t h e FMP and r e g u l a t i o n s t o accanpl i s h t h e above changes,
t o update and analyze t h e s t a t i s t i c a l l n f o r m a t l o n on s t o c k assessment I n t h e FMP, and t o
c o r r e c t o t h e r ed it o r i a l def i c i enci es.
5.0
DESCRlPTlON OF STOCKS COMPRI S l NG THE MANAGEMENT UNIT
Amendment Number 1 updates t h e s t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s s e c t i o n through t h e 1979-1980 f i s h i n g
season.
These d a t a do n o t change t h e conclusions of t h e s e c t i o n o r n e c e s s i t a t e changes i n t h e t e x t
o t h e r t h a n c l a r i f y i n g statements r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s e new data.
The proposed changes i n t h i s s e c t i o n
a r e as f o l l o w s :
Subsection ( 1 1) Abundance and P r e s e n t C o n d i t i o n : should be modif l e d i n t h e second paragraph which
discusses present c o n d i t i o n by addl ng t h e f o l lowlng statements:
I1Sul l I v a n (1979) concluded t h a t t h e
s t o n e c r a b p o p u l a t i o n i s successful l y w i t h s t a n d l ng c u r r e n t f i s h i n g pressure.
Zuboy and Snel l (1980)
concluded t h a t t h e s t o n e crab s t o c k I s a p p a r e n t l y h e a l t h y and t h e c u r r e n t management regime (under t h e
p l a n ) seems s u f f i c i ent.R
T h i s same subsection I n t h e t h i r d paragraph which discusses s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n of claws should be
m o d i f i e d by adding t h e f o i l o w l n g statement and a r e v l s e d T a b l e 5-1 as f o l l o w s :
"The t r e n d toward l e s s
jumbos and more l a r g e s i z e claws continued through t h e 1979-1980 season where 67.8 percent of landings
r e p o r t e d by d e a l e r s were c l a s s i f l e d as l a r g e (Table 5-1 ).It
T a b l e 5-1.
S i z e frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of s t o n e crab claws I n t h e southwest F l o r i d a f i s h e r y ,
1970-197 1, 1973-1 974, 1975-1 976, and 1979-1980.
Percent Frequency
claw size1
1970-19712
1973-1 9742
1975-1 9763
Smal l
20
35
34
-
Medi um
40
22
24
3z5
Large
24
32
39
68
1979-1 9804
J umbo
(N)
7,025
2,746
6,772
(dealer reports)
Claw s i z e s a r e approxi mate as they a r e s o r t e d v i s u a l l y by f i s h house personnel according t o c r l t e r i a described by Savage, e t al. (1975).
Data f r u n Savage, e t al.
'
(1975).
Carapace w i d t h frequenci as converted t o claw s i z e s u s i n g d a t a and conversion equations f r a n
Sui l i v a n ( i n press).
D a t a from Zuboy and Snel l (1980).
l ncludes some sma l l claws.
Subsection ( i v ) Estimate o f Maximum S u s t a i n a b l e Y i e l d (MSY) should be m d i f l e d under paragraph (B)
Stock Assessment by add1 ng t h e f o l lowing statements, a r e v i s e d T a b l e 5-2 and r e v i s e d F i g u r e s 5-4 and
5-5, as f o l l o w s :
T l o r e c u r r e n t d a t a f o r t h e 1978-1979 and 1979-1980 f i s h i n g seasons were used t o
reassess MSY (Zuboy and Snei 1, 1980). The new MSY f i g u r e d i d n u t d i f f e r s t a t i s t i c a l i y from t h e MSY
s t a t e d i n t h i s p l a n and n o change i s proposed.11
Catch and e f f o r t s t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e west c o a s t of F l o r i d a s t o n e c r a b f i s h e r y .
T a b l e 5-2.
Catch*
m i l l i o n s o f pounds
Season
Traps
thousands
Catch Per**
T r a p ( I bs)
1962-1 963
*
**
Catch i s claw weight.
Claw weight i s 1 / 2 whole weight.
Fishermen b e l i e v e t h a t catch per t r a p has decreased because of t h e increased number of t r a p s and
because of t h e p r a c t i c e of s e t t i n g t r a p s i n areas of low p o t e n t i a l t o r e s e r v e f i s h i n g r i g h t s .
Source:
WFS unpublished data, Zuboy and Snel 1,
1980.
62
84
68
68
78
72
74
76
78
SEASON
F i g u r e 5-4.
E f f o r t i n t h e west coast of F l o r i d a stone crab fishery.
--
F i g u r e 5-5.
---
SEASON
Catch I n t h e west coast of F l o r l d a stone crab fishery.
6.0
DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT OF STOCKS COMPRISING THE MANAGEMENT UNIT
No d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e which would n e c e s s i t a t e a change t o t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e FMP.
7.0
FISHER1 ES MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION, LAWS, AND POLICIES
No d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e which would n e c e s s i t a t e a change t o t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e FMP.
8.0
DESCRIPTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE STOCK COMPRISING THE MANAGEMENT UNIT
Amendment Number 1 updates t h e s t a t l s t i c a l in f ormat i o n i n t h i s s e c t i o n through t h e 1979-1980 f i s h i n g
These d a t a do n o t change concluslons i n t h e s e c t i o n o r n e c e s s i t a t e changes i n t e x t o t h e r than
season.
The proposed changes i n t h i s s e c t i o n a r e as f o l l o w s :
c l a r i f y i n g statements r e f e r r i n g t o t h e new data.
These d a t a show t h e same c o n t i n u i n g trend, l.e.,
T a b l e 8-1 i s modif l e d t o i n c l u d e more c u r r e n t data.
continued increases i n t h e number of t r a p s w i t h f l u c t u a t i o n s i n number of vessels, boats, and f l s h e r men, b u t w i t h an overal l increase i n p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h time.
Subsection ( 1 1 H i s t o r y o f E x p l o i t a t i o n i s m o d i f i e d t o add a new paragraph as f o l lows:
If(C)
F i s h i n g E f f o r t and Success i n R e l a t i o n t o t h e L i n e o f Separation.
Data on f i s h i n g e f f o r t and
success i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e I1 ne of s e p a r a t i o n were c o l l e c t e d f o l lowing implementation of t h e
p l a n (Zuboy and Snel I, 1980).
These d a t a a r e r e p o r t e d by zone as d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 8-1.
These
d a t a show t h a t as t h e season opened f i s h i n g e f f o r t (Table 8-31 and t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e catch
As t h e
(Table 8 4 1 were concentrated i n t h e nearshore waters of t h e t e r r i t o r i a l sea (Zone 1).
season progressed more of t h e e f f o r t and catch was i n and came f r a n t h e FCZ (Zone 21, u n t i l by
February t h e m a j o r i t y of e f f o r t and catch was i n theFCZ.
With t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e f i r s t
month, e f f o r t and catch I n Zone 3 ( o u t s i d e t h e I1ne of s e p a r a t i o n ) remained e s s e n t i a l l y s t a b l e
a t 6.5 and 7.0 percent, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T h i s t r e n d continued through t h e p e r i o d t h a t shrimp
Catch per u n i t e f f o r t
vessels were excluded f r a n t r a w l 1 ng i n s h o r e of t h e l i n e of separation.
(Table 8-51 remained general l y h i g h e s t f o r Zone 2 through t h e f i s h i n g season and was general l y
h i g h e r f o r Zone 1 t h a n f o r Zone 3.l'
F l g u r e s 8-1 through 8-5 of t h i s S e c t i o n of t h e FMP and t e x t references t o t h e s e f i g u r e s should be subsequent l y renumbered as 8-2 through 8-6.
Table 8-1.
G u l f of Mexico s t o n e c r a b f ishery.
Yearor
Vessels
Season (5 t o n s o r over)
*
**
***
Number of vessels,
Boats
(less than 5 tons)
I1Ful I-time1* flshermen r e c e i v e m r e t h a n one-half
r e c e i v e l e s s than one-half.
boats,
No. o f f u l I-t lme
Fishermen*
fishermen and traps,
No.
of part-time
Fishermen*
t h e i r annual lncane f r a n f i s h i n g ;
1961-1980.
No. of traps***
llpart-timell
fishermen
Number of t r a p s l i s t e d d i f f e r s f r a n t h o s e shown I n T a b l e 5-2.
T h i s occurs because d l f f e r e n t sources of
s t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n were used and i n p a r t because T a b l e 5-2 i s based on seasonal I n f o r m a t i o n r a t h e r
t h a n annual information.
I n c l u d e s f u l l - and p a r t - t i m e fishermen.
Source:
1961-1976 Compiled f r a n F i s h e r y S t a t i s t i c s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e d and 1977-1980 from Zuboy and Snel I
(1980).
@
For f i s h i n g North of F o r t
Myers, u s e t h e zone explanation
below.
ZONE 1 - TERRITORIAL SEA
( 3risi.de 9 n a u t i c a l m i l e s )
ZONE 2
- FCZ S H O R E W A R D O F
8 FATHOMS
m
( outside 9 nautical milesg
3
and l e s s t h a n 8 fathoms )
1
I
ZONE 3 - F C Z SEAWARD OF
8 FATHOMS
( o u t s i d e 9 n a u t i c a l miles
and more t h a n 8. fathoms )
Use above zones f o r t h e a r e a ! of Key West to F o r t Myers
'
I
CI
2
T a b l e 8-3.
Percent of s t o n e c r a b t r a p s p u l l e d i n each zone ( d e r i v e d f r a n logbooks),
May, 1980.
Month
Zone 1
Zone 2
October,
1979 t o
Zone 3
October
November
December
January
February
March
Apri l
May
Note:
See F i g u r e 8-1 f o r l o c a t i o n of zones.
Zuboy and Snel 1 (1980).
Source:
Table 8 4 .
Percent of s t o n e c r a b catch taken I n each zone ( d e r i v e d f r a n logbooks),
May, 1980.
October,
Month
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
October
64
32
4
November
December
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
Note:
Source:
See F i g u r e 8-1 f o r Io c a t l o n of zones.
Zuboy and Snel 1 (1980).
1979 t o
Table 8-5.
Catch per t r a p haul by zone, October,
Zone 1
Month
Zone 2
October
November
December
January
February
March
Aprl l
Grand
Averages
Note:
Source:
See F i g u r e 8-1 f o r l o c a t i o n of zones.
Zuboy and Snel l (1980).
1979 t o May,
Zone 3
1980.
Average A l l Zones
9.0
DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY
Amendment Number 1 updates t h e statistical I n f o r m a t i o n I n t h l s s e c t i o n through t h e 1979-1980 f i s h l n g
season.
These d a t a do n o t change t h e conclusions of t h e s e c t i o n o r n e c e s s i t a t e changes I n t h e t e x t
o t h e r t h a n c l a r i f y i n g statements r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s e new data.
The proposed changes t o t h l s s e c t i o n a r e
a s follows:
Subsection (1) Domestic H a r v e s t l n g Sector Subpart (9) Stone c r a b p r i c e s should be m o d i f i e d by addlng
t h e f o l lowing sentences t o t h e second paragraph modify i ng T a b l e 9-1 as f o l lows: "New d a t a (Zuboy and
Snel I, 1980) show a much g r e a t e r r a t e of increase I n exvessel v a l u e (Table 9-1 1. The exvessel va l ue
1 n 1979-1980 was 379 percent h i g h e r t h a n f o r 1962-1963 wh i l e t h e increase I n t h e consumer p r i c e Index
d u r i n g t h l s p e r i o d was o n l y 140 percent.I1
T a b l e 9-1.
Stone crab landings, value,
1962-1963 t o 1979-1980.
Land i ngs*
(pounds claws)
Stone
Crab
Season
Source:
*
**
and p r i c e f o r t h e west c o a s t of F l o r i d a ,
Value of Land1 ngs*
( c u r r e n t do1 l a r s )
N a t i o n a l M a r l ne F l s h e r i es Service, Stone Crab Data Memorandum, August 4,
Zuboy and Snel l (1980).
F l s h e r i es Center.
by s t o n e crab season,
Exves se I P r Ic e
of Claws
( c u r r e n t do1 l a r s )
1978, Southeast
Based on r e p o r t s of s t o n e c r a b dealers.
Therefore, does n o t i n c l u d e sales by crabbers d i r e d t o
r e t a l l e r s and consumers o r t h e catch of i n d i v i d u a l s f o r personal use o r r e c r e a t l o n .
Not a v a i l a b l e
,
Subpart (F) o f t h i s same subsection should be modified as follows:
(F)
Total and average gross income from harvesting
It was about 5.135
"Total gross incane of t h e f l e e t I s t h e exvessel value reported I n Table 9-1.
m i I l i o n do1 l a r s f o r t h e 1979-1980 stone crab season. The best indi cations a r e t h a t 291 vessels
and 454 crabbers were paid t h e 5.135 m i I l i o n do1 lars. Therefore, t h e vessel gross i ncane f o r t h e
1979-1980 season averaged about $17,647, Table 9-4.
Without deducting f o r t h e vessel costs, t h e
The number of t r a p s fished was estimated
average gross f o r t h e 454 crabbers was about $1 1,311.
This a n a l y s i s was based on processora t 297,600.
The average gross incane per t r a p was $17.26.
dealer r e p o r t s (Zuboy and Snel I, 1980) and does not include crabbers who sel l d i r e c t l y t o t h e
r e t a i l t r a d e such as restaurants.
Total and average gross income o f stone crab f ishermen, vessels, and traps,
and 1979-1980.
Table 9-4.
Totals
1977-1 978
Season
1977-1978
1979-1 980""
Season
Gross incane
Number vessel s and boats
Number canmerci a l crabbers
Number t r a p s
Averages
Gross income per vessel
Gross incane per crabber
Gross incane per t r a p
Source:
*
Processor-dea l e r survey,
**
Zuboy and Snel I, 1980.
1978, unpub l i shed data, Number = 38.
Average gross unadjusted income f o r t h e 1979-1980 season Increased by 115 percent f o r vessels,
148 percent f o r crabbers and by 119 percent over these values f o r 1977-1978.11
by
Subpart (GI o f t h l s same subsection should be modlfied so t h a t t h e t h i r d paragraph and supporting
Table 9-6 read as f o l lows:
" I n terms o f gross i ncane i n c u r r e n t do1 l a r s per trap, I ndi cations a r e t h a t c a n m r c i a l crabbers
a r e r e c e i v i ng only s l i g h t l y more gross 1 ncane per t r a p today (1980) as i n t h e 1962-1963 season.
However, t h e c u r r e n t doi l a r f i g u r e s a r e i n f l a t e d values and n o t canparable t o t h e 1962-1963
season. The d e f l a t e d value, real-do1 lars, f o r t h e 1979-1980 season i s about f o r t y percent o f t h e
c u r r e n t value o r about $7.25 per t r a p f o r t h e season. The i n d i c a t i o n s i n Table 9-6 vary I n such
a manner t h a t leads one t o question t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of base data. T h i s i s a data base whlch must
be strengthened i n terms o f canpleteness and expanded t o i nclude o t h e r essential econanlc values
such as cost data and net returns.11
Table 9-6.
Year
Source:
*
Number of traps,
Number
Traps
landings,
Land i ngs
(pounds claws)
landings per t r a p and v a l u e per trap,
Landi ngs/traps
(pounds claws)
Value of landi ngs
( c u r r e n t do1 l a r s )
N a t i o n a l M a r i n e F i s h e r i e s Service, Washington D.C.,
Zuboy and Snel I, 1980.
Not Available.
1962-1980.
Exvessel P r i c e
of claws
( c u r r e n t do l l a r s )
Value of landi ngs
per Trap
( c u r r e n t do1 l a r s )
unpublished o p e r a t i n g u n i t s data.
10.0
DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS, MARKETS, AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FISHERY
No d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e which would n e c e s s i t a t e a change t o t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e FMP.
11.0
DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMESTIC FISHEFNEN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES
No d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e which would n e c e s s i t a t e a change t o t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e FMP.
12.0
(i
DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM YIELD
Speci f i c a t i o n o f t h e Fishery and Management U n i t
No data a r e a v a i l a b l e which would n e c e s s i t a t e a change i n t h i s subsection o f t h e FMP.
( ii)
Speci f ic Management Object i ves
No data ava i lab l e and none o f t h e recommended a l t e r n a t i v e s o f Amendment Number 1 necessitate a
change in t h e management o b j e c t i ves.
I n consideration- o f a i l b i o l o g i c a l , economic, social and ecological f a c t o r s t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e
speci f i c management o b j e c t i v e s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e Gulf of Mexico stone crab fishery:
(lii)
(iv)
1.
Provide f o r order1y conduct of t h e stone crab f ishery i n t h e management area t o reduce
conf Iic t between stone crab f ishermen and o t h e r f ishermen In t h e area.
2.
Establ l sh an e f f e c t i v e f i shery s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t i n g system f o r monltori ng t h e stone crab
fishery.
3.
A t t a i n f u 1 l u t i l iz a t i on o f t h e stone crab resource 1n t h e management area.
4.
Promote u n i f o r m i t y o f r e g u l a t i o n s throughout t h e management area.
Description o f A l t e r n a t i v e s and
Analysis o f B e n e f i c i a l and Adverse Impacts of P o t e n t i a l Management Options
The f o l lowi ng management measures a r e Included i n t h e FW:
1.
Harvest
a.
Adopt t h e m i nimum claw s i z e (7.0 centimeters (2-3/4 inches) propodus) present1 y
required under F l o r i d a s t a t u t e ? (Figure 12-11.
L i f e h i s t o r y information given i n
Secti on 5, and explanatory information given i n Section 12(v) suggests harvest o f stone
crabs w i t h claws t h i s s l z e w i I I both provide f o r a h i g h l y acceptable market product and
a l low suf f i c i ent spawn1ng p r i o r t o harvest. Orderly enforcement i s a l s o enhanced by
s p e c i f y i n g t h i s claw s l z e i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t required by F l o r i d a statutes.
b.
Require t h a t declawed stone crabs and crabs w i t h undersized claws be returned t o t h e
water, not landed. Thi s o b j e c t i v e I s recommended not on1y i n FCZ, but a l s o i n
Everglades National Park waters. The Counci l w l I I request t h a t t h e F l o r l d a s t a t u t e
t h a t r e q u i r e s declawed bodies t o Ifbe returned immediately t o t h e water1$ be amended t o
read "be returned t o t h e water, not landed."
Processing p r a c t i c e s r e q u i r e t h a t crabs be
kept aboard and declawed on t h e way t o shore. This i s because claws cannot be r e f r l g erated before cook1 ng without adverse1 y a f f e c t i n g t h e qua l ity.
c.
Requi r e t h a t a l l vessels and boats f 1 shl ng stone crabs i n t h e FCZ be requi red t o shade
t h e l i v e crab box from dl r e c t sun1 Ight. Shadi ng w i I I e l i m i n a t e some m r t a l Ity among
crabs be1ng he1 d aboard t h e vessel and thereby increase s u r v i v a l o f crabs returned
t o t h e water a f t e r declawing.
d.
Allow harvest o f both claws as I s allowed under F l o r i d a statutes.
Considering t h e harvest m o r t a l i t y information available, harvest of both claws i s t h e wise management
p r a c t ice.
e.
2.
Make it i i legal t o p u l l another person's pots ( t r a p s ) i n t h e FCZ and r e s t r i c t t h e
p u l l i n g of t r a p s t o d a y l i g h t hours.
F i s h i n g season
The c l o s e d season f o r t a k i n g of s t o n e crabs i n t h e FCZ each year shal i be between May 15
and October 15.
L i f e h i s t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h l s closed season w i l l a l low h a r v e s t
o f crabs o n l y d u r i n g t h e t i m e when minimum spawning occurs.
T h i s season i s a l s o f u l l y canp a t i b l e w i t h present F l o r l d a s t a t u t e s , t h e r e f o r e , w i l I a l low o r d e r l y management and minimize enforcement problems.
The FCZ open season f o r s t o n e crabs shal l i n c l u d e a grace
p e r i o d which a l lows t h a t t r a p s be placed i n t h e water t e n days p r i o r t o t h e season opening
and be a l lowed i n t h e water u n t i l f i v e days a f t e r t h e season closes.
3.
Gear L i m i t a t i o n s
R e q u i r e degradable escape panels i n p l a s t i c o r o t h e r n o n d e t e r i o r a t i n g s t o n e crab traps.
The purpose of t h l s r e c a n m n d a t i o n 1s t o prevent unnecessary mortality i n l o s t t r a p s which
c o n t i n u e t o f i s h unattended.
4.
Registration
A l l vessels f i s h i n g f o r s t o n e crabs i n t h e FCZ be e n u m e r a t d f o r t h e purpose of c o l l e d i o n
o f d a t a necessary t o p r o p e r l y manage t h e f lshery.
Vessels shal l be designated:
1.
2.
5.
6.
Commercial, f u l l o r p a r t t i m e
Recreational
I n f o r m a t i o n t o be r e p o r t e d by fishermen and processors/dealers
a.
Dealer/processors shal l be r e q u i r e d t o r e p o r t pounds of s t o n e crabs hand led, value,
s i z e classes of claws.
b.
Fishermen shal I be r e q u i r e d t o submit d a i l y t r i p t i c k e t s r e p o r t i n g catch, t r a p s pui led
d a i l y , t o t a l number of t r a p s being f ished and t h e zone where t r a p s a r e being fished.
T o implement a s t a t i s t i c a l system c o v e r i n g a l l s e g m n t s of t h e s t o n e c r a b resource, t h e
Department of Commerce should c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r system w i t h t h e system now i n use by
Everglades N a t i o n a l Park.
and
Steps recommended t o a v o i d qear c o n f l i c t s
a.
E s t a b l i s h a I1Ii n e of separationll s t a r t i n g i n t h e F l o r i d a Keys a t Snipe P o i n t ( P o i n t F
d e f i n e d on C h a r t 11420 as 24" 4 1.glN and 81 " 40.5IW) proceed1 ng n o r t h w e s t e r l y t o Poi n t
E ( d e f i n e d as 24" 54.5IN and 81" 50.5IW) thence n o r t h e a s t e r l y along a l i n e on a compass
b e a r i n g o f approximately 010" magnetlc t o P o i n t D (25" 09.01N and 81" 47.6'W) thence
n o r t h w e s t e r l y along t h e 8 fathom l i n e on a canpass bearing of approximately 344.5"
magnetic t o P o i n t C (described as 26" O.OIN and 82" 04.01W) and thence n o r t h e a s t e r l y t o
6 fathoms along a l i n e on a bearing o f approximately 016" magnetic t o P o l n t B (26"
16.01N and 81" 58.5'W) and thence n o r t h w e s t e r l y along a l i n e on a compass bearing of
approximately 311" magnetic t o P o i n t A (26" 36.4'N and 82" 24.3IW) and thence e a s t t o
C a p t i v a Pass ( F i g u r e 12-21.
The s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n of P o i n t s A through F a r e as
f o l lows:
Poi n t
Location
A
iat.
26" 36.4'N
long.
82" 24.3IW
B
iat.
26" 16.01N
long.
81" 58.5'W
C
iat.
26" OO.OIN
long.
82" 04.0TW
D
lat.
25" 09.01N
long.
81" 47.6'W
E
tat.
24" 54.5IN
long.
81" 50.5IW
F
\at.
24" 41.9'N
long.
81" 40.5'W
b.
Prohi b l t shrimp t r a w l i ng inshore o f t h e i i ne January 1 t o May 20.
c.
D i s t r i b u t e c h a r t s and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l i n e Including loran coordinates.
d.
A l low i i m i t e d supervi sed exploratory shrimp f ishi ng inside of I i ne, January 1 t o May 20.
e.
Recommend s t a t e adoption of t r a w l i ng prohi bl t i o n I n t e r r l t o r i a l waters (with1 n I i ne).
f.
Perm1t I i v e b a i t shrimp1 ng inshore o f l i ne.
g.
Require i d e n t i f i c a t i o n marking f o r l i v e b a i t vessels t o f a c l l i t a t e enforcement.
The A l t e r n a t i v e s o f Amendment Number 1 are:
A.
No Action.
I f no a c t i o n were taken, t h e FW would remal n unchanged. T h l s would preclude
modifying t h e I i n e o f separation I n a t i m e l y manner i n order t o provide a more equitable
solution t o the conflict.
Unnecessary commi tments o f human resources would be c o n t i nued by
fishermen and federal agenci es in data c o l l e c t i o n and anal y s l s and f o r enforcement.
Although, bonafide I l v e b a i t shrlmping does not occur I n t h e FCZ inshore o f t h e I i n e during
January t o May, because productive shrimping areas a r e a v a i l a b l e inshore o f t h e FCZ ( n l n e
n a u t i c a l m i les), t h i s p o t e n t i a l loophole may be abused by others c r e a t i n g renewed c o n f l i c t
and loss of production o f a d u l t shrimp.
Further, t h e measure and r e g u l a t i o n a r e i n c o n f l i c t
w i t h t h e provisions o f t h e shrimp plan which p r o h i b i t s l i v e b a i t shrimping.
B.
D e l e t e A I i FMPProvlsions. T h i s a c t i o n w o u l d r e s u l t I n s i g n l f i c a n t adverse Impacts t o t h e
envi ronment, user groups and resources.
C.
Delete AI I Reporting Requirements. The data t o be c o l lected In t h e preferred a l t e r n a t i v e i s
necessary f o r stock assessment (dealer r e p o r t s ) and f o r monl t o r i ng assessment o f t h e l i ne
( f ishermen r e p o r t s )
.
D.
Specify S p e c i f i c A r e a s f o r L i v e B a i t S h r i m p i n g .
Thisaction i s n o t necessaryasthisactiv
i t y i s regulated under t h e provlslons o f t h e Shrimp FW and as no p r o h i b i t i o n s a r e placed
on t h i s a c t i v i t y elsewhere i n t h e Gulf FCZ o r i n s t a t e waters.
E.
Delete t h e provisions e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e " l i n e o f separation1I and incorporate i n l i e u thereof
a procedure whereby these provi s i ons could be re1 nstated by f i e l d order If t h e conf I ic t
erupts.
While t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e appears t o have some m e r i t f r a n a c o s t savings standpoint,
t h e Counci I does not be1 i eve it t o be a v i a b l e o p t i o n and f e e l s t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e
r e s u l t i n g c o n f l i c t s would be much more expenslve. Testimony a t p u b l i c hearlngs has i ndicated t o a degree t h e condi t l o n s repons ib l e f o r t h e armed conf l Ic t s t 1 l l ex1 st, even though
s h r i mpl ng I s present1y p r o h l b l ted inshore o f t h e I i ne from January 1 t o May 20, as a r e s u l t
The Councl I has concluded t h a t t h e provl sions
o f violation of t h e ex1 s t 1 ng provi slons.
would have t o be r e l n s t a t e d annual l y t o prevent armed c o n f l i c t . T h l s conclusion i s s u p
ported by pub I l c testimony and through d l scusslons w i t h advi sory panel members.
I f t h e c o n f l i c t involved only local crabbers and local shrimp fishermen posslbly t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e would work, as generally these persons respect t h e others gear and r i g h t o f access.
However, as many o f t h e shrimp vessels a r e from o u t o f s t a t e ports, rang1 ng from North
Carol1 na t o Texas, t h e I ik e l i hood o f obtaining voluntary canpl l ance and respect o f each
o t h e r ' s r l g h t s i s severely l Im i ted.
S i nce t h e ex1 s t 1 ng provisions estab l i shl ng t h e 11 ne have been very successful i n resol vi ng
t h e c o n f l i c t , and since most o f t h e 1ndlcatlons a r e t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e a c t l o n would r e s u l t
I n I m m d l a t e resumptlon o f t h e c o n f l i c t , It I s not considered a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e a t t h l s
time.
Another basic problem w l t h such an a l t e r n a t i v e I s t h a t I t s Implementation could be
manipulated by a m i n o r i t y group o f crabbers who cou I d take a c t l o n t o cause implementation
e a r l y i n t h e season when t h e measure Is not r e a l ly necessary t o prevent gear losses.
E.
Provide a procedure f o r amending t h e r e g u l a t i o n s s e t t i n g t h e terms and conditions o f t h e
f l l i n e o f separationf1 as follows:
"NMFS shal l c o l l e c t information on t h e catches and f lshing e f f o r t o f
t h e s h r l mp and stone crab f isheri es In r e l a t i o n t o t h e areas Inshore
and o f f s h o r e of t h e I Ine o f separation and such o t h e r i nformation as
may be relevant.
It I s recommended t h a t NMFS conduct c o n t r o l led
exploratory f l s h l ng f o r s h r l mp and crabs 1 nshore and o f f s h o r e o f t h e
I1 ne. T h l s 1 nformation shal l be assessed by NMFS and Ccunci l s t a f f and
these f l n d i ngs shal l be presented t o t h e Stone Crab and Shrimp Advi sory
Subpanels, as we1 I as t o t h e Reglonal Director, t h e Councl l and I t s
Committees. Based on t h e assessment o f t h l s Information and recanmndations by t h e above mentioned e n t i t l e s , and i f t h e b i o l o g i c a l , soclal
and economlc conslderatlons support a change, t h e Regional D i r e c t o r may
change t h e posl t i o n o f t h e l l ne o f separation o r t h e period d u r l ng
which shrimp1 ng ISp r o h i b i t e d inshore of t h e I i ne by t h e regulatory
amendment process.
Any such change I n p o s l t l o n o f t h e l i n e o f separat i o n shal l be consistent w i t h Management Objective 1, provide f o r
o r d e r l y conduct o f t h e stone crab f ishery i n t h e management area In
order t o reduce conf Il c t between stone crab f l shermen and other f lshermen I n t h e area, and Management Objective 3, a t t a i n f u l l u t i l i z a t i o n of
t h e stone crab resource i n t h e management area, t h e provislons o f t h e
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management A d and other a p p l i c a b l e
law.
The Counci I considers t h a t any change under t h l s process may have a
s l g n l f i c a n t federal Impact on t h e human environment; therefore, an
environmental assessment w l I I be prepared and p u b l l c hear1 ngs w l l l be
h e l d on t h e proposed change(s) as published I n t h e Federal Register.
I f t h e change I s deemed t o have a significant impacf on t h e human
envl ronment, a supplemental EIS w i l l be prepared. The Councl I I s 1 n t e n t
I s t h a t t h i s procedure be used t o m d l f y t h e p o s i t l o n o f t h e I l n e o r
t i m e period, b u t not be used t o e l l m l n a t e t h e I i n e o r closure period.
Such a c t i o n s w i I I be taken only by plan amendment."
The proposed a c t i o n would provide f l e x i b1 Iity t o t h e FMP by incorporatl ng a provi s i o n f o r
amendment I n t h e f u t u r e o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s e t t i n g t h e p o s l t l o n o f t h e I i n e o f separation i f
needed. The proposed a c t l o n would allow m o d l f l c a t l o n o f t h e I i n e o f separation w i t h i n a
period o f 90 t o 120 days, r a t h e r than t h e 280 days required f o r plan and r e g u l a t i o n amendment. S l nce t h e r e a r e only 225 days between t h e end of one f i s h i n g season and lmplement a t l o n o f t h e Ii ne o f separation closure i n t h e next season, mod1 f l c a t i o n by plan amendment
i s not p r a c t i c a l .
The a c t i o n would apply t o t h e Ii ne established I n t h e plan t o resolve t h e c o n f l i c t between
Shrimping i s p r o h i b i t e d shoreward o f t h e l i n e during t h e period January 1 s t t o
user groups.
The li ne was s e t based on t h e econanl c and soci o l o g i cal impacts on t h e two user
May 20th.
Based on t h e a v a i l a b l e information, t h e l l n e was s e t as equitably as
groups affected.
posslble. Data c o l l e c t e d through m n l t o r l n g t h e f i s h e r y and through research may provide
i nformation t o a i low a m r e equi t a b l e s o l u t i o n through m d i f l c a t l o n o f t h e c l q s u r e period o r
t h e p o s l t l o n o f t h e Ilne. This proposed a c t l o n would allow theCounci1 and Regional
D i r e c t o r o f NMFS t o do so i n a t l m e l y manner.
The proposed a c t i o n f o r Incorporatl ng a procedure f o r modi f y i ng t h e I I ne o f separation has
no impact on t h e f lshery resources o r physical envi ronment. The procedure provides f o r
h o l d i ng p u b l i c hear1 ngs and preparation o f an environmental assessment (EA) o r a supplement a r y EIS I f I t i s u t i l i z e d t o modify t h e r e g u l a t i o n by amendment. The procedure does prov i d e t h e flexibility t h a t a1 lows more r a p i d a c t l o n t o a1 l e v l a t e t h e econanic impacts on one
o r both user groups a f f e c t e d 1 f data c o l lected by moni t o r i ng o r research def Ine such impacts
t o be adverse o r provide information f o r a m r e equitable solution.
Other than providing
f o r more t i m e l y response, t h e proposed a c t l o n does not impact t h e human environment and any
impacts as a r e s u l t o f proposed r e g u l a t i o n changes w i I I be described i n t h e EA o r SEIS.
G.
Modify t h e r e p o r t i n g requirements of t h e FMP t o specify t h a t mandatory r e p o r t i n g s h a l l be
r e q u i r e d only o f those p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e f i s h e r y who a r e randomly selected t o report,
r a t h e r than by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e f i s h e r y as follows:
"The plan s h a l l r e q u i r e a mandatory r e p o r t i n g system, w i t h part i c i p a t i o n l i m i t e d t o random samples s u f f i c i e n t f o r f i s h e r y management
needs from ( I ) r e c r e a t i o n a l boats; (2) canmercial f i s h i n g boats and
vessels and, (3) processors and wholesalers, o r others purchasing stone
crabs.
NFS I s requested t o develop a data c o l l e c t l o n and a n a l y s i s system
designed t o provide usable data on:
l e v e l s and frequency of part i c i p a t i o n i n t h e stone crab fishery; levels of catch; s i z e composition
o f t h e catch; catch per u n i t o f ef f o r t ; i ncidental catches o f o t h e r
species; i n d i c a t o r s o f t h e econanlc value o f t h e fishery, and catch and
e f f o r t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e l l n e o f separation.lt
The proposed m o d i f i c a t i o n o f r e p o r t l n g requirement has no impact on f i s h e r y resources o r t h e
physical environment.
MFS and t h e Counci I l s Sci e n t i f i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Canml t t e e have
concluded t h a t data required f o r stock assessment can be obtai ned from t h e dealers and processors on a more e f f e c t i v e and accurate basis u t i l i z i n g t h e c u r r e n t NMFS p o r t agent system.
Data needed t o assess t h e I i ne and other management parameters can be c o l lected on an
accurate and more cost e f f e c t i v e basis by requiring r e p o r t i n g by a randomly selected sample
o f p a r t i c i pants.
The proposed a c t i o n would have a beneficial impact on t h e human environment by reducing t h e
r e p o r t i n g burden (a t i m e and e f f o r t impact) on t h e f ishermen and by reduci ng t h e
i r r e t r i evable commitment o f federal resources by reducl ng t h e data processi ng and c o l l e c t ion
requl rement and by f a c i l i t a t i ng shoreside enforcement.
No adverse impacts w i I I occur since t h i s o p t i o n reduces ex1 s t 1 ng r e p o r t i ng requi rements f r a n
a 100 percent level o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o approximately t h e 25 percent level o f p a r t i c l p a t i o n .
H.
Delete t h e exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimping.
The proposed a c t i o n would d e l e t e any
Such a c t i v i t y would be managed under t h e provireference from t h e plan and regulations.
sions o f t h e shrimp plan.
The o r i g i n a l exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimping was made because t h i s a c t i v i t y was a1 lcued i n
Subsequent t o t h i s action,
some areas o f s t a t e waters inshore o f t h e l i ne o f separation.
t h e plan f o r t h e shrimp f i s h e r y has been implemented and has established a sanctuary o r
shrimp nursery ground 1 n t h e FCZ where a l l shrimpi ng i s prohibl t e d throughout t h e year. A
p o r t i o n o f t h e II ne o f separation ( p o i n t D t o p o i n t E) a l s o serves as t h e boundary of t h e
nursery ground. The S t a t e o f F l o r i d a prohl b i t s a l l shrimpl ng i n t h e nursery ground by s t a t e
The
s t a t u t e , b u t a1 lows l i ve b a i t shrimpl ng I n other areas under c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s .
exception i n t h e Stone Crab FMP r e s u l t s i n a c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e provisions o f t h e shrimp
plan. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , no b a l t shrimping has occurred i n t h e FCZ Inshore o f t h e Iine, b u t has
been r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e t e r r i t o r i a l sea. The shrimp plan allows c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h i s a c t i v i t y i n t h e t e r r l t o r i a l sea.
The proposed a c t i o n t o d e l e t e reference t o l i v e b a l t shrimpi ng inshore o f t h e Ii ne i n t h e
FCZ d u r i ng t h e period January 1 s t t o May 20th is expected t o have no impact on t h e f l shery
resources, physical envi ronment o r human environment as current1y no shrimpi ng f o r 1 ive
b a i t occurs i n t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e FCZ. As t h e proposed a c t i o n a l lows t h i s a c t i v i t y t o cont i nue under t h e provi sions o f t h e shrimp plan I n s t a t e waters, no change I n c u r r e n t impacts
on t h e envlronment w i l l occur.
The proposed a c t i o n forecloses t h e p o s s i b l l l t y under present
r e g u l a t i o n s of adverse impacts on t h e f 1 shery resources and human envi ronment f r a n o c c u r r i ng
I n t h e f u t u r e i f t h e exemptlon f o r l i v e b a i t shrimping was u t i l ized t o harvest large amounts
o f j u v e n i l e shrimp from t h e nursery area. Adverse impacts on t h e human envlronment could
occur through resumptlon of t h e gear c o n f l i c t , i f a large number o f vessels changed t o t h e
t y p e of gear allowed f o r b a i t shrlmping.
The shrimp plan and EIS f u r t h e r document t h e
impact o f t h i s prohibl t i o n which i s summrlzed above.
(v)
Trade-offs Between t h e B e n e f i c i a l and Adverse Impacts o f t h e Preferred Management Optlons
I t i s recommended t h a t Amendment Number 1, A l t e r n a t i v e s F, G, and H be adopted as t h e preferred
management options.
A l t e r n a t i v e F w i l l have a b e n e f i c i a l impact by providing a mechanism f o r
f u t u r e change I n t h e regulations s e t t i n g t h e terms and condi t i o n s o f t h e "1 I ne o f separation"
through t h e regulatory amendment process.
I n c a r r y i ng o u t t h e monitori ng responsibi l i t y f o r
t h e FMP, t h e Counci l w i I I i n i t i a t e research through t h e NMFS Southeast F i s h e r i e s Center d u r i ng
FY 1982 t o assess t h e bi o l o g i c a l parameters r e l a t e d t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e Ii ne and t h e durat i o n o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n on t r a w l i n g i n s h o r e o f t h e Iine. T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l a l l o w modiflcat l o n o f t h e I i ne and c l o s u r e by changing t h e regulations should t h i s research o r o t h e r
monitori ng information demonstrate t h a t such a mod1 f i c a t i o n would r e s u l t i n a more equitable
s o l u t i o n t o t h e continuing conf l l c t . The measure I s designed t o assure t h a t p u b l i c heari ngs
w l l l be held on any proposed change and t h a t a Supplemental EIS w l l l be prepared i f t h e change
i s deemed a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on t h e human environment; therefore, any p o t e n t i a l adverse
impacts would be f u l l y documented and subject t o p u b l i c canment.
A l t e r n a t i v e G, whfch would canpletely replace t h e c u r r e n t t e x t of Management Measure 5 o f t h e
FMP, w i I I have a benef f c i a l impact by reducing t h e r e p o r t fng burden on f lshermen and t h e
government sector wh ich i s presently imposed by t h e FMP. No adverse Impacts w i I I occur.
A l t e r n a t i v e H would have no impact since l i v e b a i t shrimping I s p r o h i b i t e d f n t h e FCZ inshore
o f t h e l i n e o f separation by t h e shrimp plan and since no l i v e b a i t shrimplng occurs i n t h e
This A l t e r n a t i v e would d e l e t e Management Measure 6. f. o f t h e FMP.
area.
(vf)
S p e c f f i c a t i o n o f Optimum Y i e l d
No data a v a i l a b l e necessitates a change i n t h i s specif ication. Amendment Number 1 would,
however, s u b s t i t u t e t h e word ffharvestedff f o r ffharvestableft i n t h i s s p e c i f i c a t f o n t o correct1y
r e f Ie c t Counc 1 I in t e n t
.
13.0
MEASURES, REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS SPECIFIED TO ATTAIN THE MANAGEMENT
06 JECT IVES
No data a v a l l a b l e nor any changes proposed by Amendment Number 1 necessltate changes I n t h l s sectlon.
S p e c l f l c management measures a r e Included i n Sectlon 12.0 and Sectlon 13.0 discusses t h e measures.
SPECIFICATION AND SOURCE OF PERTINENT FISHERY DATA
No data a v a i l a b l e nor any changes proposed by Amendment Number 1 necessltate changes I n t h l s sectlon.
The s t a t l s t l c a l r e p o r t lng requlrements a r e included i n Sect ion 12.0.
15.0
RELATIONSHIP OF THE RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO EXISTING APPLICABLE LAWS AND POLICIES
No data a v a l l a b l e nor any changes proposed by Amendment Number 1 necessitate changes I n t h i s s e c t l o n
as they r e l a t e t o e x l s t l n g management resources. The r e l a t l o n s h l p of t h e p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e s of
Amendement 1 t o a p p l l c a b l e law and p o l l c y I s as follows:
Coastal Zone Management Act o f 1972
The area and f ishermen a f f e c t e d by t h e measures proposed under Amendment 1 a r e I lmlted by t h e management area wh lch Includes on1 y those waters o f f t h e west coast of F l o r l d a , Including t h e Keys. The
S t a t e o f F l o r l d a does not have an approved coastal zone management plan, therefore, a consistency
determlnat Ion I s not necessary.
Paperwork Reductlon Act
A revlew o f t h l s amendment lndlcates t h a t t h e proposed measure on r e p o r t l n g w i l l reduce and tend t o
mlnimtze t h e paperwork burden on small buslnesses (fishermen and dealers), as well as t o reduce and
mlnlmlze t h e cost t o t h e federal government o f c o l l e c t i n g and malntalnlng Information. T h l s measure
would reduce t h e r e p o r t lng requirement t h a t present1 y requlres r e p o r t lng by a l l p a r t i c l p a n t s I n t h e
f i s h e r y t o a level requiring approximately 25 percent o f p a r t i c i p a n t s t o report. No change I s proposed I n t h e r e p o r t lng forms wh Ich were prevlously approved by OM0 and wh lch have been used I n t h e
f ishery since 1979.
Regulatory F l e x l b l l i t y Act (5 U.S.C.
601 e t seq.)
A revlew o f t h l s amendment lndlcates t h a t t h e r e w l l l be no slgn Ifi c a n t econanlc impacts f r a n I t s
lmplementatlon on small buslness e n t l t l e s I n t h e stone crab flshery. The procedure a l l o w l n g a change
I n t h e l o c a t Ion o f t h e
Ine o f separat lonff o r I t s d u r a t i o n would not necessarl l y change c u r r e n t economlc condltlons f o r smal l buslnesses. The change I n r e p o r t lng requlrements a f f e c t s a smal l number o f
buslnesses, i n a p o s l t l v e manner, b u t would not substantial l y a l t e r present costs, revenues, o r
p r o d u c t l v l t y ; and provfslons f o r l i v e b a i t shrlmplng do not a l t e r t h e s t a t u s quo but p a r a l l e l e x l s t l n g
r e g u l a t l o n s under t h e Shrlmp FMP. Therefore, i n t h e absence o f s i g n i f f c a n t econanic Impacts on smal l
business e n t i t l e s a Regulatory F l e x l b l l i t y Anal y s l s I s not required. The changes f r a n implementation
o f t h i s amendment a f f e c t buslnesses equally I n t h e stone crab flshery, a l l o f which a r e small business
entitles.
Endangered Species Act o f 1973
A review of t h i s amendment indicates t h a t t h e proposed measures w i l l not jeopardize t h e continued
existence o f any threatened o r endangered speci es o r resu I t i n destruct ion o r adverse mod if i c a t ion o f
The amendment does not a l t e r t h e conditions
h a b i t a t determined t o be c r i t i c a l t o such species.
e x i s t i n g when t h e i n i t i a l Section 7 c o n s u l t a t i o n was canpleted.
I n t h e event any changes i n t h e "I i n e of separation" a r e proposed under t h e amendment procedure a
determination w i l l be made whether it i s necessary t o r e i n i t i a t e Section 7 consultation.
Executive Order 12291
A review o f t h i s amendment indicates t h a t t h e only actual regulatory a c t i o n being taken i s modificat i o n o f t h e r e p o r t i n g requirement thereby decreasing t h e burden on t h e smal l business e n t i t i e s and
governmental sector.
Therefore, it has been concluded by National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service t h a t no
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) i s required.
However, i n t h e event t h a t any changes I n t h e " l i n e o f
separationf1 a r e proposed under t h e amendment procedure a determination w i l l be necessary as t o whether
under t h e proposed a c t i o n a RIR i s required.
16.0
COUNCIL REVIEW AND MONITORING OF THE PLAN
No data a v a i l a b l e nor any changes proposed by Amendment Number 1 necessitate changes i n t h i s section.
17.0
REFERENCES AND RELATED LITERATURE
Additions t o t h e references i n t h e o r i g i n a l FMP are:
Sul l Ivan, J. R.
1979. The stone crab, Menippe mercenarIa,
Department o f Natural Resources.
No. 36, 37 pp.
i n t h e southwest F l o r i d a f ishery.
Zuboy, J. R. and J. E. Snel I, 1980. Assessment of t h e F l o r Ida stone crab f ishery.
Memorandum, FMFS-SEFC-2 1, 29 pp.
Florida
NOAA Technical
ENVIROFMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
THE F l SHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE STONE CRAB FISHERY
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
SEPTEMBER, 1981
GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
L I mOLN CENTER, SU I T E 8 8 1
5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD
TPMPA, FLORl DA 33609
ENVIROWENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND REGULATIONS FOR THE STONE CRAB FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
INTRODUCTION
The harvest of stone crabs I n t h e Gulf o f Mexico i s managed by t h e Fishery Management Plan f o r t h e
Stone Crab Fishery o f t h e Gulf o f Mexico (FMP). The FW has a l s o resolved an armed conf l i c t between
crab fishermen and t r a w l fishermen.
The FW was pub11 shed i n t h e Federal Regi s t e r on Apri l 3, 1979,
and was implemented by t h e Secretary of Commerce on September 14, 1979. An Envi rotmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was prepared on t h e FMP and was f i l e d w i t h t h e Envi ronmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency.
The Gulf o f Mexl co F i shery Management Counci I (Counci I ) now proposes t o amend t h e FW t o provide f o r
f l e x i b i I i t y I n amendi ng regulations, t o mod1 f y t h e r e p o r t i n g requirements and t o d e l e t e exceptions
p e r t a i n i ng t o ll ve b a i t shrimpi ng. T h i s envi ronmentai assessment i s prepared pursuant t o 40 CFR
1501.3 and 1508.9 and NOAA Di r e c t i v e 02-10, t o determi ne whether an EIS must be prepared on t h i s proposed a c t i o n pursuant t o Section 102(2)(c) o f National Environmental P r o t e c t i o n A c t .
Description o f and Need f o r t h e Proposed Action
T h i s a c t i o n amends t h e FMP and implementing regulations.
f o l l o w i n g changes i n t h e FMP and regulations:
The proposed amendments would r e s u l t i n t h e
(1
provide a procedure f o r amendi ng t h e r e g u l a t i o n s s e t t i ng t h e terms and cond l t l o n s o f t h e " 1 i ne o f separationft. Such f u t u r e changes would be through t h e
use of t h e r e g u l a t o r y amendment process;
(2)
m d i f y t h e r e p o r t i n g requi rements o f t h e FW t o speci f y t h a t mandatory r e p o r t i ng
shal I be required o n l y o f those p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e f i s h e r y who a r e randomly
selected t o report, r a t h e r than by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e f i s h e r y and t o modify
r e g u l a t i o n s t o permi t shoreside enforcement o f r e p o r t i n g requl rements r a t h e r
than at-sea enforcement;
(3)
d e l e t e t h e exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimping;
(4)
t o make such edi t o r i a l changes t o t h e FW and r e g u l a t i o n s t o accanpt i sh t h e
above changes and t o c o r r e c t other edi t o r i a l def i c l enci es.
Speci f i c proposed amendments t o FMP and lmplementl ng regulations a r e as f o l lows:
( 1)
L i ne o f Separation.
The proposed a c t i o n wou l d provi de f Iex1 b i I i ty t o t h e FW by
i ncorporati ng a provi s i o n f o r amendment i n t h e f u t u r e of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s e t t i n g
t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l i n e o f separation I f needed. The proposed a c t i o n would
a l l o w m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l i n e o f separation w i t h i n a period o f 90 t o 120 days,
r a t h e r than t h e 280 days required f o r plan amendment. Since t h e r e a r e only 225
days between t h e end o f one f i s h i n g season and implementation o f t h e l i n e o f
separation c l o s u r e i n t h e next season, modi f i c a t i o n by plan amendment i s nut
practical.
The a c t i o n would apply t o t h e I i n e established i n t h e FMP t o resolve t h e
conf 1 i c t between user groups. Shrimping i s p r o h i b i t e d shoreward o f t h e l i n e
during t h e period January 1 s t t o May 20th. The l i n e was s e t based on t h e econoBased on t h e
mic and sociologica l impacts on t h e two user groups affected.
a v a i l a b l e information, t h e l i n e was s e t as equitably as possible.
Data
cot lected through monitor1 ng t h e f ishery and through research may provide i nformation t o a1 low a more e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n through m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c l o s u r e
period o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l Ine. T h i s proposed a c t ion would a l low t h e
Counci I and Regional D i r e c t o r o f National Marl ne F i s h e r i e s Service (NMFS) t o do
so i n a t i m e l y manner.
The proposed procedure i s as follows:
"NMFS shal l c o l l e c t information on t h e catches and f i s h i n g e f f o r t o f t h e shrimp and stone
crab f i s h e r i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e areas inshore and o f f s h o r e o f t h e l i n e o f separation and
I t i s recmmnded t h a t NMFS conduct c o n t r o l led
such o t h e r information as may be relevant.
exploratory f i s h i n g f o r shrimp and crabs inshore and o f f s h o r e of t h e I ine. T h i s information
shal l be assessed by NMFS and Counci 1 s t a f f and these f l ndi ngs shal l be presented t o t h e
Stone Crab and Shrimp Advisory Subpanels, as we1 l as t o t h e Regional D i r e c t o r , t h e Council
and i t s Committees.
Based on t h e assessment o f t h i s information and recanmndations by t h e
above mentioned e n t i t i e s , and i f t h e b i o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l and econanic considerations support
a change, t h e Regional D i r e c t o r may change t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e I l ne o f separatlon o r t h e
period during which shrimping I s p r o h i b i t e d inshore o f t h e l i n e by t h e regulatory amendment
process. Any such change i n p o s i t i o n o f t h e l i ne o f separatlon shal 1 be consistent w i t h
Management O b j e c t i v e 1, provide f o r order1 y conduct o f t h e stone crab f i s h e r y i n t h e management area I n order t o reduce conf l ic t between stone crab f lshermen and o t h e r f ishermen i n
t h e area, and Management Objective 3, a t t a i n f u l l u t I l i z a t i o n of t h e stone crab resource i n
t h e management area, t h e provisions of t h e Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
and o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e law.
The Counci I considers t h a t any change under t h i s process may have a s i g n i f i c a n t federal
impact on t h e human environment; therefore, an environmental assessment w i l I be prepared and
p u b l i c hearings w l l l be h e l d on t h e proposed change(s1 as published .in t h e Federal Register.
I f t h e change i s deemed t o have a s l g n i f i c a n t Impact on t h e human environment, a supplement a l EIS w i I I be prepared.
The Counci I I s i n t e n t i s t h a t t h i s procedure be used t o m d i f y t h e
p o s i t i o n o f t h e I 1 ne o r t i m e period, b u t not be used t o e l i m i nate t h e 1 i ne o r closure
period.
Such a c t Ions w i l I be taken only by plan amendment.I1
(2) Reporting Requ lrements.
The proposed a c t Ion would mod1f y t h e r e p o r t i n g
requirements t o r e q u i r e mandatory r e p o r t i n g by a random1y selected sample of
p a r t i c l p a n t s r a t h e r than r e p o r t i n g by a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e fishery.
This
a c t l o n would decrease t h e r e p o r t i n g burden on t h e fishermen and s t i l l provide
adequate Informat ion f o r management purposes.
The proposed amendment would incorporate t h e f o I low1ng r e p o r t i n g system i n t h e FMP,
t h e e x i s t i n g system:
I n i ieu of
"The plan s h a l l r e q u i r e a mandatory r e p o r t i n g system, w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i o n l i m i t e d
t o random samp les su f f i c i ent f o r f Ishery management needs from ( 1 r e c r e a t i o n a l
boats; (2) commercial f i s h l n g boats and vessels and, ( 3 ) processors and wholesalers, o r others purchasing stone crabs.
NMFS i s requested t o develop a data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s system designed t o
l e v e l s and frequency o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e stone crab
provlde usable data on:
f i s h e r y ; levels o f catch; s i z e canposition o f t h e catch; catch per u n i t o f
e f f o r t ; i n c i d e n t a l catches of o t h e r species; i n d i c a t o r s of t h e econanic value of
t h e fishery, and catch and e f f o r t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e l i n e o f ~ e p a r a t l o n . ~ ~
(3)
L i v e B a i t Shrimping.
FMP and regu l a t ions.
t h e shrimp plan.
The proposed a c t l o n would d e l e t e any reference from t h e
Such a c t i v i t y wou l d be managed under t h e provisions o f
The o r i g i n a l exception f o r l i v e b a i t shrimping was made because t h i s a c t i v i t y
was a l lowed i n some areas of s t a t e waters inshore o f t h e l i ne of separation.
Subsequent t o t h i s action, t h e shrimp plan has been implemented and has
established a sanctuary o r shrimp nursery ground i n t h e FCZ where a l l shrlmping
A p o r t i o n o f t h e l i n e o f separation ( p o i n t D
i s p r o h i b i t e d throughout t h e year.
t o p o i n t E) a l s o serves as t h e boundary of t h e nursery ground. The S t a t e of
F l o r i d a p r o h i b i t s a l l shrlmping i n t h e nursery ground by s t a t e statute, b u t
a1 lows l i v e b a i t shrimping i n other areas under c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s .
The
exception i n t h e FMP r e s u l t s i n a c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e provisions of t h e shrimp
plan.
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , no b a i t shrimping has occurred i n t h e FCZ Inshore of t h e
l i n e , but has been r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e t e r r i t o r i a l sea. The shrimp plan a l lows
c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h i s a c t i v i t y i n t h e t e r r i t o r i a l sea.
(4)
I n a d d i t i o n t o those changes required t o amend t h e FMP t o
E d i t o r i a l Changes.
implement t h e proposed actions, c e r t a i n other changes a r e proposed t o c o r r e c t
e r r o r s i n t h e FMP t o implement t h e proposed actions, c e r t a i n o t h e r changes a r e
proposed t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s i n t h e FMP t o c o r r e c t l y r e f l e c t Counci I intent.
These include t h e change o f Ifharvestableft t o ffharvestedll i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
OY; and i n s e r t i o n o f I1landedt1 i n r e p o r t i n g regulations was provided t o f a c i I it a t e shores ide enforcement.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The FMP continues basica i Iy unchanged f r a n previous years.
The proposed a c t i o n f o r incorporating a procedure f o r modifying t h e l i n e o f separation has no impact
on t h e f i s h e r y resources o r physical environment. The procedure provides f o r holding p u b l i c hearings
and preparation o f a supplementary EIS i f t h e change r e s u l t s i n a s i g n i f i c a n t impact. The procedure
does provide t h e f l e x i b i l i t y t h a t allows m r e r a p i d a c t i o n t o a l l e v i a t e t h e econanic impacts on one o r
both user groups a f f e c t e d i f data c o l lected by monitoring o r research d e f i n e such impacts t o be
adverse o r provide informatlon f o r a m r e equitable solution.
Other than providing f o r more t i m e l y
response, t h e proposed a c t i o n does not impact t h e human environment and any impacts as a r e s u l t o f
proposed regu l a t i o n changes w Il l be described i n t h e environmental assessment o r SEI S.
The proposed modif l c a t i o n o f r e p o r t i n g requirement has no impact on f lshery resources o r t h e physical
WFS and t h e Counci I I s S c i e n t i f i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Committee have concluded t h a t data
environment.
required f o r stock assessment can be obtained from t h e dealers and processors on a m r e e f f e c t i v e and
accurate basis u t i l i z i n g t h e c u r r e n t NMFS p o r t agent system. Data needed t o assess t h e l i n e and other
management parameters can be c o l lected on an accurate and m r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e basls by r e q u i r i n g
r e p o r t i n g by a random1y selected samp l e o f participants.
The proposed a c t l o n would have a b e n e f i c i a l impact on t h e human environment by reducing t h e r e p o r t i n g
burden (a tlme and e f f o r t impact) on t h e f lshermen and by reducing t h e i r r e t r i e v a b l e commitment o f
federal resources by reducing t h e data processing and c o l l e c t ion requirement and by f a c i l it a t i n g
shores Ide enforcement.
The proposed a c t i o n t o d e l e t e reference t o l i v e b a i t shrimpi ng inshore o f t h e I l ne i n t h e FCZ during
t h e period January 1 s t t o May 20th i s expected t o have no impact on t h e f 1 shery resources, physical
environment o r human environment as c u r r e n t l y no shrimpi ng f o r I i v e b a i t occurs i n t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e
FCZ. As t h e proposed a c t i o n a l l o w s t h i s a c t i v i t y t o continue under t h e provisions of t h e shrimp p l a n
i n s t a t e waters, no change i n c u r r e n t impacts on t h e environment w i I I occur. The proposed a c t i o n
forecloses t h e possibi l i ty under present r e g u l a t i o n s o f adverse impacts on t h e f lshery resources and
human environment from occurri ng I n t h e f u t u r e i f t h e exemption f o r I i v e b a i t shrimpi ng was u t l I i zed
Adverse impacts on t h e human
t o harvest large amounts o f juvenl l e shrlmp from t h e nursery area.
envi ronment cou l d occur through resumption o f t h e gear conf l i c t , If a large number o f vessel s changed
t o t h e type of gear allowed f o r b a i t shrimping. The impacts o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f l i v e b a i t shrimping
I n t h e FCZ summarized above a r e discussed f u r t h e r i n t h e shrimp p l a n and EIS.
The proposed edi t o r i a l changes have no environmental e f f e c t s a t a l I.
Alternatives t o t h e Proposed Action
A.
No Action.
I f no a c t i o n were taken, t h e FMP would remain unchanged. T h l s would
preclude modifying t h e I i n e o f separation i n a t i m e l y manner i n order t o provide
a more equitable s o l u t i o n t o t h e c o n f l i c t .
Unnecessary commitments o f human
resources wou l d be cont i nued by fishermen and federal agenci es In data c o l lect i o n and analysis and f o r enforcement.
Bonafide l i v e b a i t shrimplng i s not
l i k e l y t o occur i n t h e FCZ inshore o f t h e I i n e during January t o May, because
productive shrimpi ng areas a r e aval l a b l e inshore o f t h e FCZ ( n i n e nautical
m i les); however, t h i s p o t e n t i a l loophole may be abused by others c r e a t i n g
renewed c o n f l i c t and loss o f production of a d u l t shrlmp.
Further, t h e measure
and r e g u l a t i o n a r e i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e provisions o f t h e shrlmp plan.
B.
Delete A l l FMPProvisions. T h l s a c t i o n w o u i d r e s u l t i n significant adverse
impacts t o t h e envi ronment, user groups, and resources.
C.
Delete A 1 I Reporting Requirements. The data t o be c o l lected i n t h e proposed
r e v i s i o n i s necessary f o r stock assessment (dealer r e p o r t s ) and f o r moni t o r i ng
assessment o f t h e I l ne ( f i shermen reports).
D.
Specify S p e c i f i c Areas f o r L i v e B a i t Shrimping.
T h l s a c t i o n i s not necessary as
t h i s a c t i v i t y I s regulated under t h e provisions o f t h e shrimp plan and as no
p r o h i b i t i o n s a r e placed on t h i s a c t i v i t y elsewhere i n t h e Gulf FCZ o r i n s t a t e
waters.
E.
Delete t h e provi s i ons establ i shi ng t h e " 1 Ine o f separati ont1 and incorporate I n
l i e u thereof a procedure whereby these provisions could be r e i n s t a t e d by f i e l d
order i f t h e conf l i c t erupts.
Whi l e t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e appears t o have some m e r i t
from a cost savl ngs standpol nt, t h e Counci l does not be1 ieve it t o be a v i a b l e
o p t i o n and f e e l s t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n f l i c t s would be much more
expensive. Testimony a t p u b l i c hear1 ngs has i ndicated t o a degree t h e cond l t i o n s reponslble f o r t h e armed conf l i c t s t 1 l I e x i s t , even though shrimpi ng
- Is
presently p r o h i b i t e d inshore o f t h e I i n e from January 1 t o May 20, as a r e s u l t
o f v i o l a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g provisions.
The Counci l has concluded t h a t t h e
p r o v i sions would have t o be r e i nstated annual l y t o prevent armed conf l l ct.
Thls
conclusi on I s supported by pub1lc testimony and through di scussions w l t h advisory panel members.
I f t h e c o n f l i c t involved only local crabbers and local shrimp fishermen possibly
t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e wou l d work, as general l y these persons respect t h e others gear
However, as many of t h e shrimp vessels a r e from o u t o f
and r i g h t o f access.
s t a t e ports, ranging from North C a r o l i n a t o Texas, t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f obtaining
voluntary c m p l iance and respect o f each other's r i g h t s i s severely l imited.
Since t h e e x i s t i n g provisions e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e l i n e have been very successful i n
r e s o l v i n g t h e c o n f l i c t , and since most of t h e i n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n would r e s u l t i n immediate resumption o f t h e c o n f l i c t , i t i s not
Another basic problem w i t h such
considered a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e a t t h i s time.
an a l t e r n a t i v e i s t h a t i t s implementation could be manipulated by a m i n o r i t y
group of crabbers who cou i d take a c t ion t o cause implementation e a r l y I n t h e
season when t h e measure i s not r e a l l y necessary t o prevent gear losses.
CONCLUSIONS
"
M i t i g a t i n g Measures Related t o Proposed Action
None
" Unavoidable Adverse E f f e c t s
None
"
Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses o f t h e Resource and Enhancement o f Long-term
Productivity.
Long-term human and resource p r o d u c t i v i t y should be enhanced by reducing r e p o r t i n g requirements and enforcement commitments. Short-term uses rema i n unchanged.
"
I r r e v e r s i b l e and I r r e t r i e v a b l e Commitment o f Resources
These commi tments should be decreased by m d i f y ing t h e r e p o r t i n g (and enforcement) requl rements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Havi ng reviewed t h e envi ronmental assessment and t h e ava i lab l e information r e l a t i ng t o t h e proposed
action, we have determined t h a t t h e r e w i I I be no s l g n i f i c a n t environmental impact r e s u l t f r a n t h e
action.
Approved :
Date
A s s i s t a n t Admi n i s t r a t o r
f o r Fisheries
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
THE FINAL REGULATIONS
FOR
THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE STONE CRAB FISHERY
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
SEPTEMBER, 1981
GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
L I WOLN CENTER, SU I T E 8 8 1
5 4 0 1 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD
TAMPA, FLORl DA 33609
Purpose
The purpose o f t h i s amendment (Number 2) t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n s i s t o provide t h e r e v i s i o n s required by
Amendment Number 1 t o t h e FMP and t o improve t h e c o s t effectiveness o f enforcement of measures
unchanged by t h e amendment o f t h e FMP.
THE CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS
Proposed amendments t o t h e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s o f domestic f i s h i n g under 50 CFR P a r t 654 pub1ished
as Stone Crab Fishery: F i n a l Regulations i n t h e Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 180, September 14, 1979
(Pages 53519-53524).
1.
I n t h e Preamble, Supplemental Information, subsection on Separation L i n e i s revised t o read as
f o l lows:
Separation Line.
The Council determined t h a t r e s t r i c t i n g shrimp f i s h i n g was necessary f o r t h e management of stone
These
crab f i s h i n g and t o a t t a i n t h e Councills o b j e c t i v e o f optimizing harvest f r a n t h e fishery.
The I l ne, depicted by
f i n a l regu l a t l o n s p r e s c r i be a l i ne separating stone crabbers and shrimpers.
t h e sol i d l l n e on F i g u r e 1, begins a t p o i n t B and ends between p o i n t s E and F a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n
w i t h F l o r i d a l s t e r r l t o r i a l sea.
2.
In t h e Preamble, Supplemental Information, subsection on Optimum Y i e l d i s revised t o read as
f o l lows:
Optlmum Y l e l d.
The Counci I expressed a d e s i r e t o a l low t h e f i s h e r y t o continue
conservation principles.
The optimum y i e l d (OY) i n t h e f i s h e r y
expansion. The OY has been speclf led as an amount equal t o a l l
management area between October 15 and May 15 which have a claw
i nches ) o r greater.
*****
3.
t o expand cons i s t e n t w i t h sound
was developed t o allow f o r such
harvested a d u l t stone crabs i n t h e
s i z e o f 7.0 centimeters (2-3/4
31
In t h e Preamble, Supplemental Information, subsection on S t a t i s t i c a l Reporting i s revised t o read
as follows:
S t a t i s t i c a l Reporting.
Processors and dealers, selected t o report, w i l l be required t o r e p o r t t h e poundage and value o f
claws handled, t h e s i z e classes o f t h e claws, and o t h e r incidental information.
Each month owners
and operators of vessels harvesting stone crabs who a r e random1y selected t o r e p o r t w i l l be
required t o r e p o r t on t h e i r catch.
******
4.
In Part 654, Subpart A,
Ial
1654.5,
paragraph I a l i s revised t o read as follows:
Owners and O p e r a t o r s .
The owner o r operator of any f i s h i n g vessel t h a t fishes f o r
stone crabs and any vessel t h a t lands stone crabs o r any p o r t i o n thereof and who a r e randomly
selected t o report, shal l r e p o r t t h e information required by t h i s paragraph t o t h e Center
D i r e c t o r each month on forms obtained from t h e Center Director.
* * * * * a
5.
i n P a r t 654, Subpart A,
$654.5,
paragraph I b l i s revised t o read as follows:
Ib l D e a l e r s and Processors.
Any person who receives stone crab claws by way of purchase,
barter, trade, o r s a l e from a f i s h i n g vessel subject t o t h i s P a d , and who i s selected t o
report, shal l f i l e a month1y r e p o r t w l t h t h e Center Dl rector, on forms o b t a i ned from t h e
Center D i r e c t o r which shal l contain t h e f o l l o w i n g information:
t
6.
X
t
+
X
i n P a r t 654, Subpart A,
Icl
7.
l
5654.5,
paragraph I c l i s r e v i sed t o read as f o l lows:
Reports under t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d on a form obtained from t h e c e n t e r
D i r e c t o r , w i t h i n t e n days a f t e r t h e end o f each month i n which t h e stone crab claws were
landed, received o r harvested.
Filing,
I n P a r t 654, Subpart B,
1654.21
i s revised t o read as follows:
l a 1 Traps used i n t h e stone crab f i s h e r y must have a bl odegradable panel.
Section 654.2)
Ibl
8.
Stone crab t r a p s remain1 ng i n t h e waters o f t h e f ishery conservation zone (FCZ) d u r l ng t h e
period commencing on 0001 hours May 21, and endi ng on 2400 hours October 4, and which a r e not
being a c t i v e l y f ished, m y be considered unclaimed o r abandoned property and may be d i sposed
Owners o f
i n any appropriate manner by t h e Secretary o f Commerce o r h i s o r her designee.
stone crab t r a p s which remai n i n t h e waters o f t h e FCZ d u r i ng t h i s period and which a r e bei ng
a c t i v e l y fished shal l be subject t o a p p r o p r i a t e c i v i I penalties.
I n P a r t 654, Subpart B,
bl
(See def i n i t i o n In
5654.23,
paragraph [ b l i s r e v i sed as f o l lows:
PFocedure f o r m o d i f y i n g the l i n e o f s e p a r a t i o n .
NMFS shal l c o l l e c t i nformation on t h e catches and f i shi ng e f f o r t o f t h e shr!mp and stone
crab f i s h e r i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e areas inshore and o f f s h o r e o f t h e l i n e o f separation and
such o t h e r i nformation as may be relevant.
I t i s recanmended t h a t NMFS conduct c o n t r o l led
exploratory f l s h i n g f o r shrimp and crabs inshore and o f f s h o r e o f t h e I i ne. T h i s 1 nformation
sha l l be assessed by NMFS and Counci l s t a f f and these f i ndi ngs shal l be presented t o t h e
Stone Crab and Shrimp Advi sory Subpanels, as we1 I as t o t h e Regi onal Dl rector, t h e Counci I
and i t s Comml ttees.
Based on t h e assessment o f t h i s Information and recanm3ndatlons by t h e
above mentioned e n t i t i e s , and i f t h e b i ologi cal , s o c i a l and econanic considerations support a
change, t h e Regional D i r e c t o r may change t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e I i ne o f separation o r t h e period
d u r i ng which shrimpi ng I s prohl b i ted i nshore o f t h e Ii ne by t h e regulatory amendment process.
Any such change In pos i t i o n o f t h e l 1 ne o f separati on shal l be cons1 s t e n t wt t h Management
Objective 1, provide f o r o r d e r l y conduct o f t h e stone crab f ishery I n t h e management area I n
order t o reduce conf I l c t between stone crab fishermen and other fishermen i n t h e area, and
Management O b j e c t i v e 3, a t t a i n f u l l u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e stone crab resource i n t h e management
area, t h e provi s i ons o f t h e Magnuson F i shery Conservation and Management Act and o t h e r appl l cable law.
The Counci l considers t h a t any change under t h i s process may have a s ign If i c a n t .federal
impact on t h e human envi ronment; therefore, an envi ronmentai assessment w i l l be prepared and
pub11 c heari ngs w i l l be he1 d on t h e proposed change(s1 as pub l i shed i n t h e Federal Regi ster.
I f t h e change i s deemed t o have a sign1 f i c a n t impact on t h e human envl ronment, a supplemental
EIS w l I I be prepared.
The Councl I I s i n t e n t i s t h a t t h i s procedure be used t o mod1 f y t h e
p o s l t i o n o f t h e I i ne o r time perlod, but not be used t o e l l m i nate t h e Il ne o r c l o s u r e period.
Such a c t ions w i l l be taken on1y by plan amendment.