[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1621-1631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-497]



[[Page 1621]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 080225283-81561-02]
RIN 0648-AU28


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 14

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 
Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council (Council). This rule establishes eight 
marine protected areas (MPAs) in which fishing for or possession of 
South Atlantic snapper-grouper are prohibited. The prohibition on 
possession does not apply to a person aboard a vessel that is in 
transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed. The proposal in 
Amendment 14 to prohibit shark bottom longlines within these MPAs has 
been implemented by NMFS in a separate rulemaking. The intended effects 
of this final rule are to protect a portion of the population and 
habitat of long-lived, slow growing, deepwater snapper-grouper from 
fishing pressure to achieve a more natural sex ratio, age, and size 
structure within the proposed MPAs, while minimizing adverse social and 
economic effects.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
may be obtained from Kate Michie, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 
13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Michie, 727-824-5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery off the southern 
Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the 
Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
    On June 6, 2008, NMFS published a notice of availability of 
Amendment 14 and requested public comment (73 FR 32281). On July 16, 
2008, NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 14 and 
request public comment on the proposed rule (73 FR 40824). NMFS 
approved Amendment 14 on September 2, 2008. The rationale for the 
measures contained in Amendment 14 is provided in the amendment and the 
preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Because the 
Atlantic shark fishery is managed by NMFS under the Consolidated Highly 
Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, the Council's proposed 
prohibition on the use of shark bottom longlines in the MPAs was 
implemented by NMFS' Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Division in a 
separate final rule published June 24, 2008 (72 FR 35778).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 12 comments on Amendment 14 and the proposed rule, 9 
of which opposed proposed actions or suggested alternate management 
measures. Following is a summary of the comments and NMFS' responses.
    Comment 1: Three commenters stated opposition to the establishment 
of the St. Lucie Hump MPA, otherwise known as Seabass Rocks. Two of the 
three commenters are concerned this MPA was designated based on the 
input of one commercial fisherman rather than through a consensus-based 
approach. These commenters also believe best available science was not 
used in the decision making process. Another commenter opposed to the 
St. Lucie Hump MPA indicated the claim that the area contains ``prime 
habitat and spawning area for snapper-grouper populations'' is simply 
not true and, therefore, no snapper-grouper species would benefit from 
its closure.
    Response: NMFS believes the St. Lucie Hump MPA has the potential to 
contain snapper-grouper species, based on documentation of the presence 
of suitable habitat by the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment 
Program and public testimony that speckled hind, snowy grouper, and 
Warsaw grouper are present in the area. The supporting Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) was reviewed by the Southeast Fisheries Science 
Center and found to be based in the best scientific information 
available. Establishing the St. Lucie Hump MPA is expected to protect 
these species from fishing pressure within its borders and, over the 
long-term, promote a more natural sex ratio, age, and size structure. 
Additionally, loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles may occur in this 
area and would, therefore, benefit from localized protection from 
incidental hook-and-line capture.
    Comment 2: Protected areas ``can create undue stress on the 
environment'', and the MPAs will not solve the overall problem. The 
commenter also states opposition to the MPAs based on the perceived 
cost of their enforcement, and believes those costs would outweigh the 
biological benefits associated with MPAs.
    Response: The Council's goal in establishing these deepwater MPAs 
was to develop a management measure that would complement existing 
management measures and add further protection to deepwater snapper-
grouper. The Council does not consider the MPAs a stand-alone means of 
management for the snapper-grouper fishery, but considers them a 
logical extension of protective measures already in place.
    Effective enforcement of MPAs is critical to their success in 
achieving biological objectives and the maintenance of a positive 
public attitude toward them. For the MPAs to be an effective management 
tool, local compliance and self monitoring will be necessary. After 
considering all potential effects including costs of enforcement, the 
Council voted to approve the establishment of designated MPA sites 
based in part on the expectation that biological benefits will outweigh 
costs associated with enforcement in the long-term.
    Comment 3: One commenter opposed the establishment of MPAs based on 
the perceived overburdened work environment of the United States Coast 
Guard and the Department of Homeland Security, stating that these 
agencies should be utilized to patrol U.S. waters for illegal 
immigrants and illegal drug trafficking activities rather than 
enforcement of MPAs.
    Response: NMFS agrees that United States Coast Guard and the 
Department of Homeland Security resources should be directed toward 
enforcement efforts their department administrators believe are most 
appropriate at any given time. Furthermore, NMFS realizes that self 
monitoring and local compliance within and around the MPAs will be 
essential for their long-term success.
    Comment 4: The closure would be ``devastating to all communities 
along the coast of Florida, especially here in the Keys...if such a 
great area were shut off to fishing.'' This commenter also stated the 
comment period for such a closure was too short.
    Response: It is NMFS' understanding that several fishery 
participants may have interpreted the depth-contour line, shown on the 
map illustrating the MPA

[[Page 1622]]

boundaries in the Fishery Bulletin and the proposed rule, as the area 
to be designated as one large MPA. This is not the case however, and 
NMFS has taken steps to clarify the map illustrating the small areas 
that do represent the designated MPA sites, as shown in Figure 1.
    The comment periods for the Draft Environment Impact Statement 
(DEIS), the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Amendment 14 
and the proposed rule are dictated by the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All comment periods for this action 
were created in accordance with those requirements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA09.000

    Comment 5: One commenter stated general opposition to any 
management measures that would further restrict recreational hook-and-
line fishing for deepwater snapper-grouper species in Federal waters of 
the South Atlantic.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the many restrictions placed on 
recreational fishermen in the South Atlantic region, however, it is the 
agency's responsibility to protect fishery resources and associated 
habitat, with an emphasis on protecting those that are overfished, 
undergoing overfishing or approaching an overfished condition. A 
consensus-based approach involving a multi-stakeholder group was used 
to determine the MPA sites with an effort to chose locations that would 
provide optimal biological benefits while limiting, to the extent 
practicable, any adverse economic effects on the fishery. The MPAs 
being implemented through this rule are expected to yield long-term

[[Page 1623]]

benefits for several species that are currently overfished, undergoing 
overfishing and/or approaching an overfished condition, in keeping with 
the goals and objectives of the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of 
the South Atlantic Region.
    Comment 6: The No Action Alternatives for each action were not 
analyzed in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), nor was 
the increasing price of fuel and its effect on enforcement of the MPAs. 
The commenter also stated there was a failure to describe the economic 
impacts of the MPA alternatives on recreational fishermen and 
associated community businesses, and the economic analysis relied on 
questionable trip data from 2005-2007 for South Carolina. Two 
commenters asked why establishing more near-shore and off-shore man-
made fishing reefs to counteract economic impacts of Amendment 14 had 
not been considered.
    Response: A No Action Alternative does not have economic impacts 
beyond the status quo, i.e. the fishery without the MPA. However, if 
recent increases in fuel prices have caused some commercial and/or 
charter fishing operators to permanently move out of areas to be 
designated as MPAs, the displacement of fishermen caused by the MPAs 
and the associated adverse economic impact will be less than the 
displacement and adverse economic impact caused by MPAs prior to the 
price-induced displacement.
    The RFA is concerned with the expected direct effects of regulatory 
action on small entities and defines three types of small entities: 
small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions. While the businesses that support the recreational 
fishing industry may be small business entities, recreational anglers 
do not qualify as small entities under any of the classifications 
defined by the RFA. Further, no associated community businesses would 
be directly affected by the proposed rule. Consequently, the IRFA was 
correct in not including recreational anglers or associated community 
businesses in the analysis. The small entities that could be directly 
affected by this rule are small businesses in the commercial fishing 
and for-hire industries with permits to fish for and possess South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper species in the EEZ. These entities have been 
identified and included in the analysis.
    Regarding the use of South Carolina trip data from 2005-2007, 
neither the IRFA nor Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) used or relied on 
that trip data to estimate and compare the economic impacts of the 
alternatives for this amendment.
    The Council did vote to establish an experimental deepwater 
artificial reef MPA called the Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA. The 
establishment of this deep artificial reef will facilitate research 
studies focused on answering questions about the practicability and 
effectiveness of deepwater artificial reefs. Once more research is 
conducted on this and other offshore artificial reefs, deploying 
additional materials to establish deepwater artificial reefs may be 
considered in a future amendment.
    Comment 7: One commenter provided three suggestions to improve 
management of the snapper-grouper fishery in lieu of MPAs. The first 
suggestion is to impose trip limits on all fish that have a quota. The 
second is to do away with all size limits to avoid wasting the 
resource. The third suggestion is to require every fisherman to declare 
whether they are part of the recreational or commercial sector in order 
to reduce instances of recreational fishermen selling bag limit caught 
fish and, thus, counting those fish against the commercial quota.
    Response: Commercial trip limits have been implemented for several 
snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic such as greater 
amberjack, red porgy, snowy grouper, and golden tilefish. Adjustment to 
current trip limits and additional trip limits may be considered in 
future actions.
    Minimum size limits are generally used to maximize the yield of 
each fish recruited to the fishery and to protect a portion of a stock 
from fishing mortality. The idea behind maximizing yield is to identify 
the size that best balances the benefits of harvesting fish at larger, 
more commercially valuable sizes against losses due to natural 
mortality. Protecting immature and newly mature fish from fishing 
mortality provides them increased opportunities to reproduce and 
replace themselves before they are captured. If the size limit chosen 
is larger than the size at first reproduction for the species in 
question, then a sufficient pool of spawners could be retained even if 
fishing pressure is heavy. There are many negative aspects of size 
limits too, but the benefits of any management measure depends on the 
species. NMFS uses a broad range of management measures for snapper-
grouper species because of the diversity of species and habitats.
    Sale of bag limit quantities of snapper-grouper is being addressed 
through Amendment 15B to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the 
South Atlantic Region. In Amendment 15B the Preferred Alternative under 
``Modifications to Sales Provisions'' states: ``A South Atlantic 
Snapper-Grouper harvested in the EEZ on board a vessel that does not 
have a valid Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper-
grouper, or a South Atlantic snapper-grouper possessed under the bag 
limits, may not be sold or purchased. A person aboard a vessel with 
both a for-hire vessel permit and a Federal commercial snapper-grouper 
permit is considered to be fishing as a charter when fishing as 
described in 50 CFR 622.2. Snapper-grouper caught on such a trip may 
not be sold or purchased.'' Amendment 15B is under review and, if 
approved, would be expected to be implemented in 2009.
    Comment 8: One commenter stated general support of the 
establishment of the MPAs in the South Atlantic region.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the establishment of these MPAs is 
likely to protect a portion of the population (including spawning 
aggregations) and habitat of long-lived, slow-growing, deepwater 
snapper-grouper species from directed fishing pressure to achieve a 
more natural sex ratio, age, and size structure within the proposed 
MPAs, while minimizing adverse social and economic effects.
    Comment 9: One agency issued a letter of support for the action but 
also urged NMFS to develop a detailed plan for specific research and 
monitoring actions and enforcement and outreach/education objectives 
for each of the MPAs.
    Response: The effects of the Type II MPAs will be monitored through 
the assessment of spawning aggregations, tracking fish movement, 
identifying fish population demographics, and by determining age 
distribution, nursery grounds, migratory patterns, and mortality rates 
for dominant harvested fish stocks. Furthermore, the Council's web site 
will be expanded to provide comprehensive education and outreach 
products on MPAs (e.g., regulations, publications, research and 
monitoring information, law enforcement activities, news releases, high 
resolution video and photographs, maps, etc.).
    Comment 10: One agency asked whether the MPAs would be established 
for a set term, indeterminately, or if they would exist until 
monitoring demonstrates recovery, and whether or not the MPA sites are 
adaptable to incorporate any identified modifications. The agency also 
noted that the ``Dear Reviewer'' letter accompanying the FEIS, sent out 
to interested parties, was dated June 2, 2008, but the amendment itself 
was dated July 2007, and requested clarification on this discrepancy.

[[Page 1624]]

    Response: The MPAs will exist unless and/or until future actions to 
modify or eliminate one or all of them are implemented through the 
amendment process. If new information becomes available, suggesting an 
MPA should be altered in any way, such changes would be addressed 
through the amendment process as well.
    The ``Dear reviewer'' letter sent to interested parties and 
commenters was attached to a copy of the FEIS and was dated June 2, 
2008, while the finalized amendment is dated July 2007. This 
discrepancy stemmed from the action to prohibit the use of shark bottom 
longline gear within the MPAs. The HMS Division manages the shark 
bottom longline fishery and, therefore, implemented the action to 
prohibit the gear in the MPAs in their Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 
HMS FMP. However, the Council approved Amendment 14 before HMS 
Amendment 2 was finalized and chose to move forward by submitting 
Amendment 14 for Secretarial review in July of 2007. In an effort to 
implement compatible regulations with Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 
HMS FMP on the same timeline, NMFS waited to disseminate the Amendment 
14 FEIS until after the notice of availability (NOA) for Amendment 2 
FEIS was published. Subsequently, the process of Secretarial review for 
Amendment 14 was not initiated until June of 2008 when the ``Dear 
reviewer'' letter was issued.

Classification

    The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS determined that Amendment 
14 is necessary for the conservation and management of the South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an FRFA for this action. The FRFA incorporates the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the 
significant economic issues raised by public comments, NMFS' responses 
to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support 
the action. A summary of the analyses follows.
    In summary, this final rule will establish eight Type II MPAs in 
the South Atlantic EEZ. The objective of this rule is to assist in the 
recovery of overfished stocks and persistence of healthy fish stocks, 
fisheries and habitats.
    Four issues associated with the economic analysis were raised 
through public comment on the proposed rule. Additional comments were 
received which did not pertain to the economic analysis. A complete 
summary of these comments and NMFS' responses is provided in the 
Comments and Responses section of this rule. No changes were made to 
the final rule as a result of public comment. The first issue raised on 
the economic analysis was that the IRFA did not include an economic 
analysis. Although an analysis of the expected economic effects of the 
proposed rule and significant alternatives was conducted, the IRFA did 
not contain a description of the analysis conducted or provide an in-
depth presentation of the results. Because of the absence of harvest 
and effort data at the small areal scale necessary to quantitatively 
assess harvests in the specific areas of the proposed MPAs, the 
analysis of the expected social and economic effects of the proposed 
rule relied upon the results of an iterative survey methodology called 
a modified Delphi method. Under this methodology, individuals familiar 
with the various fishing sectors and areas under consideration were 
surveyed to identify the potential effects of MPAs and determine an 
ordinal ranking system that was used to compare the economic impacts of 
the various MPA alternatives. This FRFA corrects the omission in the 
IRFA by including an explanation of why the Delphi method was used, 
providing a description of the Delphi process, and reporting the 
resulting forecasts of the expected adverse economic impacts of the 
various alternatives.
    The second issue raised on the economic analysis was that the 
analysis of the No Action Alternatives did not include consideration of 
the effects of the recent increases in fuel prices, which have caused 
some fishermen to relocate from the deep-water areas, including areas 
to be designated as MPAs, to areas closer to shore. The comment stated 
that the displacement of fishing pressure has reduced catch and 
revenues from these future MPAs and, therefore, the No Action 
Alternatives would have adverse economic impacts that have not been 
evaluated. NMFS agrees that increasing fuel prices have impacted 
fishing practices in both the recreational and commercial sectors, 
affecting both the number of trips fishermen take and the location of 
their fishing activity. NMFS disagrees, however, that the IRFA analysis 
is deficient because an assessment of the economic effects of 
increasing fuel costs for the No Action Alternatives was not explicitly 
conducted. This comment suggests a misunderstanding of the no action 
baseline and the analytical objective of the analysis. The no action 
baseline consists of an assessment of what the relevant fisheries and 
entities would be like if the rule is not adopted, otherwise known as 
the status quo. The analytical objective of the analysis is to 
determine the effects a rule or alternative is expected to have 
relative to the baseline. Thus, the analytical objective in evaluating 
the expected effects of an action is not to identify the absolute level 
of economic performance, but, rather, to identify the expected amount 
and direction (gain or loss) of change. Although increasing fuel prices 
may alter fishing behavior and reduce the profitability of small 
businesses in the fishing industry, such effects would continue to 
occur under the No Action Alternatives. As a result, because the No 
Action Alternatives would not impose any new restrictions on the 
fisheries, they would not result in any additional economic impacts 
beyond those expected to occur under the status quo, which includes the 
snapper-grouper fishery without the MPAs, but with rising fuel costs, 
and other economic pressures. Thus, while knowledge of baseline 
conditions (status quo) is important to identifying the effects of 
alternatives to the status quo, the No Action Alternatives would not 
result in any change in these baseline conditions. It should also be 
noted that, due to the methodology employed, neither fuel costs nor any 
other cost considerations, were explicitly used in the effects 
analysis. However, such effects were assumed to be implicitly factored 
into the determinations of potential effects of the MPAs and resultant 
ordinal ranking of alternatives. Because of their experience and 
knowledge of the fisheries and areas under consideration, the 
participants in the modified Delphi process were assumed to be 
cognizant of current fishing costs, travel distances, and other 
appropriate fishing factors and trends, and are assumed to have 
included these considerations in their determination of the effects of 
the alternative MPAs. Finally, from a practical perspective, it should 
be noted that if recent fuel price increases have caused fishermen to 
permanently move out of areas that will be designated as MPAs, the 
additional displacement and associated adverse economic effects as a 
result of MPA designation will be less than the effects which would 
occur absent any fuel price-induced

[[Page 1625]]

displacement because an MPA would not displace effort that no longer 
exists.
    The third issue raised on the economic analysis was that the 
analysis failed to describe the economic impacts of the MPA 
alternatives on recreational fishermen and associated community 
businesses. The RFA is concerned with the expected direct effects of 
regulatory action on small entities and defines three types of small 
entities: small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions. While the businesses that support the recreational 
fishing industry may be small business entities, recreational anglers 
do not qualify as small entities under any of the classifications 
defined by the RFA. Further, no associated community businesses would 
be directly affected by the proposed rule. Consequently, the IRFA was 
correct in not including recreational anglers or associated community 
businesses in the analysis. The small entities that could be directly 
affected by this rule are small businesses in the commercial fishing 
and for-hire industries with permits to fish for and possess South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper species in the EEZ. These entities have been 
identified and included in the analysis.
    The fourth issue raised on the economic analysis was that the 
economic analysis utilized faulty assumptions of fishing pressure. The 
comment implied, using 2005 through 2007 data for South Carolina, that 
the analysis assumed all trips occurring in Federal waters constituted 
pressure on the snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS disagrees with this 
comment. When evaluating the expected economic effects of a proposed 
rule, NMFS uses a measure of directed effort and not total effort. 
Proxies for directed effort include target trips (trips that target a 
particular species), catch trips (trips that catch a particular 
species), or harvest trips (trips that harvest a particular species but 
do not include catch and release trips). These measures of directed 
effort typically constitute a small portion of total effort. For 
example, for the snapper-grouper fishery from 1999 through 2003, catch 
trips comprised the largest portion of total trips, yet equaled only 
approximately 15 percent of total trips. Additionally, because the 
analysis of the expected economic effects of the alternative MPAs used 
the modified Delphi methodology, as described above, rather than a 
traditional quantitative analysis, neither the IRFA nor the RIR used or 
relied on specific trip data to estimate and compare the economic 
impacts of the alternatives for this amendment.
    No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been 
identified.
    This rule will regulate commercial fishermen and for-hire fishing 
operators who fish for snapper-grouper species in eight areas to be 
designated as Type II MPAs in the South Atlantic EEZ. These eight MPAs 
are the Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern South Carolina, Edisto, Georgia, 
North Florida, St. Lucie Hump, East Hump, and Charleston Deep 
Artificial Reef Type II MPAs.
    Current regulations require commercial vessels to have a Federal 
permit in order for persons aboard to possess South Atlantic snapper-
grouper species in the South Atlantic EEZ in excess of the recreational 
bag limit (50 CFR 622.4). For-hire vessels that fish for snapper-
grouper in the EEZ, which are subject to recreational bag limits, are 
also required to have a Federal permit. As of August 18, 2008, 771 
commercial fishing vessels had active South Atlantic snapper-grouper 
permits, 142 of which were trip-limited and 629 of which were 
unlimited. Similarly, there were 1,513 charter-fishing vessels with an 
active permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper species.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in 
the finfish fishing or charter-fishing industry as one that is 
independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of 
operation, and has annual receipts not in excess of $4 million for 
finfish fishing (NAICS 114111) or $6.5 million in charter fishing 
(NAICS 487210). It is assumed for this analysis that each permit 
represents a small business. Thus, it is estimated that there are 771 
small businesses in finfish fishing and 1,513 in charter-fishing that 
catch South Atlantic snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic EEZ.
    The U.S. Atlantic EEZ is divided into statistical areas referred to 
herein as grids. The eight MPAs will be located within nine grids with 
one of the MPAs, Snowy Grouper Wreck, occurring in two grids and the 
others located in single grids. Of the seven MPAs to be contained 
within single grids, the size of the respective MPAs represents from 
0.25 percent to 3.26 percent of the area of the grid where it is 
located. The one MPA contained within two grids comprises 2.48 percent 
of the combined area of the two grids.
    Under current regulations, all fishermen with a Federal commercial 
permit to catch South Atlantic snapper-grouper species are required to 
maintain a fishing logbook and submit a trip report for every fishing 
trip related to that permit. Among the information that is required is 
the vessel name and identification number, gear used, pounds caught and 
sold of each species, and the numeric code of the grid where the 
majority of the catch of each species was made. Fishermen are not 
required to report the longitudes and latitudes where the snapper-
grouper species were caught within a grid, so the smallest unit of 
fishing area is the grid.
    The initial analysis of the expected economic impacts of the MPA 
alternatives considered quantifying the expected effects by identifying 
the total snapper-grouper catch in the respective grid containing the 
MPA or any portion of the MPA and assuming that the catch originating 
from the MPA was between 0 to 100 percent of the total catch in the 
grid. This approach would have established upper and lower bounds on 
the potential level of catch affected by each MPA designation. For 
example, the Preferred Alternative for the Edisto MPA (Alternative 1) 
is contained within grid 3279. This approach would have estimated that 
0 to 100 percent of the vessels with recorded fishing activities in 
that grid and 0 to 100 percent of the landings of snapper-grouper 
species recorded from that grid would be affected by the MPA. However, 
all of the MPAs considered comprised relatively small portions of their 
respective grids. The Preferred Alternative for the Edisto MPA, for 
example, represents only 1.65 percent of the total area within the grid 
in which it lies. As a result, this approach would not have produced 
meaningful estimates of the expected effects of the alternative MPAs 
and was rejected.
    The second approach to quantifying the expected economic impacts 
considered assuming that the vessel participation and harvest from each 
alternative MPA was proportional to the percentage of area of the MPA 
relative to the total area in the grid. For example, because the 
Preferred Alternative for the Edisto MPA represents 1.65 percent of the 
area of grid 3279, this approach would have assumed that the 
designation of this area as an MPA would affect 1.65 percent of the 
snapper-grouper vessels that reported landings in that grid and reduce 
the total snapper-grouper landings in that grid by 1.65 percent. This 
method, however, was rejected because it assumed each grid was a 
homogeneous area of physical, chemical and biological characteristics 
or habitat resulting in identical types and rates of fishing effort and 
harvest everywhere within the grid, conditions which are known with 
certainty not to be true. Consequently, it was decided that an adequate 
quantitative evaluation of the

[[Page 1626]]

economic impacts using traditional techniques was not possible.
    Because the empirical data do not exist at the spatial scale 
necessary to quantify the number of small entities that would be 
affected and adverse economic impacts of the various MPAs, a second 
best alternative, a modified Delphi approach, was developed to assess 
the expected socioeconomic effects of each of the proposed alternatives 
and support ranking of the alternatives. The Delphi method has been 
applied in the management of other natural resources and advocated for 
use in fishery management.
    The Delphi method is an experiment in group communication among a 
panel of experts with expertise representative of diverse geographic 
areas. It involves repetitive response, discussion and judgment among a 
panel of diverse experts with the purpose of resulting in a sound 
collective opinion. The technique allows experts to deal systematically 
with a complex problem or task where relevant empirical data is 
lacking. The particular Delphi experiment developed for this amendment 
was a modified Delphi, which consisted of three rounds: a Policy 
Delphi, a traditional iterative Delphi, and a cross-impact analysis.
    Twelve experts, representing expertise from the Carolinas to the 
Florida Keys, participated in the Delphi experiment. They were selected 
based on a spectrum of fishing and researching backgrounds with 
different perspectives on the policy issue of MPAs, including 
stakeholders with commercial, for-hire, and recreational fishing 
interests, as well as others with expertise covering marine resources 
administration, anthropology, biology, economics, enforcement, and 
protected marine resources. This was a priority in order to represent 
contrasting viewpoints of different stakeholders. Their viewpoints were 
treated as expert testimony and systematically disseminated to the rest 
of the panel of experts so that each panelist could consider other 
viewpoints and discuss them.
    The first phase was a Policy Delphi, which culminated in a 
comprehensive list of positive and negative effects (i.e. benefits and 
costs, advantages and disadvantages) of implementing a Type II MPA in 
general. Although the diversity of experts created instances of 
divergence regarding the direction (positive, negative, or neutral) of 
individual effects during Round One, the panel generally displayed 
strong majority support on the direction and level of impacts resulting 
from the implementation of Type II MPAs.
    This and the following four paragraphs identify and describe the 
economic impacts of Type II MPAs in general, which were identified and 
described by the expert panelists during Round One of the Delphi 
experiment. According to the panelists, negative impacts on small 
businesses would be realized mainly in the form of displacement costs 
on commercial and for-hire vessels that currently, but would no longer 
be able to, fish in areas designated as Type II MPAs. These 
displacement costs were divided into the following categories: catch 
and landings changes, trip-level search and associated costs, crowding 
and congestion costs, and personal safety costs.
    The most obvious and direct displacement cost would be the cost to 
commercial and charter-fishing vessels that historically catch snapper-
grouper species in the areas designated as MPAs. These vessels would 
lose the revenues that come from sales of species caught in those areas 
and customer trips to those areas. To reduce the loss of catch and 
associated revenue, vessels would have to travel to new fishing 
locations, maybe target new species, or even learn new types of 
fishing. These new trip-level decisions would have a direct impact on 
trip-related variable costs as well as time-related opportunity costs. 
In particular, fuel usage and costs would likely change. The immediate 
search for profitable alternative fishing grounds could result in 
additional fuel expenditures and lost opportunities to fish, especially 
if those grounds require vessels to travel greater distances and avoid 
traveling through closed areas in order not to be caught with snapper-
grouper species in the MPAs. However, vessels could actually use less 
fuel if the new fishing grounds were closer to shore. If displaced 
fishermen purchase new gear or modify existing gear and lack experience 
with the new/modified gear, it could take time for them to become 
proficient and improve profits.
    Related displacement costs could be congestion, increased harvest 
and user conflicts in areas outside an MPA, and decreased personal 
safety. Additional fishing pressure in areas surrounding an MPA might 
further stress already overfished species, and vessels may experience 
lower catch rates per unit of effort as they compete for the limited 
biomass in the open fishing areas. This could create incentives for 
additional capital expenditures, such as for fish finding equipment. 
Additionally, user conflicts may develop and gear may be lost due to 
entanglement. The panel suggested that the farther displaced vessels 
had to move inshore, the more conflict could result with recreational 
vessels. MPA regulations could cause fishermen to incur extra risk to 
personal safety as they seek new and unfamiliar fishing grounds or 
employ unfamiliar fishing techniques. However, if the MPAs were in 
deepwater areas, there could be a decrease in personal risk to crew and 
paying passengers if vessels moved closer to shore. The short-term 
revenue losses could translate into long-term income gains and reduced 
variability of revenue. In the long run, benefits could be realized if 
spillover effects are assumed to affect aggregate harvest levels in the 
remaining fishable areas as stocks become healthier. Increased 
protection of the spawning stock biomass may lead to more natural 
population structures with older and larger individuals and greater 
genetic diversity. As a result, there could be increased harvestable 
biomass, increased dispersal, and greater recruitment to the remaining 
open areas in the fishery. These attributes likely would lead to a 
reduction in the annual variation in the biomass of deepwater stocks 
and the resulting harvests and revenues. If spillover occurs, then the 
abundance and harvest levels in surrounding areas will become less 
variable. The amount of economic benefit that would eventually be 
derived due to spillover effects from the MPA depends on a myriad of 
biological and economic factors specific to species in question and the 
vessels that target them. Future harvest increases may not be realized 
exclusively by the fishermen who were displaced by designation of an 
MPA.
    Round Two of the Delphi experiment required panelists to group and 
rank the effects listed in the previous round. A time dimension was 
introduced to distinguish immediate (less than one year) impacts of 
implementing a Type II MPA from medium (one to five years) and long-
term (over five years) impacts. The results were groupings of effects 
ranked on their expected overall impacts throughout various time 
periods after implementation of Type II MPAs In General.
    The primary objective of Round Three was to differentiate the 
socioeconomic consequences of the alternatives for each proposed MPA in 
Amendment 14. A weighted scoring system was used based on the results 
from the previous rounds. In Delphi method terminology, this scoring 
system is an impact analysis. Each panelist was asked to estimate the 
impact of each group of effects in each time period on a scale from 
negative three to plus three, with a score of zero representing a 
neutral impact. Negative 3 represented a high

[[Page 1627]]

adverse economic impact, negative two a moderate adverse economic 
impact, and negative 1 a minimal adverse economic impact. Similarly, 3 
represented a high beneficial economic impact, 2 a moderate beneficial 
economic impact, and 1 a minimal beneficial economic impact. A score of 
zero represented neutral or no impact. One of the groups of effects was 
impact on commercial, charter-fishing and recreational fishermen. 
Overall impact scores for each grouping of effects in each time period 
were calculated with a probabilistic consensus model that enabled a 
test for agreement in responses among panelists. Relative weights based 
on the rankings of effects from Round Two were used to calculate the 
overall weighted impact scores in each time period that were employed 
to compare the alternatives associated with the Amendment 14 MPA sites. 
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test produces a nonparametric statistic that 
was used to formally test for differences in scores among the 
alternatives. The No Action alternative was not explicitly evaluated by 
the panelists and was defined to have a score of zero because it 
represented no change from baseline (or status quo) economic 
conditions.

Snowy Grouper Wreck Type II MPA Alternatives

    Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, will establish the Type 
II Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA located off North Carolina in the area that 
is bound by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 
33[deg]25'N, 77[deg]4.75'W; northeast corner at 33[deg]34.75'N, 
76[deg]51.3'W; southwest corner at 33[deg]15.75'N, 77[deg]0'W; and the 
southeast corner at 33[deg]25.5'N, 76[deg]46.5'W. It comprises an area 
approximately 143 square nautical miles and is located approximately 55 
nautical miles southeast of Southport, North Carolina.
    Alternative 2, a rejected alternative, would have established a 
Type II MPA that protects the Snowy Grouper Wreck off North Carolina in 
the area that is bound by the following coordinates: The northwest 
corner at 33[deg]23.35'N, 77[deg]4'W; northeast corner at 
33[deg]33.25'N, 76[deg]50.5'W; southwest corner at 33[deg]14.1'N, 
76[deg]59.35'W; and the southeast corner at 33[deg]24'N, 
76[deg]45.75'W. The MPA would have comprised an area approximately 144 
square nautical miles and been located approximately 57 nautical miles 
southeast of Southport.
    Alternative 3, another rejected alternative, was the No Action 
Alternative and would not have established the Type II Snowy Grouper 
Wreck MPA. It would not generate any economic impacts beyond the 
baseline. Alternative 3 would not protect the fish that are still 
present on the snowy grouper wreck and other wrecks and natural bottom 
sites within the area from directed fishing pressure. By allowing 
fishing to continue as is, it is less likely that the natural size and 
age structure of the deepwater stocks will be restored, which reduces 
the long-term benefits of increased catches and associated revenues.
    The MPA created by Preferred Alternative 1 is situated a little 
further inshore than the MPA created by rejected Alternative 2 and 
contains more hard-bottom habitat than Alternative 2. The MPAs created 
by Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 include an area ranging from 150 
meters (492 feet) to 300 meters (984 feet) deep. Alternative 1 also 
includes a shallow area ranging from 60 meters (197 feet) to 100 meters 
(328 feet), and Alternative 2 includes a deeper area exceeding 300 
meters (984 feet) in depth. Both of the alternatives contain a wreck 
that was once the site of a known aggregation of snowy grouper, which 
was believed to be targeted heavily by a few individuals in the late 
1990s and fished down.
    According to the commercial fishing industry, the areas of 
Alternatives 1 and 2 hold many snowy grouper, speckled hind, gag, and 
red porgy. It is reported that red grouper, graysby, and hogfish have 
also been caught at the snowy grouper wreck. Information from public 
hearings indicates that the snowy grouper wreck is mostly fished by 
commercial snapper-grouper fishermen out of Little River, SC, and the 
ports of Carolina Beach and Southport, NC. This area is also heavily 
fished by fishermen who troll for tuna, marlin, dolphin, and wahoo 
during certain times of the year.
    The charter fishing industry may also be impacted by Alternatives 1 
and 2 because they would have to target these bottom snapper-grouper 
species in other areas, potentially increasing fishing pressure on 
other sites. It may also have a negative effect because these longer 
trips are usually built into the annual round of these boats, 
designated for specialized fishermen.
    The results of the Delphi experiment forecast moderate to minimal 
adverse economic impacts from either Preferred Alternative 1 or 
rejected Alternative 2, with impacts ranging from immediate, moderate, 
adverse impacts of -1.94 to -1.57 to less than minimal adverse impacts 
of -0.14 after 5 years.
    The Delphi approach forecasts higher adverse economic impacts of 
Preferred Alternative 1 than those of Alternative 2 due to greater 
displacement effects. This result corroborated expert testimony from 
Round One that suggested Preferred Alternative 1 encroaches into the 
mid-shelf region and would affect more fishing operations than 
Alternative 2. Commercial activity in the outer continental shelf of 
Alternative 2 is relatively light (about 6 boats) while more than 12 
additional commercial vessels and an unknown number of charter-fishing 
operators regularly fish for snapper and shallow-water groupers in the 
mid-shelf region of Preferred Alternative 1. Expert testimony revealed 
that no significant recreational effort exists within the Snowy Grouper 
Wreck MPA alternatives. Although the Delphi results forecast the same 
long-term adverse economic impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2, the 
Council expects the biological benefits of Preferred Alternative 1 
would be greater than those of Alternative 2.

Northern South Carolina Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 2 will establish a Type II MPA in the area 
bounded by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 
32[deg]53.5' N, 78[deg]16.75' W; the northeast corner at 32[deg]53.5' 
N, 78[deg]4.75' W; the southwest corner at 32[deg]48.5'N, 78[deg]16.75' 
W; and the southeast corner at 32[deg]48.5' N, 78[deg]4.75' W. It 
comprises an area approximately 50 square nautical miles and is located 
approximately 54 nautical miles from Murrells Inlet, SC.
    Alternative 1, a rejected alternative, would have established a 
Type II MPA in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The 
northwest corner at 33[deg]8.5'N, 77[deg]54'W; the northeast corner at 
33[deg]8.5'N, 77[deg]42'W; the southwest corner at 33[deg]3.5'N, 
77[deg]54'W; and the southeast corner at 33[deg]3.5'N, 77[deg]42'W. The 
MPA would have had an area approximately 50 square nautical miles and 
been located approximately 61 nautical miles from Murrells Inlet.
    Alternative 3, another rejected alternative, would have established 
a Type II MPA in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The 
northwest corner at 33[deg]2.75'N, 79[deg]52.75'W; the northeast corner 
at 33[deg]9.25'N, 77[deg]43.5'W; the southwest corner at 
32[deg]58.83'N, 77[deg]48.83'W; and the southeast corner at 
33[deg]5.3'N, 77[deg]39.9'W. The MPA would have been located 
approximately 65 nautical miles from Murrells Inlet and been 
approximately 50 square nautical miles in size.
    Alternative 4, the rejected No Action Alternative, would have not 
established a Type II MPA off northern South Carolina. It would 
generate no economic impacts beyond the baseline.

[[Page 1628]]

    The MPAs of Preferred Alternative 2 and rejected Alternatives 1 and 
3 are areas of low relief that were previously heavily trawled by 
roller rigs before they were prohibited in 1989 through Snapper Grouper 
Amendment 1 (SAFMC 1988). Fishermen refer to the area as ``smurfville'' 
because it holds many small vermilion snapper. Information received 
during the public input process indicates that this area is fished 
mostly in the winter and that it holds deepwater species like snowy 
grouper and speckled hind as well as other snapper-grouper species such 
as red porgy, triggerfish, and gag.
    The MPAs of rejected Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 run 
east to west, while rejected Alternative 3 runs parallel to shore. 
Alternatives 1 and 3 share an area ranging in depth from 70 to 140 
meters (230 to 460 feet). The MPA that would have been created by 
Alternative 1 would have included more shallow water ranging from 40 to 
80 meters (131 to 262 feet) deep, while that of Alternative 3 would 
have included a greater area of deep water (100-150 meters (328-492 
feet)). Waters in the MPA created by Preferred Alternative 2 are from 
50 to 180 meters (164 to 591 feet) deep. The depth profiles of 
Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar, but the MPA created by Preferred 
Alternative 2 is located farther offshore and includes deeper water 
than Alternative 1.
    Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) data 
indicate the presence of hard bottom within Alternatives 1 through 3, 
with Preferred Alternative 2 and rejected Alternative 1 having the 
highest occurrence of known hard bottom. These data show that snowy 
grouper can be found in all the alternatives while speckled hind have 
only been found in Alternative 2. Marine Resources Monitoring, 
Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) program data indicate many mid-
shelf snapper-grouper species such as gray triggerfish, red porgy, 
knobbed porgy, and vermilion snapper are also found within all three 
alternatives for this MPA. Many mid-shelf species including vermilion 
snapper have been found in spawning condition in these areas.
    The results of the Delphi experiment forecast Preferred Alternative 
2 would have the largest immediate and medium-term adverse economic 
impacts due to the largest displacement costs. Rejected Alternative 3 
is inferior to Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 in the long-
term because it would have adverse economic impacts as compared to the 
others' beneficial economic impacts in the long-term. Although 
Preferred Alternative 2 is forecast to have larger adverse economic 
impacts than Alternatives 1 and 3 and smaller beneficial economic 
impacts than Alternative 1, it is expected to have greater biological 
benefit because it has more hard-bottom habitat and spawning areas for 
snowy grouper, golden grouper and blueline tilefish.

Edisto Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 1 will establish a Type II MPA in the area 
bounded by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 
32[deg]24'N, 79[deg]6'W; the northeast corner at 32[deg]24'N, 
78[deg]54'W; the southwest corner at 32[deg]18.5'N, 79[deg]6'W; and the 
southeast corner at 32[deg]18.5'N, 78[deg]54'W. It will be oriented 
perpendicular to the coast and located approximately 45 nautical miles 
southeast of the Charleston, SC, harbor. Its area is approximately 50 
square nautical miles. According to public testimony, it is heavily 
fished by commercial and headboat fishermen.
    Alternative 2, a rejected alternative, would have established a 
Type II MPA in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The 
northwest corner at 32[deg]17'N, 79[deg]3'W; the northeast corner at 
32[deg]24.75'N, 78[deg]54.2'W; the southwest corner at 32[deg]13.5'N, 
78[deg]59.5'W; and the southeast corner at 32[deg]21'N, 78[deg]50.83'W. 
It would have oriented the MPA along the shelf break and been 50 
nautical miles southeast of Charleston, SC, harbor. The MPA would have 
had an area of 50 square nautical miles.
    Alternative 3, the rejected No Action Alternative, would not have 
established a Type II MPA off central South Carolina. It would generate 
no economic impacts beyond the baseline.
    The MPAs of Preferred Alternative 1 and rejected Alternative 2 
include an area ranging in depth from 80 meters (262 feet) to 140 
meters (459 feet). The MPA created by Alternative 1 is perpendicular to 
the shoreline and includes more shallow water ranging from 45 to 80 
meters (148 to 262 feet) deep. Alternative 2 would have created an MPA 
that runs parallel to the shoreline and includes additional water 60-
150 meters (197-492 feet) deep.
    The Delphi results forecast minimal to moderate adverse economic 
impacts during the first year of implementation of either Preferred 
Alternative 1 or rejected Alternative 2 due to immediate displacement 
costs. After the first year, these displacement effects would lessen to 
zero to minimal and after 5 years there would be beneficial economic 
impacts. Preferred Alternative 1 would have larger adverse economic 
impacts during the first 5 years of implementation and larger 
beneficial economic impacts after 5 years. Although Preferred 
Alternative 1 is forecast to have larger adverse economic impacts than 
Alternative 2 for the first 5 years, it is expected to have a larger 
biological benefit because it has more hard-bottom habitat than 
Alternative 2.

Georgia Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 1 will establish a Type II MPA off Georgia in 
the area bounded by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 
31[deg]43'N, 79[deg]31'W; the northeast corner at 31[deg]43'N, 
79[deg]21'W; the southwest corner at 31[deg]34'N, 79[deg]39'W; and the 
southeast corner at 31[deg]34'N, 79[deg]29'W. It is located 
approximately 69 nautical miles southeast of the mouth of Wassaw Sound, 
GA, and has an area of approximately 100 square nautical miles.
    Alternative 2, a rejected alternative, would have established a 
Type II MPA off the Georgia coast in the area that is bounded by the 
following coordinates: The northwest corner at 31 38'N, 79 41'W; the 
northeast corner at 31 38'N, 79 31'W; the southwest corner at 31 28'N, 
79 41'W; and the southeast corner at 31 28'N, 79 31'W. It would have 
located the MPA approximately 65 nautical miles southeast of Wassaw 
Sound and, like the Preferred Alternative, have had an area of 100 
square nautical miles.
    Alternative 3, the rejected No Action Alternative would have not 
established a Type II MPA off the Georgia coast. It would not generate 
any economic impacts beyond the baseline.
    Preferred Alternative 1 runs parallel to shore and includes waters 
ranging from 90 to 300 meters (295 to 984 feet) deep, while Alternative 
2 includes an area with a wider depth range from 65 to 380 meters (213 
to 1,247 feet) deep. Input received from the public hearing process 
indicates that golden tilefish are often caught within both Preferred 
Alternative 1 and rejected Alternative 2. The vast majority of fishing 
that occurs in the area of Alternatives 1 and 2 is trolling for pelagic 
species such as tuna and dolphin. The area is occasionally fished 
commercially for snapper grouper species, but lies east of an area 
called Triple Ledge that is an important area for the finfish fishing 
industry.
    The Delphi results forecast minimal to moderate immediate adverse 
economic impacts from Preferred Alternative 1 and rejected Alternative 
2, with slightly larger adverse impacts caused by Alternative 2. 
Similarly, Alternative 2 would have larger adverse economic impacts in 
the medium-term and smaller beneficial impacts after 5 years than the 
preferred alternative. The Council expects larger biological benefit

[[Page 1629]]

from Preferred Alternative 1 because it has more hard-bottom habitat 
than Alternative 2.

North Florida Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 4 will establish a Type II MPA off north 
Florida in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The northwest 
corner at 30[deg]29'N, 80[deg]14'W; the northeast corner at 
30[deg]29'N, 80[deg]2' W; the southwest corner at 30[deg]19'N, 
80[deg]14'W; and the southeast corner at 30[deg]19'N, 80[deg]2'W. It is 
located approximately 60 nautical miles off the mouth of the St. 
Johns's River near Jacksonville, FL, and is approximately 100 square 
nautical miles in size. Alternative 1, a rejected alternative, would 
have established a Type II MPA off the north Florida coast in the area 
that is bounded by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 
30 29'N, 80 18'W; the northeast corner at 30 29'N, 80 8'W; the 
southwest corner at 30 19'N, 80 18'W; and the southeast corner at 30 
19'N, 80 8'W. It would have located the MPA approximately 57 nautical 
miles off the mouth of the St. John's River and is about 100 square 
nautical miles in size.
    Rejected Alternative 2 would have established a Type II MPA off the 
north Florida coast in the area that is bounded by the following 
coordinates: The northwest corner at 30 5'N, 80 25'W; the northeast 
corner at 30 5'N, 80 15'W; the southwest corner at 29 55'N, 80 25'W; 
and the southeast corner at 29 55'N, 80 15'W. It would have located the 
MPA approximately 47 nautical miles east of St. Augustine, FL, and 
would have been about 100 square nautical miles in size.
    Alternative 3, a rejected alternative, would have established a 
Type II MPA off the north Florida coast in the area that is bounded by 
the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 29 36.3'N, 80 
12.5'W; the northeast corner at 29 40'N, 79 50'W; the southwest corner 
at 29 17.3'N, 80 8.3'W; and the southeast corner at 29 21.3'N, 79 
45.5'W. The MPA would have been approximately 506 square nautical miles 
in size and located approximately 43 nautical miles off New Smyrna 
Beach, FL.
    Rejected Alternative 5 would have established a Type II MPA off 
north Florida in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The 
northwest corner at 30Sec.  5' N, 80Sec.  16' W; the northeast corner 
at 30Sec.  5' N, 80Sec.  6' W; the southwest corner at 29Sec.  55' N, 
80Sec.  16' W; the southeast corner at 30Sec.  55' N, 80Sec.  6' W. 
Similar to Alternative 2, the MPA would have been located approximately 
55 nautical miles east of St. Augustine, and like Preferred Alternative 
1 and rejected Alternatives 2 and 4, the MPA would have been about 100 
square nautical miles in size.
    Alternative 6, another rejected alternative, would have established 
a Type II MPA off north Florida in the area bounded by the following 
coordinates: The northwest corner at 29Sec.  36.3' N, 80Sec.  15' W; 
the northeast corner at 29Sec.  40' N, 79Sec.  52.5' W; the southwest 
corner at 29Sec.  17.3' N, 80Sec.  10.8' W; the southeast corner at 
29Sec.  21.3' N, 79Sec.  48' W. Like Alternative 3, it would have 
located the MPA off New Smyrna Beach, but about 45 nautical miles from 
that location. Also, like Alternative 3, the MPA would have been about 
506 square nautical miles in size.
    The rejected No Action Alternative, Alternative 7, would have not 
established a Type II MPA off north Florida. It would not generate any 
economic impacts beyond the baseline.
    The Delphi results forecast moderate to high adverse economic 
impacts in the first year for Preferred Alternative 4 and rejected 
Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 and minimal to moderate immediate adverse 
impacts for rejected Alternatives 3 and 6. From 1 to 5 years, minimal 
to moderate adverse impacts would be incurred from Alternatives 1, 2, 4 
and 6, with zero to minimal adverse impacts caused by Alternatives 3 
and 6. None of the alternatives were forecast to have positive long-
term economic impacts, and Alternatives 1 through 5 were forecast to 
generate zero to minimal adverse economic impacts after 5 years.
    Alternatives 1 and 2 were proposed to the Council by the Habitat 
Advisory Panel. Input received during the public scoping and meeting 
process indicated that these alternatives are heavily fished both 
commercially and recreationally for mid-shelf snapper-grouper species 
and that there are few deepwater species found in either area. 
Alternatives 4 and 5 were modifications suggested by the Council to 
capture a greater amount of deepwater habitat. Alternative 6 is similar 
to Alternative 3 but located closer to shore. Alternative 3 is a site 
proposed at a public hearing held in the affected area. Although 
Alternatives 3 and 6 have smaller adverse economic impacts than 
Preferred Alternative 4, the preferred alternative is expected to yield 
a larger biological benefit.

St. Lucie Hump Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 1 will establish a Type II MPA protecting St. 
Lucie Hump in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The 
northwest corner at 27[deg]8'N, 80[deg]W; the northeast corner at 
27[deg]8'N, 79[deg]58'W; the southwest corner at 27[deg]4'N, 80[deg]W; 
and the southeast corner at 27[deg]4'N, 79[deg]58'W. The MPA will be 
located approximately 9 nautical miles southeast of St. Lucie, FL, and 
have a size of 8 square nautical miles. It is located in water 66 to 69 
meters (216 to 234 feet) deep.
    The No Action Alternative, rejected Alternative 2, would have not 
established the St. Lucie Hump Type II MPA. It would not generate any 
economic impacts beyond the baseline.
    According to input received from the Council's advisors and through 
the public scoping and hearing process, the MPA created by Alternative 
1 represents an area that is very habitat rich with many speckled hind, 
juvenile snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper, and mid-shelf species such as 
sea bass, red porgy, and red snapper present. The MPA will be located 
between two inlets that make the area less popular to fish than other 
hard-bottom areas such as Pushbutton Hill. However, it is heavily 
targeted by fishermen who troll for pelagic species. The Council 
considered other possible sites, but only Alternative 1 came out of the 
public process used to identify potential sites.
    The results of the Delphi experiment forecast minimal to moderate 
adverse economic impacts during the first year of implementation, 
followed by zero to minimal adverse impacts in the medium-term and zero 
to minimal beneficial economic impacts after 5 years.

East Hump Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 1 will establish a Type II MPA protecting the 
East Hump in the area bounded by the following coordinates: The 
northwest corner at 24[deg]36.5'N, 80[deg]45.5'W; the northeast corner 
at 24[deg]32'N, 80[deg]36'W; the southwest corner at 24[deg]32.5'N, 
80[deg]48'W; and the southeast corner at 24[deg]27.5'N, 80[deg]38.5'W. 
The MPA will be located approximately 13 nautical miles southeast of 
Long Key, FL, and about 50 square nautical miles in size.
    The No Action Alternative, rejected Alternative 2, would not have 
established an MPA in this area. It would not generate any economic 
impacts beyond the baseline.
    The East Hump MPA is an area of very rich habitat. The MPA is 
located in waters that are 194 to 296 meters (636 to 971 feet) deep, 
while the tops of the humps are 155 to 165 meters (509 to 541 feet) 
deep. The Council considered other possible sites, such as the 
Islamorada Hump, but only Alternative 1 came out of the public process 
used to identify potential sites. The Islamorada Hump site is a much 
more

[[Page 1630]]

popular fishing site. According to expert testimony, an MPA directly 
off the coast of the so-called ``Fishing Capital of the World'' would 
have led to extensive displacement costs to the fishing industry.
    The results of the Delphi experiment forecast zero to minimal 
adverse economic impacts from Preferred Alternative 1 during the first 
year of implementation, followed by beneficial economic impacts after 
the first year. After 5 years, there would be a minimal to moderate 
beneficial economic impact.
    The following insights from the panel reflect the possible dynamics 
associated with the East Hump MPA. There are ample fishing 
opportunities in the Florida Keys. Initially, increased search and 
learning costs might be incurred by displaced commercial and charter 
fishing fishermen. Over time the abundance of fishing opportunities in 
the Keys would allow them to regain their level of past fishing catch, 
likely targeting the same species. Some congestion effects might take 
place in nearby areas. However, bottom fishermen should benefit from 
stock rejuvenation in the long term.

Charleston Deep Artificial Reef Type II MPA Alternatives

    Preferred Alternative 1 will establish an experimental artificial 
reef Type II MPA off the Coast of South Carolina in the area identified 
by the following boundaries: The northwest corner at 32[deg]4' N, 
79[deg]12'W; the northeast corner at 32[deg]8.5'N, 79[deg]7.5'W; the 
southwest corner at 32[deg]1.5'N, 79[deg]9.3'W; and the southeast 
corner at 32[deg]6'N, 79[deg]5'W. The MPA will be located about 50 
nautical miles southeast of Charleston Harbor, SC. It will have an area 
of 21 square nautical miles and be in waters from 100 to 150 meters 
(328 to 492 feet) deep.
    The No Action Alternative, rejected Alternative 2, would have not 
established a Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA. It would not 
generate any economic impacts beyond the baseline.
    Throughout the many rounds of public meetings the Council held 
regarding MPAs, one of the most common sentiments from members of the 
public was that the Council use artificial reefs instead of natural 
habitat as MPAs and/or build more artificial reefs to mitigate for the 
loss of natural bottom that has been designated as an MPA. Preferred 
Alternative 1 was developed by Council staff and biologists from the 
State of South Carolina who looked to avoid hard-bottom habitat from 
SEAMAP data while locating the site just offshore where other 
artificial reefs were being studied.
    The results of the Delphi experiments forecast no adverse economic 
impacts and zero to minimal beneficial economic impacts from Preferred 
Alternative 1.

Summary of Impacts of Preferred Type II Alternatives

    This rule will establish eight Type II MPAs: Snowy Grouper Wreck 
MPA, Northern South Carolina MPA, Edisto MPA, Georgia MPA, North 
Florida MPA, St. Lucie Hump MPA, East Hump MPA, and Charleston Deep 
Artificial Reef MPA. Fishing for or possession of any snapper-grouper 
species within any of the MPAs will be prohibited. It will regulate 
commercial fishers and charter-fishing operators who fish for snapper-
grouper species in the eight areas of the South Atlantic EEZ to be 
designated as Type II MPAs. Four of the MPAs that will be established 
by this rule, Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern South Carolina, Edisto, and 
North Florida, are expected to have significant adverse economic 
impacts during their first year after implementation. However, no 
significant adverse economics impacts are expected after the first year 
for any of the eight MPAs.
    In an attempt to minimize the adverse economic impacts of the rule, 
all MPAs considered were identified by a process that extensively 
involved scientists, fishermen, and the public. A Habitat Advisory 
Panel, consisting of scientists and fishermen, assembled available data 
to identify locations that would provide the greatest biological 
benefit to snapper-grouper species. Experts on MPAs traveled throughout 
the South Atlantic region and discussed the benefits of MPAs with the 
public. Public input during the scoping process and the public hearings 
revealed that closure of certain sites would generate intense public 
disapproval. The Council realized the implementation of those sites 
would create a degree of controversy that would impede implementation 
of the closures and compliance. Following public input, the Council 
employed a bottom-up process where stakeholders proposed sites that 
would reduce potential adverse social and economic effects yet still 
achieve the biological objectives. As an example, the Council worked 
with fishermen in the Florida Keys following the Council's proposed 
placement of an MPA on the popular location referred to as the 
Islamorada Hump. The proposal generated intense controversy due to the 
popularity of fishing at this site. The Council worked with the local 
fishing community to propose a nearby site that would achieve the 
biological objectives of the MPA designation, invoke less controversy, 
and have lower adverse economic impact than the originally proposed 
site. This approach was replicated, where necessary, for all the MPAs 
that will be established by this final rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Virgin Islands.

    Dated: January 7, 2009
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as 
follows:

PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  622.2, the definition of ``MPA'' is added in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec.  622.2  Definitions and acronyms.

* * * * *
    MPA means marine protected area.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  622.35, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.35  Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

* * * * *
    (i) MPAs. (1) No person may fish for a South Atlantic snapper-
grouper in an MPA, and no person may possess a South Atlantic snapper-
grouper in an MPA. However, the prohibition on possession does not 
apply to a person aboard a vessel that is in transit with fishing gear 
appropriately stowed as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 
In addition to these restrictions, see Sec.  635.21(d)(1)(iii) of this 
chapter regarding restrictions applicable within these MPAs for any 
vessel issued a permit under part 635 of this chapter that has longline 
gear on board. MPAs consist of deepwater areas as follows:
    (i) Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, 
in order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       33[deg]25'       77[deg]04.75'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                                       33[deg]34.75'    76[deg]51.3'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                       33[deg]25.5'     76[deg]46.5'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1631]]

 
D                                       33[deg]15.75'    77[deg]00.0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       33[deg]25'       77[deg]04.75'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Northern South Carolina MPA is bounded on the north by 
32[deg]53.5' N. lat.; on the south by 32[deg]48.5' N. lat.; on the east 
by 78[deg]04.75' W. long.; and on the west by 78[deg]16.75' W. long.
    (iii) Edisto MPA is bounded on the north by 32[deg]24' N. lat.; on 
the south by 32[deg]18.5' N. lat.; on the east by 78[deg]54.0' W. 
long.; and on the west by 79[deg]06.0' W. long.
    (iv) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA is bounded by rhumb lines 
connecting, in order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       32[deg]04'       79[deg]12'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                                       32[deg]08.5'     79[deg]07.5'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                       32[deg]06'       79[deg]05'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D                                       32[deg]01.5'     79[deg]09.3'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       32[deg]04'       79[deg]12'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) Georgia MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 
following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       31[deg]43'       79[deg]31'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                                       31[deg]43'       79[deg]21'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                       31[deg]34'       79[deg]29'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D                                       31[deg]34'       79[deg]39'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       31[deg]43'       79[deg]31'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) North Florida MPA is bounded on the north by 30[deg]29' N. 
lat.; on the south by 30[deg]19' N. lat.; on the east by 80[deg]02' W. 
long.; and on the west by 80[deg]14' W. long.
    (vii) St. Lucie Hump MPA is bounded on the north by 27[deg]08' N. 
lat.; on the south by 27[deg]04' N. lat.; on the east by 79[deg]58' W. 
long.; and on the west by 80[deg]00' W. long.
    (viii) East Hump MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 
order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       24[deg]36.5'     80[deg]45.5'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                                       24[deg]32'       80[deg]36'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                       24[deg]27.5'     80[deg]38.5'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D                                       24[deg]32.5'     80[deg]48'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       24[deg]36.5'     80[deg]45.5'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For the purpose of paragraph (i)(1) of this section, transit 
means direct, non-stop progression through the MPA. Fishing gear 
appropriately stowed means--
    (i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks 
are disconnected and stowed below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All 
buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on 
deck.
    (ii) A trawl or try net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be 
disconnected from such net and must be secured.
    (iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net must be left on the drum. 
Any additional such nets not attached to the drum must be stowed below 
deck.
    (iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) 
used with an automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, or rod 
and reel must be disconnected and stowed separately from such fishing 
gear. A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed 
securely on or below deck.
    (v) A crustacean trap, golden crab trap, or sea bass pot cannot be 
baited. All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys 
may remain on deck.

[FR Doc. E9-497 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S