een Coe FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES rae Marjory Stoneman Dougias Building tener tor (3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Gerié Lewes “Tallahassee, Florida 32399 State Compereber ‘ater she 1b Cred Comicon hres January 7, 1992 ety Cae Ms. Janice L. Alcott, Director State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 SUBJECT: SAI # FL9112100759C, Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Dear Ms. Alcott: Our Division of Marine Resources staff has reviewed the subject SAI and would like to offer the following comments which focus on two points, and the reason for the plan: Panaeus setiferus, white shrimp. White shrimp are the dominant species along northwest Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. They occupy shallow estuarine systems and are occassionally subjected to winter freezes sufficient to kill off most of the overwintering adults. There is documentation and legitimate concern that spring shrimp fishing in south Georgia and north Florida will severly deplete an already reduced population during winter kill years. This, in turn, can cause reductions in subsequent years’ crops. By not fishing in these winter kill years, fishing will be better in subsequent years. The entire plan is dedicated to finding a method to shut down white shrimp fishing in federal waters (EEZ) after a winter kill has occurred. The critical issue in this plan is the measurement of "a se’ reduction in white shrimp". The plan recommends cn page 55 that “overfishing is indicated when the over-wintering shrimp population within a state's waters declines by 80 percent or more following severe winter weather resulting in prolonged cold temperatures". There is no definition of what the 80 percent is measured against i.e., last month's amount, some previous average, a comparable month a year ago? There must be a definition of how to calculate the 80 percent decline clearly spelled out in the plan and not subject to the interpretation of an individual state. It is far too easy to show an 80 percent decline given the variability inherent in the sampling methods used. dminraon ech and Shores La Eaoronnent Mare Havent Raretion amd Pars Reve Management Ste ansMs. Janice L. Alcott January 7, 1992 Page Two he second issue is the sampling method. Georgia and south carolina currently have reasonably good sample procedures which i y years. If these are the sampling 2 request to Close the EEZ then they west be defined in the plan. Othervise, there may 50 ‘well be no Gefinition of overfishing; a state would have no obligation to Sustify with credence a request to close the EEZ. If need further information, please contact Frank Kennedy with the Florida Marine Research Institute at (813) 896-8626. sil 1 incerely whit Office of Land Use Planning ‘and Biological Services BOW/IPMarine Fisheries Commission — STATE OF FLORIDA ‘Resea'S. Newer. PRD. ‘Charman Thomat H Free. PrD. Pot Crane ‘ce Charman Eowerduataee Prue Wor Basch ‘Commanra tonal A rwoaret Lt Commmanrat George Ree. Tome ‘Commawene Rober ©, WooewerdH Totahamaee ‘Commamonet Rover. Marston, 0, Ache Commasonar Panes W. Same Mapas December 20, 1991 Ms. Janice L. Alcott Director, State Clearinghouse Executive Office of the Governor-OPB The Capitol HS Tallahassee, FL 32399-0002 Dear Ms. Alcott: Thank you for offering us the opportunity to review the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's consistency determination on the Public Hearing Draft Shrimp Fishery Management Plan for the South Atlantic Region (SAI# FL9112100759C) . We concur with the Council's determination and find that the draft plan is consistent with our responsibilities under Florida's coastal management program. The conservation of the white shrimp populations along the Atlantic coast of Florida should benefit from the proposed FEZ closures following severe winter cold kills. While we support the proposed closures, we believe that the final plan would be greatly strengthened by a more quantitative approach to the threshold for fishery closures and the overfishing definition. Spelling out the specific parent stock densities at which future recruitment is threatened would remove some uncertainty from the management measures, would be more defensible, and would be more easily understood and accepted by the public. Such an approach would also be useful for shaping future management measures which may be needed to control fishing mortality in order to optimize benefits. Both the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department have extensive data bases on annual abundance of white shrimp stocks that can be used to assess parent Stock thresholds. ‘The South Carolina data base has even been used to Calculate and publish a stock-recruitment relationship for white shrimp, and that type of quantitative approach is what is needed to strengthen this FMP. We strongly concur with the establishment of a control date for use in a future limited entry program and the need for annual vessel permits. 2540 Giecieve Ceree Crce West Suiee 106 » Toahassee, Ror 32301 (608) 487.0554The latter are essential to any future development of limited entry, especially in Florida. Florida's lice: and data collection systems probably cannot reliably identify who is fishing in the South Atlantic region since fishing location is a voluntary field on the trip ticket. However, we suggest that the annual vessel permit be coupled with mandatory reporting, €.g., logbooks. Given the possibility of future limited entry, most fishermen will acquire a federal permit, just to have his/her name included on the list of future shareholders in the limited entry system. Sincerely, cats A_ Russell S. Nelson, Ph.D. Executive Director cc: Commissioners RSN/GAC/ROWDear Mr. Mahood: cticable, serve as the final approval by the S. C. Coastal Council. ea op birector of Planning and Certification HR:12280: jpw cet Dr. H. Wayne Beam Mr. Christopher L. Brooks BD mereceState of North Carolina : Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management 225 North McDowell Sereet © Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter ‘William W. Cobey, Jr, Secrecary Director 12/09/91 Mr. Robert K. Mahood Executive Director South Atlantic Fishery Mgnt Council 1 Southpark Circle, suite 306 Charleston, SC 29407 REFERENCE: CD91-32 Implement shrimp Fishery Management Plan in the EEZ Dear Mr. Mahood: The State of North Carolina received your consistency determination dated 11/26/91 concerning a proposed Federal Activity pursuant to 15 CFR 930.30 on 12/06/91. Your determination, which we have assigned the number CD91-32, has been circulated to the appropriate state agency reviewers for comment. We have requested that our reviewers respond by 12/30/91 and, provided no serious problems are identified, will provide the state's position on this proposal on or before 01/20/92. Should you have any questions concerning our program or the status of the review, please call me at (919)733-2293. singe ely, = — o fe ~/ Ky! OM Stephen B. Benton Consistency Coordinator PO. Bex 27687, Raligh, Nort Carina 3761:7647 Telephone 18:733-2253 ‘An Equal Opporumty Alfrmanve Acton EmployerState of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries PO, Bax 769 © Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 James G. Martin, Governor ‘William T. Hogarth, Director ‘William W. Cobey, Jr., Secreary 20 December 1991 (919) 726-7021 Mr. Robert K. Mahood, Executive Director South Atlantic Fishery Management Council One Southpark Circle, Suite 306 Charleston, SC 2940: Dear Bob: ‘The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has reviewed the draft “Shrimp Fishery Management Plan for the South Atlantic Region” (FMP) and our comments follow. ‘The approach taken to specify MSY may lead to future management problems, because species-specific valuas are given (on page 16). The real MSY is not the long term mean, It is whatever is landed in a given year because penaeid shrimp ‘are annual crops, as stated numerous times in the FAP. Specifying a number could provide a basis for development of limits or quotas which are not appropriate for these species or fisheries. Section 6.5, - The habitat list for North Carolina needs to be updated. Drainage of freshwater from silviculture should be included. Ocean outfalls may be used for mainland, as well as island, sewage disposal in the future. Future peat mining is unlikely because the main peat area became a part of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge this year. - We doubt if "[a]bout 20 percent [of North Carolina's shrimp vesse] captains) are @1 years or older." The 4% estimate for this age group is probably high, as well. Section 12,2 - The management unit is defined as including white, brown, and pink Shrimp along the South Atlantic Coast. Yet, the background discussion (12.1) clearly 5 that the FAP, "is designed to benefit Penacus agtiferus, the whice shrimp" (page 52). The fisheries for the three species are fairly distinct; thus, there is no need to include, and potentially restrict, brown and pink shrigp in a plan aimed at white shrimp. Section 12.7.1 - Management Measure 1: Concurrent Clogures - The DMF objects to this measure, It is stated at the top of page 60 that “(i]t is the closure of the EEZ off Florida and southern coastal Georgia that is believed to be the ‘An Equal Oppornniry Affemame Acaon Employer2 critical element of this measure since that is where the greatest musber of surviving adults vould be." There is no need for, nor benefit to be gained from, the closure of the EEZ off North Carolina to protact roe white shrimp following a severe freeze, These shrimp do not exist off North Carolina following a severe freeze. Prohibition of “the possession aboard a fishing vessel of any species of penaeid shrimp" (page 59) in the EEZ off North Carolins would not benefit white shrisp because the shrimp in possession would be pink shrimp, which survive freezes much better than white shrimp can. There are several areas in the EEZ off North Carolina vhere shrimpers trav) inthe spring for large, very valusble pink shrimp, and this activity vould be prohibired during a region-wide closure intended to protect roe white shri=p off Georgia and Florida. ‘The DMF recommends strongly to the Council that the FAP adhere to the concurrent closure approach in the strict sense: close the EEZ only during the time and off those waters closed by a state or states. If a given state does not close its waters while others do, then the EEZ off that state should not be closed to travling for white shrimp. The original intent of the plan, as discussed by the Council, was to follow the lead of the individual states regarding closures in order to assist states in protecting depleted white shrimp and enforcing management actions of the states, Closure of the EEZ off four states at the request of two or more states was not the intent of the Council discussions and is not appropriate. Section 12.7.1.1.3. - The correct American Fisheries Society name for “whiting” should be used. We assume the referenced species is the kingfish group, Menticixchus sp., not the “whiting” or silver hake (Marluccius bilinsaris) of the middle and northern Atlantic. Trawling for finfish, where and when othervise legal, should not be restricted by this FMP. North Carolina's winter trav] fishery, using a variety of travis in state waters and the EEZ, produces millions of dollars worth of products every season, and must not be affected by this plan. This potential effect is another reason for exempting the EEZ off North Carolina from any closure under this FHP. ‘The DMF agrees vith exemption of the rock shrimp and royal red shrimp fisheries from white shrimp closures under this FMP. ‘The DMF has no comment on federal permits for shrimping in the EEZ or a control date for possible future limited entry. are no shrimp mariculture facilities in coastal North Carolina, the DMF recognizes the potential consequences of accidental introductions. We strongly support the ASMFC “Procedural Plan to Central Interjurisdictional Transfers and Introductions of Shellfish," as amended. ‘The DMF takes an aggressive position regarding protection of coastal habitat important for shrimp production, and we will continue to do #0. We concur in not recommending the three items included in Section 12.8.3. Footnotes on a number of the tables in the FMP state that data for North Carolina are not available. I have discussed this issue with Paul Phalen, DMF Data Management Supervisor. He assures me that all the indicated data areus available through DMF. The NMFS query programs are soustines difficult to use in accessing the data files on the NMFS database. We maintain an identical commercial fishery database for North Carolina, and our SAS query systen is extremely flexible and easy to use. Please contact Paul for all data needs relative to North Carolina commercial fisheries landings. ‘There are a number of typos and misspellings throughout the draft which can be located vith your word processor's spell check program. ‘Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FMP, and we look forward to cooperative development of the final FMP. Sincerely, BT Hope William T. Hogarth, Ph.D. Director WTH/MWS /dwAPPENDIX XIV Response to Comments on DEIS Section I- Comment & Response Section II- Written CommentSection I- Comment & Response Comment: — SAFMC should recommend to the affected states that they curtail recreational shrimp fishing over bait in state waters during periods of closure to maintain sense of fairness. Response: __ Recreational white shrimp baiting occurs in SC state waters annually during aa regulated fall season (generally 60 days). A concurrent closure of the white shrimp fishery in the EEZ, as specified under this FMP, would not occur during the recreational baiting season. Comment: Scientific research on shrimp biology should continue. The SAFMC has in the past and continues to make strong recommendations ‘on needed research that will aid in the better management of the shrimp resource. 317Section II- Written Comment 319as ea, (SZ F UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY io “a mast REGION IV 345 COURTLAND STREET. NE. ‘ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365 WY ne my pECEIVE) MAY 101993 Mr. David Cottingham, Director Office of Ecology and Conservation sourn aTANTIC RHERY Room 6222, CS/EC US Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fishe: Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region Dear Mr. Cottingham: The Environmental Protection Agency Region IV (EPA) has reviewed the referenced DEIS and Fishery Management Plan. ‘This review was conducted in accordance with EPA’s responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. The referenced document discusses alternatives that would provide the States with a mechanism to request closures of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) adjacent to their waters following severe winter weather that results in an 80 percent reduction in the population of overwintering white shrimp. It also recommends prohibition of trawling with a net with less that 4-inch stretch during a closure, and defines overfishing for white shrimp. We encourage the South Atlantic Fishery Council to recommend to the States that they curtail recr onal shrimp fishing over bait (hereafter referred to as “recreational shrimping") in state jurisdictional waters during periods of closure. As presently Proposed, recreational shrimping would not be regulated by the Closure action, which in our view gives the recreational shrimpers special treatment and is inconsistent with the objectives of the proposed closure action. Admittedly, closing the shrimp fishery to recreational shrimpers is based more on a sense of fairness, as perceived by the regulated community, rather than on biological reasons. Most recreational shrimping occurs in the fall before. freezing weather is likely to occur, whereas the proposed closures would take effect during spring and early summer when little recreational shrimping occurs. (There is no recreational shrimping in the EEZ offshore at any time of the year because the water is far too deep.) Printed on Recycled Paper-2- Since the recreational shrimpers and commercial shrimp fishermen are competing for the same resource, closure policies should be consistent within State and federal waters and apply to all. Although recreational shrimpers are subject to catch limits, and are prohibited from selling their shrimp, abuses are common. Some continue to sell their catches illegally, and blackmarket sales present a continuing problem for law enforcement. It should be noted ‘that in South Carolina (1991 data), recreational shrimpers accounted for 2.14 million pounds of shrimp comprising about 35 percent of the annual total harvest. That the recreational shrimp fishing closure is an allocation issue within the jurisdiction of the individual states is certainly true; however, we see no reason that the Council should not consider recommending restricting the recreational fishery concomitant with the professional shrimping fishery. If the proposed closure policy is not perceived as being even-handed among those competing for a resource, we would anticipate resentment and subsequent enforcement problems among the regulated community. As you are aware, there is ill-feeling among some of the professional fishing community who believe that recreational shrimping is taking too much of the resource, and that blackmarket sales from recreational shrimpers are affecting dockside prices. We do not know if these allegations have any basis in fact, but they certainly have formed the basis of ill- will. Not having jurisdiction over the State’s estuaries and tidal creeks should not preclude the Council’s making recommendations on behalf of the fishery. Government policy should protect to the extent possible both the resource and those who harvest. general recommendation - albeit not directly related to Management Plan and the DEIS - is that basic scientific research in shrimp biology should continue to receive support. Areas of continued research should focus upon development of disease-resistant stock, and potential impacts to domestic shrimp populations from accidental release of exotic species. The occurrence of n tiger prawns being found in the nets of local fishermen in tl of grave concern. One need only examine the impacts from improvident plant and animal introductions in Florida, and the devastating eff these introductions have had on native habitats and species. In conclusion, the DEIS document was well-written, informative, and contained one of the better discussions of shrimp biology that we have seen. It was concise, informative and contained practical and constructive means to protect this fishery. The document was readible. The absence of technical fishery jargon, which often can overwhelm the average reader and obfuscate the issues, was refreshing.236 Our rating on the DEIS and Fishery Management Plan is EC-1 (Bnvironmental Concerns), indicating that corrective measures might be applied to the preferred alternative. If more information is needed, please call me or John Hamilton at (404) 347-3776. Sincerely, Heinz J. Mueller, Chief Environmental Policy Section CC: Greg Waugh, Deputy Director South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 1 Southpark Circle, Suite 306 Charleston, SC 29407