Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region

Amendment 11

to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region

Modifications to Vessel Transit Provisions
through Cold Weather Closed Areas

Fishery Impact Statement | Regulatory Impact Review | Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

April 21, 2020
A publication of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Award Number FNA15NMF4410010.

Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms Used in the FMP
ACCSP

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative
Statistics Program

RQ

regional quotient

AP

advisory panel

RSCZ

rock shrimp Carolinas zone permit

EEZ

exclusive economic zone

RSLA

rock shrimp limited access permit

EO

executive order

SAFMC

FIS

fishery impact statement

South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council

FMP

fishery management plan

SEFSC

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

SERO

Southeast Regional Office

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

SPA

penaeid shrimp permit for federal
waters

RFA

Regulatory Flexibility Act

VMS

vessel monitoring system

RIR

regulatory impact review

I

Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region
Proposed actions:

Modify transit provisions for shrimp vessels during
cold weather closure events.

Lead agency:

Amendment – South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council
Categorical Exclusion – National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Regional Office

For Further Information Contact:

Chip Collier
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
4055 Faber Place, Suite 201
North Charleston, SC 29405
843-571-4366
866-SAFMC-10
[email protected]
Frank Helies
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
727-824-5305
[email protected]

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

II

Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. III
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ IV
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... V
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... VI
Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
What Action is Being Proposed? ...................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Options ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Why is the Council Considering Action? ......................................................... 3
1.3
What are the Biological Effects of the Action? ................................................ 7
1.4
What are the Economic Effects of the Action? ................................................. 7
1.5
What are the Social Effects of the Action? ....................................................... 7
1.6
Council Conclusions ....................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review ............................................................................. 12
Chapter 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ............................................................... 27
Chapter 4. References ...................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A. Fishery Impact Statement ........................................................................... 32

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

III

List of Appendices
Appendix A. Fishery Impact Statement

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

IV

List of Figures
Figure 1.1.1.1. Picture of shrimp vessel with nets and doors out of the water.. ........................... 2
Figure 1.1.1.2. Picture of shrimp vessel with trawl doors in the rack (cradle) and nets tied up
and hung in the rigging.. ......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2.1. Map of the EEZ off Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina with the
hatched line indicating the approximate area of closed trawling area with nets less than 4
inch stretched mesh and EEZs indicating closed trawling area for brown, pink, or white
shrimp ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.5.1. Top South Atlantic communities ranked by pounds and value RQ of brown
shrimp. .................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.5.2. Top South Atlantic communities ranked by pounds and value RQ of pink shrimp.
................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 1.5.3. Top South Atlantic communities ranked by pounds and value RQ of white shrimp.
................................................................................................................................................. 9

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

V

List of Tables
Table 1.2.1. Transit provisions for vessels crossing closed areas in the Gulf of Mexico, MidAtlantic, New England, and South Atlantic regions. .............................................................. 5
Table 2.2.1.1. Number of South Atlantic Federal Permits and Permitted Vessels from 20142018....................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 2.2.1.2. Selected characteristics of participation in the South Atlantic shrimp fisheries,
2014-2018.. ........................................................................................................................... 15
Table 2.2.1.3. Economic and financial characteristics of an average South Atlantic active
shrimp vessel with an SPA or RSLA permit, averaged across 2011-2014. .......................... 16
Table 2.2.2.1. Selected characteristics of South Atlantic shrimp dealers, 2014-2018.. .............. 18
Table 2.2.2.2. Selected characteristics of the South Atlantic food shrimp processing industry,
2014-2017. ............................................................................................................................ 19
Table 2.2.3.1. Economic impacts of the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery.. .................................. 21
Table 2.2.4.1. Annual pounds and value of shrimp imports and share of imports by country,
2014-2018. ............................................................................................................................ 22

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

VI

Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1

What Action is Being Proposed?

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is proposing, through
Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Shrimp Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region (Shrimp FMP), to modify provisions for shrimp vessels transiting through cold
weather closed areas in federal waters. Currently, vessels transiting cold weather closed areas in
federal waters of the South Atlantic with brown (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink
(Fanfantepenaeus duorarum), or white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) on board are required to
stow a trawl net with a mesh size of less than 4 inches below deck. The proposed action in this
amendment would modify the transit and gear stowage measures for the cold weather closed
areas and eliminate the requirement to stow gear below deck.

1.1.1 Options
Status Quo. Brown shrimp, pink shrimp, or white shrimp may be possessed on board a fishing
vessel in a closed area, provided the vessel is in transit and all trawl nets with a mesh size less
than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut, are
stowed below deck while transiting the closed area. A vessel is in transit when it is on a direct
and continuous course through a closed area.
Option 1. A vessel may transit South Atlantic cold weather closed areas while possessing brown
shrimp, pink shrimp, or white shrimp provided the vessel is in transit and fishing gear is
appropriately stowed. Transit means non-stop progression through the area with fishing gear
appropriately stowed. Gear appropriately stowed means trawl doors and nets out of the water
and bag straps removed from the net.
Preferred Option 2. A vessel may transit South Atlantic cold weather closed areas while
possessing brown shrimp, pink shrimp, or white shrimp provided the vessel is in transit and
fishing gear is appropriately stowed. Transit means non-stop progression through the area with
fishing gear appropriately stowed. Gear appropriately stowed means trawl doors in the rack
(cradle), nets in the rigging and tied down, and try net on the deck.
Option 1 mirrors the regulations for shrimp vessels transiting areas closed to harvesting
shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Preferred Option 2 was
developed and recommended during the January 17, 2020, joint meeting of the Council’s Law
Enforcement, Shrimp, and Deep-water Shrimp Advisory Panels (AP). Both options would
require non-stop progression through the closed area but have differing definitions of
“appropriately stowed.” Doors and nets out the water (Option 1) would enable law enforcement
to see if fishermen are complying with the transit provisions, and requiring the bag straps be
removed would add another safeguard to prevent quick deployment of fishing gear in closed
areas when law enforcement is not present (Figure 1.1.1.1).

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

1

Chapter 1. Introduction

Figure 1.1.1.1. Picture of shrimp vessel with nets and doors out of the water. Represents the stowage
requirement for proposed Option 1. Credit: National Public Radio.

Doors in the rack (cradle), nets in the rigging and tied down, and try net on the deck
(Preferred Option 2) would also enable law enforcement to see if fishermen are complying with
the transit provisions but would take fishermen more time than Option 1 to stow and deploy
fishing gear. Doors in the rack means the trawl doors are stowed in their storage racks. Nets out
of the water and in the rigging means the trawl nets are tied to the trawl rigging (Figure 1.1.1.2).

Figure 1.1.1.2. Picture of shrimp vessel with trawl doors in the rack (cradle) and nets tied up and hung in
the rigging. Try net not pictured here. Represents the stowage requirement for proposed Preferred
Option 2. Credit: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Option 1 and Preferred Option 2 would reduce the time needed to stow gear because
fishermen would no longer need to disassemble the trawl gear (remove nets from the rigging and
the doors) prior to stowing nets with mesh sizes less than 4 inches below deck. The proposed
action is expected to reduce adverse socio-economic and safety at sea impacts that may be
associated with the current transit provisions. Option 1 and Preferred Option 2 could reduce
travel time for fishermen who cannot stow their nets below deck and who must travel around the
closed areas. The proposed action is also expected to improve safety at sea because fishermen
would spend less time on the water (especially during rough conditions) and less time handling
fishing gear. Finally, the proposed action is expected to improve trust in management by making
South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

2

Chapter 1. Introduction

the transit provisions more workable for fishermen. Both options would likely increase
compliance with transit provisions as the changes would make it easier for fishermen to stow
gear. In addition, Option 1 and Preferred Option 2 would continue to allow law enforcement
officers to adequately enforce the transit provisions and protect over-wintering white shrimp.

1.2

Why is the Council Considering Action?

The purpose of the proposed action is to modify cold weather closed area transit provisions
to match current fishing vessel designs, reduce the socio-economic impact for fishermen
avoiding the closed areas if they cannot comply with the transit regulations, and improve safety
at sea while maintaining protection for over-wintering white shrimp in the closed area and
regulation enforceability. During the development of the Shrimp FMP, the Council created
closed areas to protect spawning stock white shrimp after significant mortality events associated
with cold temperatures. The closure process enabled South Atlantic states (Florida through
North Carolina) to request a concurrent closed area to vessels trawling with nets less than 4 inch
stretched mesh out to 25 nautical miles in the EEZ and to prohibit possession of brown, pink, or
white shrimp adjacent to closed state waters (SAFMC 1993). These temporary closed areas are
called cold weather closed areas (Figure 1.2.1). Closures occurred off Georgia and South
Carolina in 2001 and 2018 and occurred only off South Carolina in 2014.

Figure 1.2.1. Map of the EEZ off Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina with the hatched
line indicating the approximate area of closed trawling area with nets less than 4 inch stretched mesh and
EEZ indicating closed trawling area for brown, pink, or white shrimp. 1 Georgia and South Carolina are
highlighted since these are the only two states that have requested closures.
1

The map is for reference only and should not be used to determine legal boundaries.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

3

Chapter 1. Introduction

Prior to the requirements and process
for cold weather closures changing in 2013
Management Agencies
in Amendment 9 to the Shrimp FMP, an
• South Atlantic Fishery Management
area could be closed if white shrimp
Council (Council) – Engages in a process to
abundance decreased by 80% or more
determine a range of actions and alternatives
based on trawl studies conducted by state
and recommends action to NMFS.
or federal agencies (SAFMC 1993). Also,
all other specific state requirements must
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
have been met and the state must have
and Council staffs – Develops alternatives
requested a concurrent closure of the
based on guidance from the Council and
adjacent EEZ through the Council,
analyzes the environmental impacts of those
including the requirement to convene the
alternatives. If approved by the Secretary of
Council’s Shrimp Review Panel to review
Commerce, NMFS implements the action
the state’s EEZ closure request.
through rulemaking.
Amendment 9 modified the requirements
for a concurrent EEZ closure and the
procedure for states to request a closure (SAFMC 2012). Currently, states can request a closure
of the EEZ if white shrimp abundance decreased by 80% or more or if water temperatures were
below 48℉ (9℃) for at least one week. Temperature was added as a criterion to request a
closure because white shrimp mortality was documented to increase at or below 48℉ (SAFMC
2012). Amendment 9 streamlined the process by providing that the state’s request go directly to
the National Marine Fisheries Service, provided the request include all required documentation.
When portions of the EEZ are closed due to a cold weather event and fishermen are transiting
the closed area with brown, pink, or white shrimp on board, they are required to stow any nets
with a mesh size of less than 4 inches below deck and vessels must maintain a direct and
continuous course. Fishermen indicated they can no longer stow their nets with a mesh size of
less than 4 inches below deck due to the increased bulk from leatherback sea turtle excluder
devices, which have become a requirement since the cold weather closed area transit provisions
were enacted, and which increased the size of a net folded in preparation for below deck
stowage. Also, some fishing vessel design changes have limited access to below deck storage.
Fishermen stated it can be dangerous to lower trawl doors to the deck of a shrimp vessel in order
to disconnect the nets from doors to stow the nets below deck when seas are rough.
Transit provisions were developed for other trawl fisheries in federal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic regions (Table 1.2.1). Gear stowage
requirements when transiting closed federal waters generally include two or three components:
stowage requirement for the doors or the trawl, disconnection of the trawl from the doors, or
removal of a trawl part (e.g., remove bag straps). The options for the South Atlantic cold
weather closed area transit provisions were developed to address fishermen’s safety concerns,
reduce the negative socio-economics impacts from having to avoid closed areas, protect overwintering white shrimp, improve compliance, and address enforceability based on regulations in
other areas and stakeholder input.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

4

Chapter 1. Introduction

Purpose and Need of Shrimp Amendment 11
The purpose is to modify cold weather closed area transit provisions to match current vessel
design, reduce the socio-economic impact for fishermen avoiding the cold weather closed
areas if they cannot comply with regulations, and improve safety at sea while maintaining
protection for overwintering white shrimp and regulation enforceability.
The need is to adjust current regulations because gear cannot be stowed below deck on many
vessels.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

5

Chapter 1. Introduction

Table 1.2.1. Transit provisions for vessels crossing managed areas in the Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic,
New England, and South Atlantic regions.
Managed Area
Transit Provisions

South Atlantic Cold
Weather Closed Areas

Brown shrimp, pink shrimp, or white shrimp may be possessed on board a fishing
vessel in a closed area, provided the vessel is in transit and all trawl nets with a mesh
size less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots
when pulled taut, are stowed below deck while transiting the closed area. For the
purpose of this paragraph, a vessel is in transit when it is on a direct and continuous
course through a closed area.

South Atlantic Marine
Protected Areas

Transit means direct, non-stop progression through the area. Fishing gear
appropriately stowed means a trawl or try net may remain on deck, but trawl doors
must be disconnected from such net and must be secured.

South Atlantic Spawning
Special Management
Zones

Transit means direct, non-stop progression through the area. Fishing gear
appropriately stowed means trawl doors and nets must be out of the water, but the
doors are not required to be on deck or secured on or below deck.

Oculina Bank HAPC

Fishing for or possession of rock shrimp in or from the area is prohibited, except for a
shrimp vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for rock shrimp that possesses
rock shrimp may transit through the area if fishing gear is appropriately stowed. For
the purpose of this paragraph, transit means a direct and non-stop continuous course
through the area, maintaining a minimum speed of five knots as determined by an
operating VMS and a VMS minimum ping rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes; fishing gear
appropriately stowed means that doors and nets are out of the water.

Gulf of Mexico Marine
Protected Areas

A vessel may transit the area with non-stop progression through the area and fishing
gear appropriately stowed. A trawl net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be
disconnected from the trawl gear and must be secured.

Gulf of Mexico Closed
Shrimping Areas

A vessel may transit with non-stop progression through the Gulf of Mexico EEZ with
fishing gear appropriately stowed with trawl doors and nets out of the water and the
bag straps must be removed from the net.

Northeast Coral Zones

Vessels may transit the area provided bottom-tending trawl nets are out of the water
and stowed on the reel and any other fishing gear that is prohibited in these areas is
on board, out of the water, and not deployed. Fishing gear is not required to meet the
definition of “not available for immediate use,” 2 when a vessel transits the area.

Northeast Protected
Areas

A vessel may transit the area, unless otherwise restricted, provided that its gear is
stowed and not available for immediate use.2 A vessel may transit the area, provided
there is a compelling safety reason to enter the area and all gear is stowed and “not
available for immediate use”.2

2

Not available for immediate use means that the gear is not being used for fishing and is stowed in conformance
with one of the following methods:
(1) Nets—(i) Below-deck stowage. (A) The net is stored below the main working deck from which it is deployed and
retrieved; (B) The net is fan-folded (flaked) and bound around its circumference.
(ii) On-deck stowage. (A) The net is fan-folded (flaked) and bound around its circumference;
(B) The net is securely fastened to the deck or rail of the vessel; and
(C) The towing wires, including the leg wires, are detached from the net.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

6

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.3

What are the Biological Effects of the Action?

The proposed action is anticipated to have no effect on shrimp populations and indirect
positive effects on the biological environment in that both options would allow for shorter transit
from fishing grounds to port. All the proposed options would protect over-wintering white
shrimp, but Option 1 would have a greater potential for illegal fishing because it would take the
least amount of time to deploy fishing gear. However, any negative impact to white shrimp is
likely to be minimal because the areas would be closed due to a significant reduction in white
shrimp abundance (>80%). Therefore, fishing in the area would not be profitable and fishermen
would trawl in areas with higher white shrimp abundance.
Positive effects to the biological environment from both Option 1 and Preferred Option 2
would result from fewer emissions of greenhouse gases and reduced noise pollution from vessels
in transit due to reducing travelling time and distance.

1.4

What are the Economic Effects of the Action?

1.5

What are the Social Effects of the Action?

Economic effects are described in Chapter 2.3.

The South Atlantic communities most likely to experience the effects of the proposed action
are described here. The description of communities includes information about the top
communities based on a “regional quotient” (RQ) of commercial landings and value for shrimp.
The RQ is the proportion of landings and value out of the total landings and value of that species
for that region and is a relative measure. If a community is identified as a shrimp community
based on the RQ, this does not necessarily mean that the community would experience
significant impacts due to changes in the fishery if a different species or number of species was
also important to the local community and economy.
The majority of the top brown shrimp communities are located in North Carolina, with a few
of the top communities located in Florida (Figure 1.5.1). About 16% of brown shrimp is landed
in the top community of Engelhard, North Carolina, representing about 15% of the South
Atlantic-wide ex-vessel value. About 14% of brown shrimp is landed in the second ranked
community of Beaufort, North Carolina, representing about 14% of the ex-vessel value.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

7

Chapter 1. Introduction

Figure 1.5.1. Top South Atlantic communities ranked by pounds and value RQ of brown shrimp. The
actual RQ values (y-axis) are omitted from the figure to maintain confidentiality.
Source: SERO, Community ALS 2017.

The top pink shrimp communities are located in Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia
(Figure 1.5.2). About 54% of pink shrimp is landed in the top community of Key West, Florida,
representing about 63% of the South Atlantic-wide ex-vessel value. Collectively, about 18% of
pink shrimp is landed in the second and third ranked communities of North Miami and Miami,
Florida, representing about 9% of the ex-vessel value.

Figure 1.5.2. Top South Atlantic communities ranked by pounds and value RQ of pink shrimp. The
actual RQ values (y-axis) are omitted from the figure to maintain confidentiality.
Source: SERO, Community ALS 2017.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

8

Chapter 1. Introduction

Top white shrimp communities are located in all four states (Figure 1.5.3). Collectively,
about 22% of white shrimp is landed in the top two communities of Mayport, Florida, and
Engelhard, North Carolina, representing about 21% of the South Atlantic-wide ex-vessel value.
About 10% of white shrimp is landed in the third ranked community of Beaufort, North
Carolina, representing about 8% of the ex-vessel value.

Figure 1.5.3. Top South Atlantic communities ranked by pounds and value RQ of white shrimp. The
actual RQ values (y-axis) are omitted from the figure to maintain confidentiality.
Source: SERO, Community ALS 2017.

This proposed action is anticipated to have positive social effects to fishing communities in
the form of increased compliance and improvements to safety at sea. Shrimp fishermen have
indicated that current transit provisions that require nets with mesh less than 4 inches be stowed
below deck are no longer feasible due to changes in vessel design. Lowering trawl doors to the
deck of a shrimp vessel and disconnecting nets from trawl doors creates dangerous conditions for
fishermen. Modifying transit provisions to require that trawl doors and nets be out of the water
with bag straps removed from the net (Option 1) or trawl doors in the rack (cradle), nets in the
rigging and tied down, and try net on the deck (Preferred Option 2), would have positive direct
social effects by improving safety at sea while maintaining the necessary enforceability of the
transit provisions. Although fishermen must handle the trawl doors to set them in the rack
(Preferred Option 2), doors in the rack is the normal placement of the doors when fishermen
are transiting long distances and this is the recommended storage location for trawl doors
according to the Atlantic Coast Fishing Vessel Safety Manual (Castro and DeAlteris 1991).
Since all of the proposed options have some portion of the provisions visible from a distance by
law enforcement (nets not visible since stowed below deck (Status Quo), fishing gear out of the
water (Option 1), and doors in the rack, nets in the rigging, and try net on the deck (Preferred
Option 2)), all transit provisions enable at-sea enforcement. Additionally, if Option 1 and
Preferred Option 2 result in fishermen choosing to offload their catch in South Carolina or

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

9

Chapter 1. Introduction

Georgia during cold weather closures, fish houses and dealers in those areas would experience
indirect social benefits in the form of more consistent access to product.
Option 1 would expressly align current transit provisions in the South Atlantic with transit
provisions for shrimp closed areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Creating consistency in regulations
throughout federal waters would be expected to reduce confusion among shrimp fishermen who
fish in both areas and aid in compliance and enforcement efforts resulting in indirect positive
social effects. Alternatively, Preferred Option 2 was developed and recommended by the
Council’s Law Enforcement, Shrimp, and Deep-water Shrimp APs during a joint meeting on
January 17, 2020, and matches how many fishermen stow their gear during long transits.
Addressing stakeholder concerns and recommendations by striving for consistency between what
fishermen and law enforcement experience on the water and management measures can result in
increased trust in the science and management process and long-term positive indirect social
effects.

1.6

Council Conclusions

1.6.1 Law Enforcement and Shrimp/Deep-water Shrimp APs Comments and
Recommendations
The Law Enforcement, Deep-water Shrimp, and Shrimp APs met jointly via webinar on
January 17, 2020, to the discuss transit provisions for the cold weather closed areas. The Law
Enforcement AP members wanted to consider a vessel monitoring system for the fishery so that
vessels could be better tracked. The Deep-water Shrimp and Shrimp APs suggested having
doors and nets out of the water with the bag straps removed (Option 1) because these transit
provisions would require the least amount of time for compliance, would be enforceable at sea,
and would match the Gulf of Mexico transit provision. The APs developed a joint
recommendation in order to reach a compromise (Preferred Option 2). The APs felt this was
an appropriate recommendation because it would take more time to set out the gear in the water
compared to Option 1, it is currently how gear is stowed for long transits, and it would be
enforceable at sea. Law enforcement officers were concerned with illegal fishing that could
occur under Option 1 since Option 1 would require the least amount of time to deploy gear.
Law enforcement officers felt there was a chance of illegal fishing occurring when they were not
present.

1.6.2 Public Comments and Recommendations
There was only one public comment on the proposed action at the public hearings held
February 5 and 6, 2020, and no public comments were received through the public comment
forum as of February 7, 2020 (https://safmc.wufoo.com/reports/shrimp-amendment-11/). The
one public comment favored Option 1.

1.6.3 Council’s Choice for the Action
The Council began developing Amendment 11 in response to fishermen’s calls to the South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources during the 2018 cold weather closure. Fishermen
identified several issues with the current cold weather transit provisions that no longer work for
the fleet. Nets are larger due to the requirements for the larger leatherback sea turtle excluder
South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

10

Chapter 1. Introduction

devices (required on all traditional shrimp boats in 2002) than when the transit provisions were
developed years earlier. The fishermen now typically stow their spare nets on the wheelhouse
roof, indicating there is minimal room below deck to stow gear. Additionally, closures now
occur more quickly than when the transit provisions were initially created, thus making the
closure much more effective in protecting shrimp and potentially catching shrimp captains
unaware if they are shrimping out-of-state in Florida. Shoals extending into the EEZ in Georgia
and South Carolina make transiting through state waters dangerous if not impossible, thereby
making it risky to transit in state waters near the coast if the fishermen cannot abide by the
stowage requirements for the federal transit provisions.
The transit provisions in Preferred Option 2 should improve safety at sea, improve socioeconomics in the fishery, continue to protect over-wintering white shrimp, and continue to be
enforceable. Preferred Option 2 would no longer require gear to be disassembled to stow
below deck which improves safety at sea. Socio-economic effects would improve since
fishermen can save a considerable amount of fuel and time when transiting in a straight line
rather than trying to avoid cold weather closed areas if the fishermen cannot meet the federal
transit provisions. Preferred Option 2 also represents a compromise between Law
Enforcement, Shrimp, and Deep-water Shrimp AP members to ensure the transit provisions are
workable for the fishery and enforceable, which can improve trust in management.
Preferred Option 2 gear stowage requirements are more restrictive than currently required
in state waters and differ from Gulf of Mexico closed shrimp areas. Shrimpers in the Gulf of
Mexico are allowed to have trawl doors hung from the end of their outriggers when they are in
closed federal waters. During the open season, shrimpers desire to come into calm inshore
waters (harbors, sounds, etc.) to safely load the doors onto the deck before raising the outriggers.
Loading doors while at sea can be extremely hazardous. Preferred Option 2 provides for better
protection for over-wintering white shrimp because it improves law enforceability since it takes
more time to set out gear in the unlikely event of fishing in the closed area. If the gear is simply
allowed to be out of the water and suspended at the end of the outriggers, then the gear can be
deployed quickly. If the gear is in the deck storage racks (cradle), it takes 30 to 40 minutes to
deploy the gear.
Given these reasons, the Council determined that Preferred Option 2 would best meet the
purpose and need of the amendment to update the regulations to better match the current fishery,
reduce the socio-economic impact for fishermen avoiding the cold weather closed areas if they
cannot comply with regulations, and improve safety at sea while maintaining protection for
overwintering white shrimp and regulation enforceability.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

11

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)
for all regulatory actions that are of public interest to satisfy our obligations under Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended. In conjunction with the analysis of direct and indirect effects
in the Biological, Economic, and Social Effects sections of this amendment, the RIR: 1)
provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a
proposed regulatory action; 2) provides a review of the problems and policy objectives
prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives which could be
used to solve the problem; and 3) ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and
comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced
in the most efficient and cost effective way. The RIR also serves as the basis for determining
whether any proposed regulations are a "significant regulatory action" under certain criteria
provided in E.O. 12866. In addition, the RIR provides some information that may be used in
conducting an analysis of the effects on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA). This RIR analyzes the effects that this proposed regulatory action would be expected to
have on the commercial sector of the South Atlantic shrimp fishery.

2.1 Problems and Objectives

The problems and objectives for the proposed action are presented in Section 1.2 of this
amendment and are incorporated herein by reference.

2.2 Economic Description of the Fisheries

The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region
(Shrimp FMP) has not been amended since 2012, and in fact has only been amended twice in the
last decade. Nonetheless, some information regarding the fishery’s operations and economic
characteristics can be found in Amendment 7 (SAFMC 2008) and Amendment 9 (SAFMC 2012)
to the Shrimp FMP, and that information is incorporated herein by reference. The South Atlantic
shrimp fishery consists of three major sectors: the harvesting sector, the dealer/wholesaler sector,
and the processing sector. The following discussion provides summary statistics and selected
characteristics for these sectors. Imports and the economic impacts of the fishery are also
presented.
2.2.1 Harvesting Sector
The harvesting sector is generally composed of two fleets: 1) a small vessel fleet that is
predominantly active in inshore and state offshore waters and very diverse with respect to gear
and other operating characteristics; and 2) a fleet mostly composed of larger vessels that are
predominantly active in offshore waters, particularly the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and
almost always using otter trawl gear. Most vessels in the former are not federally permitted
while most vessels in the latter are federally permitted, and in fact must be federally permitted in
order to harvest federally managed shrimp species in the South Atlantic EEZ. There are three
types of federal shrimp permits in the South Atlantic: 1) penaeid shrimp permit (SPA), 2) the
rock shrimp Carolinas Zone permit (RSCZ), and 3) the rock shrimp limited access permit
(RSLA). The first two permits are open access permits. The SPA permit is required to harvest
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

12

penaeid shrimp (brown, pink, and white shrimp) in the EEZ. The RSCZ permit is required to
harvest rock shrimp off of South Carolina and North Carolina. Rock shrimp are an incidentally
harvested species off the Carolinas. The RSLA permit is limited access and required to harvest
rock shrimp from the EEZ off the east coast of Florida and Georgia, where a directed fishery for
rock shrimp is prosecuted.
From 2014 through 2018, most federally permitted shrimp vessels possessed an SPA permit,
while many fewer possessed either of the rock shrimp permits (Table 2.2.1.1). The number of
vessels with an RSLA permit has been stable during this time, with the number of vessels
possessing an RSCZ permit increasing slightly, while the number of vessels with an SPA permit
has been declining (almost 4%). The latter has led to a decrease in the total number of permitted
vessels, which has declined by more than 3% during this time. Based on information in
Amendment 9, these short-term trends are part of a declining trend in the long-term, with the
number of vessels possessing an SPA permit and the total number of permitted vessels declining
by about 20% since 2009.
Table 2.2.1.1. Number of South Atlantic federal shrimp permits and permitted shrimp vessels from 20142018.

Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018

SPA
579
582
558
561
558

RSLA
105
103
103
103
103

RSCZ
128
126
131
142
139

Permitted
Vessels
605
604
587
591
585

Most vessels participate in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery by targeting shrimp, particularly
brown, pink, white, and rock shrimp, which are also the four species managed under the Shrimp
FMP. For the purposes of the information in Table 2.2.1.2, a “shrimp trip” is a trip where at
least 1 pound (lb) of shrimp is harvested. These shrimp are generally harvested for food or
consumption purposes, though some shrimp are harvested for bait purposes. Table 2.2.1.2 also
illustrates that these vessels are highly dependent on revenue from fisheries other than shrimp,
i.e., non-shrimp trips. Revenue from non-shrimp trips has typically accounted for around 60% of
these vessels’ revenues in the aggregate during the 2014-2018 time period, though dependence
on revenues from other fisheries varies considerably across vessels.
The South Atlantic shrimp fishery is composed of vessels with federal permits and those
without federal permits. Participation in the South Atlantic shrimp fisheries was somewhat
variable from 2014 through 2018, ranging from a high of 938 vessels in 2015 to a low of 778
vessels in 2018 (Table 2.2.1.2). The decline in 2018 is most likely attributable to the cold
weather event and associated closures that were implemented off South Carolina and Georgia
during most of the first six months of the year.
In general, relatively larger vessels tend to have federal permits, particularly those that target
rock shrimp. From 2014-2018, most vessels participating in the shrimp fishery did not possess
federal South Atlantic shrimp permits (approximately 70%). Even though federally permitted
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

13

vessels are less numerous, they are relatively more productive with respect to shrimp landings
and revenue compared to non-federally permitted vessels, as they accounted for about 78% of
the landings and more than 81% of the revenue.
Also, of the vessels that did possess federal permits, on average, only around 44% were
active in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery during this time. The percent of active federally
permitted vessels decreased slightly in 2018 compared to the previous 4 years, again most likely
due to the cold weather event and associated closures off South Carolina and Georgia.
South Atlantic shrimp landings and revenue were highly variable from 2014 through 2018.
Landings range from a low of about 14.5 million lbs in 2014 to a high of about 27.9 million lbs
in 2017. Further, there was a clear upward trend in landings from 2014-2017, which appears to
have been interrupted by cold weather event and associated closures in 2018. The cause(s) of the
increased landings is unknown at this time but does not appear to be driven by increases in
participation.
Somewhat similarly, revenue from shrimp landings also saw an upward trend from 20142017, but then decreased significantly in 2018. However, the upward trend in revenue was not
nearly as significant as the increase in landings as there was also a significant decrease in the
average ex-vessel price of shrimp from 2014 to 2015. Though the average price has remained
generally stable since 2015, it remains about a $1 per pound lower than it was in 2014. Thus,
although landings in 2018 were more than 4 million lbs higher than in 2014, revenue was more
than $5 million less in 2018 compared to 2014. In addition, although the decline in shrimp
revenue is reflected in the decline in the active shrimp vessels’ total gross revenue, it only
accounts for about 40% of the latter decline. As Table 2.2.1.2 illustrates, these vessels
experienced an even larger decline in their revenue from other fisheries in 2018. The reason(s)
for this decline are unknown at present. Regardless of the reasons, as a result, their total gross
revenue decreased by approximately 33% from 2017 to 2018.
Economic surveys of non-federally permitted vessels in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery
have not been conducted. Economic surveys that may have covered such vessels are many years
old, specific to a particular state, and thus are not considered useful for describing recent
participation in the fishery or economic performance. However, an annual economic survey of
federally-permitted shrimp vessels has been conducted each year since 2009. The most recent
annual assessment of these vessels’ economic performance was for 2014 (Liese 2017). Response
rates to the economic survey in the South Atlantic decreased noticeably between 2012 and 2014.
Further, economic performance in the shrimp fishery is usually highly variable from year to year.
Thus, a single year will likely not be indicative of typical or average economic performance in
the fishery over time. Table 2.2.1.3 presents information on the average performance of
federally permitted vessels from 2011 through 2014.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

14

Table 2.2.1.2. Selected characteristics of participation in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery, 2014-2018.
Revenue is in 2018 dollars.

2014
853

2015
938

2016
883

2017
885

2018
778

Number of active vessels
Percent of active vessels with a federal
permit
31.1
28.6
30.2
30.8
30.5
Number of active vessels with a federal
permit
265
268
267
273
237
Percent of active vessels without a federal
permit
68.9
71.4
69.8
69.2
69.5
Number of active vessels without a federal
permit
588
670
616
612
541
Number of federally permitted vessels
605
604
587
591
585
Percent active
43.8
44.4
45.5
46.2
40.5
Percent inactive
56.2
55.6
54.5
53.8
59.5
Shrimp Landings (million lbs, heads-on)
14.51
22.75
24.57
27.88
18.74
Shrimp Gross revenue (million)
$49.58 $52.12 $60.12 $66.88 $44.20
Non-Shrimp Gross Revenue on Shrimp
trips (million)
$.46
$.43
$.64
$.67
$.46
Non-Shrimp Gross Revenue on NonShrimp Trips (million)
$83.58 $80.58 $83.24 $95.45 $64.62
Total Gross Revenue (million)
$133.62 $133.12 $144.00 $163.01 $109.28
Shrimp landings by federally permitted
vessels (million)
11.02
17.88
18.92
21.67
14.94
Shrimp gross revenue by federally
permitted vessels (million)
$40.07 $42.67 $48.44 $53.86 $36.67
Total Gross Revenue by federally
permitted vessels (million)
$103.95 $103.06 $113.04 $124.20 $86.05
Percent of shrimp landings by federally
permitted vessels
75.9
78.6
77.0
77.7
79.7
Percent of shrimp gross revenues by
federally permitted vessels
80.8
81.9
80.6
80.5
83.0
*Active in the context of this table means a vessel landed at least 1 lb of shrimp from South Atlantic waters in a

given year. All estimates are subject to minor errors as about 0.4% of the gross shrimp revenue could not be
assigned to a specific vessel. Source: ACCSP, personal communication, Jan. 15, 2020.

Vessels that target rock shrimp (RSLA) and vessels that are primarily engaged in other
fisheries but also harvest South Atlantic penaeid shrimp (SPA secondary) have significantly
higher annual gross revenues from fishing relative to vessels that primarily harvest penaeid
shrimp (SPA primary; Table 2.2.1.3). In fact, the RSLA and SPA secondary vessels’ gross
revenues are significantly higher than the average federally-permitted Gulf of Mexico shrimp
vessel (Liese 2018). In general, although vessels with higher gross revenues also have higher
operating expenses, they also generated greater net cash flow, net revenue from operations, and
economic returns. Some vessels’ economic characteristics most closely resemble the revenue
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

15

and economic profiles of one of the three groups of vessels, while others are hybrids and most
closely resemble the “average” vessel in the federally-permitted fleet (ALL). 3
Table 2.2.1.3. Economic and financial characteristics of an average South Atlantic active shrimp vessel
with an SPA or RSLA permit, averaged across 2011-2014. All dollar values are in 2018 dollars.

Number of observations
Balance Sheet
Assets
Liabilities
Equity
Cash Flow
Inflow
Atlantic penaeid shrimp
Atlantic rock shrimp
Gulf shrimp (any)
Non-shrimp seafood
Non-fishing revenue
Outflow
Net cash flow
Income Statement
Revenue (commercial fishing
operations)
Expenses
Variable costs – Non-labor
Variable costs – Labor
Fixed costs
Net revenue from operations
Net receipts from nonoperating activities
Net revenue before tax (profit
or loss)
Returns
Economic Return
Return on Equity

ALL
225

RSLA
29

SPA
PRIMARY
160

SPA
SECONDARY
36

$178,555
$17,844
$160,711

$590,424
$78,856
$511,568

$126,850
$12,226
$114,625

$361,072
$25,938
$335,134

$287,632
56%
3%
14%
24%
3%
$243,752
$43,880

$728,169
58%
11%
24%
1%
5%
$597,958
$130,211

$189,806
85%
4%
2%
5%
4%
$161,985
$27,821

$622,485
21%
0%
25%
53%
1%
$523,631
$98,854

$279,630
$254,737
42.8%
34.6%
22.6%
$24,893

$693,041
$603,719
44.1%
31.6%
24.3%
$89,324

$181,896
$174,055
44.0%
34.1%
21.9%
$7,841

$617,999
$532,564
41.3%
36.4%
22.3%
$85,435

$6,946

$30,603

$7,436

$2,438

$31,839

$119,926

$15,277

$87,873

14.3%
20.2%

14.3%
24.7%

7.5%
14.9%

22.9%
25.9%

Source: Liese 2013, Liese and Stemle 2017a, Liese and Stemle 2017b, and Liese 2017.

Information specific to vessels that only possess an RSCZ permit is not provided as the sample sizes in each year
are very small and rock shrimp harvested under that permit is the result of incidental harvest rather than targeting.
3

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

16

2.2.2 Dealers and Processors
From 2014 through 2018, the number of South Atlantic food shrimp dealers each year ranged
from 311 in 2014 to 369 in 2015. Table 2.2.2.1 provides selected characteristics for South
Atlantic food shrimp dealers. The information regarding purchases of shrimp landings and the
value of those purchases is the same information provided in Table 2.2.1.2 for the harvesting
sector and therefore reflects the same trends for the same reasons (e.g., upward trend from 20142017 with a decline in 2018). Also similarly, the decline in total revenue in 2018 was due to a
decline in purchases of other landings as well as shrimp, and in fact the decline was relatively
greater for purchases of other landings than shrimp.
More specifically, between 2014 and 2018, the annual ex-vessel landings and value of
shrimp purchases by South Atlantic dealers averaged about 21.69 million lbs and $54.58 million
per year (in 2018 dollars). The decline in the average ex-vessel price per lb from 2014 to 2015 is
also reflected in Table 2.2.2.1. Purchases of other landings averaged around $135 mil per year,
while total seafood purchases by these dealers averaged almost $190 million per year from 2014
through 2018. Thus, similar to vessels in the harvesting sector, shrimp dealers are very
dependent on purchases of landings other than shrimp, with shrimp representing about 29% of
their total purchases and other landings accounting for about 71%.
Although not directly illustrated by the estimates in Table 2.2.2.1, the distribution of
purchases and the value of those purchases is highly skewed across dealers, suggesting that the
population of shrimp dealers is very heterogeneous in economic terms. Specifically, there are a
small number of relatively large shrimp dealers that purchase relatively large amounts of shrimp
and other seafood landings, but there are also a relatively large number of small dealers that
purchase relatively small amounts of shrimp and other landings. Dealers in the former group
tend to be processors as well as dealers, while the latter group is composed mostly of shrimp
fishermen who also act as their own dealer, generally to avoid the additional costs associated
with selling their product to a “traditional” dealer with a dock and offloading facilities. When
data distributions are highly skewed, it is generally more appropriate to use the median to
represent the “typical” rather than the mean.
For instance, the typical, i.e., median, shrimp dealer only purchases about $8,500 of shrimp
landings per year from 2014 through 2018 (while the equivalent arithmetic mean is well over
$100,000). Purchases of other landings were somewhat higher at almost $26,000 per year. Total
seafood purchases per year on average were about $40,000 per year. 4 Thus, the typical shrimp
dealer is a very small business compared to a shrimp processor and even many shrimp vessels.
Further, as illustrated by the percentage of their total seafood purchases that are purchases of
shrimp, most shrimp dealers in the South Atlantic are not very specialized and instead are highly
dependent on purchases of other landings. Specifically, from 2014 through 2018, shrimp
purchases only account for around 35% of their total annual seafood purchases. 5 Thus, although
changes in the economics of the shrimp fishery’s harvesting sector will affect shrimp dealers,
those effects will be muted by their relatively greater dependence on purchases of other landings.
Unlike means, median values are not additive and thus the median value of shrimp and other purchases does not
equal the median value of their total purchases.
5
Unlike most of the data distributions regarding shrimp dealers, the percentage of their total purchases coming from
shrimp is not highly skewed, and thus mean values are reported in that case.
4

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

17

Table 2.2.2.1. Selected characteristics of South Atlantic shrimp dealers, 2014-2018.* Pounds are whole
weight (heads-on) and dollar values are in 2018 dollars.

Number of dealers
Pounds of shrimp purchased (mill)
Value of purchased shrimp (mill)
Average price per pound (mean)
Total value of other landings purchased
by shrimp dealers (mill)
Total value of all purchases by shrimp
dealers (mill)
Average pounds of shrimp purchased per
dealer (median)
Average value of shrimp purchased per
dealer (median)
Average value of other landings
purchased per dealer (median)
Average total value of all purchases by
shrimp dealers, per dealer (median)
Average percent of purchases is shrimp,
per dealer (mean)

2014
311
14.51
$49.58
$3.41

2015
369
22.75
$52.12
$2.29

2016
346
24.57
$60.12
$2.45

2017
361
27.88
$66.88
$2.39

2018
341
18.74
$44.20
$2.36

$136.49

$136.22

$139.40

$148.72

$114.20

$186.07

$188.34

$199.51

$215.61

$158.41

3,127

4,087

4,875

3,885

2,445

$8,179

$8,055

$11,817

$8,446

$5,898

$31,339

$26,813

$25,685

$25,731

$18,447

$48,843

$44,150

$40,010

$41,489

$27,229

32.0

34.0

36.5

35.9

36.7

*A South Atlantic shrimp dealer is a dealer that purchased shrimp harvested from South Atlantic waters. Dealer
estimates are subject to very minor errors as about .14% of shrimp revenue could not be assigned to a specific
dealer. Source: ACCSP, personal communication, Jan. 15, 2020.

Information regarding South Atlantic shrimp processors from 2014-2017 is provided in
Table 2.2.2.2. There are relatively few shrimp processors in the South Atlantic and they tend to
be smaller in size with respect to their operations relative to their Gulf of Mexico counterparts.
Economic activity by South Atlantic processors seems to vary more directly with changes in
shrimp imports (see Table 2.2.4.1) than with domestic landings from the South Atlantic (see
Table 2.2.2.1), though domestic production is still likely a significant component of their
processed volume and value. It is not possible, using available data, to determine whether or to
what extent the share of domestic versus imported shrimp has changed. This is to be expected
given that processing operations are driven by volume and production from the South Atlantic
shrimp fisheries is noticeably smaller with respect to volume compared to the Gulf of Mexico
and significantly smaller compared to the volume of imports. Nonetheless, the information in
Table 2.2.3.1 suggests that these processors are highly specialized in and therefore dependent on
the processing of shrimp rather than other seafood products, regardless of the source.
Processed volume and value of shrimp was stable from 2014-2016, but value decreased
somewhat in 2017 due to a decrease in the average price per pound of processed shrimp. The
distribution of processed shrimp in terms of volume and value became less skewed toward the
largest processors during this time as well, as reflected by a steady increase in the median
volume and value of processed shrimp per processor. The most noticeable change in their
operations has been a 30% reduction in the number of employees. Although this reduction is
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

18

likely due in part to the decrease in processed price and value in 2017, a significant reduction in
employment occurred in 2016 even though volume, price, and value were stable compared to
previous years. Thus, employment reductions must be related to a desire or need to reduce
operating costs to maintain or increase profitability.
Table 2.2.2.2. Selected characteristics of the South Atlantic food shrimp processing industry, 2014-2017.
Pounds are whole weight, dollar values are in 2018 dollars.

2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of processors
8
9
8
8
Million pounds of shrimp processed*
43.3
43.6
44.3
46.6
Average processed price per pound (mean)
$3.40
$3.37
$3.37
$2.88
Value of processed shrimp (millions)
$147.1 $146.8 $149.1 $134.4
Total value of all products processed by South
Atlantic shrimp processors (millions)
$155.9 $156.5 $154.0 $138.6
Average pounds of shrimp processed per processor
(median)
562,707 536,794 743,065 979,920
Average value of processed shrimp per processor
(median, millions)
$2.42
$2.31
$2.77
$2.58
Average total value of all products processed by
shrimp processors, per processor (median, millions) $4.16
$4.45
$3.91
$3.77
Average percent of total processed value is food
shrimp, per processor (median)
94.1
79.8
92.7
95.5
Total number of employees
542
535
450
380

* Includes all shrimp regardless of where harvested/produced, but only includes shrimp processed for human
consumption (i.e., shrimp processed for bait or shrimp meal are excluded). Most averages are reported in terms of
medians rather than means because the data distributions are highly skewed. Source: Office of Science and
Technology, personal communication, Oct. 21, 2019.

2.2.3 Economic Impacts of the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery
The commercial harvest and subsequent sales and consumption of shrimp generates business
activity as fishermen expend funds to harvest shrimp and consumers spend money on goods and
services, such as shrimp purchased at a local seafood market and served during restaurant visits.
These expenditures spur additional business activity in the region(s) where the harvest and
purchases are made, such as jobs in local seafood markets, grocers, restaurants, and fishing
supply establishments. In the absence of the availability of a given species for purchase,
consumers would likely spend their money on substitute goods and services. As a result, the
analysis presented below represents a distributional analysis only; that is, it only shows how
economic impacts may be distributed through regional markets.
Economic impact models are used to determine the current economic impacts of an industry
or sector, as reflected by these measures, as well as changes expected to occur if expenditures or
gross revenues change in a particular industry or sector. Economic impacts are generally
characterized in terms of jobs (full- and part-time), income impacts (wages, salaries, and selfemployed income), output impacts (gross business sales), and value-added impacts, which
represent the contribution made to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), that accrue to the
local, state, regional and the national economy as a result of expenditures or gross revenues.
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

19

These impacts should not be added together because this would result in double counting. These
results are based on average relationships developed through the analysis of many fishing
operations that harvest many different species. Separate models to address individual species are
not available. Estimates were derived using the model developed for and applied in Fisheries
Economics of the United States (NMFS 2018). 6
Average gross revenue from shrimp harvested in South Atlantic waters averaged about
$54.581 million between 2014 and 2018 in 2018 dollars. 7 Estimates of the economic impacts
generated as a result of this revenue are provided in Table 2.2.3.1. According to this
information, the South Atlantic shrimp fishery generated employment, income, value added, and
output (sales) impacts of 6,683 jobs, $186.23 million, $266.77 million, and $528.61 million,
respectively.

A detailed description of the input/output model is provided in NMFS (2018).
Although a small percentage of revenue on South Atlantic shrimp trips comes from species other than shrimp,
economic multipliers are species or fishery specific and thus economic impacts from non-shrimp species on shrimp
trips are not included.

6
7

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

20

Table 2.2.3.1. Economic impacts of the South Atlantic shrimp fishery. All monetary estimates are in
thousands of 2018 dollars and employment is measured in full-time equivalent jobs.

INDUSTRY SECTOR

DIRECT
INDIRECT
INDUCED
Harvesters
Employment impacts
939
183
212
Income impacts
22,699
6,412
11,173
Total value-added impacts
24,196
22,976
19,295
Output impacts
54,581
53,047
37,088
Primary dealers/processors
Employment impacts
254
101
176
Income impacts
9,615
8,861
8,381
Total value-added impacts
10,249
11,307
15,779
Output impacts
30,947
23,310
30,844
Secondary wholesalers/distributors
Employment impacts
64
14
62
Income impacts
3,115
926
3,276
Total value-added impacts
3,320
1,554
5,595
Output impacts
8,343
3,042
10,882
Grocers
Employment impacts
395
44
87
Income impacts
9,223
3,044
4,598
Total value-added impacts
9,831
4,905
7,784
Output impacts
15,763
7,966
15,282
Restaurants
Employment impacts
3,383
223
546
Income impacts
50,869
15,244
28,791
Total value-added impacts
54,223
27,249
48,509
Output impacts
99,148
42,640
95,723
Harvesters and seafood industry
Employment impacts
5,035
566
1,083
Income impacts
95,520
34,487
56,219
Total value-added impacts 101,820
67,990
96,963
Output impacts
208,782
130,005
189,818

TOTAL
1,333
40,284
66,468
144,715
531
26,857
37,335
85,101
140
7,317
10,469
22,266
527
16,864
22,519
39,010
4,152
94,903
129,981
237,512
6,683
186,226
266,773
528,605

Source: Calculated by NMFS SERO using the model developed for and applied in NMFS (2018).

2.2.4 Imports
On average, between 2014 and 2018, the United States has imported almost 1.4 billion lbs
(product weight) of shrimp products annually. The volume of shrimp imports steadily increased
during this time, rising by almost 23%, with the largest increase occurring in 2017. The value of
imported shrimp products averaged $6.35 billion (2018 dollars) annually between 2014 and
2018. Contrary to the trend in volume, the value of shrimp imports decreased significantly, by
almost 20%, from 2014 to 2015, suggesting a significant decline in the average price of shrimp
imports in 2015. Although shrimp import value rebounded over the next few years, it decreased
again in 2018 and has still not recovered to the level seen in 2014. Table 2.2.4.1 provides annual
pounds and value of shrimp imports and the share of imports by country of origin.
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

21

The distribution of market share between countries exporting shrimp to the United States, as
measured by value, has changed significantly over time. Thailand was the primary country of
origin for shrimp products imported into the United States between 2007 and 2012, and in fact
typically accounted for about one-third of all imports during that time. Vietnam and Indonesia
were the next largest exporting countries to the United States, but still only accounted for about
20% of shrimp imports during that time. However, the market share of imports between
countries changed dramatically in 2012 and 2013 as Thailand’s imports decreased significantly
due to a breakout of Early Mortality Syndrome in shrimp. As imports of shrimp from Thailand
decreased, other countries took advantage of the situation by increasing their exports of shrimp
to the United States and, as a result, have increased their market share in recent years. Most
notably, although India only represented 5% of the market back in 2007, it has essentially
captured the market share Thailand used to have and represented almost 36% of the import
market as of 2018. Although Indonesia was able to maintain its market share at just over 19%
from 2014 through 2018, the market shares for other major exporting countries (Vietnam,
Ecuador, and Thailand) have declined during this time.
Table 2.2.4.1. Annual pounds and value of shrimp imports and share of imports by country, 2014-2018.

Pounds of shrimp imports
(product weight, million pounds)
Value of shrimp imports
(millions $, nominal)
Value of shrimp imports
(millions $, 2018$)
Share of Imports by Country
India
Indonesia
Vietnam
Ecuador
Thailand
Mexico
China*
All others

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

1,251,223 1,291,512 1,330,305 1,463,800 1,533,480
$6,708

$5,435

$5,705

$6,545

$6,236

$7,142

$5,725

$5,945

$6,693

$6,236

20.6
19.7
15.0
13.4
12.2
4.5
4.0
10.6

23.4
20.2
12.1
11.7
13.8
5.9
3.5
9.4

26.2
19.4
12.0
10.3
14.5
5.2
4.1
8.3

33.2
18.1
9.7
8.8
12.4
5.2
5.1
7.5

35.5
19.5
9.9
8.4
8.9
5.4
4.5
7.9

Source: Pounds of Shrimp Imports (Gulf of Mexico Data Management, pers. comm., April 1, 2019). Values and
market share by country (Office of Science and Technology, pers. comm., Jan. 14, 2020). *Does not include
imports from Hong Kong, Taipei, or Macao.

2.3 Effects of Management Measures
Cold weather closures for shrimp in the South Atlantic EEZ are relatively infrequent. Thus,
there would be no difference in the economic effects of the Status Quo compared to Option 1 or
Preferred Option 2 in most years. The Status Quo would continue to require all vessels
possessing penaeid shrimp and transiting through affected portions of the South Atlantic EEZ to
stow all trawl nets with a mesh size less than 4 inches below deck in years when cold weather
South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

22

closures are implemented. Based on landings data from January through June 2018, which is the
most recent year that a cold weather closure took place, 33 vessels 8 with homeports in states
north of Florida offloaded shrimp in Florida. This serves as an estimate of the likely number of
vessels that may be affected by cold weather closure transit provisions. Some vessel operators
have indicated that they cannot readily stow their trawl nets below deck due to vessel design
changes and are unable to comply with current gear stowage requirements. As such, the Status
Quo may result in negative economic effects because shrimp vessels that are unable or unwilling
to store fishing gear according to the Status Quo may need to offload shrimp at an alternate port
instead of their preferred landing location. This potentially affects revenue for some vessels,
since these vessels may not be able to offload at their preferred location and these vessels may
also face increased costs. Some vessels may need to take a more indirect route to their preferred
landing location through state waters instead of federal waters to avoid the federal transit
provisions and thus would experience increased fuel usage and other trip-related costs.
Additionally, vessels choosing to land shrimp in Florida but sell to dealers in states north of
Florida may partially or wholly absorb offloading costs and land-based transit costs. The
magnitude of the potential negative economic effects from the Status Quo would be represented
by lower net revenue and thus lower net economic benefits for the affected vessels.
The Status Quo also affects some shrimp dealers in years when cold weather closures occur.
If fishing vessels are not able to bring shrimp with them when returning to their preferred landing
location, dealers in that area may be negatively affected through foregone sales of shrimp.
Additionally, based on public comment, some shrimp dealers need to transport shrimp by landbased methods to their location from a vessel’s offloading site when cold weather closures are in
place. In such cases, these affected dealers face increased shipping costs and may bear a portion
of offloading costs, which may decrease net revenue and thus decrease net economic benefits for
these dealers.
Option 1 would allow vessels possessing brown shrimp, pink shrimp, or white shrimp to
transit through cold weather closed areas in affected portions of the South Atlantic EEZ provided
that the vessel remains in transit and gear is stowed with trawl doors and nets out of the water,
with bag straps removed from the nets. Relative to the Status Quo, Option 1 would be easier to
comply with and expected to result in direct economic benefits in years when federal cold
weather closures are in place. Shrimp vessels that previously were unable to store fishing gear
according to the Status Quo could more easily comply with gear stowage requirements and
would be able to more easily return to their preferred landing location with shrimp on board.
This would potentially increase the affected vessels’ net revenue by reducing potential costs such
as offloading and land-based transit costs as well as lowering trip costs if a more direct route
back to the vessels’ preferred landing location through federal waters is more feasible. The
magnitude of the positive economic effects that may result from Option 1 would be represented
by higher net revenue and thus increased net economic benefits for the affected vessels.
Option 1 would also benefit some shrimp dealers in years when cold weather closures occur.
If vessels are able to possess shrimp when returning to their preferred landing location, dealers in
the area may be positively affected through increased sales of shrimp, thus representing a likely
increase in economic benefits. Additionally, some shrimp dealers would not need to ship shrimp
8

Source: ACCSP, personal communication, Jan. 15, 2020.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

23

from a vessel’s offloading site to the dealer location. In such cases, these affected dealers would
no longer face increased shipping costs and may no longer bear a portion of the offloading costs,
which likely would result in increased net revenue and thus increased net economic benefits for
these dealers.
Preferred Option 2 would allow vessels possessing brown shrimp, pink shrimp, or white
shrimp to transit through cold weather closed areas in affected portions of the South Atlantic
EEZ provided that the vessel remains in transit and gear is stowed with trawl doors in the rack
and nets in the rigging are tied down with the try net on the deck. The economic effects of
Preferred Option 2 would be similar to those described for Option 1, but Preferred Option 2
would be more burdensome and likely more time consuming for fishermen to comply with at sea
(Chapter 1.6.3). However, enforcement of Preferred Option 2 is expected to be improved
relative to the Status Quo as the proposed change was recommended by the Council’s Law
Enforcement Advisory Panel. This may result in higher opportunity costs for Preferred Option
2 compared to Option 1. Overall, Option 1 is expected to potentially increase net economic
benefits for shrimp vessels and dealers the most out of the options considered, followed by
Preferred Option 2 and the Status Quo. Quantitative estimates of the described economic
effects are not available with current data.
The gross revenue for dealers that is generated for shrimp landings may be similar across the
options considered, however there may be some distributive economic effects among dealers by
state. The Status Quo may be beneficial to dealers in Florida, since the current regulations
encourage shrimp to be landed in Florida rather than in states farther north when cold weather
closures are in place. If transit provisions are relaxed under Option 1 and Preferred Option 2,
dealers in states north of Florida may receive greater landings of shrimp that would have
otherwise been sold by dealers in Florida. Thus Option 1 and Preferred Option 2 may increase
economic benefits for dealers in states north of Florida, which in turn would reduce economic
benefits for dealers in Florida.

2.4 Public Costs of Regulations

The preparation, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of this or any federal action
involves the expenditure of public and private resources, which can be expressed as costs
associated with the regulations. Costs to the private sector are discussed in the effects of
management measures. Estimated public costs associated with this action include:
South Atlantic Council costs of document preparation, meetings, public hearings, and
information dissemination
NMFS administrative costs of document preparation, meetings, and review
TOTAL 9

$11,533
$5,640
$17,173

Calculations are inclusive of the estimated cost of total staff time dedicated to amendment development and
applicable meeting costs (Scoping, Public Hearings, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Scientific and
Statistical Committee, and Advisory Panel meetings).

9

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

24

The estimate provided above does not include any law enforcement costs. Any enforcement
duties associated with this action would be expected to be covered under routine enforcement
costs rather than an expenditure of new funds. The Council and NMFS administrative costs
directly attributable to this amendment and the rulemaking process would be incurred prior to the
effective date of the final rule implementing this amendment.

2.5 Net Benefits of Regulatory Action

It is important to specify the time period being considered when evaluating benefits and
costs. According to the Office of Management and Budget’s FAQs regarding Circular A-4, 10
“When choosing the appropriate time horizon for estimating costs and benefits, agencies should
consider how long the regulation being analyzed is likely to have resulting effects. The time
horizon begins when the regulatory action is implemented and ends when those effects are
expected to cease. Ideally, analysis should include all future costs and benefits. Here as
elsewhere, however, a “rule of reason” is appropriate, and the agency should consider for how
long it can reasonably predict the future and limit its analysis to this time period. Thus, if a
regulation has no predetermined sunset provision, the agency will need to choose the endpoint of
its analysis on the basis of a judgment about the foreseeable future.”
For current purposes, the reasonably “foreseeable future” is considered to be the next five
years. There are two primary reasons for considering the next five years the appropriate time
period for evaluating the benefits and costs of this regulatory action rather than a longer (or
shorter) time period. First, this regulatory action does not include a predetermined sunset
provision. Second, based on the history of management of fisheries in the South Atlantic
Region, regulations such as those considered in this amendment are often revisited within five
years or so.
The estimated non-discounted public costs resulting from the regulation are $17,173 (2018
dollars). The costs resulting from the amendment and the associated rulemaking process should
not be discounted as they will be incurred prior to the effective date of the final rule. There are
no quantified net changes in economic benefits for this action. However, a qualitative analysis
of the economic effects of this amendment, as discussed in Chapter 2.3, indicates notable
potential positive economic effects that may outweigh the quantified public cost. Based on the
analyses of economic effects as well as the deregulatory nature of this amendment, this
regulatory action is expected to increase net benefits to the Nation.

2.6 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action

Pursuant to E.O. 12866, a regulation is considered a “significant regulatory action” if it is
likely to result in: 1) an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; 2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights or obligations of recipients thereof; or 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this executive order.
10

See p. 4 at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4_FAQ.pdf

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

25

Based on the information provided above, these actions have been determined to not be
economically significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Regulatory Amendment 11

Chapter 2. Regulatory Impact Review

26

Chapter 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
3.1 Introduction

The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to establish a principle of regulatory
issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of businesses, organizations,
and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA does not contain any
decision criteria; instead the purpose of the RFA is to inform the agency, as well as the public, of
the expected economic effects of various alternatives contained in the regulatory action and to
ensure the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected economic effects on small
entities while meeting the goals and objectives of the applicable statutes (e.g., the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)).
With certain exceptions, the RFA requires agencies to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for each proposed rule. The IRFA is designed to assess the effects various
regulatory alternatives would have on small entities, including small businesses, and to
determine ways to minimize those effects. An IRFA is primarily conducted to determine
whether the proposed regulatory action would have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities. In addition to analyses conducted for the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), the IRFA provides: 1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered; 2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed
regulatory action; 3) a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed regulatory action will apply; 4) a description of the projected
reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed regulatory action,
including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements of
the report or record; 5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal rules,
which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and 6) a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed regulatory action which accomplish the stated objectives
of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant economic effects of the proposed
regulatory action on small entities.
In addition to the information provided in this section, additional information on the expected
economic effects of the proposed action is included in the RIR.

3.2 Statement of the need for, objectives of, and legal basis for the
rule

A discussion of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered is provided in
Chapter 1.2. The purpose of this proposed action is to modify the transit and gear stowage
measures for the cold weather closed areas by eliminating the requirement to stow gear below
deck. The objectives of this proposed action are to ensure transit provisions match current
South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

27

Chapter 3. RFA

fishing vessel designs, reduce the adverse social and economic effects on shrimp vessels from
avoiding the closed areas due to an inability to comply with the transit regulations, improve
safety at sea and regulation enforceability, and maintain protection for over-wintering white
shrimp. The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the legal basis for the proposed regulatory action.

3.3 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposed action would apply

This proposed regulatory action would allow vessels possessing brown, pink, or white shrimp
(i.e., penaeid shrimp) to transit through cold weather closed areas in affected portions of the
South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) provided that the vessel remains in transit, gear is
stowed with trawl doors in the rack, and nets in the rigging are tied down with the try net on the
deck. Thus, this proposed regulatory action is expected to directly regulate active federally
permitted vessels in the commercial South Atlantic shrimp fishing industry that harvest brown,
pink, or white shrimp and transit through federal waters.

From 2014 through 2018, the average number of vessels with valid South Atlantic penaeid or
rock shrimp permits was 594. As of March 16, 2020, the number of vessels with a valid South
Atlantic penaeid or rock shrimp permit was 483. From 2014 through 2018, the average number
of vessels with valid permits that actively fished (i.e., had landings) in the South Atlantic penaeid
or rock shrimp fisheries was 262. Only active permitted vessels would be directly regulated by
this proposed regulatory action. Thus, it is assumed this average number of vessels that actively
fish stays the same, approximately 262 vessels are expected to be directly regulated by this
proposed action.
Although the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) possesses complete ownership data
for businesses and vessels that participate in other industries, ownership data regarding
businesses that possess South Atlantic penaeid or rock shrimp permits is incomplete. Therefore,
it is not currently feasible to accurately determine affiliations between these particular
businesses. Because of the incomplete ownership data, for purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed each of these vessels is independently owned by a single business, which is expected to
result in an overestimate of the actual number of businesses directly regulated by this proposed
action. Thus, this proposed regulatory action is estimated to directly regulate 262 businesses in
the commercial South Atlantic shrimp fishing industry. All monetary estimates in the following
analysis are in 2018 dollars.
For vessels with South Atlantic penaeid or rock shrimp permits, annual gross revenue was
about $404,810 on average from 2014 through 2018, of which approximately $169,240 (about
42%) came from South Atlantic shrimp landings on average. Most trips that harvest rock shrimp
also harvest penaeid shrimp. Many vessels are also relatively dependent on revenue from other
Atlantic fisheries (e.g., scallops and flounder) as well Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings. Based on
economic return estimates from 2011 through 2014 (Liese 2013, Liese and Stemle 2017a, Liese
and Stemle 2017b, and Liese 2017), which are the most recent available, from 2014 to 2018 the
net cash flow for these vessels is estimated to be about $61,770 per year on average, while net
revenue from commercial fishing operations is estimated to be approximately $35,030 per year
on average. From 2014 through 2018, the greatest annual gross revenue earned by a single
vessel (business) was approximately $2.6 million.
South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

28

Chapter 3. RFA

On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard
of $11 million in annual gross receipts (revenue) for all businesses primarily engaged in the
commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411) for RFA compliance purposes only (80 FR
81194, December 29, 2015). In addition to this gross revenue standard, a business primarily
involved in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and
operated, and is not dominant in its field of operations (including its affiliates). Based on the
information above, all businesses directly regulated by this proposed action are determined to be
small businesses for the purpose of this analysis.

3.4 Description of the projected reporting, record-keeping and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the
preparation of the report or records
This proposed regulatory action would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping
requirements.

3.5 Identification of all relevant federal rules, which may duplicate,
overlap or conflict with the proposed rule
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules have been identified.

3.6 Significance of economic effects on small entities
Substantial number criterion

This proposed regulatory action, if implemented, would be expected to directly regulate 262
vessels in the commercial South Atlantic shrimp fishing industry, or about 44% of the average
number of vessels that possessed South Atlantic penaeid or rock shrimp permits from 2014
through 2018. All directly regulated businesses have been determined, for the purpose of this
analysis, to be small entities. Based on this information, the proposed regulatory action is
expected to affect a substantial number of small businesses.
Significant economic effects
The outcome of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two factors:
disproportionality and profitability.
Disproportionality: Do the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a
significant competitive disadvantage to large entities?
All entities directly regulated by this regulatory action have been determined to be small
entities. Thus, the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case.
Profitability: Do the regulations significantly reduce profits for a substantial number of small
entities?
South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

29

Chapter 3. RFA

Allowing vessels possessing brown, pink, or white shrimp to transit through cold weather
closed areas in the South Atlantic EEZ as long as: 1) the vessel remains in transit, 2) gear is
stowed with trawl doors in the rack, and 3) nets in the rigging are tied down with the try net on
the deck is expected to help shrimp vessels (businesses) comply with the transit regulations and
avoid unnecessary compliance costs. Because many vessels are now required to use larger turtle
excluder devices, they also use larger nets than when the current transit regulations were
implemented. Shrimp fishermen also typically stow their spare nets on the wheelhouse roof
because there is little room below deck to stow their gear.
Additionally, cold weather closures are implemented more quickly now than when the transit
regulations were initially implemented. While the reduced time to implement closures has
enhanced protection of over-wintering white shrimp, shrimp vessel captains with homeports in
states north of Florida can be caught unaware if they are shrimping off Florida. Shoals extending
into the EEZ off Georgia and South Carolina cause transiting through state waters to be
dangerous if not impossible. Thus, traveling back to a vessel’s homeport or preferred landing
destination can be very risky for shrimp vessels that cannot comply with the current stowage
requirements.
Shrimp vessels that have been unable to store fishing gear according to the current transit
regulations have been forced to land their shrimp in Florida rather than at their preferred landing
destination. Based on landings data during the most recent closures (i.e., January through June
of 2018), 33 vessels with homeports in states north of Florida offloaded shrimp in Florida during
that time. The proposed changes would make it easier for these vessels to comply with the gear
stowage requirements and, as a result, more easily return to their preferred landing destination
with penaeid shrimp on board.
Although the economic effects from the proposed action on shrimp vessels cannot be
quantified with existing data and models, they are expected to be positive. Specifically, if
vessels are able to land shrimp at their preferred landing destination with their preferred dealer,
their profits would potentially be increased by: 1) reducing or avoiding the costs associated with
offloading shrimp at a different dealer, 2) avoiding the costs of shipping shrimp back to their
preferred dealer, and 3) reducing fuel costs as a result of being able to take a more direct route
back to their preferred landing destination.
As a result of the information above, a significant reduction in profits for a substantial
number of small entities is not expected as a result of the proposed regulatory action.

3.7 Description of significant alternatives to the proposed action and
discussion of how the alternatives attempt to minimize economic
impacts on small entities

This proposed regulatory action, if implemented, is not expected to reduce the profits of any
small businesses directly regulated by this action. As a result, the issue of significant alternatives
is not relevant.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

30

Chapter 3. RFA

Chapter 4. References
Castro, K. M., and J. DeAlteris. 1991. Atlantic Coast Fishing Vessel Safety Manual. Rhode
Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, RI.
Liese. C. 2013. 2011 Economics of the Federal South Atlantic Shrimp Fisheries Annual Report,
SEFSC, Miami, FL. 22 p.
Liese, C. 2017. Economics of the Federal South Atlantic Shrimp Fisheries - 2014. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-720, 26 p.
Liese, C. 2018. Economics of the Federal Gulf Shrimp Fishery - 2013. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-722, 26 p.
Liese, C., and A. Stemle. 2017a. Economics of the Federal South Atlantic Shrimp Fisheries 2012. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-710, 26 p.
Liese, C., and A. Stemle. 2017b. Economics of the Federal South Atlantic Shrimp Fisheries 2013. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-719, 26 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. A Users Guide to the National and Coastal
State I/O Model. 2011. www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/commercial_seafood_impacts_20072009.pdf.
NMFS. 2018. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2016. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-187, 243 p.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1993. Fishery Management Plan for the
Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1
Southpark Cir., Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699. 184 p + appendices.
SAFMC. 2008. Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the
South Atlantic Region. Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Assessment and
Biological Impact Assessment. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place,
Ste 201, North Charleston, S.C. 29405.
SAFMC. 2012. Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the
South Atlantic Region. Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory
Impact Review, and Fishery Impact Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
4055 Faber Place, Ste 201, North Charleston, S.C. 29405.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

31

Chapter 4. References

Appendix A. Fishery Impact Statement
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that a fishery
impact statement (FIS) be prepared for all amendments to fishery management plans. The FIS
contains: 1) an assessment of the likely biological, economic, and social effects of the
conservation and management measures on fishery participants and their communities; 2) an
assessment of any effects on participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the
authority of another Fishery Management Council; and 3) the safety of human life at sea.
Detailed discussion of the expected effects for all proposed changes is provided in Chapters 1
and 2. The FIS provides a summary of these effects.
Actions Contained in Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the
Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 11)
Amendment 11 would modify provisions for vessels transiting through cold weather closed
areas in federal waters. Preferred Option 2 would allow vessels possessing brown, pink, or
white shrimp to transit through cold weather closed areas in affected portions of the South
Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) provided that the vessel remains in transit and gear is
stowed with trawl doors in the rack and nets in the rigging are tied down with the try net on the
deck.
Assessment of Biological Effects
The proposed action is anticipated to have no effect on shrimp populations and indirect
positive effects on the biological environment in that Preferred Option 2 would allow for
shorter transit from fishing grounds to port. Preferred Option 2 would be expected to protect
over-wintering white shrimp. Additional positive effects from Preferred Option 2 would result
from fewer emissions of greenhouse gases and reduced noise pollution caused by reducing
travelling time from vessels in transit.
Assessment of Economic Effects
Cold weather closures for penaeid shrimp in the South Atlantic EEZ are relatively infrequent.
Although the economic effects from Preferred Option 2 on shrimp vessels cannot be quantified
with existing data and models, they are expected to be positive. Specifically, if vessels are able
to land shrimp at their preferred landing destination with their preferred dealer, their profits
would potentially be increased by: 1) reducing or avoiding the costs associated with offloading
shrimp at a different dealer, 2) avoiding the costs of shipping shrimp back to their preferred
dealer, and 3) reducing fuel costs as a result of being able to take a more direct route back to
their preferred landing destination.

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

32

Appendix A. FIS

Assessment of Social Effects
Preferred Option 2 is anticipated to have positive social effects to fishing communities in
the form of increased compliance and improvements to safety at sea. The Preferred Option 2
transit provision enables at sea enforcement. Additionally, if Preferred Option 2 results in
fishermen choosing to offload their catch in South Carolina or Georgia during cold weather
closures, fish houses and dealers in those areas would experience indirect social benefits in the
form of more consistent access to product.
Preferred Option 2 was developed and recommended by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s Law Enforcement, Shrimp, and Deep-water Shrimp Advisory Panels
during a joint meeting on January 17, 2020, and matches how many fishermen stow their gear
during long transits. Addressing stakeholder concerns and recommendations by striving for
consistency between what fishermen and law enforcement experience on the water and
management measures can result in increased trust in the science and management process and
long-term positive indirect social effects.
Assessment of Effects on Safety at Sea
Lowering trawl doors to the deck of a shrimp vessel and disconnecting nets from trawl doors
creates dangerous conditions for fishermen. Modifying transit provisions to require that trawl
doors are placed in the rack (cradle), nets in the rigging and tied down, and try net on the deck,
would improve safety at sea. Although fishermen must handle the trawl doors to set them in the
rack under Preferred Option 2, doors in the rack is the normal placement of the doors when
fishermen are transiting long distances and this is the recommended storage location for trawl
doors according to the Atlantic Coast Fishing Vessel Safety Manual (Castro and DeAlteris
1991).

South Atlantic Shrimp
Amendment 11

33

Appendix A. FIS