Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan

Tab B, No. 6(b)

Review of the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan Objectives
Background
At the January 2018 meeting, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) passed
the following motion:
Motion: To direct staff to develop a scoping document to evaluate the allocations of red
snapper, taking into account previous deliberations in Amendment 28 and any new information
and considers a broad range of social, economic, data correction, and management factors.
The Council’s motion was based on a recommendation from the Ad Hoc Red Snapper Private
Angler Advisory Panel (AP), which was convened in January 2018 prior to the Council meeting.
The AP voted unanimously to recommend the Council reconsider red snapper allocations
considering all relevant factors including, but not limited to the following: social, economic,
historical catch, and increased participation of the recreational sector, etc.
At the August 2018 meeting, the Council’s Reef Fish Committee requested that Council staff
provide an analysis of the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) objectives in terms of
background information, context, and relevant amendments, as well as the extent to which the
Council has achieved those objectives. This request is consistent with one National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Policy Directives (01-119) and two NMFS Procedural Directives (01119-01 and 01-119-02) relating to allocation.
NMFS Policy Directive 01-119 notes that a fisheries allocation review “should consider the FMP
objectives along with other relevant factors that have changed and may be important to the
fisheries allocation. At this stage, in depth analyses are not required: however, to ensure
transparency, a clear articulation of how the objectives are or are not being met, and a clear
rationale on relevant factors considered should be included in the record.”
NMFS Procedural Directive 01-119-01 states that “allocation review is a structured review of
current allocations based on adaptive management (i.e., evaluating successful attainment of
management objectives) to determine if further action is required. The purpose is to determine if
current management objectives are being achieved through the existing allocation, with the
caveat that management objectives are up to date and address the relevant operational, economic,
social and ecological aspects of the fishery, including new and expected changes in such things
as climate, demography, technology, etc. If it is determined that minimum threshold criteria for
meeting management objectives are not being achieved under the existing allocation, then a
Reallocation Action should be initiated and new allocation alternatives identified.”
NMFS Procedural Directive 01-119-02 recognizes that “Council fishery management decisions
often involve trade-offs (e.g., between management objectives within a fishery, or between two
fisheries under the Council’s jurisdiction). Updated and measurable objectives help clarify
decisions about these trade-offs within and between FMPs. If FMP objectives are not current,
clear, or measurable, a Council should re-assess [sic] the FMP objectives prior to or concurrent
to initiating the allocation discussion.”
1

In Reef Fish Amendment 1 (GMFMC 1989), the Council determined that the overall goal of the
FMP is:
To manage the reef fish fishery of the United States within the waters of the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council jurisdiction to attain the greatest overall benefit to the nation with
particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities on the basis of the
maximum sustainable yield as modified by relevant ecological, economic, or social factors.
The first management objectives were developed in the Original Reef Fish FMP (1-4), and have
been added to in subsequent amendments. Amendment 1 (GMFMC 1989) added Objectives 511. Amendment 3 (GMFMC 1991) modified Objective 5 to include “…and definition of
Optimum Yield for the Reef Fish…” and change “shall be” to “is” and “spawning stock biomass
per recruit (SSBR)” to “spawning potential ratio.” Amendment 15 (GMFMC 1997) added
Objectives 12-17. At the April 2014 meeting, the Council modified Objective 11 from
“economic” to “socioeconomic” and added Objective 18 (Table 1).
Any allocation or reallocation must be consistent with the FMP objectives.
Table 1. Objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Number
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Objective
To rebuild the declining fish stocks wherever they occur within the fishery.
To establish a fishery reporting system for monitoring the reef fish fishery
To conserve and increase reef fish habitats in appropriate areas and to provide protection for
juveniles while protecting existing and new habitats.
To minimize conflicts between user groups of the resource and conflicts for space
The primary objective and definition of Optimum Yield for the Reef Fish Fishery
Management Plan is to stabilize long term population levels of all reef fish species by
establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at
least 20 percent spawning potential ratio.
To reduce user conflicts and near shore fishing mortality.
To re-specify the reporting requirements necessary to establish a database for monitoring
the reef fish fishery and evaluating management actions.
To revise the definitions of the fishery management unit and fishery to reflect the current
species composition of the reef fish fishery.
To revise the definition of optimum yield to allow specification at the species level
To encourage research on the effects of artificial reefs.
To maximize net socioeconomic benefits from the reef fish fishery.
To increase the stability of the red snapper fishery in terms of fishing patterns and markets.
To avoid to the extent practicable the "derby" type fishing season.
To promote flexibility for the fishermen in their fishing operations.
To provide for cost-effective and enforceable management of the fishery.
To optimize, to the extent practicable and allowed by law, net benefits from the fishery.
To reduce the harvesting capacity of the red snapper fleet in an equitable manner utilizing
demonstrated historical dependence on the red snapper resource as a criterion.
To maximize the available days to recreational fishermen.

2

Review of Objectives1
Objective 1: To rebuild the declining fish stocks wherever they occur within the fishery.
This objective was included in the Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, which states:
“Data presented in this Plan reflects that the overall problem in this fishery is a substantial
decline in reef fish stocks in some areas under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council. A known factor contributing to this decline is overfishing in many areas
of the Gulf of Mexico by directed recreational and commercial sectors. Other possible factors
contributing to the decline area: Reduction of habitat, both natural and man-made; A large
bycatch in other fisheries; Major environmental changes (which can be documented for 19731975).”
 Related Council amendments:
o Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1981) (https://tinyurl.com/ya432ady)
 Fishing gear restrictions – “(1) Prohibit the use of power heads for the
taking of reef fish within the stressed area. (2) Prohibit the use of roller
trawls in the stressed area. (3) Prohibit the use of fish traps in the stressed
area. Further, provide for seizure of such gear illegally deployed in the
stressed area.” Information regarding the “stressed area” is available in
Figure 11 and Table 12. “The purpose of these measures is to help
achieve specific management objectives (i), (iii), and (iv).” These
measures “were proposed by the Council to reduce fishing effort by other
users within the stressed area and to reduce conflicts and the potential for
conflicts.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 3 (1991) (https://tinyurl.com/ycplxhze) – provided additional
information both setting and changing target dates for rebuilding stocks
 Current Reef fish stock status:
o For the 11 snapper species in the fishery management unit, a rebuilding plan
exists for red snapper, and a rebuilding plan may be under development for gray
snapper. Gray snapper is undergoing overfishing, and an overfished status is
unknown.
 The most recent rebuilding plan for red snapper was created under Reef
Fish Amendment 27 (2007) (https://tinyurl.com/yaeanfy2).
 The Council is developing Reef Fish Amendment 51, which will define
the status determination criteria for gray snapper, and will develop a
rebuilding plan if necessary.
o For the 11 grouper species in the fishery management unit, no rebuilding plans
exist, and no grouper species have been determined to be overfished or
undergoing overfishing.
o For the three tilefish species in the fishery management unit, no rebuilding plans
exist, and no tilefish species have been determined to be overfished or undergoing
overfishing.
o For the four jack species in the fishery management unit, a rebuilding plan exists
for greater amberjack, which has been determined to be overfished and
undergoing overfishing.
1

This list is an overview of work that aligns with the Reef Fish FMP objectives.

3







Modifications to Greater Amberjack Allowable Harvest and Rebuilding
Plan (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/ybqen9ae)
o For the one triggerfish species in the fishery management unit, a rebuilding plan
exists for gray triggerfish, which is presently not overfished but is undergoing
overfishing.
 Reef Fish Amendment 46 (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/ybmz5gmd)
o For the one hogfish species in the fishery management unit, no rebuilding plans
exist, and hogfish species have not been determined to be overfished or
undergoing overfishing.
Previous reef fish rebuilding plans and related amendments:
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s) – red snapper
o October 1992 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/ycoo2omv) – red snapper
o Secretarial Amendment 1 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/ybzkeblc) – red grouper
o Secretarial Amendment 2 (2002) (https://tinyurl.com/ydh7lhyv) – greater amberjack
o Reef Fish Amendment 22 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/y74wlmnu) – red snapper
o Reef Fish Amendment 23 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/yd8434nk) – vermilion snapper
o November 2005 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y9ohg6v4) – red grouper
o Reef Fish Amendment 30A (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/ya7uwlx7) – gray triggerfish
and greater amberjack
o Reef Fish Amendment 32 (2011) (https://tinyurl.com/ycy3dwex) – gag grouper
o Reef Fish Amendment 35 (2012) (https://tinyurl.com/ybqnvfzv) – greater amberjack
o Reef Fish Amendment 37 (2012) (https://tinyurl.com/yd3wq4q3) – gray triggerfish
Interdisciplinary Planning Team (IPT) question: Should this objective be retained;
has it been achieved?

Objective 2: To establish a fishery reporting system for monitoring the reef fish fishery.
This objective was included in the Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, which states:
“An insufficient data base exists to pinpoint the causes and magnitude of the decline [in reef fish
stocks] by exact geographic range.”
 Related Council amendments:
o Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1981) (https://tinyurl.com/ya432ady)
 “Mandatory reporting system, with participation limited to random
samples sufficient for fishery management needs from i) charter, guide
and party boats; ii) not-for-hire recreational boats; iii) commercial fishing
boats and vessels (with the exception of trap fishing boats and vessels);
and iv) processors and wholesalers or others purchasing reef fish.”
 “Require that all boats or vessels fishing with traps be required to report
the following information on a periodic basis: …(5) composition of catch
by weight and species by trip…(7) number of traps harvested by trip, (8)
location of traps by NMFS statistical grid…”
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 Establish commercial reef fish vessel permits.
 Establish fish trap permits.
 Data reported to authorized statistical reporting agents from a statistically
valid survey sample of commercial and recreational catch.

4





Require head boat operators selected by NMFS to maintain a fishery
record for each trip and report this information to NMFS on at least a
monthly basis.
 Require charter boat operators who are selected by NMFS to maintain a
daily fishing record on form provided by the Southeast Fisheries Science
Center (SEFSC) that are submitted weekly.
 Special fish trap reporting requirements.
o Reef Fish Amendment 7 (1993) (https://tinyurl.com/y7bvjqch)
 Require dealer permits and record keeping (landing and first purchase
records).
o Reef Fish Amendment 9 (1994) (https://tinyurl.com/yama926w)
 Collect historical red snapper landings.
o Reef Fish Amendment 11 (1995) (https://tinyurl.com/yd45pstj)
 Required that for-hire vessels fishing for reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico
(Gulf) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) have federal for-hire permits.
o Reef Fish Amendment 18A (2005) (https://tinyurl.com/y7yckhoq)
 Require vessel monitoring system (VMS) units on commercially permitted
reef fish vessels.
o Reef Fish Amendment 22 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/y74wlmnu)
 Direct NMFS to develop and manage an observer program for the reef fish
fishery to collect bycatch information.
 Proposed to enhance the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey
(MRFSS) by including headboats using the same sampling methodology
as used for charter vessels.
o Reef Fish Amendment 26 (2006) (https://tinyurl.com/yaklc7fm)
 Red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ) landing reports
o Reef Fish Amendment 29 (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y9xcvdoz)
 Grouper/tilefish IFQ landing reports
o Reef Fish Amendment 36A (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y7s6pkky)
 Require all commercial reef fish vessels to provide landing notifications
o Generic Amendment: Modifications to Federally Permitted Seafood Dealer
Reporting Requirements (2013) (https://tinyurl.com/ycgnduuv)
 Increase frequency of dealer reporting
o Generic Amendment: Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting
Requirements (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/ychojvoc)
 Modify the frequency and mechanism of data reporting by for-hire
vessels.
 Trip declaration.
Current fishery reporting/data collection systems
o Recreational
 Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)
 MRIP For-Hire Survey
 Coastal household telephone survey (CHTS)  Fishing effort
survey (FES)
 Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS)
 Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS)
5





State recreational reporting programs (e.g., Texas Marine Sport Harvest
Monitoring Program, Louisiana LA Creel, Mississippi Tails n’ Scales,
Alabama Snapper Check, and Florida Gulf Reef Fish Survey)
o Commercial
 Dealer trip ticket reporting
 Coastal Logbook Survey (CLS), including economic surveys
 Gulf of Mexico Reef and Shrimp Observer Program
 IFQ electronic reporting
IPT comment: Redundancy with Objective 7 (To re-specify the reporting requirements
necessary to establish a database for monitoring the reef fish fishery and evaluating
management actions.).

Objective 3: To conserve and increase reef fish habitats in appropriate areas and to
provide protection for juveniles while protecting existing and new habitats. This objective
was included in the Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, which states: “Data presented
in this Plan reflects that the overall problem in this fishery is a substantial decline in reef fish
stocks in some areas under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
A known factor contributing to this decline is overfishing in many areas of the Gulf of Mexico
by directed recreational and commercial sectors. Other possible factors contributing to the
decline area: Reduction of habitat, both natural and man-made; A large bycatch in other
fisheries; Major environmental changes (which can be documented for 1973-1975).”
 Related Council amendments:
o Original Coral Fishery Management Plan (Fishery Management Plan for Coral
and Coral Reefs in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic) (1982)
(https://tinyurl.com/yacwoj8z)
 Established the Florida Middle Grounds.
o Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1981) (https://tinyurl.com/ya432ady)
 Fishing gear restrictions – “(1) Prohibit the use of power heads for the
taking of reef fish within the stressed area. (2) Prohibit the use of roller
trawls in the stressed area. (3) Prohibit the use of fish traps in the stressed
area. Further, provide for seizure of such gear illegally deployed in the
stressed area.” Information regarding the “stressed area” is available in
Figure 11 and Table 12. “The purpose of these measures is to help
achieve specific management objectives (i), (iii), and (iv)”. These
measures “were proposed by the Council to reduce fishing effort by other
users within the stressed area and to reduce conflicts and the potential for
conflicts.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 Established the longline and buoy gear boundary at approximately the 50
fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom
depth contour east of Cape San Blas.
o Reef Fish Amendment 5 (1993) (https://tinyurl.com/y94use5y)
 Created the special management zone (SMZ) with gear restrictions off the
Alabama coast.
 Created a framework procedure for establishing future SMZ’s.
o Reef Fish Amendment 14 (1996) (https://tinyurl.com/y98dcx2f)
6



 Prohibited the use of fish traps west of Cape San Blas, Florida.
 Implemented a 10-year phase out of fish traps.
o August 1999 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yccj94jx)
 Established Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves.
o Reef Fish Amendment 19 (2001) (https://tinyurl.com/yc59smhu)
 Established two marine reserve areas off the Tortugas area
 Prohibits fishing for any species and anchoring by fishing vessels inside
the reserves.
o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Generic Amendment 3 (2005)
(https://tinyurl.com/ybserytd)
 Prohibit bottom anchoring, longlines, buoy gear, and all traps/pots in the
East and West Flower Garden Banks, McGrail Bank, Pulley Ridge, and
Stetson Bank HAPCs, and the North and South Tortugas Ecological
Reserves.
o Reef Fish Amendment 21 (2003) (https://tinyurl.com/y87m5mha)
 Continues the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves
for an additional 6 years.
o Reef Fish Amendment 27 (2007) (https://tinyurl.com/yaeanfy2)
 Establish a target reduction goal for juvenile red snapper mortality of 74%
less than the benchmark years of 2001-2003
o Reef Fish Amendment 30B (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y7ys6rqc)
 Establishes “The Edges” seasonal area closure.
o Reef Fish Amendment 31 (2010) (https://tinyurl.com/yd8szjkh)
 Longline endorsement requirement.
IPT question: Should this objective be retained?

Objective 4: To minimize conflicts between user groups of the resource and conflicts for
space. This objective was included in the Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, which
states: “There is expanding competition between users competing for the resource and the space
the resource occupies. This expanding competition is in part due to: Increasing fishing effort
and the concentration of that effort in localized areas; Increasing fishing effort in other fisheries
that have a bycatch of reef fish; Declining catch per unit effort in some area; Introduction of new
gear.”
 Related Council amendments:
o Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1981) (https://tinyurl.com/ya432ady)
 Fishing gear restrictions – “(1) Prohibit the use of power heads for the
taking of reef fish within the stressed area. (2) Prohibit the use of roller
trawls in the stressed area. (3) Prohibit the use of fish traps in the stressed
area. Further, provide for seizure of such gear illegally deployed in the
stressed area.” Information regarding the “stressed area” is available in
Figure 11 and Table 12. “The purpose of these measures is to help
achieve specific management objectives (i), (iii), and (iv)”. These
measures “were proposed by the Council to reduce fishing effort by other
users within the stressed area and to reduce conflicts and the potential for
conflicts.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
7






Established the longline and buoy gear boundary at approximately the
50 fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20
fathom depth contour east of Cape San Blas.
 Established fish trap permits, allowing up to a maximum of 100 fish
traps per permit holder.
o Reef Fish Amendment 5 (1993) (https://tinyurl.com/y94use5y)
 Created the SMZ with gear restrictions off the Alabama coast.
 Created a framework procedure for establishing future SMZ’s.
o Reef Fish Amendment 11 (1995) (https://tinyurl.com/yd45pstj)
 Limit sale of Gulf reef fish by permitted vessels to permitted reef fish
dealers.
 Require that permitted reef fish dealers purchase reef fish caught in Gulf
federal waters only from permitted vessels.
o Reef Fish Amendment 30B (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y7ys6rqc)
 All vessels with federal commercial or charter reef fish permits must
comply with the more restrictive of state or federal reef fish
regulations when fishing in state waters.
IPT comment: Some redundancy with Objective 6 (To reduce user conflicts and near
shore fishing mortality.).
IPT question: Should this objective be retained?

Objective 5: The primary objective and definition of Optimum Yield for the Reef Fish
Fishery Management Plan is to stabilize long term population levels of all reef fish species
by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve
at least 20 percent spawning potential ratio. This objective was initially included in Reef Fish
Amendment 1 to read “The primary objective of the FMP shall be to stabilize long term
population levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the
stock of spawning age to achieve at least 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit
(SSBR).” Reef Fish Amendment 3 modified this objective, with the primary effects of
establishing a definition of Optimum Yield (OY) and establishing spawning potential ratio,
instead of SSBR, as a status determination criterion of stock health.
 Related Council amendments:
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 Stabilization of long-term population levels of all reef fish species by
establishing a survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to
achieve at least 20 percent SSBR, relative to the SSBR that would occur
with no fishing.
 The target date for achieving the 20 percent SSBR goal was set at January
1, 2000.
o Reef Fish Amendment 3 (1991) (https://tinyurl.com/ycplxhze)
 Revised the target for stock rebuilding from 20% SSBR to 20% spawning
potential ratio (SPR).
o Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) (1999) (https://tinyurl.com/ybzvtnoj)
 Set the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) for most reef fish
stocks at F30% SPR.
o Secretarial Amendment 1 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/ybzkeblc)
8






Set maximum sustainable yield (MSY), OY, MFMT, and minimum
stock size threshold (MSST) for red grouper.
o Secretarial Amendment 2 (2002) (https://tinyurl.com/ydh7lhyv)
 Set MSY, OY, MFMT, and MSST for greater amberjack.
o Reef Fish Amendment 22 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/y74wlmnu)
 Set MSY, OY, MFMT, and MSST for red snapper.
o Reef Fish Amendment 23 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/yd8434nk)
 Set the vermilion snapper MSY, MFMT, MSST, and OY.
o Reef Fish Amendment 27 (2007) (https://tinyurl.com/yaeanfy2)
 Changed the red snapper MSY proxy for red snapper to be yield when
fishing at F26% SPR.
o Reef Fish Amendment 30A (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/ya7uwlx7)
 Set the gray triggerfish MSY proxy, MFMT, MSST, and OY.
o Reef Fish Amendment 30B (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y7ys6rqc)
 Set the gag MSY proxy, MFMT, MSST, and OY.
o Reef Fish Amendment 43 (2016) (https://tinyurl.com/ycwg7as2)
 Established MFMT at F30% SPR and MSST at 0.75*SSBR30% SPR for hogfish
o Reef Fish Amendment 44 – Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) Revision for
Reef Fish Stocks with Existing Status Determination Criteria (2017)
(https://tinyurl.com/ydafog9k)
 Standardized MSST for gag, red grouper, red snapper, vermillion snapper,
gray triggerfish, greater amberjack, and hogfish at 0.50*BMSY (or proxy)
IPT question: Is this still intended to serve as the primary objective of the FMP?
IPT comment: The OY definition is inconsistent with OY as defined for several reef fish
species.

Objective 6: To reduce user conflicts and near shore fishing mortality. This objective was
included in Reef Fish Amendment 1, which states: “Longline gear has been introduced in the
fishery since the FMP was written; this gear needs to be recognized as a segment of the fishery.
If longlines are used in areas where other gear have been traditionally used, an increase in the
level of mortality and conflicts among user groups may result.” The amendment also states:
“The geographic extent of the stressed area requires modification to address fishing mortality
and user conflicts under current and potential use patterns.”
 Related Council amendments:
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 Gear restrictions on fish traps as well as longlines and buoys
 Stressed area boundaries – “Extend the present boundary of the stressed
area to include waters off Texas out to 30 fathom isobath along the entire
coastline of Texas.” “Extend the present boundary of the stressed area to
include waters off Louisiana out to the 10 fathom isobath along the entire
coastline of Louisiana.” Expected impacts – “decrease fishing mortality
on nearshore reef fishes if prohibited gear types are currently fished within
these waters…[and] potential reduction in or prevention of user group
conflicts.”
 Did include an action called “User Grouper Conflict Resolution”. The
status quo was adopted, with the rationale: “The Council proposed this
9




option because the gear that causes the conflicts with recreational and
commercial handline fishermen are fish traps and long lines, and since
these gear are proposed to be prohibited or restricted to offshore waters
specific procedures are not necessary. Other conflicts among fishermen at
sea can be adequately handled by the state and federal enforcement
agencies.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 31 (2010) (https://tinyurl.com/yd8szjkh)
 Restrict use of bottom longline gear to deeper waters, in order to reduce
bycatch of hardshell sea turtles
IPT comment: Some redundancy with Objective 4 (To minimize conflicts between user
groups of the resource and conflicts for space.).
IPT comment: Clarification on “near shore” as Council only manages the EEZ.

Objective 7: To re-specify the reporting requirements necessary to establish a database for
monitoring the reef fish fishery and evaluating management actions. This objective was
included in Reef Fish Amendment 1, which states: “Management measures specified in the FMP
to establish a data base for management have not been successfully implemented. Statistical data
for many species have been aggregated into genus or family groups which has made it
impossible to assess the condition of specific stocks adequately. Biological profile data are
needed through the Gulf of Mexico on a continuing basis; the present system of opportunistic
dockside sampling of the commercial catch is not providing a representative characterization.”
 Related Council amendments:
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 Statistical reporting requirements  “Data will be collected by authorized statistical reporting agents
from a statistically valid survey sample of commercial and
recreational catch that is of sufficient size to provide representative
measures of all major segments of a category of users of a resource
and statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses and
quota monitoring. Any such data collection should rely upon
techniques that ensure comparability of data. Those fishermen and
dealers selected by the Science and Research Director, or his
designee, must make their reef fish (head and fins intact) available
at dockside for inspection by those agents.”
 “Require head boat operators who are selected by NMFS to
maintain a fishery record for each trip and report this information
to NMFS on at least a monthly basis.”
 “Require head boat operators who are selected by NMFS to
maintain a daily fishing record on forms provided by the Science
and Research Director that are to be submitted weekly (as is
required by the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP).”
 “The owner or operator of a fishing vessel or any other person
permitted under §641.4 to fish with fish traps must provide the
following information regarding all fishing trips on which reef fish
are harvested to the Science and Research Director….Routine
reporting shall be required of all trap permittees. At a minimum,
10




monthly reports shall be required even if no fishing for reef fish
occurred in a particular month.”
o Framework Action to Require Electronic Reporting for Headboats (2013)
(https://tinyurl.com/ychojvoc)
o Generic Amendment: Modifications to Federally Permitted Seafood Dealer
Reporting Requirements (2013) (https://tinyurl.com/ycgnduuv)
o Generic Amendment: Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting
Requirements (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y8a8jyzr)
IPT comment: Redundancy with Objective 2 (To establish a fishery reporting system for
monitoring the reef fish fishery.).
IPT comment: Reef Fish Amendment 1 essentially notes that Objective 2 is not being
achieved.

Objective 8: To revise the definitions of the fishery management unit and fishery to reflect
the current species composition of the reef fish fishery. This objective was included in Reef
Fish Amendment 1, which states: “A significant portion of the catch in the reef fish fishery
consists of species not in the fishery management unit.”
 Since the Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1981) (https://tinyurl.com/ya432ady),
reef fish species have been added as well as removed from the fishery management unit
through multiple amendments:
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
o Reef Fish Amendment 4 (1991) (https://tinyurl.com/ydx22bgv)
o Reef Fish Amendment 15 (1997) (https://tinyurl.com/y857xc65)
o Reef Fish Amendment 16B (1999) (https://tinyurl.com/y8vmubdo)
o Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment (2011)
(https://tinyurl.com/ybspk9yd)
 IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?
Objective 9: To revise the definition of optimum yield to allow specification at the species
level. This objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 1, which states that the “Present
definition of OY for the reef fish fishery is an overestimate and does not provide adequate
protection for the resource due to different vulnerabilities among reef fish species to
overfishing.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 1 defined optimum yield as “any harvest level for each species
which maintains, or is expected to maintain, over time a survival rate of biomass into the
stock of spawning age to achieve at least a 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit
(SSBR) population level, relative to the SSBR that would occur with no fishing.” (1989)
(https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
o This definition of optimum yield related to the following two items:
 Reef Fish FMP Objective 5 (The primary objective and definition of
Optimum Yield for the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan is to stabilize
long term population levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain
survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least
20 percent spawning potential ratio.)

11










Definition of overfishing – “A reef fish stock or stock complex is
overfished when it is below the level of 20 percent of the spawning stock
biomass per recruit that would occur in the absence of fishing.”
Reef Fish Amendment 3 redefined optimum yield as that which would still permit “a
certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least 20
percent spawning potential ratio.” (1991) (https://tinyurl.com/ycplxhze)
Reef Fish amendments (and draft amendments) that set optimum yield for specific stocks
are as follows:
o Secretarial Amendment 2 (2002) (https://tinyurl.com/ydh7lhyv) –greater amberjack
o Secretarial Amendment 1 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/ybzkeblc) – red grouper
o Reef Fish Amendment 22 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/y74wlmnu) – red snapper
o Reef Fish Amendment 30A (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/ya7uwlx7) – gray triggerfish
o Reef Fish Amendment 30B (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y7ys6rqc) – gag
o Reef Fish Amendment 47 (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/yamdteg3) – vermillion snapper
o Draft Amendment 48 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan/Draft
Amendment 4 to the Red Drum Fishery Management Plan
(https://tinyurl.com/y8d8olu3) – individual stocks
o Draft Amendment 51 – gray snapper
Optimum yield is the focus of National Standard 1 (https://tinyurl.com/y93ugzgf).
o National Standard 1 Guidelines state that:
 “…Councils must include in their FMPs and FMP amendments…OY at
the stock, stock complex, or fishery level.”
 “OY is a long-term average amount of desired yield from a stock, stock
complex, or fishery.”
IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?

Objective 10: To encourage research on the effects of artificial reefs. This objective was
included in Reef Fish Amendment 1, which states that “Definitive research is needed to
determine whether artificial reefs contribute more to overfishing or to the rebuilding of the reef
fish resource in the various Gulf of Mexico habitats.”
 This is listed in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s Updated List of
Fishery Monitoring and Research Priorities for 2015-2019 (https://tinyurl.com/ycrewwou).
o Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper – “Continued research is recommended to estimate
the use and effect of artificial reef structures in the Gulf of Mexico on red snapper
population abundance, age and length composition, and spatial distribution.”
 Related Council documents
o Amendments on hold – Options Paper, Fixed Petroleum Platforms and Artificial
Reefs as Essential Fish Habitat (2015) (https://tinyurl.com/yajs4z6m)
o White Paper, Evaluation of Potential Artificial Reef Siting Criteria in the Gulf of
Mexico (2013) (https://tinyurl.com/y8xqoyxg)
 SEDAR 52 – Future Research (https://tinyurl.com/ybck9cya)
o Spatial Modeling - Explore the potential for developing a fully spatial model of
red snapper that can account for differential recruitment and life history patterns
across the Gulf of Mexico including differential dynamics on and around artificial
versus natural reef habitat
 IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?
12

Objective 11: To maximize net socioeconomic benefits from the reef fish fishery. This
objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 1, which states that “The user groups utilizing
and dependent on the reef fish resources need to be identified and their socio-economic and
socio-cultural characteristics delineated to enable analysis of their respective impacts on the
resource and the differential impacts alternative management measures may exert on the various
user groups.” In Reef Fish Amendment 1, this objective read as “To maximize net economic
benefits from the reef fish fishery.” At the April 2014 Council meeting, the word “economic” in
this objective was changed to “socioeconomic.”
 E.O. 12866 states that, “in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies
should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” (https://tinyurl.com/yama8ldn)
o Analysis conducted to comply with E.O. 12866 utilizes information contained in
amendments (Regulatory Impact Review and Chapter 4’s Direct and Indirect
Effects on the Economic Environment as well as Direct and Indirect Effects on
the Social Environment).
 Aligns with discussion of benefits and costs in National Standards and Guidelines:
o National Standard 1 Guidelines – “The determination of OY is a decisional
mechanism for resolving the Magnuson-Stevens Act's conservation and
management objectives, achieving an FMP's objectives, and balancing the various
interests that comprise the greatest overall benefits to the Nation.”
(https://tinyurl.com/y93ugzgf)
o National Standard 5 Guidelines – “In considering efficient utilization of fishery
resources, this standard highlights one way that a fishery can contribute to the
Nation's benefit with the least cost to society: Given a set of objectives for the
fishery, an FMP should contain management measures that result in as efficient a
fishery as is practicable or desirable.” (https://tinyurl.com/ycqlqjel)
o National Standard 7 – “Conservation and management measures shall, where
practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.”
(https://tinyurl.com/ycpwn4et)
o National Standard 9 Guidelines – “A determination of whether a conservation and
management measure minimizes bycatch or bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable, consistent with other national standards and maximization of net
benefits to the Nation, should consider the following factors…”
(https://tinyurl.com/ya7nyjtz)
 IPT comment: Redundancy with Objective 16 (To optimize, to the extent practicable and
allowed by law, net benefits from the fishery.).
Objective 12: To increase the stability of the red snapper fishery in terms of fishing
patterns and markets. This objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 15, which states
that “Net economic benefits are being eroded due to the market glut from the derby fishery and
the inability of the industry to provide a red snapper product year round.”
 Commercial sector
o IFQ program

13







Reef Fish Amendment 26 (2006) (https://tinyurl.com/yaklc7fm) – establishes
IFQ system for commercial red snapper fishery, with “The primary
purpose…to reduce overcapacity…and to eliminate, to the extent possible,
the problems associated with derby fishing…[including] extending the
availability of fresh fish products to consumers.”
Recreational sector
o Sector separation
 Reef Fish Amendment 40 (2014) (https://tinyurl.com/yddx3eq6) – established
distinct federal for-hire and private angling components of the red snapper
recreational sector
 Reef Fish Amendment 45 (2016) (https://tinyurl.com/y8ne7zpc) – extended the
3-year sunset provision from Reef Fish Amendment 40 through 2022
o State management
 State Red Snapper Management Exempted Fishing Permits
(https://tinyurl.com/yagmphju)
 Under development
 Reef Fish Amendment 50 (https://tinyurl.com/y8ze755z)
IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?

Objective 13: To avoid to the extent practicable the “derby” type fishing seasons. This
objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 15, which states that “The derby fishery
compromises vessel safety by encouraging fishermen to begin or continue trips under adverse
weather conditions. User conflicts are being exacerbated by differential trip limits under the
endorsement system and by the short red snapper quota seasons, that favor those fishermen who
are closer to the resource, or have vessels that can operate in inclement weather.”
 Commercial sector
o IFQ program
 Reef Fish Amendment 26 (2006) (https://tinyurl.com/yaklc7fm) – establishes
IFQ system for commercial red snapper fishery, with “The primary
purpose…to reduce overcapacity…and to eliminate, to the extent possible,
the problems associated with derby fishing…[including] extending the
availability of fresh fish products to consumers.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 29 (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y9xcvdoz) – establishes
IFQ system for commercial grouper and tilefish fishery, such that
“Rationalizing effort should mitigate some of the problems resulting from
derby fishing conditions.”
 Recreational sector
o Sector separation
 Reef Fish Amendment 40 (2014) (https://tinyurl.com/yddx3eq6) – established
distinct federal for-hire and private angling components of the red snapper
recreational sector
 Reef Fish Amendment 45 (2016) (https://tinyurl.com/y8ne7zpc) – extended the
3-year sunset provision from Reef Fish Amendment 40 through 2022
o State management
 State Red Snapper Management Exempted Fishing Permits
(https://tinyurl.com/yagmphju)
14





Under development
 Reef Fish Amendment 50 (https://tinyurl.com/y8ze755z)
IPT comment: Some redundancy with Objective 12 (To increase the stability of the red
snapper fishery in terms of fishing patterns and markets.), except that Objective 12 is red
snapper specific.

Objective 14: To promote flexibility for the fishermen in their fishing operations. This
objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 15, which states that “The derby fishery
compromises vessel safety by encouraging fishermen to begin or continue trips under adverse
weather conditions. User conflicts are being exacerbated by differential trip limits under the
endorsement system and by the short red snapper quota seasons, that favor those fishermen who
are closer to the resource, or have vessels that can operate in inclement weather.”
 Commercial sector
o IFQ program
 Reef Fish Amendment 26 (2006) (https://tinyurl.com/yaklc7fm) – establishes
IFQ system for commercial red snapper fishery, noting that “derby
fisheries can…[provide] participants less flexibility in deciding when,
where, and how to fish.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 29 (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y9xcvdoz) – establishes
IFQ system for commercial grouper and tilefish fishery, with the
expectation of “affording vessel owners more flexibility in their input
choices and trip planning.”
o Framework Action to Modify the Number of Unrigged Hooks Carried Onboard
Bottom Longline Vessels (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y8x35rlb) – to address “the
need…to reduce the regulatory and potential economic burden on fishermen.”
 Recreational sector
o Amendments under development
 Reef Fish Amendment 41 (https://tinyurl.com/y88p9xur), with “The
purpose…to establish a management approach…to harvest reef fish that
provides flexibility, [and] reduces management uncertainty.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 42 (https://tinyurl.com/yc44n2yt), with “The
purpose…to reduce management uncertainty…and provide flexibility by
increasing fishing opportunities for their angler passengers.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 50 (https://tinyurl.com/y8ze755z), with “The
purpose…to establish a program structure through which a Gulf state may
establish a management program that would provide flexibility in the
management of the recreational harvest for their anglers.”
 Commercial and recreational sectors
o Framework Action Addressing Vermilion Snapper, Yellowtail Snapper, and
Venting Tool Requirements (2013) (https://tinyurl.com/yc59yvvz) – removed venting
tool regulation so to simplify “the fishing regulations while providing fishermen
with the freedom to determine how to release reef fish.”
o (In Secretarial review) Reef Fish Amendment 49 (https://tinyurl.com/ycxjqrsr) – “to
allow the use of three new sea turtle release gear types and clarify dimension
requirements for currently required release gear for incidentally hooked sea turtles

15



and other protected species…to provide appropriate flexibility to participants in
the federal commercial and charter vessel/headboat reef fish fishery.”
IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?

Objective 15: To provide for cost-effective and enforceable management of the fishery.
This objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 15, which considered management
alternatives to address the red snapper derby fishery.
 Related Council amendments:
o Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s) - establishes
commercial reef fish vessel permits.
o Reef Fish Amendment 11 (1995) (https://tinyurl.com/yd45pstj) – requires that for-hire
vessels fishing for reef fish in the Gulf EEZ have federal for-hire permits.
o Reef Fish Amendment 18A (2005) (https://tinyurl.com/y7yckhoq) – requires electronic
VMS with a ‘hail-out’ requirement, such that “All gear-types of commercially
permitted reef fish vessels…including charter vessels with commercial reef fish
permits”, with “The purpose…to improve enforceability of area restrictions…and
enhance the ability of enforcement agencies to detect and prevent the use of
fishing gear in areas where that gear is restricted.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 22 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/y74wlmnu) – directs NMFS to
develop and manage an observer program for the reef fish fishery to collect
bycatch information.
o Reef Fish Amendment 26 (2006) (https://tinyurl.com/yaklc7fm) – establishes a ‘hailin’ requirement in the IFQ system for the commercial red snapper fishery, such
that “For enforcement purposes…Persons landing IFQ catch would be required to
notify NMFS Enforcement at least three hours in advance of the time of landing
and of the dealer where landing would occur.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 29 (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y9xcvdoz) – establishes
“approved landing sites for all IFQ programs in the commercial reef fish
fisheries” and “For enforcement purposes, fishermen participating in the
[Grouper-Tilefish] IFQ program would be subject to the same landing and
offloading requirements that currently exist for the Gulf red snapper IFQ
program…to notify NMFS enforcement agents between three hours to twelve
hours in advance of the time of landing.”
o Reef Fish Amendment 36A (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y7s6pkky) – modifies the hailin requirement for commercial reef fish permitted vessels, with “The purpose…to
improve compliance.”
o (In Secretarial review) Reef Fish Amendment 49 (https://tinyurl.com/ycxjqrsr) – to
address “The need [of] clarifying dimensions of currently required release gear
for both fishermen and law enforcement officers.”
 National Standard 7 Guidelines – “Conservation and management measures shall, where
practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication….Factors such as fuel
costs, enforcement costs, or the burdens of collecting data may well suggest a preferred
alternative.” (https://tinyurl.com/ycpwn4et)
 Section 303A(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act – cost recovery: “In establishing a limited
access privilege program, a Council shall…provide, under section 304(d)(2) for a

16



program of fees paid by limited access privilege holders that will cover the cost of
management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities.”
IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?

Objective 16: To optimize, to the extent practicable and allowed by law, net benefits from
the fishery. This objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 15, which states that “Net
economic benefits are being eroded due to the market glut from the derby fishery and the
inability of the industry to provide a red snapper product year round.”
 IPT comment: Redundancy with Objective 11 (To maximize net socioeconomic benefits
from the reef fish fishery.).
 IPT comment: If retaining this objective, the word “maximize” would be more consistent
with the language in the National Standard 1 guidelines and E.O. 12866 than “optimize.”
Objective 17: To reduce the harvesting capacity of the red snapper fleet in an equitable
manner utilizing demonstrated historical dependence on the red snapper resource as a
criterion. This objective was included in Reef Fish Amendment 15, which states that “The
harvest capacity of the current red snapper fleet is larger than necessary to produce the
commercial quota in an industry-wide, economically efficient manner.”
 Commercial sector
o IFQ program
 Reef Fish Amendment 26 (2006) (https://tinyurl.com/yaklc7fm) – establishes
IFQ system for commercial red snapper fishery, with “The primary
purpose…to reduce overcapacity in the commercial red snapper fishery.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 36A (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y7s6pkky) – returns
non-activated red snapper IFQ shares to NMFS
 (Under development) Reef Fish Amendment 36B
(https://tinyurl.com/y73ksnbv) – distributes reclaimed red snapper shares;
establishes a NMFS-administered quota bank with the reclaimed shares
o Limited access permits
 Reef Fish Amendment 4 (1991) (https://tinyurl.com/ydx22bgv) – moratorium
on commercial reef fish permits
 Reef Fish Amendment 9 (1994) (https://tinyurl.com/yama926w) – extended the
moratorium on commercial reef fish permits from Reef Fish Amendment 4
 Reef Fish Amendment 11 (1995) (https://tinyurl.com/yd45pstj) – implemented
a new moratorium on commercial reef fish permits, following expiration
of the moratorium from Reef Fish Amendment 9
 Reef Fish Amendment 17 (1999) (https://tinyurl.com/yc65qxfr) – extended the
moratorium on commercial reef fish permits from Reef Fish Amendment
11
 Reef Fish Amendment 24 (2005) (https://tinyurl.com/y94jwogj) – “Established
a limited access system for the commercial fishery for Gulf reef fish.”
This “maintains a license cap for an indefinite period of time.”
 Recreational sector
o Reef Fish Amendment 11 (1995) (https://tinyurl.com/yd45pstj)
 Required that for-hire vessels fishing for reef fish in the Gulf EEZ have
federal for-hire permits.
17




o Amendments under development
 Reef Fish Amendment 41 (https://tinyurl.com/y88p9xur), with “The
purpose…to establish a management approach…to harvest reef fish that
provides flexibility, [and] reduces management uncertainty.”
 Reef Fish Amendment 42 (https://tinyurl.com/yc44n2yt), with “The
purpose…to reduce management uncertainty…and provide flexibility by
increasing fishing opportunities for their angler passengers.”
IPT question: For clarification, is this objective intended only for the commercial sector?
IPT question: Should this objective be retained; has it been achieved?

Objective 18: To maximize the available days to recreational fishermen. This objective was
included in 2014, during the development of Reef Fish Amendment 28 (2015, vacated)
(https://tinyurl.com/yazv3bs6).
 Related Council amendments:
o Recreational sector bag limits – decreasing should increase available days
 Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 March 1991 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y8uxz34c)
 October 1992 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/ycoo2omv)
 October 1994 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yc54he6h)
 Reef Fish Amendment 12 (1995) (https://tinyurl.com/ybjootww)
 December 1998 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yaywe8zo)
 Reef Fish Amendment 16B (1999) (https://tinyurl.com/y8vmubdo)
 February 2000 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yca99awp)
 Secretarial Amendment 1 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/ybzkeblc)
 November 2005 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y9ohg6v4)
 February 2007 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y9qxq3pz)
 Reef Fish Amendment 27 (2007) (https://tinyurl.com/yaeanfy2)
 Reef Fish Amendment 30B (2008) (https://tinyurl.com/y7ys6rqc)
 Reef Fish Amendment 32 (2011) (https://tinyurl.com/ycy3dwex)
 Red Grouper Regulatory Amendment (2011) (https://tinyurl.com/y8pr9brx)
 Reef Fish Amendment 37 (2012) (https://tinyurl.com/yd3wq4q3)
 Framework Action to Set the 2013 Red Snapper Commercial and
Recreational Quotas and Modify the Recreational Bag Limit (2013)
(https://tinyurl.com/ybmpb3ap)
 Framework Action Addressing Vermilion Snapper, Yellowtail Snapper,
and Venting Tool Requirements (2013) (https://tinyurl.com/yc59yvvz)
 Framework Action to Modify the Red Grouper Bag Limit and Closed
Season (2014) (https://tinyurl.com/yaf2ub7x)
 Reef Fish Amendment 46 (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/ybmz5gmd)
 Framework Action to Modify Mutton Snapper and Gag Management
Measures (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y7a8fkkr)
o For-hire captain/crew bag limits – decreasing should increase available days
 January 1998 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y8pkvfkk) – zero
bag limit for red snapper; bag limit not implemented
 December 1998 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yaywe8zo) – zero
bag limit for red snapper
18



o

o

o

o

February 2000 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yca99awp) –
reinstated 4-fish red snapper bag limit
 November 2005 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y9ohg6v4) – zero
bag limit for grouper
 Reef Fish Amendment 27 (2007) (https://tinyurl.com/yaeanfy2) – zero bag
limit for red snapper
Recreational sector – minimum size limits for fish; increasing the minimum
should increase available days
 Original Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1981)
(https://tinyurl.com/ya432ady)
 Reef Fish Amendment 1 (1989) (https://tinyurl.com/ydcbu49s)
 October 1994 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yc54he6h)
 November 1997 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/ya32sb9c)
 December 1998 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yaywe8zo)
 August 1999 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yccj94jx)
 February 2000 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/yca99awp)
 Reef Fish Amendment 23 (2004) (https://tinyurl.com/yd8434nk)
 February 2007 Regulatory Amendment (https://tinyurl.com/y9qxq3pz)
 Reef Fish Amendment 32 (2011) (https://tinyurl.com/ycy3dwex)
 Greater Amberjack Framework Action – Allowable Harvest and
Management Measures (2015) (https://tinyurl.com/ycar8ajl)
 Framework Action to Modify Gag Catch Limits (2016)
(https://tinyurl.com/ybuwnw74)
 Reef Fish Amendment 43 (2016) (https://tinyurl.com/ycwg7as2)
 Reef Fish Amendment 46 (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/ybmz5gmd)
 Framework Action to Modify Mutton Snapper and Gag Management
Measures (2017) (https://tinyurl.com/y7a8fkkr)
Sector separation
 Reef Fish Amendment 40 (2014) (https://tinyurl.com/yddx3eq6) – established
distinct federal for-hire and private angling components of the red snapper
recreational sector
 Reef Fish Amendment 45 (2016) (https://tinyurl.com/y8ne7zpc) – extended the
3-year sunset provision from Reef Fish Amendment 40 through 2022
Recreational sector
 Transmitted to NMFS
 Framework Action to Modify Red Snapper and Hogfish Catch
Limits (https://tinyurl.com/y9ugaoke)
 Framework Action to Modify the Recreational Red Snapper ACT
Buffers (https://tinyurl.com/y8b4kjm7)
 Under development – carryover provisions (or underage adjustment)
 Carryover of Unharvested Quota (https://tinyurl.com/ycu234f9)
 Reef Fish Amendment 50 – Action 2 in each of the Individual
State Amendments addresses Post-Season Quota Adjustment
Additional program
 State Red Snapper Management Exempted Fishing Permits
(https://tinyurl.com/yagmphju)
19



IPT comment: Specification of applicable constraints to this objective or insertion of “to
the extent practicable” would provide clarification for guiding management.

Overall goal of the FMP (Reef Fish Amendment 1). To manage the reef fish fishery of the
United States within the waters of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
jurisdiction to attain the greatest overall benefit to the nation with particular reference to
food production and recreational opportunities on the basis of the maximum sustainable
yield as modified by relevant ecological, economic, or social factors.
 IPT comment: Changing the word “modified” to “reduced” would make this consistent
with National Standard 1 Guidelines:
o “(i) Definitions— (A) Optimum yield (OY). Magnuson-Stevens Act section
(3)(33) defines “optimum,” with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the amount
of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with
respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account
the protection of marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY
from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological
factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a
level consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery.”

20