SNAPPER GROUPER AMENDMENT 15B - SAFMC.net

ongoing debate, the social impacts of this alternative should be more positive than Alternative 1.Overall, due to avoidance of the adverse economic impacts associated with extended closure andreaching finality in the debate over bag limit sales, Preferred Alternative 2 is expected to resultin an increase in net social benefits relative to the status quo.Monitor and Assess BycatchBiological EffectsIndirect impacts resulting from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide a better understanding ofthe composition and magnitude of bycatch; enhance the quality of data provided for stockassessments; increase the quality of assessment output; provide better estimates of interactionswith protected species; and lead to better decisions regarding additional measures that might beneeded to reduce bycatch.Economic/Social EffectsQuantitatively distinguishing the differences in the costs and impacts of Alternatives 2-4 is notpossible at this time since the full costs of the neither the ACCSP module or interim methods areavailable. It can be reasonably stated, however, since each of Alternatives 2-4 would imposeincreased bycatch reporting requirements, the costs associated with the requirements ofAlternatives 2-4 exceed that of Alternative 1.Despite the higher costs relative to Alternative 1, the expectation and assumption is that theimproved bycatch information expected to be generated by these methods will result in improvedstock assessments, more appropriate management measures, quicker rebuilding, whereappropriate, and, overall, increased net biological, economic, and social benefits. SincePreferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 end with the same system in the long term, the longterm benefits of these two alternatives are presumed equal, though the net benefits of PreferredAlternative 2 are assumed to be less than those of Alternative 3 due to the delay inimplementing the preferred data program. Since the preferred monitoring and assessmentprogram would never be achieved under Alternative 4, the conclusion is that the long term neteconomic and social benefits of this alternative are less than those of both Preferred Alternative2 and Alternative 3.Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Incidental TakeImpact Minimization MeasuresBiological EffectsAlternative 1 would not provide additional biological benefits since additional managementmeasures to minimize the impacts of incidental take on sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish caughtin the South Atlantic snapper grouper fishery would not be implemented. Preferred Alternative2 would have slightly greater biological benefit than Alternative 3 as gear requirements areindependent of freeboard height.SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPERPUBLIC HEARING SUMMARYAMENDMENT 15B 15 NOVEMBER 2007