The Gulf Council met this week and we are publishing the minutes of the Reef Fish Committee for your review. Once we have all of the motions from the meeting we will forward that to you also.
3.46 mp
Action 2 –Vermilion Snapper Bag Limit
Mr. Atran noted that members of the Reef Fish AP were concerned that recreational fishermen may be targeting vermilion snapper at an increased level in recent years. The AP recommended a bag limit, not to reduce recreational harvest, but to reduce or prevent future increases. Mr. Atran noted that Table 1.2 showed that the recreational sector landed 4.4 mp in 2009 and 4.3 mp in 2011. These were the highest recreational landings on record. Jessica McCawley noted that Florida has a 10 fish bag limit for vermilion snapper in the Gulf state waters.
By a voice vote without opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that in Action 2, Alternative 3 be the preferred alternative.
Alternative 3: Set the recreational bag limit for vermilion snapper at 10 fish per angler within the 20-reef fish aggregate bag limit.
Other
Roy Crabtree noted that the Council had previously voted to change the regulation requiring the use of venting tools to add the words “as necessary” using the new abbreviated document process. However, implementing this process was taking longer than expected. Therefore, Dr. Crabtree suggested that an action be added to the vermilion snapper amendment to implement the venting tool requirement change. Martha Bademan asked if the action could include alternatives to allow the use of commercial available fish descender devices. Dr. Crabtree responded that such devices could be used now, but there was a requirement that the fish be vented regardless of whether other methods are used. Mr. Atran noted that, if the Council wanted to go to public hearings and take final action at the next Council meeting, staff would need to add the action and develop a range of alternatives without Council review prior to the hearings. Council staff was asked to develop some alternatives to bring to full Council at this meeting (see attachment).
The Committee next discussed scheduling of public hearings for the vermilion snapper regulatory amendment. The state agency representatives each made recommendations for locations in their respective states. However, Dr. Bortone noted that public hearings are typically not held for regulatory amendments other than at the Council meeting where final action is taken. Mr. Atran added that it would seem strange to hold a series of public hearings for the vermilion snapper ACL amendment, but not for the anticipated red snapper quota regulatory amendment that will likely be developed for the February Council meeting. A suggestion was made to combine public hearings for vermilion snapper with the scoping meetings on red snapper regional management or with hearings on mackerel. Rick Leard noted that further action on mackerel has been deferred until a joint meeting with the South Atlantic Council in May. The Committee passed the following motion, but felt that it should be discussed at full Council
By a voice vote without opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that public hearings for the Vermilion Snapper Regulatory Amendment be held in the following cities:
Galveston, TX
Port Aransas, TX
Kenner area, LA
Gulfport/Biloxi area, MS
Orange Beach/Gulf Shores, AL
Destin, FL
St. Petersburg, FL
Final Action – Regulatory Amendment – 2013 Gag Recreational Season and Bag Limit (Tab B, No. 17)
Emily Muehlstein summarized the public hearing comments (Tab B, No. 15) and written comments (Tab B, No. 16). Rick Leard reviewed Law Enforcement Advisory Panel comments (Tab G, No. 6). The Committee then reviewed the actions and alternatives and selected preferred alternatives.
Action 1 – 2013 Recreational Gag Season
Martha Bademan asked that a new option be added to Alternative 3 (2 split seasons), and that it be made a preferred alternative. The new alternative would be to open the first sub-season June 1 through July 15, and to have the second sub-season close after December 31 and back-calculate the opening date, and to keep the 2-fish bag limit. Using the low discards model and the ACL as the catch level, this would result in the fall sub-season opening on October 19, and a total of 119 days for the two sub-seasons combined. It was pointed out that the alternatives in the amendment are intended to achieve the ACT, not ACL, and that both the low discards and high discards models are looked at. Using ACT as the target level, the proposed option would result in the fall season opening on November 17 with a total of 90 days under the low discards model, an a fall opening of December 8 with a total of 69 days under the high discards model.
By a voice vote without opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that in Action 1, a new option be added under Alternative 3 to establish two sub-seasons, the first June 1 through July 15, the second ending December 31st and working backward that would allow the ACT to be caught, a bag limit of two fish, and that it be the preferred alternative.
Action 2 – Modify the February-march Recreational Shallow-water Grouper Closure
Shepherd Grimes questioned the logic of eliminating the recreational closed season, since more days fishing results in more discards. He stated that the rationale was based on anecdotal information, although there was a hierarchical cluster analysis of species association done for the commercial sector. He added that none of the alternatives addressed the concept of spawning season closures, although Alternative 4 would at least protect the area where the primary spawning grounds are found. Steven Atran noted that the hierarchical cluster analysis, although done on the commercial sector, did show a species association between gag and the species listed in the anecdotal information. He added that, when the closed season was repealed for the commercial sector, it was replaced by the Edges seasonal closure which applied to both commercial and recreational fishing. Mr. Grimes responded that commercial vessels operate in different depths than most recreational vessels, which limited the utility of the cluster analysis for recreational fishing, and that the Edges area closure had only a limited effect on recreational fishing since few vessels operated that far offshore. John Sanchez noted that, at the Naples public hearing, fishermen strongly supported elimination of the closed season because there were other groupers that they could target during that time.
By a voice vote without opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that in Action 2, that the preferred alternative be Alternative 4.
Alternative 4: Eliminate the February 1 through March 31 recreational closed season on shallow-water grouper in federal waters shoreward of the 20 fathom boundary. Seaward of the boundary, the closed season remains in effect.
A motion was made to recommend that the Council approve the regulatory amendment. Normally, this motion would include a statement that the codified regulations were deemed necessary and appropriate. However, Shepherd Grimes noted that, because there were no preferred alternatives in the public hearing draft of the amendment, NMFS could not provide codified regulations in advance of the Council meeting. Codified regulations would be provided to the full Council, and would need to be deemed necessary and appropriate at that time.
By a voice vote without opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that the Committee recommend to the Council that the 2013 Gag Recreational Season and Bag Limit Regulatory Amendment be sent to the Secretary of Commerce for approval and implementation.
SEDAR 27 – Yellowtail Snapper Benchmark Assessment (Tab B, No. 21)
Sean Powers presented a summary of the 2012 yellowtail snapper stock assessment prepared by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (Tab B, No. 21), and reviewed by a joint meeting of the Gulf and South Atlantic SSCs. Yellowtail snapper cross the Gulf/South Atlantic jurisdictional boundary and is considered to be a single stock in the United States. The stock was assessed using a statistical catch-at-age model (ASAP2) with age-specific natural mortality. Recreational landings data came from MRFSS because MRIP landings data was not available at the time the assessment was done. Other fishery-dependent indices included the commercial landings data and headboat survey. A fishery-independent index came from the NMFS-UM Reef Visual Census. Although the proxy for FMSY is F30% SPR, the SSC felt that the actual empirical FMSY estimate should be used, based on the data showing a good fit to the spawner-recruit function and to most of the indices of abundance. The results indicated that the yellowtail snapper stock is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing. Spawning stock biomass is more than three times higher than the biomass at equilibrium MSY, and the fishing mortality rate is about 15% of the overfishing threshold.
Because the stock biomass was well above the equilibrium MSY level, the joint Gulf/South Atlantic SSC (Tab B, No. 22) decided to recommend OFL and ABC levels based on the equilibrium MSY yield rather than the annual estimate of MSY, which would result in a yield level that would drive biomass down to the equilibrium level. Based on equilibrium yield at MSY, the OFL for yellowtail snapper is 4.51 mp whole weight in landed catch (after accounting for dead discards).
The South Atlantic SSC and Gulf SSC each went through their respective ABC control rules to determine where the probability of overfishing (P*) should be set. The South Atlantic ABC control rule resulted in a P* of 0.40. The Gulf ABC rule resulted in a P* of 0.416. Since the results were very close, the joint SSC agreed to use P* = 0.40. When this probability level was applied to a probability distribution function, the resulting ABC was 4.05 mp whole weight in landed catch (after accounting for dead discards).
The ABC is apportioned with 75% to the South Atlantic (3.0375 mp), and 25% to the Gulf of Mexico (1.0125 mp). Steven Atran reviewed the results of the ACL/ACT control rule (Tab B, No. 23). This control rule resulted in a buffer of 11% between ABC and ACL (assuming that the optional ACT is not used), or 901,125 pounds Gulf ACL.
David Cupka reported that, due to the South Atlantic reaching its ACL in 2012 while the Gulf of Mexico remained well below its ACL, fishermen from the south Atlantic had requested that the jurisdictional apportionment be re-addressed. However, with the increase in ACL, a reapportionment may no longer be needed. He noted that for healthy stocks, the South Atlantic Council sometimes set ACL equal to ABC.
Roy Crabtree related that fishermen from the Florida Keys indicated that they fish only a small area for yellowtail snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. They were concerned that, if the south Atlantic had an ACL closure while the Gulf remained open, there could be effort shifting to the Gulf. He felt that the ideal solution would be to have a single combined ACL, but this would require the Gulf Council to establish a commercial:recreational allocation since such an allocation exists in the south Atlantic.
The Committee discussed where to set the Gulf ACL. A motion was made to set the ABC and AL equal to each other (1,012,500 lbs). Shepherd Grimes stated that, while the Council was not required to set the ACL at the level recommended by the control rule, it should provide an explanation for why it did not use the recommendation. Given that it did not appear that the current Gulf ACL (725,000 lbs.) would be reached, and the control rule ACL recommendation was higher, there did not seem to be any need to deviate from the recommendation. A substitute motion was made to adopt the control rule recommended ACL.
By a voice vote with no opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that the Council instruct staff to develop a framework action to set the yellowtail snapper ACL consistent with the ACL control rule, 901,125 lbs.
Additional Socioeconomic SSC Comments (Tab B, No. 4)
Dr Steve Jacob gave a presentation on his work in developing an empirical predictive model of the social impacts of the reallocation of marine fisheries resources on communities in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. The study examined how allocation and reallocation may impact human well-being, using objective and subjective indices of well-being. The SESSC then moved to endorse the methodological contributions made by Dr. Jacob in conducting equity-based research, with respect to community wellbeing as affected by changes in landings.
Additional SSC Comments (Tab B, No. 22)
Sean Powers related that the SSC discussed a proposed reorganization of the Council’s SSCs from Steve Bortone to better include the Socioeconomic SSC in the regulatory process. The SSC was confused as to the best approach to take, but suggested that the best approach to resolve the process that was needed might ne to work through the process using shrimp as an example of incorporating socioeconomic analysis into the assessment model.
Dr. Powers also noted that the SSC, upon reviewing the schedule of meetings and webinars for upcoming gag and greater amberjack SEDAR assessments, objected to the large number of webinars (16 webinars) scheduled for the assessment. The SSC Chairman sent a letter to the SEDAR Steering Committee regarding this issue, which is attached to the SSC summary. SSC members felt that it was easier to schedule four straight in-person days than sixteen 1-hour webinars. One suggestion was to use a hybrid approach; webinars for preliminary preparation for the assessment, an in-person meeting for the actual assessment, and webinars for follow-up meetings. Bonnie Ponwith responded that, with an increasing number of assessments, there was a need to be efficient in terms of both costs and manpower, and webinars appeared to be the best approach. She noted that with in-person meetings, there was frequently down-time while the assessment scientists ran the model.
By a voice vote with no opposition, the Committee recommends, and I so move, that the Council request that the SEDAR Steering Committee meet again and review the planning on the gag assessment.
The SSC also discussed the options for scheduling SEDAR assessments (Tab A, No. 8), and endorsed the SEFSC recommended schedule. This would move the red snapper update assessment currently scheduled for 2014 to 2015. In 2014 there would instead be a double SEDAR session on data poor stocks, and a scamp benchmark assessment would be moved from 2015 to 2014. Roy Crabtree noted that the reason for holding a red snapper update assessment in 2014 was because the 2013 benchmark assessment would only have landings data through 2011 and would already be two years out of date by 2014. If the assessment was moved and an overharvest or other unplanned event occurred in 2013, there would be a need to be additional analysis in 2014 anyway. Committee members questioned the need for a data poor workshop at this time and asked what stocks were involved and whether they could be prioritized. Dr. Ponwith suggested that she could separate the data poor stocks into those that had enough additional information that they could be assessed using data poor techniques, and those without enough information to use those methods. The Committee did not make any recommendation as to which schedule to use.
Discussion on Exempted Fishing Permits Related to Reef Fish (if any)
Roy Crabtree reported that no reef fish related exempted fishing permit applications had been received.
Other Business
(The venting tool issue that was to have been discussed under Other Business was addressed during the Vermilion Snapper Regulatory Amendment discussion.
Permitting Issues With Respect to Headboat Vessel Capacity
Roy Crabtree noted that headboats have passenger capacities associated with their charter permits that state how many passengers they can carry when fishing. The certificates of inspection (COI) issued by the Coast Guard also specify passenger capacities. In some cases there can be multiple COI capacities for a vessel depending upon usage. When NMFS issues a charter permit for a vessel with a multi-use COI, it looks at the higher capacity. However, when transferring a charter permit, NMFS will not transfer a permit to a vessel that has a higher COI capacity than what the charter permit allows. In such cases, the vessel owner needs to have the COI reissued for a lower capacity. This hurts his ability to use the vessel for non-fishing purposes such as sightseeing cruises. It also creates an enforcement problem if the Coast Guard stops a vessel with different capacities on the COI and fishing permit since the Coast Guard need to determine how the vessel is being used. Another issue is that, due to changes in how the Coast Guard determines vessel capacity, COIs are being reissued with lower vessel capacities. If this results in a lower COI capacity than what the charter permit allows, NMFS will reduce the capacity on the charter permit. This can create a problem for a vessel owner who may want to transfer his permit at some future time since he can no longer transfer it to a vessel with the original capacity. This issue originally came up in June 2010 with respect to a vessel from Texas, and the issue has now come up again. This issue was going to be referred to the Law Enforcement Committee, but that has not happened. Dr. Crabtree suggested that the issue be put on the agenda in February for a joint Reef Fish/Mackerel Committee meeting.
SAFMC Actions on Transfer of Yellowtail and Mutton Snapper
Dr. Bortone reviewed the letter received from the South Atlantic Council on the transfer of management for yellowtail and mutton snapper (Tab B, No. 24a) and the Gulf Council’s response (Tab B, No. 24b). Mr. Cupka stated it would be ideal if the Gulf Council could give the South Atlantic Council an indication if they are interested in the transfer of management of these species, which would allow the South Atlantic Council staff to work on the issues brought up in 2010 such as the permitting and bag limit issues. Dr. Bortone suggested that the Steering Committee put together by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils could be convened to explore a joint fishery management plan first. When the Steering Committee is convened they could discuss several options including potentially developing a joint amendment or transfer of management to the South Atlantic Council. Ms. Bademan asked what the timeline was for convening this Steering Committee. Mr. Cupka and Dr. Bortone said that a doodle poll had been emailed and they would likely be convened soon.
ATTACHMENT
DRAFT ALTERNATIVES FOR VENTING RULE ACTION
Alternative 1: (status quo): At least one venting tool is required and must be used to deflate the abdominal cavities of Gulf reef fish to release the fish with minimum damage.
Alternative 2: At least one venting tool is required to be onboard and must be used as necessary to deflate the abdominal cavities of Gulf reef fish to release the fish with minimum damage.
Alternative 3: At least one venting tool is required to be onboard.
Alternative 4: At least one venting tool or fish descender device is required to be onboard. If a fish descender device is used to meet this requirement, it must be rigged and ready for use while fishing. A fish descender device is defined as a device designed to return a fish to a depth below the surface and release the fish at that depth with minimum damage. Types of fish descender devices include inverted weighted hooks, lip clamping devices, and containers that can hold a fish as it is returned to depth. All such devices must be rigged on a line that allows the fish to be lowered and released by operator action from the surface, or that automatically releases the fish at the sea bottom or at a pre-determined depth.
Discussion:
Alternative 1 is the current wording of the regulation. The alternatives in this action only refer to the portion of the regulation that is to be modified. The full regulation includes a description of a venting tool and how it should be used, as follows (if the use of venting tools is made optional, the phrase “must be inserted” may need to be revised, but that is a technical issue that the NMFS regulation writers can deal with):
This tool must be a sharpened, hollow instrument, such as a hypodermic syringe with the plunger removed, or a 16-gauge needle fixed to a hollow wooden dowel. A tool such as a knife or an ice-pick may not be used. The venting tool must be inserted into the fish at a 45-degree angle approximately 1 to 2 inches (2.54 to 5.08 cm) from the base of the pectoral fin. The tool must be inserted just deep enough to release the gases, so that the fish may be released with minimum damage.
Alternative 2 adds the words “as necessary” to the existing rule. This was the action that was requested under the abbreviated document process. A venting tool would still be required, but its use would be at the judgment of the fisherman. A venting tool would be required to be on board, but alternative devices, such as fish descenders, could be used as an alternative. On issue is that this alternative does not define what alternative devices might be acceptable. This could result in some fishermen resorting to inappropriate devices or methods, such as using a knife or hook point to puncture a protruding stomach.
Alternative 3 would delete all words in the sentence after “At least one venting tool is required”. Law enforcement officials have indicated that possession of a venting tool is enforceable, but its use, whether required or optional, is not. One issue is that this would allow fishermen to obey the letter of the law by possessing a venting tool, but without feeling that there is any obligation to use it.
Alternative 4 would allow either a venting tool or a fish descender device to be on board and would explicitly define what is meant by a fish descender device. Fish descender devices are more time consuming than venting devices, and generally must be rigged prior to use. Therefore, the alternative requires that, if fish descender devices are used to comply with the regulation, they must be rigged and ready for use while fishing. As with the previous alternative, one issue is that this would allow fishermen to obey the letter of the law by possessing a venting tool or descender device, but without feeling that there is any obligation to use it.