dlm: 1130/97

MINUTES

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH MEETING

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

JANUARY 15-16,1997

The one hundred and fiftieth meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) was called to order by Chairman Robert Shipp at 8:3 0 a.m., Wednesday, January 15, 1997. Council members in attendance were:

VOTING MEMBERS

PeteAparicio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas IrbyBasco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maumus Claverie Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Felicia Coleman Florida

Rod Dalton (designee for Andrew Kemrnerer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Marine Fisheries Service FrankFisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Foote (designee for James Jenkins) Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Scott Green .,: Florida

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip Horn Mississippi AlbertKing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alabama

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karl Lessard Florida R.VernonMinton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alabama

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hal Osburn (designee for Gene McCarty) Texas RobertShipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alabama

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roy Williams (designee for Russell Nelson) Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glade Woods Mississippi

NONVOTING MEMBERS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doug Fruge (designee for Noreen Clough) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LCDR Mark Johnson (designee for Timothy W. Josiah) . . . . . . . . . . Eighth Coast Guard District

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larry Simpson Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

STAFF

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wayne Swingle Executive Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard Leard Senior Fishery Biologist

AntonioLamberte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steven Atran Population Dynamics Statistician

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debbie McNair Transcription Specialist

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeanne Johnson Transcription Specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael McLemore NOAA General Counsel

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Wilma Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas Shrimp Association, Aransas Pass, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pamela Baker Environmental Defense Fund

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Bigford N O A A M S , Silver Springs, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dennis Boddman Fort Myers, Florida

Steve Branstetter . . . Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Tampa, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Campbell Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport, Texas

Bill Chauvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . American Shrimp Processors Association, New Orleans, Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry J. Cody Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julius Collins Texas Shrimp Association, Brownsville, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elliot Cundiff Freeport, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kim Davis Center for Marine Conservation, St. Petersburg, Florida

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul Dirk Port Aransas, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Dolf Milt's Seafood, Port Bolivar, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Eller Destin Charterboat Assoc., Destin, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tona Farley Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Ingleside, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conrad Fjetland U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico BillyFuls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R o c k p o r ~ , Tex as

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benny Gallaway LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gary Graham Texas A&M University, Galveston, Texas

Bobby Grumbles . . . . . . . . . . Fisherman's Wharf, Wharf Cat, and Scat Cat, Port Aransas, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan Gulley TLC Marina, Captain Quarters Inn,

. . . . . . . . . . Dolphin Docks, and the Corpus Cristi Big Game Fishing Club, Corpus Cristi, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maxie Hardwick Hubbard's Marina, Maderia Beach, Florida

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steven Holiman National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barry Irwin Alby's Seafood, Rockport, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Justen National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida

Judy Jarnison . . . . . . Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Tampa, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom McIlwain NOAA/NMFS, Pascagoula, Mississippi

AlMinns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pete Moffit . . . . . . . . . South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Swansboro, North Carolina

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carl Moore Fisherman's Wharf, Port Aransas, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Nance National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Nugent Port Aransas Boatmen, Inc, Aransas Pass, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maury Osborn N O A A M S , Silver Springs, Maryland

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. Parker St. Branswich, Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeromino Ramos Mexico City, Mexico

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tony Reisinger Texas A&M Marine Advisory Service, Corpus Christi, Texas . . . . . . Edward Schroeder Gulf Coast Party Boat and Charterboat Assoc., Inc., Galveston, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Smith North Atlantic Seafood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ed Thompson Palm Harbor, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph Villers Fort Myers Beach, Florida . . . . . . . . . John Williams Gulf Coast Party Boat and Charterboat Assoc, Inc., Galveston, Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kay Williams Save America's Seafood Industry, Pascagoula, Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Zirnrnerman National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston, Texas

Dr. Shipp read the opening statement and requested voice identification.

Adoption of A ~ e n d a

The agenda was adopted with the following changes: Maury Osborn's would give her presentation after public testimony. At the close of the day, have a brief closed session for the personnel committee.

A D D ~ O V ~ ~ of Minutes

The November 13-14, 1996, Point Clear, Alabama, Council minutes were approved with the following changes: Page 3, last paragraph, third line, substitute "effect" forC'affect." Page 17, second paragraph, third line, substitute "effective" for "effect of." Page 18, second paragraph, ninth line, substitute "Kernrnerer" for "emmerer." Page 25, fourth paragraph, seventh line, substitute "standardize" for "standard." Page 25, fifth paragraph, last sentence, Mr. Simpson indicated that "through an intercept

program, logbooks would also be used." Page 37, fifth paragraph, first line, delete "Woods" for the filing of the minority report.

Public Testimony

a. Texas Cooperative Shrimp Closure

Wilma Anderson, of Aransas Pass, Texas, and the Executive Director of the Texas Shrimp Association (TSA) stated that at a recent TSA board meeting the majority of the directors in attendance supported continuance of the Texas 200-mile closure for 1997. She reported that there was concern that in keeping this productive conservation measure of the recent turtle excluder device (TED) regulations and establishing special management zones off Louisiana and

Texas could trigger a "zone closure" should sea turtle stranding rise from the influx of out-of- state vessels in Louisiana and Texas during the closure time frame. TSA addressed this problem in a Sea Turtle Conservation Plan that would have reduced fishing effort within 6.2 statute miles off the Texas Coast. TSA felt this plan would have alleviated the problem of trawling and sea turtle interaction, W s h reduction, marsh stability, and resulted in economic benefit to the shrimp fishery. This conservation plan was rejected by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). She advised that should any zone closures occur in 1997, TSA would take this under consideration pertaining to the Texas Closure in 1998.

b. Reef Fish TACs

Ed Thompson of Palm Harbor, Florida, stated that he represented 25 partyboats and 40 charterboats throughout the entire Florida west coast from Naples to Steinhatchee. He felt the amberjack laws have not been equally impacting the recreational and commercial industries. He believed there was an over-abundance of amberjack, and he maintained that the 20-fish aggregate bag limit was an arbitrary number that was randomly chosen. He stated that when he was notified of the 20-fish aggregate bag limit, he felt it was such a low number that he did not take it seriously; therefore, he was not involved in the process. He noted that vessels he represented depended heavily upon grunts. He requested that grunts, lane snappers, pink porgies, and sea bass be taken out of the proposed 20-fish aggregate bag limit. He advised that there were so many fish that his half-day trips were catching just as many as the full-day trips in less time; therefore, the local residents would only pay for a half-day trip, and he would be losing money. He did not feel that his patrons would travel 3 !h hours to catch 1 amberjack. He believed that a two-fish bag limit was reasonable. He hoped that the Council would regionalize the laws and consider an emergency action on the 20-fish aggregate bag limit.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson how far offshore he fished for a full-day trip. Mr. Thompson replied that his boats run 50 to 60 miles offshore for their 12-hour trips. During his slow season, the 12-hour trip would regularly have 50 to 60 people. He added that 18 of his regular patrons have canceled indeiinitely due to the anticipated regulation changes. He reiterated that the larger amberjack were in trouble, but felt there was a significant number of smaller amberjack. Mr. Williams asked why Mr. Thompson had not attended any of the public hearings for addressing white grunts. Mr. Thompson responded that 90 percent of persons he represented did not know about the public hearing meetings; some were not on the Council's mailing list, and others simply were not properly notified. He stated that the remaining 10 percent of the captains felt the data was "absurd" and "blew off' the meetings. Mr. Williams asked what was the typical catch of white grunts. Mr. Thompson replied that his half-day boats have 30 to 35 grunts per stringer. He added that his half-day boats fish in state waters and would now be able to catch more grunts than his full-day trip boats, until the states adopt similar laws.

Mr. Osburn asked Mr. Thompson what was the average size of the amberjack that his boats caught. Mr. Thompson replied that 20 percent of the catch were throw-backs that measure under 28 inches; the remainder average 20 to 25 pounds. Mr. Osburn calculated that on average, Mr.

Thompson had 60 customers having catches of 60 to 75 pounds of fish; he asked if the customers were retaining the meat of their catches. Mr. Thompson concurred. Mr. Osburn noted that several Texas retirement communities operating from Galveston to Brownsville have headboats that operate at almost full capacity on five snapper per day. He asked Mr. Thompson if there was any evidence of his patrons selling their catch. Mr. Thompson responded that to the best of his knowledge they were not.

Mr. Swingle asked Mr. Thompson what was the average inch size of white grunts that were caught. Mr. Thompson stated that the white grunts were approximately as large as a person's hand. Mr. Swingle recalled that the size of first maturity for a white grunt was 10 inches, with a 50 percent maturity about 12 inches. He asked if Mr. Thompson would support a size limit. Mr. Thompson advised that he would support a size limit only if he also had a large bag limit. Mr. Lessard asked if Mr. Thompson also caught banded rudder fish. Mr. Thompson concurred stating that banded rudderfish were strongly targeted in December with minor targeting continuing through March.

Mr. Simpson asked Mi. Thompson for his evaluation on the relative importance of the experience of fishing to his clientele, versus the amount of fish they bring home, versus the cost. Mr. Thompson replied that a half-day trip would cost $25.00 to $27.00 including tax. They take out two different types ofpeople: Florida resident fishermen and tourists. He believed that 20 percent fished for the experience of fishing, 60 percent fish to bring a catch back, and 20 percent of local residents fish to bring a catch back. Mr. Simpson recapped that Mr. Thompson reported that 80 percent were meat fishermen and 20 percent were fishing for the experience. He asked why the meat fishermen would expend money to fish when fish could be bought at as little as $.70 per pound. Mr. Thompson replied that fishermen fish to personally catch their own fish. Mr. Simpson noted that then a small part of the meat fishermen were fishing for the experience. Mr. Thompson agreed.

Dr. Claverie asked for a distinction between charterboats and headboats. Mi-. Thompson responded that partyboats carry more than 6 passengers, and very few carry less than 80. Dr. Claverie asked if the boats were chartered as a whole or as individual slots. Mr. Thompson replied that occasionally companies would charter an entire boat; however, the majority of the boats were chartered as individual slots.

Mr. King stated that the Council was faced with the dilemma of how to divide fish among an infinite number of people. The Council enacted an aggregate bag limit for those species that a management measures were not yet available. He asked Mr. Thompson if he or persons he represented had considered limited access. Mr. Thompson did not favor limited access. Mr. King stated that either the number of participants or the catch had to be limited to protect the stock. Mr. Thompson maintained that his area had a great abundance of these stocks. He supported taking the white grunts out of the 20-fish aggregate bag limit, or adopting a separate bag limit for that species.

Mr. Basco asked if there was consistency of effort by the charterboats over the last few years. Mr. Thompson replied that he had been in the industry for 15 years; 6 of those years in the Palm Harbor location, and he felt there had been a consistent effort.

Mr. Williams asked what were the primary months for grunts, if the Council were to try to assist the fishermen. Mr. Thompson stated the white grunts were currently an annual season.

Mr. Lessard asked if a double-bag-limit was obtained on the 34-hour trips. Mr. Thompson concurred. Mr. Lessard asked if catches included any Spanish or king mackerel. Mr. Thompson replied only rarely.

Mr. Dalton requested for a percentage estimate of the reduction in revenue as a direct result of the 20-fish aggregate bag limit. Mr. Thompson replied that he was not an economist, and could not answer the question.

Mike Nugent of Aransas Pass, Texas, stated that he personally had operated a charter service out of Aransas Pass, Texas, since 1978. He also represented the 180 members of Port Aransas Boatmen, Incorporated, which had been in existence for over 60 years. He stated that he personally felt competition would keep the overall number of charterboats fairly constant. He did not feel the charterboat industry had a right to sell fish; charterboats should simply provide the opportunity for a recreational angler, that did not have his own equipment, to go out and catch a fish. He opposed limited access. His organization did concede that there was a problem with the large amberjack. He supported closing the commercial season during the three month spawning season to protect the larger fish. He offered using of a slot limit to protect the large spawners, as was done for the red drum fishery. The persons he represented did not catch very many vermilion snapper and supported the 10-inch size limit. He was not against conservation, but supported a gradual change in conservation approaches.

Mr. King stated that the Council was in the process of determining who would be allowed to retain their fish. He encouraged the fishermen and the industries to offer suggestions, views, and 'questions to assist the Council in determining the best possible decision. He noted that industry should learn and consider the various possibilities of limiting itself in a way that would be compatible with a continued livelihood. Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Nugent supported a closed season for amberjack. Mr. Nugent concurred.

Kim Davis of St. Petersburg, Florida, representing the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), stated that CMC was an organization dedicated to the conservation of marine resources, and had over 120,000 members. She stated that CMC was very pleased with the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). She reviewed the overfishing, bycatch, and essential fish habitat provisions outlined in the Magnuson- Stevens Act. CMC commended the passing of the red snapper bycatch amendment, and encouraged the timely implementation of the amendment. She stated there was a requirement and

responsibiity to reduce bycatch to the greatest extent practicable, which should be independent of any statistical arguments of snapper populations or stock assessments. She noted it was counter-intuitive to raise the total allowable catch (TAC) for red snapper when the spawning potential ratio (SPR) was an extremely low (2 to 4) percentage. CMC supported the establishment of reserves as a key to the long-term management of species. She favored the Council implementing changes over a period of time.

Mr. Basco asked how many of the 120,000 members were active fishermen. Ms. Davis replied that she would be able to provide that data at a later point in time.

Elliott Cundiiof Freeport, Texas, and operator of Captain Elliott's Partyboats, which had been in the fishery since 1968, stated that he was pleased with the conservation measures that have taken place since 1990. His boats were operating efficiently, and the bag limits have not adversely affected his business. He felt the red snapper fishery had improved. He encouraged enforcing a 2-fish bag limit for amberjack. He stated that a quota definitely needed to be established for the commercial sector. He felt the vermilion snapper fishery needed assistance before it approached an overlished state; it would need protection, a quota, and a bag limit. He did not like the dictated closure for the recreational fishery as outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Mr. King advised that ifthere had to be a division ofthe fish, he preferred that the division benefit the historical- charterboat operators. Mr. Cundiff indicated that the Council could readily attain that information by reviewing current permits. Mr. King asked Mr. Cundiff if he would be in favor of limited access. Mr. Cundiff replied that he potentially would be in favor of limited access.

Mr. Basco asked for Mr. CundifPs thoughts of possibly changing the red snapper recreational bag limit fiom 5 to 4 fish. Mr. Cundiff believed that a bag limit of less than five fish would harm the industry.

Mr. Osburn requested for ideas of what would work best socially and economically for the industry. Mr. Cundiff asked if the quota was reached for the recreational sector using the projections for 1996. Mr. Osburn concurred. Mr. Cundiff then asked how the landings for the recreational sector quota were counted. Mr. Osburn explained that the figures were an estimate. Mr. Cundiff stated that he did not want to layoff some of his employees because of figures that may be incorrect. Mi-. Osburn understood; he added that given the dilemma, he would like input and recommendations fiom the industry. Mr. Cundiifelt that changing vermilion snapper to have a 10-inch size limit may be of some help. He preferred a bag limit for the recreational sector, and a quota for the commercial sector. He expressed concern that fishing for bee-liners was killing red snapper, while the fishery was closed.

Dr. Claverie asked Mi-. Cundiff if he felt it would be better to increase the red snapper minimum size limit. Mr. Cundifresponded that for his particular operation and in his geographic location

he preferred increasing the minimum sine limit. He added that the expectation to catch many fish was the driving force to attract customers to his business. Dr. Claverie asked about closing the fishery for a few months out of the year. Mr. Cundiff discouraged that idea.

Dr. Coleman asked Mr. Cundiff if when he fished for vermilion snapper and had to release the caught red snapper, if those fish had a high mortality rate. Mr. Cundiff replied that few of the released snapper survive in the 150 to 180 feet of water. Mr. Cundiff stated that there was a healthy fishery of amberjack in his area; however, over the last few years he was advised of a large decrease in the amberjack catches by charterboats in Florida. He felt that a 3-fish bag limit was too many, but a 1-fish bag limit was too little. He felt that if the amberjack fishery was in trouble, then a study of the populations dynamics for amberjack should be conducted.

Mr. Horn asked Mr. Cundsifhe would support mandating logbooks for the for-hire industry t o assist in achieving more accurate data. Mr. Cunduff concurred.

Mr. Lessard advised Mr. CundEthat the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel (RFSAP) stated that vermilion snapper fishery needed to be reduced by about 58 percent to a 1.1 to 1.3 million pound (MP) fishery. Reduction of the bag limit for the recreational sector to 5 fish, could only curtail the catch by 20 percent. To curtail the catch by 50 percent, the bag limit would have to be lowered to 2 to 3 fish; this was the action recommended by the RFSAP. Mr. Cundiff felt this was a severe recommendation considering the stock was not yet overfished.

Johnny Williams of Galveston, Texas, representing Williams Partyboats, Incorporated and Gulf Coast Partyboat and Charterboat Association, '~ncorporated, related that those in the partyboat and charterboat industry were very concerned about changes in the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act. They were particularly concerned with effects of the mandate to close the recreational season when the recreational red snapper fishery quota was reached. He stated it was extremely difficult to accurately account for the recreational catch. He questioned why the Magnuson- Stevens Act created the Council if Congress was creating the rules and laws. He felt historical partyboats and charterboats should be protected. He offered having the charterboats closed during weekdays and operating on the weekends after the season closed. He offered no-retention of the catch by captain and crew. He requested to be open during the summer months, if a closure was enacted. He supported a quota on vermilion snapper. He suggested enacting a 3.1 MP commercial quota for the endorsed vessels, which would prevent the needless killing of red snapper when targeting vermilion snapper.

Mr. Osburn reported that the data Mr. Williams had referred to was from the state territorial 'waters, within nine nautical miles. There were very few surveys conducted because it was very dificult to interview everyone. He reported that the landings of charterboats for state waters were estimated, and there was a lot of variability.

Ed Schroeder of Galveston, Texas, representing Gulf Coast Partyboat and Charterboat Association, Incorporated, and Galveston Partyboats noted that he had been in business since

1959, and he stated that he was very concerned over the impacts of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. He requested that the Council establish protection for the historical for-hire recreational sector. He offered no-retention of the catch by the captain and crew, as long as there was supporting data. He proposed a non-differential increase in the size limit for both the commercial and recreational sectors. He strongly supported raising the TAC. He felt there were serious social equity issues, because it was very limited on how the average citizen of the United States could fish in the Gulf of Mexico without a large investment, unless they charter a boat. He emphasized that he was strongly for conservation; and added that customers would not pay money to travel 4 to 5 hours each way to catch 2 to 3 fish. He stated that the government should conduct studies to educate the fishermen about the species and environment, rather than asking the fishermen for that data.

Dr. Claverie asked ifthere were alternative species in that area. Mr. Schroeder replied that there were very few lane and vermilion snapper; and there was a 1-fish amberjack limit, a 2-fish king mackerel limit, and a 0-bag limit on red drum.

Mr. Minton asked, assuming there were not any bag limits or quotas, what would be the upper limit of what he would allow his fishermen to catch. Mr. Schroeder responded that the 7-fish bag limit for red snapper was very reasonable. He felt that fishermen who would want a higher bag limit than that were potentially attempting to sell their catch. Mr. Minton stated that others have also stated they preferred the 7-fish bag limit with a 14-inch size limit.

Mr. King clarified that the one-inch difference between the recreational and commercial sectors that Mr. Schroeder had referred to was turned down by NMFS, and currently there was not a difference in the size limits between the two sectors.

Dr. Shipp asked if the charterboats in Texas utilized a single- or double-hook, and if there were frequent double catches. Mr. Schroeder replied that there were only two partyboats out of the Galveston area, and both were using single-hooks. Dr. Shipp asked if there had been any discussion in using barbless hooks to improve release mortality. Mr. Schroeder replied no.

Kay Williams of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Vice President of Save America's Seafood Industry (SASI) suggested raising the TAC on red snapper to 10 MP. SASI felt this would help the recreational sector to stay within their quota, and it would help the vermilion snapper fishery, by taking a few red snapper vessels out of the system. SASI suggested setting the opening date for the second season on red snapper to begin September 2, at noon, with a two week on-and-off period, until the red snapper quota had been met. SAIS suggested that the size limit be reduced to 14 inches for both sectors. SAIS suggested not setting a TAC for vermilion snapper, because of the uncertainty of the data that was used in the stock assessment and favored status quo. The report showed that the recreational sector vermilion snapper catch had stayed relatively the same while the commercial landings were down. SAIS felt that if the size limit were raised, then a higher mortality would occur. There were four Canadian companies that exported vermilion from Louisiana; therefore, if a quota were enacted, then international trade would be adversely

affected. SAIS reported that there would be a decline in landings in the recreational sector on vermilion snapper with a 20 percent aggregate bag limit. SAIS stated that it had been predicted that with a 2 week on-and-off season for the commercial red snapper the fishery would be open for 7-plus months for 1998; SAIS felt this would alleviate pressure on the vermilion snapper. SAIS suggested that the ambe jack commercial size limit be reduced to 33 inches from the 36- inch-fork-length, or reduce the size limit to the 28-inch-fork-length that the recreational sector was under. Ms. Williams stated that Bob Zales, I1 had supported similar positions of SAIS for the greater amberjack rule and the 20-fish aggregate bag limit. She stated that she had contacted one of the senators and recited from a response letter advising direction on the stock rebuilding requirements contained in Section 109 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. She requested the Council to consider the biology of all of the managed fisheries.

Mr. Green requested Ms. Williams to clarrfL which senator had responded in the mentioned letter, and for cldcation for a portion of the letter. Ms. Williams clarified that Senator Trent Lott had stated it was ludicrous for NMFS's attorneys to interpret that the Magnuson-Stevens Act required an absolute mandate to rebuild a long-lived species such as red snapper in just ten years.

Mike Eller of Destin, Florida, representing 90 members of the Destin Charterboat Association (DCA) which had been in business since approximately 1955, stated that DCA was pro- conservation, and many of the members supplement their income through commercial fishing. He personally supported enforcing mandatory logbooks for all reef fish permit holders. He felt there was a common misconception by fishermen and DCA members that the Council had predetermined its decisions without equitable consideration of the fishermen's views. He noted that it was an individual's responsibility to stay current on issues that affect their livelihood; however, DCA would attempt to have representation at all fbture Council meetings to aide their members in remaining informed. DCA recommended adopting a 5-fish bag limit with a 14- to 20- inch lot limit on banded rudderfish and lesser amberjacks. This would remove these fish from the 20-fish aggregate bag limit and coincide with pending Florida state regulations. DCA recommended adopting a closed spawning season, or a quota, on the commercial amberjack fishery. DCA requested the Council to readdress the one-fish bag limit on amberjacks. DCA requested that the Council increase the red snapper TAC as recommended by the Reef Fish Advisory Panel (AP). DCA suggested that vermilion snapper be increased to a 10-inch minimum size limit in anticipation of fbture action to bring the vermilion fishery back to a healthy state. DCA requested the Council to exclude all species from the 20-fish aggregate bag limit except gray triggerfkh, vermilion snapper, and black sea bass. Mr. Eller felt these excluded species have been in a historically healthy state. He stated that Bob Zales, I1 supported the one-fish amberjack limit. Mr. Eller felt the fish were worth more to the recreational for-hire industry than to the commercial industry. He supported limited access only if that would be the best for the fishery.

Mr. Williams asked which fish would be most affected by the 20-fish aggregate bag limit. Mr. Eller stated that the vermilion snapper was 70-plus percent of the catch; however, with anticipation of restrictions, DCA fishermen also rely heavily on red porgies, lane snapper, and

black sea bass. DCA felt a 35-fish aggregate limit was reasonable. DCA did not want restrictions on vermilion snapper; however, DCA would support conservation efforts to save the stock.

Mr. Minton asked for the average sine of the vermilion snapper caught. Mr. Eller replied between 8 to 10 inches. Mr. Minton asked Mr. Eller for his view on release mortality. Mr. Eller responded that release mortality would vary depending upon the crew. If the crew cared, then they would take the time to make sure the fish would live, with a 90 percent survival rate.

Mr. Horn noted that Mr. Eller had stated that the commercial industry caught all of the larger amberjack. Mr. Horn clarified for Mr. Eller that the commercial industry was required by law to catch only the larger amberjack. Mr. Eller stated that he was in favor of lowering the commercial amberjack size limit to 34 inches if there was a quota or closed season.

Carl Moore of Port Aransas, Texas, representing Fisherman's Wharf, stated it would be very difficult to have customers pay to charter a boat for less than five fish. He stated that he rarely caught vermilion snapper; however, the few times that he did, they were 14-plus inches. He did not want a size limit imposed on red snapper; rather, he preferred fishermen to retain the first five red snapper caught, as some fishermen threw back smaller dead fish to replace them with larger fish. He supported Mr. Hella's testimony.

Mr. Osburn asked Mr. Moore for his opinion of fishing weekends only, if a fishery was facing a closure such as for the red snapper recreational fishery. Mr. Moore stated that the weekends were generally the most profitable; however, January through March the weekdays were the most profitable. Mr. Osburn asked Mr. Moore if fishing weekends only for November and December would harm his business. Mr. Moore replied that he would be opposed to closures unless that was the only way to save the stock.

The Council agreed to allow public testimony on bycatch reduction devices (BRDs).

Gary Graham of Galveston, Texas, was a Marine Fisheries Specialist with the Texas Sea Grant Program at Texas A&M University, noted that he had been very active with the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation (GSAFDF) as a Bycatch Coordinator. He stated that there were several separate kinds of BRDs, including an extended mesh and an extended funnel. He reviewed the effectiveness and the components of the two BRDs. Due to several factors, GSAFDF focused extensively on the effectiveness of fisheyes. A basic and simple fisheye cost approximately $20.00 and had been used in the industry; however, historically there was sigtllficant shrimp loss while using this gear. He felt that the success of implementation of a gear requirement depended on the options available to the industry. He felt that as fishermen notice the shrimp loss while using a fisheye, that fishermen may prefer to use a more intimidating gear such as the extended mesh. He expressed great concern that there was no longer an option for this gear to be used. The shrimp loss with a fisheye, to certain fishermen, was just not acceptable. He urged the Council to not be locked on only one gear type. He noted that scientists have been

actively trying to develop more options of gear types that would exclude fish while minimizing the shrimp loss.

Dr. Claverie asked how the Andrews TED was viewed as a possible BRD. Mr. Graham replied that the Andrews TED was installed into the mouth of the net so that the turtle would encounter that first, creating a net within a net. He stated that the Andrews TED was a tremendous exclusion device with a significant shrimp loss; however, he was not able to recommend the Andrews TED at this time.

Mr. Aparicio noted that a significant percentage of the shrimp fleet used the Andrews TED. Mr. Graham stated he was simply nervous about recommending that gear to the industry when in a year's time it could potentially be removed fiom the certzcation list. He continued that scientists were in the process of collecting catch information on various other devices.

Mr. Moffit asked Mr. Graham to expand upon any problems that he may be experiencing in the southeast. Mr. Graham stated that while he was in Georgia and Florida he spoke with fishermen who were perplexed at the losses, they were experiencing while using fisheye gear, some in excess of 30 percent. Mr. Moffit stated that he had used that device for approximately 4 years in North Carolina, and the vast majority (over 90 percent) of the operators would not remove their fisheyes if given the opportunity. Mr. Graham stated the variance in shrimp loss would depend on where the fisheye was placed within the net.

Mr. Williams asked if the Andrews TED was approved for Louisiana and Texas. Dr. Graham stated that he understood that the Andrews TED was only approved for certain zones excluding inshore areas. He clarified that the data he had reflected a 15 percent shrimp loss. Mr. Williams asked why the fishermen were more willing to except the shrimp loss with the Andrews TED, than with other gear. Mr. Graham replied that there was a loss with any TED, but he believed the fishermen felt they could do better with a combination of a BRD and a TED. Also, they did not feel that it would clog as badly as some of the other TEDs, since it was a bottom-shooting TED; some regions found it more difficult to use other types of TEDs due to clogging.

Mr. Aparicio asked what kind of bycatch reduction the Morrison TED had. Mr. Graham stated he did not have adequate data to respond to that question; however, some fishermen have stated they like the Morrison TED to exclude other species that were perceived to be problematic.

Mr. King reminded that a Brownsville shrimper stated during public testimony that he did not want any type of BRD. Mr. King continued that the shrimpers would know the additional information on time lost while clearing TEDs and/or BRDs. He noted that the testing of TEDs and/or BRDs has usually been in clear areas under optimum conditions, not under actual shrimping conditions.

Maury Osborn gave a presentation on the methodologies that would be used to assess charterboat landings of king mackerel (Tab K, No. 1).

Shrimr, Committee R e ~ o r t

Mr. King reviewed the Shrimp Management Committee Meeting Summary. He reported that:

Dr. James Nance presented an overview of the 1996 Texas Closure. He noted that brown shrimp continued to dominate catches off Texas and Louisiana followed by white shrimp, and he also described areas and months when peak production occurred. Dr. Nance also related data on production on size groups from May through August. With regard to distribution of catch and landings, Dr. Nance noted that Louisiana landings have been slightly higher than Texas since 198 1, and he noted that Texas landings were distributed among the lower, middle, and upper Texas coast with the majority (45 percent) occurring in the lower coast. Dr. Nance noted that environmental conditions contributed to the below average abundance and catch in 1996; however, the Texas closure in 1996 was estimated to increase yield per recruit for brown shrimp from between 16 to 38 percent depending on the natural mortality estimate. White shrimp catch was also below average.

Dr. Jeronimo Ramos presented an overview of the fisheries in Mexico noting increases in production in recent years for shrimp, tuna, and squid, with the majority (70 percent) coming fiom the Pacific Coast. With regard to the Gulf Shrimp Fishery off Mexico, Dr. Ramos described various management efforts that have been recently enacted and have served to either increase or stabilize production. He reviewed the effects of vessel limitation programs, vessel identification, gear restrictions, changes in ownership of the resource, cooperative monitoring and research efforts, and the establishment of the National Committee for the Management of Fisheries. In particularly, he noted the s t a b i g effect of recent seasonal closures implemented since 1993. He expressed the need to continue cooperative management and research efforts among Mexico, the United States, and Texas.

Dr. Leard presented the recommendations of the Shrimp Advisory Panel (AP) with regard to the Texas Closure for 1997.

Mr. King moved for the approval of the Shrimp Advisory Panel recommendation: that the Texas closure be maintained for 1997 to the 200-mile limit of the EEZ and that the Council not approve cooperative closures with Mexico at this time; Mexico could close its waters in conjunction with the United States Texas closure.

Mr. Williams asked why the Shrimp AP rejected cooperative closure with Mexico. Mr. King stated that NMFS would endeavor to cooperate with Mexico on enforcement of the two countries' respective closures. Also, dialogue would continue on the possibility of hture cooperative closures. Mexico had a longer closure period in certain areas, and there was concern that due to the migratory patterns, the American fisherman could be penalized by species moving across the border if the United States (U.S.) closure was extended.

Motion carried, with no objection, for the approval of the Shrimp Advisory Panel recommendation: that the Texas closure be maintained for 1997 to the 200-mile limit of the EEZ and that the Council not approve cooperative closures with Mexico at this time; Mexico could close its waters in conjunction with the United States Texas closure.

Mr. King continued the committee report: Dr. Leard reviewed the status of the time frame for submitting Amendment 9. He also noted that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) at its December 9-10, 1996 meeting had ratiiied its actions taken without a quorum at the October 29, 1996 meeting. With regard to the statistical review of the models used to estimate shrimp trawl bycatch of red snapper, Dr. Lamberte described the procedures used by the SSC in nominating statistical consultants and the staff selection process as directed by the Council. He also summarized the individual reports from the five statisticians that reviewed the data and models, and described the similarities, differences, and recommendations in the reports. He noted that the general linear model (GLM) model was favored by three consultants, the LGL model was favored by one consultant, and one consultant felt that the more conservative estimates of either model were most appropriate. All five consultants commented on the inadequacy of the data base. The three consultants who favored the GLM approach wanted to see at least some re-estimation of the model and gave suggestions on areas for improvement. It was also noted that NMFS and Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) were reviewing the comments with regard to the GLM and would report findings to the Council in March 1997.

Mr. King recalled that the committee considered a motion for a workshop to incorporate the concerns of these statisticians with the NMFS bycatch model that was not excepted. However, there was general agreement that this issue should be resolved. Mr. Dalton advised that NMFS was conducting an analysis in regard to those recommendations and would make them available to the SSC and Stock Assessment Panel (SAP). NMFS was not in favor of an independent workshop, as they preferred the process to stay within and utilize the available Council scientific entities. He pointed out there was already an independent red snapper stock assessment underway. The Magnuson-Stevens Act required hrther independent review of all science and management related to red snapper. In the spirit of cooperation, NMFS was willing for the SEFSC, LGL representatives, chairman of the SSC, and chairman of the RFSAP, to collectively meet and decide what types of analyses should be done with regard to the recommendations from the statisticians. Those analyses should then by reviewed by the SSC and RFSAP, so they may offer recommendations prior to the March 1997 Council meeting.

Mr. Horn asked who would be conducting the current independent red snapper stock assessment. Mr. Dalton replied that Brian Rothschild with the University of Massachusetts would conduct the assessment.

Mi-. Swingle requested the due date of the independent red snapper stock assessment. Mr. Dalton responded that it would be due no later than October, one year from the date of implementation.

Mr. King continued the committee report: The Committee did not address other recommendations of the Shrimp AP; however, it was requested that the Council consider these at this time (Tab D, No. 4):

Mi-. King advised that the Shrimp AP endorsed the minority report prepared by Mr. King, Mr. Horn, and Mr. Aparicio, and requested that it be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce as the position of the entire AP with regard to Amendment 9 with copies sent to Rollie Schmitten, the Gulf Council, and Gary Matlock. He noted that the AP would like to receive some type of correspondence reflecting how their recommendations were addressed.

Mr. Swingle asked ifthe Shrimp AP wanted the Council meeting minutes sent to them. Mr. King related that he advised the Shrimp AP the issues they were concerned about were covered within the minority report.

Mr. Aparicio expressed the seriousness of what the industry perceived to be a problem of inaccurate bycatch data, and the necessity for resolution of this problem. He preferred that the workshop be conducted with a mission statement outlining the urgent need of this resolution. He felt the same individuals and experts that were familiar with the model should review and re- compute the analyses using existing information as the current GLM data was believed to be flawed.

Mr. King advised that one of the statisticians, Dr. Charles E. Gates, was concerned about the skewed data. Mr. King moved to hold a workshop with NMFS, LGL, Shrimp AP chairman, SSC chairman, statisticians and others to decide the most appropriate way of addressing bycatch data.

Dr. Claverie asked how scientists could solve the inadequacy of a database. Mr. King responded that to his understanding there was a flawed methodology used in the computation of the catch per unit effort (CPUE). If port agents did not know the origin of a catch, they were permitted to estimate the location. Dr. Lamberte hrther explained that all of the statisticians noted the inadequacy of the database. They also noted it would take a long time to correct this situation because the sampling methodology had to be changed. Additionally, three of the five panel members noted that given the current database, the GLM would be the better method to estimate bycatch. Using the GLM, some re-estimations had to be done, and they suggested several ways of doing this.

Mr. Green felt that it would take additional years of data collection to moderate the various statistical problems that were pointed out. He stated that when the statistical panel last met, they only met briefly and addressed the problems on their own. He questioned what another workshop would accomplish.

Mr. Aparicio noted that there was the possibility that the bycatch numbers could change. However, he felt that industry would except the new data, no matter what the outcome, because industry simply wanted a resolution. He did not believe the process would be lengthy because the data was available, and the application of the data was the issue that needed to be resolved.

Mr. Green replied that some of the statisticians felt the data set was inaccurate; therefore, they would not be able to fix the problem.

Mr. Minton and Dr. Lamberte discussed the possibility of the statisticians coming together at a specified time for a workshop, and arrive at a singular method for the best compromised position and best interpretation of the present data.

After reviewing the reports, Mr. Simpson felt it would be beneficial for the statisticians to hold this workshop. The consensus throughout the statisticians reports were that some type of reanalysis should be conducted. He felt a reanalysis should be conducted to obtain accurate data regardless of the implications.

Mr. Dalton offered a substitute motion that center staff meet the RFSAP and LGL regarding the SPR review; collectively agree on additional analyses that need to be done; these analyses and SRP review be provided to SSC chairman and RFSAP chairman for review and recommendations prior to the next Council meeting.

Mr. McLemore advised of a procedural point about the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Given the range of participants specified in the original motion, a potential problem could be created under FACA. Therefore, the workshop should be structured as a joint RFSAP and SSC workshop that other people were invited to participate in.

Mr. Horn commented that the industry had been arguing and expressing concern over the currently used data for years. The model that would use this data has been challenged by the shrimp and red snapper industries. He felt this was an outstanding opportunity for this Council and/or NMFS to attempt to achieve better science.

Mr. Green noted that the minutes of the November 1996 Council Meeting stated: "Dr. Kernmerer offered a substitute motion that the Council hire 3 to 5 applied statisticians on a consulting basis to provide individual recommendations on the use of the transformations of the bycatch data." He believed this charged the statisticians to use logarithms to derive a specific number. Though the data was criticized, it was the best data available. He commented that this was a good starting point to improve the data for the future. He expressed concern of potentially delaying the implementation of BRDs. He offered an amendment: on additional analysis, if any, be done. Amendment failed due to lack of a second.

Mr. Dalton stated there was no intent in the motion to delay the Council's decision to submit Amendment 9 for implementation. This would be an additional meeting conducted during the

. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . .- I . . . I. ... ~. ... > _ ....,...... ... :_.

interim, however, if additional information surfaced during that meeting, then the Council would have the ability to withdraw Amendment 9.

Mr. McLemore noted that a federal employee could not meet with non-federal employees to make a decision for these analyses. He advised that the amendment could be structured as a joint SSC and RFSAP meeting and then invite these other participants, since the Council's RFS AP and SSC were exempt from FACA.

Mr. Aparicio asked Dr. Benny Gallaway if he had any concerns or problems with thestatisticians using the GLM. Dr. Gallaway explained the process in which the analyses should be done.

Mr. McLemore noted the phrase "collectively agree on additional analyses" meant a decision would be made. That process should happen within a situation where it did not trigger the FACA. The chairmen of each committee should not act on behalf of the committees. NMFS would be involved in that decision process with individuals that were not federal employees, making a recommendation that would be forwarded to a federal decision maker.

Mr. Dalton modified his substitute motion that center staff meet with the RFSAP and LGL regarding the SPR review; collectively agree on additional analyses that need to be done; these analyses and SRP review be provided to SSC and RFSAP for review and recommendations prior to the next Council meeting.

Mr. McLemore noted the verbiage was sufficient with the understanding that the RFSAP meeting was open to the public.

Mr. Sirnpson stated that this meeting would be a redundant effort of the Statisticians Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 8, 1997. He had concern that this modified substitute motion would negate the original motion of the independent group's suggestion.

Mr. King felt the modified substitute motion was following the proper track and would appropriately address the concerns and questions of people. Modified substitute motion carried.

Closed Session

The Council session was closed to discuss personnel issues. In the closed session the Council authorized the Personnel Committee to act on its behalf in considering and responding to Mrs. Readinger's request for a retroactive raise, and that they convene at a meeting in Tampa as soon as possible for that purpose.

Reef Fish Committee Report

Mr. Minton reviewed the Reef Fish Management Committee Meeting Summary. He reported that:

The meeting began with three standing members present, plus Council Vice-Chairman, Frank Fisher, acting as an ex-officio member until additional committee members arrived. The committee agreed by consensus to defer discussion of the Options Paper for Drafi Reef Fish Amendment 15 to the full Council.

Red S n a o ~ r : Mr. Horn moved to adopt, for the second portion of the 1997 commercial red snapper season, a two-week open, two-week closed approach. He felt that this would extend the season, allow fishermen a chance to do routine maintenance during the closed periods, and alleviate fishermen's perceptions that they have to fish even under adverse conditions since there would be other opportunities if they missed the current two-week period.

Mr. Minton moved that the 1997 commercial red snapper fishery be divided into two seasons, as in 1996, with the second season operating as two-weeks open, two-weeks closed, until the quota is filled.

Mr. Swingle asked if the 2-week period translated into the first 14 days of each month. Mr. Minton replied that the intent of the motion was for the season to begin on September 2, ,1997, a Tuesday. Therefore, the first 14 days would start on that Tuesday and run 14 calendar days.

Mr. Williams asked if this would be interpreted as the first 14 days of each month. Mr. Horn replied that would be true only if the next motion would pass.

Mr. Atran noted that the first 2 weeks of each month would be different than the proposed intent of Zweeks on 2-weeks off.

LCDR Johnson pointed out that the Reef Fish AP had recommended a similar motion to open the season the first 14 days of each month, when reviewing Options Paper 15. He preferred that language because it would avoid unnecessary conksion.

The Council reviewed various scenarios of opening dates and options.

Mr. Williams offered a substitute motion that the second half of the 1997 red snapper commercial season will open from noon on the 1st day of the month through the 14th day of the month, except for September when the initial opening will be from noon on September 2nd through September 14th, until the quota is filled.

Mr. Minton questioned what specific time the season would close. Dr. Shipp advised it would presumably close at midnight.

Dr. Claverie felt midnight would be difficult to enforce. LCDR concurred, and felt it would be in the best interest of the Council to have a noon closure.

Dr. Shipp gffered a modified substitute motion (changes underlined): that the second half of the 1997 red snapper commercial season will open from noon on the 1st day of the month through noon on the 15th day of the month, except for September when the initial opening will be from noon on September 2nd through noon on the September 15th , or until the quota is filled. Modified substitute motion carried.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report; The committee also discussed the Red Snapper AP's recommendation to move the opening of the second season to September 2, to avoid adverse weather and to obtain better prices, but to avoid user conflicts on Labor Day weekend. The committee also discussed the AP's recommendation to set the time of opening at 6:00 a.m. instead of 12:Ol a.m. in order to make it easier to identify illegal fishing. It was pointed out that September 2, 1997 is on a Tuesday, and that the 14 day time periods for the recommendation would begin on Tuesdays.

Mi-. Minton moved that the second season of the 1997 commercial red snapper fishery open on September 2, a t 12:OO noon.

This committee motion became moot, as it was incorporated into the previous substitute motion.

Mr. Green asked when the fist half of the 1997 red snapper season opened. Mr. Swingle advised it would automatically open February 1, as outlined in Reef Fish Amendment 13.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report: Vermilion S n a m : The Committee noted that the Socioeconomic Panel (SEP), Red Snapper AP, and the Reef Fish AP recommended against setting a vermilion snapper TAC. However, committee members felt that something needed to be done to reduce the harvest rate. Committee members disagreed with the RFSAP recommendation that size limits were not an effective way to manage vermilion snapper. They noted that at low release mortality, maximum yield per recruit occurs at 10 inches. They also noted that a substantial portion of the fishery appeared to be on fish less than 10 inches, and he felt that a 10-inch size limit would slow the harvest rate. In the absence of a TAC, a change in the siie limit would need to be done through a plan amendment, and could possibly be made part of Reef Fish Amendment 1 5.

Mr. Minton moved that the vermilion snapper minimum size limit be raised to 10-inches total length through a plan amendment.

Dr. Coleman commented that the yield per recruit analyses were based on either 25 or 33 percent release mortality which was an assumption. At the depths that most fishermen caught it would be highly unlikely that those fish would do very well after release. She felt that raising the size limit on vermilion snapper would not protect the fish.

Mr. Williams noted that it had been alleged that the majority of the smaller vermilion snapper came from the Florida area. He asked Mr. Eller if the Council were to endorse a 10-inch minimum size limit, would the charterboat fishery be able to avoid these fish. Mr. Eller replied that the vermilion snapper would be unavoidable by the charterboat industry. He added that the commercial sector typically fished in waters over 100 feet deep, and the common size fish caught would be 8 inches.

Mr. Dalton noted that a 10-inch minimum size limit would be better than no action; however, he agreed with the concerns expressed by Dr. Coleman that a 10-inch minimum size limit may not be effective given the discard mortality. He recalled that one gentleman had stated during public testimony, that the average size of fish caught was 13 inches. He felt the intent of the Magnuson- Stevens Act was to take a more aggressive approach to prevent overfishing. He believed that if a more significant action was not taken now then a more drastic action may have to be taken in the future.

Mr. Dalton offered a substitute motion to request that the SEFSC andlor the RFSAP provide management options (TAC, bag limits, size limits, etc.) that could be phased in over a 2 to 3 year period to prevent reaching the overfished condition. Such options are to be considered at the next Council meeting.

Dr. Shipp noted that in a previous discussion with Dr. Kemmerer, that stock assessment also denoted'the role of externalities and the distinct possibility that with the increase in red snapper stocks there may not be anything the Council could do. He thought the motion should infer some analysis of the role of predator-prey relationships in managing that stock.

Mr. Horn stated that the traditional vermilion snapper commercial harvester would fish in deeper water to catch larger fish. He noted there had been an increase in harvest in the Pensacola area. He reviewed statistics in the Status of the Vermilion Snapper Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico: Assessment 3.0 document (Tab B, No. 4). He expressed his opposition to the substitute motion, as he preferred going through a plan amendment process of attaining more information. He felt a 10-inch minimum size limit would slow the overfishing process.

The Council discussed release mortality ratios for vermilion snapper in deep and shallow waters.

Mr. McLemore pointed out that this motion did not preclude the previous motion, and the Council would be able to broaden the range of alternatives to be considered.

Mr. Osburn felt the 2 to 3 year phase-in was a good idea. He would also like to have options on a joint management plan and information provided to include consideration of predator-prey relationships and multi-species management; making the commercial seasons for vermilion snapper and red snapper concurrent. He favored moving forward to develop options, but he did not feel it should preclude moving forward with a planned amendment.

Mr. Williams asked, since one-third of the total harvest was fished by the recreational fishery, how much of the overall problem would be solved by increasing the minimum size limit. Dr. Shipp replied that it was clear that vermilion were not yet overfished; however, there was a prediction vermilion snapper would be overfished within three years. Also, there was some uncertainty of how vermilion snapper fit within the whole reef fish complex; there was the possibility, fishing pressure may not be the cause of the problem. He related the various panels felt that nothing drastic should be done until the cause of the problem was determined.

Mr. Horn reiterated that a 10-inch minimum size limit through a plan amendment was a good starting point.

Mr. Dalton modified the substitute motion: to request that the RFSAP, with assistance from the SEFSC staff, provide management options (TAC, bag limits, size limits, etc.) That could be phased in over a 2 to 3 year period to prevent reaching the overfished condition. The information provided should also include consideration of predator-prey relationships and multi-species management, e.g., making the commercial seasons for vermilion snapper and red snapper concurrent. Such options are to be considered at the next Council meeting. Modified substitute motion carried.

Mr. Horn moved to raise the vermilion snapper minimum size limit to 10-inches total length through a plan amendment.

Dr. Shipp asked the Council if the preference was to include this action as part of Reef Fish Amendment 15. Mr. Horn replied that he hoped this would not complicate or delay the amendment if included as part of Reef Fish Amendment 15.

Mr. Swingle advised there should not be any problems with including this action as part of Reef Fish Amendment 1 5.

Mr. Williams stated that he supported the motion, as this may improve the stock. He also reported that the South Atlantic Fishery management Council (SAFMC) imposed size limits and recreational bags limits for vermilion snapper, which did not achieve the desired results. The vermilion snapper had continued to deteriorate even with imposed restrictions, and was currently overfished. Motion carried.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report: Amberjack: Mr. Williams stated that he disagreed with the conclusion of the greater amberjack stock assessment, that the SPR had increased since 1990 from 14 to 34 percent. In four state public hearings, no one attending felt the stock had doubled or tripled. He felt that something needed to be done to reduce the commercial harvest, and that a closed season during March, April, and May would be more enforceable than a quota. Mr. Horn disagreed, noting that the commercial size limit was above the maturity level while the recreational size limit was below the maturity level. He also felt it was unfair to close the commercial fishery but not the recreational. Mr. Atran pointed out that the ambe jack stock assessment showed those three months to be peak harvest periods, but Mr. Williams stated that in Florida, landings were flat from month to month. A motion to close the commercial greater ambe jack fishery during the months of March, April, and May failed by a vote of 2 to 3.

Mr. Williams then noted that the SAFMC often conducted scooping hearings prior to proposing regulations, and suggested that the Council do the same with amberjack. Mr. Swingle stated that scooping hearings could be piggybacked on to the Reef Fish Amendment 15 public hearings.

Mr. Minton moved that the Council conduct scooping hearings on all of the amberjack species to solicit comments on the present status of stocks, the need for regulation, and what regulations are needed (quotas, bag limits, size limits, license limitation, etc.).

Mr. Williams felt the landing statistics in the amberjack stock assessment for Florida were incorrect. The landings from the Florida trip ticket system were not similar to the landing statistics of the assessment. He believed the three-month closure would be effective. He favored having a closure for ambe jack being included as part of Reef Fish Amendment 15. He felt some consideration should be given to increasing the bag limit for amberjack caught by headboats. Also, include 5 fish, 14 to 20 inches in length for banded rudderfish and lesser amberjack as proposed by the fishermen at the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission's public hearings as scooping meetings would delay implementation.

Dr. Shipp pointed out those public hearings offered information suggesting regional influence on amberjack stocks. Amberjack stocks were not as migratory as once thought, suggesting the possibility of regional problems. He preferred scooping meetings to provide a comprehensive view.

Mr. Williams asked when would future regulations take affect if scooping hearings were allowed. Mr. Swingle responded that the Council would have to decide when to proceed with a subsequent amendment. Reef Fish Amendment 15 could not be delayed beyond May 1997; final action had to be taken on license limitation. He gave a brief description of the time line of actions.

Mr. ~ 6 r n asked what would be the anticipated outcome of scooping meetings. Mr. Williams replied that the general public, at least off the Florida coast, reported there had been a decline in amberjack, which was contrary to the assessment.

Mr. Horn felt that only very limited, if any, new information would be derived from the fishermen at scoping meetings. He preferred avoiding micro-management. He believed that if it were a localized problem, then the Council would be limited to establishing more lines to manage the problem. He suggested establishing a different amendment, but have corresponding public hearings. A separate amendment would allow for more time to correct alleged problems.

Mr. Minton reviewed the data within the assessment in question (Tab B, No.5, Table 4). He stated arnberjack was roughly 47 percent of the total landings for March, April, and May of 1995, which was a dramatic cut. Mr. Swingle noted he calculated 42.15 percent for those same months.

Mr. Lessard recalled that the industry preferred an increased size limit rather than having a TAC of 1.5 MP. Reviewing trends in landings, he thought the industry may prefer to go back to having a TAC rather than having a seasonal closure.

Mr. Minton showed a video that was part of the Standard Trap Set Independent Fishery Survey being conducted through Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP), The video outlined an artificial reef constructed from a bridge span. He noted there were red snapper and several schools of smaller fish; many of those smaller fish were vermilion snapper that recruited to the reefs. Vermilion snapper did recruit to the artificial reefs at approximately 2 to 3 inches, entering a very hostile environment in terms of predators. He reviewed the predator- prey complex relationship of the species.

The Council reviewed which species and options would be addressed in Reef Fish Amendment 15 and ReefFish Amendment 16, due to time constraints of implementing Reef Fish Amendment 15.

Mr. Green offered a substitute motion to initiate Reef Fish Amendment 16, to conduct scooping hearings on all of the amberjack species to solicit comments on the present status of stocks, the need for regulation, and what regulations are needed (quotas, bag limits, size limits, license limitation, etc.).

Mr. Green noted that if any issue in ReefFish Amendment 15 delays the implementation, then that should be then transferred to Reef Fish Amendment 16. Substitute motion carried.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report: Recreational Red Snaoper Quota Closure: Mr. Atran presented alternatives for red snapper recreational quota authorization. The committee discussed whether to modifjr Alternative 1 to authorize the Regional Administrator to reduce recreational harvest as it approaches its allocation instead of closing it completely, but could not come up with

specitic details. Mr. Williams recommended that Alternative 1 be modified to apply only in the EEZ because he felt it was unfair to impose federal restrictions on state waters. A motion to amend Alternative 1 to apply only in the EEZ passed by a 4 to 1 vote.

Mr. Minton moved that the Council adopt an amended version of Alternative 1: The recreational red snapper allocation of TAC shall be considered to be a quota, and the Regional Administrator is authorized to close the recreational fishery in the EEZ, i.e., reduce the bag limit to zero, through notice action at such time as projected to be necessary to prevent the recreational sector from exceeding it's allocation for the remainder of the fishing year.

Mr. Basco asked if the Regional Administrator's only alternative was to close the fishery. Mr. Swingle reported that was mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Mr. Basco asked when the Regional Administrator would be allowed to implement an action other than closing the fishery. Mr. Swingle responded there was some discussion of that during committee; the states indicated they would have a difficult time implementing compatible rules if the bag limit was subsequently reduced to four fish or other figure.

Mr. Green supported this motion. He requested that NMFS make a presentation to the Data Collection Committee at the next Council meeting, and explain what mechanism they have used to estimate the red snapper recreational catch during the year. The Council agreed by consensus.

Mr. Williams recalled that Johnny Williams suggested that if there was a closure then the fishery should not reopen until March 1 of the following year. Motion carried.

Mr. Green moved to recommend that NMFS explain to the Data Collection Committee the procedure for monitoring and projecting recreational red snapper landings and closing the fishery (reducing bag limit to ,zero) a t the next Council meeting. Motion carried by consensus.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report: Mr. Atran reviewed an additional section of the Options Paper 15 on separation of recreational and commercial sectors. He stated that he had included this section because of a question of the equity of allowing commercial vessels access to both the commercial and recreational quotas while recreational vessels only had access to the recreational quota. Committee members discussed whether allowing a recreational bag limit on commercial vessels created a loophole for sale ofarecreationally caught red snapper. LCDR Johnson felt that allowing the recreational limit could provide a loophole. Mr. Lessard stated that he and other commercial fishermen wanted to be able to take family members recreationally fishing in their commercial vessels. Some committee members questioned whether the additional wording in the status quo alternative would allow commercial vessels to sell their recreational harvest of red snapper when the commercial

season closed, and suggested that status quo, without any additional wording, be recommended.

Mr. Minton moved that with respect to recreational harvest of red snapper from commercial vessels, status quo.

Mi-. Minton clarified that when the commercial season was closed, and the recreational season was open, commercial vessels would be allowed to retain a bag limit per person aboard the vessel, but not be able to sell that catch.

Mr. Osburn asked Mr. Dalton ifthere was language that would preclude commercial vessels from landing any snapper at all when their season was closed. Mr. Dalton replied that he was not familiar with the specific letter. He noted that the way the regulations were currently written, commercial vessels could retain the bag limit but not sell the bag limit.

Mr. Osburn noted that Texas eliminated a loophole by excepting compatibility, and this motion would recreate a problematic loophole for the state of Texas. Mr. Horn replied that the argument was for Texas to stop the sale of bag limit caught fish.

Dr. Shipp noted that a motion was not needed to maintain status quo. Motion deemed,to be moot, that with respect to recreational harvest of red snapper from commercial vessels, status quo.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report: MRFSS Economic Ouestionnaire Workshop: Dr. Holiman presented a report on the NMFS Southeast Region Recreational Economic Survey and Demand Workshop that was held in Clearwater, Florida, on November 7-8, 1996. The purpose of this workshop was to produce survey and modeling recommendations for a socioeconomic survey to be conducted in the southeast region. The survey was being designed to cover eight species: red drum, spotted sea trout, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, red snapper, gag, red grouper, and cobia. Some committee members suggested that spotted sea trout, which was not under federal jurisdiction, be replaced with greater amberjack because of the Council's concerns about amberjack. However, Mr. Williams pointed out that the states were also dependent on the survey, and spotted sea trout was a valuable species to states. Committee members then suggested adding greater amberjack to the existing list without removing any species, if possible, and address the issue of removing species from the list only if that cannot be done.

Mr. Minton moved that the Council recommend to NMFS that greater amberjack be added to the economic survey.

Mr. King asked how an economic evaluation could be provided for a species (red drum in the EEZ) for which Council did not allow a harvest. Mr. Swingle replied that red drum was not only

a Council managed species, but also a very important species to the states, as the third highest caught species in some state waters.

Motion c a m 4 that the Council recommend to NMFS that greater amberjack be added to the economic survey.

Mr. Minton continued the committee report: Due to time constraints, the remaining items on the agenda were deferred to the fill Council.

Sea Bass Fishery Options

Mr. Atran reviewed the Options for Sea Bass Pots document (Tab B, No 17).

The Council reviewed whether the sea bass trap fishery was prosecuted entirely in the state of Florida, and if the state of Florida could regulate this fishery.

Mr. Williams moved to remove all species of sea bass, grunts, and porgies from the fishery management plan, and allow the state to regulate them.

Mr. McLemore pointed out a new provision within the Magnuson-Stevens Act that would allow the Council to delegate management to a state.

Mr. Dalton asked if the extent of the landings for grunts and porgies was know, for the state versus federal waters. Motion carried, by a vote of 9 to 5, with Mr. Dalton abstaining.

Mr. Williams reviewed a letter from the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) referencing fish trap issues, and the December 18, 1996, Press Release issued by the Florida Marine Patrol. Mr. McLemore indicated it was improper to discuss a case that had not been adjudicated. Mr. Williams emphasized that fishermen viewed compliance with the fish trap regulations as strictly voluntary. He noted that there was currently a legal case pending, and after disposition of the case, he would like for the Council to review a video.

MEETING RECESSED AT 5:05 p.m., Wednesday, January 15,1997. MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:00 a.m., Thursday, January 16,1997.

Draft Amendment 15 Options Paper

Mr. Swingle reviewed the proposed Options Paper for DraR Reef Fish Amendment 15 for a license limitation system (Tab B, No. 15), and the recommendations of the SSC, SEP, and AP.

Mr. Basco asked if the fishermen holding a Class 3 (C3) license were required to report 2,500- pounds that were caught during a specific group of years. Mr. Swingle replied that C3 licensees

would have to land at least that amount in two of three years, 1990-1992, to attain a license. This reduced the number of participants to 192. The number that would participate under Section 6.1 Alternative 1 would have been 266.

Mr. Horn felt that a considerable amount of change at one time would be counterproductive. He did believe that the number of permit holders needed to be substantially reduced; however, h e encouraged leaving the endorsement holders as they were, and review Class 2 (C2) license options.

Mr. Swingle reminded the Council that they were simply selecting their preferred alternatives prior to submitting Reef Fish Amendment 15 to the public.

Mr. Osburn believed the Council should review the options that the industry as a whole agreed upon. He preferred following the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Red Snapper AP (Ad Hoc AP), as the Ad Hoc AP was created specifically to accumulate the overall recommendations of the industry.

Dr. Shipp agreed with Mr. Osburn. He moved to adopt Section 6.1 Alternative 8(a): modify the eligibility criteria and initial trip limits of Alternative 1 to provide for up to three classes of licenses. Other eligibility provisions of Alternative 1 will apply, including issuing licenses to qualifying owners and operators and to historical captains. The date for eligibility under "current" permit or endorsement would be changed to May 26,1994 (i.e. publication date of proposed rule for Amendment 9). No vessel will be issued more than one license.

Mr. Minton recalled that the Ad Hoc AP made a motion at the December 12, 1996 meeting (Tab B, No. 16), that carried by a vote of 10 to 2 to adopt the three-tiered system.

Mr. Dalton re-emphasized the eligibility date fell during the closed season for Section 6.1 Alternative 8(a), and could inadvertently exclude an endorsement holder who had leased his reef fish permit simutaneously with his endorsements. He urged the Council to consider setting an eligibility date that would fall within the open season.

Dr. Shipp modified his motion (modification underlined) to adopt Section 6.1 Alternative 8(a): modify the eligibility criteria and initial trip limits of Alternative 1 to provide for up to three classes of licenses. Other eligibility provisions of Alternative 1 will apply, including issuing licenses to qualitjling owners and operators and to historical captains. The date for eligibility under "current" permit or endorsement would be changed to March 1.1994. No vessel will be issued more than one license.

Mr. King asked if the majority of the people who did not qualifjr for the 2,000-pound trip limit endorsement would be included into the system. Mr. Swingle responded that there was testimony at the public hearings that fishermen could not make a profitable trip with the 200-pound

litation. The new level (500 pounds) would basically franchise the marginal persons who had some dependence on red snapper between 1 990- 1992.

Mr. Horn commented that approximately 60 people who had harvested approximately 2,000 pounds per trip under the endorsement system would have to reduce their harvest by at least 50 percent.

Mr. Swingle stated there was at least one scientific paper by Dr. Jim Waters who conducted an economic survey of people who participated in the reef fish fishery. He classified 18 percent of the endorsement holders as low volume producers.

Modified motion rarried by a vote of 11 to 4, to adopt Section 6.1 Alternative 8(a): modify the eligibility criteria and initial trip limits of Alternative 1 to provide for up to three classes of licenses. Other eligibility provisions of Alternative 1 will apply, including issuing licenses to qualifying owners and operators and to historical captains. The date for eligibility under "current" permit or endorsement would be changed to March 1,1994. No vessel will be issued more than one license.

Dr. Shipp moved to adopt Section 6.2 Alternative 4 as a Preferred Alternative: A red snapper license is a license for a specified vessel that is issued to the qualifier for the license, i.e., an owner, income qualifying operator, or historical captain. The vessel for which the license is issued will be specified by the qualifier. If issued to an income qualifying operator or historical captain, the license is valid only when that operator or historical captain is aboard, until it is transferred to a new owner (see Section 6.4). Such license is transferrable independently of a reef fish vessel permit.

Mr. Osburn requested that Dr. Lamberte explain the rationale for why the SEP preferred Section 6.2 Alternative 1.

Dr. Lamberte explained that the SEP's rationale was for the ease of transferability of licenses. The fewer restrictions imposed on the transferability of licenses, the more efficient the system becomes.

Mr. Osburn was curious why the industry would not want that ease; he asked if there was concern about abuse. Mr. Swingle replied that the Ad Hoc Red Snapper AP was largely influenced by the fact that NMFS felt that was the better system. They pointed out it was not significantly different than the current system.

Dr. Claverie presented a scenario that if his vessel was permitted, and he was not permitted, would he be able to use another vessel in the event his permitted vessel did not work. Mr. Swingle advised that he would if the other vessel had a reef fish vessel permit, because reef fish could not be commercially landed without a permit. Dr. Claverie asked if a permit would be assigned to a vessel or a person. Mr. Swingle replied that under Alternative 4 it would be to a

person in the name of a vessel, and NMFS would have to record the transfer to another vessel for the permit to be legal. Dr. Claverie stated that under either system it would be unlikely that he could use the other boat. Mr. Swingle stated under Section 6.2 Alternative 1, if he was issued, as an individual, the red snapper license, and if transferred to the other boat that had a reef fish vessel permit, then he would have been allowed to use the alternative vessel. Under Alternative 4, the owner of the vessel could have any operator of his choice operate the vessel. He further explained that if the license was issued to an income qualifjring operator, then that person must be aboard the vessel.

Mr. Sirnpson felt this may be a situation where the Council may want to move forward with two preferred alternatives, since there seemed to be a split in public opinion.

Mr. King believed that all commercial vessels were required to have a logbook; and NMFS would not be able to track which vessel caught what fish if the license was issued to the individual.

Mr. Dalton felt it would be particularly important that enforcement have an authorized list of all vessels. NMFS strongly urged the Council to issue permits to vessels rather than individuals.

Mr. Osburn asked why NMFS allowed the issuing of permits to individuals in Reef Fish Amendment 8. Mr. Dalton replied that he was not involved in the process during Reef Fish Amendment 8, and could not specifically answer ifthe same concerns were expressed during that process.

Mr. Swingle advised that enforceability would have been slightly different; each person would have been given an ITQ share and coupons in equivalent denominations of pounds. He explained that those coupons accompanied the fish landed, and could have been traded to any person.

Mr. McLemore added that there was still a separate license or permit for the vessel.

Mr. Osburn asked Ms. Williams to clan@ why the Ad Hoc AP had made a motion to recommend the adoption of Section 6.2 Alternative 4. He questioned why it was stated in the minutes that there was opposition to this motion; however, the motion still passed unanimously. Ms. Williams replied that the Ad Hoc AP felt that since NMFS endorsed Alternative 4, it would pass more easily than Alternative 1.

Mr. Osburn stated that he preferred the Ad Hoc AP vote in support of what they thought should happen and not what they felt would probably happen.

Motion carried by a vote of 9 to 6 to adopt Section 6.2 Alternative 4 as Preferred Alternative: A red snapper license is a license for a specified vessel that is issued to the qualifier for the license, i.e., an owner, income qualifying operator, or historical captain. The vessel for which the license is issued will be specified by the qualifier. If issued to a n income qualifying operator or historical captain, the license is valid only when that operator or historical captain is aboard, until it is transferred to a new owner (see Section 6.4). Such license is transferrable independently of a reef fish vessel permit.

Dr. Shipp moved to adopt Section 6.3.l(a) as the Preferred Alternative: In instances where the catch records of a vessel upon which a historical captain served were used to qualify a vessel for a license, alternatives are: the historical captain and owner each would be issued a separate Class 1 license. Motion carried with one abstention.

Dr. Shipp moved to approve Section 6.4 Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative: licenses may be transferred without restrictions.

Mr. McLemore commented that there was a new provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that prohibited the consolidation of licenses or permits in the red snapper fishery that would in any way have resulted in different trip limits for the same vessel.

Mi-. Swingle advised that this measure was included in the appendix as a rejected measure.

Dr. Claverie felt that his decision for supporting an alternative from Section 6.4 would depend upon the selected preferred alternative for Section 6.5.

Mi-. Minton reminded that the Council was simply selecting preferred options to go forward to public hearings, and the Council could change these preferences at a later point in time, if necessary.

Mr. Swingle stated that the SEP and AP had considered the issue of a single entity aquiring all the licenses. There would not be any restrictions on transferability and no limitation on ownership. It would have been very unlikely that a monopoly would have developed. In the event that a monopoly did develop, then other laws would have been applicable. Also, since many people use corporations, it would be very difficult to determine the actual owner of a corporation. Motion carried with no objection.

Dr. Shipp moved to adopt Section 6.5 Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative: place no limitation on ownership. Motion carried with no objection.

Dr. Shipp moved to adopt Section 6.6 Alternative 1: the landings records for the 1990-1992 period (or subsequent period, if applicable) are retained by the permittee if the permit was transferred to additional vessels owned by the permittee; and Alternative 7: notwithstanding other alternatives of this section that may be selected, an owner of a currently permitted vessel will retain the landings record for a vessel that was substantively controlled by him even though the ownership of such vessel was in the name of a different legal entity. "Substantively controlled" means that the same entity had a t least a 50 percent interest in the vessel immediately before and after the change of ownership or the change of ownership was from one to another of the following: husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father. The owner of a currently permitted vessel has the burden of proof of substantive control. Note: disputes over transfer of records must be settled in the civil courts of the states. Motion carried with no objection.

Dr. Shipp moved to adopt Section 6.6 Alternative 5 as the Preferred Alternative: the landing records for the 1990-1992 period (or subsequent period, if applicable) will not be transferred to the new permit holder, if the vessel permit was transferred through sale of the vessel or transferred due to death or disability, unless there is an agreement for such transfer, i.e., the permit holder of record in 1990-1992 (or subsequent period, if applicable) will retain such records for ITQ eligibility in the absence of an agreement.

Mr. McLemore noted that Section 6.6 Alternative 7 stated "notwithstanding other alternatives." He stated that this language was inconsistent with Alternative 5 and potentially would moot Alternative 5.

Mr. Swingle stated that the intent of Alternative 7 addressed the issue that some of the vessels were incorporated, and in some instances the landing logbook records were recorded in the name of the individual who owned that vessel, and in other years they were recorded in the name of the corporation. The intent of Alternative 7 was to make those records one in the same.

Mr. McLemore advised that if there was an agreement in affect under Alternative 5, that agreement would not control Alternative 7. Motion carried.

Mr. Horn asked if the Council needed to take an action on the fishing seasons because those seasons could be set through the yearly framework procedure. Mr. Swingle replied that it could take up to five months to have a regulatory amendment implemented.

The Council reviewed the various opening dates as outlined in each alternative for Section 6.7.

Mr. Horn moved to add Section 6.7.1.1 Alternative 4: the season to start April 1. Motion carried.

Mr. Horn moved to go forward with no preferred alternative for Section 6.7.1.1. Motion carried.

Mr. Horn moved to adopt section 6.7.1.2 Alternative 1: split the fishing season into 2 time periods, to begin as under Section 6.7.1.1.

Mr. Osburn spoke against having a preferred alternative under Section 6.7.1.2, 6.7.1.3, or 6.7.3 because those conflict with the AP's preferred alternative under Section 6.7.2. He offered a substitute motion to have no preferred alternative for Section 6.7.1.2 or 6.7.1.3.

Mr. Swingle related that the AP had approached this section with selecting a season under Section 6.7.1.1 Alternative 1 with the language that it would open February 1 with that same provision. Substitute motion withdrawn.

Mr. Osburn gffered a gubstitute motion to combine Sections 6.7.1.2, 6.7.1.3,6.7.2, and 6.7.3 into revised section 6.7.2 and to select revised Section 6.7.2 Alternative l(b) as the Preferred Alternative.

Mr. McLemore noted that Section 6.7.1.2 Alternative 1 stated that the monthly seasons would only be implemented with full concurrence of the 5 Gulf State fishery agencies. He asked what would happen in the event there was not a concurrence; he felt this should be addressed.

Mr. Minton offered a friendly amendment to the substitute motion: with deleted reference to the 5 Gulf states.

Substitute Motion read: to combine Sections 6.7.1.2, 6.7.1.3, 6.7.2, and 6.7.3 into revised section 6.7.2 and to select revised Alternative l(b) under 6.7.2 as the Preferred Alternative, with deleted reference to the 5 Gulf states.

Mr. Horn asked Mr. Osbum if he wanted a single fishing year without a split season. Mr. Osbum stated that these alternatives would then be combined into a "seasons" section.

Mr. Swingle advised that under the Preferred Alternative the season was currently projected to last for approximately seven months during the year. He noted that the AP had created a Ztiered division of endorsement holders, which may make the season run 9 months out of the year.

Dr. Claverie ~ffered substitute motion to combine Sections 6.7.1.2, 6.7.1.3,6.7.2, and 6.7.3 into revised section 6.7.2 and to select revised Alternative l(b) under 6.7.2 as the Preferred Alternative, with deleted reference to the 5 Gulf states: the season will commence at noon on the 1st day of the month, and conclude at noon on the 15th day of each month. Substitute. motion carried.

Mr. Osburn moved to adopt Section 6.8 Alternative 1 with additional language at the end of the first sentence (additional language underlined): confer the privilege to harvest red snapper on persons holding red snapper licenses indefinitely, or until replaced bv a n alternative license management system. I t is the intent that the license limitation system harvesting privilege be retained as long as the objectives of the FMP are being met.

Dr. Claverie recalled that a motion passed at the September 9-13, 1996, New Orleans, Louisiana, Council meeting to change Section 6.8 Alternatives 1 and 2 verbiage for the first sentences t o read as follows: "to extend the term of the red snapper licensing system for 4 or 5 years during which time the system would be evaluated and may be extended." He offered a substitute motion to adopt Section 6.8 Alternative 1 with additional language at the end of the first sentence (modification underlined): fo extend the term of the red snapper licensinp system indefinitelv d u r i n ~ which time the system would be evaluated and may be extended, o r until replaced by an alternative license management system. It is the intent that the license limitation system harvesting privilege be retained as long as the objectives of the FMP a re being met.

Mr. Minton noted that Council staffwould adjust the Section 6.8 alternatives, and such wording would be reflected during the public hearings.

Mr. Basco asked ifthe current language of Alternative 1 would give the red snapper commercial fishermen some type of stability for their long-term investments. Mr. Horn felt the language made stability suspect.

Mr. Simpson believed the public should be made aware that this type of system could be amended.

Mr. Green felt the public should know there was a limited value to the license. Substitute motion carried.

Dr. Shipp moved to remove Section 6.9 from Reef Fish Amendment 15.

Mr. Dalton asked if it would be appropriate to retain Section 6.9 for public hearing purposes. Mr. Minton replied that leaving a point of discussion that the Council was not going to consider, may c o h s e the public.

Mr. Horn recalled that Dr. Kemmerer had personally mentioned receiving input from the public for allowing commercial vessels to have some bycatch during the closed season.

Mr. Swingle recalled that Dr. Kernrnerer's motion was that if 1,000 pounds of other fish were landed, then 500 pounds of snapper could also be landed, amounting to about 7.6 percent of the quota each year to support this measure.

Dr. Claverie felt that the Council could indicate disapproval of Section 6.9 while still retaining that section within the document. He offered substitute motion to retain Section 6.9 as a Rejected Alternative: Allocation of a Portion of the Commercial Quota for Bycatch During the Closed Season. Substitute motion carried.

Mr. McLemore commented that the Section 7.0 phrase "establishing the right to participate in the system" should reflect establishing eligibility to participate in the system. He stated that Section 7.1 noted that the Council would refer the disputes to the board, whereas that was an operational function of NMFS. Also, the statement "persons will be notified of the appeals process by the Council" was too vague. He noted that the appeals process should be outlined within the amendment.

Mr. Dalton stated that NMFS would prefer to have the establishment of an appeals board.

Dr. Claverie recalled that at a recent SAFMC meeting, Dr. Kernmerer held an appeals hearing that was not part of the scheduled SAFMC meeting.

Mr. McLemore stated that typically state agency directors or Council members of appeal boards have made individual recommendations directly to the Regional Administrator. This had put it within the operational context of the agency. Those boards were set up by the Council.

Mr. Dalton moved to adopt Section 7.1 Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative: create an appeals board to hear disputes and render an opinion.

Dr. Claverie asked if Mr. Dalton wanted his motion to reflect the suggested discussion changes as recommended by N O U General Counsel. Mr. Dalton concurred.

Mr. McLemore added that the language of the discussion indicated that an appeal should be submitted in the form of a letter. He strongly urged the Council to allow NMFS to develop an appeals form and spec@ what supporting documentation would need to be attached to that form.

Mr. Minton requested NOAA General Counsel work with the Council staff to develop an outline for the suggested appeals form. Motion carried.

Mr. McLemore commented that ifthe appeals board was a Council AP, then it would have to be open to the public, noticed, and minutes would have to be kept, even if the AP members were the state directors. If there is a meeting on appeals with state directors who provide individual recommendations, that is not a Council AP; it is an advisory board of individuals that meet to advise NMFS directly. The distinction would be that an AP would not have been exempt from FACA. He felt a better reason for a small number of members should be specified other than to reduce travel costs within the discussion section. He noted the sentence "after such discussion the board members would have independently ruled on the dispute using a form for that purpose, the attendance by members of the public likely would not have affected the process" should be

removed or reworded. The AP members that did have access to confidential data should protect that confidentiality. He offered that the appeals form could include a waiver of confidentiality.

Mr. Swingle advised that the "Note: persons may submit the dispute and supporting records directly to the Regional Director rather than the board for resolution of the dispute" was meant to be applied to all of the alternatives. He added that some individuals would prefer submitting their private business records to Regional Director rather than to a board.

Mr. Green moved to go forward with Section 7.2 with no Preferred Alternative, and to give Council staff editorial license to revise the alternatives and discussion.

Mr. King noted that "Regional Administrator" should be used throughout the document rather than "Regional Director." Motion carried.

Dr. Shipp moved to adopt Section 7.3 Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative: the board is terminated after the initial allocation of licenses is completed. Motion carried.

Mr. Williams asked if Section 8.0 would be moot in the event that the Council moved forward to remove all species of sea bass, grunts, and porgies from the fishery management plan (FMP). Mr. Swingle replied that there had always been a limited catch of fish within the stone crab and spiny lobster fisheries.

Mr. Atran advised that the definition of a fishtrap referred to a trap capable of catching finfish, not reef fish. He did not feel the removal of those species from the FMP would have changed the applicable gear restrictions.

Dr. Claverie moved to adopt Section 8.0 Alternative 1 with additional language prohibiting sale (additional language underlined): A vessel that has on board or is tending any trap other than a permitted reef fish trap, a stone crab trap, or spiny lobster trap may not possess in excess of the recreational bag limit of reef fish, which cannot be sold. Motion carried.

Habitat Protection Committee Re~ort

Dr. Fisher stated that at the November 12, 1996, Habitat Protection Committee meeting Jim Burgess gave a presentation on the framework for the description, identification, conservation, and enhancement of essential fish habitat. Based on that presentation, the Council adopted an Ad Hoc Committee to convene on January 7-8, 1997. The guidelines were supposed to be received prior to Christmas; however, they were not received until January 3rd or 4th. He related that there was inadequate time to review that material and the scheduled meeting was subsequently canceled. Due to time constraints for reporting comments on the guidelines to Washington (February 12, 1997), a meeting was tentatively scheduled for January 28-29, 1997 in New Orleans, Louisiana, at the Airport Hilton, for the purpose of reviewing this document. Notice of

this meeting was filed in the Federal Register to meet the reporting date. He, therefore, formally requested the Council to approve this meeting.

Mr. King moved to authorize the habitat meeting to be held on January 28-29,1997 and to authorize the committee to make recommendations on behalf of the Council. Motion carried.

Mr. King stated that the Shrimp AP had requested that he attend a similar meeting in Atlantic City, and he related that Dr. Shipp was contacted, and agreed to their request. Mr. King related that he then called the Shrimp AP and advised that the Council would be addressing the same concerns; therefore, he did not want the Council to incur the additional expense of him attending that meeting.

Dr. Fisher related that the Habitat Protection Committee had not previously met due to scheduling time constraints of the previous days, and they did not have anything at that time to bring forward.

SAFMC Liaison Report

Dr. Claverie gave a very detailed report of the SAFMC meeting held November 18-22, 1996, in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. He noted that North Carolina was included within the Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). The SAFMC turned the issue of sea scallops over to the MAFMC. He reviewed the various committee meetings and their presentations, which lead to the following SAFMC actions regarding SnapperIGrouper Amendment 8:

Action 1 : Limit permit holders. Action 2: Control effort with trip limits. Action 3: Redefine overfishing and optimum yield. Action 4: Red porgie 14-inch total length minimum size limit for recreational and

commercial. Action 5: Black sea bass 10-inch. Action 6: Designate black sea bass special management zone. Action 7: 10-inch recreational bag limit on black sea bass. Action 8: Escape vents on black sea bass pots. Action 9: Degradable panel fasteners in black sea bass pots. Action 10: No sale of bag limit greater amberjack in April. Reduce recreational bag limit to

one fish. Commercial quota 21 percent from 1986 - 1995 average. Action 11 : Vermilion snapper commercial quota 600K. Recreational bag limit of 5 fish and

a minimum size limit of 12-inches, effective January 1, 1998. Action 12: Increase gag minimum size from 20-inches to 24-inches total length and close

January - March spawning period. Action 13 : Commercial logbooks by 1 0 ~ of next month. Action 14: EEZ transit zone for fish traps. Action 15: Bottom longline gear can only have certain species.

Action 16: Allow bait net (50-feet x 10 feet and 1.5 inch stretch mesh). Action 17: Establish an EEZ closure. Action 18: Flat trip limit for all temperate, mid-shelf SPR, and grouper. Action 19: Aggregate trip limit temperate mid-shelf species quota. Action 20: Bahamian caught fish. Action 21: Recreational aggregate snapperlgrouper 20-25 fish (species limits still apply).

He reported that the SAFMC's Shrimp Amendment 2 would soon be published with an expected implementation date of April 1997. The interim BRD testing protocol final rule should be published in 1997. Also, the SAFMC's Highly Migratory Committee would stay active even though the Department of Commerce now governs those species. In conclusion, he reviewed the SAFMC's specific motions.

Dr. Mofit added that the SAFMC was in the process of completing their public hearings on SnapperlGrouper Amendment 8, limited entry; and hoped that issue would be finalized at the February 1997 meeting. He reported that the SAFMC established the protocol for BRD testing.

Enforcement Reports

LCDR Johnson reported that on November 17, 1996, Group Galveston and Airstation Houston assisted the Marine Mammal Stranding Network in the recovery of a stranded false killer whale. Unfortunately, the whale later succumbed to its illness. On December 17, 1996, the Mobile Aviation Training Center responded to a request and transported one green turtle from the Aquarium of Americans, in New Orleans, Louisiana, to Cleanvater, Florida, where it was released back into the wild. He related that Eighth District units have cited 8 different TED violations, and 6 Magnuson-Stevens Act violations.

Mr. McLemore reported that he did not have a presentation to give at that time.

Director's Reports

Texas

Mr. Osburn reported that the shrimp limited entry program had an application period for voluntary buy-back of licenses with several-hundred shrimpers who offered their licenses for sale. There was a crab limited entry plan under development with Texas' blue crab industry. The Texas legislature was convened that week in Austin and would meet for approximately four months.

Dr. Claverie asked what was the average price that Texas would pay for the average shrimp license. &. Osburn replied that it was within the $3,000 range.

Louisiana

Ms. Foote reported that the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (Commission) was diligently working on the h a l drafts of four stock assessments (flounder, sheepshead, black drum, and mullet) that would be due to the legislature early March. The Commission was going to conduct an independent stock assessment as mandated by law; however, due to lack of funds, the Commission would review the assessments with peer reviews. Legislature would also be reviewing a blue crab trap reduction program, and it was anticipated to be a big topic. She related there were still oyster area closures due to red tide; however, Louisiana was anxious to open those closed areas as soon as possible.

Mississippi

Mr. Woods reported that the Mississippi had an upcoming session of the legislature scheduled over the next 100-days. He anticipated there would be some potentially controversial proposals pertaining to oysters. Mississippi also had closed several oyster areas due to red tide; red tide and heavy rainfall had created a major impact on their fishing indust~y. In the legislative session, three of the seven commissioners were to be reappointed.

Alabama

Due to Mi. Minton's flight departure time, he was unable to give his report.

Florida

Mr. Williams reported that, at the urging of the Council, the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) had reviewed the concerns of the stone crab industry on limited entry. The FMFC was sympathetic to the problem and was going to proceed to develop some options at its next meeting. FMFC only had the authority to limit the number of traps that each fisherman could fish, which FMFC did not feel would be a good solution to the problem. They were pursuing a legislative solution, and had invited the major representatives of the crab fishery to meet and advise the commission on possible solutions.

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

Mr. Simpson reported that a State Director's Meeting was held in December 1996. They reviewed several topics including red tide, oysters, integrated data programs, and the program for utilizing disaster funds. On January 22, 1997, the Enforcement Committee would discuss interstate transport of product. On January 23, 1997, the NOAA penalty schedules would be discussed. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) would be working with NMFS and other participants to update the Artificial Reef Plan. The RecFinIComFin would be meeting in Washington, D.C., in February. He welcomed the individual Council members t o attend and participate in the meeting.

Mr. Swingle asked for the status funding for the taghecapture study on red drum. Mr. Simpson replied that he had contacted Dr. Kemmerer and related the desire of the GSMFC to have disaster funds applied toward that effort; he was awaiting a response fiom Dr. Kemmerer.

Dr. Claverie advised that at a recent meeting in the Alabama out-of-state saltwater fishing license was determined to be expensive. In North Carolina, a license was not required to fish in salt water. In Texas, a saltwater license cost approximately $0.25 per cast. He concluded that the less licensing there was, the better the fishing.

Dr. Shipp commented that Alabama had a reciprocal agreement with Louisiana for the cost of licenses. Licenses were not so expensive for people from other states.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mr. Fruge reported the first draft of a Fisheries Strategic Plan for the Southeast Region was developed and provided to the regional office in mid-December. The scope of the document referred to all Fish and Wildlife Service (F?VS) activities that related to aquatic resources. A sea- turtle permit, which had a 5-year time frame, was issued on November 21, 1996, for the Volusia County, Florida Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Without the HCP and the incidental take permit, the FWS could charge the county with violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of allowing beach driving to continue. The Southeast Region had received a fisheries stewardship grant fiom the FWS for Gulf striped bass restoration activities in the three river systems (Apalachicola, Pascagoula, and Lake Pontchartrain) of the Gulf of Mexico.

Dr. Shipp asked what was involved in the Volusia County HCP. Mr. Fruge replied that some of the mitigation measures utilized were to establish a program to monitor, manage, and study sea turtles in the area. The county hired a Protected Species Specialist for management of sea turtles, and established a formalized cooperative effort with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection PEP) to develop an ongoing protected species monitoring programs. They had also corrected present lighting problems, and increased enforcement efforts.

Dr. Claverie asked if the turtle nests were marked to avoid contact. Mr. Fruge replied that the turtle nests were marked; however, he did not know if they were marked so the public would avoid the nests.

Mr. Fjetland reported that John Rogers continued to serve as'Acting Director of the FWS. A fisheries stakeholder meeting would follow the close of the Council meeting, and individuals were invited to attend. Finally, the FWS was attempting to incorporate an outcome based measurement system.

Other Business

Mr. Osburn introduced NMFS' proposal on the shark fishery. The Federal Register notice reflected that NMFS controlled the Shark FMP, and there was a change suggested that would reduce the limit to two of any species per vessel. He questioned if it would be appropriate for the Council to write a letter to NMFS expressing concern that the small coastal sharks, in particular, had not been identsed as being overfished. These small coastals were included in the changed bag limit. He felt that changing the five-per-person to two-per-vessel was a drastic measure for a non-overfished species.

Mr. Swingle stated that both Mr. Atran and Mr. King had attended the Shark Operations Team (OT) Meeting.

Mr. King advised there was an identification problem for the individual shark species.

Mr. Atran recalled that the stock assessment workshop did not review information on the small coastal sharks. The workshop concentrated on sandbar sharks and large coastal sharks.

Mr. Osburn moved to express the Council's concern to NMFS about the impacts of the Atlantic shark proposed rule regarding reduction of the bag limit for small coastal sharks (particularly the impact related to headboat harvest of Atlantic sharpnose sharks) and request consideration of these impacts, and delay of implementation until the impacts are addressed.

Mr. King felt that Dr. Steve Branstetter may be able to provide some expertise in drafting the letter.

Dr. Shipp noted that he had spoken with Dr. Branstetter, and felt Mr. Osburn had given an accurate account of the information. Motion carried.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11: 45 a.m.

bate

cound\jan 15-16.97 minutes