Red Snapper Advisory Panel Meeting Summary (7-30)

Note: copy and paste from word document, formatting different in original

------------------------------------------------

Tab B, No. 15

Red Snapper Advisory Panel Summary

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

Gulf Council Conference Room

Tampa, Florida

July 30, 2014

Red Snapper AP members present: Gulf Council staff:

Mike Nugent, Chair George Eller David Walker Steven Atran

Gary Graham, V. Chair George Huye Donald Waters Assane Diagne

Tom Adams Gary Smith Troy Williamson John Froeschke

F.J. Eicke TJ Tate Doug Gregory

Ryan Rindone

Charlotte Schiaffo

Carrie Simmons



Reef Fish AP members : Council Members: NMFS Staff: Public:

Pamela Anderson Campo Matens Sue Gerhart David Becker

Venny Cable Roy Crabtree-RA Stephen Holiman TJ Marshall

Jim Clements Peter Hood Kristen McConnell

Jim Eliason Jessica Stephen Dennis O’Hern

Bob Gill Andy Strelcheck David Records

Ed Sapp Melissa Thompson

Bill Tucker Russell Underwood

Mike Whitfield Wayne Werner

Bob Zales, II



The Red Snapper Advisory Panel met on July 30, 2014. The agenda was adopted as written. The next order of business was the election of Chair and Vice-chair



Mike Nugent was re-elected Chair.

Gary Graham was elected Vice-chair.



The Panel reviewed the summary minutes of the January 13, 2012 meeting. During the review, Steven Atran summarized the motions made by the Panel and the Council’s responses to the motions. The summary minutes were adopted as written.



Recreational Red Snapper Management Feedback

Mr. Atran reviewed the responses to recreational angler surveys recently conducted by Mississippi and Louisiana. Mississippi conducted a workshop on May 6, 2014 which was attended by approximately 60 recreational anglers, charter boat operators, and others. Participants were provided with wireless voting devices so that they could instantly respond to survey questions on various management measures. Management measures with the most favorable responses included participation in a red snapper data collection program, development of an app for data collection, provide real-time access to data, and measures to allow greater management authority by the states. Least favorable management measures included slot limits, one-fish bag limit, weekend-only season, tagging system, days-at-sea program, sector separation, and closed areas. Louisiana’s survey was conducted via e-mail to fishermen who had obtained a Louisiana Offshore Recreational Fishing Survey and provided an e-mail address. About 20,000 anglers have obtained an offshore permit, and two thirds of them provided e-mail addresses. Approximately 5,000 responses (a 40% response rate) were received. The most favorable management actions were to keep the first two fish, and regional management. Mr. Atran also reviewed a summary of responses received at the Council’s recently held recreational angler participation (RAP) workshops.

Red Snapper Recreational Accountability Measures

Note: The discussion of this framework action included comments regarding issues related to sector separation. Those comments are included in the summary of Amendment 40, below.

Assane Diagne reviewed the actions and alternatives in a framework action to establish accountability measures for the recreational red snapper sector. These actions were separated from draft Amendment 28 (red snapper allocation) so that accountability and allocation issues could be dealt with separately.

Action 1 – Annual Catch Target

This action will set a recreational annual catch target (ACT) at some percentage level below the annual catch limit (ACL) in order to reduce the probability that the recreational ACL will be exceeded. Exceeding the ACL would trigger the overage adjustment in Action 2. In response to Panel questions, Dr. Diagne explained that no buffer is needed for the commercial sector because the commercial individual fishing quota (IFQ) program itself is considered to be an accountability measure. Under the IFQ, the commercial quota has never been exceeded. Commercial fishermen are allowed up to a 10% overage of their IFQ allocation on their last trip of the year, but any such overage is deducted from the fisherman’s allocation the following year.

Panel members questioned whether the recent court decision mandated an ACT buffer. Roy Crabtree explained that while the court decision did not specifically require certain actions, it said that steps needed to be taken to prevent the sector from going over its ACL. Dr. Crabtree felt that this meant that buffers and overage paybacks should be considered.

A motion to recommend that no action be the preferred alternative for all actions in the entire Framework Action for Recreational Red Snapper Accountability Measures failed by a vote of 5 to 6.

The Panel reviewed the ACT buffer alternatives in Action 1, which ranged from 20% to 60%. A motion was made to recommend the Council’s Preferred Alternative 2, which would set an ACT buffer of 20%. Some Panel members felt that a vote on recommending a buffer should be postponed until the catch data for 2014 was available. Andy Strelcheck explained that, while some data was available, MRIP catch estimates for the 9-day June season would not be available until mid-August, and Texas creel survey data would not be available until November. A substitute motion to postpone a vote on the framework action until current catch data is available failed by a vote of 5 to 6. The panel then returned to consideration of the original motion. It was noted that NMFS calculated that a 20% buffer resulted in a 15% probability of exceeding the quota.

By a vote of 6 to 5, the AP recommends Alternative 2 – Establish an ACT using a 20% buffer based on the ACL/ACT control rule, be the preferred alternative in Action 1 of the Framework Action for Recreational Red Snapper Accountability Measures.

Action 2 – Overage Adjustments

Dr. Diagne noted that, for stocks in a rebuilding plan, the National Standard 1 guidelines called for overages to be deducted by the full amount of the overage from the following year’s quotas. Alternative 2 would do what the guidelines called for, whereas Alternative 3 would deduct the overage plus widen the buffer between ACL and ACT. One member of the Reef Fish AP commented that, while the catch levels had increases in terms of pounds, the number of fish that could be caught had gone down because of the increasing size of the fish. After clarification of the difference between Alternatives 2 and 3, the Panel passed the following motion.

By a vote of 6 to 5, the AP recommends that Alternative 2 – Deduct the full amount of the overage from the quota in the following season while red snapper is under a rebuilding plan, be the preferred alternative in Action 2 of the Framework Action for Recreational Red Snapper Accountability Measures.

Update on Headboat Collaborative Program

Jessica Stephen from the NMFS Regional Office presented an overview of the pilot headboat collaborative program. There are 17 vessels are participating in 2014, and a maximum of 20 vessels could participate in 2015. Allocations of 286,457 lbs (55,527 fish) of red snapper and 43,053 lbs (6,017 fish) of gag were allocated to the collaborative in 2014, based on the proportion of fish caught by the vessels in the collaborative in 2011. One Panel member expressed his opinion that this allocation was not compliant with National Standard 4. In response to questions from Panel members, it was left up to the collaborative to decide how to distribute the allocation among the participating vessels. Program participants are required to report their catches in numbers of fish, which NMFS converts to pounds based on the average size of red snapper by region. NMFS has a page on the Regional Office website in which collaborative landings are continuously updated. Reports have to be submitted for every trip, so a vessel that makes multiple trips in a day needs to submit multiple reports. Enforcement validates the landings data by sub-sampling the returning trips. One Panel member asked if he could get a breakdown of landings for each vessel. NMFS staff responded that catches of individual vessels were confidential, but landings could be aggregated by region. Some Panel members felt that, since the red snapper are a public resource, the individual catches should not be confidential. In response to a question on whether administrative costs were recovered by NMFS, NMFS staff stated that, under exempted fishing permits, recovery fees are not imposed. One member of the audience stated that he had information that a vessel in the collaborative was advertising that passengers could catch more than their bag limit but did not provide evidence to that effect.

Amendment 40 – Recreational Red Snapper Sector Separation – Public Hearing Draft

Dr. Diagne reviewed the actions and alternatives in Amendment 40. He noted that sector separation would allow the charter for-fire and private recreational components to each be managed according to their respective needs. One AP member stated that there is only one recreational sector. It was noted that section 407(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act would require that both components be closed to fishing when the combined recreational allocation is caught, even if those catches are primarily due to just one of the components. Panel members expressed concern about the quality of the recreational catch data. One Panel member suggested that, if the catch data is poor, any allocation between the charter for-fire and private recreational components could be dealing from a faulty base. Concern was also expressed that, with a small private recreational allocation, any overage could result in there not being a private vessel federal season the following year. Dr. Crabtree added that, if the recreational quota is allocated 50:50, it was estimated that most of the private vessel allocation would be taken in state waters.

Panel members noted that NMFS does not keep track of the number of private recreational vessels in the red snapper fishery, and questioned how an allocation between the components of the recreational sector could be fairly made without knowing how many vessels are in each component. It was suggested that reserving a segment of the recreational quota for one group is a subsidy for that group.

Dr. Diagne explained that the allocation alternatives were based on pounds of red snapper caught by each component over a given time period. Over time, the proportion caught has changed from 66% for-hire/34% private in 1986 to 36% for-hire/64% private in 2012. Thus, the further back in time the base years are used, the more the allocation would move to the federal for-hire component. Campo Matens explained that the Council selected Preferred Alternative 4 in Action 2.1 (base allocations on landings between 1996 and 2013, resulting in 45.9% federal for-hire and 54.1% private angling allocations) because it was a middle ground. However, one Panel member felt that using all available years would provide the most inclusive basis for allocation.

The Panel began to discuss details of a for-hire IFQ system, but it was noted that this is not part of Amendment 40 and would be reviewed by the Recreational Red Snapper For-hire IFQ Panel.

A motion was made to accept all of the Council’s preferred alternatives in Amendment 40. However, a substitute motion was made to recommend Action 1, Alternative 1, no action – do not establish separate recreational components. A roll call vote was requested and the substitute motion passed.

By a roll call vote of 6 to 5, the AP recommends that for Action 1, Alternative1 – No Action, be the preferred Alternative in Amendment 40.

Mike Nugent – Yes Gary Graham – No David Walker - No

Tom Adams – Yes George Huye – Yes Donald Waters - No

George Eller – No Gary Smith – Yes Troy Williamson - Yes

F.J. Eicke – Yes TJ Tate – No

Since the Panel recommended no action with respect to establishing sector separation, it was felt unnecessary and inappropriate to discuss the remaining actions, which determine how sector separation would be set up. However, if the Council does continue with Amendment 40, Panel members felt that there should first be an economic analysis of the impacts of sector separation. Dr. Diagne explained that the amendment contains an analysis of the expected economic effects. However, the Panel passed the following motion.

By a vote of 10 to 0, the AP recommends that the Council take a detailed economic analysis of the impacts of sector separation and the reallocation of quota be completed before consideration of Amendment 40.

Panel members noted that if sector separation is implemented, it will impact both for-hire and private recreational vessels, and therefore both components should have a say in whether and how it is implemented. Panel members felt that there should be a legal determination as to whether a referendum would be required that included the entire recreational sector before sector separation proceeds. Dr. Crabtree explained that referenda are only required for IFQ programs, not for sector separation. However, the Panel passed the following motion on a roll call vote.

By a roll call vote of 6 to 5, the AP recommends that the Council request a legal analysis on the necessity of a referendum that includes the entire recreational sector before consideration of Amendment 40.

Mike Nugent – No Gary Graham – No David Walker - No

Tom Adams – Yes George Huye – Yes Donald Waters - Yes

George Eller – No Gary Smith – Yes Troy Williamson - Yes

F.J. Eicke – Yes TJ Tate – No

Review of New State Data Collection Programs

John Froeschke present a summary of the red snapper/offshore fishing data collection program that have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented by Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas. Louisiana provided details of their offshore data collection program too late to be included in his report. The Alabama and Florida programs are mandatory participation whereas the Mississippi and Texas programs are voluntary. Alabama and Texas use self-reporting programs, Mississippi uses a catch card, and Florida uses targeted angler surveys. Alabama uses dockside intercepts for validation, but it is unclear whether the other state programs have some method of validation. One concern at the Council level is that the state data programs be comparable among the states so that the data can be combined for federal management purposes. One Reef Fish AP member noted that Florida had worked with NMFS to make sure that the data collected was consistent for use in stock assessments.

Melissa Thompson stated that the USFWS has implemented a harvest information program (HIP) to help state wildlife agencies develop more reliable estimates of the number of all migratory birds harvested throughout the country. The program uses voluntary participation by hunters. Participating hunters are initially surveyed to determine what kind of birds they hunt. Then, targeted surveys are mailed to the appropriate hunters. She suggested that the Council consider asking NMFS to set up a similar program for fisheries. A Panel member made the following motion.

By a vote of 9 to 0, the AP recommends that the Council request that NMFS investigate adopting a program similar in scope to the USFW Service’s Harvest Information Certification Data Collection Program for the Gulf Recreational Reef Fish Fishery.

Other Business

A Panel member noted that it has recently come to light that the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement is planning to close six OLE field offices in the Southeast Division and two OLE filed offices in the Southwest Division, with the subsequent relocation of 13 special agents. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has written to NOAA Assistant Administrator Eileen Sobeck opposing these actions. These actions would reduce the enforcement presence in large areas of the southeast. The Panel passed the following motion.

By a vote of 9 to 0, the AP recommends that the current NOAA OLE offices and the number of special agents related to those offices remain status quo. The AP strongly discourages any closing of these offices in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the Gulf of Mexico.

A Panel member suggested that the Council consider implementing a tagging system to improve recreational participation data. In this case, the tag refers to a temporary permit that an angler would obtain at the time he leaves for an offshore fishing trip. One possible way to distribute these tags would be with a vending machine installed at marinas.

By a vote of 5 to 3, the AP recommends that the Council explore a tag program for recreational reef fish data collection.

The Red Snapper Advisory Panel adjourned at 4:00 p.m. EDT.