http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Libra...Summ110807.pdf
PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY
SNAPPER GROUPER AMENDMENT 15B
November 2007
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
4055 Faber Place, Suite 201
North Charleston, South Carolina 29405
(843) 571-4366 / FAX (843) 769-4520
Toll Free (866) SAFMC-10
email:
safmc@safmc.net
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
(727) 824-5301 / FAX (727) 824-5308
THIS IS A PUBLICATION OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL PURSUANT TO National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA05NMF4410004
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 1 NOVEMBER 2007
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABC Allowable biological catch
ACCSP Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program
ACL Annual Catch Limits
APA Administrative Procedures Act
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
B A measure of stock biomass either in weight or other appropriate unit
BMSY The stock biomass expected to exist under equilibrium conditions when fishing at FMSY
BOY The stock biomass expected to exist under equilibrium conditions when fishing at FOY
BCURR The current stock biomass
CEA Cumulative Effects Analysis
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFMC Caribbean Fishery Management Council
CPUE Catch per unit effort
CRP Cooperative Research Program
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EA Environmental Assessment
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EFH-HAPC Essential Fish Habitat - Habitat Area of Particular Concern
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
F A measure of the instantaneous rate of fishing mortality
F30%SPR Fishing mortality that will produce a static SPR = 30%.
F45%SPR Fishing mortality that will produce a static SPR = 45%.
FCURR The current instantaneous rate of fishing mortality
FMSY The rate of fishing mortality expected to achieve MSY under equilibrium conditions and a corresponding biomass of BMSY
FOY The rate of fishing mortality expected to achieve OY under equilibrium conditions and a corresponding biomass of BOY
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FMP Fishery management plan
FMU Fishery management unit
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
IFQ Individual fishing quota
M Natural mortality rate
MARFIN Marine Fisheries Initiative
MARMAP Marine Resources Monitoring Assessment and Prediction Program
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MFMT Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 2 NOVEMBER 2007
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MSST Minimum Stock Size Threshold
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NMSA National Marine Sanctuary Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OY Optimum Yield
R Recruitment
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIR Regulatory Impact Review
SAFE Report Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report
SAMFC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SDDP Supplementary Discard Data Program
SEDAR Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review
SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center
SERO Southeast Regional Office
SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SSC Scientific and statistical Committee
TAC Total allowable catch
TL Total length
TMIN The length of time in which a stock could rebuild to BMSY in the absence of fishing mortality
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 3 NOVEMBER 2007
Purpose and Need
The need for action through Amendment 15B is due to the continually changing nature of the fishery. Species in the fishery management unit are assessed on a routine basis and stock status may change as new information becomes available. In addition, changes in management regulations, fishing techniques, social/economic structure, etc. can result in shifts in the percentage of harvest between user groups over time. As such, the Council has determined that certain aspects of the current management system remain inappropriate and should be restructured. More specifically, these proposed actions would:
•
Define allocations for snowy grouper and red porgy;
•
Update management reference points for golden tilefish;
•
Modify sale restrictions;
•
Implement a plan to monitor and assess bycatch;
•
Implement measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take on sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish; or
•
Modify permit renewal and transferability requirements.
Alternatives
Allocation Alternatives
Snowy Grouper Allocation Alternatives
Alternative 1 (no action). Do not define allocations for snowy grouper.
Alternative 2 (preferred). Define allocations for snowy grouper based upon landings from the ALS, MRFSS, and headboat databases. The allocation would be based on landings from the years 1986-2005. The allocation would be 95% commercial and 5% recreational.
Alternative 3. Define allocations for snowy grouper based upon landings from the ALS, MRFSS, and headboat databases. The allocation would be based on landings from the years 1992-2005. The allocation would be 93% commercial and 7% recreational.
Alternative 4. Define allocations for snowy grouper based upon landings from the ALS, MRFSS, and headboat databases. The allocation would be based on landings from 2005. Define allocations for snowy grouper as 88% commercial and 12% recreational.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 4 NOVEMBER 2007
Red Porgy Allocation Alternatives
Alternative 1 (no action). Do not define allocations for red porgy.
Alternative 2. Define allocations for red porgy based upon landings from the ALS, MRFSS, and headboat databases. The allocation would be based on landings from the years 1986-2005. The allocation would be 68% commercial and 32% recreational.
Alternative 3. Define allocations for red porgy based upon landings from the ALS, MRFSS, and headboat databases. The allocation would be based on landings from the years 1999-2005. The allocation would be 44% commercial and 56% recreational.
Alternative 4. Define allocations for red porgy as 50% commercial and 50% recreational.
Note: The Council has not chosen a preferred alternative for this action as they would like to review public input before designating a preferred alternative.
Golden Tilefish Management Reference Point Alternatives
(Table 1) MSY alternatives under consideration for golden tilefish.
Alternatives
MSY equation
FMSY equals
MSY value
Alternative 1 (no action)
The yield produced by FMSY. F30%SPR is used as the FMSY proxy for all stocks.
0.38*
Not specified
Alternative 2 (preferred)
MSY equals the yield produced by FMSY. MSY and FMSY are defined by the most recent SEDAR.
0.043**
336,425 lbs whole weight
*Source: Powers 1999 **Source: SEDAR 4 2004
(Table 2) OY alternatives under consideration for golden tilefish.
Alternatives
OY equation
FOY equals
OY value
Alternative 1 (no action)
OY equals the yield produced by FOY. F40%SPR is used as the FOY proxy.
0.26*
not specified
Alternative 2
OY equals the yield produced by FOY. Note If a stock is overfished, FOY equals the fishing mortality rate specified by the rebuilding plan designed to rebuild the stock to SSBMSY within the approved schedule. After the stock is rebuilt, FOY = a fraction of FMSY. Golden tilefish is not overfished.
(65%)(FMSY)
314,894 lbs whole weight**
Alternative 3 (preferred)
(75%)(FMSY)
326,554 lbs whole weight**
Alternative 4
(85%)(FMSY)
332,835 lbs whole weight**
*Source: Powers 1999 **Calculated based on Council’s preferred MSY value in which FMSY equals 0.043 for Alternatives 2-4 (SEDAR 4 2004)
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 5 NOVEMBER 2007
(Table 3) MSST alternatives under consideration for golden tilefish.
Alternatives
MSST equation
M equals
MSST value
Alternative 1 (no action)
MSST equals SSBMSY((1-M) or 0.5, whichever is greater)
0.08*
1,783,650 lbs whole weight**
Alternative 2
MSST equals SSBMSY(0.5)
n/a
969,375 lbs whole weight**
Alternative 3 (preferred)
MSST equals SSBMSY(0.75)
n/a
1,454,063 lbs whole weight**
*Source: Recommendation from SEFSC based on the results from SEDAR 4 2004. **Source: Calculated based on Council’s preferred MSY value in which SSBMSY equals 1,938,750 lbs. whole weight (SEDAR 4 2004).
Sale of Recreationally-Caught Fish
Alternative 1 (no action). Allow species in the snapper grouper management unit taken from the South Atlantic EEZ, up to the allowed bag limit, to be sold to a licensed dealer if the seller possesses a state-issued license to sell fish.
Alternative 2 (preferred). A South Atlantic snapper grouper harvested in the EEZ on board a vessel that does not have a valid Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper grouper, or a South Atlantic snapper grouper possessed under the bag limits, may not be sold or purchased. A person aboard a vessel with both a for-hire vessel permit and a Federal commercial snapper grouper permit is considered to be fishing as a charter when fishing as described in 50 CFR §622.2. Snapper grouper caught on such a trip may not be sold or purchased.
50 CFR §622.2 specifies that a charter vessel means a vessel less than 100 gross tons (90.8 mt) that is subject to the requirements of the USCG to carry six or fewer passengers for hire and that engages in charter fishing at any time during the calendar year. A charter vessel with a commercial permit, as required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2), is considered to be operating as a charter vessel when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew. However, a charter vessel that has a charter vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, and a valid Certificate of Inspection (COI) issued by the USCG to carry passengers for hire will not be considered to be operating as a charter vessel provided--
(1) It is not carrying a passenger who pays a fee; and
(2) When underway for more than 12 hours, that vessel meets, but does not exceed the minimum manning requirements outlined in its COI for vessels underway over 12 hours; or when underway for not more than 12 hours, that vessel meets the minimum manning requirements outlined in its COI for vessels underway for not more than 12-hours (if any), and does not exceed the minimum manning requirements outlined in its COI for vessels that are underway for more than 12 hours.
Alternative 3. Require a Federal charter/headboat snapper grouper permit or Federal commercial snapper grouper permit to sell snapper grouper species from the South Atlantic EEZ up to the bag limit of snapper grouper species.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 6 NOVEMBER 2007
Monitor and Assess Bycatch
Alternative 1 (no action). Utilize existing information to estimate and characterize bycatch.
Alternative 2 (preferred). Adopt the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) Release, Discard and Protected Species Module as the preferred methodology. Until this module is fully funded, require the use of a variety of sources to assess and monitor bycatch including: observer coverage on vessels; logbooks; electronic logbook; video monitoring; MRFSS; state cooperation; and grant funded projects. After the ACCSP Bycatch Module is implemented, continue the use of technologies to augment and verify observer data. Require that commercial vessels with a snapper grouper permit, for-hire vessels with a for-hire permit, and private recreational vessels if fishing for snapper grouper species in the EEZ, if selected, shall use observer coverage, logbooks, electronic logbooks, video monitoring, or any other method deemed necessary to measure bycatch by NOAA Fisheries.
Alternative 3. Adopt the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program Release, Discard and Protected Species Module as the preferred methodology. Require that commercial vessels with a snapper grouper permit, for-hire vessels with a for-hire permit, and private recreational vessel if fishing for snapper grouper species in the EEZ, if selected, shall use observer coverage, logbooks, electronic logbooks, video monitoring, or any other method deemed necessary to measure bycatch by NOAA Fisheries.
Alternative 4. Require the use of a variety of sources to assess and monitor bycatch including: observer coverage on vessels; logbooks; electronic logbook; video monitoring; MRFSS; state cooperation; and grant funded projects. Require that commercial vessels with a snapper grouper permit, for-hire vessels with a for-hire permit, and private recreational vessels if fishing for snapper grouper species in the EEZ, if selected, shall use observer coverage, logbooks, electronic logbooks, video monitoring, or any other method deemed necessary to measure bycatch by NOAA Fisheries.
Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Incidental Take Impact Minimization Measures
Alternative 1 (no action). Do not implement additional management measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take on sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish caught in the South Atlantic snapper grouper fishery.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 7 NOVEMBER 2007
Alternative 2 (preferred). Require all vessels with commercial and for-hire snapper grouper vessel permits to: (1) immediately release incidentally caught smalltooth sawfish by following the latest NMFS approved guidance on smalltooth sawfish release techniques (available at [to be added later]) (see Appendix E); (2) have a copy of the document, provided by NMFS, titled “Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal Injury” (Appendix E) posted inside the wheelhouse, or within a waterproof case in an readily accessible area; (3) post the NMFS provided sea turtle handling and release guideline placard (see Appendix F) inside the wheelhouse, or in an easily viewable area if there is no wheelhouse; (4) tend to incidentally caught sea turtle in a manner consistent with the protocols specified in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(ii) (see Appendix D). These vessels must also carry the following sea turtle release equipment:
•
a long-handled line clipper or cutter,
•
a long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks,
•
a long-handled dehooker for external hooks,
•
a long-handled device to pull an “inverted V”,
•
a dipnet,
•
a tire,
•
a short-handled dehooker for ingested hooks,
•
a short-handled dehooker for external hooks,
•
long-nose or needle-nose pliers,
•
bolt cutters,
•
monofilament line cutters,
•
at least two types of mouth openers/mouth gags.
This equipment must meet the specifications described in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(A-L) (see Appendix D) with the following modification: any other comparable, cushioned, elevated surface that allows boated sea turtles to be immobilized, may be used as an alternative to the requirement in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) to have a tire on board.
Alternative 3 Require all vessels with commercial and for-hire snapper grouper vessel permits to: (1) immediately release incidentally caught smalltooth sawfish by following the latest NMFS approved guidance on smalltooth sawfish release techniques (available at [to be added later]) (see Appendix E); (2) have a copy of the NMFS provided document titled “Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal Injury” (Appendix E) posted inside the wheelhouse, or within a waterproof case in an readily accessible area; (3) post the NMFS provided sea turtle handling and release guideline placard (see Appendix F) inside the wheelhouse, or in an easily viewable area if there is no wheelhouse; (4) tend to incidentally caught sea turtle in a manner consistent with the protocols specified in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(ii) (see Appendix D). Depending on the vessel’s freeboard height, the following sea turtle release equipment would be required:
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 8 NOVEMBER 2007
For vessels with a freeboard height of four feet or less:
•
a dipnet,
•
a tire (or other comparable cushioned, elevated surface that immobilizes boated sea turtles),
•
a short-handled dehooker,
•
long-nose or needle-nose pliers,
•
bolt cutters,
•
monofilament line cutters,
•
at least two types of mouth openers/mouth gags.
This equipment must meet the specifications described in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(E-L) with the following modifications: the dipnet handle can be of variable length, only one NMFS approved short-handled dehooker is required (i.e., 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G or H)); any other comparable, cushioned, elevated surface that allows boated sea turtles to be immobilized, may be used as an alternative to the requirement in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) to have a tire on board.
For vessels with a freeboard height of greater than four feet:
•
a dipnet,
•
a tire (or other comparable cushioned, elevated surface that immobilizes boated sea turtles),
•
a long-handled line clipper,
•
a long-handled device for pulling an inverted “V”
•
a short-handled dehooker
•
a long-handled dehooker,
•
long-nose or needle-nose pliers,
•
bolt cutters,
•
monofilament line cutters,
•
at least two types of mouth openers/mouth gags.
This equipment must meet the specifications described in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i) (A-L) with the following modifications: only one NMFS approved long-handled dehooker (50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(B or C)) and one NMFS approved short-handled dehooker (50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G or H)) are required; any other comparable, cushioned, elevated surface that allows boated sea turtles to be immobilized, may be used as an alternative to the requirement in 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) to have a tire on board.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 9 NOVEMBER 2007
(Table 4) Comparison of sea turtle release gear requirements under alternatives 2 and 3. Gear descriptions based on 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(A-L) (Appendix D).
Sea Turtle Release Gear
Alternative 2
(preferred)
Alternative 3
< 4 feet freeboard
>4 feet freeboard
Long-handled line clippers1
X
X
Dipnet
X1
X2
X1
Long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks1,3
X
X5
Long-handled dehooker for external hooks1,3
X4
X5
Long-handled device to pull an inverted “V” 1
X
X
Tire (standard passenger sized) 6
X
X
X
Short-handled dehooker for ingested hooks8
X
X7
X7
Short-handled dehooker for external hooks8
X4
X7
X7
Long-nose or needle-nose pliers
X
X
X
Bolt cutters
X
X
X
Monofilament line cutters
X
X
X
Mouth openers/mouth gags
X
X
X
1 handle length 6 feet or 150% of freeboard – whichever is greater.
2 handle length optional.
3 may substitute short-handle dehooker if used with appropriate length handle extender.
4 may substitute ingested dehooker if the dehooker also meets the criteria for an external dehooker.
5 only one NMFS approved long-handled dehooker is required, may choose either internal, external or one that can act as both.
6 may use other comparable, cushioned, elevated surface.
7 only one NMFS approved short-handled dehooker is required, may choose either internal, external or one that can act as both.
8 handle length should be 16-24 inches
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 10 NOVEMBER 2007
Permit Renewal
Alternative 1 (no action). Retain the requirement that the Regional Administrator must receive an application for renewal within 60 days of the commercial permit's expiration date.
Alternative 2. Extend the renewal period on commercial snapper grouper permits to 6 months after the permit expires.
Alternative 3 (preferred). Extend the renewal period on commercial snapper grouper permits to one year after the permit expires.
Permit Transferability
Permit Transferability Alternative 1 (no action). A holder of an individual limited access transferable vessel permit must buy an additional individual limited access transferable vessel permit and exchange the two individual permits for one new permit in order to incorporate their business operation and change the ownership of the permitted vessel.
The applicable sections of the current snapper grouper limited access transfer regulations at 50 C.F.R. 622.18(e) are stated below:
“(e) Transfers of permits. A snapper grouper limited access permit is valid only for the vessel and owner named on the permit. To change either the vessel or the owner, an application for transfer must be submitted to the RA. (1) Transferable permits. (i) An owner of a vessel with a transferable permit may request that the RA transfer the permit to another vessel owned by the same entity. (ii) A transferable permit may be transferred upon a change of ownership of a permitted vessel with such permit from one to another of the following: Husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father. . . (iv) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, a person desiring to acquire a limited access, transferable permit for South Atlantic snapper grouper must obtain and exchange two such permits for one new permit.”
Permit Transferability Alternative 2 (preferred). Allow an individual to transfer his or her individual limited access transferable vessel permit to a corporation whose shares are all held by the individual or the individual and one or more of his or her immediate family members. Immediate family members include only the following: husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father. Such transfer may be done on a one to one permit transfer basis. At the time of permit renewal, the corporation must also submit to NMFS a current annual report, which specifies all shareholders of the corporation.
Sub-Alternatives for Permit Transferability Alternative 2 that specifies various renewal/transfer consequences if the annual report to NMFS includes shareholders not listed on original application.
Permit Sub-Alternative 2-A. Permit is renewed or transferred according to current regulations, regardless of whether new shareholders have been added to the family corporation as reflected in
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 11 NOVEMBER 2007
the annual report. Note: this would then treat family corporations no different than other corporations.
Permit Sub-Alternative 2-B. If the annual report shows a shareholder other than the shareholders listed in the original corporate documentation, the permit shall not be renewed or transferred.
Permit Sub-Alternative 2-C. If the annual report shows a shareholder other than the shareholders listed in the original corporate documentation, the permit shall not be renewed or transferred on a one to one permit basis; the corporation must obtain another limited access, transferable snapper grouper permit, and exchange those two such permits for one new permit.
Permit Sub-Alternative 2-D. If the annual report shows a shareholder other than the shareholders listed in the original corporate documentation, the permit shall not be renewed or transferred on a one to one permit basis; the corporation must obtain another limited access, transferable snapper grouper permit, and exchange those two such permits for one new permit or allow transfer back to an individual who is an immediate family member of the permit holder who originally transferred the vessel permit to the family corporation.
Permit Sub-Alternative 2-E (preferred). If the annual report shows a shareholder other than the shareholders listed in the original corporate documentation, the permit shall not be renewed unless such new shareholder is an immediate family member of the individual who originally transferred the vessel permit to the family corporation.
(Table 5) Permit sub-alternatives.
Sub-Alternative
If the annual report includes shareholder not listed on original application…
2-A
permit may be renewed or not renewed according to the regulations, regardless of whether new shareholders have been added as reflected in the annual report.
2-B
permit shall not be renewed.
2-C
permit shall not be renewed, must do 2 for 1.
2-D
permit shall not be renewed, must do 2 for 1; BUT can transfer back to individual immediate family member of the original individual permit holder on 1 for 1 basis.
2-E (preferred)
permit shall not be renewed, unless new shareholder is an immediate family member of the original individual permit holder on 1 for 1 basis.
Permit Transferability Alternative 3. Repeal the 2 for 1 permit transfer provision as described at 50 C.F.R. 622.18(e)(1)(iv):
“(iv) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, a person desiring to acquire a limited access, transferable permit for South Atlantic snapper grouper must obtain and exchange two such permits for one new permit.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 12 NOVEMBER 2007
Affected Environment
The immediate impact area would be the federal 200-mile limit of the Atlantic off the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and east Florida to Key West. A larger area could be affected. In light of the available information, the extent of the boundaries would depend upon the degree of fish immigration/emigration and larval transport. Tagging work conducted by the Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) program indicates that there is movement of species (e.g., gag and greater amberjack) between the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (McGovern and Meister 1999; McGovern et al. 2005). Large scale movement of black sea bass and red porgy has not been documented (McGovern and Meister 1999); however, tagging from the mid-Atlantic indicates movement of black sea bass north and south of Cape Hatteras is likely. Tagging studies have not been conducted on snowy grouper; however, it is believed that movement of this species is limited. However, snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy have pelagic eggs and larvae that may remain in the water column for extended periods of time and travel long distances before late stage larvae or juveniles assume a demersal existence. For example, eggs and larvae from spawning fish in the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean may be passively transported into the South Atlantic. Alternatively, early life stages of fishes spawned in the South Atlantic (i.e., black sea bass) could be transported by currents to other areas such as the mid-Atlantic. Furthermore, some fishermen may fish in and out of the federal 200-mile limit off of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and east Florida.
Section 3.1 provides a description of the essential fish habitat. The biological environment is described in Section 3.2. A description of the human environment is described in Sections 3.4.
Environmental Consequences
Snowy Grouper Allocation Alternatives
Biological Effects
Snowy grouper alternatives that allocate a greater portion of the harvest to the commercial sector could have a greater negative impact on habitat as longline gear is considered to do greater damage to hard bottom habitat than vertical hook and line gear (SAFMC 2007). However, allocating a small percentage to the recreational sector may not be effective in reducing mortality since some snowy grouper will continue to be caught and killed when fishermen target co-occurring species.
Economic/Social Effects
Because of data and modeling issues, quantitative assessment of the expected impacts of the allocation alternatives has not been attempted. Qualitatively, it is difficult to identify the best allocation alternative. No alternative to the status quo would benefit one sector while having no impact on the other sector. In fact, since each alternative to the status quo would increase the recreational snowy grouper allocation at the expense of the commercial sector, in all instances the recreational sector would be expected to gain economic benefits while the commercial sector
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 13 NOVEMBER 2007
would lose benefits. If it is believed that adverse effects are compounded the greater the deviation from status quo, large changes in the allocation from the status quo would not be recommended. As such, Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 may be preferable to Alternative 4 since they would result in only marginal changes in the allocation, 1 and 3 percentage points, respectively, whereas Alternative 4 would impose an 8 percentage point change (8.33% total change) in the allocation.
While none of the re-allocation alternatives to the status quo (96% commercial/4% recreational based on landings between 1999-2003) would be neutral to either sector, lower overall adverse social impacts to the affected sectors and associated industries and communities may be expected to accrue to those alternatives that result in the lowest re-allocation away any individual sector.
Red Porgy Allocation Alternatives
Biological Effects
If allocations are higher than 50% commercial, the TAC may not adequately take into consideration the increased dead discards in the commercial sector associated with a higher release mortality rate.
Economic/Social Effects
Qualitatively, it is difficult to identify the best red porgy allocation alternative. None of the alternatives to the status quo would benefit one sector while having no impact on the other sector. Alternative 4 would establish an allocation closest to that of Alternative 1 (49% commercial/51% recreational based on landings between 2001-2003), differing by only one percentage point, resulting in the least change from the status quo. Alternative 2 would substantially increase the commercial allocation, by 19 percentage points, resulting in an increase in commercial revenues at the expense of recreational benefits, while Alternative 3 would decrease the commercial allocation by 15 percentage points, with the recreational sector expected to gain net benefits. From the perspective that unquantifiable adverse effects are compounded the greater the deviation from status quo, large changes in the allocation from the status quo would not be recommended. As such, Alternative 4 would be preferable to Alternatives 2 and 3 since it would result in only a small change in the allocation, while both Alternatives 2 and 3 would impose large changes in current harvest allowances.
While none of the re-allocation alternatives to the status quo would be neutral to either sector, lower overall adverse social impacts to the affected sectors and associated industries and communities may be expected to accrue to those alternatives that result in the lowest re-allocation away any individual sector.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 14 NOVEMBER 2007
Golden Tilefish Management Reference Point Alternatives
Biological Effects
There are no direct effects from redefining and/or updating MSY, OY, and MSST because these parameters simply provide fishery managers with targets and thresholds that will be used to assess the status and performance of the fishery. However, these management reference points indirectly benefit the biological and ecological environments by influencing the development of fishery management measures, which directly affect golden tilefish and other species.
Economic/Social Effects
In summary, no direct economic or social effects are expected to accrue to any of the alternative benchmark parameter specifications. Indirect effects could accrue if future assessment of the stock relative to the benchmarks identifies a need for restrictive management. The magnitude of these effects, however, will depend on the nature of the specific management measures adopted. These effects will be quantified when such action is prepared, if necessary.
Sale of Recreationally-Caught Fish
Biological Effects
The no action Alternative 1 would allow the continued sale of snapper grouper species from the South Atlantic EEZ up to the allowed bag limit. The Council’s Preferred Alternative 2 would require a valid commercial permit to sell South Atlantic snapper and groupers. South Atlantic snapper and groupers possessed under the bag limits would not be able to be sold or purchased. Some recreational fishermen may intentionally catch more fish than they can consume with the intent to sell. Therefore, Alternative 2 could have a minor biological benefit if it results in a decrease in fishing effort. Similarly, Alternative 3, which would require a Federal charter/headboat snapper grouper permit or Federal commercial snapper grouper permit to sell snapper grouper species from the South Atlantic EEZ up to the bag limit of snapper grouper species, could also have minor biological benefits if it resulted in a reduction in fishing effort.
Economic/Social Effects
Preferred Alternative 2 is expected to result in unquantifiable positive economic benefits for vessels holding the Federal commercial snapper grouper permit since harvest pressure from the recreational and non-Federally permitted commercial sector motivated by sales will be eliminated, thereby reducing the possibility of accelerated closures and avoiding the adverse economic impacts of protracted closure. Due to avoidance of the adverse economic impacts associated with extended closure, Preferred Alternative 2 is expected to result in an increase in net economic benefits relative to the status quo.
Preferred Alternative 2 would eliminate all snapper grouper recreational sales. Since this would result in winners and losers in the recreational sales debate, all conflict between the sectors would not totally dissipate, but a certain degree of finality to the issue would be reached, at least for the snapper grouper fishery (sales of other species may still be allowed), allowing the respective parties to move forward. To the extent that having a decision is less contentious than
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 15 NOVEMBER 2007
ongoing debate, the social impacts of this alternative should be more positive than Alternative 1. Overall, due to avoidance of the adverse economic impacts associated with extended closure and reaching finality in the debate over bag limit sales, Preferred Alternative 2 is expected to result in an increase in net social benefits relative to the status quo.
Monitor and Assess Bycatch
Biological Effects
Indirect impacts resulting from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide a better understanding of the composition and magnitude of bycatch; enhance the quality of data provided for stock assessments; increase the quality of assessment output; provide better estimates of interactions with protected species; and lead to better decisions regarding additional measures that might be needed to reduce bycatch.
Economic/Social Effects
Quantitatively distinguishing the differences in the costs and impacts of Alternatives 2-4 is not possible at this time since the full costs of the neither the ACCSP module or interim methods are available. It can be reasonably stated, however, since each of Alternatives 2-4 would impose increased bycatch reporting requirements, the costs associated with the requirements of Alternatives 2-4 exceed that of Alternative 1.
Despite the higher costs relative to Alternative 1, the expectation and assumption is that the improved bycatch information expected to be generated by these methods will result in improved stock assessments, more appropriate management measures, quicker rebuilding, where appropriate, and, overall, increased net biological, economic, and social benefits. Since Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 end with the same system in the long term, the long term benefits of these two alternatives are presumed equal, though the net benefits of Preferred Alternative 2 are assumed to be less than those of Alternative 3 due to the delay in implementing the preferred data program. Since the preferred monitoring and assessment program would never be achieved under Alternative 4, the conclusion is that the long term net economic and social benefits of this alternative are less than those of both Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Incidental Take
Impact Minimization Measures
Biological Effects
Alternative 1 would not provide additional biological benefits since additional management measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take on sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish caught in the South Atlantic snapper grouper fishery would not be implemented. Preferred Alternative 2 would have slightly greater biological benefit than Alternative 3 as gear requirements are independent of freeboard height.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 16 NOVEMBER 2007
Economic/Social Effects
Meeting the gear requirements of Preferred Alternative 2 is estimated to cost vessels from $617-$1,115 (2006 dollars). The estimated aggregate cost of the gear requirements of Preferred Alternative 2 is approximately $1.32-$2.38 million (2006 dollars). The minimization of impacts from incidental take on sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish may result in increased economic benefits relative to the status quo in the form of enhanced existence value and increased economic and community activity of industries that benefit from enhanced or recovered resources, such as diving or nest site tours. Additionally, while this action will not lead to species recovery, minimization of the impacts of incidental take may contribute to species recovery and recovery may support increased economic benefits from directed harvest, should such harvest be determined to be appropriate.
Out-of-pocket release gear expenses per vessel for Alternative 3 are estimated to range from $324-$987 (2006 dollars). The estimated aggregate cost of the gear requirements of this alternative on the participants in the fishery is approximately $691,000-$2.11 million (2006 dollars), or $270,000-$629,000 less than Preferred Alternative 2. The gear storage requirements of Alternative 3 would also be less burdensome than those of Preferred Alternative 2.
Permit Renewal
Biological Effects
Permit Renewal Alternative 1 would have no biological effect. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have adverse effects from fewer lost permits; Alternative 3 greater than Alternative 2.
Economic/Social Effects
Alternative 1 (status quo) would be expected to result in the continued loss of economic benefits from expiration of unlimited snapper grouper commercial permits due to the inability to renew permits within the current 60-day timeframe. Total losses as a result of these expirations and the net impact of future expirations cannot be determined. Alternative 2 would be expected to reduce the incidence of unintentional permit expiration since the renewal period would be three times longer than under the status quo and, thus, result in unquantifiable net economic and social gains relative to the status quo. Fishing operations would have longer to adjust to unexpected disruptions, such as illness or severe weather events, reducing the jeopardy of their permit. Preferred Alternative 3 would allow the longest period for permit renewal and would, therefore, be expected to minimize the incidence of unintentional permit expiration relative to Alternatives 1 and 2 and result in the largest gain in net economic and social benefits relative to the status quo. Additional unquantifiable economic and social benefits may accrue to both fishery participants and the administrative environment through standardization of renewal periods since most other permits have similar 1-year renewal periods.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 17 NOVEMBER 2007
Permit Transferability
Biological Effects
Some degree of beneficial indirect effects to the stock and ecological environment would be expected from the continued implementation of the 2 for 1 permit system (Alternative 1) and associated reduction in fishing effort from the removal of permits. The biological effects to the stock and associated ecological environment from Alternative 2 are expected to be the same as Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would repeal the 2 for 1 permit transfer provision. The beneficial biological effects as described under Alternative 1 would no longer exist. In general, the biological benefits are greatest with the sub-alternatives that place the greatest restrictions on permit renewal.
Economic/Social Effects
Under Alternative 1, holders would not be able to receive the tax and liability benefits associated with incorporation. Alternative 2 would allow incorporation and the realization of associated benefits without the requirement to obtain a second permit, subject to the incorporation being limited to ownership by the original permit holder and immediate family members. Alternative 2 would, therefore, result in greater unquantifiable economic and social benefits than Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would eliminate the two-for-one permit transfer requirement, thus, eliminating all impediments to incorporation and accommodating the realization of all incorporation benefits. Permit prices would be expected to increase since a single permit would reflect the full value of fishery participation instead of two permits. Thus, while the total cost of the permit to the entering entity may remain largely unchanged, exiting participants should be able to receive higher individual payments. To the extent that sufficient contraction of the fleet to realize optimal economic and social benefits of the fishery has not yet occurred, Alternative 3 may result in less net economic benefits relative to Alternative 2 since some continued fleet contraction would be expected under Alternative 2 regardless of the sub-alternative implemented.
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 18 NOVEMBER 2007
SNAPPER GROUPER AMENDMENTS 15A/15B PUBLIC
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Hearings Begin at 6:00 pm except for 12/3/07*
Tuesday, 11/13/07
Sombrero Cay Club
19 Sombrero Boulevard
Marathon, FL 33050
Phone: 305-743-2250
Wednesday, 11/14/07
Sheraton Yankee Clipper Hotel
1140 Seabreeze Boulevard (A1A)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: 954-524-5551
Thursday, 11/15/07
Radisson Resort at the Port
8701 Astronaut Boulevard
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Phone: 321-784-0000
Friday, 11/16/07
Comfort Inn Oceanfront
1515 North 1st Street
Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
Phone: 904-241-2311
Tuesday, 11/27/07
Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum
175 Bourne Avenue
Pooler, GA 31322
Phone: 912-748-8888
Wednesday, 11/28/07
Hilton Garden Inn Charleston Airport
5265 International Boulevard
North Charleston, SC 29418
Phone: 843-308-9330
Wednesday, 11/28/07
Avista Resort
300 N. Ocean Boulevard
North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582
Phone: 843-249-2521
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 19 NOVEMBER 2007
Thursday, 11/29/07
Shell Island Resort
2700 Lumina Avenue
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Phone: 910-256-0418
Friday, 11/30/07
NC Aquarium on Roanoke Island
374 Airport Road
Manteo, NC 27954
Phone: 252-473-3494
Monday, 12/3/07 (*Begins at 7:00 pm)
Sheraton Atlantic Beach
2717 W. Fort Macon Road
Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Phone: 252-240-1155
The Council accepts comments sent by mail, fax, or E-mail (SG15B@safmc.net).
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 20 NOVEMBER 2007
What Next?
Public Hearings – Nov./Dec. 2007
Comments due Jan. 11th by midnight
Council submit to the Secretary of Commerce – March 2008
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 21 NOVEMBER 2007
APPENDIX A
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
2007-2008 Membership
Council Chairman:
George J. Geiger
566 Ponoka Street
Sebastian, FL 32958
772/388-3183
georgejgeiger@bellsouth.net
Council Vice-Chairman:
Charles Duane Harris
105 Demere Retreat Lane
St. Simons Island, GA 31522
912/638-9430
seageorg@bellsouth.net
Deirdre Warner-Kramer
Office of Marine Conservation
OES/OMC
2201 C Street, N.W.
Department of State, Room 5806
Washington, DC 20520
202/647-3228
202/736-7350 (fax)
warner-kramerDM@state.gov
Robert H. Boyles, Jr.
S.C. Department of Natural Resources
Marine Resources Division
P.O. Box 12259 (217 Ft. Johnson Road)
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
843/953-9304
843/953-9159 (fax)
boylesr@dnr.sc.gov
Columbus H. Brown
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 205
Atlantic, GA 30345
404/679-4143
404/679-7194 (fax)
columbus_brown@fws.gov
Dr. Roy Crabtree
Regional Administrator
NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Region
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
727/824-5301
727/824-5320 (fax)
roy.crabtree@noaa.gov
David Cupka
P.O. Box 12753
Charleston, SC 29422
843/795-8591 (hm)
843/870-5495 (cell)
cupkad@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us
Benjamin M. “Mac” Currin
801 Westwood Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
919/881-0049
mcurrin1@bellsouth.net
Dr. Brian Cheuvront
Director, NC Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769 (3441 Arendell St.)
Morehead City, NC 28557
252/726-7021 (ext. 8015)
252/726-3903 (fax)
brian.cheuvront@ncmail.net
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 22 NOVEMBER 2007
Anthony “Tony” Iarocci
236 Guava Avenue
Grassy Key, FL 33050
305/743-7162
305/743-2697 (fax)
Rita G. Merrit
38 Pelican Drive
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
910/256-3197
910/256-3689 (fax)
miridon@ec.rr.com
John Vince O’Shea
Executive Director
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission
1444 Eye Street, N.W., 6th floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/289-6400
202/289-6051(fax)
voshea@asmfc.org
Lt. Chad R. Brick
U.S. Coast Guard
Brickell Plaza Federal Building
909 S.E. First Avenue
Room 876/DRE
Miami, FL 33131-3050
305/415-6781
305/415-6791(fax)
Chad.R.Brick@uscg.mil
Mark Robson
Director, Division of Marine Fisheries
Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission
620 S. Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
850/487-0554
850/487-4847 (fax)
mark.robson@myfwc.com
Susan Shipman
Director, Coastal Resources Division
GA Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division
One Conservation Way, Suite 300
Brunswick, GA 31520-8687
912/264-7218
912/262-2318 (fax)
sshipman@dnr.state.ga.us
Tom Swatzel
P.O. Box 1311
Murrells Inlet, SC 29576
843/357-1673
tom@captdicks.com
John Wallace
5 Buddy Beckham Road
P.O. Box 88
Meridian, GA 31319
912/437-6797
912/437-7559 (fax)
gwallace@darientel.net
SOUTH ATLANTIC SNAPPER GROUPER PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 15B 23 NOVEMBER 2007
Council Staff Responsible for Snapper Grouper Amendment 15B:
Rick DeVictor
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201
North Charleston, SC 29405
843/571-4366
Toll Free 866/SAFMC-10
843/571-4520 (fax)
richard.devictor@safmc.net 
Snapper Grouper Amendment 15 B Screw Job 
