MINUTES

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVENTH MEETING

DUCK KEY, FLORIDA

MARCH 9-13,1998

The one hundred and fifty-seventh meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) was called to order by Chairman Maumus Claverie at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 11, 1998. Council members in attendance were:

VOTING MEMBERS

PeteAparicio ...... Texas IrbyBasco ...... Texas Maumus Claverie, Jr...... Louisiana Felicia Coleman ...... Florida Myron Fischer ...... Louisiana Karen Foote (designee for James Jenkins) ...... Louisiana J.ScottGreen ...... Florida Philip Horn ...... Mississippi Andrew Kemmerer ...... National Marine Fisheries Service AlbertKing ...... Alabama KarlLessard ...... Florida R.VernonMinton ...... Alabama RussellNelson ...... Florida Hal Osburn (designee for Gene McCarty) ...... Texas RobertShipp ...... Alabama Kay Williams ...... Mississippi Roy Williams (designee for Russell Nelson) ...... Florida William Perret (designee for Glade Woods) ...... Mississippi

NONVOTING MEMBERS

Larry Simpson ...... Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Doug Fmge (designee for Sam Hamilton) ...... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LCDR Thomas Atkin (designee for Timothy W. Josiah) ...... Eighth Coast Guard District Lt. John Sherlock (designee for Timothy W. Josiah) ...... Eighth Coast Guard District Columbus Brown (designee for Sam Hamilton) ...... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service STAFF

Anne Alford ...... Travel Coordinator Steven Atran ...... Population Dynamics Statistician Lorna Evans ...... Transcription Specialist AntonioLamberte ...... Economist Richard Leard ...... Senior Fishery Biologist Michael McLemore ...... NOAA General Counsel Wayne Swingle ...... Executive Director

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

LCDR Ed Pino (designee for Norman Saunders) ...... Eighth Coast Guard District Ben Hartig ...... South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Gene Proulx ...... National Marine Fisheries Service Joseph Kirnrnel ...... National Marine Fisheries Service Johnny Yarborough ...... Steinhatchee, Florida Ed Thompson ...... Palm Harbor, Florida Bill Kelly ...... Plantation Key, Florida Bob Zales, I1 ...... Panama City, Florida Bill Parks ...... Boynton Beach, Florida Christine Parks ...... Boynton Beach, Florida Scott Hutchinson ...... Summerland Key, Florida Billy Deans ...... Key West, Florida Tim Taylor ...... Key West, Florida Alexander Stone ...... Miami, Florida Don DeMaria ...... Summerland Key, Florida Gordy Sharp ...... Florida Marine Patrol, Marathon, Florida Tom Hansen ...... St. Marks, Florida Rocky Foster ...... Crystal River, Florida Rick Hartley ...... Hudson, Florida John Sanchez ...... Miami, Florida Charles Carter ...... Key West, Florida William Carter ...... Key West, Florida Ron Meyers ...... Little Torch Key, Florida Grady Sullivan ...... Big Pine Key, Florida Richard Lynn ...... St. Marks, Florida H. D. Beeman ...... Palatka, Florida Bob Day ...... St. Marks, Florida W. A. Lynn ...... St. Marks, Florida Bob Gill ...... Crystal River, Florida Scott Goins ...... Summerland Key, Florida Duke Goins ...... Key West, Florida Thomas Linton, I11 ...... Crawfordville, Florida Tony Lamasa ...... Key West, Florida Rick LaFlair ...... Key West, Florida Craig Jiovani ...... Key West, Florida Dan Crowley ...... Big Pine Key, Florida Mike Weinhofer ...... Key West, Florida Jim Shaye ...... Big Pine Key, Florida Art Barton ...... Key West, Florida Mitchell Webber ...... Crystal River, Florida Judy Jamison ...... G&SAFDF, Tampa, Florida Buster Collins ...... Perry, Florida Maddiline Collins ...... Perry, Florida Robert Martin ...... Ocala, Florida Damas Kirk ...... Naples, Florida Drew Bertine ...... Lecanto, Florida Bart Bailey ...... Naples, Florida Todd Reynolds ...... St. James City, Florida Ranger Roy Appugliese ...... National Park Service, Key West, Florida Marty Harris ...... Tallahassee, Florida Michael Birren ...... Marathon, Florida Rick Berry ...... Islamorada, Florida Ted Forsgren ...... Tallahassee, Florida Capt. Bill Wickers ...... Key West, Florida Tommy Roberts ...... Key West, Florida Linda Wickers ...... Key West, Florida Joe Mercurio ...... Key West, Florida Peter Bacle ...... Key West, Florida Vincent Molle, Jr...... Jupiter, Florida Bobby Pillar ...... Summerland Key, Florida Roland Meyers ...... Little Torch Key, Florida John Reed ...... Key West, Florida William Golden ...... Key West, Florida Peter Gladding ...... Key West, Florida Andy Griffiths ...... Key West, Florida Billy Niles ...... Summerland Key, Florida Jimmy Pierce ...... Key West, Florida Karc Wagner ...... Marathon, Florida William Roche ...... Key West, F1,orida Jesus De La Torre ...... Key West, Florida Francisco Arencibia ...... Key West, Florida Frank Arencibia ...... Key West, Florida Charlie Renier ...... Key West, Florida Jesus Diaz ...... Hialeah, Florida Pedro Delgado ...... Key West, Florida Richard Diaz ...... Key West, Florida Ruben Hernandez ...... Key West, Florida

Dr. Claverie read the opening statement and asked for voice identification. Adoption of A~enda

The agenda was adopted with the following changes: Add Tab K, No. 1, document regarding Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary issue about transiting an area; convening the Ad Hoc Crustacean and Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panels (SAP); Summary of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) processing of amendments; deadline for the status of the National Standard Guidelines and dehitions; and the status of the Regulatory Amendment setting total allowable catch (TAC) for red snapper.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the January 19-23, 1998 Council meeting held in Point Clear, Alabama were approved with the following changes: On Page 13, Mr. Siguard A. Semby, Jr. should read Mr. Siguard A. Smeby, Jr.; on Page 32, last paragraph, third line from the bottom change the following: " ...where was the assurance that a recruitment" should read "...where was the insurance against recruitment"; strike "would not occur"; strike "the"; "She emphasized that although not increasing" should read "She emphasized that although decreasing..."

Public Testimony

Reef Fish Amendment 16

Johnnv Yarbrou~h:Steinhatchee, Florida, Ya-Bo, Inc., Mr. Yarbrough related that in 1994 he was put out of business by losing his trap endorsement, just after he rigged his vessel for trap fishing. He has been heavily involved with the Council ever since. He explained that since March, 1997, he and his partner, Marty Harris, had invested $57,883 .OO with the understanding .that they had 10 years to phase out of the industry. He was opposed to the 2-year phase out (Section 6.1) and pointed out that he, along with several other fishermen, had made large investments with the understanding that they had 10 years to recoup their investments. He related that under Section 6.2, he supported status quo. For Section 6.3, he had no problem with it if it helped out the industry and enforcement; and for Section 6.4 he had no problem with this section except for the 1-month closure for inspection.

Mr. Williams questioned if Mr. Yarbrough intended to fish for stone crabs. Mr. Yarbrough replied that his vessel was capable of fishing for stone crabs, and he had the stone crab endorsement, but the fish trap fishery was his main focus.

Mr. Williams asked how much Mr. Yarbrough paid for his fish trap endorsement. Mr. Yarbrough responded that Marty Harris had the fish trap endorsement already so they did not need to purchase one.

Mr. Basco asked what length of time Mr. Yarbrough fish trapped. Mr. Yarbrough replied that in South Florida you could fish trap all year; in North Florida, it was based on the weather. Mr. Basco asked if Mr. Yarbrough fished 12 months a year. Mr. Yarbrough responded yes.

Ed Thompson: Palm Harbor, Florida, West Coast Headboat Association. Mr. Thompson stated that he gave public testimony in Tampa, Florida regarding the 2-year phase out, he chose status quo for Section 6.1. For Section 6.3, he believed it was inevitable and everyone would have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) eventually, so he chose Alternative 1. Under Section 7.2.1 he recommended sub-option b; and under Section 7.2.2 he chose the Preferred Alternative. Regarding minor amberjacks, he supported the 5 fish bag limit. Regarding hogfish, he believed they needed protection, and he stated that the 12-inch size limit for cubera snapper was a shame. He believed 14 inches was a good size for scamp and yellowmouth grouper. He felt that there should be no size limit for speckled hind and warsaw grouper. He stated that triggerfish and hogfish had no meat, especially under a 12-inch size limit.

Bill Kelly: Plantation Key, Florida, Islamorada Charter Boat Association. Mr. Kelly stated there were two issues of importance to its members; the sale of recreationally caught king mackerel and the phase out of fish traps in the Gulf He believed that king mackerel were making a recovery due to extensive tagging studies done by the Islamorada Charter Boat Association during the late 1980's and early 1990's. He stated that this tagging system was why king mackerel were in such good shape today. He related that several customers, as gratuity, had left their catch with the charterboat personnel to sell, which had helped maintain many charterboat operations. He explained that if the sale of recreationally caught king mackerel were prohibited, many charterboat operators would be forced to raise their charterboat fees. He agreed that the recreational catch of fish should not be counted against the commercial quota. He understood that the amount of recreationally caught fish by the charterboat operators amounted to less than one percent of the commercial harvest. He and his members believed new trip tickets should be used to distinguish between commercial, charter, and recreationally caught fish. He explained that the charterboat operators were self-policing and often imposed requirements more stringent than the federal requirements. He related that fish traps were one of the single most destructive fishing devices ever conceived by man because they were too efficient, and he believed they should be banned during the 2-year phase out. He asked that the Council approve the sale of recreationally caught king mackerel; ban the use of fish traps in 2 years and agree to keep separate records for charter fleet operations.

Dr. Shipp asked ifa prior agreement had been reached between the customer and the charterboat operator as to whether any fish caught would be kept by the charterboat operator and would that influence the price of the charter. Mr. Kelly responded that the price of the charter would not be affected, and each charterboat operator was different, but basically the catch belonged to the customer.

Ms. Williams asked ifMr. Kelly knew anything about licenses being issued to mates so they could sell their catch and not be traced to any particular boat. Mr. Kelly replied that he knew nothing about that.

Mr. Basco asked what increase in charter price would occur if the sale of recreationally caught king mackerel were prohibited. Mr. Kelly answered that it would be up to the charterboat captains, but he believed it may be $25-$50 dollars per boat per triplday. Mr. Basco then asked if charterboat operators carried reef fish permits. Mr. Kelly responded yes.

Mr. Williams asked ifthe king mackerel that were caught aboard the charterboats were releasable. Mr. Kelly replied that they were very releasable. Mr. Williams hrther questioned whether the first dozen fish caught could be released because he was looking for a way to hold down the charterboat catch and keep it within its allocation. Mr. Kelly answered that there was an increase in the amount of fish caught because there were more charterboat operators and more charter fishing days.

Mr. Fischer asked how many days in a year a charterboat operator went offshore. Mr. Kelly answered approximately 180 days. Mr. Fischer asked how many of these days was he involved in the mackerel fishery. Mr. Kelly replied approximately 100 days. Mr. Fischer questioned if it were a common occurrence for customers to leave their catch for the charterboat operators. Mr. Kelly responded yes.

Mr. King asked if Mr. Kelly's organization had discussed the possibility of limited access in the charter fishery. Mr. Kelly replied yes. Mr. King asked what the consensus of this group was regarding keeping some sort of logbook or a VMS and when the quota was reached would this group choose for conservation. Mr. Kelly responded that his group would support conservation and recommend a closure.

Mr. Minton questioned what would be the general cost of a charter trip. Mr. Kelly replied approximately $600.00. Mr. Minton asked how many passengers were usually onboard. Mr. Kelly responded six. Mr. Minton then asked how many of the fish onboard were being sold. Mr. Kelly could not answer that question. Mr. Minton wanted to know if it was true that the sale of customers' catch amounts to about 25 to 30 percent of a mate's income. Mr. Kelly replied that mates characteristically got a percentage of the fish sales as part of their income.

Mr. Green related that there had been discussion regarding closing the recreational fishery when the commercial fishery was closed and asked Mr. Kelly for his opinion. Mr. Kelly responded he believed that was a viable option and his organization wanted what was best for the fishery.

Mr. Simpson asked if a discussion occurred between the customer and the charterboat operator about what to do with a fish when one was caught. Mr. Kelly replied that usually before the trip begins, the captain will discuss what type of fishing the customer would like to do; and at that time, the captain ascertains whether the customer wants to keep the fish.

Bob Zales. II: Panama City, Florida, Panama City Boatmen's Association. Mr. Zales supported the reef fish committee's decision. He believed that it should be illegal to retain any amberjack, other than Almaco jack, that was outside the range of 14 inches or less and the 20-28-inch slot limit. Then enforcement would only have to measure and count the fish. He stated that the Council should implement a limited entry date immediately rather than broadcast their intent to impose limited entry. Otherwise, anyone who may want to enter this fishery would be able to, and thus defeat the initial purpose of limited entry. He was opposed to the allocation and boundary limits in the mackerel 9 amendment. He stated that the fishing year should be leR as status quo. He opposed the sale of mackerel caught by recreational fishermen.

Mr. King asked Mr. Zales ifhe thought it was fair to grant a group of fishermen 10 years to phase out of a fishery then turn around and only give them 2 years. Mr. Zales replied that he was on the RFAP, and his opinion was that the 10 years should remain the option for these fishermen. Mr. Perret asked if Mr. Zales was against the sale of recreationally caught king mackerel. Mr. Zales responded that yes he was against it. Mr. Perret asked if that was his personal opinion or an opinion on behalf of the Panama City Boatmen's Association. Mr. Zales replied that it was his personal opinion.

Mr. Basco asked whether the king mackerel was an easier fish to release than a red snapper. Mr. Zales answered no.

Mr. Horn asked if a recreational fisherman could distinguish a 20 or 24 inch Spanish mackerel from a king mackerel. Mr. Zales replied not unless he pointed out the difference.

Dr. Kernrnerer asked ifMr. Zales supported the 30 percent allocation in zone 2. Mr. Zales replied that he supported the 30 percent allocation.

Mr. Lessard stated that there was a big difference in the release mortality of a red snapper as compared to a 20-inch king mackerel. A red snapper being released at 16 inches had a chance to reproduce whereas a 20-inch king mackerel had not reached sexual maturity. Mr. Zales was not certain fiom the biological information available to him that a 20-inch king mackerel was not reproducing. He stated that something about the current management plan was working because there was an abundance of king mackerel. He did not think the 20-inch size limit was the determining factor, rather the 2-fish bag limit and the quota were helphl.

Mr. Simpson questioned if Mr. Zales knew how the charterboat operators in his area felt about a pilot charterboat survey that was currently being done to try to improve the effort estimates. Mr. Zales responded that he and the operators in his area supported this program.

Mr. Hartig asked if sales in the northern Gulf had increased. Mr. Zales replied yes. When the northern charterboat fishermen heard that southern charterboat fishermen were selling their catch, they decided to do the same.

Bill Parks: Boynton Beach, Florida, tropical fish collector. Mr. Parks pointed out that two of the most outspoken trap fishermen were not in attendance at this meeting because one had been apprehended committing numerous trap violations and was no longer a trap fisherman; and the other trap fisherman was currently facing up to $50,000.00 in trap violation fines. He stated that the angelfish population was impacted by fish trapping, which was proven during several trap violation busts. He related that his industry just experienced the largest angelfish kill in recorded history which extended from Venezuela, up through the Antilles, and into the Gulf of Mexico. He was monitoring this situation at this time to see if it affected future recruitment. He believed believed that the hook-and-line fishery was being phased out by the fish trap industry. He questioned that a decision was made by the Council based on lies from fish trap fishermen who were in violation of the law. He advised the Council that when he was in Bimini, Bahamas, he spoke with several divers and asked what they thought of the diving there. They replied it was dead; there were no fish; and he believed that was because there were so many fish traps there.

Mr. King asked what happened to the angelfish to cause the large kill Mr. Parks mentioned. Mr. Parks replied that the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) was still investigating the cause. Mr. Williams questioned whether it would be viable to pick an area to prohibit fish traps, such as the Tortugas. Mr. Parks responded that tropical reefs and the ornamental population was higher in the Southern Gulf He related that if the Council chose to protect one area they must consider that even as far north as Destin, there was a large population of blue angelfish. He believed that a lot of the blue angelfish recruitment in the Keys was coming from the upper Gulf but the source of many other species was the Tortugas. He hoped the Council would not compromise; but if necessary, he preferred to save the live reef areas as opposed to none of the areas at all.

Mi-. Aparicio asked ifMr. Parks had any other evidence that fish traps were detrimental other than a few violations. Mr. Parks related that there was evidence that a number of trappers were loading traps and returning without them; then loading more traps and again returning without them. He noted that several traps had no tags on them. He pointed out that the only reason one of the violations was now under investigation was because the captain got into an argument with his mates, and they reported him.

Mi-. Lessard asked ifMr. Parks knew whether the trappers in the Bahamas were required to bring their traps back to port. Mr. Parks did not know. Mr. Lessard questioned whether the Bahamas trap fishermen used bio-degradable panels in their traps. Mr. Parks related that there were regulations for them, but he saw very few that were bio-degradable. Most used standard, vinyl- coated wire put together with hog rings.

Peter Gladding: Key West, Florida. Mr. Gladding related that fish traps interfered with hand line fishing in the Tortugas area. He believed the Council should have banned fish traps when the SAFMC did, as there was sigmlicant proof that the fish were finally starting to come back in that area. He did not agree with the 12-inch size limit for mutton snapper as it had no chance to reproduce.

Dr. Shipp asked if Mi-. Gladding was a member of an organization and if the other members felt the same as him. Mi-. Gladding responded that he was a member of Concerned Fishermen of Florida (CFF) and all hand line fishermen hoped to see the fish traps prohibited.

Scott Hutchinson: Summerland Key, Florida, commercial fisherman. Mr. Hutchinson stated he had been diving in Florida for twelve years collecting tropical fish and spear fishing. He had seen numerous traps with dead or dying fish, no buoys, and in illegal areas. He did not understand why the scientific collectors did not put their own traps out in the water to see what the traps caught.

Mr. Simpson asked if every trap Mr. Hutchinson saw was illegal. Mr. Hutchinson replied yes, and he dove in the South Atlantic area.

Mi-. Williams asked ifMr. Hutchinson dove in the Tortugas area. Mr. Huchinson responded no.

Mi-. King questioned whether Mr. Hutchinson would like his livelihood taken away because someone else in his fishery were fishing illegally. Mr. Hutchinson replied that he knew of no one that was using illegal chemicals in this industry. Mr. Horn asked if the traps Mi-. Hutchinson saw were in the South Atlantic area. Mr. Hutchinson answered yes.

Dr. Kernrnerer stated that a study had been done where traps were put out by NMFS and if Mr. Hutchinson would like a copy, it would be mailed to him.

Billy Deams: Key West, Florida, President of Key West Diver, Inc. Mr. Deams stated that he was an appointed member of the NOAA technical diving safety review board. He related that he has seen the destruction done by fish traps on several dives of shipwrecks. He stated that on one specific shipwreck, the U.S.S. Kendrick which sunk in 1968 in 54 fathoms, he saw a series of derelict traps filled with bones and dead animals. He hrther stated that the traps were kept clean by the cold water, and they had no tags. Also, the traps did not have bio-degradable fasteners; rather rubber tubing, which did not degrade due to the cold water.

Mr. Aparicio asked ifthe traps that Mi-. Deams had seen were illegal. Mr. Deams replied that the traps on the Kendrick were illegal; they had no tags. He stated that he dove at Riley's Hump and saw several illegal traps there as well.

Mr. Horn asked where the U. S.S. Kendrick was located. Mr. Deams responded that it was approximately eight miles south of Key West.

Mi-. Fischer questioned how deep Mr. Deams dove. Mr. Deams stated that it depended on the job, but he dove as deep as 72 fathoms with both open and closed-circuit equipment.

Tim Taylor: Key West, Florida, a recreational dive business operator with a live-aboard dive boat. Mi-. Taylor stated that he witnessed several illegal fish traps in the Tortugas. He noted that it took 2 divers approximately 25 minutes, after hauling the traps out of the water, to break apart the traps to release the fish. He believed that fish traps were the reason fish were disappearing and the reefs were being destroyed.

Mr. Williams asked how long Mi-. Taylor had been diving. Mr. Taylor stated 10 years. Mr. Williams questioned if Mr. Taylor had seen a change in the abundance of fish or an increase of traps. Mr. Taylor replied yes on both counts. Mi-. Williams asked if Mr. Taylor had seen these traps on protected coral. Mr. Taylor answered yes.

Dr. Coleman questioned over what period of time did Mr. Taylor see the increase of traps. Mr. Taylor stated that it was in the last 2 years.

Alexander Stone: Miami, Florida, Reefkeeper International. Mr. Stone supported Alternative 4 - no harvest for warsaw grouper and speckled hind. He stated that the Council should not exclude any species of fish from their management. He believed that any crustacean trap that had wire mesh inside was in fact a fish trap, and he supported Alternative 3 under Section 6.2. He stated that the 10-year phase out was excessive, and 3 years would be sufficient time because the fish trap fishermen could sell or convert their boats. He believed that they wanted to recoup their money for the traps. Mr. Williams asked if protecting the Florida reef tract down through the Tortugas would be a good compromise. Mr. Stone replied no because fish traps were found in areas that were prohibited to them already.

Mr. King questioned if Mr. Stone had read the section relating to VMS. Mr. Stone replied yes, but he did not believe VMS was workable for the fish trap fishery.

Mr. Aparicio asked if Mr. Stone believed that the fish trap fishermen could regain their finances in 3 years. Mr. Stone responded that the boats were convertible; he had a dive boat that used to be a lobster boat.

Don DeMaria: Surnmerland Key, Florida, Coral Reef Research Foundation. Mr. DeMaria related that the fish trap issue had been one that had divided several groups of fishermen. He stated that fish traps were a bad gear type no matter where they were deployed. He believed that there was an increase in illegal traps. He questioned how one agency could designate an area as protected while another allowed the area to be lined with fish traps.

Mr. Williams asked if Mr. DeMaria concurred that protecting the reef tract was a good compromise. Mr. DeMaria stated that the boats would still transit the area due to lack of enforcement.

Officer Gordy Shar~:Marathon, Florida, Florida Marine Patrol. Officer Sharp related that he prosecuted about 4 cases resulting in 35 traps being taken from the water. He explained that he contracted with Billy Deams to make a dive at Riley's Hump which was well documented and generated a case. He stated that he documented every violation he encountered but he was not aware whether it was prosecuted. He videotaped several bycatch violators, and stated that there was a significant bycatch. He pointed out that in the documents the Council members were reviewing, it stated that no activity had been generated in the last year; but he considered it one of his busiest years. He stated that he was not employed to specifically enforce the federal fishery; the Coast Guard made an attempt, but there was no specific individual monitoring the federal fishery.

Mr. Perret asked if Officer Sharp or his agency received compensation or part of the fines assessed. Officer Sharp replied yes, but he stated that it was not significant.

Mr. Osburn questioned ifthere was evidence of commercial reef fish fishermen with no fish trap endorsement taking trap material offshore, building traps, and using the traps to add to their hook-and-line catches. Officer Sharp had no reason to believe that was occurring.

Dr. Coleman asked what was the proportion of legal to illegal traps. Officer Sharp responded that was difficult to answer because he could not see all the traps. Dr. Coleman then asked if enforcement was being helped by other fish trap fishermen reporting illegal trapping. Officer Sharp replied that it was more mutiny than cooperation. Dr. Coleman questioned what primary substrate the illegal fish traps were on. Officer Sharp replied that depended on what the traps were targeting, and again he could not see them all. He hrther replied that if the target were yelloweye snapper or migratory stocks then the traps were on flat bottom off the reef tracts. If the target was grouper, the traps would be on or at the edge of the reef track. Mr. Basco wanted to know of the violations he investigated, how many traps were illegal. Officer Sharp stated that approximately 200 traps in the 4 cases he investigated last year were illegal. Mr. Basco questioned what was the average length of time that a fisherman worked his trap. Officer Sharp believed that most of the fish trappers in the Keys were involved in multiple fisheries; therefore, whatever fishery was hot was what they would be fishing so it could be all year.

Mr. Simpson asked what Officer Sharp thought about the VMS as it related to enforcement. Officer Sharp did not believe enforcement had the manpower to monitor this system and did not believe VMS was a viable alternative. Mi-. Simpson asked if this opinion was shared by other enforcement officers. Officer Sharp replied yes.

Mr. Minton asked what were the violations were for setting traps in state waters. Oficer Sharp answered a second degree misdemeanor, $600.00 fine, and seizure of the vessel. Mr. Minton wondered if there was any legislation to stiffen the fines or have a law where the state kept the boat rather than giving it back to the fisherman. Officer Sharp was not aware of any.

Mr. Aparicio asked what were the percentage of the arrests between the Gulf EEZ, South Atlantic area, and the state of Florida waters. Officer Sharp replied that the majority of illegal gear was found in the Gulf, west of the Dry Tortugas.

Mr. Williams questioned Oficer Sharp as to where he sent his paperwork once he finished his investigation. Officer Sharp responded that he sent his paperwork to the local agent, Mack Fuss or Logan Gregory, then it was processed and sent to NOAA General Counsel. He stated that at every level of the case processing procedure there was a potential for discretionary practices. Mr. Williams wondered if Oficer Sharp ever heard of the disposition of any of his cases. Officer Sharp replied that he was not aware of what happened to any of his cases.

Tom Hau~en:St. Marks, Florida, Little Dipper Commercial Boats. Mr. Haugen favored the 10- year phase out because it would give the fish trap fishermen time to move into another fishery. He stated that all of the negative public testimony he had heard was about illegal fish traps not the legal traps. He believed the banning of fish traps would not stop the illegal trap fishermen from their illegal activities. He encouraged the Council to base its decision on scientific fact and realize that their decision today could cause management problems later.

Mr. Simpson asked XMr. Haugen knew of any individual, including himself, who constructed and deployed traps illegally. Mr. Haugen replied no. Mr. Simpson questioned whether Mr. Haugen knew of any individual who did not possess a fish trap endorsement who was constructing or deploying illegal traps. Mr. Haugen responded that he was not before the Council to test@ against anyone. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the fishermen had to do some self-policing. Mr. Haugen replied that he believed enforcement would be better suited to that job.

Mr. Minton asked how long Mr. Haugen had been in the fish trap business. Mr. Haugen answered through the 1990's. Mr. Minton then asked how many traps Mr. Haugen handled. Mr. Haugen replied that he had 2 boats with generally 100 traps on 1 boat and 60 traps on the other.

Mr. Green questioned ifthe trap fishery was banned would Mr. Haugen go into another fishery. Mr. Haugen replied that he was already in the hook-and-line industry and if the fish traps were banned, he would have to increase his efforts in the hook-and-line fishery. He stated that he would be impacting the other hook-and-line fishermen as he would then be in direct competition with them. Mr. Green asked if Mr. Haugen would leave the industry. Mr. Haugen responded that fishing was the only thing he knew how to do and he would not want to leave it, but if he went bankrupt he would be forced to leave.

Mr. Fischer asked if Mr. Haugen was putting more effort into the fish trap industry now as opposed to a few years ago. Mr. Haugen replied that he was putting more effort into the fish trap industry now than he was before. Mr. Fischer asked how long it took to pull all of the traps each day. Mr. Haugen stated that it depended on how far apart the traps were from each other; but he pulled his traps every day, sometimes twice a day.

Mr. Basco wanted to know how much time Mr. Haugen spent per year fish trapping. Mr. Haugen replied that one of his boats spent 10 months per year fish trapping; and the other boat, which was smaller, spent less time. Mr. Basco asked if this were a year-round fishery. Mr. Haugen replied that the fish trap fishery was a year-round fishery. He hrther replied that one month of the year he shark fished. Mr. Basco asked if the fish trap fishery was the most lucrative fishery. Mr. Haugen answered yes.

Dr. Coleman asked about the size and number of crew members aboard Mr. Haugen's two boats. Mr. Haugen replied that one boat was 45 feet with a captain and 2 crew and the other boat was 34 feet and Mr. Haugen ran it with 1 or 2 crew members.

Rocky Foster: Crystal River, Florida. Mr. Foster informed the Council that he made quite a few financial decisions based on the 10-year phase out. He stated that he recently purchased a boat, fish trapped all year and was currently building a boat. He related that there was not a problem with illegal fish traps in his area and he did not think the legal fishermen should have to pay for what the illegal fishermen were doing. He stated that he had a VMS aboard his boat and he thought it still needed a lot of improvement to be completely effective.

Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Foster was doing any other kind of fishing. Mr. Foster replied that he was a shrimp fisherman, as well as a fish trap fisherman. He stated that his fish trap target was red grouper and he did not have any bycatch.

Dr. Coleman questioned how many boats and crew members Mr. Foster had. Mr. Foster responded that he had two converted shrimp boats, one was 47 feet with a captain and 2 deckhands, and the other was 44 feet and had a captain and 2 crew members. He also had a small fish trap boat that he was replacing with a larger 48-foot vessel currently being built.

Mr. Minton reiterated that Mr. Foster had four vessels participating in the trap fishery and was building another one. Mr. Foster replied yes. Mr. Minton wanted to know the approximate cost of construction on the 48-foot boat. Mr. Foster replied that he had $52,000 invested at this time. Mr. Minton asked if this would be a fish trap boat and if Mr. Foster would be able to convert it to another fishery. Mr. Foster answered that he planned to use it in the fish trap industry, and he also planned to do some longline fishing. Mr. Perret asked how often Mr. Foster pulled his traps. Mr. Foster answered once or twice a day.

Rick Hartley: Hudson, Florida. Mr. Hartley stated that he purchased a fish trap endorsement with the understanding that he had 10 years to phase out of the fishery. He stated that he made a large investment in his boat and gear and was shocked to find out that he may only have two years to recoup his money. He informed the Council that he did not have much bycatch and he used his traps approximately five to six months of the year. The rest of the year he was a stone crab fisherman. He related that he took his traps 125 miles out. He moved his vessel and hook- and-line fished, then went back the next day to pull his traps. He liked to leave his traps for 12 to 20 hours on the first day; then he began pulling them once or twice a day.

Mr. Perret asked ifMr. Hartley had ever been boarded by law enforcement. Mr. Hartley replied yes; almost every time he went out he was boarded by the Coast Guard.

John Sanchez; Miami, Florida, Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc. (MCCF). Mr. Sanchez supported Alternative 2 - status quo under Section 6.1. He stated that the fish trap fishermen had agreed to the 10-year phase out and had made financial decisions based on that agreement. He questioned whether banning the legal fish trap fishermen would impact enforcement in that there would be no more legal trap fishermen to inform law enforcement of illegal activity in the fish trap fishery. He believed additional finding should be given to enforcement. He supported the Preferred Alternative under Section 6.2. He stated that more work was needed for the VMS under Section 6.3.

Mr. Simpson asked if Mr. Sanchez or his organization was aware of any fishermen from other fisheries who were committing illegal activities in the fish trap fishery and, if so, could he or his , organization do anything to solve this problem. Mr. Sanchez replied that a commitment was made by MCCF. and the trap fishermen to work with enforcement.

Mr. Osburn questioned whether Mr. Sanchez or his organization would be opposed to prohibiting the possession of fish with trap rash unless there was a fish trap endorsement on the vessel. Mr. Sanchez replied that he had never heard of the term trap rash.

Mr. Green asked ifthe members of MCCF, that held endorsements were willing to give up their bycatch allotment to protect the trappers and help them in their enforcement effort. Mr. Sanchez answered absolutely not as this was a classic case of divide and conquer. He continued that the commercial fishermen had to make a profit, and as long as they were within the boundaries of the law, they would continue to work towards that goal.

Dr. Kernrnerer questioned whether Mr. Sanchez had any data on the amount of reef fish brought in by stone crab fishermen. Mr. Sanchez replied that he personally did not, but there were fishermen present who could give estimates.

Grady Sullivan: Big Pine Key, Florida, commercial fisherman in the state of Florida since 1971. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was a fish trap fisherman when the fishery first started. He noted that the fish traps were taken out and brought back in the same day, and he thought that this was how these traps were supposed to be used. He stated that the bycatch was hundreds of angelfish, parrotfish, and tangs that were not the targeted species. He related how he had worked on a lobster boat in the Tortugas in the 19701s,working alongside a fish trap boat and trading lobster heads to the trap boat for bait. He opined that any fisherman that interferes in another fisherman's livelihood was wrong. He stated that when fish traps were allowed in the South Atlantic, the ornamentals were sold in Miami for an average of $.50 per pound. He related that since ornamentals were no longer allowed to be taken back to shore, they were now just used for bait. He informed the Council that he had never seen a legal trap as they all either had monofilament line or rubber tubing instead of bio-degradable doors. He agreed that the fish traps destroyed coral as the fishermen used a 6-foot grapple made out of rebar and ibeam metal to grapple lines.

Mr. Perret asked if Mr. Sullivan believed this fishery should be managed based on economics alone. Mr. Sullivan replied that he believed that was the best use of the resource. Mr. Perret pointed out that there were national standards to prevent managing a resource based on economics only. Mr. Sullivan did not agree.

Mi-. Williams asked if Mr. Sullivan had seen the report done by NMFS where a study of bycatch in the fish traps surmised that there was not much bycatch. Mr. Sullivan replied that he had seen the report, and he believed the fishermen emptied out the traps before the NMFS observers boarded the boats.

A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT WAS REQUESTED BY MR. LESSARD.

Mr. Lessard: "I was talking to Skip Wallers the other day. He and I started diving tropical fish for a living in 1967, and he told me he's had the best angelfish year he's had since he and I started diving in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Mr. Sullivan asked "when was that, this year?'. Mi-. Lessard: "This year, evidently it must have been before . . . well by this year I guess I should say this year's spawn starting probably in July, August, September and he said he's never seen angelfish in the Keys like he saw at the present time, and I was wondering if you saw the same thing." Mr. Sullivan: "I didn't; I've seen a lot better years before, and I think it depends on where you are, say for instance, if you've got one group of breeding angelfish in a certain area that they're gonna... they're larvae's gonna settle out in different places. You know that because they all go by current. Now I'm not saying they're wiping my angelfish out right now. All I'm saying was what I've seen with what's collected in these traps. Mr. Lessard: "And my second thing was in 1977 when Skip and I stopped diving. He became a fish trapper off Naples, and I had heard so much contention about this study that I went to him and I asked him. I figured since he was a marine life collector at the present time, he did not have an agenda, you know, as a fish trapper and everything, and I asked him how many angelfish do you catch in your fish traps, and he said the area I fished off Naples we would catch one a month, and I ...since I've known this individual all my life, I'm pretty content to believe what he has to say." Mr. Sullivan: "Well, I'm not refbting what he says. I'm only saying what I see in the traps what I've seen when I dove in those areas and the hard bottom areas where fish traps are." Mr. Lessard: "In the Gulf?" Mr. Sullivan: "In the Gulf, yes, up in the Gulf, Don and I both, we dove together these deep wrecks, and it's hard bottom and that's what we've seen." Mr. Lessard: "And when you were diving those places in the Gulf, did you see ghost traps there?". Sullivan: "One or two. It's not concentrated like it was off the South Atlantic and the Gulf, I mean they're spread all over. So the fact of finding one, you find one around a wreck or something like that cause you don't go drift 160 feet of water for no reason." Mr. Lessard: "Well, you commented on what I was leading up to, that on the South side of the Keys and everything, you're talking about a narrow shelf and where you're likely to have concentrations of marine life; and these traps have been illegal over there, and ya'll are still seeing them, and so I would think that you would see more on a very narrow shelf" Mr. Sullivan: "We're limited in what depth we can dive, you know that." Mr. Lessard: "Would you also think the composition of the catches on the South Atlantic side would be different than in the other parts of the GuK on the flat hard bottom?" Mr. Sullivan: "I would think that the catch on the flat hard bottom in the Gulf would consist of a lot of small red groupers, angelfish, and tangs; I don't think there would be so much parrotfish. On the South side you would have a lot more rock beauties, heels, everything else as you get closer to the reef. Mr. Lessard: "And my other question is, Grady, you know, at one time both you and I were both involved in a lot of things with the National Marine Sanctuary, and one of their goals was to prohibit fish traps, and I know you dive out here all the time. Since the sanctuary's been in place have you seen a decline in the number of fish traps where they've been prohibited, also?" Mr. Sullivan: "Well I only dive where they were prohibited before the sanctuary even came. ..was here and I still see them but I'm seeing not so much new ones but ones that have been there for a long time. A lot of them are covered with fire coral and still have fish in them and still have the doors on them. I don't think they degrade very quickly. Mr. Lessard: "Were the doors put together with jute." Mr. Sullivan: "They were put together with, the ones I seen are with rubber with heavy like 300 pound monofilament line tied on it those are the two, or snapperings. They use longline snaps too." Mr. Lessard: "Which are all direct violations ..." Mr. Sullivan: "...like I told you, even when they were legal in the South Atlantic, I never found a legal trap; they were all illegal that I ever found; they may have had escape panels in them, but they were held shut with snaps or monofilament or rubber. I can't say ...the only time I ever dove a legal trap was before they even had regulations so. Mr. Lessard: "Thank you Grady." Mr. Sullivan: "Sure."

END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. King asked if the fish Mr. Sullivan targeted had an opportunity to spawn before they were caught and sold. Mr. Sullivan replied no.

Richard Lynn: St. Marks, Florida. Mr. Lynn mentioned a letter he brought for the Council to review (Attachment No. 1). He then related that he knew of six boats that were fish trap fishing in his area, up in the northern Gulf. They stone crab fished for 7 months and trap fished for 5 months. He disagreed with the trap rash concept because he said it was possible for a fisherman to catch a fish that may have escaped a trap and developed the rash, which would be of no fault of the fisherman who caught it. He supported status quo under Section 6.2. He stated that if the costs for the VMS (Section 6.3) could be kept at $1,000.00 or less, he would support it. He also supported the trap inspection but did not believe a one month closure was prudent. He asked that the Council choose the 10-year phase out.

Dr. Kemmerer questioned whether Mr. Lynn had an opinion as to what should be done if a fisherman came in with 500 pounds of fish with trap rash. Mr. Lynn believed that he should be shot on the spot.

Mr. King asked if Mr. Lynn had seen any fish from a live well. Mr. Lynn replied that he had seen fish from a live well, marked and discolored. Mr. Basco clarified that he was trying to determine if the majority of the fish trap fishermen only fished traps as opposed to hook-and-line fishing or crab trapping. Mr. Lynn replied that the reason most crab trappers become fish trappers was because the gear is suited to both fisheries.

Mr. Fischer asked about the bycatch caught in Mr. Lynn's area. Mr. Lynn answered that he fished in North Florida, and his main target was red grouper but he also caught lane snapper, queen angel, grunt, and sea bass.

H.D. Beeman: Palatka/Steinhatchee, Florida. Mr. Beeman stated that he fish trapped in the summer months then switched over to stone crabs. He related that he trap fished in 80 to 100 feet of water in order to catch grouper, which was approximately a 10-hour trip. He was amazed by the amount of negativity in the fish trap industry in south Florida. He had never heard of some of the problems mentioned at this public testimony in his own area. He stated that as far as bycatch went, he caught black sea bass, grunts, porgies, and some octupi. He believed the 10- year phase out should be left in effect, as that was what the Council promised. He wanted the bycatch issue left at status quo.

Dr. Claverie asked how many traps Mr. Beeman fished. Mr. Beeman replied about 60.

Dr. Claverie then asked how many crab traps Mr. Beeman had. Mr. Beeman replied as many as 150 but some had disappeared, and he did not know where.

Mr. Williams wanted to know the cost of a stone crab trap. Mr. Beeman answered approximately $30.00 to $35.00. Mr. Williams then asked how much a wire trap cost. Mr. Beeman replied about $50.00 to $60.00. Mr. Williams questioned what portion of his traps did Mr. Beeman lose each year. Mr. Beeman answered that he did not lose traps, if no one messed with them. Mr. Williams asked how many years had lapsed before he replaced a trap due to loss or deterioration. Mr. Beeman responded that since 1992 he had replaced about 10 or 15 fish traps and half of his stone crab traps.

W. A. Lynn: St. Marks, Florida, fish trapper in the summer months and stone crab fisherman the rest of the year. Mr. Lynn related that he brought his traps back into port every trip and had been boarded several times by the Coast Guard. He stated that he did not see all the problems mentioned at this public testimony in his area in north Florida. He asked the Council to allow him the 10 years to phase out of this fishery.

Dr. Shipp asked Mr. Lynn if he knew any fisherman who caught red snapper in his traps. Mr. Lynn replied very few. Dr. Shipp questioned whether Mr. Lynn had noticed more caught in recent years. Mr. Lynn answered yes.

Bob Gill: Crystal River, Florida, owned and operated a fish house. Mr. Gill stated that he did not understand why the issue of Section 6.1 was again being disputed and felt that he was again debating Amendment 14. He agreed that modification of this issue sheds serious concerns about the Council's credibility. He supported status quo under Section 6.2. He felt that Sections 6.3 and 6.4 needed better definitions to ensure that the system would be effective. He felt that the vessel reporting should be modified as most boats could not target an area that small (three nautical miles). Most of them wandered hrther beyond that. He stated that he could use assistance in the definition of what constituted juvenile greater amberjack relative to the competitive species. He supported compatibility in limits with the exception of the scamp issue (20 inch).

Dr. Coleman asked if Mr. Gill's disapproval of the VMS had changed since his appearance at a public hearing in Crystal River. Mr. Gill replied that he believed the VMS and trip reporting were an additional onerous burden on the fishermen, but if these methods would ensure the 10-year phase out, he would support them.

Scott Goins: Summerland Key, Florida, fish trap fisherman since 1985. Mr. Goins stated that he was against the 2-year phase out. He supported status quo under Section 6.2, and if it were the only way to keep the 10-year phase out, he would support Section 6.3. He related that he was willing to work with the Marine Patrol or any other enforcement agency to check his gear. He believed that enforcement was a problem and not every trap fisherman was illegally trapping.

Dr. Kemmerer questioned how much bycatch and what kind of fish Mr. Goins was targeting. Mr. Goins replied that he only trap fished four months of the year and crawfished eight months of the year. He stated that he targeted grouper and yelloweye snappers and also caught a few ling, porgies, and scamp.

Dr. Coleman questioned if Mr. Goins had come across any illegal traps while he was fishing. Mr. Goins replied yes. Dr. Coleman asked if Mr. Goins called anyone to report these traps. Mr. Goins answered no; the traps he saw were old and tangled up.

Duke Goins: Key West, Florida, trap fisherman, lobster fisherman, and stone crab fisherman. Mr. Goins stated that he supported the 10-year phase out. He related that he only had one incident of being boarded by the Coast Guard in 1992. He stated that if the 2-year phase out were implemented then he would go out, buy more traps, and try to make as large a profit as possible before the traps were banned. He felt that there was no difference in a fisherman catching 2,000 pounds whether it was taken hand lining, bandit reels, longlining, or fish trapping. He supported VMS only if NMFS paid for them.

Thomas E. Linton. lII: Crawfordville, Florida. Mr. Linton spoke for his parents who, in September of 1997 invested $100,000 in a commercial fishing business that consisted of a 55-foot boat, several traps, a fish house, and the property it sat on. He stated that if the 2-year phase out were implemented his parents could not make a return on this investment. He related that both his parents were retired and had hoped to improve their financial situation.

Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. Linton's parents were aware of the 10-year phase out. Mr. Linton responded yes.

Tonv Lanasa: Key West, Florida, lobster fisherman, stone crab fisherman, and fish trap fisherman. Mr. Lanasa stated that he was trying to phase out of the fish trap industry as he was aware of the 10-year phase out. He pointed out that the lobster fishery and the stone crab fishery were both being stifled by the state of Florida and the marine sanctuary. He related that most people should be able to ascertain that the fish traps were not the major problem with all the other fisheries. He disagreed with the 2-year phase out period.

Rick LaFlair: Key West, Florida. Mr. LaFlair supported the 10-year phase out under Section 6.1. He agreed that the state's trap certificate program and the sanctuary's limits were binding in the other trap industries. He supported status quo under Section 6.2 and opposed Section 6.3, unless it was the only recourse in keeping the fish traps for the 10-year phase out. He did not agree with the one-month closure.

Mr. Perret asked if Mr. LaFlair's traps had ever been inspected. Mr. LaFlair replied yes, that Officer Sharp had inspected his traps and he had also been boarded by the Park Service and by the Coast Guard.

Mitchell Webber: Crystal River, Florida, CaptaidOwner vessel Maranatha. Mr. Webber stated that there were approximately 30 fish trap endorsements in the CitrusLevy County area, 6 of which operated out of Charlie's Fish House in Crystal River, Florida. He stated that since the net ban took effect most of the fishermen in his area changed fisheries. He related that most of those fishermen became stone crab fishermen for seven months of the year and fish trap fishermen the other five months. He informed the Council that any bycatch they caught was sold and mainly consisted of blackfish, flannel mouth grunts, beeliners, and triggerfish. He stated that he had caught a few angelfish but anything that he did not plan to retain swam right back to the bottom. He related that the fishermen in Crystal River, which comprised about 40 percent of the trap endorsements, only fished approximately 5 months of the year. He believed the problems that were being experienced in the southern Gulf were not occurring in his area in the northern Gulf.

Robert Martin: Ocala, Florida. Mr. Martin noted that in July, 1996 he purchased a commercial fishing vessel with a trap endorsement. He stated that he knew of the 10-year phase out and had planned to make his money back plus some profit in the 10 years. He supported the VMS if it kept the fish trap industry open. He did not see the problems up in the northern Gulf that were mentioned in the southern Gulf. He agreed with Mr. Webber that bycatch was very minimal.

Mr. King asked if Mr. Martin fished for stone crabs. Mr. Martin replied no, he only had a fish trap endorsement.

Damas Kirk: Naples, Florida, Captain Kirk's Stone Crab, owns two trap vessels - one fish trap vessel and one stone crab vessel. Mr. Kirk stated that he had never had a violation. He disagreed with the decision that because there were a few unlawfbl fishermen, the whole industry had to be punished. He believed that the Council should stick to its word of 10 years to phase out of the industry.

Mr. King questioned what were the results when Mr. Kirk took the observers out on his boat. Mr. Kirk replied that the observers saw that there was very little bycatch and that he caught what he targeted.

Drew Bertine: Lecanto, Florida. Mr. Bertine stated that he made a large investment in the fish trap industry when the net ban occurred. He related that he believed he would have 10 years to go into another fishing industry. Mr. Osburn asked how much Mr. Bertine paid for the fish trap endorsement. Mr. Bertine answered $6,000.

Mr. Basco questioned if Mr. Bertine fish trapped only. Mr. Bertine replied that he fish trapped and stone crabbed. Mr. Basco asked what amount of time did Mr. Bertine fish trap and what amount of time did he stone crab. Mr. Bertine answered seven months stone crabbing and five months fish trapping.

Mr. Minton wanted to know if $6,000 was a general price for a fish trap endorsement. Mr. Bertine believed it was low, the average would be about $10,000.

Bart Bailey: Naples, Florida, runs a stone crab and fish trap operation. Mr. Bailey pointed out that if there was a problem with illegal boats then a solution should be found for that problem, not closing the whole fishery. He stated that he had a transponder on his boat, that some people had questioned its effectiveness; but he related that when a fisherman worked his fish traps, he did it in a certain pattern that was discernible on the plots. He believed that if trap rash were used as prima facie evidence, it would be easier for enforcement to make cases against the boats that were fishing illegally. He stated that he had very little bycatch and lost maybe four or five fish traps in a bad year.

Mr. Minton asked if participating in the trial transponder program had interfered with Mr. Bailey's normal fishing operation at all. Mr. Bailey responded no, not at all. Mr. Minton questioned if Mr. Bailey had reviewed the data to discern whether it was accurate. Mr. Bailey replied yes.

Dr. Claverie wondered ifMr. Bailey knew about trap rash, and what else, besides being in a fish trap, could cause it. Mr. Bailey responded that he was aware of trap rash but he did not know of anything else that could cause it. He believed that if a boat had a large amount of fish with trap rash then enforcement should be able to make a case. He stated that the length of time in the trap was what caused the trap rash.

Todd Reynolds: St. James City, Florida. Mr. Reynolds believed that the Council should retain the 10-year phase out. He stated that as far as the VMS went, he had no opinion on it. He did not agree with staying within the three mile area.

Ranper Roy Appupliese: Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida. Ranger Appugliese stated that he had not found any illegal traps in the park for over a year, but last week he found two traps that had been stolen from a legal trap fisherman to be used illegally inside the park. He related that when he had found any traps in the past, they were generally filled with reef fish and ornamentals. He pointed out that since his boat did not have power wenches he was pulling these traps from depths of approximately 80 feet ofwater and he saw dead and bloated fish in the traps.

Mr. Perret asked if any of the fish Ranger Appugliese saw had trap rash. Ranger Appugliese replied that the traps were still fairly new and he believed one of the shrimp boats in the area had decided to catch some fish on the side. Mr. Perret asked if Ranger Appugliese had been able to prosecute on these cases. Ranger Appugliese responded that it was very hard to prosecute because he could not prove who the traps belonged to. Mr. Horn asked what area Ranger Appugliese covered. Ranger Appugliese replied that he covered almost 100 square miles.

Marty Harris: Tallahassee, Florida, fish trap fishes in Naples, Florida. Mr. Harris believed that when the Council chose 10 years for the phase out period that would be the end of it. He stated that anyone that could not pay back a $100,000 loan in 10 years (approximately $850.00 per month) was not a very good business person. He did not believe it would be possible to repay that type ofloan in 2 years. He supported status quo under Section 6.2; and under Section 6.3, he believed the VMS should be implemented. He related that for the fishermen that only fished a few months ofthe year, he would like to see some type of government assistance. He was not sure of the three-rnile radius for the vessel reporting. He did not agree with the 1-month closure period for inspection. He stated that all gear was cryptic gear. He pointed out that he had personally seen some longliners fishing illegally, and he reported them to the Coast Guard, but it seemed the fish trap fishermen were always the target. He asked the Council to keep the 10- year phase out period.

Dr. Coleman asked if Mr. Harris fished fish traps all year. Mr. Harris replied yes. Dr. Coleman wanted to know how many boats Mr. Harris owned. Mr. Harris answered one, 53-foot boat.

Dr. Kernrnerer asked ifMr. Harris would comment on the validity of the samples collected in the observer study that was done two or three years ago by NMFS. Mr. Harris believed that was one of the cleanest surveys. He wished to respond to the individual that stated that the fish trap fishermen cleaned out their traps before the observers boarded. He pointed out that all the traps were already on the boats and were deployed in front of the observers. He stated that he did not have bycatch as he sold everything that he caught.

Michael Birren: Marathon, Florida, Two Brothers Seafood. Mr. Birren stated that he and his brother took over his father's fishing business, and since they lost their fish trap permit, they had to purchase another one. He stated that he lobster trapped for most of the year, but there were three months of the year that he fish trapped. He hoped that the Council would stay with the 10- year phase out as he made financial decisions based on that plan. He supported the VMS if it helped enforcement. He stated that as far as the month closure went, it would not really affect him, but he felt it was a burden for the year-round fishermen.

Mr. Simpson asked if Mr. Birren had encountered trap rash. Mr. Birren replied no, but he had been to Sea World recently and saw numerous fish that had damaged fins, etc. which he believed would be something similar to trap rash.

Ted Forsyren: Tallahassee, Florida, Coastal Conservation Association of Florida. Mr. Forsgren stated that he gave a package to the Council members (Attachment No. 2). He related that 18 years ago the Florida Legislature banned the use of all fish traps in Florida waters; and in 1988, the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) began urging the elimination of all fish traps in all federal waters on both sides of the state. He related that in 1991 the SAFMC prohibited the use of fish traps, and then in 1996 the Council closed off fish traps in the Gulf of Mexico, except Florida. He understood that the Council wanted new information before making any firm decisions regarding the fish trap industry. He related that his organization looked at the economic analysis amortization and came to the conclusion that the Council chose the 10-year phase out period with no reasoning to it. He stated that the SAFMC gave no phase out period, and there had been no other gear types that had been given a phase out period. He pointed out that the FMFC had an economist that put together an analysis after looking at the economic basis of the fishery and determined that the appropriate phase out time for the fishermen to recoup their investments. He stated that most of the fishermen had already made their money back, and the grouper fishermen needed approximately 3 to 5 years to recoup the loss of resale value. He replied that the NMFS had conducted a test dive in the Riley's Hump area in which the density of the traps was so great that in three days of diving the test divers were unable to avoid these traps. He did not believe the Council chose a reasonable time period when they chose 10 years, and he thought that 2 years was plenty of time.

MACKEREL AMENDMENT 9

Dr. Claverie informed the public that most likely the Council would defer taking action on Mackerel Amendment 9 until the Council meeting in SanDestin, Florida in May, 1998. He stated that all comments made at this meeting would be put in the record and reviewed by the Council for action in May.

Mr. King believed it appropriate to announce that the mackerel management committee had recommended that the committee meet jointly with the South Atlantic mackerel committee. He related that meeting could take place in June, in St. Augustine, Florida.

Dr. Kemmerer wished to clan@ that the Council had no choice in taking final action on Mackerel Amendment 9 as the SAFMC made no final decision themselves.

Mr. Williams related information regarding mackerel Amendment 9.

The committee voted on the question of the sale of recreationally caught king mackerel caught under the recreational allocation. The committee kept the 68 percent132 percent split, it did not reallocate the two percent. The committee decided to prohibit sale by all persons fishing under the recreational allocation except for charterboatlheadboat operators that also possessed the commercial permit, which would count against the commercial quota. The committee would not divide the Western Gulf into two areas, as proposed but there would be a 3,000 pound trip limit for all vessels fishing in the Western Gulf (Alabama westward).

Crai~Jiovani: Key West, Florida, owns two charterboats - Grand Slam and Ultra Grand Slam. Mr. Jiovani stated that a crew member's income fiom receiving a customer's catch accounted for approximately $6,000 per year. He pointed out that there was a big competition in Key West between charterboats and party boats, not to mention other water activities such as parasailing and jet skiing. He supported raising the size limits for king mackerel as the average size caught in the Keys was 8 to 15 pounds. He supported opening the season on the first of the year instead of July 1. He related that due to a City ordinance, the question of who the fish belonged to on a chartered trip was not in question; it belonged to the customer. If there were any problems the Chamber of Commerce got involved, along with the City, and threatened to revoke the charterboat owner's lease. Mr. Minton asked if the City ordinance was only in effect if the charterboat was docked at public facilities. Mr. Jiovani replied that he believed this ordinance covered any charterboat in the City.

Mr. Williams questioned ifthere was an ordinance posted at the marina informing the customer. Mr. Jiovani responded that he was not sure if there was an ordinance posted at the marina, but if any complaints were received, they were followed up on and in most cases the entire price of the charter was refunded. Mr. Williams asked if the bigger fish could be released in order to keep the recreational landings down. Mr. Jiovani replied that he had no idea if the bigger fish could survive, but he believed that some sort of limited entry was in order as the charterboat industry was expanding at a rapid rate.

Mr. Basco asked how much Mr. Jiovani would have to increase his trips if he were not allowed to keep his catch. Mi-. Jiovani responded that it would be approximately $100 per day. Mr. Basco questioned whether the customers would be willing to pay this increase. Mr. Jiovani replied that the serious fishermen would, but the customers who were already thinking about spending $250 per night for a hotel room may elect to pass, which would hurt the charterboat industry tremendously. Mr. Basco asked how many days comprised a full schedule for the charterboat industry. Mr. Jiovani responded that some boats worked up to 300 days in one year.

Mr. Fischer questioned what period of time Mr. Sovani was catching king mackerel. Mr. Jiovani answered from about January 1" through sometime in March, or approximately three months.

Mi-. King wanted to know who Mr. Jiovani was referring to when he stated that the charterboat industry was not being helped as far as limited access was concerned. Mr. Jiovani replied that he had been in the industry for 14 years, and the association he worked with had tried going to the City and the County, but to no avail.

Dan Crowley: Big Pine Key, Florida. Mr. Crowley stated that he supported counting the recreationally caught fish against the recreational quota. He believed that the mackerel season should open on January 1" so that the incident where the quota was caught by the northern Florida fishermen years ago did not occur again. He informed the Council that when the charterboat industry was allowed to catch fish while the commercial industry was closed then whatever the charterboat fisherman caught they could sell. It was counted against the commercial quota, that was not right. He related that ifa fisherman was caught going over the quota, the fish should be confiscated so that fisherman could not make a profit.

Dr. Claverie asked if Mr. Crowley trolled for kingfish. Mr. Crowley replied yes. Dr. Claverie wondered ifMr. Crowley followed the kingfish up and down the Gulf or stayed in this area. Mr. Crowley responded that it was cost prohibitive to follow the fish.

Mike Weinhofer: Key West, Florida, has two charterboats - The Jack Tar and the Jack Tar 11. Mr. Weinhofer supported the January 1" opening as there was not much else to catch in January and February. He stated that 80 percent of the catch was sold and he splits the pay three ways: boat, captain, and mate. He also supported limited entry and he did not believe the kingfish should be caught before they had a chance to spawn. Mr. Fischer asked ifMr. Weinhofer was allowed to keep his catch and it was counted against the commercial quota would it make a difference to him personally. Mr. Weinhofer replied yes, because if the opening date was not moved to January 1" then the fish he brought in during the closed season would have to be given away, used for bait, or thrown away. Mr. Fischer clarified that Mr. Weinhofer would want the commercial opening date changed. Mr. Weinhofer replied yes, and stated that he believed the charter industry should have their own quota.

Mr. Basco asked how many days a year did Mr. Weinhofer charter on average. Mr. Weinhofer answered that this year it was 290 days. Mr. Basco questioned what was the average dollar amount Mr. Weinhofer made off the catch per day. Mr. Weinhofer replied that he caught approximately 15 to 20 fish per day at 15 to 20 pounds each and $.70 to $.SO per pound.

Mr. Hartig asked if Mr. Weinhofer had a commercial permit. Mr. Weinhofer answered no, just a charter permit. Mr. Hartig questioned whether Mr. Weinhofer had a vessel SPL for his charterboats. Mr. Weinhofer replied yes. Mr. Hartig asked if Mr. Weinhofer's mates had individual SPL's. Mr. Weinhofer responded no.

Dr. Shipp asked ifleaving a fish to the mate was in lieu of a tip. Mr. Weinhofer replied yes, but sometimes the customer would leave the fish and some cash.

Jim Shaye: Big Pine Key, Florida. Mr. Shaye supported charterboat operators being able to sell their catch, with this catch being counted against the recreational quota. He had seen a dramatic increase in kingfish in the last 4 or 5 years. He related that on his charterboats there was a written policy which stated that the first 100 pounds of fish caught by the customer belonged to the customer and whatever was caught above and beyond that 100 pounds the customer was asked to leave with the boat. He stated that this catch comprised about 30 to 40 percent of the mates' salary.

Art Barton: Key West, Florida, Fish Check Charters, charterboat operator, Key West Charterboat Association. Mr. Barton stated that he was speaking for the Port and Transit Authority of the City of Key West, that recently passed a resolution (Attachment No. 3).

Mr. Horn asked why Mr. Barton did not think a large fish that was hooked could survive a release situation. Mr. Barton replied that kingfish had a small gill area, swam most of their life, and during the increased activity during the catch, the fish was dead or dying when brought into the boat; therefore, survival was improbable.

Dr. Claverie asked if any tagging studies had been done. Mr. Barton replied no.

Bill Wickers; Key West, Florida, Key West Charter Boat Association. Mr. Wickers stated that he gave the Council members some information (Attachment No. 4). He believed there was some ill will between the commercial boats and the charterboats because NMFS dragged its feet on implementing the quota. He stated that only about 10 percent of the charterboats in Key West had a federal commercial mackerel permit. He opposed Section 2.2 - Prohibiting sale of king and Spanish mackerel, due to the fact that the SAFMC chose to delete this section; but the Council had chosen to stick with it. He believed that this violated the original intent of the fishery management plan (FMP) for mackerels which required that they be managed as a unit due to the overlapping jurisdictions of the Councils and the seasonal mixing of the stocks. He stated that this section also violated National Standard Number 4 which prohibited measures that discriminated between residents of different states. He pointed out that if this Preferred Alternative were passed the fishermen from Volusia County, Florida south would be prohibited from selling their bag limit catch for 5 months (November 1 to April 1) but they would be allowed sale for 7 months (April 1 to October 3 1). The rest of Northeast Florida from Volusia County and north, along with the Eastern Seaboard, would be allowed year-round sale and the area from the Monroe/Collier County line in Florida North through Texas would be prohibited year-round sale. He believed that the implementation of the new trip tickets in Florida by the DEP would help idente the sales by charterboats as well as the charterboat surveys done by the NMFS that would help identi@ the number of fish caught on charterboats, as well as the number of trips and anglers. He stated that charterboat fishing was difficult, and they needed more than one source of income. He believed that the season should begin on January l", and the sale of fish should be in accordance with Section 2.2.3. He supported Section 2.3.3- increase recreational allocation to 70 percent - all catches by the for-hire sector would count on the recreational allocation only. He also supported Section 2.4.1 - establishing two subzones, subzone 1 - Dade/Monroe to CollierLee and subzone 2 - CollierLee to the ALLFL border. On size limits he recommended a minimum 26-inch fork length so fish had a chance to spawn at least once; and on purse seines for Spanish mackerel, he recommended status quo.

Mi. Simpson pointed out that the NMFS survey was designed to show effort on the part of the charterboats not the number of fish.

Mi. Brown questioned whether Mr. Wickers believed the range of the fish had not changed but rather that the catch rates had changed. Mr. Wickers replied yes, if the quota were changed then the boundaries would have to be changed.

Ms. Williams asked if it was mandatory to use the new trip tickets. Mr. Wickers answered yes, but it was taking time to implement the new tickets. Ms. Williams questioned if a mate were able to sell fish as an individual. Mr. Wickers responded that the mate would have to identifjr what vessel he caught the fish on, before he sold the fish.

Mi. Simpson asked what was Mr. Wickers' assessment regarding limited entry and the growth in the number of charterboats in his area and the Gulf. Mr. Wickers replied that in Key West there was a saturation of boats; but because of what was happening in the industry the market was alleviating some of that saturation because a lot of the boats were not making it.

Mr. Williams read an excerpt from page 17 in Amendment 9 "charterboat landings of king mackerel increased from about 1.1 million pounds in 1991 to about 4.3 million pounds in 1996. Charterboat trips targeting mackerel grew from 445,000 in 1991 to 945,000 in 1995." He questioned whether encouraging the sale of mackerel would not cause more fishing and not alleviate the fact that the charterboat industry was constantly going above their allocation. Mi. Wickers replied that during some periods of the year the king mackerel were the only fish to be caught. Mr. Williams asked if they could not just be released. Mr. Wickers responded that large fish were hard to release alive. Mr. Williams asked if the price for the king mackerel had increased in the last 10 years. Mr. Wickers replied that due to the Mexican imports, the price was the same as 10 years ago, if not less. Mr. King pointed out that if the charterboat industry could develop an answer to the problem and present it to the Council he would feel much better, as opposed to having to decide their future for them.

Mr. Simpson wanted to know if the release of a big fish was uncommon. Mr. Wickers believed that the best release method was to cut the wire in the water because it did the least damage to the fish, but he did not think the survival rate would be excessively high.

Dr. Kemmerer asked Mr. Wickers which quota he felt that a charterboat that was commercial fishing should be recorded under. Mr. Wickers replied that none of his boats commercial fished but he believed that a charterboat should decide whether it chose to fish under the bag limit or under the commercial quota before the season started.

Peter Bache: Key West, Florida, Stock Island Lobster Company. Mr. Bache stated that he did not see any reason why the charterboat fishermen could not sell their catch as they could be monitored and shut down just as easily as the net and hook-and-line fishermen. He believed that the charterboat fishermen should have their own quota. He informed the Council that he thought they should make a decision at this meeting rather than making the fishermen go up to Destin, Florida for the May Council meeting. Dr. Claverie stated that it was impossible as the SAFMC and the Council had to meet prior to a decision being made. Mr. Bache replied that these matters should have been resolved before all these fishermen came down to Duck Key expecting action to be taken. He stated that he was opposed to the VMS as he felt it was a violation of his rights to be followed around to make sure he did not break the law just so he could make a living.

Dr. Kemmerer explained that the VMS was an effective piece of equipment that would enhance enforcement.

Vincent Molle: Jupiter, Florida, M&M Seafood. Mr. Molle stated that he fished from Texas to Daytona. He was opposed to charterboat fishermen selling their catch without a federal license. He opined that the net fishermen could share their quota with the charterboat fishermen as there were only about 15 net fishermen. He supported status quo on the reallocation alternative as the East coast fishermen did not use up their quota in one month, so they could fish all year. He believed the bag limit should be increased. He supported leaving the fishing season status quo. He did not agree with the size limit being lowered, and he thought that it would be a good idea to have trip limits. He believed the shrimp boats were the major problem.

Dr. Claverie asked if Mr. Molle was the only fisherman that traveled to fish. Mr. Molle responded that some of the fishermen traveled from north Florida to south Florida.

Bobby Pillar: Summerland Key, Florida. Mr. Pillar did not support the VMS. He stated that Mr. Williams was trying to shut out the commercial industry from the Keys. He supported the sale of recreationally caught fish, but he did not support them being counted against the commercial quota. He believed the southern Florida fishermen should have the 55 percent share as the northern Florida fishermen could fish the Gulf and the South Atlantic. He stated that the size litshould be 24 inches. He believed that the fishermen that fished commercially and under the charterboat permit should have to pick one quota to fish under. He related that the kingfish could be released as he was.part of a program that tagged 5,000 pounds of fish, and they all swam oE He commented that last winter in Big Pine Key he caught a tagged kingfish (approximately 10 pounds) that was determined to have come from Destin, Florida and had been tagged that previous July.

Ron Mevers: Little Torch Key, Florida, MCCF. Mr. Meyers did not agree with giving the Panhandle fishermen 30 percent allocation as they historically only caught 11 percent. He stated that the Keys had fished since 18 15. He believed that the charterboat fishermen were recreational fishermen; therefore, their catch should be counted against the recreational quota. He was opposed to giving the Panhandle fishermen any more of the quota.

Mr. Williams asked ifmost of Mr. Meyers quota was coming from the South Atlantic area. Mr. Meyers replied that usually most of his kingfish were coming from the Gulf, north of Key West; but this year due to the weather and the limited bag limit, he had to fish the south side.

Mr. Basco asked ifMr. Meyers believed the charterboat fishermen should be allowed to sell their catch. Mr. Meyers replied as long as the catch was counted against the recreational quota.

Mr. Williams related that the Panhandle fishermen, during public hearings, had related that they believed the Keys fishermen should have to travel to fish just like everybody else did.

John Reed: Key West, Florida. Mr. Reed believed that the Keys fishermen were not getting a fair share of the quota. He stated that he would like to see a stable trip limit that lasted the full season so the fish buyers could not lower the prices during the time the fishermen had fish. He believed a January 1"' opening would alleviate a lot of problems. He supported Sections 2.4 and 2.5.

Mr. Osburn asked if Mr. Reed would support having individual transferable quotas (ITQs). Mr. Reed replied no, just change the quotas and change the trip limit.

William Golden: Key West, Florida, MCCF. Mr. Golden stated that this year three-quarters of the quota had already been filled by the time the fish got down to the Keys; and along with the weather, it was hard to make a living. He believed that the distribution of the quota should be equally shared among the northern and southern Florida fishermen.

Peter Gladding: Key West, Florida. Mr. Gladding stated that a definite line had to be drawn between north and south Florida. He believed that the charterboat catches should not be counted against the commercial quota. He pointed out that the charterboat fishermen get a higher price for their fish because they could sell them all year.

Billv Niles: Summerland Key, Florida. Mr. Niles stated that the five percent allocation for the East coast should come back to the Gulf because the East coast fishermen did not catch their quota. He believed the historical fishermen should get some kind of consideration.

John Sanchez; Marathon, Florida, MCCF, Inc. Mr. Sanchez stated that MCCF, Inc. held a workshop to explain Amendment 9 to the fishermen and had derived a summation from the group which he presented to the Council (Attachment No. 5). He supported changing the fishing year to January 1"; Alternative 2.3.1, Alternative 2.4.1, option b. Under Section 2.5, he supported an 89 percent allocation for Subzone 1 DadelMonroe and to CollierLee County lines and 11 percent for the rest of Florida. He supported 2.3.3, and under Section 2.8 he supported the Council's Preferred Alternative with regard to reissuance of the commercial king mackerel gill net endorsements. He supported maintaining endorsements for those that had a commercial permit before the control date of October, 1995, and Preferred Alternative a or b, and use trip tickets to document catches. For Section 2.8.3, he supported status quo - gill net endorsements as freely transferable. He supported the establishment of a purse seine allocation for Spanish mackerel. He urged that the Council at least pick their Preferred Alternatives during this meeting or nothing would have been accomplished.

Ms. Williams asked if Mr. Sanchez, having attended a meeting with the SAFMC the previous week, understood that the SAFMC read the Amendment as mainly issues being under the Council's jurisdiction. Mr. Sanchez replied that some of the issues would affect the SAFMC.

Dr. Claverie asked ifthe new trip tickets were used for all fisherman. Mr. Wickers responded that the fisherman marked which type of fisherman he was; and if no mark was made, it was commercial.

Joe Golden: Key West, Florida. Mr. Golden believed that the daily amount of fish should be reduced so there were more fish on a consistent basis, and the price would go up.

Mr. Gladding interjected that 500 or 1,000 pounds would be good and a January 1" opening would allow the fishermen to fish from different areas.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Gladding if he fished both the Gulf and South Atlantic. Mr. Gladding answered depending on the weather, yes.

Meeting recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 12,1998.

Dr. Claverie opened the meeting and recognized Dr. Shipp. Dr. Shipp questioned whether Dr. Kernmerer should give his red snapper report later in the day (today, Thursday) rather than the following day (Friday) due to the fact that most Council members would be departing the next day which may not give them the opportunity to hear Dr. Kemmerer's report. Dr. Kernrnerer could not respond at this point whether he would be ready and related that he would give a more definitive answer after the lunch break.

Reef Fish Manapement Committee Report

Mr. Minton presented the committee report:

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Vernon Minton. The agenda was approved as written (Tab B, No. 1). The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as written.

NOAA General Counsel, Mr. McLemore, had expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the administrative record for Section 6.1, in that the record had generated no new information since Amendment 14, which implemented a 10-year phase out, and did not provide adequate rationale to support Amendment 16 and the proposed 2-year phase out.

Mr. Horn suggested that based on comments from staff, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), public testimony, recommendations from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Advisory Panel (AP) that Section 6.1 - Fish Trap Phase Out - be deleted from Amendment 16. He believed this would relieve the fishermen from the anxiety of this issue rather than adopting status quo. Mr. Minton questioned whether cutting off the legal traps in 2 years might result in more illegal traps. Mr. Hartig noted there were few traps in the South Atlantic area since they were prohibited. Ms. Williams related all eight regional Councils allowed some type of fish trap. Mr. McLemore stated that some of the Councils only allowed the sea bass pots. Dr. Kimmel reported that NMFS had received few, if any, complaints from the South Atlantic area of illegal fish traps.

On behalf of the Committee Mr. Minton moved that Section 6.1 be deleted from Amendment 16.

Mr. Green offered a substitute motion to implement a four-year phase out of fish traps in the EEZ off Florida.

Mr. Green related that due to new information given during public testimony on Wednesday, March 11, 1998, the 10-year phase out was no longer acceptable. He reported that enforcement was becoming more diicult and there were numerous incidents of illegal fish traps and fish trap violations. He believed that the 10-year phase out was voted upon due to false information given and by a fisherman who had engaged in illegal activity which, at the time, was unknown to Council members. He believed that the economic analysis presented by economists from the state of Florida indicated, from a tax point of view, 3 to 5 years was ample time to recoup the value ofthe gear. He related that the boats could be refbrbished for other fisheries since most of them were already involved in multiple fisheries.

Dr. Nelson stated that the Council implemented the 10-year phase out with the understanding that the fish trap gear was not an appropriate gear in the reef fish fishery. He reported that there were several incidents where it was proven to be inappropriate in other areas, i.e. Jamaica, Bermuda, and the South Atlantic. He related that this was the only gear that was left out fishing while the fishermen were in bed sleeping. He fbrther related that regulating and controlling this gear type has become increasingly difficult as the illegal use of the traps has increased. He stated that a problem did exist and was now finally being recognized by the fishermen. He fbrther stated that the traps were stolen by competing fishermen and became lost by an act of nature which then caused them to remain in the water untended. He believed statements made that the Council members should keep their word as far as the 10-year phase out was concerned could also be directed toward the fishermen who gave false information to the Council when this phase out was chosen.

Dr. Nelson offered a second substitute motion to reduce the phase out period for the use of fish traps to 2 years south of 25.05 degrees north latitude, maintain the current 10-year phase out north of 25.05 degrees and prohibit the possession or use of fish traps throughout the Gulf between October 15 and May 15. Dr. Claverie clarified that the area specified was the Gulf EEZ. Dr. Nelson responded that was correct and added that throughout most ofthe GulfEEZ the use and possession of fish traps was already prohibited.

Mr. Perret questioned how could one prohibit possession of illegal gear, was this only in the waters of the Gulf or did this also include on land. Dr. Nelson responded that during that time the gear would not be allowed in the water.

Dr. Nelson pointed out that the time period of October 15 to May 15 was the Florida stone crab season.

Mr. King stated that he believed compromise should benefit both parties and that the Council was slowly killing off the fish trap fishermen. He fbrther stated that the government now owned the fish and he did not believe the fishermen of today could make a living as fishermen any longer.

Mr. Horn did not believe any new information had been given the day before. He stated that these fishermen did not fish traps as a supplement to other jobs; this was their job. He fbrther stated that he felt these fishermen should be given the 10 years to get out of this fishery.

Ms. Williams expressed concern regarding the time period of October 15 to May 15 and felt that testimony from the fishermen was necessary.

Dr. Coleman agreed that the time period was questionable. She asked Mr. McLemore if there was enough new evidence to justifjr changing the phase out period from 10 years to 2 years. Mr. McLemore responded that there was enough new evidence to support either of the alternatives that were presented at the public hearings. He fbrther responded that neither the geographic split nor the time period mentioned in the second substitute motion were presented during public hearings. Mr. McLemore,expressed concern regarding the time period (October 15 to May 15) and what was the rationale behind it.

Dr. Coleman asked if Marty Harris could give his comments regarding the time period in question.

Mr. Harris believed ifthis second substitute motion passed it would most likely close out the Keys fishermen as he did not think they would travel north to fish. He hrther stated that the time period was not feasible and he felt the fishermen were starting to work with law enforcement. Mr. Osburn asked if anyone on stafhad the ability to cross-reference fishermen who held a stone crab permit as well as a fish trap permit. Dr. Lamberte stated that he did not have an exact number at this time but he believed that 46 ofthe 71 vessels with trap endorsements were holding both permits. Mr. Osburn went on to state that he felt this issue was difficult due to the fact the Council was not dealing with an overfished fishery.

Mr. Green stated that there had been conflicting information regarding the red grouper fishery and whether it was overfished or not. He fbrther stated that the fish trap fishermen were placing their traps and then also hook-and-line fishing, while the traditional hook-and-line fishermen were just hook-and-line fishing. He believed that this was a violation of the fifth national standard in that the Council was favoring one fishery over another. Mr. Perret stated that every fishery had some sort of enforcement problem and he believed this second substitute motion would only add to the enforcement burden.

Mr. Green disagreed and pointed out that the second substitute motion would actually help enforcement with regards to the vessel monitoring system (VMS). He stated that during the period the traps were prohibited the fishermen with multiple permits could be better monitored with the VMS.

Mr. Proulx did not believe that any enforcement agent had the right to state whether a fishery should be closed because it was unenforceable. He informed the Council that currently there were four fisheries that had major compliance problems, and he did not believe when these problems came to light that these fisheries would be in danger of being closed. He stated that the Council needed to give enforcement a chance to work with this fishery and he resented statements made regarding enforcement being the problem with the fish trap fishery. He hrther stated that the fish trap fishermen had been very helpful.

Dr. Claverie asked if the VMS could distinguish the footprints of the different fisheries. Mr. Proulx stated that if enforcement knew when the boats were engaged in fishing and where the boats were, enforcement would be almost completed. He was offended by the fishermen referring to VMS as ankle bracelets.

Dr. Claverie questioned whether 4 years was adequate time to develop a rapport with the trap fishermen. Mr. Proulx explained that enforcement was already working with the fish trap fishermen. He stated that if one officer was responsible for a whole state that state would most likely have low compliance.

Mr. Aparicio did not believe that punishing a whole group of fishermen for a few bad ones was good business.

Mr. Minton expressed that he did not feel prepared to make a decision and needed more information.

Mr. Fischer agreed with the second substitute motion because he believed the biggest instance of bycatch was occurring in the Keys. He disagreed with the proposed time period because it had not been presented at public hearings. He believed this issue needed to be finalized.

Mr. Lessard stated that the Council did not know what the fishermen with both crab and fish trap permits would be allocated in the way of crab traps or whether it would be enough to make a living. He felt it should be fbrther investigated.

Dr. Kernrnerer asked for clarification on whether the intent was to reduce the total length of the phase out period and whether the actual time was 2 years or 4 years. Dr. Nelson responded that the time period was 2 years from implementation of the regulations.

Dr. Kemmerer believed there was quite a bit of information that could be presented that had not been presented. Dr. Nelson pointed out that the status of red grouper was unknown. He stated that the fishermen that would be affected by this phase out could very easily enter other fisheries. He questioned whether Mr. Proulx had read a letter from Major Bruce Buckson of the Florida Marine Patrol regarding facts that 50 to 75 percent of the fish traps in the Keys were illegally fished; whereas 30 percent of the fish traps in the Big Bend area were illegal. Dr. Nelson asked if Mr. Proulx had reason or cause to disagree with the estimates. Mr. Proulx responded that it was unreasonable to ask that question but stated that enforcement had looked at as many traps as possible and worked with the fishermen as closely as possible.

Dr. Nelson modified his second substitute motion to reduce the phase out period to 2 years following the implementation of the amendment south of 25.05 degrees north latitude, maintain the current 10-year phase out north of 25.05 degrees.

Mr. King stated that he did not believe that a fisherman could wake up each morning and decide which fishery he felt like fishing that day. He related that anyone could look at any type of trap and say they were illegal if it pleased their boss.

THE FOLLOWING IS VERBATIM TESTIMONY:

"In the study of psychiatry they even have a name for it it's called necrophilia where it is the power that a person wants to have over other individuals. I see a lot of that practiced in government. I'm glad they made me aware of what it was at least I could have a name for it. I used to have one I couldn't quite call out loud because it wasn't acceptable." (Attachment No. 6).

END OF VERBATIM TESTIMONY.

Mr. King felt that there were three possible solutions to getting rid of the fish trap fishermen: 1. Buy the fishermen out, 2. Economic attrition, and 3. Genocide. He stated that there were individuals who seemed to thrive on the downfall of others.

Mr. Horn pointed out that the Reef Fish Advisory Panel (RFAP) voted to stay with the 10-year phase out period. He questioned if law enforcement officers knew there were illegal traps in the water why did they not retrieve them or arrest the people who made them. He stated that the fishermen were led to believe they had 10 years to get out of the fishery and they should be allowed to continue as 2 of those 10 years had already expired. He believed this issue had been resolved with the 10-year phase out and so did the fishermen and if they had known the phase out would be shortened he did not think they would have agreed to it in the first place.

Mr. Osburn questioned whether it would be possible to change the 2 years in the second substitute motion to 4 years to give the Keys fishermen a chance to sell their fish trap endorsements to the other fishermen.

Mr. Green pointed out that the fish trap gear issue was not a new one and the gear had been banned by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). He also pointed out that this issue went as far back as Amendment 5. He stated that this issue was brought up because the recreational and commercial fishermen felt this deal the Council made with the fish trap fishermen was unfair. He believed the ban of fish traps in the South Atlantic and in state waters had proven to be effective.

Dr. Nelson again modified his second substitute motion the use of fish traps will expire on February 7,2001 south of 25.05 degrees north latitude, maintain 10-year phase out north - of 25.05 degrees.

Dr. Kernrnerer pointed out that NMFS initiated the Council's rules requiring that fish traps be brought in at the end of each trip and that the traps be tagged and buoyed. He stated that NMFS also implemented the 100 trap limitation which, in his opinion, showed that NMFS was concerned about this issue. He related that NMFS generated a major study to learn the impacts caused by the traps. He believed that the VMS was a very good alternative for the fish trap industry. He asked why Riley's Hump, which had been mentioned as a problem area, could not just be made off-limits. Dr. Nelson responded that Riley's Hump may be the most pronounced problem area but there were other problem areas which his motion covered.

Dr. Kemmerer believed that this fishery should be given the 10 years to phase out.

Mr. Lessard asked if an individual had a trap permit in the Keys, traveled above 25.05 degrees north latitude after the 2 years to fish could he bring his catch back to the Keys. He was not clear if the Keys fishermen could keep their permits after the expiration date. Dr. Nelson clarified that the fishermen could keep their permits but not utilize them in the Keys' area. Dr. Claverie questioned if the Keys fishermen could keep the traps on their boat. Dr. Nelson saw no reason why the fishermen could not keep the traps on their boats. Dr. Claverie questioned whether this would cause more problems but felt the use of transponders would solve most of those problems.

Mr. McLemore pointed out that the South Atlantic fish trappers could not use their permits but could transit a closed area with them. Mr. Minton asked if the fishermen had to offload their vessel prior to entering the restricted area. Mr. McLemore believed the vessels were able to pass through without unloading. Dr. Nelson related that vessels with fish traps and fish onboard, in transit, were not in violation of that prohibition unless they stopped to fish.

In order to clarirjl the motion Dr. Nelson restated his second substitute motion The use of fish traps will expire on February 7,2001 south of 25.05 degrees north latitude, maintain 10- year phase out north of 25.05 degrees.

Mr. Horn was opposed to the fact that persons south of this line were being singled out, and he believed that all the trap fishermen should be given the 10 years.

Dr. Claverie opined that the effects of fish trap gear were questionable and he was concerned that the second substitute motion contained restrictions that had not been presented at public hearings. He believed the 10 years was a drop dead date and gave the fishermen time to get out of the fishery. He believed they should have this time to get out.

Mr. Horn agreed that the 10 years was a drop dead date. He stated that the fishermen below the 25.05 line made long-term decisions based on the 10-year phase out just as the fishermen above the 25.05 line had. Dr. Shipp pointed out that most of the negative testimony against fish traps, heard the day before in public testimony, was from the ornamental fish fishery. He believed the ornamental bycatch was very low above the 25.05 lime and the second substitute motion would eliminate a substantial amount of loss for the ornamental fish fishery, that occurrs below the 25.05 line.

Mr. Goins related that Dr. Nelson's motion would cause these fishermen to be put completely out of the silk snapper fishery which required travel of 150 to 200 miles offshore to fish this species and long periods of time to harvest.

Mr. Horn related that the ornamental fish fishery was harvesting juvenile fish which was completely against what the Council tried to achieve with the fisheries it managed. He believed that this fishery was valuable and had increased in value which would probably mean that these fishermen were working harder to make more money. He pointed out that saying a fishery that was harvesting immature fish was more important than a fishery which was harvesting fish to eat was just not correct.

Dr. Nelson related that the ornamental fish fishery had a very brief harvest period when major natural mortality occurred as these fish recruited to the reefs to be harvested.

A roll call vote was called. Mr. Aparicio - No Mr. Basco - Yes Dr. Claverie - Yes Dr. Coleman - Yes Mr. Fischer - Yes Ms. Foote - Yes Mr. Green - Yes Mr. Horn - No Dr. Kernrnerer - No Mr. King - No Mr. Lessard - No Mr. Minton - Yes Dr. Nelson - Yes Mr. Osburn - Yes Mr. Perret - No Dr. Shipp - Yes Ms. Williams - Yes

Second substitute motion passed by a vote of 11 to 6 that the use of fish traps will expire on February 7, 2001 south of 25.05 degrees north latitude, maintain 10-year phase out north of 25.05 degrees. Mr. Minton continued his report:

On Section 6.2 Mr. Proulx felt it was important to close loopholes and specifically noted the used of blue crab traps. Mr. Swingle noted that Florida had banned the use of blue crab traps in the EEZ. Mr. McLemore recommended editing the discussion section for tone and substance so that it reflected a basis in the Council's administrative record that supported the statements that were made. Regarding Alternative 3, Mr. Lessard noted that a condition similar to trap rash can occur from fish being held in ice slush. Lieutenant Commander Pii5o indicated that trap rash could be determined forensically in a lab if fish showed a trap rash condition. Dr. Coleman stated that her understanding was that forensic procedures had not been worked out yet. Mr. Lessard objected to the term bycatch and some of the alternatives pointing out that he actively hook-and-lined for finfish while crustacean trap fishing and that finfish catch is necessary to make a profit on a trip.

On behalf of the Committee Mr. Minton moved to adopt the Preferred Alternative, status quo, a vessel with a reef fish permit that is fishing spiny lobster or stone crab traps can retain the same quantities of reef fish as other reef fish permitted vessels.

Mr. Williams questioned if the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP) had any recommendations with regard to the allowance of quantities of reef fish onboard a vessel. Mr. Osburn responded that under Section 6.2, the LEAP chose Alternative Id, Alternative 2d and Alternative 3, with particular concern regarding trap rash.

Dr. Claverie expressed concern regarding Mr. Lessard's comments on trap rash. Mr. Lessard pointed out that law enforcement agent had previously stated if a vessel had only a few fish with trap rash they would not pursue the case; but if it was a large amount, they would prosecute.

Dr. Claverie asked ifa large amount of fish were placed in a slush pot would they all exhibit signs of trap rash. Mr. Lessard responded no, that only the first few fish would until a block of fish was built up to keep the fish from moving around inside the slush pots.

Ms. Williams asked how the fish trap ban would affect the spiny lobster, stone crab, and other non-reef fish trip limits and would the Council ultimately have to take the bycatch away from these individuals. Mr. Lessard responded that it was impossible to judge.

Dr. Kemmerer asked if a management measure was needed in the amendment for law enforcement that specifically identified trap rash as a diagnostic tool. Mr. McLemore responded that the measure in the amendment did not identifl trap rash as a diagnostic tool; the measure prohibited trap rash as a condition.

Mr. Proulx explained that with regard to Section 6.2, Alternative 3 was the crux of the matter for enforcement. He believed the trap rash issue would give enforcement a long-term grasp on renegade poachers using traps.

Officer Sharp stated that trap rash was apparent on fish that come off fish trap vessels. If a fish trapper pulls his traps 3 or 4 times a day, he may not have the significant trap rash that the fish may have if the traps were not pulled so frequently. He also stated that the same trap rash was probably visible in the catch from lobster or stone crab traps. He related a story about a fisherman who had come to port without his traps, said he leR them out to soak and was instructed to go back out and retrieve the traps. Officer Sharp related that when the fisherman brought the traps back in he had approximately 500 pounds of fish, 400 pounds of which had been extremely damaged, which the fisherman was made to surrender as evidence. He believed that a few fish showing signs of trap rash was not significant enough to prosecute.

Mr. Minton asked if Mr. Harris were out pulling his traps on numerous occasions during the day as opposed to just once or twice would this trap rash occur. Mr. Harris stated that if the traps were pulled regularly there should be no trap rash, but if the weather was bad, it could happen.

Mr. Minton believed that in order for the trappers, legal and illegal, to keep the fish from exhibiting trap rash they would have to tend the traps on a regular basis, thereby making themselves more susceptible to law enforcement. Mr. Harris agreed.

Lieutenant Commander Pifio agreed that the trap rash would expose illegal poachers, but he was concerned that a rookie enforcement officer may not read the law the same as the experienced enforcement agent, unless a percentage was used in the definition.

Mr. McLemore asked if fish caught in crab or lobster traps exhibited trap rash. Mr. Lessard answered that on occasion these fish may exhibit trap rash, but it was not usual.

Dr. Coleman was concerned with the way the motion was worded and asked Mr. Proulx if this would be an enforcement problem. Mr. Proulx responded that enforcement was mainly concerned with someone working outside the law, not with focusing on a few fishermen with a few fish exhibiting trap rash.

Mr. Williams asked ifMr. Proulx had a recommendation on the quantities of fish to be possessed by stone crab and lobster fishermen. Mr. Proulx answered yes; he recommended prohibition of reef fish on board any vessel that did not have a trap endorsement, and a regulation prohibiting the condition of trap rash for reef fish on board vessels that do not have a valid fish trap endorsement.

Dr. Claverie was concerned that the presence of trap rash on fish was circumstantial evidence. He questioned whether it could be used and there were several ways legal fishermen could have fish that had trap rash.

Mr. Kirk explained that with the method of informing enforcement of inclement weather or boat trouble, it would be obvious that someone was neglecting their traps if they brought back 40 percent or more of the fish with trap rash and no viable reason for leaving their gear behind.

Mr. Minton believed that it was not in the fishermen's best interest to bring in a low quality product such as a fish exhibiting trap rash. He stated that this motion would protect the legal fishermen and put the illegal fishermen out of business. Mr. Williams questioned whether the condition of trap rash would be enough to convict a fisherman. Mr. Proulx responded no and added that the enforcement agent would have to use discretion and further investigate that fisherman.

Mr. Horn supported the intent of the motion but added that a rookie enforcement agent may make a charge to which the fisherman would have to spend time and money to defend.

Mr. Proulx explained that any case that was brought in crossed his desk, and he would check it out thoroughly. Dr. Claverie pointed out that Mr. Proulx may not be there forever, and the next guy may have a different opinion.

Dr. Kemmerer asked if a percentage or basis were added would it help enforcement. Mr. Proulx replied no because the citation by the first agent was not the final outcome. Dr. Kernmerer related that he had several telephone calls complaining about the amount of time detention by enforcement took.

Dr. Claverie questioned if this measure were called a rebutable presumption would that make it possible for someone to state their case later. Mr. McLemore pointed out that this measure could make the legal fish illegal and by making this measure a rebutable presumption, weakened the meaning. Mr. McLemore hrther stated that the Council had to decide whether to allow fish with trap rash.

Mr. Lessard was concerned and presented the scenario that if perhaps a port agent came into a business, saw a large number of fish with trap rash, asked where the fish were purchased, wrote the boat name down, and passed it along to enforcement; then it may turn into a situation where a multi-species fisherman was impinged upon in order to catch an illegal fisherman. He supported the motion status quo.

Mr. Minton stated that the problem stemmed from the illegal fishermen and that was who he hoped this motion would deter, not the legal fishermen. He hrther stated that this would aid enforcement, and he believed Mr. Proulx and his staff were competent enough to make the appropriate decision.

Dr. Claverie pointed out his concern was that the case would be based on whether the fish had trap rash not whether the fish were illegally harvested.

Mr. Perret agreed that Mr. Proulx and his staff were competent; however, the terminology of trap rash would have to be read the same by every enforcement agent otherwise you could have charges of malfeasance.

Mr. Minton believed that if you put in a percentage, fishermen would always go above that percentage and it would create a problem for enforcement.

Mr. Williams opined that the regulation should be read as prima facie evidence. In other words, a fisherman being prosecuted for possession of a fish with trap rash could rehte the evidence. Mr. Proulx stated that seizure of fish with trap rash was a step in the investigation and was needed as a tool against the illegal fishermen. Dr. Claverie related an experience that when the U.S. Coast Guard started arresting U.S. fishermen in Mexican waters their officers could not use discretion, they had to arrest based on the law.

Mr. McLemore stated that any individual had a right to defend himself. He fhrther stated that there had been no complete definition of trap rash, i.e., is trap rash only from traps or any abrasion found on a fish and is this determined by the number of fish with trap rash on board.

Mr. Green made an amendment to the motion to add "however, the possession of reef fish exhibiting the condition of trap rash on board any vessel is prima facie evidence of illegal trap use and is prohibited except for vessels possessing a valid fish trap endorsement." Amendment carried 14 to 1.

Motion as amended carried with no objection - that the Preferred Alternative, be status quo, a vessel with a reef fish permit that is fishing spiny lobster or stone crab traps can retain the same quantities of reef fish as other reef fish permitted vessels, "however, the possession of reef fish exhibiting the condition of trap rash on board any vessel is prima facie evidence of illegal trap use and is prohibited except for vessels possessing a valid fish trap endorsement."

Mr. Minton continued his report:

Section 6.3 - Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - Mr. Horn felt that Section 6.3 and 6.4 should be deferred to a fhture amendment to give fishermen a chance to review these issues. Ms. Williams disagreed and felt this would put a burden on the fishermen to make them have to attend more Council meetings. Dr. Shipp moved to recommend Alternative 1- Establish a VMS, but Mr. McLemore suggested an alternative in this section that included a schedule for implementing the system. Mr. Perret felt it would set a bad precedent to require vessel owners to pay for the system.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Minton moved to establish an implementation schedule and protocol in this amendment to require implementation of a vessel monitoring system on vessels engaged in the fish trap fishery, with costs of equipment and installation to be paid by the vessel owners.

Mr. Minton noted that there were 4 implementation steps, added to this motion by Mr. Atran in Committee.

Dr. Claverie asked why the 4 steps were added. Mr. Minton explained that these 4 steps would give the Council an idea of how the implementation schedule should proceed since it was not a specific part of the motion.

Mr. McLemore stated that it was necessary to set up some flexibility for NMFS to proceed with developing this schedule and putting it into place. He fhrther stated that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (Act) sets up a time frame for NMFS to approve or disapprove the amendment. He believed that the Council could preserve the flexibility of the amendment and provide that NMFS and the proposed rule would set up a schedule to evaluate and implement the system as it was developed. He did not believe steps 3 and 4 should be included since they suggested time limits.

Dr. Kemmerer made a substitute motion: That NMFS establish a system design, implementation schedule, and protocol to require implementation of a vessel monitoring system for vessels engaged in the fish trap fishery, with the cost of the vessel equipment, installation and maintenance to be paid or arranged by the owners as appropriate. Prior to implementation, the system design, including costs, and implementation schedule would have to be approved by the Council. The implementation would be done through a proposed and final rule.

Ms. Williams believed that the fishermen that were within the area south of 25.05 degrees north latitude and were being closed out February 7, 2001, should be considered first if there was any fbnding source or financial help available.

Mr. Proulx reported that he spoke with Cal Freeman, who is head of financial services, to determine what could be done with regard to NMFS' financial services. He found out that NMFS' financial services stands available to help the fishermen in situations such as this, through low interest loans. He stated that experimentation was still necessary on this equipment.

Mr. Horn was concerned about the cost that would be incurred by the fishermen for the VMS. He asked Mr. Proulx if there were technicians available to repair this equipment should it malhnction or would the fishermen be sitting around waiting for weeks at a time. Mr. Proulx responded that he would have definitive information at a later date, and there was extensive research done to find the most available and accessible piece of equipment widely used by other industries.

Mr. McLemore believed that adding "as appropriate" into the amendment made it overbroad and vague. He suggested "to be paid or "arranged" by the owners would be better.

Mr. Minton stated he wanted the fishermen left with every available option financially.

Mr. Perret asked what would be the situation if the systems were mechanically unsound, would the owner bear the burden of these repairs. He questioned whether there would be penalties for those who purposefilly dismantled their equipment.

Mr. Aparicio asked who would pay for any modifications deemed necessary to the equipment at a later time. Mr. Proulx believed that should be added into the motion at this time.

Mr. Basco asked if this system was already proven. Mr. Proulx responded yes, but the Council should not be lulled into believing it was failsafe as any piece of equipment was prone to breakdowns.

Dr. Claverie clarified that the equipment had been proven but the system had to be custom designed for this industry.

Substitute motion carried without objection: That NMFS establish a system design, implementation schedule, and protocol to require implementation of a vessel monitoring system for vessels engaged in the fish trap fishery, with the cost of the vessel equipment, installation and maintenance to be paid or arranged by the owners as appropriate. Prior to implementation, the system design, including costs, and implementation schedule would have to be approved by the Council. The implementation would be done through a proposed and final rule. Dr. Kemmerer gave his report on status quo total allowable catch (TAC) recommendation for red > snapper. He stated that the Council's rationale to adopt the 9.1 million TAC for red snapper was based on a belief that a 60 percent reduction in bycatch by bycatch reduction devices (BRD) would occur. He believed that was overly optimistic and felt that the Council should have adopted a 6 million TAC for red snapper, which was what NMFS felt was appropriate and was considering reducing the TAC to in the future. He related that the Council had submitted Shrimp Amendment 9 in February, 1997 and the reason it took so long to review was due to the numerous peer reviews and NMFS effort to stay within the boundaries of the rule governing this Amendment. He stated that the final rule was being looked at by the Ofice of Management and Budget (OMB) which had a concern on the economic impact and the analysis which had been done.

Dr. Claverie asked if Omwas strictly concerned with the economic impact or if they were also looking into the social impact. Dr. Kemmerer responded that due to new information, OMB wanted changes made on the economic side.

Mr. Osburn recommended that NMFS review the minutes of the January Council meeting and the testimony by John Watson, Dr. Cowan, and Mike Schirippa, as these were the driving force behind the Council's decision.

Mr. Williams pointed out that NMFS had 140 days to finalize and implement a rule and questioned whether NMFS still had these time restrictions or whether they were no longer valid. Dr. Kemmerer responded that yes there were time restrictions. Mr. McLemore added that the process was being held up by OMB and under Executive Order 12866, if OMB deems a rule to be simcant as it is defined in that Executive Order, it triggers a review process. He related that the thrust of this review was to ensure, from an economic perspective, that if alternatives that had been rejected would have had a lesser adverse economic impact, they are adequately analyzed to balance the burden with the benefit. Mr. Williams asked if that meant that OMB could then null@ the time limits. Mr. McLemore did not believe that a conflict such as this between the Act and the Executive Order (E.0.) had existed before but he believed the statute would control. He reported that the time limits had been changed by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA).

Mr. Swingle related that OMI3 did not receive this rule until about 4 weeks ago and under the time limits the rule should have been published by September 18, 1997 with an effective date of October 18, 1997, a considerable amount of time before it actually went to OMB.

Dr. Nelson reported that the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) was suing NMFS for failing to implement regulations that the Council enacted requiring BRDs as of July, 1997.

Mr. Swingle asked Dr. Kemrnerer if NMFS went forward with their own interim rule addressing TAC, would they look at other TAC besides 6 million pounds, such as 7 million or 8 million pounds. Dr. Kemmerer responded that the scientific advice given to the Council indicated that the TAC should not exceed 6 million pounds, and he saw no value in exceeding this recommendation. Dr. Claverie questioned Dr. Kemmerer on whether NMFS had implemented a training situation, for instance, with BRDs. Dr. Kemmerer stated that had already been implemented via a training program for gear shops.

Mr. Aparicio pointed out that a recent scientific study reviewed by the peer review group excludes only about 27 percent of juvenile red snapper bycatch.

Mr. Basco asked Dr. Kemmerer if the TAC were reduced what would be the status of the commercial fishermen that will have reached their full quota. Dr. Kernrnerer replied that the impact would initially be on the recreational fishermen who may possibly have to contend with a September closure.

Mr. Basco stated that ifthe commercial fishermen were averaging one million pounds every two weeks they would have a short second season. Dr. Kemmerer responded that the recreational fishermen would not have a second season at all.

Mr. Minton continued his report:

Section 6.4 - Additional fish trap vessel reporting requirements - The Council had no Preferred Alternative for this section and the Chairman of this committee moved to make Alternative 1 - to require fish trap vessels to submit trip initiation and trip termination reports as described below.

Ms. Williams questioned the need for a month long closure for inspection/compliance/education and noted that this would result in a one month loss of income.

Mr. Proulx responded that the closure could be shortened to two weeks. Upon hrther questioning he related that the fishermen could, within a given time period, arrange an appointment with NMFS for inspection/compliance/educationrather than a closed period but it would be preferable to have some period of closure in order to establish a baseline of the trap level fishing by the legal operators look hard for any illegal operation.

Dr. Kemmerer requested the need to include Council agreement in the time of year for inspection compliance education.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Minton moved to modify Alternative 1: require fish trap vessels to submit trip initiation and trip termination reports as described in the discussion for Section 6.4. Prior to implementing this additional requirement, there will be a one month fish trap inspection/compliance/education period, at a time determined by the NMFS Regional Administrator and published in the Federal Register. During this window of opportunity, fish trap fishermen will be required to have an appointment with NMFS enforcement for the purpose of having his trap gear, permit and vessel available for inspection. Motion carried.

Mr. Green noted that there was no intended port of return on Mr. Proulx's initiation report, was it an omission or did Mr. Proulx not care which port the fisherman returned to. Mr. Proulx responded by saying that when the fisherman got to the dock, he made the call to enforcement and offloaded, and the fish dealership where the fish were offloaded and sold was the crucial point for enforcement.

Mr. Minton went on with his report:

Section 7.0 - Minor Amberjack Management Measures - 7.2.1 - Minor Amberjack Size Limits Recreational. Mr. Perret felt that adopting compatible size limits for Florida would create incompatibilities with the four other states, which did not have minor amberjack size limits.

Mr. Williams responded that there was a response to problems with enforcing the greater amberjack size limit and that greater amberjack, at least off Florida appeared to be declining.

Mr. Hartig suggested that a 14-22 inch slot limit might be preferable and noted that on the East coast out of 77 banded rudder fish that he had measured, all but three were above 20 inches but all would be under 22 inches.

Mr. Fischer and Ms. Williams questioned the need for additional regulations to protect greater amberjack noting that a 1-amberjack bag limit and a 3-month commercial closure had just been completed and not yet evaluated.

The following motion and substitute motion were put forward but were not voted on due to a power failure.

Motion: that, for Section 7.2.1, the Council adopt Recreational Preferred Alternative l(b): Set a slot limit for the recreational fishery for banded rudderfish and lesser amberjack of 14 inches to 22 inches fork length.

Substitute Motion: that, for Section 7.2.1, the Council adopt Recreational Alternative 1: Status quo. Do not have recreational size limit for banded rudderfish and lesser amberjack.

Due to a power failure the Committee meeting was adjourned with all remaining issues deferred to full Council.

Mr. Horn suggested having a Reef Fish Committee meeting at some time prior to the May Council meeting. Dr. Claverie believed the Sunday before the May Council meeting would be a good time for the Committee to meet.

Ms. Williams moved that the Council table further discussion on Amendment 16 until the May Council meeting.

Dr. Shipp believed that a decision should be made at this time rather than deferring it to the May Council meeting. Mr. Minton stated that the Amendment could be broken up and he preferred that the fish trap issue be resolved now.

Mr. Swingle pointed out that the Council could either pick the preferred alternatives or split the Amendment and make the deferred section Amendment 16b or 17.

Dr. Shipp expressed concern over deferring Amendment 16 since the Council was more than likely not going to make a final decision on the mackerel amendment.

Ms. Williams stated that she had numerous telephone calls from fishermen telling her that they could not afford to come to the Council's March meeting so she believed it would be unfair to take final action without hearing from the western Gulf states.

Mr. Sirnpson explained that since neither the reef fish nor the mackerel committees were able to make a final decision on the issues, it may be prudent to have these committees meet in Tampa, separate from the Council meeting.

Dr. Kemmerer stated that if the Council did not make a final decision on mackerel Amendment 9, the SAFMC could not act on the decision at their next Council meeting. Dr. Kemmerer questioned whether the issues that had been discussed and voted on should be put to rest.

Dr. Claverie opined that if the fill Council acted for the committee it would slow the process down as there were too many people involved.

Mr. Swingle pointed out that the Council's next meeting was in May and the SAFMC had its next meeting in June, so the Council could still take final action in May and update the SAFMC before their next Council meeting.

Mr. Horn made a substitute motion: to table Section 7 and all following sections of Amendment 16 and place these sections into a separate amendment to be completed at the earliest possible time.

Dr. Shipp questioned whether splitting the Amendment into two Amendments would require the Council to conduct public hearings again. Mr. Swingle responded no; the Council could just number the second portion as Amendment 16b.

Mr. McLemore related that the SAFMC had split out Amendments before; the only concern would be that the Council would have to refer to the original Amendment.

Mr. Perret suggested having committee meetings separate from the Council meetings.

Mr. Basco questioned whether the amount and length of responses during a Council discussion could be limited. Dr. Claverie answered that full input was important to him.

Substitute Motion carried by a vote of 8 to 7: to table Section 7 and all following sections of Amendment 16 and place these sections into a separate amendment to be completed at the earliest possible time. Mr. Minton moved that Amendment 16-a be approved and forwarded to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. Motion carried by a roll call vote of 14 to 3.

Mr. Aparicio - Yes Mr. King - No Mr. Basco - Yes Mr. Lessard - No Dr. Claverie - Yes Mr. Minton - Yes Dr. Coleman - Yes Dr. Nelson - Yes Mr. Fischer - Yes Mr. Osburn - Yes Ms. Foote - Yes Mr. Perret - Yes Mr. Green - Yes Dr. Shipp - Yes Mr. Horn - No Ms. Williams - Yes Dr. Kemmerer - Yes

Mackerel Mana~ementCommittee Re~ort

Mr. Williams reviewed the Committee report: Without an in-depth review the Committee noted the previous recommendations of the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP), the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), the Mackerel Advisory Panel (AP), and the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (SAP). Dr. Leard, Mr. Swingle, and Mr. Williams reviewed the summaries of the public hearings. The Committee also discussed the public letters that had been received.

Dr. Kemmerer presented the comments from NMFS' informal review (handout). He stated that the terminology used to distinguish the subdivisions of the Eastern zone should be consistent with existing regulations, that is Florida West coast and Florida East coast. He also noted that critical comments were related to the complexity of the current regulations and the need to simplifjr the regulations. He noted that Amendment 9, if implemented, would, in conjunction with regulations already implemented, lead to even more inefficient management with additional loss of economic benefits. He also reviewed substantive comments relative to the individual sections of Amendment 9.

The Committee also noted that the SAFMC had deferred action on Amendment 9 due to the fact that most alternatives, as written, applied only to the GMFMC's area of jurisdiction and the GMFMC had not selected a preferred alternative for some alternatives. The SAFMC also stated that they would not consider alternatives that affected the SAFMC's area of jurisdiction. Because of the stated intent of the SAFMC and the fact that Amendment 9 contains alternatives that potentially would affect the SAFMC's management program, namely Section 2.2, Sale of King and Spanish Mackerel, Section 2.3, Reallocations of TAC and Section 2.1.1, Sale of Cutoff Fish.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Gulf Council continue with the development of Amendment 9 with the possible scheduling of a joint management committee meeting with the SAFMC in June 1998, or before, to review these joint issues.

Ms. Williams asked ifthe SAFMC did not take final action because the Gulf Council did not pick any preferred alternatives and the issues applied only in the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council. Mr. Hartig responded yes. She fbrther asked whether the SAFMC would adopt whatever action the Gulf Council chose to take. Mr. Hartig again responded yes. Mr. Williams stated that he believed there were more reasons the SAFMC deferred their action, according to a letter fiom Bob Mahood. Mr. Hartig responded that all the items contained in the amendment should only apply to the Council area ofjurisdiction. Mr. Williams asked how would the Gulf Council apply a decision, such as changing the fishing year, only to the GMFMC jurisdiction.

Dr. Claverie verified that a joint meeting was not needed, as the SAFMC would follow whatever action the GMFMC chose to take. Mr. Hartig answered that the Council needed to choose preferred alternatives on some of the issues. He believed Mr. McLemore and Dr. Kernrnerer needed to add their input. Dr. Claverie clarified that if the Council made a decision, for instance on whether the fishermen could sell fish, the SAFMC would approve this for the Gulf Council's jurisdiction only. He hrther clarified that the issue of size limit could be difficult if both Councils had a different size limit.

Mr. Swingle pointed out that through the framework procedure each Council was allowed to set bag limits and size limits for their stock of king and Spanish mackerel so it was possible to have different size limits.

Mr. McLemore expressed that he had no problem with diierent size limits but asked Mr. Swingle how the plan was set up with regard to the Gulf stock when it was in the SAFMCYsarea of jurisdiction. Mr. Swingle explained that the Gulf Council had the SAFMC make the rules under the framework procedure, the Gulf Council set TAC for the fish that entered the SAFMC area and the SAFMC set the trip limits, size limits, etc. that apply to the Gulf stock when in the SAFMC area (Amendment 8).

Mr. Williams moved to table the motion: that the Gulf Council continue with the development of Amendment 9 with the possible scheduling of a joint management committee meeting with the SAFMC in June 1998, or before, to review these joint issues. Motion to table carried.

Mr. Williams continued his report:

In review of the various comments received, the Committee developed the following recommendations:

Section 2.1 - Fishing Year - the Committee took no action to change the preferred alternative Section 2.1.4 - Status Quo, no change. Recreational fishing year begins January 1, and commercial fishing year begins July 1 of each year.

Mr. Lessard moved: that the Council adopt 2.1.1, option b, as the Preferred Alternative for Section 2.1. Motion withdrawn.

Mr. Williams moved: that the Council adopt 2.1.4, as the Preferred Alternative - Status Quo - no change - Recreational fishing year begins January 1, and commercial fishing year begins July 1 of each year. Motion carried. Ms. Williams questioned whether the month the commercial fishing year began could be changed \ to May. Mr. Swingle stated that change could be made in any of the alternatives. Mr. Williams continued his report:

Section 2.2 - Sale of king and Spanish mackerel. At first the Committee decided to address Section 2.3.3 - Reallocations by (recreational and commercial) user group before Section 2.2 because the potential tie of this section to the sale of fish. Following a lengthy discussion, including the Magnuson-Stevens Act definitions of charter, recreational, and commercial fishing, the Committee voted to discuss Section 2.2 before Section 2.3.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Council keep the preferred Alternative 2.2.2, but change the preferred option from option a. to option c. to read as follows: Prohibit the sale of Gulf group king and Spanish mackerel by all persons fishing under the recreational allocation (bag limits), except charter and head boat operators that also possess a commercial king and/or Spanish mackerel permit when landing king or Spanish mackerel, respectively, and include a provision that all mackerels sold by those vessels be counted against the commercial quota.

Mr. Lessard offered an amendment to the motion: change "commercial" to "recreational".

Mr. McLemore believed that any fish sold would have to be counted against the commercial quota.

Dr. Claverie related that the definition did not state how the quota had to be counted. He asked what was the problem with counting a commercial fish against a recreational quota, there was no i prohibition against that in the Act. Mr. McLemore did not agree. He stated that Congress included the definitions of those terms, being that commercial fishing constitutes fish that are entering commerce, which these would be, as they are sold under a commercial permit.

Mr. Williams stated that sometimes these fish were counted as both, when they were caught they are counted recreationally and when they were sold they were counted commercially.

Mr. King pointed out that when a recreational fisherman kills a fish it is removed from the stock. He stated that this came down to the division of fish, who killed the fish first, if it was recreationally caught the fisherman could throw it away or make good use of it and sell it commercially.

Dr. Claverie agreed that the harvest of the fish should be where the quota comes from.

Mr. Swingle pointed out that the SAFMC would likely not approve this motion because it applied to their jurisdiction.

Dr. Claverie commented that should the SAFMC not allow the sale of recreationally caught fish, then the charter and head boat operators would have to come within the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council to sell their catch. Mr. Basco stated that he did not believe Florida should allow recreational fishermen to sell their catch since the other four states did not. He further stated that this would deplete the quota and make smaller bag limits.

Mr. Osburn agreed with Mr. King in that a recreationally caught fish could be counted under the commercial quota. Mr. Osburn made a substitute motion: that the Preferred Alternative be 2.2.2, option a - Prohibit the sale of Gulf group king and Spanish mackerel by all persons fishing under the recreational allocation (bag limits), including charter and head boat operators.

Mr. Fischer believed that the Magnuson-Stevens Act was explicit, if the fish entered commerce through sale, they were considered commercial. The only question was how to count them.

Ms. Williams pointed out that the Magnuson-Stevens Act also stated the sale of recreationally caught fish is prohibited.

Mr. McLemore corrected Ms. Williams and stated that what she was referring to was a Florida state law not the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Mr. Minton asked Mr. Williams if a recreational fisherman caught red snapper during the closed season could he catch his limit and sell it. Mr. Williams replied that the fisherman could sell it if he had a reef fish permit. He related that at this time it was prohibited to sell snapper caught in state waters. Mr. Minton was concerned that these fish were being counted twice, when caught recreationally and when sold commercially.

Mr. Williams asked which states prohibited the sale of recreationally caught king and Spanish mackerel. Mr. Swingle replied that Louisiana prohibited sale of any recreationally caught fish if the fishermen had a recreational license. Mr. Perret stated that Mississippi prohibits the sale of recreationally caught fish but the fishermen could buy a hook-and-line license and then sell fish. Mr. Minton noted that at this time Alabama requires a federal reef fish permit in order to sell, and Alabama was planning to do the same for mackerels.

Dr. Kemrnerer commented that he would prefer to prohibit the sale of Gulf group king and Spanish mackerel until there were consistent regulations with the SAFMC and Florida.

Mr. Osburn stated that if the Council worked out an agreement with these other agencies it would just be giving them veto power. He believed that the Council should make a decision and stick with it.

Dr. Claverie agreed that the Council should make a decision consistent with the SAFMC and Florida.

Ms. Williams read a letter from Dr. Kemmerer to Dr. Claverie and Mr. Hartig which was opposed to the sale of recreationally caught fish but ended with the statement that "...current landings estimates that such sales by the Florida Keys charter fleet amounts to over 100,000 pounds of king mackerel during the most lucrative market." Dr. Kemmerer agreed he was against the sale but wondered if the Council was ready to vote on this issue.

Dr. Shipp understood there were two problems, the motion on the floor and the fact that tourists from other countries come to the U. S. to fish, bring their fish back to the dock and cannot take them home. He questioned what should be done with the fish at this point; throw them away. He believed there should be some work done with the SAFMC.

Dr. Claverie stated that there would be a problem for the other states if the Council allowed the sale of recreationallly caught fish in the EEZ. He believed there would be an enforcement problem in trying to prove the fish were caught in state waters as opposed to federal waters.

Mr. McLemore did not believe there were any preemption problems, only enforcement problems.

Mr. Swingle related that the Council has not allowed any sale of recreationally caught fish, rather has not taken any stand, therefore, the state rules would apply to their citizens.

Mr. Simpson pointed out that the Council was responsible for the area of the EEZ and should only have to consider that area. He stated that the Council had to decide how to count the fish.

Mr. Osburn related that none of the Gulf states were in agreement. The fishermen from other states had explained in public testimony that they had previously never sold their fish; but since it was acceptable in the Keys, they would consider doing it themselves. He believed that this issue needed to be dealt with and that the Council should follow the states' lead.

Dr. Kernrnerer did not agree and stated that since the Council was silent on this issue the state law would prevail on any decision regarding state registered vessels.

Mr. McLemore pointed out that under the Magnuson-Stevens Act the state could regulate vessels registered in that state in the EEZ if there was no conflicting federal regulation or if the administration of that state regulation in the EEZ did not frustrate the federal plan.

Substitute motion carried by a vote of 11 to 5 that the Preferred Alternative be 2.2.2, option a - Prohibit the sale of Gulf group king and Spanish mackerel by all persons fishing under the recreational allocation (bag limits), including charter and head boat operators.

Mr. King moved: that any fish that is caught by a recreational fisherman be counted only against the recreational quota, regardless of its disposition. Motion carried by a vote of 15 to 2.

Mr. Minton pointed out that this motion would cause double counting of the fish quota.

Mr. King stated that the Florida trip tickets now distinguished between charterboat-caught fish and all others which would alleviate the double counting of fish. Lieutenant Commander Pifio believed that the problem was that charterboat fishermen were able to sell mackerel during the commercial fishermen's closed season, and law enforcement had no case against them.

Mr. Horn related that the new trip tickets had a section to mark if the fish were caught by a charterboat fisherman.

Mr. Fischer agreed that recreational fish should be counted against the recreational quota. He did not agree with the statement regardless of its disposition. He related that the Magnuson- Stevens Act says that any fish that is sold, bartered, traded, or for which the fisherman receives any sort of compensation is considered commercial.

Mr. Green questioned whether the state of Florida could prohibit the charterboat fishermen from selling fish during the commercial fishermen's closed season.

Dr. Kemmerer moved: that the Mackerel Management Committees of the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils meet in conjunction with representatives from the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission to attempt to reach a consensus on the sale of bag limit caught fish and minimum size limits for Gulf group king mackerel.

Mr. Minton asked whether the coastal pelagics permit, possessed by charterboat fishermen, was any different than the permit issued to a commercial fisherman. Mr. Williams replied that the commercial permit was needed to exceed the bag limit and the coastal pelagics permit had no qualification criteria. Mr. Minton pointed out that a commercial fisherman could go out and catch the bag limit and come in and sell the fish as a charterboat fisherman.

Ms. Williams questioned Dr. Kemmerer on why he made a motion that referred only to the Gulf group. Dr. Kemmerer answered that was what this Council was addressing and that was the issue at this time.

Mr. Perret stated that the other four states should be included in the meeting mentioned in the motion. Dr. Kemmerer agreed.

Dr. Nelson believed it would be beneficial if staff prepared a list of the laws for each state.

Mr. Horn asked ifthis motion was limited to king mackerel only. Dr. Kemmerer stated that only king mackerel should be listed.

Mr. Horn offered a amendment to the motion: to add discussion of all mackerels. Amendment to the motion carried.

Motion as amended carried without objection: that the Mackerel Management Committees of the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils meet in conjunction with representatives from the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission to attempt to reach a consensus on the sale of bag limit caught fish and minimum size limits for all mackerel. Mr. Williams continued his report:

Section 2.3 - Commercial reallocations by area.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that action on Sections 2.3 and 2.3.2 be tabled until after the joint meeting of the Gulf and South Atlantic management committees.

Mr. Lessard made a substitute motion: that 2.3.1 be the Preferred Alternative - reallocate the percentage of the commercial allocation of TAC for the North and SouthNest areas of the Eastern Zone to 45 percent North and 55 percent SouthNest.

Mr. Hartig stated that the two Councils needed to come to some sort of agreement.

Mr. Horn agreed and stated that the Council should go to the table with a Preferred Alternative rather than not taking any position.

Dr. Kemmerer related that the Eastern Zone did not reach its quota because it chose not to take the fill quota.

Mr. Williams believed the development of the Panhandle fishery for king mackerel was forcing more of the allocation to come out of the Gulf hook-and-line portion of the quota which was unfair to that one group of fishermen.

Substitute motion carried with one objection.

Mr. Williams continued his report:

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Council adopt Section 2.3.4 - Status Quo - no change - Allocation remains at 68 percent recreational and 32 percent commercial.

Mr. Green offered a substitute motion: to adopt 2.3.3 as the Preferred Alternative - Increase the recreational allocation from the current 68 percent of TAC to 70 percent; however, all catcheshandings by the for-hire sector shall be counted against the recreational allocation only. Substitute motion carried with no objection.

Section 2.4 - Subdivision of the commercial hook-and-line king mackerel allocation of TAC for the Gulf group Eastern Zone, Florida West coast into subzones by area.

On behalfofthe Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Council keep Section 2.4.1, option b as the Preferred Alternative - Subdivide the commercial hook-and-line king mackerel allocation for the Gulf group, Eastern Zone, SouthNest Area by establishing two (2) subzones (Figure 2) Subzone 1 - DadelMonroe to CollierILee County line and Subzone 2 - CollierLee County line to AL/FL state line. Dr. Kemmerer asked whether the CollierLee County line could not be moved more North to accommodate law enforcement.

Mr. Proulx commented that enforcement would appreciate the line be moved to CharlotteISarasota County line.

Mr. Williams offered a substitute motion: that Subzone 1 be the DadelMonroe to CharlotteISarasota and Subzone 2 - CharlotteISarasota to AL/FL state line with lines to be designated by latitude and longitude in whole numbers. Substitute motion carried by a vote of 12 to 4.

Mr. Williams continued his report:

Section 2.5 - Establish regional allocations of TAC for the commercial hook-and-line king mackerel fishery in the SouthIWest area of the Eastern Zone, Florida West coast based on the historical catches fiom Subzones identified in Section 2.4.1, the Committee discussed the geographic availability of king mackerel fiom year to year on the West coast of Florida in conjunction with historical landings.

On behalfof the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Preferred Alternative be "establish regional allocations for the west coast of Florida with up to 30 percent of the TAC being allowed from Subzone 2 as indicated in Section 2.4.1."

Mr. Lessard offered an amendment to the motion: change "up to 30 percent" to "up to 20 percent."

Ms. Williams did not agree with the amendment to the motion and wondered why there was no status quo.

Dr. Shipp stated that the reason there was no status quo was because status quo was appropriate in the previous motion.

Dr. Kernmerer offered a second amendment to the motion: change "up to 30 percent" to "up to 25 percent."

Second amendment to the motion failed by a vote of 6 to 11.

Amendment to the motion failed by a vote of 5 to 11 to change "up to 30 percent" to "up to 20 percent."

Mr. Minton believed 30 percent was a reasonable cap.

Motion carried by a vote of 12 to 5 that the Preferred Alternative be "establish regional allocations for the west coast of Florida with up to 30 percent of the TAC being allowed from Subzone 2 as indicated in Section 2.4.1." Mr. Williams continued his report:

Section 2.6 - Subdivision ofthe commercial king mackerel allocation of TAC for the Gulf group western zone. The Committee noted that the majority of testimony opposed subdivision of TAC in the western zone. Although there was some support for a split season to address the derby fishery.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Preferred Alternative be Status Quo - do not subdivide TAC in the Western Zone. Motion carried by a vote of 15 to 1.

Mr. Williams continued his report:

Section 2.7 - Establish trip limits for commercial vessels fishing for Gulf group king mackerel in the Western Zone (Alabama to Texas). The Committee discussed the affects of a trip limit in reducing the derby fishery and increasing the quality and profitability of the king mackerel fishery in the Western Zone. The Committee initially approved a motion to establish a trip limit.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Williams moved that the Preferred Alternative be Section 2.7.1 to read as follows: "establish a trip limit of 3,000 pounds per vessel per trip for the Western Zone." Motion carried by a vote of 15 to 1.

Mr. Williams continued his report:

At this point, Mr. Chairman the Committee ran out of time and deferred action on the remaining sections of 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11 to the full Council. That concludes my report.

The Council continued with review of the remaining sections of Amendment 9.

Mr. Williams moved: that for Section 2.8 the Council adopt as the Preferred Alternative 2.8.2, Preferred Option a - Establish a moratorium on the issuance of commercial king mackerel gill-net endorsements. Reissue commercial king mackerel gill-net endorsements to only those vessels that: (1) had a commercial mackerel permit with a gill-net endorsement on or before the moratorium control date of October 16,1995 (Amendment 8), and (2) had landings of king mackerel using a gill-net in one of the two fishing years 1995-96 or 1996-97 as verified by NMFS or trip tickets from the FDEP. Motion carried with no objection.

Dr. Kemmerer asked whether the trip ticket would spec@ the type of gear used. Dr. Claverie responded yes, Bill Wickers had handed out a sample copy which did ask for gear type used.

Mr. Williams moved: that for Section 2.8.3, Transferability of gill net endorsements, the Preferred Option be Option b - Commercial king mackerel gill net endorsements may be transferred to immediate family members (son, daughter, father, mother, or spouse) only. Mr. Minton questioned whether the holder of the permit had to be onboard the vessel while it was fishing. Dr. Kernmerer responded that the permit was issued to the vessel so any person could run the vessel.

Mr. Horn believed permits should be freely transferable. He did not understand why these permits should be limited.

Mr. Green stated that this would be a painless way to phase the fishermen out of this gear type.

Mr. Basco agreed with Mr. Horn that the transferability of the permits should be open.

Mr. Lessard offered a substitute motion: that the Preferred Option be Option c - Status Quo - permits and endorsements are freely transferable.

Mr. Fischer asked ifthe purpose ofthis measure was to reduce this fishery through attrition. Mr. Williams answered yes.

Dr. Shipp questioned ifthe substitute motion were to pass would it work to phase out the gill net fishermen. Mr. Williams replied that gill nets had been the most controversial gear type in the king mackerel fishery.

Mr. Lessard asked if the state could regulate a federal fishery, fished exclusively in the EEZ where the king mackerel were fished. Mr. Williams answered no.

Substitute motion failed by a vote of 6 to 8.

Motion carried by a vote of 11 to 3.

Mr. Williams moved: to adopt Section 2.8.4, Preferred Alternative - Prohibit the use of gill nets or any other net gear for the harvest of Gulf group king mackerel except: with no preferred option for option a in NMFS statistical grids 1,2, and 3 or option b south of an eastlwest line at the Collierhee County line. Motion carried by a vote of 12 to 2.

Mr. Williams moved: that for Section 2.9, the Preferred Alternative be "Increase the minimum size limit for Gulf group king mackerel from 20" to 24" FL." Motion carried with no objection.

Mr. Williams moved: that the Council ask the Mackerel SAP to evaluate the benefits of increasing minimum size limits.

Mr. Osburn requested that Doug Gregory speak on this motion.

Mr. Gregory stated that both the reef fish and mackerel stock assessment panels did not want to look at or analyze impacts relative to management measures. He realized that the king mackerel fishery had been overfished for 10 to 15 years with a size limit that allows the harvest ofjuveniles. He raised the issue with the mackerel stock assessment panel, but they had no data in front of them. Motion carried that the Council ask the Mackerel SAP to evaluate the benefits of increasing minimum size limits.

Mr. Williams noted that for Section 2.10 - Establish a purse seine allocation for Gulf group Spanish mackerel, the Committee had no Preferred Alternative. Mr. Williams had no motion.

Mr. Green moved: that the Preferred Alternative be Section 2.10.5 - Status Quo - no change.

Mr. Horn stated that the Spanish mackerel fishery was harvesting 25 percent or less of the quota. He related that the net bans had excluded fishermen from this lucrative fishery. He believed that the bycatch in this fishery was very minimal, and this fishery was not overfished. Mr. Horn offered a substitute motion: that the Preferred Alternative be Section 2.10.1 - establish an annual purse seine allocation for Gulf group Spanish mackerel of 300,000 pounds.

Mr. King explained that whenever a fishery was built back up the fishermen should be able to share in this recovery. He did not believe that just because someone did not like a specific gear type that they should be able to phase it out.

Mr. Perret stated that purse seines were a clean gear. He hrther stated that purse seines were not a historical gear and for that reason he could not support the motion.

Mr. Minton added that the traditional gear should be allowed to take some of the fish before a non-traditional gear was allowed to expand.

Ms. Williams read text that said: "Gulf Spanish mackerel catches in the purse seine vessels are not likely to be relatively large although there is good likelihood that catches of other species could be substantial." She related that was why she was against the purse seines.

Mr. Basco related that the gear could take as much as 300,000 pounds in one set.

Mr. Horn pointed out that previously there was a 300,000 pound limit and the fishermen did not take the allocation. He believed that this was not an overfished species.

Mr. Minton stated that this may not be an overfished fishery, but it was an expanding fishery.

Mr. Green agreed that the hook-and-line fishermen should be allowed to expand into this fishery.

Substitute motion failed by a vote of 4 to 13 that the Preferred Alternative be Section 2.10.1 - establish an annual purse seine allocation for Gulf group Spanish mackerel of 300,000 pounds.

Motion carried by a vote of 13 to 4 that the Preferred Alternative be Section 2.10.5 - Status Quo - no change. Mr. Williams explained that currently the Council had no Preferred Alternative with regard to , Section 2.11 - Retention sale of cut-off fish.

Mr. Williams moved that the Preferred Alternative be 2.11.1 - Allow the retention and sale of cut-off (damaged) legal-sized king and Spanish mackerel within established trip limits.

Dr. Kemmerer explained that the current regulation allowed possession of five cut-off king mackerels over the bag limit but those could be sold. He understood that this new regulation would allow that sale, which the SAFMC did not agree with. He questioned whether a fish, even with its tail cut-off, still had to meet the minimum size limits. Mr. Williams responded that was how he read it. Mr. Hartig agreed and questioned what if a fisherman had five cut-off fish aboard his vessel, was there a case for enforcement.

Dr. Kemmerer stated that this issue was more pertinent to the SAFMC. Mr. Hartig replied that the only problem was the size limits and he believed it should be left in.

Motion carried.

Mr. Swingle suggested that the Council meet early the next morning to take action on the AP Selection and Ad Hoc Marine Reserves. Dr. Claverie stated the meeting would start at 8:00 a.m. the following morning.

Council adjourned and reconvened at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, March 13,1998.

Dr. Claverie reported that during closed sessions for Marine Reserves and AP Selection Committees, no action was taken that was required to be reported to the public in open meeting.

Law Enforcement Committee Report

Ms. Williams gave the Law Enforcement Committee Report:

The Committee was briefed on law enforcement issues by NMFSNOAA Coast Guard Enforcement Officials. Gene Proulx handed out the quarterly report. He briefly summarized those activities which included an incident with Mr. McKennon for fish trap violations. He also introduced Mr. Robin Young who has recently been appointed to the NOAA enforcement attorney's office. Lt. John Sherlock summarized the Eighth Coast Guard District activities. He used overheads to summarize boardings and compliance rates. The compliance rates for Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) and for Magnuson- Stevens Act rules were both above ninety-five percent. He added that there is concern with the Eighth District in reference to below acceptable compliance rates and those rates were observed in commercial fishing safety regulations. Lt. Commander Pino summarized the Seventh Coast Guard District activities. He indicated they targeted boardings at least twenty percent of the 7,000 commercial vessels each year or 1,500 vessels per year. They also targeted boarding and equal number of recreational vessels each year. To date, it appears these quotas would be met. He noted that compliance rates were observed based on number of violations observed divided by number of boardings. In that estimate minor and major violations were treated the same. Using that standard compliance was greater than ninety-six percent. Robin Young reported that the number of novas had declined last year but the penalties' excess had increased. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act the penalties' excess was 9.1 million for the last year. Major Bruce Buckson of the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) showed videos of the use of an airborne forward-looking infrared system to detect illegal nighttime fishing activities by net fishermen. The system provided excellent detection of this type of activity. The camera resolution was not good enough that vessel numbers could be determined. Therefore, a surface patrol vessel was needed to intercept the vessel and make the case. Andy Mejias presented an update on the trial vessel monitoring system project being carried out jointly by NMFS and the FMP using a shrimp boat and a stone crab boat in the Crystal River, Florida area and two fish trap boats in the Naples area. His summary report was handed out in committee session as well as the vessel monitoring committee session. Mr. Mejias used the computer projecting system to project the shrimp vessel tract within an area zoned for shrimping only for the February 24 through March 5. He explained that if the vessel had crossed into the area zoned for stone crabbing only then an alarm would have been set off and visual tracking could be from the NMFS tracking station. He pointed out the data describing the vessel tracks, which usually transmitted once a day when the vessel entered the home port area. Therefore, it did not matter if the vessel was beyond the range for telephone contact during part of the trip. NMFS had also attached a sensor to the hydraulic system so that they could monitor the fishing activity of the deploying and retrieving of the nets. He presented projections that showed that activity. Mr. Mejias summarized all the program steps that had developed to yield the various data projections. She then conclude her report.

Mr. Minton felt it would be helpful if the agency which provided reports of fines also included how much of the fine had been paid.

Ad Hoc Vessel monitor in^ Committee Re~ort

Mr. King read the Ad Hoc Vessel Monitoring Committee Report:

Dr. Leard reviewed the draft VMS policy ofthe GMFMC (Tab 0, No. 3) noting that this policy document was developed by incorporating relevant portions of the Western Pacific Fishery Development Council's VMS policy and the charge of the GMFMC VMS Management Committee. The Committee recommended that bullet 3 be modified to read as follows: focus VMS programs on enforcement, scientific data collection and safety. Following reviews of the other aspects of the policy document the Committee noted that it represents a good general guidance plan for the Council.

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. King moved that the Council adopt the VMS policy as modified by the Committee. Motion carried.

Mr. King continued his report:

Gene Proulx also received a Review of Status Report on NMFS' vessel monitoring experimental project in the Gulf and South Atlantic dated March 9, 1998. He noted that Andy Mejias had presented the details in the report to the Law Enforcement Management Committee on Monday. Mr. Proulx noted that the project was proceeding basically as scheduled and that the cost of the required equipment had decreased from approximately $1,400.00 to $800.00. He stated that he would continue to report the progress of the experiment to the Committee for further evaluation of its utility and management program. He then concluded his report.

Personnel Committee Re~ort

Mr. Horn read the Personnel Committee Report (Tab P, No. 3):

Dr. Leard reported the premium for existing health insurance program for Council employees with Aetna had increased substantially since the Council approved a prescription drug card in September, 1997. He stated the staff investigated other programs with Aetna and six other carriers. He presented details of four potentially acceptable programs.

On behalf'of the Committee, Mr. Horn moved that the Council approve the United Insurance program for staff health coverage. Motion carried.

Mr. Horn pointed out that the Council would save approximately $14,000.00 per year. He then concluded his report.

Habitat Protection Committee Re~ort

Dr. Shipp reported that the Habitat Protection Committee did not meet due to a power failure. He showed an overhead of the project for the Port Authority of Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi. This project was a request to expand an area (29 acres) on the waterfront at the end of Highway 49 in Gulfport. It was a 29 acre container area, proposed 3 phase plan to add 30 acres, 30 more acres, and then 24 acres. This would entail dredging 300,000 cy which is 15 acres of material and constructing a 900 ft x 150 ft pier extension. This storage area was essential to store bananas in the future. The mitigation was a sewer pump out facility will be installed at the commercial fishing dock and generators will be installed in the commercial fishing harbor to increase water circulation in DO levels in the Graveline Bayou of Causeway Phil Road to be removed and replaced with an elevated bridge over the tidal marsh to restore natural hydraulic conditions that should allow for the restoration of tidal marsh vegetation. It was requested that 24 acres of emergent wetland be established over a 15-year period. In Discovery Bay a canal plug at the north end of a canal will be removed to allow free exchange of tidal waters with Bayou pourage. The Port will provide money to the DMR to acquire and preserve sensitive coastal areas (one million dollars). DMR can revoke or reaffirm certification of any of the three phases. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality has issued water quality certification for the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was concerned about the environmental benefit of the proposed mitigation project and was opposed to the issuance of the permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was concerned about the project's direct, indirect, and secondary impacts with like for an environmental impact statement to be developed and feels that there has not been the opportunity to gain public input. NMFS was opposed to the project because of inadequate mitigation and the proposed impact to aquatic resources of national importance. In the late 1980's the Port asked for 29 acres and said this would be enough to last the Port for 50 years. The Port has now come back and asked for 84 more acres.

Mr. Simpson pointed out that the bulk of the banana import was at this port, which was strictly industrial.

Mr. Fruge stated that the USFWS was not sure that the benefits projected by the consultant for the Port would actually come to pass. He pointed out that some of the objectives of the mitigation had not been spelled out in terms of what would qualifl or what would constitute a successful mitigation.

Mr. Perret reiterated that this Port was located where U. S. Highway 49 came down into U. S. Highway 90, an industrial area. He stated that the Port had developed a sound plan, mitigating 2.7 million dollars, 1.7 million dollars for a bridge to replace the dam in Graveline Bay and one million dollars would be used to purchase vegetative wetlands which would be there in perpetuity and would not be developed. He pointed out that 20 acres would be favorably impacted.

Mr. Osburn asked whether the wetlands purchased would actually keep them from being developed since they were already protected. Mr. Perret replied that all the wetlands were protected; but when the economic need called for it, development occurred.

Dr. Kernmerer stated that there were significant questions left unanswered when NMFS, USFWS, and the EPA were against this project. He believed that the Council should find out what were these unanswered questions.

Mr. Swingle reported that letters from the EPA, NMFS, and USFWS were in the briefing book.

Dr. Shipp asked that the Council members not make a decision until they had all the facts.

Mr. Fruge did not think there were any time restrictions for the Council to make a decision on this issue.

Mr. Minton agreed that the Council did not have enough time to make a decision that could affect the state of Mississippi.

Dr. Claverie asked Dr. Shipp if he would like to table this discussion until the May Council meeting. Dr. Shipp answered yes and moved to table this issue until the May Council meeting. Motion to table carried by a vote of 7 to 5.

Continuation of the Reef Fish Committee Re~ort

Mr. Minton continued review of outstanding issues which the Reef Fish Committee was unable to address due to a power outage.

He began at (Tab B, No. 1) Agenda Item No. 4 - Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel recommendation for research, analysis, and data collection. The First part of (Tab B, No. 9) had already been completed and he referred the Council to the bottom of the document beginning "The RFSAP recommends... . He pointed out that item number 1 had already been done, 2,3, 4, and 5 had been recommended.

Mr. Minton moved that items 2,3, 4, and 5 of Tab B, No. 9 be sent forward to National Marine Fisheries Service for incorporation into the analysis.

Mr. Minton explained that he wanted this analysis to be presented to the RFSAP as they have been asking for these analysis for the last 2 years. He stated that they had been unable to get them completed because of other priorities.

Dr. Kemmerer was concerned whether there was justification to warrant consideration of these items.

Mi-. Minton stated that if NMFS would not consider the recommendations given by the RFSAP then maybe the Council needed to reevaluate the RFSAP.

Motion carried with Dr. Kemmerer abstaining.

Mr. Minton continued his review:

Item number 5 - Control date for limited access for recreational for-hire vessels.

Mr. Swingle made a correction under (Tab B, No. 10); the last sentence on page 2 should be removed from that document. As a follow-up, the control date would be put into the Federal Register. If a vessel enters the fishery after that date and if a limited access system were imposed, they may not be able to participate. At this point, the control date would be applicable to reef fish and the coastal migratory pelagic fisheries, but it could cover all of the for-hire boats that fish in the EEZ even though some may fish for highly migratory species (HMS). There was also discussion to have this limited access system apply to the HMS, which would have to be approved by NMFS.

Mr. Minton asked if there was a recommendation for dates. Mr. Swingle replied that if publication became effective in the Federal Register, the date would be sometime next Fall.

Mr. Minton moved that the control date for limited entry for for-hire vessels in the Gulf participating in any fisheries within the Gulf Council's area of jurisdiction and if agreeable to NMFS also HMS, be established as the date of publication in the Federal Re~ister.

Ms. Williams questioned whether a date, such as today's date, could not be put in the motion. Dr. Claverie answered no, that the earliest date would be the date of publication in the Federal Register. Mr. McLemore embellished that essentially the defensible approach would be to use the date published in the Federal Register as that would be the official notice date.

Mr. Osburn recalled some studies done by Dr. Bob Ditton of the charter fleets in the Gulf that noted high turnover rates since the 1970's. He did not believe a bag limit would be a problem within the next few years. He related that the south coast of Texas was not crawling with charterboat operators; therefore, anyone who wanted to fish the inaccessible areas needed to do so with an experienced fisherman. He stated that at this time it was inappropriate to establish these control dates.

Ms. Williams supported the motion as several Texas charterboat operators asked for the control dates for their own protection.

Mr. Osburn pointed out that the charterboat operators Ms. Williams was referring to were the larger vessel operators not the six-pack boat operators that did not support the control date.

Mr. Horn stated that the commercial industry was being limited because the ability to harvest was too great and that the ability to harvest in the recreational industry was even greater. He related that if it were good to protect the commercial industry then it was good to protect the for-hire industry.

Dr. Kemmerer informed the Council that NMFS annually published all control dates to all permit holders, all dealers, all charterboats, and all states.

Motion carried with one objection that the control date for limited entry for for-hire vessels in the Gulf participating in any fisheries within the Gulf Council's area of jurisdiction and if agreeable to NMFS also HMS, be established as the date of publication in the Federal Re~ister.

Ms. Williams' SAFMC Liaison Re~ort

Ms. Williams presented her SAFMC Liaison Report (Attachment No. 7).

Mr. Perret asked whether the SAFMC included everything in their EFH recommendation. Dr. Kemmerer replied that they tried to be all-encompassing in establishing the management areas.

The NMFS Ecosvstem Advisory Panel Re~ort

Mr. Aparicio gave the NMFS Ecosystem Advisory Panel (AP) Report. The AP held the last of three meetings in Key Largo last month (February). All of the Committees had completed their assigned drafts on the introduction of the principals of ecosystems' management and the mechanisms by which these principals would be applied by the drafts being currently circulated for final approval, additions, and comments. The overriding recommendation of the AP was that each Council develop a Council Ecosystem Plan. This would include descriptions of the ecosystems occumng within each Council's jurisdiction and guidelines to which Councils could compare their existing fishery management plans (FMPs) to ensure that ecosystem management was being employed. The report will contain examples from each region in which ecosystem management was currently employed as well as examples of problems which might be more reasonably addressed and solved following the proposed guidelines. The final document will be forwarded to Congress on schedule (October 1, 1998). Mr. Aparicio concluded his report. Enforcement Report

Lt. Commander Sherlock - Eighth Coast Guard District - reported that due to the inclement weather there was a decrease in fishing activity. The Coast Guard's numbers indicated increased activity in April.

Dr. Claverie asked if the Coast Guard could then save on allocated hours on fisheries and use them later. Lt. Commander Sherlock replied that those decisions were made at a higher command level.

Alabama State Director's Report

Mr. Minton gave the Alabama State Director's Report. Oyster reefs continue to be closed due to excessive rainfall over the last few months. The last major El Nino (1982-1983), was the last time the reefs had a sigtllficant mortality of oysters. The reefs were sampled the week before, and the mortality was not significant due to the tidal surge. Some legislation was introduced recently that would change the reef fish regulations laws which would make it a Class A misdemeanor for first offenses of placing an artificial reef outside the permitted area or placing a reef that was not permitted around the area ($5,000-$10,000 fine). A second offense would be a Class C Felony ($10,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail).

Mississi~~iState Director's Report

Mr. Perret gave the Mississippi State Director's Report. The Mississippi Legislature was currently in session and should complete their activities next month. There are some Bills under consideration which would provide more flexibility to the Commission relative to opening certain oyster reefs, which he believed would be approved. Another Bill in the system had to do with reciprocal angling licenses with neighboring states, i.e., Louisiana. The Commission and the Department had established a task force for blue crabs to address issues, problems, etc. in the fishery. This task force was made up of various industry and technical people. Due to El Nino and its inclement weather, the oyster reefs were closed. Mr. Prior Bailey, a Commission member, died and would most likely be replaced by Phil Horn.

Louisiana State Director's Report

Ms. Foote gave the Louisiana State Director's Report. Louisiana received federal finds for a pilot program for trip tickets which would hopefully begin July 1, 1998 with full implementation expected by January 1, 1999. The fishermen went through a period of "anguish" over the recent short notice of the mackerel season reopening.

Texas State Director's Report

Mr. Osburn gave the Texas State Director's Report. He wished to reiterate the point that 24- hours notice of a fishery opening was not adequate. There was some support from public hearings for a crab limited entry program. Some regional committees had been developed to deal with water inflow issues that would affect the bays and estuaries. The Commission passed some rules on the shrimp aquiculture farms; they were now required to report any mortalities of shrimp in their ponds, then quarantine their water and shrimp until such time as it was ascertained that the mortalities were not due to disease. Sea Grant agents were being trained so they may travel to the farms to identi@ the diseases of shrimp.

Mr. Minton asked to be sent a copy of the protocol on the facts regarding diseased shrimp or water.

Mr. Horn asked ifthe facilities housing the shrimp were set up to handle their own water should it be determined the shrimplwater was diseased. Mr. Osburn replied that these facilities have built their own retention ponds.

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Re~ort

Mr. Simpson gave the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) Report. Chairman Brown from Texas was elected, all the natural resource legislation goes through his committee in Texas. GSMFC will be meeting with Chairman Brown in Destin, Florida at the end of March. Some of the activities currently being worked on were reef updates and the national artificial reef plan which will be reviewed at the meeting. Then the plan will be passed on to NMFS for their subsequent approval and publication for the update of the national artificial reef plan. GSMFC was continuing their efforts with the charterboat pilot program. Maintenance of the directory was difficult with the turn-over of charterboats, but they are continuing to collect the data by using state samples. The drop dead date was August 3 1, but they expect to extend this deadline to the end of the year. GSMFC was awarded $750,000 from a special appropriation by Congress for development of a comprehensive recreational data collection plan and transition. That would ultimately require contracting with other states for hiring actual samplers to go out and collect recreational data. The future data collection activities were uncertain at this point, as Congress was in session and money-type activities are very hot right now. Mr. Simpson looked forward to attending the inaugural meeting of the reconstituted recreational and commercial advisory committee. The committee will start out with a recreational and commercial representative from each state.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Re~ort

Mr. Fruge gave the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report. The Panama City, Florida Fisheries Office was continuing their work on a sonic telemetry tracking study of Gulf sturgeon in Choklahaskee, Yellow River, and Pensacola Bay to determine coastal habitat use by the species. The Panama City Ecological Services office was beginning work on a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report on water allocation formulas developed under the state water management compacts that have been congressionally set up in the Apalachicola/Chatahootchee Plant and Alabamacoosa/Talapoosa river basins. These compacts were supposed to be developing formulas for allocating surface water among the states in those river basins (AL, FL, and GA). A final report was recently completed on a coyote control program conducted by the Florida DEP and Game and Freshwater Fish Commission on the St. Joseph State Park in Florida. That program resulted in an 88 percent reduction in coyote predation on sea turtle nests in that area. The USFWS received the final report on an independent contractor conducted review of the agency's ecosystem approach. This approach was implemented 4 years ago and resulted in some organizational changes in the USFWS. Based on the internal review, the agency's directorate has reiterated its commitment to continuing the ecosystem based approach with a series of actions to strengthen the agency's effectiveness in using it. The major change that will result from this review will be the establishment or creation of three new assistant regional director (ARD) positions in each region. These new ARD positions will be for fisheries, refuges, wildlife, and ecological services. USFWS recently completed the 1996 report on the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation which was a survey done every 5 years (done since 1955). The report was available in hardcover or over the internet.

Re~ortof the Red Sna~~erADD~~~s Board

Dr. Kemmerer reviewed a handout of numbers for Commercial Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish PerrnitstRed Snapper Licenses by home port and by state. Currently there are 1,343 reef fish permits issued to vessels, 129 class 1 vessel licenses, and 609 Class 2 licenses. A total of 8 historical captains have been qualified for the 2,000 pound trip limit, with only 4 permits issued at this point. The permits were issued to a vessel and, in some cases, these individuals are aboard currently permitted vessels. There were 134 appeals covering both Class 2 licenses and historical captains. There were two types of appeals offered: one handled by a board composed of representatives from each of the Gulf states, the other handled only by NMFS. A total of 82 appeals were reviewed by the board and 52 were reviewed by NMFS. Of the appeals submitted, 36 appeals were supported and 98 were rejected.

Dr. Claverie asked why the appeals before NMFS faired better than the appeals before the board. Dr. Kemmerer replied that the types of appeals handled by NMFS were simply a person who had their boat listed with them and the landings could not be tracked, and minor corrections. He related that the appeals before the board were very complicated.

Dr. Kemmerer related that there was a recommendation from the board of appeals to himself which dealt with class 2 licenses and the fact that one of the criteria to obtain this license may not be just. He explained that one of the major requirements was that a person had to have a reef fish permit on March 1, 1997, if they did not have a permit on that date they were not eligible for a permit, regardless of their fishing history. He found that about 25 individuals had leased their vessels. He stated that several people in the snapper fishery who had endorsements but did not have reef fish permits or vessels. He related that if an individual had a reef fish permit and a vessel, the vessel could be leased to anyone with an endorsement and fished under the 2,000 pound trip limit during the period of the season. He further related that there were two ways to alleviate this problem: 1) go back and allow leases to count on that date or 2) widen the eligibility period (instead of having it a single date make it a year-long period). He asked that the Council reconsider this criteria which would affect about 2,000 vessels.

Dr. Kemmerer moved: to include in the next Reef Fish amendment alternatives to address changes in the requirements for Class 2 licenses for red snapper.

Mr. McLemore pointed out that during development of Amendment 15, the Council already considered this issue.

Dr. Claverie asked if the Council knew the number of people involved. Dr. Kemmerer did not believe the Council knew the number of people affected. Dr. Claverie asked Mr. McLemore if this was an action that could be resolved at this Council meeting. Mr. McLemore replied yes as it was only to take it up in the next amendment, and there was really no action being taken.

Mr. Perret asked if the board of appeals had a recommendation. Dr. Kemmerer related that the board had initiated the letter asking that the Council take some positive action on this issue.

Motion garried with one objection to include in the next Reef Fish amendment alternatives to address changes in the requirements for Class 2 licenses for red snapper.

Other Business

Mr. Swingle reviewed a letter (Tab K, No. 1) fiom Billy Causey which asked the Council to agree to allow continuous transit through a reserve or special preservation area in regard to the protocol developed with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Certain fishery rules were to come to the two Councils for consideration, and there was prohibition of possession of any fish or any organisms from the preservation areas.

Mr. Lessard related that one of the issues the Council was supposed to address was safety at sea. He stated that there was a fishery west of the Tortugas. He stated that Ft. Jefferson had been a historical shelter from storms by fishermen and he thought it might be contrary to the National Standards if these fishermen were caught in a storm, and they were not be able to seek shelter there.

Dr. Claverie moved: to approve the request that continuous transit be allowed, to the extent it is consistent with promotion of safety at sea, through sanctuary preservation areas and reserves with organisms on board that would be illegal in those reserve or preservation areas.

Lt. Commander Piiio stated that since the Coast Guard allowed foreign vessels to take reiige, under force majeure, he believed our own citizens should be allowed as well.

Motion carried.

Mr. Swingle stated that at the last meeting the Council approved that an ad hoc Crustacean SAP and an ad hoc Finfish SAP, conditional on the National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 1 being published. Those meetings were tentatively scheduled for the first two weeks in April. He checked with the person redrafting the guidelines and with Dr. Matlock on when the guidelines would be available and was told that they would probably not be available before the scheduled meeting. He stated that the question was whether to hold the meetings assuming a range of options usiig the original guidelines and the old 602 guidelines or defer action until the new guidelines are published.

Dr. Kemmerer stated that the dates were not co&rmed at this time.

Dr. Claverie moved to defer the meetings of the Finfish and Crustacean SAP until the overfishing guidelines are received. Motion carried.

THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 A.M. A\COUNCIL\minutes398.wpd the guidelines would be available and was told that they would probably not be available before the scheduled meeting. He stated that the question was whether to hold the meetings assuming a range of options using the original guidelines and the old 602 guidelines or defer action until the new guidelines are published.

Dr. Kernmerer stated that the dates were not confirmed at this time.

Dr. Claverie moved to defer the meetings of the Finfish and Crustacean SAP until the overfishing guidelines are received. Motion carried.

THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 A.M. A\COUNCIL\minutes398.~pd

/// 7e /4k DATE