SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MACKEREL AMENDMENT 18 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING. Shell Island Resort Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

Transcription

1 SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MACKEREL AMENDMENT 18 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING Shell Island Resort Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina Summary Minutes Ms. Merritt: Good evening, gentlemen. I am Rita Merritt, for those of you who haven t met me before. Tonight I am chairing the public hearing on behalf of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic and the Gulf Fishery Management Councils. The other members of the hearing board include Gregg Waugh and Julie O Dell with the South Atlantic staff. We would like to thank you for taking the time to attend. The purpose of this hearing is to allow you to comment on proposed fishery management actions for the Atlantic Migratory Groups of king and Spanish mackerel. We are seeking your suggestions on the alternatives presented here for reductions to the king and Spanish mackerel total allowable catch levels and the application of the Spanish mackerel trips through the month of March. You should keep in mind that the measures are proposed for regulation of the fishery, and we re here to receive your comments on these proposed regulations. The councils will review the comments during their June 2007 council meetings and determine if the regulation should be revised or modified based on your comments. The proposed actions are scheduled for submission to the Secretary of Commerce in July Proposed regulations will be published in the Federal Register, and the public will be provided with an additional comment period. This hearing will be conducted in the following manner: First, Gregg Waugh of Council staff will present the proposed management actions and the alternatives that the Council has considered. This information is contained in the Public Hearing Amendment Document and the Public Hearing Summary. Then you will be invited to comment on the proposed management alternatives and any other aspects, including the other alternatives.

2 All comments will be recorded by staff and shall become part of the permanent record. Your comments will be supplied to the councils for their consideration. We ask that you please limit your comments to the consideration of the measures in Mackerel Amendment 18. Gregg Waugh of council staff will now summarize the proposed management actions and briefly discuss the alternatives that were considered by Council. Mr. Waugh: Thank you, Rita. There are three actions we re dealing with. One deals with reducing the Atlantic King Mackerel TAC, or total allowable catch, and that s how we get our commercial quota and recreational allocation. Then we have two actions pertaining to Atlantic Spanish Mackerel, reducing the total allowable catch and then changing the trip limit so it applies in March. When we moved the fishing year to start March 1 rather than April 1 to give fishermen a chance to fish on king mackerel and Spanish mackerel when other quotas were filled, we forgot to move the start date of that trip limit. So right now there is no trip limit in March, and as you ll see in a moment, all we re talking about doing is moving that 3,500 pound trip limit to start March 1. So, the reason we re doing this is to prevent overfishing of Atlantic Group King Mackerel. We re reducing the total allowable catch in response to the 2004 SEDAR stock assessment. That uses data up through a part of The reason there is this big gap from the assessment to when we re taking action now is our Scientific and Statistical Committee reviewed the assessment and disagreed with the mixing rate that is used between Atlantic and Gulf king mackerel. That s been a big bone of contention for years. The assessment used 100 percent; our SSC feels that 50 percent is better and is more accurate, so that s what we re using here. We will have another full SEDAR assessment in the spring of 2008, and any potential changes from that, we would be looking to have regulations implemented by March 1, One thing we have been hearing is there s good year classes in the fishery that have entered the fishery since 2002, so, of course, the assessment doesn t include those, but the next assessment will. Similarly, for Spanish, we re maintaining sustainable management. The potential for overfishing is not as great here, but we do want to reduce TAC, again, in response to a 2003 Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel Report. That s different from SEDAR, and that s how we used to do them before the SEDAR process came along. 2

3 The SEDAR process is very rigorous. It has a data workshop, an assessment workshop, and then a review workshop, so it really gets a rigorous review of the science. This process just sort of went right to an assessment workshop and then our SSC looks at it. But, this data also is through part of The Spanish mackerel will be assessed under the SEDAR process for the first time in the fall of And, again, with Spanish, we re hearing that there are good year classes in the fisheries, so we expect under this SEDAR assessment to have some of these values go back up. Any potential changes from that action would likely take place in the March 1 fishing season. Then the purpose of this 3,500 pound shift is to extend the current limit for Spanish mackerel to track the new fishing year. So, if we look for a moment just at king first, these are the current values, and our concern is if catches were to approximate this 20 million pound total, we could result in overfishing, and the stock could become overfished. These are the values based on the 100 percent. What our SSC said is it s better to use 50 percent. That gives you a more accurate representation of the actual mixing of those fish on the Florida east coast. So, that s the number we re using. This is the ABC range that we get there, so it s reduced from 8.9 to 13.3 to 5.3 to 9.6. We re looking at the best point estimate of 7.1. These are the recent catches by fishing years , , and You can see that while the total catches, recreational and commercial, have not exceeded this, in recent years, particularly this past fishing season, the commercial harvest just about approximated the commercial allocation under this existing TAC. So, we would expect if we do reduce it, that the commercial quota would be taken. There are tables in the summary and in the amendment itself that show what those quotas are. Similarly, for Atlantic Group Spanish, this is already fixed at the Dade/Monroe County boundary, so we don t have that mixing issue with the Gulf, which is why you only see Atlantic fish here. Currently, our ABC range, or allowable biological catch range, is 5.7 to 9 million pounds. The 2003 assessment says that range is reduced slightly, and the best point estimate is down from 7.04 to 6.7. Again, you can see that these total catches have not been exceeded. We ve got a table in amendment document that looks at the potential for the Spanish mackerel commercial allocation. And then the trip limit, we re not changing any of the numbers of the trip limit. The way it is now, April 1 through November 30, is 3,500 pounds. In the winter, when that fishery in Florida has the potential for high catches, all we re doing -- when we moved that fishing year to start March 1, we didn t move the start of the 3,500 pound trip limit, so that s all we re doing under that action. 3

4 Then looking at the range of alternatives we did consider, this is, again, for king mackerel, here s our current total allowable catch of 10 million pounds. That s the ABC range, the old one. Here is your new ABC range. The Council s preferred alternative is the best point estimate, which is 7.1. We also evaluate 5.3, which is the low end, and 9.6, which is the high end, and I will talk about the potential impacts to those in a moment. The same information for the Spanish; the current TAC is Here is your old ABC range; the new ABC range. The Council is proposing the best point estimate, which is 6.7. We also evaluate the low end and the high end of that range. Then for the trip limit change, we just have two alternatives, no action or status quo, and then the preferred, which is starting that 3,500 pounds on March 1. So, looking at the potential impacts in terms of biological protection, Alternative 1 would result in overfishing if the full TAC is taken, so that is our main impetus, that the new assessment says we need to reduce the TAC in order to prevent overfishing. Alternative 2, which is the preferred, would prevent overfishing. Alternative 3, which is the low end of the ABC range, has a higher probability of preventing overfishing. Alternative 4, which is the high end, has a lower probability. Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, the commercial quota and recreational allocation are still greater than recent catches. The one that would impact these fisheries definitely well, let me back up here. And, again, the commercial quota this past year, the catches have increased, and so we would expect next year that the commercial quota would be reached. Under Alternative 3, if the Council were to pick that, that s the low end of the ABC range that s not what we re proposing, but if they were to pick that, that would result in approximately $637,000 X-vessel revenue lost to the commercial sector, which is approximately 15 percent of the estimated landings value. On the recreational side, about 446,000 pounds would be lost, and you would be looking at early closures. But, again, the Council is not proposing that. We re proposing using the best point estimate, which is the mid-point of that range. The same figures for Spanish mackerel; Alternative 2 would have the higher probability of preventing overfishing; Alternatives 1 and 4, slightly lower probability. Alternative 3 would have the highest level of biological catch, and that s the low end of that ABC range. Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, the commercial quota and recreational allocation are still greater than recent catches. Under Alternative 3, which is the low end of that ABC range, again, the Council isn t proposing that, but were they to use that figure, you re looking at potential losses of $588,000 on the commercial side, about 22 percent of the fishery revenues, and an early commercial closure. 4

5 Impacts from the trip limit, we don t expect any biological impact, because your biological protection is coming from your quotas, your TAC. Having the fishery open in March under this 3,500 pound trip limit gives the opportunity to fish when other fisheries are closed. The reason we want to make sure that we don t have very high catches with no trip limit in March is to maintain these higher prices, including stability for the communities, fishermen and their families. Just briefly, to touch on the remaining public hearings, this is the seventh one. We ve got one tomorrow night in North Myrtle Beach and then the last one, March 27 th, in Charleston. We re accepting written comments through April 10 th. We ve got some copies of the summary back there. If you want to take those and hand them out to anybody, we re accepting written comments through April 10 th. And as Rita indicated, the Council will be looking at all of these results at our June meeting. We ve videotaped all the public testimony now, so they ll get copies of the videotape, minutes from all the public hearings, and actual copies of any comments that we do receive. Thank you very much. Ms. Merritt: Thank you, Gregg. Now we open the hearing for your comments. First, we will hear from those persons who have indicated a desire to speak on their registration card. If any of you have not filled out cards, we d like you to please do so, and please include your mailing address. In making your statements, please come forward to the microphone so that we may record your comments for the record, and also please state your name and the name of any organization for which you may be acting as an official spokesperson. Mr. Merritt: My name is Mike Merritt, commercial fisherman. I would hate to see the TAC be lower than what it is. It s about the only thing left that we have left to fish for that s a full-time year fishery. I would like to see the quota stay as status quo. I would like to see these fish from the tournaments taken out of -- which you all have indicated you have a percentage you all take out of it, but they re still sold as commercial fish. Thirdly, I will ask the question last. Also, I have got one more question on the Florida fishery. Haven t we just moved from 50 fish to 75 fish, Gregg? Mr. Waugh: We did that in an amendment previously. Mr. Merritt: And when did that come in effect? Mr. Waugh: I will have to check on that and get back to you, Mike. I think that s in place now, but I can double-check and get back to you. 5

6 Mr. Merritt: Right. Well, my concern there is that going from the 50 to the 75 fish is going to increase their amount of catch during their best time of the year, which would be in the summertime through the fall. That s going to be our greatest impact on it. My next concern is the tournaments. Every weekend you can find a mackerel tournament, and you re targeting the spawning females. That s your heavy-weight fish. I won t comment anymore on that female part. But, anyway, that s gone from like five tournaments in the North Carolina area now to fifteen; and not only in North Carolina, you re talking about South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas. I think now Alabama and Mississippi have joined the bandwagon. Of course, that s your Gulf fish, which I have fished for in my past. But, I m for a limit on the tournaments, to reduce no more tournaments or to stock the amount of tournaments we have now, not to increase it for the sheer reason of targeting the big female fish. The last question, we answered that on the 75 fish. That s my comment. Mr. Schoolcraft: Kelly Schoolcraft, representing the Fishing Vessel Country Time. I made the two previous meetings in Hatteras and Morehead. I would like to go ahead and reiterate, as everybody is saying, I would like to see the TAC remain as status quo, because, truly, there are many issues that need to be dealt with, and I feel like should be dealt with first before we lower the TAC, which inevitably will cause economic heartaches for the guys that are in it, especially in this area, if we see a February closure in this area, being Wrightsville Beach. One thing that I have not asked in the past two meetings is about the ABCs. What has changed what changed to bring it down, what factors brought that down to where we re now looking at a 7.1 total allowable catch? As I ve stated in previous meetings, it is a limited entry fishery. You know, the permits that are out there are out there. I mean, nobody can just enter the fishery. For everybody that gets in, somebody has to get out. So, my question is what factor has presented this? And, as Mr. Merritt has said before me, the only factor that I can reasonably foresee is the amount of the recreational fishery and the tournaments, and the sale of tournament fish, the sale of multiple bag limits, which is common up and down the coast, which is an enforcement issue, and our state, also, by being not in compliance with federal regulations. I mean, it s not the permitted people. Something has caused the ABC to change; therefore, lowering our TAC. Mr. Waugh: What it is, is when the assessment was done, that SEDAR assessment in 2004, what that showed was at that point in time the recruitment levels were down, and so that s, in large part, why that allowable biological catch range declined. It s not 6

7 having to do with the level of commercial or recreational catches going up, but just that the indication of the levels of recruitment were down. Now, in the interim we have heard from a number of fishermen, particularly in the Florida east coast areas, they re seeing large numbers of multiple-year classes moving into the fishery. So, we re very hopeful that when the next SEDAR assessment is done, that will be reflected in the ABC, and then that ABC number should move up larger. Mr. Schoolcraft: Based on what you just said, I mean, it would seem to me to be more prudent, being as we re closer to that time and looking at the new assessment and going ahead with changes in the TAC based on that, because we are, in fact, closer to that assessment than we are than the previous. And there again, if things go into place for one year, I mean, one year is one year. I mean, how long does it take to get around to adjusting that to where it would go back higher, you know, where we would get a benefit from it, as far as not being a closure, which we are very truly facing now, if it goes through. So, there again, everything is based on a presumption of if the TAC is filled, you know, if we have this influx of people who are snapper-grouper fishing, but there s no scientific evidence that that is going to happen. It just seems like to me there s issues that should be dealt with in line as far as not going through to a TAC change, you know, and then say, Oh, we made a mistake, we need to go back. But in the meantime, you know, we get a closure, which affects what we can make in a year s time. I can only speak for myself, and I think if you speak to the people that fish two or three men, I mean, just pertaining to myself, I can see ten months out of the year. Ninety percent of my income is kingfishing. Of that 90 percent, I did some rough figures, 55 percent of that is made in the months of October and November and December and January, you know, and a little bit in February. My best February and there again, bear in mind I fish by myself my best February has been $10,000. You know, that s a chunk of income out of my pocket. I understand, from talking, that socio-economic impacts are not really taken into consideration when TACs are dropped, but they should be, you know, as far as I m concerned because you re talking about people s livelihoods. There again, I would just like to see the quota or TAC remain status quo because of some of these issues with particularly tournament fish and multiple bag limits being sold, you know, our state being out of compliance. Well, it s not out of compliance. You know, we don t require -- tournament fish in state waters is wide open. 7

8 You know, and if we go to a lower TAC, then, certainly, that issue needs to be addressed. You know, it s just as important because, I mean, everybody is permitted, you know, that s been in the process long enough. I mean, you know, it should be the permitted vessels. And, again, I can t say enough of how much, you know, the impact of recreational sales. I am not against recreational sales at all, but we have in place now a system where the total allowable catch there is a number on the recreational side, even though it is just on paper, because, you know, according to the rules and everything, the bag limit will never be reduced to zero; and therefore, they can fish on and on. I mean, it seems like that you can take that percentage of poundage and start, you know, a category to collect data on the recreational side through the sales of recreationally caught fish. There again, I realize this is a mindset, and the National Marine Fisheries, I guess, needs to get changed around, and I would appreciate it very much if the Council could go forward -- it s been talked about a lot in the past, but to have that group accountable, you know, and not have that laid on the working watermen. That concludes my comments, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Ms. Merritt: Well, I guess that concludes the meeting, and I appreciate your time and effort to understand what can seem complicated and for your input. (Whereupon, the public hearing was adjourned.) Transcribed by: Graham Transcription Service, Inc. April 23,

9 SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MACKEREL AMENDMENT 18 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING Shell Island Resort Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina Attendees Council Members: Rita Merritt Staff Members: Gregg Waugh Julie O Dell Speakers/Participants Frank Redmond Mike Merritt 108 Maddox Drive 38 Pelican Drive Atlanta, GA Kelly Schoolcraft Box 242 Frisco, NC

10

11

12

13