Council Motions: August 8-12, 2005 - Fort Myers Beach, Florida
This document contains the full chronology of motions made at the full Council session of the Gulf Council meeting held
August 8-12, 2005 in Fort Myers Beach, Florida. This includes failed, substituted, and amended motions as well as those that passed. Motions that passed (excluding motions to amend) are indicated in bold.
AP Selection Committee
Motion: that the Council
assemble an Ad Hoc Grouper IFQ AP as shown in Tab I, No. 3a as modified to
include as voting members: 4 vertical line fishermen, 4 longline fishermen, 1
trap fisherman, 1 diver with a reef fish permit, 1 multi-species/multi-gear
fisher (grouper, kingfish, charter) and 3 dealers; and as non-voting members: 1
economist, 1 fishery scientist, 1 NMFS Enforcement, and 2 NGOs.
Motion
passed with no objection
Coral Management Committee
MOTION: For Council to write
a letter to NMFS supporting the listing of Acropora palmata and A.
cervicornis as threatened.
Motion
passed with no objection
MOTION: That the Council
proceed with an RFP that would consolidate the research efforts in the Western
and
Eastern
Gulf
into one proposal.
Motion
passed with no objection
MOTION:
Recommend that the Council ask the Coral SSC to develop a research approach to
identify locations of deep-water corals.
Motion
passed with no objection
Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel Management Committee
MOTION: Recommend to Council
to submit to the Secretary for implementation our preferred Alternative 4 under
3. Management Alternatives: Establish a limited access system on for-hire reef
fish and CMP permits. Permits will
be renewable and transferable in the same manner as currently prescribed for
such permits. The Council will have
periodic reviews at least every 10 years on the effectiveness of the limited
access system.
Motion
passed with no objection by roll call vote
MOTION:
Table discussion regarding the issue of having a Joint Mackerel SSC meeting with
the South Atlantic FMC until another meeting.
Motion
passed with no objection
Reef Fish Management Committee
Red Snapper Stock Assessment
MOTION:
That the Council look at yield streams from production and bycatch F’s
from a 10% to 60% reduction, and look at that alone and also in a linked or
proportional fashion; and in the delinked portion, look at a directed fishery of
3, 6 and 9 million pounds.
Motion passed
with no objection
MOTION:
The Committee recommends, and I so move, that the Council begin development
of a joint plan amendment to the Shrimp FMP and the Reef Fish FMP to address
bycatch in the shrimp fishery and in the red snapper directed fishery, and to
address the rebuilding of the red snapper stock.
Motion passed
with no objection
MOTION: That the Council asks the
Southeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
to facilitate correspondence between the review panel and the assessment panel
to review differences in the age-0 and age-1 density dependence.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: To table the motion until September. That the Council asks the
Southeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
to facilitate correspondence between the review panel and the assessment panel
to reconcile differences in the age00 and age01 density dependence.
Substitute Motion failed by voice vote.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION:
That the Council asks the Southeast Fishery Science Center at the September
Council meeting to provide us an explanation of the rationale behind the
differences in the inclusion of age-0 and age-1 and the implications of those
differences.
Substitute motion carried with no objection
Amendment 26 (IFQ for Red Snapper)
Section 4.1
MOTION:
Alternative 2 be the Preferred Alternative for Action 1: Implement an
individual transferable fishing quota (IFQ) program in the GOM.
Motion passed
with one objection
Section 4.2
MOTION:
Alternative 2a be the Preferred Alternative for Action 2:
Do not limit the duration of the IFQ program.
However, require a program evaluation every 5 years.
Motion passed
with no objection
Section 4.3
MOTION: Alternative 3 be the Preferred Alternative for Action 3:
For any single fishing year, no person shall possess IFQ shares that
represent a percentage of the total, which exceeds the maximum percentage,
issued to a recipient at the time of the initial apportionment of IFQ shares
(e.g. – 8%).
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: That the
preferred alternative be Alternative 2a. For any single fishing year, no
person shall possess IFQ shares that represent a percentage of the total,
which exceeds the maximum percentage, issued to a recipient at the time of the
initial apportionment of IFQ shares (e.g. – 2%).
Substitute Motion failed for lack of a second
Motion passed with some opposition.
Section 4.3
MOTION:
That the following change be made to Alternative 2:
Delete the phrase, “or fish annual allocations”, so that the first
sentence will read, “For any single fishing year, no person shall possess IFQ
shares which comprise more than the following percent of the total quota
allocated to the IFQ program”.
Motion passed
with no objection
Section
4.4 MOTION:
That Alternative 3 be the Preferred Alternative for Action 4,
with wording deletions (strike-out) and additions (underlined):
“Restrict initial eligibility to persons who own* a current
Class 1 or Class 2 license. Current
Permanent resident aliens who currently own a Class 1 or Class 2 license will be
included in the initial allocation subject to any other qualifications included
in this alternative IFQ program.”
In addition, delete the word “current” from the first and second
sentences of Alternative 2.
Motion
passed with no objection
Section
4.5 MOTION: That Alternative 2(A)(ii) (with
no preferred sub-option for time period), and Alternative 2(B)(i)(iii)
be the Preferred Alternatives for Action 5:
Allocate initial IFQ shares proportionately among eligible participants
based on the average annual landings associated with their current license(s).
These data are available for the years 1993 through 2004 for Class 1
license holders, and for the years 1998 through 2004 for Class 2 license
holders.
- Allow Class
1 license holders (if eligible) to select ten consecutive years of data
during the time period (no preferred time period selected).
-
Allow
Class 2 license holders (if eligible) to select five years of data during
the time period 1998 through 2004.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: that Alternative 2(A)(ii), and Alternative 2(B)(i)(iii)
be the Preferred Alternatives for Action 5:
Allocate initial IFQ shares proportionately among eligible participants
based on the average annual landings associated with their current license(s).
-
Allow Class 1 license
holders (if eligible) to select ten consecutive years of data during the
time period 1990 through 2004
-
Allow Class 2 license
holders (if eligible) to select five years of data during the time period
1998 through 2004
Substitute motion passed
MOTION: For Alternative 2A,
suboptions iv, v, and vi, the phrase “no data available 1990-1992” be
changed to “Incomplete data available 1990-1992.”
Motion passed with no objection
Section 4.6 MOTION:
The Committee recommends that Alternative 2 be the Preferred
Alternative for Action 6: The
Regional Administrator (RA) will review, evaluate, and render final decision on
appeals. Filing of an appeal must be
completed within 90 days of the effective date of the final regulations
implementing the IFQ program. Hardship
arguments will not be considered.
Motion passed
with no objection
Section 4.7 MOTION: that Alternative 2 be the Preferred Alternative for Action 7:
IFQ shares/allocations can be transferred only to individuals/vessels
with a valid commercial reef fish permit. Eligible
individuals must be natural persons, who are
U.S.
citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Substitute motion
that the preferred Alternative be Alternative 4
2nd
Substitute motion that the preferred Alternative be Alternative 6
2nd Substitute Motion failed by a vote of 7 to 7
Substitute
Motion failed by a vote of 4 to 8
Motion failed
Motion to reconsider Alternative 6 as the Preferred Alternative.
Motion to reconsider passed
Motion to adopt Alternative 6 as the Preferred Alternative.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: to choose a Preferred Alternative after public
testimony at the next meeting.
Motion failed.
Motion failed by vote of 7 to 7
Motion to remove the footnotes regarding Preferred Alternatives from the
document.
Motion withdrawn
MOTION:
that any discussions referring to natural persons would be changed to persons
throughout Action 7.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: that any discussions referring to natural persons would
be changed to persons through the entire document.
Substitute motion failed by vote of 7 to 7
Motion passed
with one abstention
MOTION:
to make Alternative 6 the Preferred Alternative in Action 7.
Motion passed
by vote of 9 to 4
Section
4.8 MOTION:
that Alternative 1 be the Preferred Alternative for Action 8:
No action. Do not specify a
minimum landings requirement (e.g., use it or lose it provision) for retaining
IFQ shares.
Motion passed
with no objection
Section 4.9 MOTION:
that Alternative 2 be the Preferred Alternative for Action 9:
Allocate adjustments in the commercial quota proportionately among
recognized IFQ shareholders (e.g., those on record at the time of the
adjustment) based on the percentage of the commercial quota each holds at the
time of the adjustment.
Motion passed
with no objection
Section 4.10 MOTION:
that Alternative 2, with no preferred sub-option for
responsibility for costs, be the Preferred Alternative for Action 10:
Require all fishing vessels engaged in harvesting red snapper under the
IFQ program to be equipped with VMS. The
purchase, installation, and maintenance of VMS equipment must conform to the
protocol established by NMFS in the Federal Register.
Motion passed with some opposition
Section 4.11 MOTION:
that Alternative 3 A (i), B (i), and C (i) be the Preferred
Alternatives for Action 11.
Motion passed
with no objection
MOTION: To add under Section 4.4 Alternative 4; persons are ineligible to
own or purchase IFQ shares if they have been convicted or plead guilty to 3 or
more fishery violations within the past 10 years from date of implementation.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: That this be referred to LEAP’s next meeting and report back to Council.
Substitute motion withdrawn
Motion fails by roll call vote of 5 to 9 with 3 absent
MOTION:
To strike eligibility requirements that qualifying individuals
would be required to demonstrate minimum average catches of 100 pounds during
the qualifying years. The annual record of red snapper landings provided to the
Southeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
on logbooks required for all vessels since 1993 would define individual catch
histories.
Motion passed
with one objection and one abstention.
Draft Red Grouper Regulatory Amendment
Red Grouper Interim Rule
MOTION: That the Council request that NMFS close only red grouper fishing
for the months of November and December in the NMFS interim rule.
Motion failed by a roll call vote of 7 to 7
Section 3.1 Commercial Grouper Trip Limits
MOTION: To allow Staff
editorial rights to develop alternatives that, based on models, would project a
335 day fishery and to start with a trip limit of _____pounds and to
increase/decrease to _____ pounds – if X% of the quota has been
captured by November 1.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: that an alternative be added for a 5,500 pound trip
limit.
SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION: For
an alternative that shows a slate of trip limits that includes
increase/decrease of trip limits on a specified trigger date.
Motion withdrawn
Motion withdrawn
Motion withdrawn
MOTION: To allow staff
editorial rights to develop alternatives based on models with an initial
4,000-pound trip limit during the year with adjustments to project a 335 day
fishery year.
Motion passed
with no objections
MOTION: For Preferred
Alternative to set a 5,500-pound trip limit for the year.
Motion passed with no objection
Section 3.3.1 Recreational Grouper Harvest Limits
MOTION:
To add a new Alternative for a one red grouper per person bag limit and a
with a 21” size limit
Motion passed with no objection
MOTION: To change the wording
in Alternative 2 in 3.3.1 that the red grouper recreational bag limit within the
aggregate grouper bag limit is reduced to 1 per person per trip or 3 per vessel,
whichever is less, excluding headboats in the NMFS headboat survey.
Reduces red grouper harvest by 31 percent.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION:
To change the wording in Alternative 2 in Section 3.3.1
that the red grouper recreational bag limit within the aggregate grouper bag
limit is reduced to 1 per person per trip or 3 per vessel, whichever is less;
for COI vessels with capacities greater than six – 1 red grouper per 2 paying
passengers.
Substitute motion passed with no objection
MOTION:
To retain
Alternative 2 renumbered as Alternative 7: the red grouper recreational bag
limit within the aggregate grouper bag limit is reduced to 1 per person per trip
or 3 per vessel, whichever is less. Reduces red grouper harvest by 31 percent.
Motion passed with no objection
MOTION: To make the Preferred
Alternative Alternative 3 - to raise the red grouper size limit to 22 inches TL.
Reduces red grouper harvest by 32 percent.
Motion failed
MOTION: That the revised
Alternative 2 become the Preferred Alternative:
that the red grouper recreational bag limit within the aggregate grouper
bag limit is reduced to 1 per person per trip or 3 per vessel, whichever is
less; for COI vessels with
capacities greater than six – 1 red grouper per 2 paying passengers.
Motion failed by a vote of 6 to 8
MOTION: That the new Alternative for a one red grouper per person bag
limit and a 21” size limit be the Preferred Alternative.
Motion failed
MOTION:
To add an
additional Alternative as the Preferred Alternative: The red grouper
recreational bag limit within the aggregate grouper bag limit is reduced to 1
per person per trip and a closed season for red, gag and black grouper is
established during February 15 through March 15.
Motion passed 10 to 4
Sec 3.3.2 Recreational For-Hire Captain and Crew Bag Limits
MOTION:
For Council to pass on 3.3.2 for a Preferred Alternative Substitute
Motion that Alternative 2 be the Preferred Alternative.
Motion failed by a vote of 6 to 7 to 1
Motion passed by voice vote
Sec 3.3.4 Recreational Aggregate Grouper Bag Limit
MOTION:
That the Preferred Alternative be Alternative 3; that the aggregate bag
limit is 3 fish
Motion passed
Reef Fish Amendment 18A
Section 4.1.1 MOTION: To strike the last sentence from the Preferred Alternative
in order to allow recreational allowances on a commercial vessel
Motion failed
Section 4.1.2 MOTION:
To strike i.e. (currently crew of four) in the preferred
Motion passed
MOTION:
To strike “not to exceed a total crew of three”
Motion
carried with no objection
Section 4.1.3 MOTION:
To make Alt 4 a sub option under both Alt 2 and 3
Motion
passed with no objection
Section 4.1.4 MOTION:
To allow staff editorial liberty to restructure Alternative 3 so that it
follows the format of Alternative 2
Motion passed with no
objection
MOTION:
To direct staff to make changes in Appendix E to allow hourly pings
outside of buffer areas and 15-minute pings within buffer areas to be defined in
the future
Motion
passed with no objection
Section 4.2 no action
(Previously selected Alternative 2 remains the Preferred Alternative)
Section 4.3 MOTION: That
Amendment 18A Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, section 4.3, Alternative 6, be
replaced by the document handed out by Peter Hood, so noted as P.H. Handout
Motion
passed with no objection
Motion
passed with no objection
MOTION:
To accept Alternative 7 as the second Preferred Alternative
Motion
passed with no objection
MOTION:
That we hold hearings on Reef Fish (Red Grouper) Regulatory Amendment in
the following location(s): Tampa Bay
Area
Motion
passed with no objection
Shrimp Management Committee
MOTION:
That the Council begin development of a joint plan amendment to the Shrimp
and Reef Fish FMPs to address bycatch in the shrimp and red snapper directed
fisheries and address rebuilding of the red snapper stock.
Motion passed
with no objection
MOTION:
That
the Council begin development of a regulatory amendment to consider changes to
the BRD certification criterion and red snapper reduction, to consider
certification of the 3 funnel type BRDs, and potentially decertify the Fisheye
BRD.
Motion passed
with no objection
MOTION: That Action 6,
Alternatives to eliminate permits for shrimp vessels that are not active
participants, be included in an appendix of Alternatives Considered But Rejected.
Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Committee
MOTION:
To table consideration of the Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Committee
report to a subsequent meeting.
Motion
passed with no objection.
Other Business
MOTION:
to convene the Administrative Policy Committee at the September Council Meeting.
Motion
passed with no objection
|