Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico

FISHERY MANAGE~NT PLAN tor the REEF FISH FISHER'( of th. GULF CF ~XICO AUGUST, 1981 GULF ~ MEXICO FI SHERY ~NAGEMENT COUN:Il. LINCOLN CENT~R, SUITE 881 '.01 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TNlPA, FL~I~ FISHERY MANAGEMENT PlAN tor the REEF FISH FISHER'!' of the GULF ~ lEX I CO AUGUST, 1981 GULF OF IEXICO FISHERY ~NAGa4ENT COUtCl L LINCOLN CENTER, SUITE 881 5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TNlPA, FLCRIIl\ 1.0 CONTENTS 1.0 :A.8LE CF CONTENTS •••••••••••••••• 2.0 SUMMARY . . . . . 2.1 Fi shery 2.2 Management Area • 2.3 Species. 2.3.1 SpecIes In the Management UnIt •••••• SpecIes Included In the FIshery but Not in the M8nagement UnIt 2.3.3 Species Not Addressed • 2.4 Statement 9f MSY, OY, EOAH and TALFF 2.5. Problems In the FIshery . . . . . . . . . 2.6 ~a/s and Objectives to,. Management Plan 2.7 Domestic Management Measures •••••• 2.7.1 Stressed A,.ea (Area Subject to Special Management) 2.7.2 Fishing Gear ••••••••••••••••• 2.7.3 Bag and SIze LimIts •••••••••••• 2.7.4 Permits and Gea,. Identification 2.7.5 Statistical Repo,.tlng System 2.8 Procedures tor Inseason and eo""ect Ive Adjustments to Management ~a~u,.es, MSY and OY •••••• 2.9 SpecIal ~ecommendatlons to the Sec,.eta,.y on Resea,.ch and Deve lopment Requl ranents • '. • • • 2.10 SpecIal Recommendations to the States •••••••••••••••• 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY . . . . . . . 3. I ArMS and Stocks 3.1.1 Species In the Management Unit. 3.1.2 Species Included In the FI shery but Not In the M8nagement Un It Hlsto,.y of Exploitation •• 3.2. I 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3 3.2.1.4 Cornest I c Fishery Desc,.lptlon of User Groups Gene,.al Oesc,.lptlon of COmmercial Fishing Effo,.t COmmer-clal Catch T"ends and Value of Catch . . . . . . . . . Desc,.lptlon of COrnmer-clal Vessels and Gea,. Employed. 3.2.1.4.1 Fish Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-I I-I 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-5 2-5 2-6 2-6 2-6 2-7 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-1 a 3-11 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 3.2.2.2 3.2.2.3 History of Foreign Fleet Exploitation •••••• • Description of User Groups U.S. COmmercIal Fishery In the MexIcan Economic Zone DescriptIons of ForeIgn COmmercIal Vessels and Gear Employed HI story of Manl!lgement •••••••••••••••••• 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 3.3.1.2 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 3.3.2.2 3.3.3 Management InstItutIons, PolIcIes. JurIsdictIon •• RegUlatory Measlres Employed to Regulate FlshW'y Purpose of Regul atory Measures Management of ForeIgn FIsherIes. RegUlatory Measlres imployed ~ Regulate FIshery Purpose of Measures GovernIng Internatlonl!ll FIshery Agreements EffectIveness of Management Mel!lsures (ForeIgn and Domestic) • HIstory of BIologIcal Resel!lrch SocIoeconomIc Charl!Ct"'st'cs •• 3.5.1 3.5.1.1 3.5.1.2 3.5.1.3 3.5.2 3.5.2.1 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.3 3.5.2.4 3.5.3 3.5.3.1 3.5. J.J J.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7 3.5.8 Output of Subject DomestIc CommercIal FIshery. Value of Catch (Exvessel' •••••• DescrIptIon and Value of Wholesale Product DomestIc and Export Mark.ts ••••••• Domest Ic Colllllet"cll!ll Fleet Characteristics. Total Gross Income of Fleet ••• Investment In Vessels and Gear . . . . . . . . . . . Annual COmmW'clal FIshIng PartIcIpatIon •• Total Manpo..,. Employed • Domest I c Co/lllHf"C la I Process I ng Charl!Ct,,'st I cs Gross Income of Al"'ea Processors • Investment In Plant and Equipment Total Employment and Labor Income •••••••• Economic VIability . . . . . . . . Recreational FIshIng Charl!Cterlstlcs •••••• SubsIstence FIshIng Charl!lcterlstlcs ••••• I nd I an Treaty FIsh I ng Character I st I cs • • • • • . . . . . Other ActIvIties Directly Related to FishIng •••• Area CommunIty O1arl!lct .. Istlcs . . . . . . . . . . ... Interl!lction Between and Among User Groups 1-2 3-19 3-19 3-21 3-21 3-22 3-22 3-22 3-29 3-29 3-29 3-29 3-29 3-29 3-30 3-30 3-30 3-30 3-31 3-32 3-32 3-34 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-38 3-38 3-39 3-39 3-46 3-46 3-47 3-47 3-55 4.0 8 I aLex; I CAL DE SCR I PT(N S · · · · · · · · · · · 4.1 Life H I story Feat'Jres · · · · · · · · · · 4.2 Stock Un Its . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4.3 Catch Effort Data for Snappers and Groupers · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4.3.1 Cornmerc I a I Landings Per Unit Effort · · · · · 4.3.2 Cornmercl al and Recreational Catch Per Un It Effort 4.4 Survey and Salllp II ng Data · · · · · · · · · 4.5 Other Relevant Data on Hablti!lt, Hablti!lt Concerns, i!lnd Hablti!lt Protec-r Ion Programs · · · · · · · · • · · 4.6 Oui!llity of Data • • · · · • · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4.7 Current Status of Stocks · · · · · · · · · · · · 4.7.1 Maximum Susti!llnable Yield (MSY) · · · · · · 4.7.1.1 MSY tor Snapper and Grouper • · · · · · · · · • • 4.7.1.2 MSY for Sea Bass · '. · · · • • · · · 4.7.1.3 Present Cond I t Ion ot the 5 tocks · · · · • • · · · · · · 5.0 CATCH AND CAPACITY DESCRIPT~S • · · · · · · • · · · · • · · · · · 5.1 Data and Analytical Approaches · · · · · · · · · · • 5.1.1 Domestic (Com".rc I a I ) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5.1.2 DOIIIestlc (Recreational) · · 5.1. :3 Fore I gn Capac I ty · · • · · · · · · · · • • • · 5.2 Domestic Annual Harves t I ng and Processing Capacl ty (DAC) · · · 5.3 Expected Dornestlc Annual Harves t (DAH) · · · · · · · · · • · 5.4 Expected Domestic Annual Processing (DAP) • · · · · · · · IS.O OPTIMUM YIELD CONCEPT. • · • · • · · · · · · · · • • · · · · · · • · · · · IS.I Departure From MSY to ABC for Biological Reasons · • · 6.2 Departur. Fron ABC fo,. Soc I oeconan I c Reasons · · · · · · • · · 1S.3 OptllllUli Yield (OY) · · · · • · · · · · · · · · · · • · · · · · · · · · 6.4 Probable Future Condition of the Fishery · · · · · · • · · · · · · • · · · 7.0 rOTAL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FOREIGN FISHERY (TALFF) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8.0 ~ANGEMENT REGIME . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 8.2 Problems and Objectives. · . . · . . · . . . · . 8.1.1 Problems I~ the Fishery · . . . . . . . . · . . . . . 8.1.2 8.1.3 Specific Management Objectives Objectives Consl1ered and Rejected "rei!ls, F I sheri 9S i!lnd Stocks I nvo I ved 1-3 · . . . . . . · . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . 4-1 4-1 4-15 4-15 4-15 4-16 4-19 4-19 4-25 4-25 4-25 4-25 4-25 4-32 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-4 ·6-1 IS-I Ii-! IS-I 6-2 7-1 ~-I 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-3 ~anagement ~easu~es and RatIonale •••• · . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . 8.3. I 8.3.1.2 8.3.1.3 a.3.1.4 8.3.1.5 8.3.1.5 8.3.2 8.3.3.1 DomestIc Management ~easu~es ••••••••••••• . . . St~essed A~ea (A~ea Subject to SpecIal Management) . . . . . . . FIshIng Gear . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . Bag and SIze LImIts. · . · . . . . . . . . Pel"'l'lllts and Gea~ Identification. · . . . StatIstIcal R~ortlng Syst.,. · . . . . . Procedures for Adjustment When or I s Exceeded • · . . . . . . . . Other "'easures Cons Ide~ed and Rejected · . . . Relationship of the Recommended Measuras to ExIstIng ApplIcable Laws and Policies •••••••••••• Other Fishery Management Fllans F'r8l)ared by a CouncIl . . . . . . or the Secretary •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Federal Laws and PolicIes · . . . . . . . . . . State Laws and Pollcl'., • · . · . . . . . . .... Othe,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • 8.4 Enforcement Requlr .. nts (InspectIon. surveillance) •••••••••••• 8.5 ReportIng Requl~lI!Ients (foreIgn. dOllleStlc. processor'S) •••••••••• 8.5.1 Data Standards . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . .. 8.5.2 TI me and P I ace of Report I ng · . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 8.5 Special RecommendatIons to the Secretary on Resaal"c:tt and Development Requll"ements ••••••••••••••••••••••• 8.7 Specla~ RecommendatIons to the States • . . . . · . . . . . . . . 8.8 FInanCing Requl~lI!Ients •••••••••••• · . · . . . . . . . . 8.8.1 Management and EnfOl"cement Costs •••••••• • • • • • • • • 8.8.2 Expected Stat. and Fed.ral Revenues. Taxes. Fa. •••••••• 9.0 COU~ I L REVIEW AND MOttIT~HG (7 THE Pt.AN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 REFERE~ES . . . . . . . . . . . · . · . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 APPENDICES (Avallabl. trait Gulf Council upon Request) 1-4 '-. '. 8-3 8-4 8-4 8-10 8-21 8-23 8-24 8-25 8-27 8-32 8-32 8-32 8-32 8-32 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-35 8-35 8-35 9-1 10-1 Number I • 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. r LIST OF TI\SLES Tot~1 commercial reef fish landings In the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 . . . . . Total commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by gear type, 1972-1974 average ••••• Number of fish traps, fishermen using fish traps, and catch of fish by fish traps on the Florida west coast, 1957-1976 Domestic merketlng of grouper and snapper by Gulf of Mexico commercial fish dealer-s, 1977 ••••••••••••• EstImated wholesale value of Gulf of MexIco commer-c/al reef fIsh, 1976 Percentage of total number- of reef fIsh caught by method of fIshIng In the west and east Gulf of MexIco, 1970 • •••••••••••• EstImated number- of prIvate recreatIonal boats that fIshed In salt -ater over a 12-month perIod by region· and sIze class, Gul f of Mexico, 1973 Number- of commercIal sportflshlng boats owned and/or operated per boat captaIn In the Gulf of MexIco, 1977 ••••••••• Principal port production, population and sales Impact characteristics Catch data used to generate MSY by the Graham-Schaefer equilibrium model . . . . for the U. S. Gu I f reef f' sh f I sher-y • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • I I. Effort used to calculate MSY for all reef fish (snapper and grouper) In hand I Ina days •• 12. Coor-dlnahS of stressed area 1-5 Page 3-8 3-11 3-17 3-33 3-37 3-40 3-44 3-44 3-49 4-17 4-18 8-7 LIST.QF FIGLRES Number Page 1 • HIstorIcal fIshIng grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Recorded Cuban fIsh I ng areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 3. Port ~r.as and general fIshIng areas for red snaoper-grouper vessels 3-36 4. Soc I oeconOll I e Impact ot yl el d "",I 'tat Ions. The Gu It reet t I sh I ng cO!llla.ln I t I as • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . 3-48 5. u.s. cO!lmercl~1 catch ot sn8C)per ~nd grouper for 'th. Gulf ot "' 'co FCZ. 1965-1974 •••••••• • • • • • ••••••••••• · . . 4-20 u.s. recreatIonal catch of sn~pper ~nd grouper for the Gulf of "' 'co FCZ. 1965-1974 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4-21 7. Cuban grouper eatch tor the Gulf of M Ico FCZ, 1965-1974 ••••••••••• 4-22 8. Snapper ~nd gr"ouper catch tor the Gult of lo4e.lIClco FCZ, 1965-1974 (Includes commercIal, recreatIonal ~nd Cuban catch) •••••• FIShIng effort (adjusted to standard hard'Ine days) expended In 'the Gulf of MellClco reef fIsh fIshery, 1965-1974 •••••••••••• . . . . . . 4-23 • • • · . . 4-24 10. G!-~ham-Seha.fer yl.,d model fo,. sn~pe,. and groul?8" In the Gulf of Medco FCZ, 1965-1974 (Includes commercIal. rec,.eatlonal and Cuban catch) ••••••••• 4-27 11. Map of the Stressed Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6 1-6 2.0 SU~RY 2.1 Fishery The reef fish fishery includes the ma,.lne and estua,.lne -.eters within the autro,.lty of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council sho"ewa,.d of the outer- boundary of the fishery conservation lOne (FCZ). The fishery year- Is f"om January 1 to December- 31. 2.2 Management A"ea (UnIt) This Plan Is fo,. the management of ,. f fish re!Ources In the a"ea of autho,.lty of the Gulf of ~xico Fishery Management O:luncll. The Plan considers the re9:)urce throughout Its range from Florida t"rough Texas. The area which wi I I be"regulated \rid.,. this Plan Is confIned to the wate,.s of the FCZ. 2.:5 SpecIes 2.:5.1 Species In the Management Unft The followIng specIes a,.e managed by this Plan: Snappers - Lutjanldae Family Queen snapper Mutton snapper Schoo lmast .... Slackfin snapper Gu If ,.ad snapper Cub.,.a snappe,. Gray [mangrove' snapper Dog'snapp.,. Mehogeny snapp.,. Lane snapper Silk sneppe,. Y.llowtall snapp.,. Wenchnlen Vo,.az Ve,.mliion snapper Etells oculatus Lutjanus analls Lutjenus apodus Lut Janus buccanella Lutjanus campechanus Lutjanus cyanopterus Lutjenus grlseus Lut jenus jocu Lutjanus mahogonl Lutjanus synag,.ls Lutjenus vlvanus OcYU,.us chrysu,.us P,., st I POII'D I des agu I lone,. I s P,.lstlpclI'Dldes macrophthalmus Rhombop lItes euro,.ubens Groupers - S.,.,.anldae FamIly Rock hind Speckled hind Yel IOwedge groupe,. Red hInd Je.flsh Red grouper M I sty grouper Wa,.saw group.,. Snowy grouper Nassau grouper Slack g,.ouper 2-1 Eplnephelus adscenslonls Eplnephelus d,.ummondhayl Ep I nephel us f la'fO II mbetus Eplnephelus guttatus Eplnephelus Itaja,.a Ep Inephelus ~ Eplnephelus mysteclnus Eplnephelus nlg,.ltus Eplnephelus nlveatus Eplnephelus st,.latus Mycteroperca bonecl .'.' --, . - -.' ... - . ~ -~ .' ... .. - ... YelloWTTOuth grouper M~ctero perc~ interstifial is G~g M~cteroperc~ mi cro lee i 5 Scamp M;:tcterocerca phenax Yellowf In grouper Mycteroperca venenosa Sea Basses - Serranidae FamIly Southern sea bass Centropr i st I s melana Bank sea bass Centroprl st is oc;:turus Rock sea bass Centropr i st Is ph i I adel ph i ca 2.~.2 SpecIes Included In the Fisher;:t but Not In the Management Unit The tollowlng specIes are Included in the fIshery tor the purposes of data collectIon. These species are not normally target species and are normally taken IncIdentally to the directed fLshery for species In the management 1ZI1t. There Is InsuffIcient data to compute a maximum sustainable yield (~SY) for these spec i es and no measures are proposed tor management 0 f these spec I es in the P I an. If regulation becomes necessary, the MSY and OptImum YIeld (OY) will be calculated and the appropriate scecies wIll be incorporated Into the management unIt through the plan amendment process. TlleflShes - 9ranchlostegidae FamIly Great northern tl'eflsh TI'ef I sh Lopholatllus chamaeleontlceps Caulolatllus spp. Jacks - Caranqldae Family Amberjacks Ser 10 I a spp. Trlggerflsnes - Sallstldae Family Gray trlggerflsh Sallstes caprlseus Wrasses - Labrldae Family Hogfl sh . Laehnolaimus maxlmus Grunts - Pomadasyldae Family TOIIItate Wh I te grunt Plgflsh Haemu Ion ~uro I InNtum H~emulon plumlerl OrthOprlstls chrysoptera PorgIes - Sp~rldae Family Red porgy P~9rus sedeclm Knobbed porgy Calamus nodosus Jo I thead porgy Cal amus bajona(b Llttlehead porgy Calamus proridens Plnf I sh L~qodon rhomboid" Gr~ss porgy Cal~mus arct I frons 2-2 Sand Pe,..ches Dwa,..f sand perch Sand pe,..ch Se,..,..anldae FamIly Dlplect,..um blvlttatum Dlplect,..um fo,..mosum 2.3.3 Spec i es llot Add,..essed TI'Ie t,..oplcal ,..eef fIshes such as damselflshes (Pomacentrldae), angel fishes and butterfly fishes (Chaetodontidael a,..e not Included In thIs Plan. They wIll be add,..essed In a sepa,..ate Tropical AQua"'i~ FIsh Plan after development of a decIsIon profile Is p,..epa,..ed by the CounCil. All g,..unts and porgIes not Included In thIs Plan will be add,..essed In eIther the T,..oplcal AQua""~ FIsh Plan or the Groundfl sh Plan. 2.4 Statement of MSY, OY, EDAH and TALFF (millIons of pounds) GROUP Snappe,.. and Grouper Sea basses 51.0 0.5 or 45.0 0.5 EOAH 45.0 0.5 TALFF o o 2.5 P,..oblems In the FIshery 1. Data p,..esented In this Plan reflects that the overall problem In thIs fishery Is a substan tIal decline In ,.. .. f fish stocks In some a,..eas t.ndr the juriSdiction of the Gulf of ~xico FIshery Management Cbuncll. A known facto,.. contr Ibut Ing 10 th I s dec line Is overt I sh I ng in many a,..eas of the Gulf of MexIco by dl,..ected ,..ecreatlonal and commercIal use,..s. Othe'" possIble f!!lcl'o,..s contrIbuting 10 the declIne !!Ire: A. ~eductlon of hablt!!lt, both natur!!ll and man-rII!!Ide. B. A la"'ge bycatch In othr fisheries. C. l.1ajo,.. envl,..onmental changes (which can be documented for 1973-1975). 2. M InsuffIcient dat!!l b!!lS8 exists 10 pInpoInt the c!!luses and magnItude of the decline by exact g eog,..aph I c!!ll areo. 3. The,..e Is exP!!lndlng competition between users competIng for the ,..esource and the space the resource occupIes. This expanding competitIon Is In pa,..t due 10: A. Inc,..easlng fIshing effo,..t and the concentl"'atlon of that effo,..t In locall zed a,..eas. 8. Incl"easlng fIshing effol"t In oth8l" fisherIes that have a bycatch of ,..eef fish. C. Declining catch per ~It effol"t In some al"'eas. D. Intl"'oductlon of new gear. 2.·6 Goa I s and Object I ves tOl" Management P I an Goal: To manage the ,.. .. f fIsh fishery 0 f the Un I ted States wi th I n the waters 0 f the Gu If 0 t -'lex i-.:o Fishe,..y Management Cbuncll j .... lsdlctlon to attaIn the gl"eatest overall benefit to tne ';ati:;n with pat"tlcular ,..efe,..ence to foOd prOduction and ",ec,..eatlonal oppo,..tunities on t!1e basis o~ the maximum sustainable yield as modi fled by relevant economIc, social 0'" ecological ~acr-=r-s. 2-3 ObJectives: (I) To rebuild the declining r&8f fish stocks wher-aver- they occur- wlthl" the fishery. (I I) To est~bllsh ~ fishery reporting syst~ tor monitoring the reef fish fishery. (III) To co"sarve r.ef fish h~bltats ~nd Increase reef fish hablt~ts In ~ppropr-I!te areas a"d to provide protection for Juveniles while pr-otectlng existing and new h~blt~ts. (Iv) To minimize conflicts be~.een user- groups of the resour-c. and conflicts for s~ca. 2.7 DomestIc M~na9ement Measures Management ~asur-es attectl"g tha domestIc fishery are as follows: 2.7.1 Stressed Are~ (Are~ Subject to Special Man~9ernent) Estab II sh a stressed area I n those waters of the Gu I f of Max I co shor-..,ard of the fo I low I ng d I scon tlnuous Ilna: (I) From the boundary separating the Jurisdiction of Gulf and South Atlantic Councl Is termln~tln9 at 24· 3" ~nd 83· 0.0' n~hwar-d and eastward around the Dry Tortugas to a point nortn of Rebec~ Shoal at 92· 35' the out.,. boundary shal I be the 'Oo-foot contour.' (2) From the point at 82- 3" aUNard and northerly to the south end of Sanibel Island (26- 26') the outv boundary shall be t~e 60-foot contour. I (3) From 26- 26' northward to a point otf Tarpon Springs (28- 10') the out9r boundary shal I be th. 120-toot contour-.' (4) Fro. 28- '0' northw.r-d and westw.r-d to a point otf Cape S~n Bias (8'· 52' and 29- 30.5') the out.,. boundary shal I be the 60-toot contour.' (5) From 85- 52' and 29- 30.5' wesNar-d to a point off :.tab I I. Bay on the 88· longitud. line, the out.,r boundary shall be at the 150-toot contour'. Th. out.r boundary shal I th.n be a lin. from the point on the 8S- longl . tuda north wesNard to the A laballl8/N1 sslnlppl state II ne at the 80-toot contour (38- 23.7' and 30· 01.5'); (6) From 88· 23.7' and 30· 01.5' the outer boundary will be a line ,.unnl'9 di:-ectly ""ast along the 30· 01.5' parallel and ter"lllinating at the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana; (7) From tne T~xas/ Louisiana stat~ line to a point on the 9'· longitude Ilna, the out.,. bOundar-y shal I- be at the IOO-t~or ·:ontjur l (Figure II and Table 12.>. 2.7.2 Fishing Gear 2 (I) Prohibit the use of pow.r heads2 for the t~kln9 of reef fish within the stressed ar~. (2) Prohibit the use of roll.r- trawls In the st,.essed ar ... (3) P"ohl~lt the use ot fish ""'.ps In the stressed ar ... Further-, provlje for seizure of sucn gear Illegally deployed In the str.ssed area. The contour lines described shall be generiC lines consisting of ~ series of stral~ht lines closell follo.l"g the actual contours. Turning points on the serl<15 of str~lght lines "III oe defined by latitude ~nd longitude ~s wei I ~s by loran C coordinates. Power heads are me'!'.! I devices with an explosive c:h~I"g. and usually a pr-oJectlle tl'lat fires 0" con1""ct. It Is usual Iy att~Ched to a speargu". SP8~r, pol., or stick. 2-4 (4) Raqulre degl"'~dablo! or other self-dest'"uctlng panels or access doo" nlnglng devices on 'I;~ trapS whIch are constructed as fol lows: (4.1) Require the openl'g cev'!red by the panel (01'" t"le access doo,.) be 144 squal'"e Inches;)r larger with one dimension of the area equal to 01'" 1~l"'gel'" than the largest inter-Iol'" ~xls of the th,.oat (funnel). (4.2) Require that one panel 0" access door be locatoed opposite each of the sides t"lat "las a funnel. (4.3) Require that one y'!al'" attel'" the Impl9l'1entatlon of this Plan, ~II fish traps · .. lt~ln the F:Z be constructed of material ",Ith mash size of 1 x 2 Inches 01'" lal'"ger-, ~nd there shal I be a mlnlmu~ of two 2 x 2 Inch escape windows on each of two sides ot the trap. (4.4) All fIsh traps fished shol'"ew::lrd of the 300-foot cont~1'" ·.Ithln the FCZ shall De 33 cubic feet 01'" smal leI'" In volume • . (5) Require that each ..,essel fishing traps In the FeZ be limited to no IICl"'e than 200 such tI"'I!IOS. (6) Prohl,lt the use of poisons' ::Ind explosives for the taking of reef fish. (7) Pl"'onl!:llt the willful pul ling of another person's traps and the pul ling or harvesting ot traps after sundown 01'" befo,.e sunI"'l se. 2.7.3 Bag and Size Limits (1) Pronl,lt the possasslon of red snapper (LutJanus campechenus) less than 12 i~ches I, 'or-k length subject to t"e follOWing exc~tlons and conditions: (A) an allowance of Incl,jen tally hal"'Vestoed red snapper less than 12 Inches In fork length Is established at fIve fls~ pe" person In ~ssesslon, and (a) any 10Mstic vessel fishing trawls 111 the FCZ .IIth t~~ exc~tlol1 of roller tr~wl vessels fishing In the stressed area Is excluded fran trJe poss~sslon limit. 2.7.4 Permits and Gear Identification (1) Require permits fo,. all bOats and ..,essels fishing fish tr"ps In tl'le FeZ (fo,. IdentlfJ,:~tlon and '"epOl"'tlng purposes). SUCh pennlts sl'lall ~ obt~l~ed frOll the Regional f)lrectol'" of ~FS 01'" his design ... (2) AI low the use of fish traps In the FeZ only frOll ;>errnltted boats and vessals or by o~r-50n5 fIshing fish traps fl"'011 fl.(ed 01'" /!lOvable structures who hINe fIrst obt~lned a permit frO'! the Regl~nal Director of NMFS 01'" his desl~nee. (3) Require that .!III fish t,.aps used In tt'l~ fl.hery ",Ithln the F:Z be Ijentlfl«l by a nu"'!:l~r ~nd all fish trap buoys tle Identified by a color code Issued through the Regional f)lrector of NMFS 0,. his deslJnee, to each boat, vessel 0" person desl,.lng to usa fish traps In t..,~ ~:l. Fur-the", "SQull"'e that eac:n trap 01'" str-1119 of tl"'''PS be r!\I!Il"'ked by a floating buoy 1)1" by ':!uoyS desl;ned to be submerged ~nd autOllatlcally relaased In a certain time; aach string of t'"dOS shall be r!\I!Il"'kecl wIt" a buoy at oppos Ite ends of i'''. string. Fur-thel'", l"'8qul,.e tl'1C1t -!~c'1 :JO<l~. vessel 01'" structure fl'hlng traps be cl~al"'ly marked with the s~ nu~bel""and col?r cod~ ~, all'JW Identification fl"'011 ae,.lal o!nd water patrol ':I"'aft. FUI"'1'hel'", o,.ovlje f~r selz·.Jr-a of ~II deployed gear not ;ll"'opel"'ly Identified. 2-5 (4) ElIcn 'lessel SO permitted shall !le I~sued metal or plastic IdentHlcatlon t"9s that "!lust )9 permanently affixed to each trap. Such tags shal I have the permit numbe~ of the v9SS31 lind shall be numbered consecutively. Replacenent tags for traps lost may be obtal"ed "r:::r'l the ~eglonal DirecTor or his deSignee, upon request. Traps fished o~ aboard vessals I" the FeZ whICh have no such tag attached are Illegal ;ear and may be confiscated by f9deral officers. (5) As a condition of obtaIning II per'lllit to fish "~s, the pel"lftltt .. lIIust al lew ~9de~al otfl ce~s reasonable IICC.ss to hIs p~operty (vessel o~ dock) to Inventory traps tor compliance with the measures of this plan. (6) Each applicant for a permit ~st specify the number, dl~nslons and estimated cubic volu~ of the traps that '1111 I be fIshed unde~ the permIt. 2.7.5 Statistical ReportIng System (1) Based on vessel enume~atlon, It Is ~pected that those vessels fishing fo~ reef fish wi I I be I,jentl tied. The Plan shall reQuIre a mandatory repo~tlng system, ..,Ith partIcIpatIon limited to ~andQl'l1 samples sufficient for fIshery management ruteds frOll I) cha~t.,., guld. and party boats; II) not·fo~-hlrerec~eetlonal bOlllts; III) comme~clal fishing bOIlits and "essels (,.,Ith tl'1e exception of trap flshlll9 beets and vessels): ~nd Iv) processors and wholesalers o~ otners pu~chaslng r .. f fish. NMFS Is requested to d.vel~ a data collection and analysis syst designed to provlje usable data on: levels and frequency of participation In the r .. ffish fl$hery; lev~ls of reef fIsh catch, by species: size composition of the cateh; catch per unit of effo~t; Incldent~1 catches of other species; and Indicators of the econOlllc ~Iue of the fishery. (2) Require that all bOllih o~ vessels flshlll9 with t~aps be ~equl~ed to r~rt the fOII::lWI'g InformatIon on a periodic basis: (I) sIze of vessal o~ boat, (2) total number of tl"'dPS. (3) sIze of traps, (4) masl'l size of traps, (5) compositIon of catch by weight and soecl~s ~y trip, (6) wat.r depttl. (7) numbe~ of traps hal"Vested by trip, (8) locatIon of trllps oy I~F5 statistical grid. and (9) number of trap hauls per tr~P. 2.~ Procedures for Inseason and Corrective Adjustments to Management Measures. MSY and.OY Th Is plan contaIns a number of procedures fo~ Implamentlng measures by the regulatory amendment ")ro cas s and by f lei d ord.,.. Procedures contaIned 'n the plan fo,. lII0<I1 tyIng the IIIIInagement measures ar. as tollows: (I) Procedures fo,. adjustment of mesh size of fIsh t~aps (FloP Section 8.3.1.2(8), ~art .. ,,). (2) Procedures fo,. limitation on gear use In the fishery (FMP Section 8.3.1.2(8), ~art 3). (3) Procedu~es to,. catch adjustment ~hen OY Is exceeded (F~ Section 8.3.1.6) 2.9 Spec I a I Rec:ormI8ndat I ons to the Sec:reta~y on Resurch and o.velot:llll8ftt Requ I rements (I) InitIate resea~cn designed to evaluate the need for protection of Juvenll. reef tlsh d1d h~blt3t In s~clflc locetlons trom da~ge 01'" excessive ~rtallty by gea~ such as rrdOS Jr othe~ gear takIng reef fIsh. (2) Encour~ge Immedl~t9 dev910pr'l9nt "f r~sc~pe panels ::Ir devices on trllwls for use In ~redS .. 'lere bycatch of juv'9nlle snapper and grouper are hlJh. (3) '::ncour~ge and support the construction of ~rmltted ~rtlflcl"Jl reef ·habltats. (4) Inltlat~ research to determine the optimum minimum ~sh size for traps which ~II I all=w escapement of Juv.nlle r •• f fish. (5) Develop Information on slz.s of reef fish that should be relellsed by flshenn.n I~ ~'le stressed area. (6) 1:'1ltl"te research to det.rmlne the Impact of fish Traps on reef fish populations and ".,e reef ecosystem. (ThIs should Include catches of targeted species and bycatch of other species as wei I as InformaTion on other relevant ,ar~ters.) (7) The development of self-d.struct panels on fish tr-IIPS Is an Immedlat" researdl need .. .,!-::h must be dev.loped and Implemented by 1981. (8) Sinc. there Is a Question on the use of artificial reefs to Increase fish stocks, the ne~ exists for a flve-yallr program to be Immediately Initiated to determine the level of r-eet effectiveness. Research should be directed towal"d tha following areas: (a) recruitment to I"eets; (~) contribution ot rNt faunll to support the food requlrlllMtnt of residant reef fish; (c) determlMtlon of whet".r reet fish forage In IIreas adjoining the r .. ts for their pri mary food sources; (d) the '9ffeetlveness of artificial reefs liS ha9ltllt. (9) '~od I fy currenT ~MFS/FD~ STudy to PI"OV I je IllformaT Ion on '1'''1. opt l:!Iu/ll mesh sizes of trap mllterlal 01" Inltlat. research to pl"ovlde this Information. (10) N:-4FS to provide Council with InformatIon on '1':'. cor-rect procedure for puncturing the 31, bladder of r .. f fish so thllt CouncIl staff can prepal"a InformatIon and educatIon brochure on ·'1ls pl"oeedul"e fOI" dIstribution to the publIc. ( 1 I ) T~at ~MFS SEFC P I ace obsel"Vel"s on vessa Is fish I ng wIth I eng" nes tOI" r.ef fish I n the Gulf. pl"ovlded the v.ssel own.rs agree to such an al"rllngement. 2.10 Soecllli Recommendations to the Stat.s The Council recOllftl8nds thllt the states l:!Ipl~nt the management measUl"es proposed 1:'1 This Pll!ln ",1,..,1, .t'1elr territorial JUI"ISdlctlon. whel"a IIppllcable. The Council fUrthel" eneour~ges the states t:> as,;;· the Seeret.]ry I n address I ng and support I ng the re$oarch and othel" specl ",I reconll8ndat Ions. 2-7 3.0 ~ESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY 3.1 Areas and Stocks Reef fishes and the fishery for them h~ve hlstorlc~lly been I~rgely conducted within w~ters shallo .. er than 100 fattooms (183 m). In the Gulf of Mexico this depth ~pproxlm~tes the outer edge of the con tinental shel f. r.t:Ist reef fish species do not re~ch commercially explolhble size In shallow .. ater, In this consideration the man~gement area Involved (the Gulf/South Atlantic Council boundary on the SOuthwest co~st of Florida to the Texas-Mexico boundary) was calculated from maps using a dot plani meter on an equ~1 area projection of the Gulf of Mexico. The fishery conservation zone encompasses 6.82 x 105 km2 (263,525 square m,iles), the continental shelf encompasses 3.14 x 105 km2 (121,204 square miles), using the me~n low w~ter depth, excluding beys and estuaries, to ~ depth of 100 fathoms. Reef fishes ~re gener~lly confl'led to reef or reef-like, hard bottom areas within the area of the continental shelf. It was calculated that the Inhabitable and fishable area available in 1'1e Gulf is approximately 0.39 x 105 km2 (15,054 square miles). This was estimated from Lynch, 1954: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management charts of the outer continental shelf - Visual ~b. 4 (eeS base sale ~. 41 l. r.t:Ire recant surveys by the Oregon II Indicate the live bottom in the Gulf to be 0.51 x 105 km2 within the 55 fathom contour. Offshore sport fishing areas, offshore groups of commercial banks, and reported hard banks were considered as potentIally Inhabitable areas. These data indicate that approximately 12.4 percent of the Gulf of Mexico shelf within the FeZ Is available as habitat for reef fIshes but only 5.7 percent Is InhabItable within the antlre area of the FCZ. ;>00 studies currently In progress by Texas A&M university and the Bureau of L~nd ~nagement m~y provide more precise estImates of suitable h~bltat. This Plan Is for the management of reef fIsh resources In the ¥e~ of authority of the Gulf of I.1exico Fishery Management Council. The Plan consIders the resource throughout Its r~nge from Florida t~rough Texas. The area whIch will be regul~ted by the teder~1 government under- this Plan is confined to t,e .. aters of the FCZ. 3.1.1 Species in the Man~gement UnIt The following species are managed by thIs Plan: Snappers - LutJanldae Family Queen snapper Mutton snapper Schoo I mast.,. B I eckf I n snapper Gul f red snappe,. Cub.,.a snappe" Gray (mangrove' snapper Dog snappe,. Mahogany snappe,. Lane snappe,. SIlk snappe,. Yellowtail sn~pper Wenchman Voraz Vermll Ion snappe,. Etel Is oculatus Lutjanus anal Is Lut janus ~podus Lutj~nus buccanella Lutjanus campechanus Lutjanus cyanopterus Lutjanus g,.'seus Lutj~nus jocu Lutjanus mahoqonl Lutjanus synagrls Lutjanus vlvanus Ocyurus ch"ysurus Prlstlpomoldes agullonarls P,.'stlpomoldes macrophthalmus Rnomboplltes aurorubens ~te: 1 fattoorn ,. 6 feet; 1 ki lometer a 0.621 mi les; 1 meter ,. 39.37 inches. :;-1 Groupers - Serranidae Fami Iy Rock hind Speckled hind Yellowedge grouper Red hind Jewtish Red grouper MI sty grouper Warsaw grouper Snowy grouper Nassau grouper Black grouper Yellowrrouth grouper Gag Scamp Yellowt in grouper Epinephelus adscensionis EpinePhelus drumrrondhayi Ep i neohe I uS t I a-.o Ii mbatus Epinephelus guttatus Epinephelus itajara Eplnephelus ncrio Epinephelus mystacinus Epinephelus nigritus Eplnephelus nlveatus Eplnephelus strlatus Myctero perca bonac i Mycteroperca Interstltialis Mycterooerca microlepls Mycteroperca phenax Mycteroperca venenosa Sea Basses - Serranidae Fami Iy Southern sea bass Bank sea bass Rock sea bass Centroprlstls melana Centropri~tls ocyurus Centroprlstls phlladelphlca 3.1.2 Species Included in the Fishery but Not In the Management Unit The following species are included In the fishery for the purposes of data collection. These s;)e~;es are not normally target species and are normally taken incidentally to the directed fishery tor species in the management unit. There Is Insufficient data to compute a MSY for these species and ~o measures are proposed for management of these species In the Plan. If regulation becomes necessary, the MSY and OY wil I be calculated and the appropriate species 10111 I be Incorporated into the managerne~t un i t through the p I an amendment process. Tllefishes - Br-anchlostegldae Fami Iy Great northern tlleflsh Til efi sh Jacks - Carangldae Family Amber-jacks Lopholati Ius chamaeleonticeos Caulolati Ius spp. Ser-Iola spp. Trigger-fishes - Ballstidae Family Gray trigger-fish Ba II stes capr I scus Wrasses - Labrldae Family Hogf i sh Lachnolalmus maxlmus 3-2 Grunts - Pomadasyidae Family Tomtate IoIh i te grunt Pi gf ish Haemu Ion aurn Ii neatum Haemu/on plumieri Orthopristls chrysoptera Porgies - Sparidae Family Red p::)rgy Knobbed p::)rgy Jo /thead p::)rgy Llttlehead porgy Plnflsh Grass. p::)rgy Sand Perches Dwar f sand. perch Sand perch Pagrus sedecim Ca I amus nodosus Ca I amus ba jonado Ca I amus prnr i dens Lagodon rhombo I des Calamus arctlfrons Serranidae Family Dlplectrum bivittatum D/plectrum formosum Although there have been no studies published as yet on se~rate reef fish species stocks within the Gulf of ~xico, several studies conducted on othe~ species Indicate that there are separate stocks of many demet"sal fl shes occurrIng 8IlIst and west of the I>bblle Bay area. Lilt I I this suspicion is con firmed each speCies Is treated as Its own stock within the Gulf. In the analysis of catch and effort the data were examined both east and west of M:lblle Bay C8a- meridian) and combined. Because of the lack of data ",ith regard to distribution and r8CX)gnltlon of biologically distinct p::)pulations, the concept of "unit stock" defined by OJshlng (1968) cannot be applied at the present time on the reef fish speCies of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Whi Ie several other reef fishes are caught Incidental to the directed fishery tor species incl uded in this managem~t l..Ilit, they were not Included In the MSY calculations. rowever, as incidental catch items they do contr i bute 10 the 8Q)noml cs of the d I reeted fish I ng fleets and must be acknow I e<l ged as members of the overall reef fish p::)pu/atlons from a biological standpoint. 3.2 History of Exp'Oitation 3.2. I Domestic Fishery The reef fisheS apparently repres~t the fIrst target fishery of any consequence for demersal fish i~ the Gulf of ~Ico. While the orlglnlll settlers I..Ildoubtedly relied heavily upon the intertidal and estuarine fish and sh.llflsh tor their dally subsistence It was the search tor the red snapper par ticularly, that led to the dev.'opment of ofts/'ore fishing craft and an offs/"ore fishery in the Gulf, Much 0 f th I 5 sect Ion was taken from per!lOnal know I edge, in forma I in trv i ews and Futch and Torpey ( 1966). These settlers, basically centered In the Florida Panhandle In the early 1850's, used smal I craft eQui pped ",ith I ive wells to make their catches. These 40-50 foot craft usually carried three to sev~n men, but seldom ventured beyond the 40 fat/'om curve between M:lbl/e Bay and Cape St. George, ~/orida. for their 500-3,000 pound catChes. By the mid-1800's the size had steadily IncreaSed to 50-100 foot smacks wi th crews of el ght to J 2 men, and tr Ips 0 f 1'1010 to to ur weeks to more d I stant waters became rrore cormronp/ace. Even by then the tr-adltlonaJ groundS wer-e st-owing signs of this incr-eased fishin,; pressUl"'e, and the vesse Is were soon ventur I ng 9:lutheast of Pensaco I a to grounds 0 f f Tampa and the :r- 'f Tor-tu')as and as far as the western por-tlon of the coast of Texas (Figure 1 l. 3-3 / / .I ~ ... : , ,, ; '" -( 0 '; / ( .. / j /,: L - "'-- ::::'-:0 ( ~ \. ,- " .... j / Figure 1 - Hlsto~lcal Fishing Grounds Source: Ca~p.nter (1965) 3-4 . .... - -. The growing influx of new settlers, particular.lly trose from New England, .fostered the introduction o~ the tradition81 /lbrth Atl8ntlc Grand Bank holO-masted screoner'. Live-well preserv8tion soon gave <lay to ice since by that time Ice m!!klng faci I itles had been est8bl ished on the Gul f O:::Jast. By the ~ur" of the century, the sail-rigged sm&cks and screoners were being equipped with auxi Ilary gaso line engines, and by the mid-1920's, diesel engines provided even additional boosts. These Innovations, allTCst synergistically coupled with Incre8sad consumer' demand, soon resulted in larger' cr"ft, longer trips, bigger' loadS, and extension of fishing efforts Into !Duth TeX8! 8nd even the Cl:Impeche and Yuc8t8n (MexiC8n) w8ter'S. By the early 1900'5 the reput8tlon of this fine fiayorad and delicately textured fish had spread 1'0 d I st8nt consum ... are8S 8nd "Gu I f reel sn8pper" soon bec~e a de Ii cacy featured on gourmet menus from New York 1'0 San Fr8nc/seo. Catchas, rewever, ware highly selective and It was the red snapper, Lutj8nus C8mpechanus, 8nd closely rel8ted Lutj8nldae, that were the fisher men's primary t8rg8t. Throughout this entire period, the b8Slc fishing ge8r, hook 8nd line, has prev8f1ed. However, the original t8rred cotton line g8ve WIlly to h8rd 18Y net twine 8nd th8t In turn to st8/nless steel. Slmil8rly, the single h8ndllne g8ve way to the h8nd-drlven reels, 8nd eventu811y the ITOdern DOwer driven reels th8t h8ve become prev81ent throughout the commerci81 fishery. Other methods, such as gill nets, longllnes (or tr8wI lines), hoop nets, fish tr8PS 8nd fish tr8wIs have been tried but ",ojith only limited success 8nd the line and baited hook rem8ins by far the most popular and productive gear both corrrnercl811y and recraatlon81ly. (Refer 1'0 Sections 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.2.3). As 8 result of thes8 technological combln8tlons, tha commercl81 fIshery now sp8ns the entire Gulf and since World War II, h8S been 8ugmented by 8 mosquito fleet of recreatlon81 fIshermen usIng craft that r8nge from small outboard rIgs to sophIstIcated "head boats", whose catch exceeds that of the commer c lal fleet. Unlike the sn8ppar, the grouper flshlll"Y has been "'arg.ly confined to Florld8 W8ters and unti I the rnic 1950's and early 1960's, it r."y offered no competitIon 1'0 the snapper In the marketpl8ce. The emphasis centered on sn8pper, end group.r cetches generel Iy were treated as 8 byproduct and so Id at 3 much lower price. ftlwever, thase trends h8V8 mer"kedly chenged 8nd by the mld- end late 1950's, par ticularly as a result of the levelIng off of 5nepper catches and 8 growing consumer recognition of grouper as a del.ect8ble Item, the groupers and 5n8pperS became generally inter'changeable in the marketplace and on the menus. CertaIn fleets, partIcularly elong the mid-west coast of Florida, subsist almost entirely upon grouper c8tches and theIr snapper c8tch 15 generally consIdered secondary. The yello-rall sn8Pp.r fishery has tradItionally been confIned 1'0 the 10..,. Florida Key~ and the type and range of the fleet has r~.'ned nearly stabl. throughout the years. As these flsh ... ,.s extended geographIcally and partIcularly with the advent of the sizeable recrea tional fishery, so dId the composition of the catch, and 1'oday the overall directed and Incidental reef fish c8tch Includes snappers, group.rs, and other reef species. While these differ substan tial Iy morphologically and In range, hablt8t, behavIor, and stock, thes8 specIes are 211 I caught by simi lar methods .8I'Id can be logically considered as one sing Ie fishery for IIIIIn8gement purposes. 3.2.1.1 Description of User Groups Users of the reef fIsh resources can be divided Into the 1"000 broad user groups of recreational fisher men and commercIal fishermen. Recreatlon81 users consist of IndivIdual sport fishermen and divers. Commer'cial users consist of "for hire" (charter or head boat) boats 8nd commercial food fishermen. Those f I sher'men e8rn I ng the I r II ve" hood from the fIshery were cons I dared the commerc i a I users. Pecreational fishermen Include trese fishing from priv8tely owned cr8ft ranging from small out:Joar~ power'ed boats to the sophistlceted charter' and "head boat" eQuipped with tha most rrodern electronic j eQui;>ment. Some recreational users combine their sport fishing actlvities.wit" sport diving. :"t~er divers simply observe the lIlderwater environment but may occasionally do 5Cme inci·;jental fishing. '.1any :)f t,ese recreational users belong to local, state, national, and even international associations which are active in promoting their interests in the reef fish fishery and the marine environment.2 Similarly, cornmercial fishermen fall into t'liO categories; charter boat or "head boat" operators and c:)mmercial fishermen, both of whom are diSCUSSed in greater detail in later sections. Through these commercial users, the general public is brought into the overall user group category either as fisher men, ;lI"oviders of services to fishermen, or as consumers. Of course, those purChasing from, or seiling goods to fishermen are indirectly members of this commercial user group. 3.2.1.2 General Description of Commercial Fishing Effort The number of fishermen fishing for reef fish Is estimated as the number of handline fishermen operating on vessels3• This estimation procedure appears reasonable since nearly all reef fish are landed by handlines, and by restricting fishermen-count to those operating only on vessels rrost of r,~e Inshore hand I ine fishermen can be eliminated. This restriction, however, does result in a count of less than one-half of the reported handline fishermen as reef fish fishermen. In Sjme areas SUCh as the Florida Keys, hand line boats are ab Ie to land reef fish during the off season for the pr imary species such as spiny lobster and stone crabs. These are generally one or no day trips. This, however, is not the general case throughout the Gulf of Mexico in the commercial fishery. In cont'"~st to one or two day tr ips made by recr~t iona I boats, commerc I a I vesse I s need the capac i ty to fish from one to three weeks per trip to be profitable. In 1974, 1,705 fishermen were estimated to be partiCipating in the Gulf of ~Ico reef fish fishery (Append i x Tab Ie I). The trend in number of fishermen ~s upward from 1957 through 1964 when a"T1ax i "'un of 2,302 fishermen were estimated (Appendix Table I). The number of fishermen then declined consistently until 1970 when 1,303 were reported. Since 1970, the number of reef fishermen has Increased each year. Currently Florida fishermen account for nearly 68 percent of the total 3ulf of ~xlco reef fish fishermen (Appendix Table I). This represents an increas~ from the mid-1950's when Florida accounted for 55 percent of the Gulf reef fish fishermen. The rnaximl.lll number of Florida fishermen occurred in 1964 when 1,370 was estimated. In the 18-year time period from 1957 through 1974, three statistically significant trends occurred; Increasing IIltll the late 1950's,decreaslng to 1970, aM again increasing after 1970 (Appendix Tables I and 2). (Appendix Figure I). Texas ~counts for the second largest number of fishermen (Appendix Table I). During the 1972-197,! period, Texas flshennen accounted for 13 percent of the 'Iota I reef fish fishermen operating in' tne Gul f of ~exico. Statistically, the number of Texas fi shermen has declined overall by an average vf 21 per year since 1972. Both Alabama and louisiana fishermen Increased in numbers during the early years of the 1957-1970 period but have decreased significantly In recent years (Appendix Tables I and 2). The number of louisiana fishermen peaked In 1962 with a 'Iota I of 200, while Alabama fishermen peaked in 1966 ",itn 219 fishermen. \1lssisslppl fishermen showed an overall increase through 1970 after ..tIich time SJ'!1e decl ine has been noted. 2 All recreational effort data are reported in Section 3.5.4. 'essels are described as craft of five net tons carrying capacity or rrore. 3.2. 1.3 (~Iso 3.5.1.1) Commercl~1 C~tch Tre~ds ~nd Y~lue of C~tch Tot~1 reef fIsh I~ndlngs in the Gulf of Mexico from 1957 to 1976 (Table I and AppendIx Figure 2) peaked at 24.7 millIon p:,unds. They then declIned steadIly untIl 1973 when I~ndings amounted to 16.5 millIon p:,unds. LandIngs sInce then have ranged from 17.0 to 17.S mIllion pounds. Direction of change patterns for management unit specIes are p"'esented In AppendIx Table 4. Three sIgnifIcant trends have occurred In the yellt"s 1957-1976: landings for all reef tlsh Increased until the mid-1960's, declined rapidly until the early 1970's, and since have begun to stabi I ize (AppendIx Table 3). The value of landings has fo/lolHld a pattern of steady increases over the past twenty years with a maxImum ov.,..a/! value of S10.6 mil lion reported in 1975 (Appendix Figure 3). The 1972-1975 average landIngs and vi!!lue of these landings fo,. <XImmerclai Iy caught reef tlsh are she"n i:'1 Appendix Table 62. Yi!!lue in terms of real dollars has remi!!lned fairly <XInstant for ~II reet fish as !! group since 1964. Direction of chi!!nge patterns for al I reef fiSh, red snapper, groupe,.. and scamp, for each state are s/"own In AppendIx Tabl·e 5. Aft.,. Initial Increases In all reef fish landings f"om the five-year period 1957-1961 to the five year period 1962-1966, the directIon of change became negatIve In three states, with landIngs In the 1972-1976 periOd less thi!!n In the 1957-1961 period for Alabama, Loui slana, and Texas. The ov .. all av .. age fo,. the Gul f of Mexico s IXIsltlve for this same per iOd. Red sni!!pper landings s/"owed only one Increase from the previous period aft.,. the Initial Inc,.eases ill all states t,.om 1957-1961 and for the flv ... yea,. period 1972-1976. ~ouper and scamp landings demonstrated much the same patt.,..n during the middle periods. "O .... v ... total Gul f of MexIco landings and Mississippi, Texas and Florida west <XIast landIngs fo,. grouper and scamp we"e g,.eater In the 1972 1975 period than In the 1957-1961 period. The quantity and value of all reef fish, red snapper and grouper, are s/"own In Appendix Tables 6. 7. and S, respectively. The value of Sulf of Mexico reef fish landings has steadily Increased since 1957 with a high of S10.5 mi II ion reported in 1976 (Appendix Figure 3). While this same pattern for the FlorIda west coast !1M Mississippi has maintained Itself, toti!!1 values In Texas, Alabami!!, i!!nd louisIana have declined during recent years. Alabami!!'S values were highest In 1966. Texi!!s in 1964, and louIsiana in 1962. Red snapper and groupe,. domInate the landll'!gs i!!nd vi!!lue of landings of Gulf of Mexico ree·f fish (Appendix Ti!!ble 62). These specIes lIt"e also the nest valuable, ~<XIuntlng for approximately 87 ;>er cent of the to'ti!!l vi!!lue of all ,. .. f fish landings In the Gul f. Vi!!lues for Individual states by spe cies for 1975 and 1976 a,.e s/"own In Appendix Table 9. Red snapper landings In the Gulf of Mexico reeched a peak In 1965, ancuntlng to 13.4 million p:Junds (AppendIx Table 7 and Appendix Figure 4). Since that tIme landings have declined steadily to ·a 10., of 7.1 mIllIon lXIunds In 1976. The sallie patt .. n t'Q Ids true In all five Gul f states. The FlorIda west <XIast peaked In 196~, Alabama In 1966, Mississippi In 1968, ~nd Texas In 1964. Recant increases i~ the mid-1970's have occur,.ed on the Flo,.lda west coast atter the very low years In the early 1970's, but landings have never reached the ea,.,ler peaks. The value of 10tal red snappe" la~dlngs has also Increased subst~ntla"y to a high of S5.9 11111 lion In 1976 (Appendix Table 7 and Appendix Figure 5). The Florid~ west coast value peaked In 1976. Grouper (including scamp) landings In the Gulf of Mexico reached a pe~k In 1965 (AppendIx Table 8 ana Appendix FIgure 6). landings prior to that tIme had been on a steadily Increasing trend but since thi!!t peak, have declined. Almost all grouper land Ings are concentrated in Florida on the basi s of ".,e 20-year tIme series of data reported in thIs study. Total value of groupe" iandlngs have also \ i.,creased with the largest value reported In 1976 at S3.2 million (Appendix Table 8 and Appendix ,. "i~ure 7). Table 1. Total commer'cial reef fIsh landings'in the Gulf ot Maxi,co 1957-1'976. b ~ea,. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 a 8eflated by commod i ties real :!o " ar industries could have Pounds Current Qo II ars Real do liars ,3 (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 16,392 3,137 3,255 15,881 3,193 3,374 17,705 3,666 3,735 17,321 3,548 3,739 20,155 3,988 4,220 21,432 4,084 4,308 21,719 4,398 4,654 23,745 5,148 5,436 24,706 5,307 5,494 22,116 5,287 5,298 21,055 5,333 5,333 20,504 5,440 5,307 19,852 6,087 5,716 18,810 5,954 5,393 18,208 6,171 5,418 18,302 7,288 6,119 16,526 7,554 5,688 17,693 8,906 5,563 17,771 9,637 5,51J 17,046 10,582 5,731 wholesale price Index, all, commodIties, 1967"100. The wrolesale prIce index for all ~s used' because (I) the data are aVlli lab'le over the total study perIod and (2) tnese estimlltes give an IndicatIon of the well-beIng of the Industry reilltive to all ot"ler rather thlln !I:Ime more narrow I y def i ned group. Other' 0 f the numer'ous ava i I ab lei no i c i:5 been used to make oth.,.. compar i sons. b Includes dIrected catch for tl"ose specIes In the management IIIlt and catch for species caught incidental to the management !II it as outlined in Section 2.3.2. Calculated from: (I) U.S. NatIonal ~rlne FISheries ServIce, Current Flsher'les StatIstics, Landings tor Selected States. (2) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish.,..y Statistics of the United States. ~te: Unless oth.,..wise indIcated, all dllta are tor U.S. fishermen and U.S. ports.' 3-8 L~ndlngs ~d values of ~I I other specIes In tne reef fIsh catego,.y a"e s/'own In AppendIx Tables 10-22. Whe,.e av~llable, the landIngs and values a,.e delIneated by state. I n terms 0 f comm .. c I a I ,.epo,.ted docks I de pi" Ices, red sn appe,. a,.e about tw I ce as" val ueb I e as grouper. The aver-age Gulfwlde pl"lce fo",.ed Slapp.,. was 83.2 cents pe,. jX)und In 1975 while that fo,. grouper wu 45.7 cents per p:)lIId (Appendix Table 23). SInce 1964, dockside pi" Ices fo,. ,.ed snappe,. landed in Flo,.,da generally have b..n hIgh.,. than those ,.epo,.ted In other states (Appendix Flgtre 8). Flo,.lda pl"lces began 10 Inc,.ease more ,.apldly than prices In other states begInning In 1954, (~ppendlx Table 24, AppendIx Figure 8), wIth Alabama and MiSSissippI pl"lces ,.emalnlng relatively st~ble, but ~y 1973 they we,.e 29 cents pe,. pound 10 ... than Flo,.lda pi" Ices, and Texas pi" Ices wa"e 24 cents pel'" ;::ound lower. These pt"lce dlffe,.entlals between states can be att,.'buted both 10 dIfferent market outlets and 10 quality differences. Some buyers In FlorIda markets Indicated thet fish caught In dlst~nt waters wnlch have been Iced for long .. perIods of tIme sometImes bring lower market prIces. Cbckslde prIces actually paId'll) IndIvidual captains or boat owners vary substantially from t/'ose "eported In the annual statistIcs (Cato and Pr-ochaska, 1975). The actual pt"lce paId depends on the type of ;,g,.eenent between captaIns or boat owners and buyers. Buyers 0" fish I"cuse owner-s f,.equently pay hlghe,. prIces'll) Independent boats than'll) C)mpany boats with the latt .. frequently reflecting "acC)untlng pl"lces" ,.esultlng from Internal ,.ec:crdkeeplng pr-ocedur.s. Gen .. ally the company-owned boat Is paId a pl"lc. slightly lID,.e than one-half the ccnvnon docksld. valu'- because of the rec:ord keepIng pl"ocedures and slIghtly dIfferent cr-ew's-share ag,.eeonent. Wh ... ees the Independent boat owner must pay all hIs C)sts IncludIng Insurance, d~eclatlon, and fixed C)sts from th. pr-Ice receIved from hIs catch, the C)mpany-owned boats 8CC)lIIt fo,. C)sts dl ff.,.ently and can c)v .. thel,. costs tr-om the lower" pl"lce. The av .. ag. pl"lc.s reported ".,..In meesur. the weighted av .. age of these n.o kInds of prices and the accuracy of the r-epo,.ted price -ould d.p.nd upon the pa,.tlcular mIx of Independent 3nd C)mpany-owned boats In each stat. cCato and Pr-ochaska, 1976). Red snappe,. dockside pi" Ices In F'o,.'da durIng late 1977 and ea,.ly 1978 were as hIgh as SI.97 "e,. O)Oun::! wIth vermIlion snapper pi" Ices at about the same rate. Grouper pl"lces wa,.e raper-ted as hIgh oSS S.95 per O)Ound. EIght of the eleven por-ts that landed 0'1" 300 thousand pounds of ,.eef fIsh ere located In Florida (AppendIx Table 25). Th. leading po,.t was Pascagoula, MIssIssIppI, fol lowed closely by Panama CIty, Flo,.lda, and Madel,.a BNCh, FlorIda. Th. I.adlng snapp.,. port .es Pascagoula and the leadIng grouper port IIII!IS Madel,.a BMCh. Some data are avallabl. Wilch show the landIngs of ,.ed snapp.,. and group.rs by a"N of catch. Large volumes of ,.ed snapper have h'sto,.'cally been caught on the high SNS off foreIgn C)asts wIth the hIghest landIngs of 6.4 millIon POlollds repo,.ted In 1966 (Flgl.I"e I and AppendIx Tabl. 25). Th"e per centage of 10tal U.S. red snapper landIngs IXImlng from waters oft fo,.elgn coasts .as 54.2 pe,.cent in 1956. U.S. landIngs frOtll waters off fo,.elgn coasts have since declIned both In IoOlume and percentage C)nt,.lbutlon 10 lotal U.S. landIngs. landIngs from waters off fo,.elgn coasts have been 1.1 mi Ilion pounds or less sInce 1973 and have comprIsed less than 13 per-cent of total U.S. landIngs. U.S. g,.ouper landIngs f,.om wat.,.s off fo,.elgn coasts have shown the sarne declInIng pattern as red snappe,.s. A total of 1.2 millIon pounds were reported In 1963 and 1964 (Appendix Table 27). This "epresented 18.8 and 15.2 pe"cent of 10tal U.S. landIngs In these two years, ,.espectlvely. Landings sInce 1970 f,.om waters off foreIgn C)as'ts have been below one-hal f millIon jX)undS each year wIth t"'e exceptIon of 1974. This level of landIngs ,.ep,.esented between 6.7 and 2.2 percent.of total U.S. grouper landIngs f,.om 1970 to 1977. LandIngs of Touper, red snapper, oth .. snapp.rs, jX)"gles and warsaw caught by specifIed dIstance U.S. shores are shown In AppendIx Tabl. 28. Between 70.7 and 81.2 pe,.cent of al I groupers caugnt :~ tween 1971 and 1975 were caught between 12 and,200 miles from U.S. st-ores., Red snapper landings '~:.., this geographical are/! ranged from 58.5 to 81.5 percent of total grouper landings for these years. Similar data are given for other snapper, porgies and warsaw in Appendix Table 28. 3.2.1.4 Description of Commercial Vessels and Gear Employed The number of vessels fishIng the Gulf of Mexico reef fish resource is estimated to be the number of vessels fishing with t-ook and line. With the exception of 1959, the trend in number of :.l.S. vessels in the total Sulf Increased conSistently from the late 1950's through 1965 when a maximum of 519 vessels were fishing (Appendix Table'29 and Appendix Figure 9). After 1965 the number of vessels decreased to a low of 315 in 1970. Since then, "!'1e number of vessels again IncreaSed to 435 in 197.1. The 353 FlorIda vessels In 1974 m/!de up 81 percent of the total Gulf reef fIsh vessels (Appendix Table 29). With the exception of the \.I1expl/!ined incr6/!ses In 1959, 1964 i!lnd 1965, the trend i:"l number of Florida vessels has been gradU/!lly upward from 108 In 1957 to 353 vessels in 1974. Statistical analysis st-ows a significant positive trend of 8.8 additional vessels per year (Appencix Table 30). These trends st-ow patterns of growth over time but do not propose to explaIn reasons for growth. Alabama vessels increased signifIcantly through 1955 but sInce then have declined to levels of the mid-1950's (Appendix Tables 29 and 30). The number of Louisiana vessels follOwed the same trend :u7 peaked in 1952 :It 36 vessels. MissiSSippI vessels incr6/!sed at an average rate of nearly one vessel per year for the 1957-1974 per iod. The number a f Texas vessels decreased at i!ln average rate 0 f seven vessels per year. The average size vessel measured In gross tonnage was nearly 35 tons in 1974 (Appendix Table 31). -" average size vessel in the Sulf of Mexico reef fish fishery has not changed significantly (Appen:1i'( Tab I e 32). Th is, t-o wever, is due to the predom inance 0 f F lor ida vessel s wtt i ch have not sho .. n .3 significant change in average size (Appendix Tables 31 and 32). Florida vessels on the average :Ire less than one-half the size of tt-ose In Alabama, MissIssIppi. and Louisiana and two-thirds the size .J Texas '/essels. Average size of vessels In all Gulf states except Florida has increaSed si;nifica;1·;' over the past 18 years (Appendix Table 32). '-verage vessel size In '~Isslssippl increased at :In average rate of 3.2 tons per year followed by Louisiana with an average increase of 2.3 tons per .,.eJ~, Vessels are basically constructed from 'oOOd, steel or flbe,.glass· (Cato and Prochaska, 1976). The exact percentage of Gulf of Mexico vessels made of each material Is not known. Field observations Indicate <>eden vessels are stili IIDst numal"ous in the fishery. FIberglass vessels teni:! to be on centrated on the lower .. st coast of Florida end tend to be below aVal"age si ze fo,. the Gul f. The I argest vessel s, Oval" 50 feet In length, are often of steel construction. Principal :;ea,. used to catch reef fish .15 handllnes CTable 2). This gear type aCQ:)unted tor 94 ~er­ cent of .311 r"f fish taken dUl"'lng the 1972-1974 period. The number of handl ines used fr·om :~57-: ~-~ is approximately equal to the numb.,. of fishermen reported In Section ).2.1.2. Statistics for Louisiana are the exception for the 1958-1966 period when handllnes pe,. fishermen varied from 2.:; •. 29.5 per fisherman. (In this case, the data a,.e suspect). As many as twelve hooks are used per- ~<3~:" line. Generally two types of r"ls are used. Ole is a reel powered manually by a large crank. (sometimes called a one-arm bandit). The S8Q:)nd type of reel Is powered by a small electric r.-otor, The other gear type of Importance Is shrimp otter trawls (Table 2). The shrimp otter trawl :at::'l bycatch of the shrimp fishery. All other gea,. types catch less than one percent of the reef lis" (Table 2). Type of gear used varies by state and species (Appendix Tables 33, 34, and 35). T~b/e 2. Tot~1 cclMler'cial I~ndlngs of Gulf of' MexIco reef fish by gear ty'pe, 1972-1974 Average. Pounds of Gul f Reef Percent of Total Su/f Gear Type FIsh Caught by Gear Type Reef FIsh Landings 000 Haul Se I n es, Cbrmon 20.4 • 1 Otter Trawls, Shr Imp 678.0 3.9 Otter Tr!lwls, FIsh 3.4 ( a) Pots and Traps, Spiny l.o bster 1.8 (a) Pots ~d Traps, Fish 148.4 .9 GI" nets, Runaround 163.8 .9 Trarrmel Nets 31.9 .2 Hand lines 16,446.2 94.0 (a) Less th~n .05 Source: Computed from AppendIx Table 33 3.2.1.4.1 Fish T~!lps A diver'slty of porhble fish tl'aps are used throughout the 1IOI'ld, but the h.ndamental concept is t'1e same In rrcst areas. 8aslc!llly, fish enter these tI'!lPS via one or sev .. al entl'!lnce flllnels, the inner rrcst end of which Is directed downward or Is c:cnstrlcted. The ccnflgur'atlon of the trap varies but frequently may be rectangular, hexagonal, chevron-shaped, c:cnlcal, semi-cylindrical, he~rt-shaDed or c/rcul~r. Traps are ccmmonly employed In various western North Atlantic fIsheries. Rivers (1966) described ~~ap fishing for black sea .bass, Centroprlstls strl!lta, off the carolinas; In this fishery the ChesapeaKe B~y c"~b trap is the princIpal gear used. A local, fairly inSignificant trap fishery for sea bass '. also exists In the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (Godcharles, 1970). TI'!lps are the primary fishing "ear used throughout rrcst of the earlbbean, ~cccunting for ~me 65 percent of the total nerItic tlsh 01"'::: duction (~nro, 1974c). In the Virgin Islands, more than 80 pe,.cent of the fishermen utilize traps i~ their operations (01 sen, Oanvnann and LaPI~ce, 1978). These tr~ps, ccmrronly known as Anti I lean traos. are fabricated of galvanized .Ire surrounding a mangrove pole frame (described by ~nro, Reeson an~ Gaut,1970). There Is a cEll"ta/n arrcunt of geographic varIation in theIr ccnstruction, largel,( reflecting local .avai labll ity of tTIo!IIterials used and pt"eferrecl trap design. 3-11 Puerto Rlc&n and Virgin Isl&nd fishermen freoCJently use chevron or "arrowhead" traps with a single entrance funnel (Munro, 1974b) and these are renarl<ably similar to tl'cse used In SIngapore (3ur(jo~, 1954) <lnd ~ade I ra (/-'orne I I, 1950). Jama i can fishermen typ I ca I I Y use doub I e chevron or Z-shaped ~r a~ 5 with two entrances (~unro, 1974b). Various S-shaped traps, apparently originatIng In Haiti, are employed in Cuban and Jamaican fIsherIes (see Buesa ~s, 1962). The University of the West Indies Laboratory h&S used 3:lme experimental metal-framed, stackable tr&PS (Munro, 1973, 1974b). Clan c:>n f i gurat ions of these bas I c trap types are diagrammed in /.\Inro C1974b). Recentl y, Cra i g (1976) reported gxld success at captUl"lng snappers .Ith traps slIghtly modified from Munro's (1973) desi]n. Munro (1974a) tested various trap types In Jam81ca and concluded that the S-sh8ped traps yielded s I I ght I Y higher catches than Z-shaped Jama I can traps of comparab Ie size. Z-tr8ps, in turn, co I I ected more fishes than single-funnel ,led M"rOwhe8d (chevron) traps. S-tr8ps al~ h8ve the distinct advantage of relatively lower (by about 20 percent) construction costs. "bra::lver, they realize a longer \O()rki'l] II fe due to Increased structur81 rigid Ity Imparted by the curved sides (Munro, 1974a). Fish tr8Ps are used in waters of less th8n 1.0 m 10 about 100 fatl'cms (183 m), tl'cugh the normal fishing depth Is between five and 45 m (Sylvester and Dammann, 1972; Munro, 1974a). H!!ndllng of :;lear is CDmplicated at depthS greater th8n 45 m and generally t"ook and lining replaces trapping as the u5ua I mode of fish I ng deeper (I.e., 45-300 m) .aters. Trap location relative to bottom IrregularitIes (e.g., ledges, coral heads, rock piles) may be cr i t i ca I; distances as II tt I e 8S fIve feet fr'om reefa I bIotopes have sl'cwn surpr I sing differences i " catCh rates of tropical, coral reef associated species (Sylvester and D8rm11!1nn, 1972). !-bwever, some reports suggest th8t the relationship of trap location to c8tch composition mI!Iy vary ga::lgraphically, by species, and by dept~ (Soardm8n and Weller, In Press). For example, Craig (1976) found the !'1i:;~e5t catch weights were obtained in 'traps set over- open sandy oottoms, but High and EIII s (1973) repor~ea the greatest ::atch rates when 'traps are positioned on sandy oottoms peripheral '10 reefs. Traps ;)I~ced on the reef's surface caught fewer fish than tl'cse positioned alongside (High and Ellis, 1973). I-bwever, Craig's catch was predominantly snapper (70 percent) whereas High and Ellis reported on tropical reef fish catches. Off !Dutheast FlorIda, traps positioned on hIgh-relIef (to 5 m) reefs produced many I.J'1wanted fishes, e.g., angelflshes, surgeonflshes and parrotflshes (Craig, 1976). '"bwever, recent studies conducted In !Duth Florida have shown that fish trap fishermen normally ;Jlace their traps adjacent to the d.slrable r.' lef areas rather than dlrectl y on then. (Sutherl<lnd and Harper, in prep.; Taylor and McMichael, In prep.). SummariZing, It seems as tl'cugh successful trapping techn Iques may vary widely for dl Hering Ichthyofaunas and for dissimilar environmental settings. Fish traps may be baited or not (Sylvester and Dammann, 1972). High and Ellis (1973) suggested tnat there was Iitti. difference In catch rates between baited and I.J'1balted traps. Olnversely, blacl< sea bass fishermen believe that bait Is absolutely essential to successful fishing operations (Rivers, 1966) • Vost traps In use in the Florida flshel'y are baited, except in Sroward Olunty (Sutherland and L.<ar;:er, In prep.; Taylor and McMichael, In prep.). whereas :rest of the traps In the Caribbean fishery (Swingle, Dammann and, Yntema, 1970) are apparently not baited and which Is a practice recommenoea Jy some researchers ("1unro, Ree!Dn and (;aut, 1971). !-b.ever, IoClf and Chlslett (1974) found baited ~ra~; to be much more effective In taking snapper from deeper waters. Craig (1976) reported an average catch per unbalted tr8p haul of 20.4 pounds (9.26 kg) for trap sets of five days duration from :cu+~ Florida. DurIng a six-month period he harvested 9,188 pounds of snapper and approximately 3,000 pounds of other reef fish utilizing 20 traps. IoClf and ~athjen (1974) reported catch rates ot 40 pounds per baited 'trap haul In areas where the catch .as predominantly snapper. 3-12 Swingle, Dal'l1!l8nn ,,"d Yntema (1970) reported 0," a fIshing technique In use in the Virgin Islands ~hi:" was locally called "fundering". This oonsisted of lowering a tt-oroughly baited fIsh trap (us~lly bai ted on the outs Ide as well as the inside, to induce a feed ing n-enzy) to depths of 600 feet or rrcre. After a st-ort interval the trap lllaS hauled. Catches of up to 200 pounds" per set were reoorted. This matt'od was primarily used 10 harvest snapper (Swingle, Gulf. COuncil, personal comml.l1icatlon). Biological personnel of the Alablrlla Department of COnservatIon and Natural Resour-ces utiliZed this matt-od 10 oollect red snapper for taggIng studies. Bill Wade (Department of COnservation and Natural Resources, personal oofMIl.l1lcatlon) reported an average catch of approxlmatel y 100 red snapper averaging about 0.75 pounds for each 10 to 15 minute set on a relatively I61flshed reef in 35 teet of water utilizing traps of 27 cubic feet In -.olume. He feels that the technique, If oomrrenly uSed, oould result In overflshlng reefs substantially reducing hook and line fishing success. Research conducted by the varlo'us scientists cited in this section suggests that traps set tor several days dLrat"ion are lIkely just as effective if I61baited. f-bwever, traps which are set in relatively un fished areas appear 10 be much rrere ef tect i ve If ba I ted, but must be pu II ad durl ng the same day 3ncl usually within a few hours aft.,.. setting. Discussions of fish escapement from traps, thlgrrctrophic assoc I at ions and behav lor wn I eh fo Ilow support th Is observat Ion. Baits, when used, range. trOll! I118t",,181s ~ nonmarine orIgin (e.g., -:-1., skins, fruits, cactuses, bread) to fish (COIIIIIOnly .. spr.t~ Rarengul8) and .lflSh ( •• g-.. ·conch). Sea bess fishermen may use punctur-ed cans of cat food ~ lure fish. In1Q. traps. Some West Indlaa-; f:ls,*"", f.el that traps st-ould be "precondltloned"".Df' "aged" In the ,.,.rne envll"O....."t 1611:.1 I eig toul .the Mructl.l"e (Swing Ie, Dammann and Yntema, 1970). -'It- FIOI"'~a~ howey .. , Q-alg (1976) dlscoyr. that ne. (l61fouled) traps caught rrere fish then old" traps. Fish Behavior and Response to Traps High and Beardsley (1970) oontend that fish ant .. traps for reasons oth.r than pur-suit of bait. Random rrevements, use of treps as shelter, curiosity, intrespeclfic socIal behavior, thlgl1'OtroPhic associations and predator" esc:apem t are probably all Important factors oontrlbutlng 10 the success of II sh traps. Certain fishes enter traps individually (e.g., groupers) others enter trapses groups (e.g., 9Oat fishes and young jacks) or as pairs (butterfly fishes and angelflshes). COnspeelflc attraction in schooling species certainly plays an Important role in trepplng fishes. For example, when a few grunts are trapped .Ithln a cage, other grt.rlts outside the enclostre try 10 join them. Catch com position .Ithln traps may actually change appreciably during the period of submergence. Frequently, traps will ccntaln certain speer.s allll:lst to the exclusion of others resulting In considerable Intertrap variation In ccmposltlon (craig, 1976). Fish traps do not necessarily prevent escapement of fIsh from the trep altt'ough th.,..e Is much inter specific variability In ability 10 escape. Many territorial reef fish have been observed 10 swim treely in and out of pots (Dalllll8nn, 1969). ~nro C1974b and 1974a) also reported high escapement rates, averaging alrrcst 12 perc t of the dally catch and suggested that the Installation of nonret~r" devices in tl.f1nels -auld IIIlII"kedly Improve the catch. craig (1976) also believed that fiSh, tor the I1'Ost part, are not actually trapped within the cages but utilize them for shelt.,- and living quarters. Th I s suggests that the fear that lost pots .11 I operate as "death 'reps" or "ghost treps" (see Hipkins, 1974) until their deterioration Is not wel'-gl"Ounded in fact. This is not to say, t-owever, that certain fishes or groups of fishes do not die In traps. In fish trapping studies ccnducted !)y 91 II Ings and Munro (1974), four- percent of the white grunts entering traps within a ho-week interval had died. II recent study.in 3Juth Florida (Sutherland and Harper, In prep.) revealed an overall, average mortality of 2.6 percent within fish traps. Moreover, certain grouper species may die ~rom 3-13 the "stress" associated .,ith capture. Thompsofl and Munro (1974b) reported "that only three of 32 r-ec hind .,ere al ive when traps were hauled from 40 m depths after a three-day soak. CraIg (1976) c::Im mented upon the p:)ssibi I ity of install ing high-corrosIon rate panels In traps to elImInate any :~ance that fish .auld be "ast9O if traps should accIdentally become lost in the environment. Daytime catches in traps are gen8l"'ally greater than nIghttIme catches for the domInant species grouos, i.e., the groupers, 'sQuirrelfishes and parrottlshes. In the Bahllmas, wh8l"'e grunts dominate trap catches, r-octurnal trappIng Is Quite successful (Munro, et al., 1971). Daytime catches may be hi9her for some specIes that utilize the trllPS as habltllt and leave via the furlnel to forage at "ight. Cat-:h rates LSldoubtedly v<!Jry <!Jccording to IIDOn phase, corresponding to tid<!J1 ~<!Jttern, <!Jnd are generally greatest at the time of spring tIdes ("!unro, et III., 1971; Munro, 1974b). Off southeast Florida, Sr-ai:; (1975) found th<!Jt greatest catches ~re usually <!Jssoclated with rough se<!J conditions, turbid <eter and strong bottom currents. Tr<!Jps <!Jre 'fished (soaked) for varying perIods dependIng upon the species sought and their abundance and upon local fishing customs. S::lak tIme is srort, <!Jv8l"'<!Jglng 20-40 mInutes per trap, for black sea bass. Sea bass are extremely gregarIous and are rather QuIckly <!Jttracted to baIted tr<!Jps. Cai Iy clltches of 6,300 pounds per boat have been reported (River'S, 1966). In the Caribbean, traps are usually soaked from one to sever' a I days. Munro (1974b) reported that cumulative catch In a trap reaches <!J maximum at seven to ten days. ~fter' that, escapement &qui I Ibrates with ingress. ~scapement reaches about 50 percent In about seven to ten days. Large number'S of fish .,Ithl,n a tr<!Jp may discourage others from ent8l"'lng, thereby further' contrIbutIng to this 'satlTatlon effect' (Sylvester and Dammenn, 1972). lXIllke the temperate sea bass flsher'y, ,CarIbbean pots catch an average of less than 5.5 pounds per trap per thr ..... day period (Olsen, 1978). ~t relatIvely lI1explolted oceanic ban~s, demersal fish production tor traps Is 10 to 12 tImes this figure (Juhl, 1959). Off southe<!Jst =Iori;a, Cr<!Jig (1976) reported an <!Jver-age catch ot about 20.4 poundS (of which 15.8 pounds was snappers) in traps so<!Jked tor 108 rours., Sutherland and Harper (In prep.) foood the aver-age catch to be 8.5 DOun,:s per trap haul tor traps fl shed for seven days In Bro ard County, FlorIda. ~ slmll ar study conductaCl In r-onroe County, Florida revealed an over-all average catch of 11.37 pounds per haul (Taylor and Mc~ichael, in prep.). Soardman and Weller- (In Press) reported an average catch rate of 9.0 pounds :er trap lift of '.hlch 86 pe~cent CXlnslsted of snapper by number' off Puerto Rico. ThIs catch rate "as reduced over- previous samples, possibly due to Increased fishing pressure. It is ClJrnrrcnly belIeved that traps are hIghly nonselectIve and that many species of noncommercial interest are consequently lIIIIsted In thIs type of fishIng. A revle of the facts resulting from scientIfIc studies and testimony presented at public hearings suggest that thIs may not be the case. Munro (1974b) reported that nln. species of fish and spIny lobster made up about 50 percent (by .,elght) of the trap catch In ttl. Port FOyal arM; the remain Ing catch wes divIded ~ngst another 1 CO specIes. Olsen, DaIllfter1n and laPlace (1978) reported that of 1,559 Individual fish caught in f1iest Indi:!n traps, lane snapper and v .. mliion snapp.r together wIth tomtate (a grunt), acoounted tor 90 percent by number. ""nro (1974b) ,."tloned that whIte gr\6lt Is clearly the nest abundant fish at :l:Jr-t Poyal reefs, but only ClJmprlses eIght percent of the total trap catch. ~II of thIs evijence suggests that traps are generally selectIve and can be set !O they lII"'e highly selectIve (Craig, 1976; 80ar~ran and .... eiler, In Press). As shown In a series of reports by Thompson and Munro (1974a-c), len9th frequency dIstrIbutions for trap catches do not differ signIfIcantly from those for hook and lIne catches. IJnbaited traps or traps set (soaked) for sev .. al days duration are probably less effIcient than "00>( and lines at hIgh stock densitIes; however-, baited traps pul led after Slaks of short duration (oel<)r-e mass escapement) would be hIghly effIcient. Munro (1974a) believed that deep trap tlshlng in t.,e Caribbean mIght be an economically vIable alternatIve 10 exploItIng r .. f fishes in areas .mere roo", and lining yielded lI1acc8Qt3ble catch rates. '"IUntsman (In Press) felt traps ~re especially appropriat9 to reef fish8l"'ies. In the Gulf of MexIco, most Jrouper and snapper are t3Ken Irom 3-14 relatively few reef complexes wIle"e they ar-e GPncentrated enough to make rook "and lining feasible. I-bwever-, grouper- (pa,.ticula,.ly the red grouper) and the red snappe,. ire also widely d/striouted in '?W densities over- vut expanses of flat, low relief rock and hard tcttoms (Smith, 1976). Trap fishing might oe successful In such ar-eas (the Cubans extensively fished such habitats., few years ago with bottom longlines). Trap fishing lIOuld also seem well suited for use In highly explOited areas (e.J., Florida Keys) whe,.e p)pulation densities of groupe"s and snappers ire comparatively low. In !Ome trapping experiments ott !Outheast Florida, Craig (1976) reported a drop In average 1'7"ap catches from 9 kg per 108 hour !leaks 'to about 7 kg fo,. snappe,.s at the end of only six II'Dnths (620 trapping events, 101 trap II'Dnths). I-bwev .. , this may have been related to seasonality. Catch COmposition Munro C1974b) found the dom i nan l' f I shes I n traps around Port ~ yal (Jama I ca) to be wIl I ta grun 1', surga::lnf/shes, parrotflshes, red hind, gray angelfish, and ~r jack. Other" fishes comll'Dnly i:"lcluded In Caribbean trap catches include gray and queen trigger-fishes, wrasses and Ooxf/shes (Juhl, 1969). In IICSt Caribbean at"eas, trap catch rates for snappers are relatively low and gener-a/ly represent an Insignificant p)rtlon of the tohl catch (Mun,.o, Reeson and Gaut, 1971). Three speCies (sct'oolmast'3r, lane snappe,., and yellowtail snappe,.) largely dominate snappel" catches. In contrast to Carlbbei!ln snapper- catches, Craig (1976) fOllld snapp.rs to be read II y caught by traps off southeast FIOf'" Ida wI1ere they (almost wholly Ian. snapper) comprised about 70 percent by weight of the total catch. Snappers comprised only four- percent of the catches by weight In the Jamaican study by /o\Inro, Rees:ln and Gaut (1971). I-bwev .. , Boardman and W.ller (In PI".ss) fished frOfll 40 to 150 fathoms off Puer'to Rico i!lnd caught primarily blackfln and v .. mllion snapper between 41 "and 60 fatholls and primarily silk sni!lpper from 61 to 90 fathoms. Jacks enter- traps, with the IICst Impo,.tant specl.s baing bar jack and yellow jack. Interesti:"lgly, these 1"100 species ar"e nev .. taken on baited Iln.s (Thompson and Munro, 197411). I-brse-eye jack, on t~e other" hand, is the tlDst Impol"tant species In the Cal"ibbean I'Ook and line flsher-y but ra,.ely enter traps. Grunts ar-e frequenHy taken In traps. Their scl'oollng behavior Is Imp)I"'tant; when a few individuals enter" traps, conspeclflc"attrac:tlon Induces ingl"ess of other individuals (Billings dnd Munro, 1974). Grunts compr'lsed nearly 12 per-cent of Jamaican trap catches analyzed by '-\lnro, 'lesson and Gaut (1971). Groupel"s al"e I"eedlly tl"apped; red hind and ooney dominate West Indian catches CTi"ompson and Mun,.o, 1974b). Th. grouper family made up about eight percent by weight of the Jamaican fish tl"ap catch (Munl"O, Reeson and Gaut, 1971). Lyons (1965) repo,.ted the sacDnd IICst important spec i as (by numb8l") In lobst .. pots at Grand Cayman I s land 10 be the Nassau gl"oupel". Cra I g (1976) compared composition (by weight) of trap catch.s off !IOutheast Flol"lda with tl'cs. of /o\Inro, Reeson and Gaut's (1971) from Jamalc:a. Th. thr .. IICSt Important flllllilies off !leutheast Florida wel"e snappers (70 p8l"cent), jac:ks (12 p ... c.,..t) and gt"lIIts (10 perc:ent). The IIDst Important groups In the Jamaic:an fisher"y were paf'l"Otflshes (16 p ... cent) , slrg.,nflshes (15 p.rc:ent), grlllts (12 pe"cent), groupers (eight pel"cent). snapp.,..S (folr percent) and jac:ks 0.5 p.rcent). In a I"ecent study of the /ot)nroe County, Flol"lda 1'I"ap flshry, Taylor and McMichael (In pr'ep.) I"epo,.ted the following trap oomposition (by weight): gl"Oup", (57.32 p ... cent), gl"unts (8.21 per-c:ent) and snapper (4.61 pel"cent). ~wev .. , these data on catches must be viewed In I"elation 10 spec:les composition of the areas fished. Fol" example, dUl"ing 1968 the Virgin Islands Ecological Research Station (Dammann, Swingle and Yntema, 1969) studied the fish population composition and density and the effec:ts of tl"apping on a typical fringing lXII"al reef. Th. I"eef 'ltliSS completely s"I"ounded by a 1/4 Inch mesh net to pr'avent fish from leaving 01" entel"lng the I"eef IXImpl.x. Standard Cal"lbbean fish traps ..,.. used to Ma,.vest fish from inside the enclosUI"e and 8Yentually all the ,.ernaln ing fish ..,.e killed with emuisl flable rotenone ~n":l collected. Oul"ing a 67-day pe,.lod, thl"88 traps ..,.e pulled six tlm.s and rlll'C)ved 38 percent of t~e totalp)undage of I" .. f fish fl"om the I"eef. This catc:h -as equivalent 10 290 pounds of fish ;>er ~cre of reef ith i!I constant tl"ap density of 30 traps pel" acre. 3-15 The percentage by weight of snapper and grouper taken by tiaps during this study ~s 9.52 percent Jt the total catch. The percentage of snappei ;'d gioupei In the ieef population was 8.13 peicent :Jy ... ei':;ht .:IS determined by collecting and weighing all fish fiom the ieef. Theiefore, In this stud'i t~e catch of SI'Iapper and giouper species w!S In dliect ielation 10 their abund!nce in the ieef population. In geneial, the Cailbbean studies on catch composition were conducted on the filnging ieef areas of the shelf \o'heie the fish density was generally lower and where the Ichthyofauna differs consideiablf fiom the Floiid! and Gul f waters. In general, grouper .!lnd paiticu/arly snapper make up ! smaller per cent!ge of the biomass In the Caribbean than the Gulf area; theretore, peicentages of these species in the catches oou I d be lower tor the Car i bbean. Craig (1976) believed c!tch composition could beiegul.!!ted !Cmewhat by pl!cing traps In dl Herent h!bltats. FOi ex!mple, settlng'tr-aps on high-relief (to 5 m) iocky bottoms produced a pieponderan~e a f "un ... an ted" spec I es such as surgeon f I shf!s, p!rrotf I shes, and ange I f I shes. fob wever, when tr ap 5 were positioned over open s!ndy bottoms, sn!ppers largely dominated c!tches. Status !nd Regulation of the Fishery Presently the fish tr!p fishery Is conducted prlm!rily in Florida, with t'olO major areas of con centiation being the Florida west CO!st !nd !Cuth Florida. All tr-!P catch d!t! srown In T!b/e 3 are fOi the F lor i d! west CO!st. Between 1957 .!lI'1d 1963 the 1'0 t!1 number of traps reported on the F lor ida west coast was maximum at 216 In 1961. ~ne were reported from 1964 to 1967. A 1'0 tal of 800 were reported in 1968, with the number dec I In ing 1'0 between 100 and 80 from 1971 through 1975. The tot31 Increased 10 400 in 1976, the last ye!r iecorded d!ta are av!ll!ble. The numb.,.. of fishermen usi"g tr!ps w!S m!ximum in 1968 at 38. Sea bass has been the prlm!ry target of trap fishermen. Catch of sea bass with traps was 300,900 pounds in 1968. Sea bass catch dec lined stead II y after 1968 to a low of 22,200 pounds in 1975. 'b sea bass catch by tr!ps W!S reported in 1976 (Table 3). The other major species c!ught by fi sh traos has been grunts. Maximum catch was 101,600 poundS in 1971. The Florida west coast fish trap fi shery has been centered primarily off St.'PetersbUl'"g northw!rd 10 New Port Richey (Ernie Snell, /<I-1FS, per sonal ommun ication). The last ho ye!rs of recorded data Indicate a shl ft in the dliected catch by tiaps. In 1975 and 1976, groupers, mangrove snapper, !nd lane snapper have b8a::lme a nere important CXlmponent of the c!tch. s,-ouper -es the nest Important species In 1976. This probably ief/ects a change In the diea In which ti!PS are fished. Total catch per trap has varied subshntlally anong the years for which d!t! !re available. Variation has ranged frOll 187 pounds per trap per year during 1976 when giouper was the primary catch,.to as high as 2,000 pounds per tr-ap per year .nen "tr!Sh" fish was the primary target. Extreme c!re s:-Oulj be used in extrapol!t/ng these catch r!tes bec:!use of the low numb.,..s of traps reported and sm!1 I catch areas reflected by the data. Recent studies conducted In !Cuth Florid! by Nation!1 )o1arlne Fisheries Service and Florid! Departonent of Natural ~esources have iesulted In the to Ilowing estimates of fi sh trap effort. Dade County - 575 tr!ps, 90 fiShermen; Sroward County - 665 traps, 18 fishermen; Monroe County - 998 traps, 43 f/sher"en; Collier County - 250 tl"'aps, 8 fishermen (Sutherland and Harper, In prep.; T!ylor and McMichael, in p~ep.). This anounts 1'0 an estimated 11:)tal of 2,488 traps being tlshed by 159 fishermen in !Cur"! Florida. There !ppears to be very little use of traps elsewhere In the Gulf. Insufficient :.:urrenT c!tch data are available 11:) measure their Impact on the reef fish reSlurces but observation contir~s subst!ntial catches of red grouper, mutton snapper and !Cme yellowtail and other snapper-so "'any <;ou~, Florid! spiny lobst8l'" fishermen are diverSifying 10 this fishery. This gear has provol<.ed consi~er~:r~ 3-16 Table 3. Number 0' "sh traps, fIshermen usIng "sh traps, and catch 0' fIsh by fIsh traps on the florIda west coast, 1957-1976 a Number of fIshermen Catch b~ traes Number of usIng traes Mangrove tilclassl fled traps Full-tIme Part-t'me Sea Bass Grunts Plgf/sh Groupers Snapper for food ( pounds) 1957 200 10 0 1958 d d d 1959 90 3 0 1960 90 3 0 1961 216 6 0 1962 6 2 0 1963 25 2 0 3,000 1964 0 0 0 1965 0 0 0 1966 0 0 0 1967 0 0 0 1968 800 38 0 300,900 '969 634 29 0 218,700 1970 283 15 0 128,900 22,600 1911 100 9 0 85,600 101,600 3,600 1972 90 8 0 97,400 61,300 1971 95 I 4 75,300 85,200 1914 95 I 4 33,700 92,400 1915 80 0 5 22,200 61,100 14,600 1,400 21,600 1916b 400 12 3 3,500 40,200 7,200 21,200 a louIsIana and Alabama report fIsh traps In some vears but the catch Is 11.lted 10 catfIsh and bullheads. b Personal collOmlcatlon, ErnIe Snell, tfotFS. Total of nIne boats. c Nb f'sh reported other than catfIsh and eels. d Nb t reoorded e Blue runner and bullheads Lane snapper Trashe Total c c c c 15,500 15,500 12,000 12,000 10,500 12,500 0 0 0 0 300,900 218,700 151,500 190,800 158,700 160,500 126,100 120,900 1,400 1,200 74,700 Total catch per trap c c c c 72 2,000 500 376 345 535 1,908 1,763 1,689 1,327 1,511 181 Source: U.S. National Marine Flsherles'Servlce, Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.s. llivernment PrIntIng Oftlce, Annual Issues, 1957-1975. \ ", ,,:,'o;..o~-'r.~' , reaction by toth corrrner"cial lind recr6!ltlon~1 fishing groups who claim l' I'll! 1', It Interferes with thei'" customary fishing activities, and IJJCpanslon of this fishery ~y evolve Into a major 3:)clal IssiJ8. The claim is also made that traps may deplete local reef populations 8nd sports groups fe8r that the COI11 merclal trappers will be expanding their operations to compete on local i!II"tltrcl~1 reefs. Although tr8p sizes vary greatly In 3:)uth Florida, the IIDSt colIIII'Dn size Is 2 x 3 x 4 feet. These traps are normally fished 81' depths r8nglng from 25 to 150 feet (Taylor lind McMichael, In pr'ep.l. The number of traps gener811y runs from 20 to 100 per fisherman. Currently, the IIDSt colIIII'Dn materIal used In fish trep constructIon In south Florida Is vinyl-covered welded wire mesh usuel Iy of the size one by 1'1110 Inches or larger. ThIs IIII!terlal Is generally favored over the /lCre tradltlon81 hexegonal p:)ultry wIre. For 'frep flsh.,.Ies In the caribbean, Stevenson (1978) recorrrnended 8 mInimum mesh size of 1.8 Inches (4.6 em) for protection of the red hind stocks of Puerto RIco, I!I1d \IAolf and Chlslett (1974) .suggested a two-Inch mesh sIze for protection of silk snapper. Olsen, Derrrnann i!IIld LaPlace (1977) recommended. a mInimum size of 1.5 by' 1.5 Inches as near optimum ecologically and economically for the Virgin Islands since It releases smell fish while larger mesh sizes would release IIII!rketable fish. Many noncommer"clal fish taken Incidental to trepplng operatIons are killed by embolisms lihen traps are hauled surfaceward from deep wat..-s. I-bwev..-, the same problllll exists for fish that 8re taken by "ook and line from deep reefs. Q-le way to pr'event high losses of Incld.ntally taken fl sh (such as co lorful tropical fishes utilized by the aquarium trade) would be to require a larger" minimum mesh size. 3y utI! Izlng the Bever"ton & !-bIt yield equation, ~nro (1974c'!) predicted that Increasing mesh size above 1.25 Inches would Increase the totel catch value. Because the minimum marketable size Is larger in the U.S., It Is likely that larg..- mesh slz. would be epproprlate for the IIII!nagement area. qesearch st-ould be conducted to determine minimum mesh size that Is optlmln for the Gulf reef fish fishery dnd the effect of larger mesh sizes on the fishing effectiveness of the traps, I.e., smaller" fish may serve as attractants for the larg..- fish. If the use of fish traps becomes a significant fishing mettod for hervestlng reef fish In the Gulf of Mexico, there Is a posslb'lllty of seriously ov.,.flshlng the stocks of reef fiSh particularly In the nearshore Wl!Iters 1Iliess effort by other gear Is reduced (see Section 4). Furth..-, the wldespreo!ld use ot this gear could seriously reduce the fishing success (CPUE) of recreational and commercial hOok and line flsh~en by reducing IX)pulatlon lIbundanc. In the lID,.. accessible arMS. Presently, the use of fish traps Is largely confined 10 south Florida. In the caribbean wtI.,.e the great majority of ell fish harvested are teken by traps, several scientists have expressed conc..-n over" overf I sh Ing of the resources. Munro, Reeson and Geut (1971) report the fo I lowing : "In Jamaica, whre the Intensity of fishIng on the nearstore r .. fs ~ppears to be higher than any other Island In the carIbbean, theabundenceof flsh.son ther .. fs Isrllllat"~bly low. We 2!re working on the hypothesIs that the low densIty of fishes Is a direct consequence of exploitation with small mesh traps; that Is, that the largest r .. f fishes and thus usually ttose which mature at a relatively larg..- size are subjected to sev.,.e bIological ov.,.flshlng, while the smaller reef fishes which mature before recruitment 10 the traps, ar. subject to Intense exploItation with corresponding low stock densIty, but l!Ire not biologically ovrflshed." Reporting on another area .tier. the predominant fishing gear used Is fish traps, Olsen, Dammann and L8Place (1975) make the following 5t8tllllent: "Our efforts are 9Jm •• hat tempered by the evidence that the Pue,-to RIco-Virgin Islands shelt is over f I shed." )-18 Howev9r, during 1979, Damnenn (In Press) repor.ted as tol lows: "There was never any consideration of making traps 1/ legal; only In milkIng 1'hem responsIve 1'0 t"e needs of the fIsh populations and people of the area." FIsh tnps ·are an eftlclen1' (HuntS/lllln, In Press), low cost fishing gear for reef fishes. Tl'le USQ of thIs gear In v~rlous localities In the Gulf of 1"8)(lco should be clearly .. amlned 1'l'V'ough researcn (Murray, In Press). Current research (largely conducted In other ar.ss) Indicates that traps are unlikely 1"0 biologically decimate tl'le, stocks. If excessl ... e trap fishing Is Introduced to areas curren1'ly fished by hook and line, the CPI.£ of I'Iook and line fishermen could be IIIIIterlally reduced. 8ecause of 1'he current status ot the Gulf reef fish stocks In the neershore waters and the harvesting potential of traps, ~ restrictions should be placed on tl'le use ot traps In the Gulf fishery. TM9se restrictIons may Include ImpoSing a reasonable limit on the number ot traps per vessel, lImiting 1"9 nu~ber ot traps In a given area, prohlbl1'ln~ traps In certain "overflshed" areas, regulatIng sIze or fIshing power of the traps, regulating mesh sizes to al low escapement of Juvenile tlsh, reQuirIng degradabl~ hInging devices and requiring buoy Identification by color and number. The number of traos In use In the Gulf and their catch should be determined annually by a statIstical system. 3.2.2 History of Foreign Fleet Exploitation 3.2.2.1 Description of User Groups The bes1' source of data on Cuban fishing ventures In tne 'Isnery conse,...,atlon zone Is tha1' of Tashiro and Col'!l'lWln, (1977). AccordIng to tnelr accounts, Cuban vessels of various types nave fIshed wa1'ers off Florida and MelClco for mullet, grOJpers, snappers and other fishes since Spanish colonl31 1'lmes. FIrst efforts were sailing vessels during tne 1850's, using I/ve wellS. Ice was cwlden1'ly not used untIl the 13te 1940's when mIIny of these saillng'vesseis were converted. However, as many as 40 of these vessels were stll I In use In the late 1950's. In 1959, the Cuban government ~egan to national Ize ~nd exp~nd the tradItional artlsanal fishing Industry with one of Its mII/n t~usts being the d9velopment of a protlcl9nt Gulf ot Mexico tlshery. ,In 1936, a central/zed sf'!lt., fIshing admlnls1'ra 1" Ion, 1'he "Institutes Naclonal de la Pesca, IIIP" (i~atlonal FIShing Institute), was est3bllshed 'to coordinate activities and ~dernlze thIs expandIng Industry. Prior to enactment ot p.L. 94-265, the fishing grOJnds utIlIzed by Cuba pertlnen1' 1"0 the U.S. snapper and '1rouper fishery, were off the west eoast of Florida, extendlt'g frOll! the Dry Tortugas to Cape San 81as wIth vessels usually fIshing 20-80 nautIcal miles offshore. FIgure 2 shows those are~s otf F lor!::j~. The Cuban f!shl"'9 effort was directed toward ttle red grouper, which according 1"0 Abases!, 1968, ~s repOrT9d by Tashiro and Coleman, 1977, constltut~ about 90 percent of ttle total catch. The aV9rage size of 1'"e catch was r",orted at about ten pounds. The r 1 nder of the ca1'ch was conposed rna I, I Y ~f otl'ler groupers, snappers, king and Spanish mackerels, grunts, shaiks and porgies. ~atcn data on t~ Cuben fIShing effort on t~e FlorIda shelf are lImited In availability. TashIro dnj Coleman, 1977, ob'f'alned estlrnatn fron the Law Enforcanent and '4arlne Mammal Protolctlon DivIsion ot NatIonal MarIne Flsnerles Se,...,/ce, IndIcatIng that Cuban catch on the west FlorIda shelf of groupers and snappers rdnged frOll! 3.' to 5.0 "'" I/on pounds beNeen 1971 and 1975 with an average of ~.2 ~II lion pounds. Tne U.S. catch for the same ~rea I~ 1974 was 13 mIl lion pounds of snappers and groupers. :5-19 VI I N a 30 2S' 20' ...... .. ' ': '. 4t~~ 9S 90° 8S UNITED STATES ~fSr ............ '.. ~,t;/~ :' ... ............. '100'" ATHOMS'" •••••• .... ....'/:~~.;~ ,,//> /;/ ''/'/ .J' / .~~ ~ ~> ... .. ' • ·.O'!.Y * ... ': .... TOR UCAS'" ... ~. ~I~ .••••• '?- Gulf of Mexico ......... ~;.: •••• ~y..~: ." -'<, • J.. o 100 200 I t "IAU'ICAL MILES 'CO ./ r----' -{ ~.j ! l 0 80° 30° ~o ~ 2S0 20° 95 90° 8'S 8'0° Figure 2 - - The Cuban Gulf Fleet ve~sels have been observed within the shaded area off west Florida. The Campechc Shelf fishing area is also shaded. Sources: law Enforcement and Marine Mammal Protection Division, NMFS, NOAA, St. Petersburg, Florida 337Q2; Monthly Report of Foreign Fishing Activities off the Southern U. S. Coast (and other unpuulished reports), 1972-76. Carles Martin and Liubilllova, 1967; Zupanovic and Gonzalez, 1975. Tashiro, Joseph E. and Susan E. Colelllan, The Cuban Grouper and Snapper Fishery in lhe Gulf of Mexico, U. S. Nalion<.li MdrillL' Fi5hl~ries Service, NOAA, I1FR, Paper 1265, Miami: OcLouer 1')77. One other 9:lUrce of jata on the catch of groupers and snappers by the Cuban fleet off the Florida .. e. coast became avai lable in May, 1977. These da.ta were presented to Dr. Edwprd KI ima 4 by Cuban fishery officials and show the catch of groupers by Cuban fishermen on the Florida west ooast and effort in terms of launch days fished. Catch per launch day fished was highest at 930 pounds in 1951 '",ith much lower levels srown beginning with the early 1960's (Appendix Figure 10). Total catch followed much the same pattern. These data srould be used with caution since data given In Tashiro and Coleman, 1977, are estimates and validity of the data presented to Klima is not known. Also, the exact area fished for which the data are reported, is not known. For example, Appendix Table 37 compares data for 1971 to 1975 from the two 9:lurces. The range in the data and lack of understanding of Its real meaning makes interpre tation difficult. 3.2.2.2 u.s. Commercial Fishery In the Mexican Economic Zone u.s. fishermen partiCipated in snapper and grouper fishing within the economic zone of Mexico in accordance with terms spel led out in the Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA) between the United States of Nnerica and Mexico signed on r-bvember 24, 1976. Conditions in the Agreement for the snapper and grouper fishery were: a. The annual 110 I ume of authorized harvest of snapper and grouper shal I be an cm:>unt up to 450 metric tons. For this fishery, the gJvernment of Mexico wi I I not issue permits for more than 52 fishing vessels of the United States. b. For snapper and grouper, the permit fees"wi II be $800.00 U.S. dollars, for each vessel. The total of the charges for the allOunts of agreed capture will be five percent of the official price of $1,000.00 U.S. dol lars per ton, for each vessel of less than 150 tons of net reg i stered to nnage. The annua I charge for each vesse I wi I I be the tota I of the charges divided by the number of autrorized vessels. For an autrorized harvest of 450 metric tons, this charge wi I I be $433.00 U.S. dol lars, if the maximum number of authorized vessels apply to fish. If less than that number of vessels apply to fish, at the request of the gJvernment of the United States of Nnerlca, less than 450 metric tons shaff be autrorized for capture by Un i ted States vesse Is, so that the annua I charge per vesse I wi I I not exceed $433. 00 U. S. dollars. c. The autrorized harvest wi II take place in the economic zone in the Gulf of Mexico outside 12 nauticalmi les. d. FI sh I ng for so apper and grouper and inc i denta II y caught f I shes wi II be restr icted to the use of rook and line gear. U.s. vessels must fill out forms identifying individual crew members for each trip as well as a trip report srowlng a dally log of catch and fishing effort by zone. During 1977-1978, a total of 26 snapper-grouper vessels were authorized to fish In Mexican waters. This Agreement is still in effect. 3.2.2.3 Description of Foreign Commercial Vessels and Gear Employed The traditional handline Is stili used to some degree by the Cuban fleet, although the "palangre de fo~do," t::ottom longline (Appendix Figure 11), came Into general use about 1965 and Is the principal fishing gear (Tashiro and Coleman, 1977). The bottom longfine is 3,280 to 4,921 feet (1,000-1,500 meters) in length, buoyed at each end and weighted in between to keep the long I ine near the tottom. 4 Director, Galveston, Texas, Laboratory, National \1arine Fisheries Service. 3-21 As many as 250-330 branch lines, each with a baited took, are spaced about 10-20 feet (3-6 m) apart on the fiShing PJrtlon of the long line. The oottom long line 15 set and retrieved manually from launches. In recent years, the Cuban Gulf fleet was oomposed mainly of "Lambdas," 75-foot (23 m) diesel jX)wered, wooden hulled vessels, capable of speeds of about ten knots. The fish ·told capacity is about 33 tons. Each Lambda has a oomplement of 11-20 men. There were 1,082 men In the Gulf fleet in 1975. I-bst of the crew are trainees and students between 16 and 25 years of age. There appears 10 have been about 65 vessels In the fleet In 1963 with an Increase 10 about 140 in 1967. The number appears 10 have declined 10 about 55 In 1975. Each Lambda serves as a ITCther vessel and usually has six 16-foot fiberglass longllnlng launches on board. During a day's fishing, the long line Is set and traversed by the launch six to eight times per day. The fishing trip cycle is about 40 days: ten days In PJrt, 27 days fishing, and three days in transit. Each vessel averages nine trips .annually. Beginning In 1971, the vessels began to operate In flotillas of from "hrIo 10 four Lambdas each. Cne Lambda returns to Cuba during the midpoint of each trip with the 10tal catch of the flotilla and rettrns with supplies. 3.3 History of Management 3.3.1 Management Institutions, Policies, Jurisdiction 3.3. I. 1 Regulatory Measures Employed to Regulate Fishery This FMP represents the first attempt 10 directly manage the reef fish fishery. I-bst reef fish occur offstore. Consequently, only a limited number of state laws have attempted 10 directly manage the fishery. Other state and federal Ii!lws affect the reef fish fishery Indirectly. This limited arrount of management 15 reviewed In the fo I lowing sections. A. State: 1. Alabama - (all citations 10 oode of Alabama) a. Mar Ine fishery resources In sti!lte waters are owned by the State of Alabama. Such resources are under the exclusive oontrol of the Department of O:>nservatlon and Natural Resources of the State of Alabami!l. b. In the event i!I license fee Is to be assessed for any given fishery activity, that fee Is to be doubled for a non-resident (9-12-80). c. Miscellaneous sti!ltutory provisions having potential Impact uPJn the grouper-snapper fishery as fo I lows: 1) LIcense fees for packing, canning or processing of seafood, $50 (9-12-88). 2) Size of mesh of seines, nets or trawls used for taking saltwater fish·, baits, etc., to be prescribed by Department of O:>nservatlon and Natural Resources (9-12-110). 3) Length of lead lines of seines, nets, etc., used for taking of saltwater fish, etc.: maximum 500 fattoms except purse seines (1-12-111). 4) LIcenses for use of nets and seines: $1.00 oommerclal took and line license (9-12-113). 3-22 5) LIcenses for wholesale and retail dealers of fresh saltwater fish. Wholesale: S25 per year; Retail: S5 per year (9-12-114) • • 6) Limit of 25 snapper per day with two-day possession limIt on persons fishing In Alabama WI!Iters or landing fish at Alabama ports; red snapper must be eight Inches or larger (78-MR-l0). d. Alabama Is a participant In the Gulf States Merlne Fisheries Compact (9-12-180). Participation In the Compact Is discretionary with the members, and the Compact has no regu I atory autrorlty. 2. Florida - (all citations are to West's Florida Statutes Annotated Sections) a. The Department of Nc!Ittra/. Resources I s the regulatory agency for natural resources (370.013) wlth'regulatlon of the marine resources beIng the responsIbility of the DivisIon of MarIne Resources of such Department (370.02). Trose responsIbIlIties Include: regulatIon of fishermen and vessels; fishing; Issuance of licenses; main taining statistical reoords of catch, gear, etc. (370.02). b. Ownership of all saltwater fish In waters within state jtrlsdlctlon (Gulf of Mexico) Is vested In the State (370.02). c. State license requirements: 1) Purse seines -S25 per year (370.06). 2) Allen and nonresident oommerclal fl sherman (sa I tWllter) , except for personal use - S25 per year (370.06). 3) Resident wholesale seafood dealer - S100 per year (370.07). 4) NonresIdent wholesale seafood dealer - S150 per year (370.07). 5) Allen wholesllie seafood dealer - S500 per year (370.07>. 6) ResIdent retllil seafood dealer - S10 per year (370.07>. 7) NonresIdent retail seafood dealer - S50 per year for ~ch oounty In which they do busIness for eech business In thllt oounty (370.07). d. Regulation of fishermen or equipment: 1) Use of purse seines, purse gill nets, and pound nets for catchIng food fish pro hibIted (370.08). 2) Caught fIsh not retained must be Immediately returned '10 the W4!1ter alive (370.08) • 3) Use of explosives or poisons prohibited (370.08). 4) Use and possession of fish traps and landing of fish taken by fish trap are pro hibited effective October 1, 1980, (5.8. 46, Chapter 80-63). This plan al lows use o,t fish traps outside of state territorial waters In the FCZ and assumes this state act wi I I not Impinge on this fishing privilege within the FeZ. 3-23 \ e. Size limitations of fish caught: Grouper of the to Ilowlng species of less length than 12 inches from tip of nose to rear center edge of tall may not be taken: (370.11) Red grouper (Eplnephelus morlo) Jewf I sh (!... Itajarl!!) Nassau grouper <i.. str latus) Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonacl) Gag <!:!. micro I ep I s) f. Spearflshlng: Spearflshlng Is prohibited within the boundaries of the John Pennekamp Goral Reef State Park and 'In the area of ~nroe O:lunty known as the Upper Keys (Includes all salt waters under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources beginning at the county line between Dade and ~nroe counties and running 9:)uth, Including all of the Keys down to and Including Long Key) (370.172). g. Gulf States Marine Fisheries O:lmpact - Florida Is a participant (370.20). h. O:lunty regulations: 1) Citrus - (Chapter 63-1220, Special Acts 1963): Spearflshlng prohibited In county waters - Includes salt waters. Groupers less than 12 inches tip to tip. may not be taken In c.ounty water's. (Chapter 63-1218). 2) O:l Iller - Spearflshlng prohibited In county waters - Includes salt waters. (Chapter 30665, Special Acts 1965). Restr Ictions on the usage of nets or seines In county waters (Chapter 69-1097, Special Acts of 1969). 3) Hernando - Spearflshlng prohibited In oounty waters (Chapter 65-1622, Special Acts 1965). 4) Lee - Restrictions on the usage of nets or seines In county waters (Chapter 23951, Special Acts of 1947). 5) Levy - May not fish with any nets less than one and three-eights Inch mesh (Chapter 21355, Special Acts 1941). May not use nets longer than 100 yards or set closer than 500 yards to another net (Chapter 77-595, Special Acts 1976). 6) ~nroe - Use of traps prohibited except for taking of crawfish during season; provided, however, each oommerclal fishing boat may have one wire trap five feet long, two feet high and two feet wide (Chapter 29299, Special Acts 1953). 7) Pinellas - Restrictions on the usage of nets or seines In county waters (Chapter 29432, Special Acts 1953). 3-24 8) Santa Rosa - ProhIbItIon agaInst the use of seines of one and one-quarter Inch bar, measured from knot to. knot, or a stretched mesh of ho and one-ha I finches length measured from knot to knot (Chapter 7584, Specllll Acts 1917). 9) Sarasota - Restrictions on the usage of nets or seInes In (X)unty waters (Chapter 57-1844, Special Acts 1963). 10) Taylor - Taking of fIsh with haul seines or drag nets In oounty waters prohIbIted (Chapter 6311, SpecIal Acts 1911l. 11) Walton - May not use seine of less than one and one-quarter Inch bar or mesh of less .than two and one-hal f Inches length (Chapter 7613, Special Acts 1917). 12) Dixie - Prohibition against use of net 1,000 yards or longer and against the setting of net wIthin 500 yards of another net In (X)unty waters (Chapter 77-541, Special Acts 1975). 3. louisIana - (AI I citations to Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated' Title 55) a. Ownership of fish In state waters Is In state and as such subject of state regulation and oontrol (Title 56, Section 312). The marine fishery resources of the state are under the management and oonservatlon jurisdiction of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (Louisiana Constitution Article IX, Section 7); The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Is the agency vested with enforcement authority under the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (Title 36, Section 501). b. Control of fisheries - Control of fish having sport or game value Is vested In WildlIfe and FisherIes Commission (Section 313). c. Closed seasons - Closed seas:>ns or restricted fishing zones may be Imposed ( Sect ion 31 7) • d. Methods of taking saltwater fish: 1) Commerc I a I fish may be taken on I y wi th po I e or II ne or 'to-yo or hand II ne or trotllne (hooks not less than 24 Inches apart) or with legal seines or net (Sect Ion. 320). 2) I I legal to use explosives, poisons, etc. (Section 320). 3) Elevated trotllnes are prohibited (Section 321). e. May not oonduct fishing operations In such a manner as to destroy nets or natural hiding places of young fish (Section 328). f. Fishing licenses: I) Resident - $2 per year lSI less below age 15 or over age 50 (Section 333, 643). 2) Nonresident - 56 per year (or $3 for seven days) (Section 334). 3) CommercIal - resident - $5 per year; resident net fisher - S5 per year per 300 feet of net; nonresident $1,000 per year (Section 337). 3-25 .~ g. Dealer licenses. h. louisiana Is a participant In Gulf States Marine Fisheries Cbmpact. I. Local regulations - none provided after request to Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Assumed there are none; just state regulation. 4. Mississippi - (All citations are to Sections of Mississippi Cbde Annotated). a. Marine fishery resources In state waters are owned by the state (Section 49-15-5). Such resources are under the regulatory control of the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources (Section 49-15-11). b. Licenses: 1) Fishing vessels: All vessels used In catching or transporting fish for commer cial purposes shall pay fees as follows: $1 per year for commercial took and line; $7.50 per year on boats using trammel nets, gl II nets or seines of not more than 200 fatroms In length; $15 per year on boats using seines or other nets over 200 but less than 300 fatroms In length; $25 per year on boats using seines or other nets over 300 but less than 400 fatroms In length; $50 per year on boats using seines or other nets over 400 but less than 500 fatroms In length (49-15-29). 2) Factories: All factories canning fish - $100 per year privilege tax (49-15-29). 3) Wholesale dealers - $20 per year (49-15-29). c. Mississippi Is a participant In the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Compact. d. Local - (none provided after request to Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources; assumed there are none). e •. lIhte: Letter received from Richard L. Leard, Director, Bureau of Mar ine Resources stated : "The waters under our state's jurisdiction do not oontaln significant reef fish fisheries and at present we have no regUlations ooncernlng these fishes. We have only a small recreational fishery In our waters, mostly In the vicinity of several artificial reefs ••• " 5. Texas - (All citations to Vernon's Texas Code Annotated Sections) a. Marine fishery reSJurces In state waters are in the ownership of the state and are subject to the regulatory oontrol of the Parks and Wildlife Department (Section 1.011 Parks and Wildlife). b. Licenses: 1) Fishing, resident: $4.50 per year (Section 46.004) excepting persons under 17 or over 65 (Section 46.0011). 2) Fishing, nonresident: al len: $10.50 per year (Section 46.004). Temporary license for five-day period for $4.50 (Section 46.0051l. 3-26 3) Commercial fishing - $10 per year (Section 47.002). 4) Fishing boat - $6 per year (Section 47.005). 5) Wholesale dealers - $250 per year per place of business (Section 47.009). 6) Wholesale truck dealers - $125 per year per truck (Section 47.010). 7) Retail fish dealer: a) $5 for each place of business In a city or town with population less than 7,500 (Section 47.011). b) $15 for each plase of business In a city or town of population between 7,500 and 40,000 (Section 47.011). c) $20 for each place of business in city or town of population greater than 40,000 (Section 47.01'1). 8) Seine or net license (if used for catching aquatic life for payor sale) $1 per 100 feet or portion thereof. Maximum length -1,800 feet; minimum mesh - one and one-half Inches from knot to knot (Section 47.015). c. County regulations: ~bne ;''7lpacti~::l (i'"ttsr f.-om 7;:;x;:,s ?':\':<:; and.Iildlife Department, ,~.prll 6,1973). d. Note - Letter received from C. E. Bryan, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department stated: "I can think of no state or local regulations that impact upon the grouper and snapper fisheries In Texas. MOst of the fishery for these species exists in the FCZ and therefore does not come under State jurisdiction. Snappers and groupers are caught in State waters, but there are no regulations pertaining to their management." e. Texas Is a participant In .the Gulf StatesMarine Fisheries Compact. B. Federal: 1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) Regulations promulgated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regarding the content of fishery management plans mandate that those plans be consistent with state coastal 2X)ne manage ment plans approved In accordance with the CZMA. This Act provides a framework for federal support for state programs directed at coastal zone management in accordance with standards established by the federal government. To date Alabama, louisiana and Mississippi of the constituent states of the Gulf of Mexico region have adopted approved coastal zone management programs. 2. I~arine Protection, Research and Sancturles Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) Under this Act the Secretary of Commerce Is vested with the authority to designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of ocean waters within U.S. jurisdiction and superjacent to the continental shelf of the United States which are determined to be necessary for the pre servation and restoration of such areas for purposes of conservation, recreation, eco lo gical or esthetic value. The designation Is made with the agreement of the Governor of 3-27 any affected state to the extent of state water Involvement. Key Largo Coral qeef ,l.Iarlne Sanctuary Is the only designated sanctuary of concern herein, altrough Looe Key in F lor I da and the F lower Garden Banks off Texas are under a:>ns I derat Ion as sanctuar I es. 3. Submerged Lands Act (43 U. S. C. 1301 et seq.) Th I s Act gran ted to the states tit I e to and ownership of the natural resources (Including fish) In the lands beneath the navigable waters in the territorial sea. 4. Reef fish commun I ties Inhab I t reef and other hard bottom areas. Protect Ion of the bottom commun ities they occupy Is of vital Importance. Therefore, federal leg Islatlon per taining to the protection and management of marine coral a:>mmunltles has an Impact on reef fish management. Lklder authority of Sec. 5, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (67 Stat. 462; 43 U.S.C. 1334), the Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior) has Issued regulatl.ons relating to the protection and management of viable coral communities located on the Outer Continental Shelf. These regulations, published In the Federal Register, September 16, 1976 (Vol, 41, ~. 181) state that "no person shall engage In any operation which directly causes damage or Injury to a viable a:>ral commun I ty . that I s located on the Outer Cont i nen ta I She If ••• " The federa I d I str I ct a:>urt In New Q-Ieans has ruled that BLM autrorlty under this act applies only to coral a:>m mun Itles associated with 011 and gas leaSing pr-actlces; therefore, these provisions on Iy apply to reefs In tracts leased for 011 and gas development. 5. Other federal laws of tangential Impact: a. National Environmental Po Ilcy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires the pre paration of a detailed Environmental Impact Statement for any major federal action Significantly affecting the environment. M EIS Is required for a federal fishery management plan. b. Estuarine Areas Act (16 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) supports CDOrdlnation with states for purpose of conservation, protection, and restoration of resources of estuarine areas. c. Fish Restoration and Management Projects (16 U.S.C. 777> provides federal support for state fl sh restoration and management projects. d. State Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Projects (16 U.S.C. 778) prov I des for CDOperat Ion and fund I ng by Secretary of Commerce for research and development projects by states regarding a:>mmerclal fisheries. e. Reefs for Marine Life Conservation (16 U.S.C. 1220) provides for state acquisition of Liberty ships to sink for offshore artificial reefs. f. Deepwater Ports Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) establishes procedures for the location, construction, and operation of deepwater ports off Un Ited States coasts. g. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407 et seq.) prohibits the alteration of any navigable water within U.S. jurisdiction unless authorized by Corps of Engineers, and also requires permits for a:>nstructlon of artlflcal reefs. h. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 741 et seq.) declares that fish resources of the United States constitute a material a:>ntrlbutlon to the health, recreation and well being of the United States and authorizes programs and Investigation required for the development, management, conservation and protection of the fishery resources of the United States. 3-28 I. The Endangered SpecIes Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Is for the conservatIon of endangered and threatened.specles. Because of the po~slbll Ity that sea turtles may become entangled In fish trap gear, the Gulf of MexIco FIshery Management Council has held a SectIon 7 threshold consultation with the FIsh and WIldlIfe ServIce and the NatIonal MarIne FIsherIes ServIce. The resultIng bIological opInIon considered all aspects of the fishery on threatened and endangered specIes. ~ adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species are anticIpated from ImplementatIon of the Plan. j. MarIne Mammal ProtectIon Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) Is for the conservation and protection of marIne mammals. There are no records of marine mammals havIng been adversely affected by activities of the reef fish fishery. C. Indian Treaties: There are no ImpactIng IndIan treaties. 3.3.1.2 Purpose of Regulatory Measures The generally acknowledged and codIfIed purpose for fishery management regulatIons set forth hereIn Is to provIde for effectIve and responsIve fIshery management In a manner consIstent wIth the best Interests of the populace of the given state and dIrected to the preservatIon and maIntenance of the fIshery. 3.3.2 Management of ForeIgn FisherIes 3.3.2.1 Regulatory Measures Employed to Regulate FIshery Subsequent to the adoption of the FIshery Chnservatlon and Management Act of 1976, the only foreIgn agreements and/or treatIes of Impact upon the reef fIsh fIshery of the Gulf of. MexIco are the GovernIng InternatIonal Fishery Agreements with CUba, MexIco and Japan. 3.3.2.2 Purpose of Measures GovernIng International FIshery Agreements These Agreements spell out the basIc guldeHnes wIthIn whIch foreIgn countrIes may undertake to fIsh wIthIn U.S. waters. 3.3.3 EffectIveness of Management Measures (ForeIgn and DomestIc) The effectiveness of any gIven regUlatory measure Is diffIcult to ascertaIn. It is a subjective determInatIon and as such any analysIs Is purely speculatIve. It must be assumed that they are suf ficiently effectIve In light of the goals for which they were enacted; otherwIse It loOuld seem logIcal that they loOuld have been abolished. 3.4 History of Biological Research In preparIng thIs Plan rrcre than 1,000 published and unpublished literature references were examIned whIch pertaIn 10 the families Serranldae, lutJanldae, Branchlostegldae, Carangldae, and Ballstldae. Of these, approxImately 350 have direct applIcatIon of lIfe history Information upon whIch the bIo logical and fishery data In this Plan are compiled. Of the 350 literatures examIned, 89 pertaIn to the bIology of the reef fishes off the coastal U.S. (excludIng the Gulf of MexIco), and 111 deal strIctly with reef fish studIes conducted outsIde the Gulf of Mexico. WIthin the Gulf, 130 of the lIteratures are concerned specifIcally wIth the reef species occurrIng over the U.S. continental shelf. There are an addItional 31 references whIch deal wIth reef fishes In the Gulf but outsIde the U.S. contInental shel f area. 3-29 Seventy~ne percent of all 350 references surveyed were published in the last 20 years (since 1958), 17 percent were pub I i shed between 1928 and 195,8, and the rema i n I ng 12 perc,ent were pub II shed the previous 50 years (between 1928 and 1979). The history of research on the reef fish species comprising the fishery shows that most of the interest has been by American researchers within the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and most of this is relatively recent Information. It is Important to Indicate that there has been much Information published on these same reef species within the Gulf by Brazil Ian, Cuban, Russian, and Mexican researchers. AI I of these have been published since 1955, and a g:JOdly number have been published within the last ten years. 3.5 Socioeoonomic Characteristics 3.5.1 Output of Subject Domestic Commercial Fishery Reported as landings lXlder Section 3.2.1.3. 3.5.1.1 Value of Catch (Exvessel) Reported lXlder Section 3.2.1.3. 3.5.1.2 Description and Value of Wholesale Product Several levels in the marketing system can be oonsldered as wholesale levels. The oommerclal dockside values discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 are exvessel values paid to fishermen. (Fish at this market level are fresh fish In the round.) In 1976, the current value of all reef fish to the fishermen in the Gu I f wa s $ 10.6 m I I I Ion. The total market value of reef fish depends on quantity and prices. Prices received per pound are a funct ion of seasona I supp I y and demand factors such as persona I Incomes of consllll1ers (Cato and Prochaska, 1976). Demand analyses at the dockside level are available only for red snapper and grouper of al I species In the reef fish oomplex. Price response equations for red snapper prices In Florida, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi derronstrate the importance of the Florida Industry In Influencing annual dockside prices. The quantity of red snapper landed in Florida was statistically significant in influencing Florida prices (Appendix Table 63, Equation 1). Total personal Income In the Un Ited Stat.es was used to measure Increase In demand, resulting from higher personal Inoome and greater population. The Inoome ooefflclent was significant. The estimated Florida price equation shows that a one million pound increase/decrease In red snapper landings would result In a 5.5 cent decrease/Increase in average dockside price paid at Florida ports. 5 Similar equations estimated for Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, however, did not result in significant price-quantity relationships. In addition to the nonsignlflcance, statistical estimation problems for these three equations also made them unacceptable. Further examination, and the fact that Florida dockside prices are much higher than dockside prices In the other three states, suggests the Florida Industry may be a price leader for the ·Unlted States. Since Florida lands a large portion of the total corrvnerclal catch, pays a higher price, and Is able to Influence the total market,' the less dominant states In the Industry may pay prices based on Florida prices and, in turn, accept the remainder of the total market share. 5 Current dollars were used In these equations. This may have oontrlbuted to the strong and highly significant relationship between price and Inoome. f-bwever, given the exceptionally high signlfi cance levels, use of real dollars probably loOuld have stili resulted In significant coefficients. 3-30 To test this hypothesis, regressions were estimated relating other state prices to Florida prices. Prices paid In Florida were extremely Imrortant in Influencing prices In each of the other three states (Appendix Table 63, Equations 2, 3, and·4). A one-cent Increase In'Florlda price resulted In price Increases In Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi of 0.54, 0.27, and 0.36 of one cent respectively. Landings of red snapper In each of these states were not statistically, Important in Influencing prices In that state. Both total personal Ino:>me and quantity landed were Imrortant In Influencing dockside price for the total U.S. Industry (Appendix Table 63, Equation 5). Total personal Income and quantity landed were both Imrortant in determln Ing annual grouper pr ices (Appendix Table 64). A one million round Increase In the quantity of groupers landed In Florida loOuld cause a 1.3 cent decline In dockside prices (Appendix Tab Ie 64, Equation 1). In the Industry as a whole, the same landings Increase would cause a one-cent decrease In U.S. prices (Appendix Table 64, Equation 2). As with red snapper, grouper prices In the other Gulf states appear to be more respon sive to grouper landings In Florida than to grouper landings within those states. Changes In quantities landed and personal Incomes of o:>nsumers affect exvessel fish prices and thus the value of wholesale fishery products throughout all market levels. In addition, at market levels above dockside, o:>sts of such Items as marketing services and processing activities Impact on the value of the wholesale product. These o:>sts, Including net returns to marketing agents, are reflected In marketing marg Ins between the var lous level s In the marketing systems. Lilfortunately, pr Ice statistics are very limited and questionable at the various levels In the marketing system above the dockside level. It Is estimated that at least 30 percent of Florida landings of reef fish are shipped 10 the New York Fulton Fish Market, and the prices at that market generally affect the local dockside price paid to the fishermen. It Is estimated that If all Gulf of Mexico reef fish were shipped to the New York market, the wholesale value of Gulf red snappers I«)uld be $12.3 million, grouper would be '$5.7 million, and the total of all reef fish from the Gulf would arrount to $22.7 million (Appendix Table 65). Several points must be o:>nsldered In the evaluation of the difference In wholesale value between the New York market level and the fisherman level: (1) The difference In the dockside and New York value represents two or, three levels of market agents, the local fish house dealer, In !Ome cases assemblers between local dealers and the New York market, and dealers or brokers operating at the New York market. The spread thus represents o:>sts and profits for several agents In the market system. (2) The above estimate assumes al I of the product Is sold through the New York market. Perhaps as much as two thirds of the product Is shipped to areas outside of the northeast. A transportation differential of approximately $3.68 per box Is estimated for fish o:>nsumed within the southeast. Secondary market prices thus would be lower to reflect this difference. If tIIo thirds of the reef fish are CDnsumed In the southeast, then the estimated total value at o:>mparable market levels would be $22.3 mil lion. This lower estimate reflects the lower transrortatlon o:>st of shipping to markets located closer to the production area. 3.5.1.3 Domestic and Export Markets Published research and statistics describing markets for Gulf of Mexico reef fish are' not available. A telephone survey was 'taken from 30 percent of the dealers classified as handling reef fish species to develop this portion of the Plan. Thirty-nine dealers were listed as reef fish dealers In 1977 by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Resrondents were selected from each of the states In the Gulf. Ovai- 90 percent of snappers and 30 percent of groupers landed In 1977 were aCCDunted for In the survey. The smaller percentage of total grouper landings represented by the survey Is due to wider distribu tion of grouper landings and thus more dealers handling groupers. 3-31 Th I s survey i nd I cated that over 77 percent 0 f the groupers hand I ed by Gu I f of Mex I co fish dea I ers are shipped to buyers within the s:>utheast (Table 4). CXily 15 percent of the groupers are shipped to buyers I n northeastern markets such as New York' and Ch I cago, I nd I cat I ng a sO uthern preference for groupers rompared 10 red snappers. "bre than 58 percent of red snappers are shipped to buyers in the northeast. The majority of groupers are shipped In fresh gutted form on Ice while nearly all (93.7 percent) red snappers are shipped In this form (Table 4). Very often red snapper are filleted while over 16 percent of the grouper are filleted. The larger proportion of groupers being filleted is perhaps due to the relatively larger proportion (36 percent) shipped directly 10 fish markets and restaurants as compared to a relatively small percent (8.8) of the red snapper being s:>ld directly 10 this type of market. From 50 to 60 percent of both species are s:>ld 10 other wholesalers with the remaining 11.9 and 32.3 percent of groupers and snappers, respectively, being s:>ld through New York market agents. Dealers Interviewed Indicated substantially less than one percent of groupers and snappers were exported. Published U.S. statistics do not Identify snapper and grouper as specific export items • . Therefore, It has to be concluded that the reef fl sh fI shery of the Gu I f of Mexico does not contr Ibute significantly 10 the export market. This conclusion Is further supported by the amount of groupers and snappers Imported Into the Un I ted States. Existing Import data (Appendix Tables 38-41) on both snappers and groupers are of Inadequate quality to al low trend and econometric analyses. Data have not been continuously reoorded over time at each port and publication of relevant Import statistics has been discontinued since 1972. In addition, the numerous product forms Imported makes comparable measurements of total pounds on Imported snapper and grouper difficult. Published Information on forms of snapper Imports for the period 1953-1972 recorded at customs offices show such Items as snapper, snapper fillets, red snapper, red snapper fillets, red snapper throats and flanks, and dressed. Imports of snapper by product form were very consistent on an annual basis from 1952 to 1962 after which a gradual decline Is Indicated. Although published data have not been available since 1972, s:>me unpublished data from the National Marine Fisheries Service (Appendix Table 39) show a sudden and marked increase that has extended through 1977. Several factors, could account for this sudden upswing: new countries of origin; changes In reporting techniques or labeling; different ports of entry; etc. In rontrast, the Import data for grouper appear 10 be more reliable probably because Mexico Is the prinCipal s:>urce of foreign grouper and because most Imports come through six principal ports: Ftlrt Isabel, Brownsville, and fbuston, Texas; New crleansand M::>rgan City, louisiana; and MiamI and Tampa, Florida. Import classl flcatlons for grouper Include grouper, grouper fillets, steaks, chunks, chips, throats, fingers, heads, and breasts (Appendix Table 40). After a decline through the years 1966 1971, grouper Imports Increased 10 the levels reported In the earlier 1960's. Some twenty countries are reported as having shipped grouper and snapper Into the United States in 1977 (Appendix Table 41). Mexico Is the leading exporter for both snapper and grouper followed by Nicaragua, French Guiana, and Venezuela. 3.5.2 Domestic Commercial Fleet Characteristics (Refer to 3.2.1.4) 3.5.2.1 Total Gross Income of Fleet During 1974 and 1975 the average Florida-based vessel In the red snapper and grouper fishery s:>ld $56,484 of red snapper (68.5 percent), grouper (22.8 percent), and other fish (8.7 percent). Sales of the average vessel were determined by a survey of sales of 20 vessels typical of Gul f of Mexico red 3-32 Table 4. Domestic marketing of grouper and snapper by Gulf of Mexico commercial fish dealers, 1977 • Item Grouper Red snapper Percent of Volume Market location: t'-brtheasta 15.0 58.4 Southeastb 77.1 24.1 Mid SouthC 6.5 11.0 Rest of U. S. 1.4 6.5 Product form: Fresh Iced 81.5 93.7 Frozen who Ie 2.3 4.4 Fillets 16.1 1.9 Type of Buyer: RetaIl market or restaurant 36.3 8.8 Other wholesaler 51.8 58.9 New York market agent 11.9 32.3 a Includes New York, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio. b Incl udes South Caro I Ina, Georg I a and F lor Ida. c Includes Texas, Oklahoma, louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Source: Telephone survey, Cato and Prochaska, 1977. 3-33 snapper and grouper fishing, (MJrrls, 1977). These vessels acoounted for ten percent of all reef fish and 9.5 percent of all grouper and red snapper ,landed In the Gulf of Mexico. In 1975. /'rea fished in the survey ranged from Texas to the west Florida shelf and the Gampeche shelf. Crew shares generated on the average vessel <m:)unted to $ 11 ,680, with a net return to the captain and owner of $22,752, for a total dollar Income of $34,430, or 60.96 percent of total sales. The remi!!lnder: of total fish sales was oonsumed through fixed oosts and variable boat expenses. Total value or gross Income of Gulf of Mexico reef fish landings In 1975 was $9,637,000 (Table 1). Parts of the catch of other fish by the average vessel are not reef fish, but this composition Is not known from the data, therefore, It Is not possible to separate Incomes generated due SJlely to reef fish. Assuming that all sales of reef fish generated Incomes to the crew, captain, and owners according to the ration of 60.96 percent of total sales, Incomes generated at the fishermen level In the Gulf of Mexico reef fish Industry lOuld have <m:)unted to a maximum of $5,874,715 In 1975. The total number of reef fish (handline) vessels In the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery was estimated at 435 In 1-974 (Section 3.2.1.4), while the number of fishermen was estimated at 1,705 (Section 3.2.1.2). Although these data are for 1"974, an approximation of Income generated per vessel using 1975 sales, Is $13,505, while average income generated per fisherman Is $3,446. The primary eoonomlc impact during 1975 for the Florida red snapper-grouper fishery Including estimates of expenditures, sales and Income, was estimated by MJrrls, 1977. Major expenditures In the red snapper-grouper fishery were for repairs and maintenance, groceries, bait, and fuel and 011. Repairs and maintenance were $1.3 million which was more than twice as large as any other expenditure Item and represented over 25 percent of total expenditures. For each $100 of fish sales In the red snapper-grouper fishery, other Industries claimed $47.33 of Items such as fuel and oil, Ice, fishing craft, engines, fishing gear, etc. These sales of fish also generated $52.67 of wages, crew shares, captains' si!!larles, profits, etc. Sales of $100 by this fishery resulted In an estimated primary economic Impact of $147.33 In 1975. Florida red snapper-grouper fishermen In 1975 sold approximately $8.5 mil lion of fish, which then generated over $4 mil lion for Industries supplying Inputs to this fishery. This generated $4.5 million of Incomes. The pr Imary economic Impact of the red snapper-grouper fl shery In Florida in 1975 was estimated at approxlmi!!tely $12.5 million. The average number of tr I ps per year and days f I shed per year was s 1m II ar for the two sma II vesse Is groups surveyed at 19.0 (199 days) and 20.5 (203 days) as stown by Cato and Prochaska (1977). In contrast, the large northern Gulf vessels averaged only 11.3 trips per year (193 days), while the large SJutheastern vessels averaged 16.3 trIps (185 days). The twenty boats In this survey made a total of 332 trips per year and landed a total of 1,707,218 pounds for an overall average of 5,142 pounds per tr Ip. Total pounds of reef fl sh landed In the Gu If of Mexico during 1975, was 17,771,000 pounds. USing the estimate of 5,142 pounds per trip, an esti mated 40,712 vessel-days were fished in the overal I Gulf reef fish fishery. 3.5.2.2 Investment In Vessels and Gei!!r Average Investment In Florida based on Gulf of Mexico red snapper and grouper vessels ranged from $26,526 to $67,267 In 1974 and 1975 (Gato and Prochaska, 1977). The ten samp I ed vesse I s rang log In length from 38 to 47 feet, had an average Investment of $31,111. The ten ranging In size from 56 to 69 feet had an average value of $62,860. Total Investment for the twenty boats was $939,710 with an average value for all twenty vessels of $46,986. This anounted to an Investment of 55.04 cents per pound of fish caught. 3-34 Total landings of reef fish during 1975 In the Gulf of Mexico were 17,771,000 pounds (Table I). Tot, '\ Investment in the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery, using 55.04 cents per pound of f.lsh caught, loOuld amount to $9,781,158. Using the 1974 estlmate'of handline vessels at 435 and number of handline fishermen at 1,705 (Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.4) It can be oomputed that for vessels and fishermen that caught at least some reef fish, there was an average value per vessel of $22,485 and average Investment per fisherman of $5,737. 3.5.2.3 Annual Commercial Fishing Participation Fishing operations for vessels surveyed In the grouper-snapper fishery, (Cato and Prochaska, 1977), range as far west as Texas In the western Gulf of Mexico, the Campeche Shelf In the southern Gulf of Mexico, and the West Florida Shelf (Figure 3). SOme vessels from the northern Gulf have fished in Caribbean areas In past years, but this practice does not now appear to be oommon. (Quantitative treatment of annual fishing partlclpatlon.ls presented in Section 3.0.) 3.5.2.4 Total Manpower Employed Crew sizes on vessels In the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery show a considerable fluctuation during the 1957-1974 period. Whereas the general trend has been upward lilt I I 1966 (5.07 crewmen per vessel) the average has declined 10 a 1974 estimate of 3.92 persons. In comparison, the 20 vessels sampled In the Florida survey (Cate and Prochaska, 1977), showed a downward trend In crew size 10 an average of 3.1 (Appendix Table 43). Florida vessels have traditionally carried smaller crews than vessels operating out of other Gulf states. For Instance, the average crew size In Alabama ranges from 7.0 to 9.95, from 5.43 to 10.0 In MiSSissippi, from 3.16 to 6.16 In Texas, and from 3.0 to 7.0 In loul sl ana. However, since the bulk of the vessels are In Florida, the Gulfwlde average more nearly approximates that of the Florida crew size than for any other Gulf state· {Appendix Figure 12). USing the reported 1,705 total crewmen on handline vessels In the Gulf of Mexico in 1974 (Section 3.2.1.2) and the average number of days fished by a vessel (Cate and Prochaska, 1977) as 195.6, a total of 333,498 man-days employed In the fishery In 1974 Is determined. This does not include time spent 'IIOrklng on shore. Average crewmen's wages (Section 3.5.2.1), were approximated at $3,446 per year In 1975. as an approximation of crew shares or wages, and using the estimated number of crewmen In 1,705, gives an approximation of $5,875,430 In crews hares generated In the Gul f of Mexico reef fishery. 3.5.3 Domestic Commercial Processing Characteristics 3.5.3.1 Gross Income of Area Processors Usl ng th I s 1974 at hand line Gross Income from proceSSing reef fish Is the value of processed products. These 'IIOuld Include fillets, steaks, and some "fingers". Q,ly a minimal <m:)unt of Gulf of Mexico reef fish are actually processed since the survey (Section 3.5.1.3) Indicates that 82 percent of grouper and 94 percent of snapper were gutted only and then shipped as fresh Iced products. Q,ly groupers and snappers from the . tota I reef fish spec I es are reported separate I y as processed products. With the exception of three years for Alabama, (1957, 1966 and 1967), Florida Is the only state reporting processed grouper and snapper products (Appendix Tables 44 and 45). The data for the west cOast of Florida should be Interpreted as low estimates since SOme products are reported as unclassified. Reported data Indicate processed snapper products were at a high of 565,350 pounds valued at $449,377 In 1958. Since 1964, the trend In ~Iume of processed snapper products has been downward with 107,077 pounds reported In 1974. However, this downward trend In quantity is not 3-35 TEXAS Arrows indicate general f,shing areas GULF OF MEXICO Shell ~ ~~i . I I Figure 3 - Fbrt areas and general fishing areas for red snapper - grouper vessels. Source: Cato, James C. and Fred J. Prochaska, 1977. 3-36 evident in terms of value of processed snapper products because of Increasing prices. There has been no overall trend In value of processed snapper product since 1964. In 1974, the value of processed snapper products was reported at $181,165. Processed grouper products showed the same erratic variation from year to year. Record production of processed grouper products occurred In 1973 when 1,769 thousand pounds were processed at a val ue of $1,155,074. Again, essentially al I processing occurs in Florida (west coast data only). Gross Income from processing of reef fish Is relatively sma I I. Only 39, or 5.4 percent of the 723 wholesale dealers and processors reported for the Gulf of Mexico were listed as primary reef fish dealers or handlers. f-bwever, when gross Income generated by both wholesale dealers and processors is considered the estimate Is sizeable. A study of Florida fish dealers handling fresh fish determined the marketing margin for shipping fresh iced fish to the New York market (Prochaska and Cato, 1977, and "bore, 1978). Th I s est i mate was adjusted for transportation differences for products shipped within state, within the southeast region and to northeastern markets~ The resulting estimated margins are $21.62, $19.24, and $16.64 per 100 pounds shipped to northeastern, southeastern and in-state markets, respectively (Table 5). Table 5. Estimated wholesale value of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish, 1976. Marketing Market margin per Pounds Value Tota I IorTlO I esa I e Reg ion a 100 pounds shlpped b Added c valued (dollars) (dollars) (dollars) In State 16.64 6,982,706 1,161,922 5,041,234 Southeast 19.24 6,982,706 1,343,473 5,222,785 Northeast 21.62 4,267,891 922,718 3,611,955 Total 3,428,113 13,875,974 a Refers to location of buyers purchasing reef fish from Gulf of Mexico dealers. b Pounds shipped Is based on 1976 landings of 18,687,000 pounds minus an estimated 453,697 pounds processed. c Marketing margin times pounds shipped. d Dockside value plus value added. Source: Prochaska and Cato, 1977. 3-37 In order to estimate the gross income generated in the marketing sector an estimate of the volume of reef fish moving through the system was necessary. In 1976 a total of 17,046,000 pounds were landed in the Gulf region (Table 1). The latest reported volume of processed products from Gulf reef fish is for 1974 at 482,383 pounds. In 1974, processed grouper-snapper products were 3.24 percent of grouper snapper landings. Assuming this percent to hold for the 1976 grouper-snapper landings, it is esti mated that 555,290 pounds were processed. Therefore, the remaining 16,493,710 pounds of all reef fish wi I I move through the fresh fish marketing system. The market survey reported in Section 3.5.3.1 (Table 5) suggests approximately 20 percent of the product is shipped to northeastern markets and the remaining 80 percent is split equally between in state and southeastern markets. Using the estimates of the market distribution and the respective marketing margins presented above, It Is estimated that total value added by wholesale marketing system Is $3,428,113. The total wholesale value of reef fish can therefore be established as $13,875,974 which represents the gross income to Gulf of Mexico wholesalers from reef fish sales. Past research (MJrr Is, 1977) est imates va I ue added of $60.87 per $100 0 f processed fish products so I d. Thus the 555,290 pounds of estimated processed reef fish products for 1976 wi I I generate $473,207 in value added using projected prices for 1976 processed grouper and snapper products. The total whole sale value of processed reef fish processed by Gulf of Mexico processors is $776,215. When this is added to gross I ncome at the who I esa I e I eve I, tota I income to Gu I f processors and who I esa I ers is est i mated to be $14,628,320 in 1976. 3.5.3.2 Investment in Plant and Equipment The number of processing and wholesaling plants In the Gulf of Mexico has only been reported separately since 1970. The number of proceSSing plants has declined from 434 in 1970 to 350 in 1975 (Appendix Table 47). The number of wholesaling plants (fish houses) has remained relatively constant at between 373 and 383 pl;lI'lts. Total number of plants peaked in 1965 when 847 wholesaling and processing plants were reported. I>b information is available on investment in plants and equipment. Overall, there does not appear to be growth in the industry. The number of firms has decreased and the size of firms, measured in terms of employees per firm, has remained relatively constant in the past ten years. Growth may have occurred through more mechanical processing. This, however, does not appear likely due to the small amount of process I ng requ i red for reef fish· and the current state of ava i I ab Ie techno logy. AI I plants do not wholesale or process reef fish products; but, of the number reported, 39 plants handle appreciable volumes of reef fish (Appendix Table 48). These plants employ 274 persons. Thus, only 5.4 percent of the Gulf of Mexico plants actually handle or specialize In handling reef fish and account for only 2.5 percent of total employment In fish wholesaling and processing establishments in the region. 3.5.3.3 Total Employment and Labor Income Total employment in wholesaling and processing increased to a maximum in 1971 when 13,456 persons were employed (Appendix Table 47). Since that time, employment has dropped to 11,034. Only 274 of these employees are employed by the 39 plants handling reef fish. Net income generated from handling reef fish is estimated to be $1,302,547. This Is based on an estimate of $24.59 per $100 sales of processed products (MJrris,1977l and $6.74 per 100 pounds of fish handled by wholesale fish dealers (MJrris, 1977>. Average Income generated per employee is then $4,754. This results In gross output per employee of $50,555. 3-38 3.5.3.4 Economic Viability In addition to the general economic parameters about the commercial fishery presented throughout this Plan, several key factors point out that this Is an economically viable fishery. The high rate of return on investment to both small and large Gulf of Mexico snapper and grouper vessels Is obvious when comparing the net return to captain and owner (Cato and Prochaska, 1976) and levels of investment (Cato and Prochaska, 1977). Price and total value for red snapper and grouper have increased sUbstan tially with very little seasonal variation (Appendix Table 23). 3.5.4 Recreational Fishing Characteristics General effort description and catch trends Data on the number of fishermen participating in the recreational reef fishery of the Gulf of ~~xico are available on a Gulfwide basis only for the years 1960,1965, and 1970 (Clark, 1960; Deuel and Clark, 1965; Deuel, 1973).6 Published data on number and weight of finfish are available for 1960, 1965, and ~970. During 1960, an estimated total of 27,531,000 reef fish were report~ as caught in the Gulf of Mexico with a total weight of 122,640,000 pounds (Appendix Table 49). This includes only those species of fish included in Appendix Table 49 and not al I are included in the management unit. Some are incidental catch species to those In the management unit. Groupers, jacks, porgies, and snappers constituted 93 percent of the individual fish caught and 99 percent of the weight. The number of fishermen In 1960 reporting a catch of at least one fish In each reporting category ranged from a high of 317,000 catching porgies to a low of 3,000 catching yellowtail snapper. A total of 78 percent of the catch was caught from boats. The total number of fish reported In 1965 was 24,511,000 with an estimated weight of 70,925,000 pounds. Both of these were below 1960 estimated levels. A total of 75 percent was reported caught from boats. Estimates for 1970 gave 47,572,000 fish caught for a total weight of 76,755,000 pounds. This apparent large increase in fish caught did not Increase total weight appreciably. Boat fishing accounted for 69 percent. A different method was used to determine fish weights, however, In 1965 and 1970, than was done in the 1960 study (see catch-effort sect Ion). For 1975, a total of 14,534,000 fish were reported caught with all estimated weight of 39,505,000 pounds (Appendix Tables 50 and 51). A slightly different set of species were used for these estimates than was used for estimates for the earlier years. Catch by method of fishing reported In 1970 Is shown In Table 6. Most red snappers were reported caught by party, charter, private, or rental boat. Grunts were reported caught primarily by pr.ivate or rental boats or from bridges, piers, and jettys. Groupers were reported caught by a number of methods depending on the area of the Gulf. 6 Many people Involved in fisheries research have often questioned the accuracy of these data due to suspected b I as I n the samp" ng procedure and data co II ect Ion methods. All data were co" ected by mail questionnaires and through interviews and were based on recal I. Catch weight was estimated in the 1960 survey from average weight data supplied by state agencies, other organizations and Individuals. Weight data in the 1965 and 1970 surveys was obtained from such interviews. Data for 1975 were never published due to inaccuracies In sampl ing design. 3-39 Table 6. Percentage of total number of reef fIsh caught by method of fishIng in the west and east Gulf of Mexico, 19701• SpecIes Private or Renta I Boat West East Party or Charter Boat West East Bridge, PIer or Jetty West East Beach or Bank West East percent ------------------------------ Sea bass • 1 6.8 Groupers .8 12.7 23.5 7.9 2.2 34.7 Grunts 85.3 31.4 5.0 31.3 38.4 13.8 Jacks .8 1.9 .7 b 1.4 7.2 2.8 4.2 Porgy 8.2 36.0 29.3 5.0 26.1 49.2 62.6 71.6 Snappers 3.9 70.0 b 33.4 1.2 Snapper, red .9 9.2 64.0 1.8 1.8 Snapper, yellowtail 1.9 1.7 8.6 West Gulf of Mexico Includes the Gulf coast from the MississIppi River Delta to the MexIco border. East Gulf of Mexico includes the Gulf coast from the Florida Keys to and including the Missi-ssippi River De Ita. Source: Deuel, D. G., 1973. Other data on recreational catch of reef fish are available only from Isolated studies done In various states. Typical landings from charter boat, private boat, pier and shoreline fishing In Alabama for 1975, for example, are reported by Wade (1977). That study revealed total landIngs for 22 cha-rter boats to be 349,951 pounds In 1975 of which 55.7 percent were reef fish consisting of amberjack, groupers and snapper. These did not Include catches that entered the commercial market. Total reef fish landings from the private boat fishery were 89,716 pounds which was only 1.3 percent of the total catch. Reef fish accounted for .3 percent of the total catch from piers. Red snapper and grouper landings from party boats on the northwest coast for 1974 were- estimated by ProchaSka and Cato (1975). Total catch was estimated at 6.4 mil lion pounds for the eight northernlTK)st Florida coastal counties. Red snapper (2.4 million pounds) and grouper (2.3 million pounds) were the most prominent catches. 3-40 The rrost current information on recreational charter and party boat fishing along the Florida west coast is currently being analyzed by the Univ~sity of Miami on a contract with the National ~arine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. This analysis represents the results of a mail survey conducted during 1977. Tentative results of this survey are discussed in the fol lowing paragraphs. The discuss ion centers around 0 ff shore charter, i nshore/o ff shore charter and of f shore head boat fish i ng in the Florida Panhandle, west coast and Florida Keys and points out the level of dependence on various species. The discussion contains the entire analysis to enable placing of importance on the reef fish species. Offshore Charter Panhand Ie The spring, summer and fall are the principal seasons for fishing activity in the Florida Panhandle: The species of greatest importance to offshore charter boat operations during al I of these seasons is king mackerel. Bottomfishes, particularly snapper and grouper, are second in imp:>rtance. Cbbia is next in importance during the spring. Amberjack and bluewater fish, particularily billfish, are important during the summer and fall. Winter fishing is heavily dependent on snapper and grouper. Redfish, flounder, and other species are relatively imp:>rtant during the winter. Some king mackerel also are taken during the season. See Appendix Table 66 for percent dependence on the various species dur ing each season. West Coast The rrost imp:>rtant species to the offshore charter boat industry on the Florida west coast are bottom fishes, principally snapper and grouper. From 66 to 77 percent of total effort is expended on these species during the summer, fall, an'd winter. They also are important during the spring, <31.2 percenl of effort); however, more effort (49 percent of effort) is expended on king mackerel during this season. Some fishing effort is expended on amberjack during the spr ing, summer and fall, and on tarpon during the spring. Florida Keys The offshore charter boat fishery In the Florida Keys expends the greatest percent of its effort on bluewater species such as dolphin and billfish. Bluewater species account for from 49.5 and 86.4 percent of fishing effort, depending on the season. Emphasis is on dolphin during the spring (39.2 percent) and summer (49.3 percent) and on bll Ifish during the fal I (39.3 percent) and winter (41.8 percent). King mackerel are Important to the fishery during the winter (34.3 percent). Bottomflsh, particularly snapper and grouper, have s::>me Imp:>rtance, particularly during the spring and fall. Although major dependence Is on only a few species, the offshore charter boat fishery has mor~ target species In the Keys than In any other part of the study area. Others of these are sharks, barracuda, bluefin tuna, amberjack, tllefish, and wahoo. Inshore/Offshore Charter Florida West Coast Bottomfishes and tarp:>n are the species of major importance to the inshore/offshore charter operations of the Florida west coast. Areas of principal tarpon activity are Boca Grande and Tampa. Tarpon activity is concentrated Into the spring (32.6 percent of effort) and summer (21.4 percent of effort) months. Percent of effort on bottomflsh ranges from 35 percent in the spring to 52.2 percent in the winter. Other offshore species are king and Spanish mackerel and sharks. Other inshore species are snook, redflsh, trout, and sheepshead. 3-41 F lor I da Keys Bluewater species and tottomflsh receive an approximately equal am::>unt of Interest and together account for about 50 percent of fishing effort by the Inst-ore/offst-ore fishery In the Florida Keys during all four seasons. Fishing effort for billfish ranges from 10.8 percent In spring to 31.7 per cent in summer. Emphasis Is on common dolphin In the spring (8.3 percent) and summer (29.2 percent) and on bi IIfish during the fall (18.3 percent) and winter (30.8 percent). Snapper are rrore Important than grouper dur I ng the spr i ng and surrvner, and effort Is approx i mate I y even I y d I v I ded between the two groups during the fall and winter. The Inst-ore/offst-ore fishery In the Keys Is different from that on the west coast in that a larger proportion of effort Is expended on offshore species. Percent of effort expended on offshore specIes ranges from 55.7 percent In spring to 84.1 percent in winter. Inshore species receiving attention from this fIshery are permit, tarpon, and toneflsh. The most Important of these Is tarpon. Barracuda and cob I a are two loll de-rang I ng spec I es that are s:lmewhat Important to the inshore/o f f shore fIshery In the Keys. Mlberjack, kIng mackerel and Spanish mackerel are other species !Ought by this fishery. Off st-ore Head boats Reliance on bottomflsh by the offshore head boat industry Is consistent in all three areas, accounting for 80 and 95 percent of effort. Florida Panhandle I n the Pan hand Ie, grouper I s the I ead I ng fish group s:lught, (40-45 percent, depend I ng on the sea so n) i snappers are next In Importance (20 percent), followed by a mix of trlggerflsh and other bottom species (20 percent). Amberjack (five percent) Is another species important to the industry In this area. Percent of effort is approximately the same each season. Florida West Coast Snapper and grouper account for 65 to 70 percent of effort by thl s fl shery. Q-unts and seabass are secondarily important bottomflsh. Approximately five to ten percent of effort of this fishery is expended on mackerel (probably king mackerel). Greatest effort on mackerel Is during the spring and summer. Florida Keys From 88.8 percent to 95 percent of total effort of the head boat Industry In the Florida Keys'is directed toward grouper and snapper. Effort towards snapper predominates, particularly In the fall. King mackerel, common dolphin, and sharks are other target species of the offshore head boat industry In the Florida Keys. Recreational Customers The University of Miami and National Marine Fisheries Service survey also provided Information describing paying passenger fleet customers. Details of customer characteristics outlined by the study are presented under the same categories discussed above. Only the overall general oonclusions are presented. The average customer was In his mid-40's, ranging In average age from 41.4 years for head boat customers to 46.4 years for Inst-ore/offshore customers. Fishing trips tend to be a group activity. 3-42 In al I categories, families made up the largest class of Individuals ranging from 36.4 percent of charter ooat customers to 41.4 percent of the .head !:oat customers. 8uslne,ss groups were the second most important class. Business associates ranged from 22.4 percent of the head ooat customers to 38.6 percent of the Insrore/offsrore ooat customers. Groups of friends were the third most Important class of customers. For al I three types of operations the Individual customer ~s onl¥ a smal I percentage of the total customers, with a range of four percent on Insrore/offsrore to eleven percent on head ooats. Out-of-state customers were the most Important group of customers by place of residence. Out-of-state customers ranged from 65.4 percent on head ooats to 74.6 percent on Insrore/offsrore !:oats. Approxi mately 30 percent or more of all customers were obtained because of previous trips they had made. Between 15 percent (Insrore/offsrore) to 30 percent (charter) of the customers were due to on-site contacts. Personal references were the next most Important reason. Very few customers participated I n the fishery due to rote I references, ad vert I sement, etc. Description of Recreational Fishing Vessels and Gear The following data and estimates on the number of ooats specializing In the recreational fisheries for snappers and groupers, as well as for· all fl sheries In the Gul f of Mexico, have been delineated into ooth private and commercial ooat categories. Private Bromberg (1973) estimated a total number of 348,595 private recreational ooats In salt water In the Gulf of Mexlco7 In 1973 (Table 7). Texas ooats accounted for 138,195 of this total, Florida had 95,996 with the remainder In the other three states. A total of 14.0 percent of all fl shlng tr Ips sought snappers and 14.1 percent sought groupers. Bromberg (1973) srows that 185,327 of these ooats fished In the open ocean. These same data are summarized in an article by Ridgely, 1975. Commercial Bromberg (1973) also estimated that 437 commercial sportflshlng vessels fished in the open ocean in 1973. Of all trips made, 53.8 percent of the trips sought snappers and 36.3 percent of the trips sought groupers. Another study by Fraser, et al., 1977, estimated a tota.1 of 579 vessels carrying sport fishermen for hire as of May, 1977, In the Gulf of Mexico. Nb Information Is given In this study as to percent of boats or trips that were focused on the reef fishery. A total of 77.3 percent of all !:oat captains on commerclClI OOClts owned and operated one ooat while another 13.6 percent were Involved with two or rrore ooats (TClble 8). Gulf of Mexico ooats averaged 47.2 feet In length with average capacity of 21 passengers. A total of 67 OOClts used loran while another 29 percent were planning to purchase loran within the next three years. This lOuld make a totClI of 96 percent who expect to have the capabi Iity of "exact spot" fish I ng on good reef fish areas. Tota I Fleet Income Estimated total annual gross revenue of commercial saltwater sport fishing was $16,854,682 in 1973 as estimated by Bromberg (1973). The majority of this Income came from ooats 65 feet or longer in length. Bromberg estimated 53.8 and 36.3 percent of all trips were specifically seeking snappers and groupers, respectively. However, since part of these trips regardless of ultimate catch, probably 7 The Gulf of Mexico was qeflned as all states from Texas to Florida Including the Florida Atlantic Coast. 3-43 Table 7. Estimated number of private recreational boats that fished in salt water over a 12-month period by region and size class, Gulf.of Mexico, '973 ' • Size Class Number of private Less than 16 feet but less 26 + Reg Ion recreational boats 16 feet than 26 feet feet Alabama 52,318 28,478 21,193 2,647 Florida 2 95,996 52,253 38,886 4,857 Loul sl ana 46,267 " 25,184 18,742 2,341 Mississippi" 15,819 8,611 6,408 800 Texas 138,195 75,222 55,980 6,993 TOTAL GULF 348,595 189,748 141,209 17,638 All private recreational boats that fish In salt water Includes those fishing In salt water portions of rivers, sounds, and bays In addition 10 those fishing In the open ocean. 2 Includes Florida Atlantic coast. Source: Bromberg, K. M., 1973. Table 8. Number of commercial sportflshlng boats owned and/or operated per boat captain In the Gulf of Mexico, 1977 1• Number of boats owned/operated 2 3 4 5 Percent owning/operating the designated number of boats 77.3 13.6 4.5 0.0 4.5 I nc I udes a II vesse I s that carry sport fI sherman for hire Source: Fraser, Michael B., James A. Henderson, and John F. McManus, 1977. 3-44 sought groupers and snappers as the primary species, It Is not possible to delineate the total gross revenue in this study to that part just due to reef fish. Acrordlng to Fraser, et al. (1977), a total of 73 percent of rommercial sportfishlng captains In the Gulf chartered for their S)le support. Wade (1971) estimated that the average Alabama charter boat grossed $147.50 for each charter in 1975 and made 183 trips per season for an average annual gross revenue per boat of $25,992. 0.. that basis, seasonal totals for the 22 charter boats amounted to $593,835 with 57 percent of the catch on these boats being reef fish. In CDntrast, Prochaska and Cato (1975) estimated that the average party boat on the Florida northwest roast had a gross revenue of $142,529. Based on the number of fishermen trips and a total of 48 boats operating In the region at the time, total gross revenue for this fleet 'fOuld have arrounted 10 $5.8 ml II ion. A total of 74 percent of the catch was reported to be grouper and red snapper. Ditton, et al. (1977) estimated that charter fishing fee expenditures along the Texas coast amounted to $1.3 million In 1975. This estimate Included both bay and Gulf fishing. That Portion of expen ditures for Gulf fishing amounted to slightly less than $1.1 mil lion. Estimated total spending for fees as well as noncharter fee expenditures for both bay and Gul f fishing amounted to $4.2 ml I I Ion. Ditton estimated that 83 percent of charter boat operators acted as single proprietors. The average Gu I f boat had a gross revenue of $ 14,351 with an average investment in the boat of $25,554. Total fleet inrome for both private and CDmrnerclal recreational fisheries are available only In the romblned form of tota I economic estimates In terms of sal es, val ue-added, wages, anployment and annual capital expenditures for recreational reef fishing In the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico for 1975. Total sales In the eastern Gulf of Mexico associated with the reef fishery were $119,252,000 and Incluqed sales of fishing tackle, boats, motors, trailers, marinas, CDmmerclal vessels, food, lodging, travel, Insurance, bait and other expenditures (Appendix Table 52). A similar value for the western Gulf was $25,958,000 (Appendix Table 53). Data on value added, wages and salaries, anployment and annual capital expenditures for the two regions are alS) shown in Appendix Tables 52 and 53. Of the national economic Impacts associated with the marine recreational fishery, It is estimated that approximately 35 percent are due to fishing activities In the Gulf of Mexico. It Is alS) estimated that approximately 23 percent of Gulf recreational fishing economic impact results from reef fishing activities. Thus, Gulf of Mexico recreational reef fishing acCDunts' for approximately eight percent of the total national economic Impact associated with marine recreational fishing. Investment In Vessels and Gear Data on Investment in recreational vessels and gear are available from various S)urces. Prochaska and Cato (1975) estimated the average value of CDmmerclal party boats along the Florida northwest ,coast In 1974 at approximately $155,543. The Florida rommerclal party boats were the larger party or head boat type S)metimes as large as 85 feet In length; and In CDntrast, the average value of the smaller Texas charter boats that fished the Gulf was estimated at $25,554 In 1976 by Ditton (1977). ,Value estimates for the entire recreational fleet are available from Centaur (1971). Annual capital expenditures at the manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade levels for tackle, boats, motors, trailers, and CDrnmerclal vessels totaled $1,225,000 in the eastern Gulf (Appendix Table 52) and $241,000 in the western Gulf (Appendix Table 53). This would not be total current value of the vessels and asS)clated gear, but that capital added each year In the form of new equipment and 10 replace depreciated equipment. 3-45 Ann ua I part i c I pat Ion Participation In terms of trips and days spent fishing for the Gulf of Mexico are estimated by Bromberg (1973). The number of fl shlng tr Ips In the open ocean by al I pr ivate recreational boats in 1973 was estimated at 2,592,956 and for commercial sportflshlng boats at 59,066 (Appendix Table 54). The number of days were estimated at 2,839,222 and 60,521 respectively.' Participation rates are given by state and boat size for private boats and commercial recreational boats In Bromberg (1973). The percentage of trips and days seeking the various species of reef fish is also shown In Appendix Table 54. Red snappers and groupers were the most sought-after species accounting for about 14 percent of al I trips In the private boats and between 36 and 54 percent of al I trips In commercial sportf I sh I ng boats. Wade (1977) estimated a total of 161,040 hours fished from 20,130 fishermen trips for the Alabama charter boat fleet In 1975. The average boat made 183 tr Ips per season. Prochaska and Cato (1975) estimated an average of 6,714 fishermen fished per party boat along northwest Florida In 1974. This arrounted to a total number of fishermen trips of 322,272 during that year. Ditton, et al. (1977) estimated that Texas boats fishing In the Gulf only made an average of 68 trips per year ~Ith no details available on number of fishermen. Total Manpower Employed Centaur (1977) estimated employment resulting from all activities associated with the marine recrea tional fishing Industry. These data were dlsaggregated to the reef fish sector and srow a "Iota I of 3,250 person-years employment In the east Gulf and 732 person-years In the west Gulf associated with the reef fish marine recreational s,ector (Appendix Tables 52 and 53). Catch-Effort Data Accurate catch-effort data for both the private and commercial recreational reef fishery are very limited. Almost all data are from random stUdies done for various states and in different years. Analysis of the data given by Clark (1960), Deuel and Clark (1965), and Deuel (1970) points out few consl stent trends. Methods used "10 estimate average weights for 1960 in contrast to the 1965 and 1970 studies also make comparison difficult. Some species were also reported in different categories in different years (snappers vs. red snappers). The data are delineated In average size, number of fish per fishermen and pounds per fishermen In Appendix Table 55. The extremely wide variations In these data po Int out the limits In their usefulness. Wade, et al. (1977) reported some limited catch-effort data for 22 Alabama charter boats. Catch reported for 1975 was In pounds per man-hour for anberjack (.83), grouper (.02), and snapper (.36). Snapper Included red, gray, lane, and verml I Ion snappers. Prochaska and Cato (1975) reported an average annua I catch per boat for northwest F lor Ida party boats In 1974 of 134,286 pounds of red snapper, grouper and other fish. This arrounted to a catch per fisherman for snapper (7.5 pounds), grouper (7.3 pounds) and other fish (5.2 pounds) for a "Iota I of 20.1 pounds. Catch per fisherman-hour was not recorded. Ditton (1977) did not include catch data in his Texas charter boat study. 3.5.5 Subsistence Fishing Characteristics None occurs In this fishery. 3.5.6 Indian Treaty Fishing Characteristics None exl st' In thl s fl shery. 3-46 3.5.7 Other Activities Directly Related to Fishing No activities other than those covered are considered important. 3.5.8 Area Community Characteristics (3.5.8.1., 3.5.8.2. and 3.5.8.3. are al I combIned under thIs general headIng). The estImate of impact of the MSY/OY recommendatIons on each major reef fish landing point and its surroundIng area have been developed wIth three objectives In mInd: (I) to determIne the extent of the reef fishIng industry at the local level; (2) to determine If locatlonal dIfferences exist in the socIoeconomIc characterIstIcs of the reef fIshermen, and (3) to construct socIoeconomic profiles of each major landIng poInt and Its surroundIng area. Data searches were made of: (I)' previous research (which is generally sample survey data), (2) pub I ished data such as the Census of Population, and Fishery Statistics of the U.S.; and (3) unpublished data such as current unemployment rate and employment profiles which are tabulated by state employment security agencies. These three data" sources, however, did not yield sufficient information about the reef fishermen to develop any reliable profile so they were supplemented with a brief sample survey of "expert" reef fishermen at state, county and local community levels. Unfortunately, these survey data do not support concrete deductions. The data from previous sample surveys Indicate some general socIoeconomIc characterIstIcs of reef fishermen. Since these stUdies were completed by various researchers and conducted at varying scales of InvestIgation (I.e., local communIty, region, state, etc.), there Is lIttle comparabilIty among the fIndings. The Census, on the other hand, has tabulated some characteristics of fisherman whIch are comparable from location to location. These data, however, are for commercIal fishermen In general, rather than reef fishermen. Moreover, the Census tabulates thIs data only for state and metropolItan statIstical areas with popu lations greater than 250,000. Another severe shortcoming of the data Is that the employment character istIcs, age, and income group tabulatIons are totaled for those employed in forestry as well as fIshing. The CommercIal Reef FIshing Industry by Local Area The Gulf reef fishing Industry covers fIve states and Is concentrated in 17 major landing poinTS: Bon Secour and MobIle In Alabama; Panama CIty, Pensacola, Carrabel Ie, Tampa, Ft. Myers, Bradenton, Key West, Nicevil Ie, MadeIra Beach and NokomIs in FlorIda; Golden Meadow In LouIsIana; Pascagoula In Mississippi; and Rort Isabel, Galveston, and Aransas Pass In Texas (FIgure 4). The majorIty of the Gulf reef fIsh are landed In FlorIda (Table 9). FlorIda counties wIth hIgh per centages of the total Gulf landIngs Include: Pinellas (17.8 percent), Monroe (15.5 percent), Bay (13.5 percent), and Lee (11.4 percent). Of the remaining 15.0 percent, Jackson County, Mississippi, accounted for 9.0 percent, Alabama for 3.6 percent and Texas 2.1 percent. La Fourche ParIsh, Louisiana, accounted for less than one percent of the total. By computing the percentage of the total county landings that were reef fish (Table 9, column 4), an Indication of the opportunIty for other types of employment In the fishing Industry can be obtained. Florida's highest county, wIth a high of 60.6 percent was PInellas County. Lee County was lowest at 19.2 percent. In BaldwIn and /vbbile countIes, Alabama, reef fish were 12.5 and 11.2 percent respec tively, of total landIngs in those counties. For the three Texas landing points, reef fish accounted for less than 9.0 percent of all fIsh landed. In both louisiana and MIssIssIppi, the reef fish industry appears insignificant wIth less than one percent of their total catch In reef fIsh. 3-47 ~ [1 ARANSAS I.A , I> CD ISABEL ! 11-" i o l) ~o J'~ 1:10 111 60 WILel 0La -C~ -==- Figure 4 - Socioeconomic Impact of Yield limitations: The Gulf Reef Fishing Communities . I G U L F GOLDEN ~~O ~~ i i i i . , j ALABAMA o F MEXICO LEGEND • MINIMAL IMPACi * MAJOR IMPACT GEORGIA .--... l.. KEY WEST ~" ~ ... ..-.,. "Z. .:;1-" • '" '" ~ SOu"'!' .:O ..... ulfC d, lur....c .. s l.o I A 10 Table 9. PrIncipal Pbrt Production, Population and Sales Impact Char~cterlstlcs. ( I ) (2) (3) Reef Fish Landings Percent of Total Landings State/County (thousands of JXlunds) Total Gulf (thousands of JXlunds) Landings Alabama Baldwin 179 1. ° 1,436 MJblle 452 2.6 4,124 Florida Bay 2,342 13.5 7,051 Escambla 616 4.7 2,664 Franklin 369 2.1 1,472 Hili sborough 155 0.9 544 Lee 1,977 11.4 10,260 Manatee 1,122 6.5 4,511 Monroe 2,720 15.6 11,922 Okaloosa 472 2.7 2,026 Pinellas 3,099 17.6 5,115 Sarasota 97 0.6 311 Loul s I ana La Fourche 52 0.3 389,963 Mississippi Jackson 1,561 9.0 244,340 Texas Cameron 201 1.2 3,235 Ga I veston 65 0.5 961 Aransas Pass 71 0.4 1,251 Sources: (by co I umn) (4) Reef Fish as a Percent of Total Land Ings 12.5 11.2 33.2 30.4 25. I 26.5 19.2 24.9 22.6 20.3 60.6 31.2 1.0 1.0 6.2 6.6 5.7 (5) Pbpu I at Ion 70,962 341,034 92,664 59,507 7,943 600,715 163,976 126,160 53,666 164,356 673,604 165,054 74,967 122,650 169,300 162,000 102,633 (6) Reef Fish Sa I es Impact Per Capita (dollars) 1.44 0.76 15.63 6.50 26.60 0. 16 7.48 5.51 31.30 1.73 2.85 0.36 0.40 6.01 0.77 0.30 0.45 (I) and (3) NatIonal Marine Fisheries Service; NOAA; Washington, D.C. (FlorIda data from 1976 Annual Summary. other states for 1975.) (2) and (4) ( 5) (6) Computed by research team 1975 Pbpulatlon ,Estimates from State Employment Security Agencies Column (I) multlpl led by average value of al I reef fish per JXlund In each state dlvded by Cblumn (5). '''-...':JJ/ An Index of the impact of the Industry for each local area has been computed to better eval uate the relative imJXIrtance of the industry In each loc;al area. This was derived ~y multiplying the total pounds of reef fish landed in each area by the average state price of all reef fish per p;:lund to obtain the approximate annual value of reef fish. This figure divided by the JXlPulatlon for each area, provides a. fairly rei iable per capita impact figure for each local area (Table 9). The Impact figures vary widely from a high of $31.30 per capita for tvbnroe County, Florida, to a low of $0.16 for Hillsborough County, Florida. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Reef Fishermen of Local Areas Detailed descriptions of .Iocatlonal differences In the median age, education, Income, etc., of reef fishermen appear In Appendix Tables 58-60. Where these dlfferBDces are relevant to the Impact of yield I imitations, they are noted In the fo I lowing section. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Local Areas This assessment of the relative 9:lcloeconomlc well-being of the Gulf reef fishing communities (Figure 4) is based on selected 9:lcial and denographic variables obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970, (median education, median family Income, median age, net migration, percent below the poverty level, percent foreign born, and total popUlation (see Appendix Table 67). Census data are not sub-divided adequately to delineate employment In these regions for the fishery sector. Consequently, more general employment categories are discussed. A combination of three leading econo mic indicators (the unemployment rate, the percent of male ~rkers employed less than 26 weeks per year, and the percent of total employment In manufacturing) helps to gauge the relative economic strength of the local economies and the Impact of JXlsslble yield limitations on those economies. The unemployment rate and the percent of total employment In manufacturing were obtained from each community's state employment security agency. The percent of male ~rkers employed less than 26 weeks was obtained from the 1970 Census of Population (see Appendix Table 68). Each of the counties was ranked on these three economic indicators to determine the level of economic and 9)clal impact on the county should reef fishing be restricted or limitations imposed. Those counties that performed consistently well were deSignated as "minimal impact" areas. Those counties >11th a poor performance on all three economic Indicators were deSignated as areas of "major Impact". Finally, those counties with mixed results on the economic Indicators were grouped In either the minimal or major Impact categories depending on reef fish sales per capita (Table 9, Column 6). Similarly, for a few counties the degree of Impact could not be determined 9)Iely on the basis of the economic Indicators because the counties did not perform consistently on all three Indicators. In these cases, the county's 9:lclal and denographlc Indicators and reef fish sales per capita were used to determine the appropriate "Impact" deSignation. These Instances are noted In each county's descrlp t Ion that fo I lows. Areas of Minimal Impact Escambla County - Pensacola, Florida The 9Jclal and denographlc picture In Pensacola and Escambla County Is promising. The county has experienced 9)me out-migration, but the city Is growing well and Income and educational levels are high for both the county and the city. Based on the 9)clal and denographlc variables, Pensacola could withstand yield limitations without significant Impact. The same strength Is evident for the economic variables. Opportunities for EJ11ployment in the area are good. The county had the lowest !Slemp loyment rate (4.0 percent; f I na I quarter, 1977> for a I I the 3-50 counties studIed. The strong st-owing for manufacturing In the county also suggests that the county capable of withstanding yIeld limItations wltoout significant impact. ;: Galveston County - Galveston, Texas The net migration figure for the city of Galveston indicates that an exodus Into richer and better edu cated Galveston County has begun. The situation for the city, however, Is not so serious compared 10 the other landing points In the study. Income levels are relatively high In the city, altt-ough the median educational level Is below high scoool completion. Given the size of the region, ~wever, yield limitations soould not have a significant Impact on the s:>clal structure of the comml.fllty. Both the county and the city are stronger on the basis of the social and demographic variables than the rest of the Texas landing sites studied. Galveston County places In the top third for the economic variables. Manufacturing In the county is relatively strong and is expected to Improve as Is the situation for 011 and gas production. If yield limitations are necessary In Texas, Galv,eston loOuldbe the area of least Impact. Hillsborough County - Tampa, Florida Hillsborough County and Tampa are capable of withstanding significant yield limitations. Both rate relatively well on the s:>clal and demographic variables. The city and the county have fairly high median educational levels and quite high median Income levels. Unfortunately, the county's high growth rate appears to come at the expense of Tampa, which grew only one percent during the 1960-1970 period. Nevertheless, the overall conrnunlty's soowlng .Is strong. Coupled with the fact that the county's median age Is low (28.8 years), the area appears quite stable. Hillsborough County does well on the economic variables to place It In the top third on the com bination of economic Ind Icators. The I.flemployment rate In the county was third lowest for all the counties studied, (4.8 percent In t-bvember, 1977). Compared to the other Florida counties, the area has a high concentration of manufacturing. Jackson County - Pascagoula, Mississippi Jackson County and the major landing point, Pascagoula, place at the top of the list for the produc tion areas with minimal Impact If yield IIl1!ltatlons are necessary. TI:1e strength of the comml.fllty is evident In both the s:>clal/demographlc and economic varlab'les studied. Both the county and the city have the strongest soowlng for the s:>clal and demographic variables for all the landing points studied. Pascagoula ranks first, second, and third for the variables median Income, med Ian education, and percent above poverty level, respectlvel y. The net migration rate for Pascagoula (5.9 percent Increase per year) Indicates that the city experienced an lSlusually hl,gh growth rate for the period 1960-1970. Coupled with the fact that the county's growth rate Is lower than the city's <3.4 percent Increase per year), It appears that Pascagoula Is not exper ienclng an exodus to the county suburbs, a common experience for cities Its size. The economic strength of the county also suggests that yield limitations loOuld not have a serious Impact on the area. The county ranked In first place on the combination of important economic IndIca tors. The county has an extremely high concentration of employment In the manufacturing sector. Most of these persons are Involved In shipbuilding. The Industry's I.flemployment rate Is low, and the future out look Is promi Sing. On the basis of the s:>clal 3nd demographic characteristics, Pascagoula could wei I withstand the Impac' of yIeld limitations wltoout serIously affecting the community's s:>clal structure. 3-51 La Fourche Parish - Golden Meadow, Louisiana La Fourche Parish and Golden Meadow dIffer from IIOSt of the the other counties and cIties In the study. Whi Ie many of the Florida counties and cIties had low Income levels and high educational levels, both La Fourche Parish and Golden Meadow have relatIvely hIgh income levels and loweduca tional levels. The parish and the city also differ from the Florida sites In that they have a low median age and a high rate of out-migration. G:llden Meadow had a high percent of the population above the poverty level, yet the town had a 1970 population of only 2,681. The extremely low educational level for Golden Meadow, only 7.2 years, \IoOuld normally be the decisive factor in protecting the com mun Ity from yield lImitatIons. f-bwever, the economic picture for the county Is favorable. The county ranks third (behind Jackson and Escambla counties) for the combInation of factors. The paradox was reso Ived when it was determined that the 52,000 pounds of grouper and snapper caught In 1977 In the central district of louisiana was primarily Incidental catch, and that no rommercial reef fishermen live In the area. Based on thIs Information, supplied by a local Sea Grant marine agent, and coupled with the strong economic situation, the area appears capable of withstandIng yield limItations. Baldwin County - Bon Secour, Alabama Social and demographic statistics for the town of Bon Secour are unavailable although a recent popula tion estimate for the town Is 850. The OJunty has experienced good growth rates In recent years, probably at the expense of neighboring M:>blle County. The median educational level and median family Income level are lower than the average for the remainder of the counties. The combinatIon of economic Indicators places Baldwin County In the middle third for al I the rounties In the study. The county generally appears to be simi lar to M:>blle County In terms of the economic variables. Bon Secour, however, Is not as capable of withstanding yield limItations. M:>bl Ie County - M:>blle, Alabama The social and demographic situation Is similar for both the county and city of M:>bile. Both have relatively low educational levels and relatively high Income levels. The city does fare slightly better for the net migration rate, Income level, and educational level when compared to the county. In general, the high concentration of peopfe In the area suggests that the yield limitations a:)Uld be tolerated In the area, although In terms of these social and dellOgraphlc variables, other areas should be considered. The economic situation In M:>blle Is fairly good. The county ranks In the upper third for the rom blnatlon of economic Indicators. Opportunities for employment, however, are primarily for the tech nical and professional occupations. Work surpluses do exist In the U'Iskllled and semi-skilled trades. I-bwever, thIs combination of factors suggests that the county Is an area of minImal Impact If yield I imitations were InItiated. Lee County - Ft. Myers, FlorIda Lee County and Ft. Myers show a good deal of strength for the selected socIal and derrographlc varIables. The city has experIenced high growth rates In recent years and It ranks thIrd In positIve net mIgratIon for all the landIng points studIed. MedIan Income, percent above IXlverty level, and median educational levels are well above average In the city. The county fares well also, especially In the rate of growth variable. CX1 the basIs of the social and demographIc varIables, the Ft. Myers area is the strongest of all the reef fishIng oommunltles located on Florida's west coast 9:)uth of Tampa. 3-52 The strength derronstrated by the g:)C I a I and derrograph I c var I ab I es, 1"0 wever, I s not ref I ected In the economic variables. Lee County was In the middle third for the combination of economic indicators. Although the local unemployment rate was only ~.9 percent In July, 1977, the percent employed In manu facturing was low. This suggests that the likelihood of obtaining other employment is not good. It appears, therefore, that the county lOOuld experience a ITCderate Impact If yield limitations were Initiated. Manatee County - Bradenton, Florida Manatee County and Bradenton derronstrated a situation simIlar to that in the neighboring county, Sarasota. Median education and growth rates are high, yet the Income levels for both the county and the city are low. This probably Is a result of the large number of older residents In the county and city, many of whom are lIving on fixed Incomes. This situation Is IOOrse than In the rest of the Florida cities. Bradenton ranks the second lowest of al I the landing points In median Income. In addition, the county ranks In the middle third for the comblnatl"on of economic Indicators. Unemployment is relatively hIgh (8.6 percent In 1976) and opportunities for employment are scarce. Okaloosa County - Nlcevil Ie, Florida The social and derrographlc picture Is much better for Okaloosa County than for Niceville. (}-owth rates In the county are high, and the educational level, 12.4 years, puts the county In a tie for first place with Sarasota County. t-bwever, Ft. Walton, located In the county, significantly affects these figures. The county places in the middle third for the combination of economic Indicators. The economic indi cators offer conflicting evidence., The low percentage of IOOrkers IOOrk/ng less than 26 weeks suggesh' a stable employment picture, however, the low percentage of employment involved in manufacturing is unfavorable. The unemployment rate, 7.2 percent in 1'bvember, 1977, Is about average for all the counties studied. Pinellas County - Madeira Beach, Florida The character of Madeira Beach, as evidenced In the g:)clal and derrographlc variables, Is typical of many of the Florida communities studied. Educational levels are high, but Income, levels are lower because of the high median age In the county. For the city, how~ver, the low median Income levels are not reflected In hIgh poverty levels. Many of the people In this community have low Incomes, but few are below the p:Jverty level. This Is also a reflection of the older popUlation. Although the county shows g:)me Indications of strength, the county ranks In the middle third for the combination of economic Indicators. The economic situation In Pinellas County Indicates that the reef fish fishing community may suffer moderately with yield limitations. Sarasota County - 1'bI<Dmls, Florida Both Sarasota County and 1'bI<Dmls have high rates of growth and high educational level s. I-bwever, both median Income and percentage above poverty level are low for the city and county. The discrepancy can be explained by the large number of retirees !n the county as evidenced by the median age, 49.4 years. These people could be expected to rl:llse the educational levels, but ITCSt of them are living on fixed Incomes. The situation Is even IOOrse considering the economic variables. The unemployment rate is relatively low but the percent emp loyed In manufactur Ing is low. Th I s puts the county at the bottom of the list 3-53 for the combination of economic Indicators and there might be noderate Impact because of any restric t ion. Aransas, Nueces, and San Patricio Counties - Aransas Pass, Texas Aransas Pass lies on the border of three counties. San Patricio and Nueces are Urban, and losing population, while Aransas County Is at the 50 percent urban level and gaining p:Jpulatlon. The educa t'lonal levels for all three counties are below the high school completion rate, but Nueces County, which contains the city of Corpus Christi, has the third highest median Income level of al I the counties stud led. The data for Aran sas Pass ind I cate a s I tuat Ion much II ke that in Port I sabe I. It has the fo urth lowest median income level of al I the landing p:Jints, the second lowest percent above the p:Jverty level, and the third lowest educational level. The town also lost 16 percent of Its p:Jpulation during 1960-1970. The economic situation Is mixed. Nueces Cbunty ranks In the upper third, San Patricio County In the middle third, and Aransas County was excluded from the combination of economic indicators because of Insufficient data. It appears the Impact on the city of Aransas Pass could be major due to IImita t Ions. Cameron County - Port Isabel, Texas Cameron County and Port Isabel are consistently the nest distressed areas In the study. The county ranks last in net migration and median education, and second to last in median Incomea Fbrt Isabel is also experiencing high levels of out-migration, as well as the lowest rank of median income. A full 36 percent of the commun ity was below the poverty level In 1970. The med ian educational level was only B.O years. The county has the nest significant level of foreign-born IX>pLllatlon for the counties In the study (one-third of the county Is of Mexican origin). The economic picture in Cameron County Is not promising. The county has the highest unemployment rate (11.3 percent in February, 1978) for all the counties studied. The percentage of males working less than 26 weeks per year Is the highest for all counties. Furthernere, a large proportion of employment In the county Is In seafood processing and· net production. Thus, yield limitations loOuld impact the community considerably. I-bwever, reef fish only represent 6.2 percent of to.tal fish landings. Areas of Major Impact Monroe County - Key West, Florida The social and demographic situation In Monroe County and Key West Is not conducive to yield ilmlta tions. The city experienced the highest rate of negative net migration (-1.9 percent per year In 1960-1970) for all the landing points studied. The city fared well down the list for such variables as percent above the poverty level, median Income and median education. The same Is true for ~'bnroe County except for the median education variable which Is slightly higher than that of the city. The economic picture In Monroe County Is also not amenable to yield limitations. The unemployment rate In the county Is the second highest (9.6 percent In 1977) for all the counties studied. The percent employed In manufacturing In the county Is the lowest for all the counties. The county's dependence on fishing ($31 of reef fish per capita In 1977) suggest that yield limitations would be felt throughout the local economy. 3-54 Bay County - Panama City, Florida Panama City and Bay County are generally in the mean area for the social and derrographic variables. Both the county and the city have average leveis of income, education, and net migration. The economic situation In Bay County is also unfavorable. The county places at the bottom of the middle third for the combination of economic indicators. Opportunities for other employment in the county are limited. The county and city's growth rate dropped to the negative migration level during 1960-1970. Although the trend can be reversed as more peopie migrate to Florida's less populated Panhandle counties, the other social and demographic variables suggest that the area wouid suffer moderate impact wiTh yield I imitations of any sign i ficance. Frankl in County - Carabelle, Florida Frankl in County exhibits the poorest economic indicators among all the areas and the demographic indi cators point to a small rural county also losing pjpulation. Reef fish sales impact per capita is the second highest, reinforcing the conclusion that this area would experience a major impact from MSY limitations. t-bst fishing operations in this area are smaller with respect to employees, total sales, and size of vessel. 3.6 Interaction Between and Among User Groups The only known foreign fishing for reef fish is that historically done by Cuba on the west Fiorida shelf. Details on this activity are reported in Section 3.2.2. Since the fishery appears fully exploited (Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 7.0) the Impact 0: foreign fishing wouid be detrimental. Some individual industry members and recreational fishermen and divers have expressed concern about the use of roller trawls and traps In the reef fish fishery and the impact of juvenile reef fish bycatch by shrimp trawiers. These are discussed in Sections 4.5 and 3.2.1.4. 3-55 4.0 BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTORS ¢~ 1 Life History Features In many instances avai lable II fe history features are incomplete or nonexistent; therefore many spec if I c references wll I ref I ect th I s oond i t ion. Sources are II sted at the end of each spec i es sec tion. Life history features have been provided only for tl"ose species In the management unit (Section 3.1.1). Less Information Is available for those species in the fishery (SectIon 3.1.2) and only a general discussion Is provided. While the literature lists ranges of SJme species to extend into the New Eng I and area, the rea II st i c northern lim I tis about Cape Hatteras. Ete I Is ocu latus, queen sn apper Distribution: This species is widely distributed througl"out the tropical areas of the \()rld as it Is thought to be oonspeciflc with the Indo-Pacific specles~. carbunculus. It is only rarely seen In the Gulf of Mexico. Habitat: This Is basically a slope dwelling fish which is occasionally found associated with SJft bottom at depths of 165-275 m. Age and Growth: f'.b data are ava II ab I e. Reproduction: No data are available. Feeding: f'.b data are available. Anderson, 1967; Brownell and Rainey, 1971; Camber, 1955; Tl"ompson and Munro, 1974. Lutjanus analis, mutton snapper Distribution: This species occurs from New England SJuthward to 9:>utheastern Brazil In the western Atlantic. It is also known from the Bahamas, the Gulf of Mexico, and has been introduced In Bermuda. Habitat: There Is oonslderable oontradlctlon In the literature regarding the preferred habitat of this species. Several references Indicate the species prefers shal low water areas near mangroves, canals, grass beds, 9:>ft bottom areas, and sandy areas between reefs. Another group of papers Indicates the species is often found over mud or sand bottom In deeper parts of the shelf at 100-183 m In depth. Reproduction: Individuals are reported to spawn In July and August. They probably attain sexual matur i ty at 40 em fork I ength and one fema I e has produced 1,365,975 eggs. Feeding: The mutton snapper feeds principally on crustaceans, fishes, and 9:>me gastropods. The dominance of either fish and/or crustaceans In the diet is probably dictated by local relative abun dance of prey and oompet I t Ion wi th other carn I vores. Beebe and Tee-Van, 192'8; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Brownell and Rainey, 1971; Jordan and Evermann, 1923; Moe, 1963; Randall, 1962; 1968; Starck, 1971; Struhsaker, 1969; Tl"ompson and Munro, 1974. Lutjanus apodus, schoolmaster Distribution: This species occurs on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. In the western Atlantic it is known from Massachusetts SJuthward to Brazil. It occurs In the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Bermuda, and the Bahamas. 4-1 Habitat: This species has been described as the most common snapper on the West Indies reefs. It shows a preference for el k horn cora I but does occas iona I I Y occur over grass areas. It apparently is the shallowest dwelll~g snapper reported on herel~. occasionally live In fresh water. Iv1 Individual apparently does not migrate I I fee flats and reef- like The schoo lmaster does very much during Its Age and Growth: Some large Indlvldu~ls may weigh as much as 3.6 'kg. The maximum length of schoolmaster snappers Is 60 on tot~1 length (TU. Growth Is apparently slow, being about 1.5 to 1.7 IMl per month In tagged specimens. Reproduction: As only spent Individuals have been taken, spawnIng may take place offshore, away from the normal inshore reef habItat of the species. The spawning period cannot be discerned at present although It may occur during the wInter. Feed I ng: They tend to feed at dusk and bas I ca I I Y eat crabs, shr Imp and fI shes. Beebe and Tee-Van, 1928; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; !-bese and /-bore, 1977; Longley and Hildebrand, 1941; Munro, et al., 1973; Randal I, 1962, 1968; RIvas, 1949; Starck, 1971; Thompson and Munro, 1974. Lutjanus campechanus, Gu I f red snapper Distribution: ThIs species which may be a synonym of the caribbean red snapper, Lutjanus purpureus, Is wIdely dIstrIbuted In the western Atlantic. The red snapper occurs northward to Massachusetts and southward to Brazil. It is also found In the Gulf of Mexico, where It Is perhaps most abund~nt, as well as the West Indies and Caribbean. Habitat: Generally the species prefers deeper offshore reefs or hard bottom areas as an adult. It i" often found assocIated with coral reefs or limestone outcropplngs In the northern Gul f of Mexico. The depth prefe'rence for adults Is broad but In general they tend to be found In deeper areas In the winter, 30-65 m (although depth records Indicate a potentIal range of 10-256 m). There Is consider able evidence that during the warm summer months there Is movement from offshore reefs to inshore reefs (20-30 m) except during the period of spawning when the adults tend to move offshore. During this movement Individuals may be captured over open sand or on softer substrates. Juveniles are most often collected Inshore In sandy or mud bottom shallow areas (10-35 m) In the shrimp ground area east, west, and south of the Mississippi Delta. It Is presumed that this constitutes a nursery area as large numbers of specimens are taken off these groundS as Incidental catch by shrimpers and Industrial fish trawlers. There Is evidence ~Iso that there Is a reciprocal offshore mIgration during the fal I of the year by adults. A single tagged specimen had moved only 148 km after six years of freedom. Temperature preference of the species Is between 14-30° C. The lower lethal temperature Is 12.7° C and the optimal ~tlvlty temperature Is 18° C. Age and growth: Individuals Initially show a rather rapid growth rate, attainIng 14-25 cm (fork length) In the first year of life. IndIviduals which are four years of age may be between 37-56 em long. Specimens may reach a maximum age of at least 20 years, a maximum length of 90 cm 'Iota I length and a maximum weight of 18 kg. Large variation In growth rate plus a prolonged spawn~ng period make It diffIcult to use length-frequency data for age-group analysis and otoliths appear to be ~ reliable way of aging specimens. !-bwever, there Is some question If the first annulus mark Is valid for age group one. Most specimens which comprise the fishery are apparently two years old and about 21-23 cm long In fork length. Reproduction: Sexes are separate. Spawning occurs at Inshore areas on the shelf between June and October. There is apparently an offshore migration during warmer months, presumably for spawning purposes. Larger Indlvldu':!ls spawn earlier In the season than smaller Individuals. Individuals may reach sexual maturity after age two. 4-2 Feeding: The red snapper Is basically carnivorous, feeding mainly on squid and fish. Altrough this species Is presumed a bottom feeder, the presence of squid and gastropod larvae in the stomachs i nd I cates a tendency to feed 0 ff the bottom in> the water 00 I umn at times. '''bst other invertebrates consumed by the red snapper are not obligate reef or rock dwellers and therefore the Inference can be made that the spec I es feeds away from these areas. Juven 1/ es 0 ften have shr Imp ! n the I r gut sand these sn apper are a I so taken by shr Imp traw I ers I n the shr Imp grounds. After atta I n i ng age-group I the fish change feed i ng hab I ts to become rrore pi sc i vorous. Beebe and Tee-Van, 1928; Brad I ey and Bryan, 1973; Camber, 1955; Futch and Bruger, 1976; !-bese and "bore, 1977; /Ioe, Beaumarlage and Topp, 1970; Moore, 1976; tJosely, 1966; Sal 'nlkov, 1969. Lutjanus cyanopterus, cubera snapper Distribution: This species Is not freque~tly captured anywhere within its range. Presently this range includes the western Atlantic from New Eng land southward to Recl fe, Brazil. It Is al so known from the Bahamas and the Gulf of Mexico. Habitat: The cubera snapper Is a reef-associated species found around patch reefs and offshore ooral reefs as wei I as wrecks. It is found at depths of 30-36 m but juveniles have been taken among seagrass areas off Cuba. Age and Growth: Th I s spec I es grows to at I east 45 kg and 150 em and I s therefore one of the largest snapper species in the Gulf. Reproduction: No data are available. Feeding: The species is pisclvorous. Starck (1971) examined the stomach contents of seven fish and noted the presence of snapper, grunt, parrotflsh and p:>rcuplne fish. Bohlke and Chapl in, 1968; f-bese and Moore, 1977; Starck, 1971. Lutjanus griseus, gray (mangrove) snapper Distribution: This species occurs on both sides of the Atlantic. In the western Atlantic it occurs from New England to southeastern Brazil. It Is also known from Bermuda, the Bahamas, Caribbean, West Indies, and Gulf of Mexico. Habitat: The gray snapper Is oonvron to a wide variety of habitats and environmental situations. It Is found at offshore reefs to a depth of 75 m. It is also oommon to Insrore areas, mangroves In tidal creeks and lagoons, estuaries and grass beds of Thalassla, Ruppla, !-blophlla, Dlaplanthera. It can also be found In the wide range of salinities from 0-35°/00. CDnoomltantly It tolerates a wide tem perature range (13.4 to 32.5° C). Age and Growth: The largest specimen reported to date Is 90 em In total length (perhaps this was a cubera snapper) although a specimen of 45 cm fork length has been examined by Thompson and Munro (1974). Fish may weigh as much as 14 kg but specimens larger than 3.6 kg are rare. Otolith annul i are formed In the fa II off Flor Ida. These specimens Ind Icate that the overall growth rate Is 3.1 to 4.5 mm per month. Fish 50 cm In length may be as old as nine years. Because of Its affinity for shallow water, Its growth rate Is greatly affected by seasonal water temperatures. Reproduction: The sexes are separate and females predominate at the Inshore sites while males are more frequently found offsrore. Females mature at about 19.5 cm In standard length and males mature at 18.5 cm. Females also tend to attain a greater size than males. Multiple spawning apparently 4-3 occurs offshore at dusk during the spawning season which lasts from June to August. Females produce about 12,000 eggs per gram of ovary (about 273,500 eggs per ovary) • • Feeding: Juveniles at inshore localities feed primarily on small crustaceans such as shrimp. cope pods, and amphipods. as well as larval fishes. Larger juveniles feed primarily on larger crustaceans. At inshore areas adults feed predominantly on crustaceans. particularly portunid crabs, as well as benthic fishes. At offshore reefs. the diet of adults Is primarily fishes and secondarily crusta ceans. Larger fish tend to eat proport lonate I y nore fish. Juven II es are pr Imar i I Y d I urna I feeders while larger fish are nocturnal feeders. Anderson. 1967; Bashlrullah. 1975; Bohlke and Chaplin. 1958; Erdman. 1956; Randall. 1961,1958; Smith, 1975; Springer and Woodbu~n. 1950; Starck. 1971; Thompson and Munro. 1974. Lut janus jocu. dog snapper Distribution: The species has been Introduced to Bermuda but naturally occurs In the western Atlantic from Massachusetts to Recl fe. Brazi I. It Is found In the Gu I f of Mexico and throughout the Car ibbean. Hab i tat: Juven il es apparent I y prefer Inshore loca II ties In bracki sh water of estuar i es. Larger fish are found over hard, rock and coral bottoms. The largest Individuals have been taken at the deepest localities. Depth range preferred Is variable. Smaller fish may be In water only 1 m deep but larger fish have been taken as deep as 83 m. Age and Growth: Largest specimens are about 72 em In fork length and maximum weight is between 9-14 kg. Average length of fish comprising the fishery Is about 30 em fork length. In 11 nonths one tagged fish grew only 2 mm. , Reproduction: The smallest ripe female observed Is 32.3 011 fork length. Ripe females have been co I I ected In both the ear I y spr I ng and I ate fa I I nonths. Feeding: The dog snapper eats primarily reef fishes, these compriSing about 51 percent of the di.et, with crustaceans and nollusks making' up the remaining portion of its food. The dog snapper apparently feeds night and ,day. Beebe and Tee-Van. 1928; !-bese and MJore. 1977; Randall. 1952. 1968; Starck, 1971; Thompson and Munro, 1974. Lut janus marogon I. marogany sn apper Distribution: This snapper Is found In the Caribbean northward In the western Atlantic to the carolinas. It Is found In the eastern Gulf of Mexico and In the Bahamas. Habitat: The marogany snapper prefers a wide variety of habitats: from sandy, grass bottom areas in shallow water to rocky. coral substrate areas. It is often captured from Acropora coral areas. Age and Growth: The largest known specimen of the mahogany snapper Is 37.5 cm In total length. Reproduction: No data are available. Feeding: Starck (1971) examined the stomach contents of 32 individuals and noted the diet was predominantly reef fishes with shrimp. crabs and octopus also present. Bohlke and Chaplin. 1958; Randal,. 1958; Starck. 1971; Thompson and Munro. 1974. 4-4 Lutjanus synagris, lane snapper Oescr I pt ion: The lane sn apper Is restr I cted to the warm temperate and trop I ca I areas of the western Atlantic. It is known from the Carolinas to s:>utheastern Brazil as wei I as the Gul f of Mexico, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the western Caribbean. Habitat: This species Is found in a wide variety of habitats and depths. Juveniles are often taken inshore In grass flats and back reefs. Often juveniles are taken off s:>ft bottom shrimp grounds where L. campechanus juveniles are also common. Adults tend to be found at deeper reef areas but may also be taken over sandy tottom areas away from reefs. Depth range of the species Is extreme from 9.1 m to 395 m. Individuals are usually found In higher salinities (35"/00) but are occasionally taken In water with lower sallnlty.(22"/00). The temperature preference has not been established but Individuals have been taken In water from 15.0 to 30" C. Age and Growth: The largest specimen recorded Is about 45 cm in total length but most fish which comprise the fishery are between 18 and 38 cm total length. ()Je scale annulus was observed on each of five fish examined by Thompson and Munro (1974) and the size range was 21-29 em total length, Implying a rather rapid first year growth rate as the size at first annulus formed was 20.5 cm (total length). Reproduction: Juveniles are often observed at inshore localities In the late summer or fall of the year, suggesting a midsummer spawning period. Studies on the gonads Indicate that individuals off Cuba may spawn from March to September, with peak reproduction periods In April-May and June-August. Egg production Is reasonably high as Individuals may produce 347,000 to 995,000 eggs at a time. Specimens attain sexual maturity above 14 em In length. Feeding: Juveniles feed on copepods, grass shrimp and other small invertebrates. Adults tend to feed d i urna II y on f I shes, crustaceans, anne II ds and mo II usks. Beebe and Tee-Van, 1928; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1958; Oruzhinin, 1970; !-bese and /Joere. 1977; Moe and Martin, 1955; Randall, 1958; Springer and Woodburn, 1950; Starck. 1971; Thompson and Munro, 1974. Lutjanus vivanus, silk snapper Distribution: The silk snapper Is found In the western Atlantic from the Carolinas s:>uthward to the northern coast of South JIlnerlca and In the Gulf of Mexico. It Is very common around the Virgin Islands. Habitat: This Is a predominantly deep dwelling snapper normally found at a depth of 151-234 m at or off the shelf edge on deep reefs (although It has been collected In water as shallow as 25 m and as deep as 387 m). Some Individuals may be found over s:>fter substrate particularly In the shallow parts of Its depth range. Age and Growth: Most specimens which comprise the fishery are between 19-74 em with the largest specimen reported being 79 cm total length. The length-welg'ht relationship Is 'represented by Log W = -3.47088 2.41350 Log L. Reproduction: Individuals mature above a size of 24-27 cm In fork length. Spawning may take place year round with potential spawning peaks In March. September. and t-bvember. Feeding: Fish comprise about 50 percent of the species diet; shrimp 17 percent, crabs II percent. lsopods four percent with ophiuroids. squid. octopus. and stomatopods also present. Tunlcates have been reported as a common food Item in shelf dwelling Individuals. 4-5 Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Brownell and RaIney, 1971; Munro, et 131.,1973; Sylvester, 1974; Sylvester and Dallmann, 1973; Thompson and Munro, 1974. Ocyurus chrysurus, ye I lowta I I snapper DIstribution: The yellowtaIl snapper occurs In the western Atlantic from Massachusetts to southeastern BrazIl. The specIes Is known from Bermuda, the Bahamas, the West IndIes, and the Gulf of MexIco. Habitat: Adults are normally found over reefs and sandy areas near reefs. These adults also form schools whIch swIm a few to several meters above these substrates. JuvenIles are more commonly seen at Inshore areas among turtle grass. Depth dIstrIbutIon Is from very shallow water to water less than 183 m. MaxImum temperature tolerated by the specIes Is 34° C and the lower temperatlTe limit is ISO C for juven I I es. The preferred temperature. range Is 24 to 30° C for juven II es. Age and Growth: The range of IndIviduals caught by the rommerclal fishery Is 16-27 em In fork length with the mean beIng about 22 em and three years of age. Females generally are larger than males. Maximum age Is about eight years and maximum size of Individuals Is about 76 cm total length. There Is lIttle evIdence of sexual dIfference In growth rates. Growth rates are between 5.3 and 6.6 mm per month. Reproduction: Individuals are reproductively active from February to October although there are possIbly two peaks whIch occur In February-April and September-October. Females produce between 100,000 and 1,473,000 eggs at a time and they attain sexual maturity at about 11-12 em standard length. Spawning probably takes place away from Inshore areas. Feeding: Juveniles are generally planktlvorous. Adults feed predominantly on benthic and pelagiC reef fIshes and to a lesser extent on crustaceans and mollusks. Algae In the diet Is apparently IncIdental. Beebe and Tee-Van, 1928; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Bright and Cashman, 1974; Druzhlnln, 1970; Hbese and /Joore, 1977; Munro, et 131., 1973; Piedra, 1969; Starck, 1971; Struhsaker, 196~; Thompson and Munro, 1974; Wal.lace, 1977. Prlstlpomoldes aqullonarls, wenchman DIstribution: The species Is distributed from North Carolina In the north to French Guiana In the south. It Is particularly common off the Greater Antilles, the western Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Habitat: The wenchman prefers hard bottom from the mIddle to outer edge of the shelf. The depth range of IndIviduals Is from 24-366 m wIth most specImens taken from water of 183 m at the shelf edge. Age and Growth: No data are ava I I ab Ie. ReproductIon: No data are available. FeedIng: No data are avaIlable. And arson, 1966. Prlstlpomoldes macrophthalmus, voraz DistrIbutIon: The 'oOraz Is a western Atlantic specIes which occurs In the Greater Antilles, West 4~ Indies, Bahamas, southward 10 the fIOuth of the Orinoco off Venezuela, and northward 10 FlorIda and the Gul f of Mexico. Habitat: Thl s is a rather deep dwel I ing species known from a depth range of 60-549 m but fIOst often taken 0 ff the she I f edge In water about 230-400 m deep. The substrate preferred I s apparent I y oora I rubble, rock, sand and occasionally mud. The specIes may favor areas with a steep drop off at the shel f edge. Age and Growth: Most fish which comprise the fishery are 30-39 cm In length. The largest specimens are 44 em long and the sma I lest fish captured by the fishery are 10-19 cm long. Reproduction: Females mature at a size larger than 18 cm In fork length. RIpe Individuals have been co II ected In October. Feed i ng: The '.Oraz apparent I y prefers a diet of shr Imp. Anderson, 1966; Browne I I and Rainey, 1971; Sylvester, 1974; Thompson and Munro, 1974. Rhombop lites aurorubens, vermi I Ion snapper Distribution: The vermilion snapper occurs from southeastern Brazil northward "10 the Carolinas in the western At I ant i c. It is not often taken In the fIOre trop i ca I areas such as the Bahamas but is oommon in the Gulf of Mexico. Habitat: The species Is normally caught at the edge of reefs In deeper water ranging from 30 to 183 m, being fIOSt comrronly found at reefs deeper than 64 m. B:>th juveniles and adults are found on these reefs which may be coral or limestone. The species is often found In the same areas as red snapper but it is presumed that the vermilion snapper Is not as closely associated with the substrate as is the red snapper. The lower lethal temperature of the species is 12.5° C and it has an activity temperature preferential of 27.5° C. Age and Growth: The species attains a maximum size of 60 cm "Iota I length and a weolght of 2.8 kg. Sexes are separate and they grow at about the same rate l.I1tl I age eight. Females continue to grow to age ten but males have not been seen older than eight. Growth Is slow, as one-year old fish are 9.9 cm; two-year old, 18 cm; three-year old, 026 cm; four-year old, 32 em; five-year old 39 cm; six-year old, 44 em; seven-year old 49 cm; etc, with the ten-year old fIsh being about 53 em. Reproduction: Spawning takes place from April through September. Females mature at year four and, occasionally, three. Fecundity ranges from 8,168 to 1,789,998 eggs per fish and they tend 10 spawn in depths of 30-90 m. Feeding: The species basically forages In the water column. Pelagic organisms such as ostracods, copepods, stomatopods, amphipods, euphauslds, etc., constitute 30 percent of their diet by 'vOlume. SquId account for 37 percent of theIr diet while pteropods, heteropods, and other oplsthobranchs °constltute 11 percent. Fish make up eight percent of the diet. They are probably nocturnal feeders. The verm II Ion sn apper probab I y teeds about 3-5 m of f the bottom. Bohlke and ChaplIn, 1968; Grimes, 1976, HIldebrand, 1955; Moore, 1973. Eplnephelus adscenslonis, rock hInd DistrIbution: The species Is rather broadly distrIbuted. It is known from the eastern Atlantic, from the Azores, Canary Islands, Ascension Islands, and along the southwestern African coast 10 the Cape of 4-7 Good !-bpe. The species also occurs romrronly along the western Atlantic roast from Massachusetts along the southeastern roast of the United States, througt'Out the Gulf of Mexico. It has additionally been recorded from localities In Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba, Belize, and Panama. It may be more generally stated that the species occurs In the littoral areas of the tropical Atlantic. Habitat: The rock hind is generally found at Inshore localities over hard rocky bottom such as rock j-etties, roral reefs, and rubble pi les, particularly In the warmer parts of Its range. It prefers rather shallow water having been rerorded rornrronly at 3-4 m and having been taken In water only as deep as 45 m. Age and Growth: Few data are available on these life history parameters but they probably attain a maximum size (total length) of 60 em. One study Indicated the species attains a maximum weight of 2.3 to 3.6 kg. Reproduction: 'N:l data are available but the species Is probably a protogynous hermaphrodite (reproduces first as a female, later changing sex 10 reproduce as a male) as are other members of the genus Epinephelus. Feeding habits: N:l data are available but the species may rrost probably be classed as an euryphaglc carnivore (I.e., feeds on a wide variety of Invertebrates and fishes). Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; !-bese and Moore, 1977; Smith, 1961; Smith; 1971; Springer and I'Ibodburn, 1960. Epinephelus drummondhayl, speckled.hlnd Distribution: The speckled hind Is distributed within the Gulf of Mexico, along the Florida east roast 10 t-brth Carolina, and In Bermuda. Within the Gulf It has been reported only east of the Mississippi Delta and Is apparently Infrequently rollected In the eastern part of the Gulf. Habitat: Although rare and apparently restricted 10 the eastern portion within Its Gulf range, the species Is found at rrore offshore localities In deeper water of 30-185 m. fib preferred substrate data are available. Age and Growth: Age data on the speckled hind are not currentlY' available. The maximum size of the species Is reported as 29 kg In weight. Most individuals are somewhat smaller, however, reaching 46 cm in 10tal length. Reproduction: Data on reproduction are not presently available. The species Is probably a protogynous hermaphrodite. Feeding: The speckled hind Is probably an euryphaglc carnivore based on Information available for other groupers. Gunter, 1935; !-bese and Moore, 1977; Smith, 1958; Smith, 1961; Smith, 1971; Smith, 1976; Smith, et al., 1975. Eplnephelus flavollmbatus, yel lowedge grouper Distribution: The species Is a rrore tropical and reef associated species than 50me other groupers. It has been rerorded througt'Out the Gulf of MexlcC? but Is also known from Cuba, the West Indies and the northern roast of South Mlerlca. 4-8 Habitat: f\lelson and Carpenter (1968) reported that the yel lowedge grouper Is often taken in the Gulf off Texas over areas of f I at bottom as we I I as> Irregu I ar substrates. Others have found it to occur rrore often at the shelf edge on mud, sand or sand-shell bottom. Although juvenile specimens have been recorded from shallow water (35 m) It Is nost frequently taken from deeper water at the shelf edge (180-275 m). Age and Growth: The yel lowedge grouper attains a maximum size of 16 kg with nost fish being caught weighing about 4.5 kg. Reproduction: Brownell and Rainey (1971) reported the presence of a ripe female, 88 cm long and weighing 9 kg from the Virgin Islands. The report of a female near maximum size Is cause to question the presence of protogynous hermaphroditism as the reproductive node In this species. Feeding: t-b feeding data are presently available except the report of squids In the stomach of E. flavollmbatus from the West Indies. Bullis and Thompson, 1965; Brownell and Rainey, 1971; Nelson and Carpenter, 1968; Smith, 1971; Walls, 1975. Eplnephelus guttatus, red hind Distribution: The species Is known from Bermuda, along the Atlantic coast 'from flbrth Carolina to Brazil. It Is also known to occur throughout the Gulf of Mexico, the Bahamas, and Caribbean. Habitat: The species Is very common In the deeper reefs off Bermuda. Throughout other parts of Its range It generally Is comrron In clear water, deep reef areas and is only rarely reported from murky estuarine, 90ft bottom regions. The species apparently prefers reefs associated with continental areas as opposed to Insular localities. Although It has been reported from shc;1 i~w water, its normal depth preference appears to be between 6 and 10 m for smaller specimens and generally between 30-110 m for larger adults. Even though the species Is tropical In Its distribution, 90me .:.uthors have suggested its preference for oooler, deep water as Is found 9ff Bermuda. In the Gulf of Mexico it is found at the west Florida shelf and off Texas. Age and Growth: Maximum size attained by the species is 76 cm In the northern Gul f of Mexico but ITOst larger specimens are generally only between 25-45 em In total length. Maximum weight Is unknown but estimates can be made from the length-weight equation of Thompson and Munro (1974: Log W = -1.754 + 2.960 Log U. Most large specimens average about 2 kg. Burnett-Herkes (1975) also reports that 30 em long specimens have about 10 annular otolith rings. Reproduction: The species Is definitely a protogynous hermaphrodite. Individuals mature first as females at or before 25 em In length. Burnett-Herkes (1975) Indicated that females range from 19 cm to 41 om (average 34) and males range from 23 on to 41 on (average 39). The ratio of males to females varies with local populations with reported ranges as 1:1.7 to 1:35. Spawning generally takes place from January to July. They tend to be sexually active at water temperatures above 20° C. Available evidence Indicates that Individuals come together at shallow (5-15 m) coral reefs and remain for a rronth during the spawning season. Fecundity estimates are variable: 89,671 to 3,364,902 eggs from Individuals ranging from 25-46 cm. Feeding: IndIviduals feed rapidly on a variety of reef or near reef fishes and Invertebrates such as Mlthrax and Callapa crabs, Scyllarld lobsters, Alphld shrimp, wrasses, parrotflsh and grunts. Crabs are apparently the nost Important food Item, making up approximately 40 percent of the diet by 'wQlume, whIle stomatopods (17 percent), shrImp (10 percent), fish (21 percent), octopods (seven percent), and echluroids (two percent) also contribute to the fo"cd of the species. Red hInds are apparently diur nal Iy actIve, reef dwel lIng organisms. 4-9 Bardach and I", .. bray, 1955; Bohlke and Chapl in, 1968; Bullis and Thompson, 1965; Burnett-Herkes, 1975; Q)llette and Talbot, 1972; !-bese and /.bore, 1977; Menzel, 1960; Munro, et al., 1973; Randa", 1962, ;i 1968; Smith, 1958; Smith, 1971; Smith, 1976; ~Ith, et al., 1975; Thompson 'and Munro, 1974. Eplnephelus Itajara, jewfish Distribution: This Is one of the grouper species In the Atlantic that has a conspeclflc population In the eastern Pacl flc Ocean as well. In the present study, however, the discussion wi II be conf ined to the Atlantic populations only. The general Atlantic distribution Is from Florida to Brazil, throughout the West Indies, Bahamas, Bermuda and the Gulf of Mexico. Habitat: The species generally Is found In areas of cover around ledges, caves, sunken wrecks, docks, bridges, reef outcroppings, etc. Juveniles have been taken commonly In lagoons and mangrove areas which presumably have a somewhat softer substrate. Depth preference data are few. The species Is known from a depth of 12-36 m In the eastern Gu I f of Mex Ico. Age and Growth: This Is the largest of the Atlantic American groupers, reaching a maximum size of 182 cm and a weight of 320 kg. Large specimens of 225 kg are common throughout Its range. Reproduction: There Is evidence that the species Is protogynously hermaphroditic. Feeding: Food of the jewfish Is diverse. bill turtles, crabs, and slipper lobsters. There are records of It eating Items such as fish, hawks MJst references Indicate that It feeds on spiny lobsters. Anderson, 1966; Beebe and Tee-Van, 1928; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Erdman, 1956; !-bese and Moore, 1977; Longley and Hildebrand, 1940; Randall, 1957, 1968; Smith, 1958; Smith, 1971; Smith, 1976; Springer and v.bodburn, 1960; Thompson and Munro, 1974. Eplnephelus morlo, red grouper Distribution: This species Is widely distributed along the coastal western Atlantic from Massachusetts southward to Florida, Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Gul f of Mexico, West Indies, Venezuela, and Brazil. It Is al so known from the west coast of Atr ica. Habitat: Generally the red grouper Is found on rocky, hard bottom areas near reefs. The fa~rite habitat Is apparently near crevices, ledges and caverns. Struhsaker (1959) however reported large catches of red grouper from s:>ft, mud bottom off the southeastern coast of the U.S. Small adults and juveniles are frequently found Inshore arrong turtle grass or sandy holes. The species prefers a moderate depth of about 30-120 m, but as stated previously, Is occasionally found Inshore In water less than 3 m and adults are rarely found In water less than 15 m deep. Age and Growth: The species attains a maximum total length of 85 cm and a maximum weight of about 23 kg. Individuals attain a size of about 40 em after five years. Some may attain at least 30 years of age. Instantaneous mortality rates have been calculated at 0.322, annual survival rate Is 0.724, and the annual mortality rate Is 0.225. Reproduction: Sex reversal (female to male) may occur In fish larger than 38 cm standard length and most often between 45-65 cm standard length. A broad size range of sexual transition Is apparently the norm for the species. Sexual maturity Is attained at four to six years for females and the maxi mum fecundity Is at ages eight to twelve. Males reach reproductive Importance at age ten and older. Peak spawning Is probably between April and May but Individuals may be reproductively active January through November. A female may produce 1,500,000 eggs. 4-10 Feeding: This diurnally active species apparently feeds on a wide variety of organisms such as fish, octopods, shrimp, crabs, stomatopods, and lobster. Specl fically, they eat ,portun Id and Callapa crabs and pa 11 nur I d and scy I I ar Id lobsters. Genera I I Y they appear 10 feed on a wI de var i ety of crustaceans and fishes, with larger individuals consuming more fIshes. Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968: Moe, 1969: Smith, 1971; SmIth, 1976; Struhsaker, 1969. Epinephelus mystaclnus, misty grouper Dlstributio.n: This species has an amphl-Amerlcan distrIbution, being reported from Bermuda, the Bahamas, eastern Florida, the southwestern Gulf of Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the West IndIes, and as far south as Brazil, and from the Galapagos In the Pacific. Habitat: This solitary species Is found over both hard and soft bottom In water deeper than most groupers prefer (100-300 m). SmIth (1958) reports specImens taken as deep as 490 m off the Florida Straits. Age and Growth: Maximum weight reported Is generally about 120 kg. Reproduction: SpawnIng may occur at least from July through August. Although protogynous her maphrodItIsm Is the suspected mode of reproduction In the specIes, the largest specimens known (100 em fork length) were females. Feeding: Food studies have not yet been conducted on this species, however, fish and squId have been found In stomachs. Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Brownell and Rainey, 1971; Munro, et al., 1973; Fbblns t 1967; Smi"ih, 1958; SmIth, 1971. Epinephelus nigrltus, Warsaw grouper DIstribution: The species Is common in the northern Gulf of Mexico but also occurs from Massachusetts 10 Florida, and has been reported from Trinidad and Brazil. Smith (1971) also reported the species from the eastern Pacific Ocean from Mexico to Panama. Habitat: Occasionally they are captured as juven lies at shallow Inshore localities but they are most often captured from reef areas at a depth of 37-457 m. Age and Growth: Specimens may reach 136 kg In weight and up to 150 em In length. Five 10 six kg Individuals are common In the Gulf. Reproduction: The Warsaw grouper Is probably a protogynous hermaphrodite. Feed i ng : r-o data on feed I n9 are ava I I ab I e. Bradley and Bryan, 1973; !-bese and Moore, 1977; Nelson and Carpenter, 1968; Smith, 1971. Epinephelus nlveatus, snowy grouper Distribution: The specIes Is found In the western AtlantIc Ocean from Massachusetts to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, the Bahamas, and Cuba. The species apparently does not occur in the West Indies except for Cuba. The snowy grouper also Is known from BrazIl In the western AtlantIc and from Baja, CalifornIa, to Panama In the eastern Paclflc~ 4-11 Habitat: Little is known of the habits of this fish except that it has been recorded from shoreline to depths of 395 m. Age and Growth: Maximum size attained by this species Is 122 em. Reproduction: The snowy grouper Is probably a protogynous herma~hrodlte. Feeding: No data are available on Its feeding habits. Bohlke and Chaplin. 1968; Smith. 1971. Eplnephelus strlatus. Nassau grouper Distribution: The species has been recorded from off North Carolina and Bermuda In the western Atlantic. s::>uthward along the cOastal U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. It is als::> known from the Caribbean and occurs as far s::>uth as Recl fe. Brazil. In the s::>uth Atlantic. Habitat: Adults tend 10 prefer a reef-type habitat while juveniles are often found in shallower sea grass areas. Smith (1971) has noted "the presence of two dl stlnct P'Pulatlons: one which occurs In deeper water and migrates Inshore to spawn and another group which remains at Inshore reef areas. The species has been reported as deep as 95 m but most fish are caught from coral reefs In the 26-30 m depth range. Age and Growth: Specimens have been rep'rted weighing as much as 25 kg but the average weight of specimens comprising the fishery Is 2.3 to 7 kg. Although Brownell and Rainey (1971) reported that 1lI'~'" specimens were 2.3 kg or less. the maximum length may be 130 em. \ Reproduction: The Nassau grouper Is protogynously hermaphroditic and the transformation from female to male takes place at 30-80 em In length. The spawning season Is from May to August off Bermuda and from November to February off the Virgin Islands. This species has been reported to spawn In dense aggregations off the Virgin Islands. Feeding: Specimens from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands ate fish (55 percent). crabs (22.5 per cent). and lesser amounts of other crustaceans. cephalopods. pelecypods. and gastropods. Off Venezuela. Carvlgon (1966) found that crustaceans formed the major p'rtlon of the diet of this species. Bohlke and Chaplin. 1968; Brownell and Rainey. 1971; Cervlgon. 1966; !-bese and IIoore. 1977; Manday and Fernandez. 1966; Munro. et al •• 1973; Randall. 1968; Smith. 1958; Smith. 1971; Olsen and La Place. 1978. Mycteroperca bonacl. black grouper Distribution: The species occurs as far s::>uth as Brazil and" Venezuela. and In the West Indies. It Is also known from the Bahamas. Bermuda. Florida and northward to Massachusetts as well as the eastern "Gulf of Mexico and off the Yucatan. Habitat: This species Is often confused with the gag. Mycteroperca mlcrolepls. owing to the preferred common name of the black grouper for.!:!. mlcrolepls by Gulf of Mexico fishermen; therefore much of the colloquial reports of "common to the Gulf of Mexico" do not refer to li. bonacl. Age and Growth: Most reports indicate that the black grouper attains a weight of 23 kg but there are several reports of large specimens reaching 100 em In length and weighing 82 kg. 4-12 Reproduction: The species is probably also a protogynous hermaphrodite as the largest individuals tend to be males and all the smaller individuals are females. In Bermuda, Smith (1971) indicated that spawning takes place from May to August whi Ie Erdman (1956) stated that a ripe male was captured in February off Puerto Rico. Feeding: Bohlke and Chapl in (1968) reported that the species feeds on smal I fishes and crabs. Bohlke and Chapl in, 1968; Cervigon, 1966; Erdman, 1956; !-bese and Moore, 1977; Randall, 1968; Smith, 1958; Smith, 1971. Mycteroperca interstitial is, yellowmouth grouper Distribution: The species is recorded from the tropical western Atlantic. It Is abundant off Bermuda and al so occurs in the Bahamas, Anti lies, .and Caribbean. Along the continental shel f it is known from New England to Recife, Brazil. Several authors have indicated a systematic problem in recognizing~. interstltia.lis in the Gulf of Mexico. It is apparently absent from the Gulf bl,lt small species of scamp,~. phenax, apparently have characters similar to M. interstitial is adults. The matter is not yet reso I ved. Habitat: The species has been taken from both coral and sand substrate within its range. There is also no apparent depth preference as specimens have been captured from 4 to 150 m. Age and Growth: The yellowmouth Is one of the smallest grouper. The largest reported size is 70 cm and the maximum weight recorded is 3.6 kg. Reproduction: Protogynous hermaphroditism is apparently the reproductive rrode. G:lnads are in a ripe condition from May to August. Feeding: Randall (1967) examined the stomach contents from eight specimens from inshore areas and indicated the species was piscivorous. Bohlke and Chapl in, 1968; Bright and Cashman, 1974; Brownell and Rainey, 1971; Bull is and Thompson, 1965; Randall, 1967, 1968; Smith, 1971; Smith, et al., 1975. I~ycteroperca micro I ep Is, gag Distribution: The gag Is restricted to the western Atlantic from Massachusetts to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It occurs abundantly through the Gulf of Mexico where It is often called the "black grouper". It is a I so known from Bermuda but I s apparent I y absent from the West I nd i es. Habitat: Adults are normally captured in depths ranging from 20-80 m. Juveniles are often found inshore in water less than a meter deep. Adults prefer offshore reefs or reef-like structures and areas of depression in the shelf east of the Mississippi River. Juveniles are often taken in estuaries, bays and grass flats. Age and Growth: McErlean (1963) conducted a life history study of the gag off St. Petersbur~, Florida. He found that specimens attained a probable maximum size of 95 cm standard length (approximately 110 cm in total length) and a maximum weight of 16 kg. Manooch and Huntsman (pers. comm.) have reported specimens greater than 25 kg. Most specimens which comprise the fishery weigh only about 2.5 kg. Growth is relatively rapid. The oldest and largest specimens examined were deter mined to be 8-15 years of age. A specimen tagged, released, and recaptured, Indicates that in 6.3 years of freedom it had moved 3.2 km and had grown at 4 mm per rronth. 4-1.3 Reproduction: McErlean and SmIth (1964) found that females were one to eleven years old In "the populatIon. Females transformed Into mature ~Ies as males represented on.'y the largest and oldest specImens (age 13-15 years; 86 cm In standard length). Spawning tIme Is snort and occurs In "the early spring. Females produce a large number of eggs (526,000 to 1,500,000) and the eggs are apparently demersal and the larvae pelagIc. FeedIng: The specIes feedIng habIts have not been adequately studIed. !-bese and ~ore, 1971; McErlean, 1963; McErlean and SmIth, 1964; r.'oe, Beaumarlage and Topp, 1970; SmIth, 1971; SprInger and It>odburn, 1960; Walls, 1975. Mycteroperca phenax, scamp DIstribution: The species Is essentlally.restricted to the western north Atlantic. It is common throughout the Gulf of MexIco and has also been recorded along the east coast of the U.S. as far north as Massachusetts. It may al so occur "In the southern Car Ibbean Sea. S:lme records of th I s specIes perhaps should be attributed to M. interstItial Is. Habitat: The scamp Is often found on the "snapper banks" In the Gulf. The species generally favors hard bottom areas and its depth range Is 20-90 m. Age and Growth: The scamp may attaIn a size as long as 91 em and 9:)me specImens are saId to weIgh up to 9 kg. ReproductIon: This grouper Is also probably a protogynous hermaphrodite. The only literature reference to spawning is the report of a ripe female In March. FeedIng: No data are avaIlable. Bradley and Bryan, 1973; !-bese and ~ore, 1971; Randall, 1968; SmIth, 1971; SmIth, 1976. Mycteroperca venenosa, yel lowfin grouper Distribution: Although found in the Gulf of MexIco, the yellowfln grouper Is also found In the tropIcal western Atlantic from Bermuda, 9:)uth Florida, the Bahamas, the AntIlles," and Brazil. HabItat: Apparently the species prefers Irregular, hard coral bottom but there Is some evIdence It can be found over mud bottom as well. Juveniles have also been taken in shallow grass beds. Depth records range from 2 to 145 m but most specimens have been taken at 35-120 m. Age and Growth: Thompson and Munro (1974) found that in the Antilles the species attaIned a maximum length of 86 em although there are other reports of specimens attaIning 90 em In length. After four years of II fe~. venenosa reaches 46-57 em In length and grows at approxImately 3 em per year. The average sIze of specImens collected from the fishery Is 65 cm. Reproduction: FIsh mature fIrst as females at about 51 em. Larger specimens are apparently males. Peak spawnIng takes place as early as December and as late as May. F~edlng: No data are available. It has been recorded as having toxic flesh due 10 clguatera. ThIs may IndIcate a plsclvorous feedIng habIt. Bholke and Chaplin, 1968; Brownell and RaIney, 1971; BullIs and Thompson, 1965; Randall, 1968; Smith, 1971; Thompson and Mun ro. 1974. 4-14 "~. "; . .•...• ./" Centroprlstls spp., sea basses Distribution: Several species occur In the Gulf of Mexico. Centroprlstls'melana, the southern sea bass, which was previously considered as a subspecies of .f.. striata Is the dominant species In the fishery which Is located off the Florida west coast. This species Is rare west of Cape San Bias and has not been documented from the western Gulf • .f.. ocyura, the bank sea bass, Is less comlTOn in the eastern Gulf and occupies deeper water than the other species. It ranges from ~rth carolina to F lor ida and throughout the Gu If. .f.. ph" ade I ph I ca, the rock sea bass, I s very comlTOn In the sha I low northwestern Gulf • ..£. striata, the black sea bass, (prevlously.f.. striata striata) occurs principally off the eastern Atlantic coast and is rare In the Florida Keys area. Habitat: As a group the sea basses tend to have a preference for rocky or rough hard bottoms • ..£. phi ladelphlca, however, Is ITOre frequently found over sandy or muddy lx:lttoms between 22 and 110 m and rarely occurs In the bays and sounds •• 8oth.f.. phi ladelphlca and C. melana are found closer to shore than .f.. ocyura wh I ch has a ITOre pronounced preference for hard (rocky) bottoms. C. me I ana Is taken from the highly saline bays of Florida. Age, Growth and Reproduction: ~ Information Is available for sea basses from the Gulf. C. striata In the south Atlantic reaches sexual maturity at age three for males and at age two for females. In this area a three to four year old fish Is approximately 23 em and 142 g. The females of.f..~­ delphica and probably the other species predominate In the earlier years and some transform into males as they get larger. Feeding: ~ Information is available for the Gulf. !-bese and M)ore, 1977; Smith, et al., 1975; Smith, 1975. Other Species In the Fishery Other species Included In the fishery but not the mangement 1I11t include tlleflshes, amberjacks, trlggerflsh and some of the wrasses, grunts, porgh,s and sand perch which are associated with the directed fishery for species In the management unit. Tlleflsh are deepwater species occurring from 20 to 600 m. Trlggerflsh are reef dwellers comlTOnly associated with red snapper In the northern and northwestern Guif. They also occur, though less abundantly, In the eastern Gulf. The hagfish, grunts, porgies and sand perch are largely associated with. rough lx:lttomln the eastern Gulf but range In deeper waters (25 to 100 m) across the Gulf. Amberjacks are schooling fIsh (particularly during their early life) which frequently occupy the water column above the reef apparently attracted by the bait fishes associated with the reefs. Larger specimens may become reef dwellers. They range throughout the western Atlantic from Massachusetts to Brazil. 4.2 Stock Units This section covered lI1der 3.1. 4.3 Catch Effort Data for Snappers and Groupers The following discussion IIlder this section and IIlder Section 4.7.1.1 pertains to the snapper and grouper In the management III It. "All reef fish" is used to designate the species of the snapper/ grouper complex. Sea basses are discussed separately under Section 4.7.1.2. 4.3.1 Commercial Landings Per Unit Effort Three types of effort data are consistently reported In published statistics which may be used to measure effort and catch per III It of effort. These effort variables are number of handline vessels, 4-15 number of handline fishermen on vessels and number of handllnes. I-bwever, these three reduce to t'oO because the number of handllnes used from 1957-1974 Is approximately the same as the number of handline fishermen during these years. (The.e'"xception Is that the number 'of handllnes used per fishermen In louisiana ranged from 2.9 to 29.5 between 1958-1955. These data are suspect for these years. Since 1955, the louisiana data are consistent with that from other states which Indicate approximately one handline per fisherman.) Total reef fish landed per commercial handline vessel In the Gulf of Mexico In the 1970's Is signifi cantly below landings In the late 1950's. In 1973 and 1974, vessels averaged about 40,000 pounds com pared to over 56,400 In 1957 and 1958 (Appendix Table 56). Three statistically distinct trends occurred since 1957. Landings per vessel declined until the early 1960's, then Increased until 1969 and since then have trended downward to current levels (Appendix Figure 13). Landings per vessel stow the most pronounced downward trend In Florida where the average dec I Ined from over 123,000 pounds In 1957 to slightly less than 40,000 currently. Landings per vessel have also .trended downward in Alabama and Mississippi while an upward trend Is reported in Texas. Nb apparent trend exists In Louisiana. 4.3.2 Commercial and Recreational Catch and Effort Data Catch data (Table 10) was compl led from several sources: (1) U.S. commercial catch data were supplied by the National Marine Fisheries Service. It Is our understanding that these data reflect "catch" (I.e., actually captured from a specl fic area) and not "I and I ngs" (I.e., I anded In a p::lrt regard I ess of where caught) as these figures wll I be different. (2) Cuban commercial catch consists only of grouper catches from the wast Florida shelf as pre sented by Zuboy, 1978. (3) Recreational catch is the Interpolated and extrapolated catch presented In this report for the years 1950, 1965, and 1970. Total catch as considered herein, represents the sum of the U.S. commercial, CUban, and U.S. recreational catches for all species treated as part of the reef fl sh management un it. When SIlapper were considered, catch for al I species wer~ combtiled. Grouper catch similarly Is a summation for all grouper for wh I ch catch data were ava I I ab Ie. The U.S. commercial effort (Table 11) for the reef fish fishery In the FCZ was compiled from the National Marine Fisheries Service (Fisheries Statistics of the United States, 1965-1974). The un It of effort used In this examination was the number of handline fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fishery. This was corrected to the number of handline fishermen days by multiplylng.the number of handline fishermen times the average number of days they fish (considered to be 200 days). Cuban commercial effort <Table 11) was estimated as a proportion of the combined effort of the Cuban and U.S. commercial catch for which U.S. commercial handline fishermen-day data were available. This calculation Is based on the equation presented by Gulland (1969:53) for use when more than one group of vessels Is exploiting a stock: Total Effort = Effort of Fleet (A) X Total Catch Catch of Fleet (Al 4-16 = Total Catch Catch per un it effort of FI eet (A) Table 10. Catch data used to generate MSY by the Graham-Schaefer equilibrium rodel for the U.S. Gulf reef fish fishery. 1) U.S. Commerc I a I U.S. Recreational Cuban Total Gulf FCZ (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Grouper2 ) Snapper3 ) Grouper Snapper Grouper Grouper Snapper 1965 3,530 3,410 7,220 11,410 870 11,620 14,820 1966 3, 170 2,810 6,750 10,750 1,190 11,110 13,550 1957 2,520 3,300 5,750 9,900 1,540 10,910 13,200 1958 2,880 3,700 7,000 8,750 1,510 11,390 12,450 1969 3,250 3,150 7,250 7,600 1,450 11,960 10,750 1970 3,210 3,360 7,640 6,480 2,580 13,430 9,840 1971 2,990 3,680 7,700 5,250 1,480 12,170 8,930 1972 3,130 3,910 7,750 4,500 2,220 13,100 8,410 1973 2,410 3,710 7,800 4,000 2,000 12,210 7,710 1974 2,660 3,980 7,850 3,750 1,900 12,410 7,730 1) Data are In metric tons. 2) U. S. Commercial grouper catch Includes Warsaw and Jewflsh. 3) u. S. Commercial snapper catch composed of red, lane, mangrove, mutton, verm I I I ion, and yellowtail snappers Source: U.S. Cbmmerclal catch data are from """FS General Canvass data for the Gulf FCZ; Cuban data are from Zuboy(Ms.); Recreational data are based on national recreational fishing surveys by Clark, 1960, Deuel and Clark, 1965, and Deuel, 1973. 4-17 Scl.G Combined 26,440 24,670 24,110 23,840 22,'710 23,270 21,110 21,510 19,920 20,140 Tab I ell. Effort used 10 ca I cu I ate MSY for a I I reef fish (snapper and grouper) I n hand II ne days. Maximum u. S. Proport lona I Recreat lona I Year Q:HllInerc I a I Cuban (x 1 day) Total 1965 440,400 81,400 58,800 580,600 1966 395,200 114,400 61,200 570,800 1967 368,600 162,200 63,700 594,500 1968 315,200 127,000 65,000 507,200 1969 300,000 105,200 66,500 471,700 1970 260,600 155,600 68,700 484,900 1971 297,800 185,600 71,200 554,600 1972 317,400 166,000 72,000 555,400 1973 324,800 197,000 73,500 595,300 1974 341,000 158,200 75,000 574,200 u.s. recreational effort data (Table 11) were much more difficult 10 estimate because of several uncertainties and lack of data. Proportional catch-effort estimates as were used for the Cuban fiShery kOuld prove ISlrellable. The recreational catch has been on a continual decline while the number of people participating In this fishery has Increased dur~ng the 1965-1975 period. Several adjustments were made using the "number of fishermen" data for the recreational fishery presented In thi s report. These adjustments were made for several reasons. liladjusted data did not .permlt use of the Graham-Schaefer model since the high number of recreational fishermen kOuld not al low solution of a maximum equilibrium value. Also, the lSladjusted recreational fishing effort was so high that the effort by commercial fishing became ISllmportant to the solution of the Graham-Schaefer model. Adjustments were made In several ways. It was determined that a reasonable range of estimates could be obtained by varying the adjustment parameters Instead of presenting a statistically Invalid set of derivations. The number of recreational fishermen represented the estimated number of fishermen who fished in a given year during each of the 1960, 1965, and 1970 surveys. The maximum effort and minimum effort In terms of the number of handline fishermen were obtained for 1965 and 1970 and Interpolated. Data were then extrapolated 10 1974. As the number of recreational handline fishermen were counted only once regardless of how many times they went fishing, the data were translated into the number of handline fishermen-day units by making the following Changes and assumptions: (1) multiply the estimated number of handline fishermen by two 10 represent the average number of days fished per fishermen, (2) multiply the average number of fishermen by four, (3) make nc adjustment and assume each recreational fisherman -fished only once. This adjustment put all the data 4-18 into the number of recreational handline fishermen-days. !-bwever, this estimate was much too hi~h as it sti II negated the effect of effort from any .. other fishery due to its inqrdinate size. The assump tion was made that the effective fishing effort of a recreational fisherman is not equivalent to a commercial fisherman. A recreational fisherman does not fish an equivalent amount of time in a fishing "day" as compared to a commercial fisherman because: (1) search time is greater, (2) length of fishing day is shorter, (3) number of hooks per line are fewer, and (4) exper'ience is less. All these factors led to the further assumption that the recreational handline fishermen-day should be d.ivided by ten in order to equate the effort of the commercial to the recreational fishery. Fishing effort is presented in the following manner using number of handline fishermen-day units in the U.S. commercial plus Cuban commercial plus recreational fishery. Several effort levels were examined for the recreational fishery. These were: maximum number of handline fishermen multiplied by one day; maximum number of fishermen multipl ied by two or four days; minimum number of fishermen multiplied by two or four days. Maximum fishermen times one day was selected as the most appropriate measure after analysis. The catch data from Table 10 are displayed in Figures 5 through 9. The "standardized" effort data covering the same time period are shown in Figure 10. t-bte that whi Ie total effort (Figure 10) has remained relatively constant, i.e., no sustained increasing or decreasing trend, total catch has steadi Iy declined (Figure 9). The explanation for this is found by closer examination of the catch data by fishery component. Figure 5 shows the U.S. commercial catch of snapper increasing whi Ie the grouper catch is decreasing slightly over time. The Cuban catch of grouper (Figure 7) was relatively stable around 2,000 metric tons in 1970-74. The U.S. Recreational catch of. grouper (Figure 6) is also relatively stable, however, the snapper catch has declined steadily and significantly. In fact, the apparent decrease of 7,000 metric tons in the U.S. Recreational snapper catch Is the driving variable in the catch and effort analysis. As noted earlier, the recreational catch and effort data are the weakest link in the analysis. This tremendous decline in the recreational catch of snapper, while the commercial catch has generally risen, must be viewed with great suspicion. The production model ana lysiS which follows is based entirely on these, really inadequate, data and thus should be considered only a pro forma estimate of the potential yield of reef fish in the Gulf of ~1exico FCZ. 4.4 Survey and Sampling Data Referred to throughout the body of the Plan. 4.5 Other Relevant Data on Habitat, Habitat Concerns, and Habitat Protection Programs Of prime int.erest in the Gulf reef fishery is the importance of changes in the habitat. The destruc tion of suitable reef or other types of hard bottom areas would obviously prove disastrous to this fishery as most of the current data indicate this habitat affinity for most of the fishery groups. Since most of the catch comes from offshore in water deeper than 30 m, there seems to be, at present, an apparently indiscernible effect of coastal pesticides, pollutants, and other harmful wastes which have been considered as deleterious to many inshore fisheries. Literature sources indicate the impor tance of offshore shrimp grounds for the snapper species, particularly the Gulf red snapper. In data made available by the Southeast Fisheries Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service (.\~arch 1977) the red snapper landed by the shrimp trawlers, particularly in the vicinity of the Mississippi River Delta are either too small and are discarded or, if large enough, are retained for sale. The industrial groundfish fishery uti I izes some of these small snapper for processing. The Gulf commer cial foodfish landings of marketable red snapper caught by shrimp and fish trawlers in 1972-1974 was reported to total ,632,200 pounds (Appendix Table 33). The ~lational 'Aarine Fisheries Service in Pascagoula has estimated that there is an average bycatch of 15 snapper per trawl hour. Data presented in the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan indicate that 4,600 boats trawled 1.9 million hours annually and an additional 3,700 vessels trawled 3.3 million hours 4-19 CI) s:: 0 E-< U 'M ~ +l .to (l) I ~ I'V 0 '0 s:: ro Ul ::J 0 t5 S 2 ~--~--~--~~--~--~--~----~--~--~ 65 67 68 79 71 72 73 t1 Grouper 0 Sn.lpper Figure 5.· U.S. Commercial catch of snapper and grouper for ~he Gulf of Mexico FCZ,1965-74. CIl s:: 0 E--< U 'M t.. +> (]) ::s A I "0 N - s:: 'ro CIl ;:J 0 .c E--< 12 1 I 13 9 e 7 6 5 3 65 68 67 68 69 79 71 72 73 74 L\ Grouper (] Snapper Figure 6 U, S. Recrea tional catch of snapper and grouper for the Gulf of Mexico FeZ: 1965-74. ~. l' .<....t 0 tf') <....t l'- r-l :l <.:> N Cl) .c r--.. .jJ t.. 0 <....t r--.. .c-.:r UI: .jJ I (S) roln l'- u\.o (J'\ t..rl Cl) 0. -(J') :l r-' <0 0 t.. t.!J 0 t:o cu <0 ro·r-I .oX :lQ) U:E r--.. <0 . " <'0 OJ <0 t.. ::J bO .r-! In ~ (0 (\I - ~ SU0.L ::>1'.l~aw pUBsnotU 4-22 26 26 2-4 CI.I 22 c 0 E-t 20 U 'M ~ ~ 18 OJ :a: .... '0 16 , N C VI oro CIl :l ,-4 0 .c E-t 12 1Ia 8 6 as 68 67 ~ Grouper Figure 8 .. 63 69 79 71 72 73 74 o Snapper o Total Snapper and grouper catch for the Gulf of Mexico FCZ, 1965-74. (Includes commercial, recreational, and Cuban catch.) CI] >. cu Q Q) c: .r-! r-l ~ "0 I c: N ·CU ~ ::r: "0 C CU CI] :l 0 ..c:: (-i .(.99 sao 2B0 lera a 65 66 67 69 7G 71 72 73 74 Ll Recrea tional o ·Cuban <> Commercial • Total Figure.9.. Fishing effort (adjusted to standard handline days) expended in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery, 1965-74. annually. Assuming that each of these vessel groups caught an average of 15 snapper per trawl hour It Is estImated thet 78 mIllIon snapper of all slze~, JuvenIles to adults, are c;:aught by the Gulf shrimp fleet annually. This should be consIdered a maximum estImate. It must also be noted that the size of these fish range from 38 to 252 mm In I"'ngth. Generally, the fIsh larger than 200mm In length are sold and are reported as landIngs. The great majorIty are too sma I I to market and are dIscarded. Although the estimate appears high, a better assessment of the Impact of thIs estImate Is diffIcult wIthout having hard evIdence of the natural mortalIty, total populatIon sIze, mIgratIon and growth of these JuvenIles. There has been an Increase (although InsIgnIfIcant on a percentage basIs) In avaIlable habitat to the reef fishes In the Gulf wIth the constructIon or placement of artIfIcIal reefs and oIl structures. OpinIons dIffer as to whether or not these artIfIcIal structures actually result In an Increase of reef fishes or merely conce"ntrete fIshes and attrect them from other natural reef areas. Scme recent evIdence IndIcates that these reefs actually do Increase the standIng stock of reef fIshes (Stone, 1978). The Council's HabItat and EnvIronmental ProtectIon Committee reviews permit appllcetlons for construction of artIfIcIal reefs and encourages approval of those whIch wIll not adversely Impact other fisheries. 4.6 QualIty of Data LIfe hIstory data, In general, are poor. Only a few species, notably the gag, red grouper, vermilion snapper, and gray snapper have reasonably adequate data to even begin dynamic modeling and fIshery analysis. Much of the data on lIfe hIstories are eIther Incomplete, as they pertaIn to specIfIc attrIbutes (fecundIty, for example), or they are Inedequate end outdated by more modern methodology. With regard to the catch and effort data there Is ample evIdence of mIsIdentIfIcatIon of species, Inadequate reportIng of catch and Inapplicable or unavaIlable effort statIstIcs. In general, the fIshery data currently compIled needs scrutIny. There Is evidence that specIes may be reported In several categorIes. ThIs Is due to the use of common names for specIes which are not universally accepted by fishermen (e.g., the black snapper, the black grouper, etc.) The problem of catch (where caught) and landings (where landed) Is a serious one and may totally Invalidate Intra-Gulf com parIsons. There are few effort data specifIc enough to allow estImates of fIshIng mortality. SImilarly, the effort beIng applied IndIvIdually to each of the reef fIshes of the fishery Is unknOOoln. 4.7 Current Status of Stocks 4.7.1 Maximum Sustainable YIeld (MSY) 4.7.1.1 MSY for Snepper and Grouper MSY was calculated for the entire reef specIes complex considered In thIs report. MSYestlmates Include the range of the specIes which Include, In some cases, both terrItorial waters of the state and the FCZ. However, the catch Is predominately In the FCZ. The model chosen for calculatIon of t-lSY was the Graham-Schaefer model as presented by RIcker (1975). The JustIfIcation for thIs method of analysIs Is based on the assumptIon that the Graham-Schaefer model closely approximates ~-ISY for a multI-specIes fIshery as long as effort Is applIed nonselectlvely to 031 I specIes. Although thIs assumptIon Is QuestIonable, there Is no way, at present, to separate effort as It pertaIns to each specIes. Therefore, separate estImates of t-15Y for Individual species are not additive since the same effort data are used for each species. It Is also assumed that a fishery Is at MSY when It Is at or near maximum equl I Ibrlum with regard to catch and effort data. AdditIonally, the assumption Is made that the data available are accurate or at leest proportIonately accurate relative to each other. These data were the best scientIfic data available. 4-25 Catch and effort data used to generate MSY using the Graham-Schaefer model are presented In Tables 10 and 11. Adjustments to and sources of data have been described prevIously •. • The best estimate of /.oISY for snapper and grouper Is approximately 51 ml II Ion pounds. The fishery In any case Is operating In the area of the peak of the yield curve and a further Increase In effort Is not lIkely to result In a correspondIng Increase In catch (FIgure 10). Although previous drafts of thIs Plan presented separate MSYs for snapper and for grouper, these MSYs are technically Incorrect and are omitted here. The single MSY for the snapper/grouper compex (Figure 10) \~hlch was developed by Southeast Fisheries Center and approved by the Scientific and Statistical Committee Is technically correct and is the specification of MSY for this Plan. Other MSYs were calculated to aid In data analyses but were technically Incorrect because The effort para meter coo Id not be dlsaggregated Into effort for grouper and effort for snapper. 4.7.1.2 MSY for Sea Bass8 This section provides an estimate, within "the limits Imposed by the supporting daTa of the MSY for sea bass In the Gulf of Mexico. The sea bass resource Is defined to Include not only the southern sea bass, Centroprlstls melana; but also Centroprlstls phlladelphlca, the rock sea bass; and Centroprlstls ocyurus, the bank sea bass. Separate statistics are not kept for the latter two species, and catches of these are both relatively and absolutely sma I I. Consequently, yield estimates are for the aggre gate of al I three species. Data Assembly Recognizing that the qualiTy and accuracy of catch data were poor, assembled catch Information from as many sources as possible was used to obtain Information, not only on the magnitude of catches, but also on their geographical distribuTion and on relative conTributions of recreational and commercIal fIsheries. The prIncipal data sources were: Source FIshery StatIstics of the U.S., 1955-1975 1965 Saltwater anglIng survey Deuel and Clark 1970 Saltwater angling survey - Deuel 1975 Survey of saltwater angling catches In Southeastern U.S. unpub I I shed A survey of offshore sporttlshlng In FlorIda - Moe, 1963 A fIshIng survey of Choctowatchee Bay and adjacent Gulf of MexIco waters I rby, 1974 Information CommercIal caTches by gear Type and· amount of gear Recreational catches RecreatIonal catches Recreational catches RecreatIonal catch distrIbutIon Recreational catch magnitude 8 Analyses by Manooch, Schaaf and Huntsman, NMFS, 8eaufort. 4-26 25 20 y I E 15 L ~ D I "-l ..J 10 5 o msy o 200 *65 *66 . 7 **68 *67 *69 *72 71* 74**73 MSY = 23,060 Metric Tons (~5l million lbs) f opt 400 600 EFFORT 800 1000 Figure.l0. Gra~am-Schaefer yield model for snapper and grouper in the Gulf of Mexico FeZ, 1965-74. (Includes com~ercial, recreational, and Cuban ca tch . ) Source Survey of head boats In Tampa Bay area conducted by N~FS, October, 1979 Personal communications Herb AI len, Tampa Tribune, Tampa, Florida Roger Anderson, Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Development Foundation, Tampa, Florida Ormond Farley, NMFS, Galveston, Texas Mark Godcharles, Florida Dept. Natural Resources, ~t. Petersburg, Florida C. Hatcher, Hatcher Seafoods, New Port Richey, Florida William Link, University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Science, Morehead City, North Carolina Martin Moe, Marathon, Florida W. Raprosa, Wal lace Seafoods, Tarpon Springs, Florida Carl Sal oman, NMFS, Panama City, Florida Ernie Snel I, NMFS, Miami, Florida O.B. Stander, Pinellas Marine Institute, Tampa, Florida Review of Commercial Landings Information History and magnitude of headboat catches Recreational catches Recreational catches Commercial and recreational catches In western Gul f of Mexico History of bass fishery, recreational and commercial catches History and status of commercial fishery Sea bass taxonomy and distribution History and commercial and recreational fisheries History and status of commercial fishery ',o/estern Florida and central Gul f commercial and recreational catches Commercl al and recreational catch history West coast Florida sma I I boat catch Commercl a I catch and effort data for sea bass landed I n the Gu I f of 'oIexl co were rev I awed for the years 1955-1978 (Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1955-1975; personal communication, Ernie Snell, NMFS, MiamI). No catches were reported prior to 1958, and all landings In the Gulf "ere made along Florida's west coast. Landings were greatest In 1959 (305,300 pounds) and In 1958 (302,700 pounds) and then generally declined every year to a low of 25,000 pounds In 1978. Black sea bass were caught by fish pots (traps), handllnes, otter trawls, and run around gill nets (Appendix Table 51). In the late sixties and early seventies, ,"ost were landed by fish pots. Percent03ges of the total caught In pots ranged from a high of 99.4 percent In 1958 to a low of 0.0 percent In 1978. Catch data and comments by Florida saafood buyers reveal ,~ changeover In gear from pots to hook and Ilnr In fact, In 1976, 1977, and 1978 virtually al I of the commercial catch In Florida was attributable to recreational anglers who sold their catches to fish dealers (personal communication, E. Snel I). Production Function Analysis The commercial catch and effort data for black sea bass Is Quite limited. There was apparently no fishery prior to 1968. Appendix Table 61 shows the commercial catch for 1968-1978, with a pronounced fishery prior to 1958. Append I x Tab Ie 61 shows the commercl al catch for 1968-1978, with a pronounced downward trend In landings. The principal gear has traditionally been traps, though In recent years an ever-Increasing proportion of the catch has been by hook and line. In fact, the last three years has probably been all hook and line catch. Hook and line effort data, and its associ ated catch of sea bass, Is considered to be not amenable to analysis because sea bass catches are probably Incldent·"31 to other target species. There Is perhaps a similar problem with trap-effort data In that the grounds fished or trap characteristics could be changed to concentrate on other species. Table 4 shows an Increasa In trap-caught grunts concomitantly to the continuing decline of sea bass catches, beginning I n about 1972. eased on the catch arid effort data only from 1968-1972, when trap effort may have been dlrectoo principally to sea bass, a Schaefer yield rode I was used. This rode I Indicates an MSY of 263,000 pounds with 550 traps fished. The correlation coefficient for these data Is -0.84, high though not significant at the five percent level, with only three degrees of freedom. Fitting the model to all the data does not significantly alter the estimated MSY (255,000 pounds) though the correlation coefficient drops to only -0.46. A Schaefer-type production function fit to these data Is not a valid approach because of the assumption that the fishery Is In equilibrium with the stock. The catch trend seems typlcel of an emerging pattern for reef fishes, of practically zero catches suddenly shooting to Quite high levels and as rapidly declining to Quite roderate, or relatively low levels. The calculated MSY may be biased considerably by the 1968 and 1969 catches which were two times greater than the next largest catch. Potentially, the data reflect a situation of the sudden Incep tion of an Intensive commercial fishery harvesting the standing stock of larger, older fish, I.e., fishing down the capital. The fishery seems to be shifting from a commercial trap fishery on large fish to a recreational hook and line fishery on sma I ler tlsh. From these considerations, It was concluded that the traditional production function analysis based only upon commercial fishery data Is probably not a reliable method of determining MSY. To estimate recreational catch three procedures were used, each based on a different data set to furnish values tor comparison. ~ethod 1 -- Based on Deuel The 1975 Saltwater Angling Survey states that the eastern Gult of ~~exlco recreational catch of sea bass was 1,762,000 pounds. Comparison of Deuel's estlmatas of reef fish catches oft North and South Carolina with those reported by Huntsman (1976) suggest that Deuel's estimate may be tour times the true value. Therefore, we propose one estimate of the Gulf of t-lexlco black sea bass catch as 447,000 pound:;, 25 percent of the Deuel estimate. Method 2 -- Based on commercial landings Recorded commercial landings for sea bass on Florida's west coast were 50,000 pounds In 1975, 27,000 pounds In 1977, and 25,000 pounds In 1978 and averaged 34,000 pounds. Snell and t I sh house operators suggest that virtually all of the commercial landings reported In recent years are recreational catches that are sold. Hypothesizing that from five to ten percent of the recreational catch Is sold, It was calculated that the recreational catch may have been from 340,000 to 680,000 pounds with an average of 510,000 pounds. Method 3 -- Based on Creel Census by Florida Marine Institute • The Florida t~arlne Institute creel census for the west coast of Florida Indicates a mean catch rate of 0.3 sea bass per angler-hour based on observations of 2,150 angler-hours. The 1974 survey of salt water fishing In the southeastern U.S. (unpublished) Indicates 998,000 fishing trips were made on the Florida '/test coast. Personal experience suggests a mean fishing trip duration of five hours, ~nd estimates of 4,990,000 angler-hours expended and 1,497,000 se~ bass caught. Several of the cited sources stated that most west Florida sea bass taken were nine Inches total length. South Atlantic head boat samples Indicate nine-Inch sea bass weigh 0.33 pounds. The estimate of recreational sea bass poundage Is 494,000 pounds. Summary of Estimates Three estimates based on completely Independent data sources suggest the recent Florida west coast, and virtually the Gulf of Mexico, recreational sea bass catch to be about 480,000 pounds. Trends In the Recre'atlonalCatch Interviews with twelve head boat operators In the Tampa Bay area and with Florida recreational fisher men do not suggest major trends In magnitude of catch or the size of fish caught In recent years. Conclusion: Yield Estimate and An~lysls of the Fishery An overview of the sea bass fishery on Florida's west coast shows a Quick-blooming commercial fishery In the late 1960's of about 300,000 pounds and a recreational fishery of unknown magnitude. Based on general trends of tourism and development In Florida and In the popularity of marine angling, the recreational catch was probably on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 pounds and the total fishery was 400,000 to 500,000 pounds. Commercial yields Quickly dropped to 100,000 pounds and then to even lower levels, that no such dramatic trend has occurred In the recreational fishery. Today there recreational fishery of about 500,000 pounds and virtually no commercial fishery. but sources suggest Is apparentl y a This suggests the conclusion that total yields have varied little over time, but the harvest has shifted from the com mercial to the recreational sector. No Information on fish size Is available for the late 1960's but likely the mean size then must have been greater than the nine-Inch norm of today for commercial Interest to have been so high. 4.7.1.3 Present Condition of the Stocks The MSY discussion under Section 4.7.1.2 adequately describes the current condition of the stocks of sea bass. Figure 6 depicts a decline In the recreational catch of snapper. whereas the grouper'catch Is stable to Increasing. Figure 5 shows a gradual Increase In commercial catch of snapper and a stable to slightly declining grouper catch. Red snapper constitute the great preponderance of the snapper catches (60 percent or greater) for both recreational and commercial fishermen (Appendix Tables 7. 49, and 51). Appendix Table 55 shows a decline In average size of red snapper taken by recreational fishermen •. Flgure 12 shows the fishery to be In approximate equilibrium with MSY. More detailed analyses of MSY and the condition of the stocks were Included In the draft FMP and In the preliminary drafts of the Plan. ~ summary of these analyses presented In the draft FMP* Is as follows: * Table numbers In the quotation refer to tables In the draft EIS/FMP/RA dated February, 1980. 4-30 I twas determ I ned in the course of th I s ana I ys I s that the comn-ercl a I fishery Is operating at or below Its maximum equilibrium. This was resolved In Graham Schaefer models presented for the total reef fish (snappers and groupers) U.S. com mercial catch (Figures 34, 35 and 36). In using all data for the U.S. comn-erclal fishery, Cuban fishery, and estimated recreational fishery, a different ~Icture Is Indicated with regard to position on the equilibrium model, especially with regard to the 1>1SY for snapper catch. Figure 36 Indicates that the U.S. comn-erclal fishery Is underflshlng Its portion of the snapper stocks. The fact that the exponential coefficient estimated for the effort variable In this model Is greater than one, Is not the basic point of concern In this model. The basic point of theoretical Impor tance Is that catch and effort are positively related, which Indicates that Increasaa effort does not bring about decreased yields per unit of effort which would Indicate a situation of overflshlng. Figure 33 Indicates that snapper are definitely bel~ overflshed when recreational effort apd catch are added into the model. The overal I overflshlng for snapper seems to be a direct result of the Increasing effort In the recreational fishery. Table 18 shows a nearly equal snapper catch by the U.S. com mercial fishery between 1965 and 1974. During the same period, the total snapper cat·:h has dec" ned and the eHort has I ncreasaa for the recreatlona I fishery (Tab I es 18 and 19). It can be concluded from this analysiS that the overflshed condition for snapper Is due to an Increasad effort by recreational flshennen and not to the U.S. commercial fishermen's effort, as this has been constant during same period (Table 19). The scientific Inference from al I these data and analyses Is that the grouper stocks are below or at an equilibrium point near ~SY and presently are not overf I shed. This Is further substantiated by the fact that the Cuban harvest of grouper (Section 3.2.2.1> has ceased, reducing some of the fishing pressure on the stocks. These data and analyses Indicated that snapper (and particularly red snapper) are slightly overt Ished by the recreational sector In the nearshore waters creating a growth overflshlng situation. 8ecause of the Inadequacy of the data In which red snapper are recorded simply as "snapper" for some araas and some years, It was surmised that the major Impact was on red snapper rather than other snapper spe cies. This Is supported by the fact that, with the exception of south Florida, red snapper Is the species targeted by recr~atlonal fishermen and other snapper species are taken Incidentally. Because of the Increased fish I ng pressure, other specl-as of snapper and grouper may be s I I ghtl Y overf I shed in some I':>callzed geographical areas; however, this cannot be documented and the plan focuses on correcting the growth overflshlng for red snapper and secondarily provides a mechanism for reducing fishing pressure on other species as this becomes necessary. 4-31 5.0 CATCH AND CAPACITY DESCRIPTORS 5.1 Data and Analytical Approaches 5.1.1 Domestic (Commercial) Catch and capacity descriptors are considered in order to determine annual domestic harvest and allowable level of foreign catch. Capacity is generally considered strictly as a physical concept. It represents the maximum ~Iume which can be harvested given existing physical constraints of the fleet. The rate of utilization of the physical capacity is the important p:lint to consider when mak i ng proj ect ions for the near future. The rate at wh i ch capac i ty is ut i I I zed depends on econom i c and biological factors. Thus, expected catch considers physical, economic and biological oonstraints encountered in fishing. Expected catch may be estimated using several approaches. The method employed here is to estimate the following generai relationship: c = (k)(e)(t) where: c = total catch, k = catch per un it ·of ef fort, e = number or amount of physical effort un its, t i ntens i ty at which effort un its are employed in the fishery. The nature or descr i pt ion of effort un its, (e), depends on the type of fishery be i ng ana I yzed. In the Gulf reef fish fishery, (e) may be represented by the number of vessels, number of fishermen, number of fishing gear lSI its or ::ome combination of these. How frequently, or intensely, the effort units are used to produce fish determines the "effect I ve"un i tsof effort. For example, days fished per season or per year times the number of vessels l'Ould give the effective units of effort in terms of vessel days fished per season or per year. In the Gulf reef fish fishery, days fished has been esti mated in previous research. Catch per unit of effort, (k), may be estimated in a variety of ways to est imate tota I catch. Catch per vesse I and catch per fisherman are ava II ab I e from pub Ii shed sta tistics and past research (Cato and Prochaska, 1977). Several capacity descriptors are presented in this FMP. Average catch per oommercial vessel Gulf of Mexico FCZ during the 1972-1974 period was 38,333 pounds (Section 4.3). During this average annua.l total catch In the fishery was 14,500,000- pounds. per year (Section 3.2.1.3). in the per iod, The average number of vessels used In the fishery during the 1972-1974 period was 415 (Section 3.2.1.4). The remaining variable necessary for analysis, days fished, is not reported annually. A survey of Florida vessels showed an average annual rate of 195 days fished per year with a range f6r individual boats of 126 to 240 days (Section 3.5.2.3). These Florida vessels averaged 83,119 pounds per year, almost twice the average catch for all Gulf vessels. 5.1.2 Domestic (Recreational) Conceptually, capacity and capacity descriptors for the recreational fishery are vaguely defined. f-bwever, refinement of definition and ooncepts for the development of the present Plan is not justified given the quality of recreational statistics to be analyzed. Available recreational sta tistics are reported in Section 3.5.4 of this Plan. Average catch (1972-74) of total reef fish by recreational fishermen is estimated to be 26,500,000 pounds; i.e., 26 million pounds of snapper and grouper (Table 10) and 0.5 million pounds of sea bass (Section 4.7.1.2). There are approximately 1,000,000 recreational fishermen-days per year in the fishery. Average catch per recreational fisherman-day then is approximately 26.5 pounds. Thus, the capacity or rate of use can be concluded to produce at least 26.5 pounds per fisherman per day. 5-1 5.1.3 Foreign Capacity The only information available is that presented in Section 3.2.2 for the Cuban fishery. Catch per 1 aunch-day fished and number 0 f launch-days is one approach to est i mat i ng capac i ty. Our i ng 1975 and 1976, average launch-days were 18,680 days. Catch per launch-day averaged 278 pounds. Thus, average catch capacity at these rates would be 5,193,040 pounds annually. This represents a minimum estimate of the capacity of the Cuban fleet since these catches were actually achieved. However, the Cuban fleet '10 longer part i c i pates in the reef fish fishery. 5.2 Domestic Annual Harvesting and Processing Capacity (OAC) Commerc i a I : As was noted in Section 5.1, capacity ref~rs to the physical limit of the fleet to harvest reef fish. The rTOst recent estimate of the-number of handline vessels fishing in the Gulf of r~exico is 415. The exact capacity of these vessels to harvest-reef fish is not known. However, an estimate is possible with the liinited available information and a set of assumptions. If it is assumed each handline vessel was fished full time at the rate of the Florida vessels reported in Section 5.1, an estimate of capacity would be 34,494,385 pounds annually. This is based on the equation where: 83,119 415 34,494,385 = (83,119)(415) pounds landed by full-time Florida vessels on an annual basis (Section 5.1.1) number of handline vessels in the Gulf. I f the set of vessel s in the Florida sample represent those throughout the Gul f of Mexico and if they are fished full time, then the capacity of the Gulf fleet is approximately 34.5 mi II ion pJunds annually. The estimate of 34.5 million pJunds may be conservative for several reasons. First, the average vessel size measured in gross tonnage per vessel is considerably less in Florida than the remaining states in the Gulf of Mexico. It is, therefore, expected that the physical capacity of the nonFlorida vessels may be greater. A second reason why this estimate may be conservative Is because other har vesting methods, which account for some small arrountof reef fish landings, such as trawls and handline boats, were not inc I uded. Estimates of capacity presented in this section indicate the capacity of the fleet, if vessels are fished fuJi time. They do not Indicate whether or not the stock is available for harvest. Section 3.5.3.1 reports that 94 percent of snapper landings and 82 percent of grouper landings are shipped fresh in ice to market outlets. Thus, the vast majority of reef fish enter the fresh product markets. Therefore, process i ng capac i ty is conc I uded to be suff i c i ent to hand I e the capac i ty of the fishing fleet fishing for reef fish. In addition, approximately five percent of the fish houses currently receive reef fish (Section 3.5.3.2). There appears to be substantial facil,ities for handling additional landings of reef fish, since reef fish command relatively higher p:ices than fish handled by the remaining 95 percent of the fish houses along the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the domestic processing capacity may greatly exceed the domestic harvesting capacity. Recreat lona I: The recreational harvesting and processing capacity is assumed to be equal to the catch. This is estimated to be 26.5 million pJunds. 5-2 5.3 Expected Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) Commerc i a I : Expected domestic commercial harvest differs from the concept of physical capacity in that DAH is a function of the rate at which capacity is util ized and the stock of fish to which effort is employed. The rate at wh i ch capac i ty is ut I I i zed is dependent on econom i c factors such as pr ice, cost and output per unit of effort. These functional relationships have not been determined. The catch equation formulated in Section 5.1 provides a framework for discussing DAH. Based on 1972-1974 average data and past research, the catch equation for the latest published data is: where: 14,500,000 415 200 174.7 14,500,000 = (174.7)(415)(200) 1972-1974 average annual catch of reef fish (Table 10) 1972-1974 average number of handline vessels estimated number of days fished calculated catch per vessel per day The catch per vessel per day was calculated with the above equation given the remaining variables. Annual catch (Table 10) and number of handline vessels (Appendix Table 29) are the best available sta tistical data. The 200 fishing days per year was based on the Florida study. This figure (200 days) may be s I I ght I Y high for s:>me vesse I s in the western Gu If. .f-bwever, 200 days are assumed in th i s analysis. Florida vessels represent approximately 80 percent of the total Gulf handline vessels fish ing for reef fish and, therefore, the 200 days is reasonab I e. Current projections of annual domestic commercial hand I ine harvest are 14.5 mi I I ion pounds given that the parameters k, e, and t in the above equations remain the same in the near future. The number of vessels varied considerably during the 1957-1974 period. f-bwever, since 1962, the number of vessels employed in the fishery has been with'in ten percent of the current average of 415 vessels (Appendix Table 29). The number of fishermen has been relatively stable in the last decade as wei I as the catch per fisherman (Tab leI and Append I x Tab I e 1). I f these parameters rema I n re I at i ve I y constant in the near future, the expected annual commercial hand line harvest wi I I be around 14.5 mill ion pounds. A I though there has been a gradua I dec I ine in catch per vesse I, th ismay be due to a dec I I ne in number of days fished, a trend which.may be reversed because of Increased prices currently offered for reef fish species. The above analysis, with given assumptions, concludes that the handline fishery is expected to harvest 14.5 million pounds annually, if average days fished is 200 with an average daily catch of 174,.7 pounds for each of the 415 vessels. For additional Insight into potential catch by other gear, further discussion is warranted. Current stUdies of the wire trap fishery In /·bnroe and Collier Counties (Florida) are being conducted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (Taylor and McMichael in prep.). These data provide the most reasonable basis for estimating the yield from the fish trap fishery within the Gulf of Mex i co because: 1. The fish trap fishery is conducted primarily in s:>uthern Florida. 2. These are the most recent data available. 3. The study is based upon a reasonably large sample siZe, i.e., 454 traps. 5-3 Taylor and McMichael (in prep.) reported that approximately 998 traps are fished in Mbnroe ~unty, with 407 being fished full-time, 398 part-time, and 193 summer only. In addit.i0n, approximately 250 traps are fished during summer only in Collle~ County. The study revealed that traps in the Keys and Tortugas are generally soaked for one to ho days with an overall "yield per haul" of 11.37 pounds. On the average, grouper and snapper comprised approximately 62 percent of the catch. Using these figures (and assuming a slx-nonth season for part-time fishermen), the yield for this south Florida fishery looOuld equa I approximately 1,480,000 pounds of snapper/grouper. Adding In the 1974 snapper/grouper catches from the west coast of Florida (Table 4), would bring the total yield of snapper/grouper from the Gulf of Mexico fish trap fishery to approximately 1.5 million pounds per year. Combining this figure with the domestic commercial handline harvest of 14.5 million pounds, \<,Ould provide a total, expected domestic annual commercial harvest of 16 million pounds. However, the commercial catch figures represent a very conservative estimate and should actually be adjusted upward to account for the following: 1. Underreport ing of commercia I catch, 2. increasing fish trap effort in offshore waters, 3. relocation of domestic hook and I iners from foreign waters back to domestic waters, and 4. Increasing effort by domestic bottom longl iners. This combination of factors loOuld support an estimated additional 19 percent increase in the expected commercial domestic annual harvest, bringing the total commercial expected domestic annual harvest (0 19 mi I I ion pounds. Recreat ion a I: A conservative estimate of domestic annual harvest by recreational fishermen Is 26,500,000 pounds (Section 5.1.?). There have been indications of a gradual increase in number of fishermen, but at the same time a decrease In catch per fisherman. Therefore, the estimate of approximately 26.5 million pounds seems reasonable for the near future. Tota I: Together the estimate of domestic annual harvest is 45.5 mill ion pounds (19 mill ion for commercial and 26.5 million pounds for recreational). Therefore, the expected domestic annual harvest of snapper/grouper and sea bass wi II be approximately 45.5 ml II Ion pounds as below: Snapper/Grouper 45.0 Sea bass 0.5 5.4 Expected Domestic Annual Processing (OAP) The majority of reef fishes (snapper, 94 percent and grouper, 82 percent) entering domestic markets are shipped fresh In Ice. The balance of the commercial harvest is processed by the domestic industry. The market and capacity exists to accommodate far In excess of current processing levels. Probably a" sea bass enter the market in fresh iced form, 5 I nce processed product 5 are reported on I y for sn ap pars and groupers In the total reef fish complex. The domestic industry Is expected to process the entire anount available on an annual basis. 5-4 6.0 OPTIMUM YIELD CONCEPT 6.1 Departure From MSY TO ABC for Biological Reasons Normally In this fishery There Is no biological reason for a difference between allowable biological catch (ABC) and ,",SYi however, under present circumsTances The fishery Is subject to growth overflshlng of red snapper (a predominant species) In the nearshore waters. Therefore, Optimum Yield (OY) was adjusted downward from MSY to help alleviate this situation. ABC becomes equivalent to OY. (See Section 6.3) 6.2 Departure from ABC for Socioeconomic Reasons The socioeconomic factors were conslderatloDs In setting OY In addition to the biological condiTions. See Section 6.3 below and 4.0 of the EIS. No further departure from ABC = OY was warranted. 6.3 Optimum Yield (OY) Optimum Yield from a fishery Is conslderad to be that amounT of fish which will provide the greatest overal I benefit to the naTion, WiTh parTicular reference to food production and recreational ~pporTunltles, and which Is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from that fishery, as modified by any relevanT economic, social, or ecological facTor (P.L. 94-255). In detarmlnlng a fair and equitable OY for the reef fish fishery within The FeZ of the Gulf of Mexico, the Council was Influenced by the following considerations: (I) to provide The greatest benefit to the Nation - harvestors, processors and consumers. (I I) to assure the conservation and management of the stocks. (III) to provide mechanisms for preventing overflsh.'ng and rebuilding of declining stocks. (Iv) to provide a reporting system for more precisely assessing the status of the Individual stocks. Three alternative levels of OY were conslderad for the snapper/grouper fishery are as follows: Alternative I - Set OY ~ 45 mil lion pounds An OY of 45 11111 lion pounds Is approximately equal to the current catch level, but Is below the calcu lated MSY of 51 million pounds. Setting OY less than MSY ..,111 aid In rebuilding the stocks, which are stressed I, the nearshore waTers, a goal consistent with objective one of the Fr.f'. This approach '11111 also help maintain an acceptable CPlE, which Is desirable from the standpoint of recreational fishermen and essential to both the commercial and recredtlonal-for-hlre fleets, particularly In vlaw of rising fuel costs. An OY Initially set less than MSY wll I provide future opportunity for a moderate expan sion of the domestic offshore fishery. Management measures In the plan are deSigned to rebuild stocks and eventually bring the fishery Into equilibrium at :.1SY. This will enable OY to be set at MSY within the foreseeable future, thereby optimizing benefits to the nation. Altern~tlve II - Set OY = MSY The nearshore stocks of reef fish are stressed at the current levels of catch and efforT. Setting OY = MSY would provide the potential for further Increasad effort and woul1 contribute to growth over fishing and reduced CPUE, particularly In nearshore waters. Declines In ::;PUE woultj adversely affect 5-1 ! both the commercial and recreational fisheries and particularly the recreational for-hire tleet. The ultimata effect lIIould be a reduction In tourism and loss of revenue to the coastal conmunltles. Alternative III - Set OY higher than MSY Setting Oy higher than MSY 'liouid merely Intensify the adverse effects, which would result from setting OY = MSY. Recommendation: The Council has recommended the adoption of an OY = 45 mil lion pounds (Alternative I) as represent I ng the measure that wi I I provide the greatest benef It to the nation and provide the greatest protection to the resource. Accordingly, the Council has reconmended the following: (I) An optimum yield of 45 million pounds for snapper/grouper and 0.5 for sea bass for Plan Implementation. (II) An OY which will be harvest'3d by the domestic fishermen and, therefore, does not provide for a TALFF (total allowable level of foreign fishing). (III) The actual MSY3nd OY may vary annually and OY will be reevaluated following each fish I ng season. (Iv) An OY of 45.5 million pounds with the following safeguards to prevent overflshlng (a) Management measures to prevent overflshlng. (b) The definition of stressed area for more strict management areas where growth over fishing of some species appears to be a problem. (c) Implementation of a monitoring system that ",III allow assessment of the landings to Insure that more reliable catch and effort data are collected In the future. There Is additional discussion of the proposed OY In FEIS Section 3.2.1 which discusses Its Impacts on the stocks. 6.4 Probable Future Condition of the Fishery The growth overflshlng situation documented In Section 4.7.1.3 for red snapper Is expected to be corrected by the management measures of Sect Ion 8.0. The management measures shou I d a I so prevent ,~ growth overflshlng situation from occurring for other species. Recruitment overflshlng Is not currently a problem In the fishery and wll I not become a problem In the future under the provisions of the plan. It Is expected that through Implementation of the management regime that the future con dition of the stocks within the fishery wll I be Improved. 6-2 7.0 TOTAL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FOREIGN FISHING (TALFF) Allowable level of foreign catch Is defined as' the difference between OY and expected domestic catch. Expected domestic annual harvest was ronservatlvely estimated at 45.5 mill Ion pounds for snapper/grouper and sea bass (Section 5.3). Establishment of OY = 45.5 million pounds provides for no allowable foreign catch In this reef fish fishery. Stocks in the nearshore waters are overflshed, particularly red snapper. Since rommon gear is used to catch al I species In the reef fish romplex, It 'IoOuld be difficult to selectively fish for only those spec i es that showed !:Orne sma I I surp I us. 7-1 8.0 ~ANAGEMENT REGIME In considering the management measures as well as optimum yield for the fishery, the Council and Its advisory bodies delineated the problems In the fishery and set specific objectives for the Plan which address these problems. 8.1 Problems and Objectives 8.1.1 Problems In the Fishery The principal problems affecting this fishery are summarized as fol lows: 1. Data presented In this Plan reflects that the overall problem In this fishery Is a subsTan tial decline In reef fish sTocks In some areas under The jurisdiCTion of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery ManagemenT Council. A known faCTor contribuTing to this decline Is overflshlng* in many areas of the Gulf of Mexico. by directed recreaTional and cClTlmercial users. Other possible faCTors contributing to the decline are: A. Reduction of habitat, both natural and man-made. B. A large bycatch In other fisheries. C. Major environmental changes (which can be documented for 1973-1975). 2. An Insufficient data base exists to pinpoint the causes and magnitude of the decline by exact geographical area. 3. There Is expanding cClTlpetltlon between users competing for The resource and the space the resource occupies. This expanding cClTlpetltlon Is In part due to: A. Increasing fishing effort and the concentration of that effort In localized areas. B. Increasing fishing effort In other fisheries that have a bycatch of reef fish. C. Declining catch per unit effort In some areas. D. Introduction of new gear. Analysis of data presented In Sections 4.7.1 and 6.3 which describe MSY and OY Indicate the likelihood of overflshlng In some areas of the Gulf, particularly the nearshore waters. Specific data for catches and effort by specific area and by distance from shore Is not available. However, analysis of available data on catch for both the recreational sector and The commercial sector, separately and cOlYlblned, Indicate that the snapper catches by the recreational sector have declined significantly (Figure 6). This trend was not evident for the commercial catch data treated alone (Figure 5). Therefore, the scientific Inference was that the overflshlng effort was due to the recreational sector and II~ely confined to the nearshore waters which are more accessible to the recreational sector (also see Appendix Table 55). * Unless otherwise specified, the term overflshlng In this section refers to growth overflshlng rat1er than recruitment overflshlng. Growth overflshlng results In a decrease In the average size of fish In the population and a slight reduction In the overall biomass available for harvest. 8-1 Th Is sc I ent I f I c I nference has genera I Iy been cont I rmed by the CouncIl's ad visors, state sc I ent I f Ic person ns I and the genera I pub II c. The Councl I t~us conc I uded that dec II n I ng ,stocks and associ ated growth overflshlng In some areas of the Gulf was a major problem and that overflshlng was a known factor contributing to this decline. Other factors contributing to the decline are not as read I Iy supportable "by documented scientific evidence. Among these other possible factors Is the destruction of habitat. In general, the re~ fish are not estuarine dependent so they are not greatly affected by the destruction of habitat caused by shoreline development projects. However, reef fish In general are dependent on habitats conSisting of reefs or Irregularities In bottom profile, such as rocky outcropplngs and debris or structures placed through man's activities. Therefore, any reduction In this type of bottom habitat affects the reef fish populations. For a number of years 011 and gas exploration and development probably resulted In a net Increase In habitat. Because of the waning production of these fields and the short life of the structures, man-made habitat Is. probably declining. Natural habitat Is also likely declining through the activities of man and natural phenomena such as hurricanes. Another possible factor contributing to this decline Is the bycatch of reef fish by other fisheries In the Gulf (Section 4.5). As documented In the Shrimp and Groundflsh Fishery Management Plans tor the Gulf, trawling effort has Increased over the years. Juvenile reef fish, and particularly snapper, are taken by these fisheries as a bycatch In significant numbers (Section 4.5). Because of the lack of data on natural mortality for these species by size class, no scientific evaluation of the affect of this bycatch on the reef fish populations Is possible. The bycatch of juveniles may not contribute significantly to the population abundance of adults, or It may. Research Is needed to answer this Question. Major environmental changes such as pronounced flooding for successive years by the Mississippi and other rivers may also be a factor" causing temporary declines or fluctuations. Another major problem Is the Insufficient data base available to assess the caUSeS and magnitude ot the decline. Available data on recreational catches Is extremely poor and probably unreliable. Sample designs for this data wll I not permit detailed analysis by specific geographical area or by species. Commercial data Is similarly unreliable when assessing catch and effort by specific area. The third major problem In the fishery Is the expanding competition among user groups for the resource with the potential for personal and political conflicts over the resource. Fishing effort, par ticularly In the recreational segment, has continued to expand as has trawling effort which takes a bycatch of reef fish. The potential for the Introduction of new gear such as fish traps Into the nearshore fishery also poses a potential problem for harvesters utilizing less efficient traditional harvesting gear. 8.1.2 Specific Management Objectives The fol lowing specific management objectives have been developed for the reef fish fishery In t~e Gulf of Mexico to address the problems In the fishery and reflect the biological, econetnlc, social ~nd eco logical considerations Influencing the resource and users and managers of the resource and are listed In priority order: (I) To rebuild the declining reef fish stocks wherever they occur within the fishery. (II) To conserve reef fish habitats and increase reef fIsh habitats In appropriate areas and, to provide protection for Juveniles. (I II) To minimize conflicts between user groups of the resource and conflicts for space. (Iv) To establish a fishery reporting system for monitoring the reef fish fishery. 8-2 8.1.3 Objectives Considered and Rejected Other obj ect I ves, as fo I low, were cons I dered but were rej ected as not be I ng with I n the specl f I c prov 1 slons of Sections 300 and 303 of P.L. 94-265, or as being unattainable: (I) To provide the consumer with adequate supplies of reef fish.· (11) To encourage the harvest and marketing of certain less utlllzed species, e.g., tlleflsh. (This resource utilization recommendation wll I be forwarded separately to the Secretary of Commerce for consideration as a program priority for National t~arlne Fisheries Service.) 8.2 Fisheries and Stocks Involved The management unit presently Includes only. species of grouper, snapper, and sea bass. Other speci es that are Included in the fishery, but not In the current management unit, are certain tlletlshes, jacks, trlggerflshes, wrasses, grunts, porgl9s and sand perches. As additional data become available, other species In the fishery may be Incorporated into the management unit as deemed necessary. For species In the management unit, OY has been set below MSY. MSY has been computed for the snapper/grouper complex consisting of many species. This approach was taken because Insuttlclent data were available for calculation of separate MSY's for the species. The effort data could not be segre gated by species or by species groups. Data will eventually be avallable for separate r"sy com put3tlons tor, at least, the principal species. MSY for sea bass Is a very gross estimate which can be Improved with a better data base. Both ~"'SY's In the plan are based on very poor data for the recreational segment. Current NMFS statistical sur veys will Improve the reliability of the data base for the computations. The commercial fishing eftort In the snapper/grouper complex Is concentrated on the most readily marketable species with Incidental landings of more poorly marketable species. If the effort shifts or expands to Include major effort on these less desirable species, the MSY for the entire complex will have to be reassessed. Any proposed alterations of the MSY(s) wll I require reassessment of the OY(s). 8etter Information on the current status of abundance and condition of the stocks will also·requlre a reassessment of the O'«s). 8.3 Management Measures and Rationale Objective analysis of the descriptive data contained In Sections 3.0 through 7.0 of this Plan Indicate that the Gulf of Mexico reef fish resource, as a multi-species resource, Is In approximate equIlibrium near ~SY (Figure 10). The grouper resource Is also In approximate equilibrium. That Is, taken as d whole In the Gulf of r~exlco, these groups are not overflshed based on the data analyzed through 1980 (Section 5.0) and can sustain themselves at approximately 1970 to 1974 levels of fishing effort which were higher than more recent levels. However, since they are In equilibrium and the analyzed catch Is near estimated MSY, Increased levels of fishing effort much beyond those levels employed unt·1I 1974 w·ould probably cause growth overflshlng to occur with resulting decreaSeS In average size. The snapper resource (principally red snapper) Is also at an equilibrium near MSY. The relationship ber~een catch and effort Indicates levels beyond optimum effort to take MSY for 1965 through 1974 (Figure 10). This analysis Indicates that groupers and snappers taken as a whole should not be har vested at levels much greater than that of mid-1970's levei. 8-3 SecTion 4.7.1.2 IndicaTes ThaT domestic harvesT of sea bass Is approximaTely equal to OY. CompuTaTions of MSY and domesTic harvesT for Thl~ group must be considered g:oss estimates and were COl1lPUTed by The "American Assembly Plan" approach. DisaggregaTion of effort and yield data shows that most of the growth overflshlng problem (parTicularly In snappers) may be zonal In nature (Section 4.7.1.3). Total catch and catch per unit of effort by recreational fishermen has declined In recent years, pOssibly Indicating some overflshlng (Appendix Table 55). Equilibrium models for snapper based solely on commercial effort Indicate no overflshlng has occurred. This difference may be mainly due to the commercial fishery taking place outside of the normal reach of recreational vessels and the fact that private recreational vessels, charter boats, and party boats fish the same location more often due to time, distance, and weather consTraints. Based on this analysis, and the examination of capacity In the commercial and recreational fishery, the expected domestic annual harvest Is sufficient to take the or for reef fishes In ~he Gulf of Mexico (see Section 5.0). Based on this analysIs of the best available data the most appropriate management measures for this fishery at thIs time appear to be those which would hold total harvest of snapper at levels near those of the mid-1970's, or to reduce the catches of subadults. Management measures of this nature will protect the equilibrium state of the fishery. Holding total fishing effort at current levels could be accomplished while al lowing some sectors of the fishery to expand while reducing others, and through zonal fishing limitations. In setting optimum yield, the Council recognized the Impossibility of obtaining recreational st~ tlstlcs rapidly enough to Implement management restrictions which would prevent exceeding the OY amount In anyone year. Recrelltlonalcatch estimates from the National Recreational Survey can be produced within three to six months following the close of the year. Preliminary estimates can be made sooner. This provides a valid basis for management restrictions In the following year. A proce dure for reducing the or amount and restricting the fishery In the fol lowing year was developed. Through this procedure the long-term average catch wll I closely approximate the or amount resulting In a real achievement of optimum yield. The or amount may be slightly exceeded In some years. Such short-term overharvests are not expect9d to cause overflshlng either of the growth or recruitment types. These species are long-lived and relatively slow growing. Annual fluctuations In catch have little effect on them. So long as the long-term average catch Is maintained at the or level, growth overflshlng will not occur. At the stock levels which wll I result from average catches near the or amount, recruitment overflshlng Is extr3mely unlikely. The many management options considered by the Council evolved from these sources: recommendations by the plan drafting team (contract to Florida Sea Grant College), evaluation of comments received by the drafting team through a mall and personal Interview survey of representative commercial and recrea tional groups and state and federal fishery administrators In the five Gulf states, the Advisory Panel and the Scientific and Statistical Committee appointed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councl I, and from public hearings held on the first draft of the Plan. From this group the Gulf Council recommends the fol lowing specific management actions. 8.3.1 Domestic Management Mellsures Management measures affecting the domestic fishery are as fol lows: 8.3.1.1 Stressed Area (Area Subject to Special Management) ESTABLISH A STRESSED AREA IN THOSE WATERS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO SHOREWARD OF THE FOLLOWING DISCONTINUOUS LINE: (I) From the boundary separtlng the Jurisdiction of Gulf and SOUTh Atlantic 8-4 Councils terminating at 24° 35' and 83° 0.0' northward and eas'htard around the Dry Tortugas to a point north of Rebecca Shoal at 82° 35' the outer bounqary shall be the 10o-foot c~ntour;9 (2) Fran the point at 82° 3S' eas'htard and northerly to the sout, end of Sanibel Island (26° 26') the outer boun dary shall be the 6o-foot contour;9 (3) Fran 26° 26' northward to a point ott Tarpon Springs (28° 10') the outer boundary shall be the 12o-foot contour;9 (4) Fran 28° 10' northward and wes'htard to a point' ott Cape San Bias (85° S2' and 29° 30.S') the outer boundary shall ,be the 6o-foot contour;9 (S) Fran 8So 52' and 29° 30.S' wes'htard to a pol nt ott r-loblle Bay on the 88° longl tude II ne, the outer boundary shall be at the ISO-foot contour9 • The outer boundary shall then be a line from the point on the 88° longitude north wesr~ard to the Alabama~lsslsslppi state line at the 8o-foot contour (88° 23.7' and 30° 01.SI); (5) Fran 88° 23.7' and 30° 01.S' the outer boundary will be a line running directly west along the 30° 01.S' paral lei and terminating at the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana; (7) From the Texas/Louisiana state line to a point on the 95° longitude line, the outer boundary shall be at the 10o-foot contour9 (Figure 11 and Table 12). Rationale: Analysis In Sections 4.7.1 and 6.3 Indicates that total catch and catch per unit effort by recreational fishermen has declined in recent years, suggesting possible overflshlng In areas where recreational f'lshermen participate. The relationship between canrrarclal catch and canrrarclal effort suggests that stocks I n the canrrarcl a I fishery may be underf I shed. The canrrarcl a I fishery norma I Iy occurs In offshore waters beyond the normal recreational fishing area. The recreational fishermen are generally restricted to Inshore waters due to (I) limited capacity of their boats to travel great distances and withstand sea conditions and (2) available time to make Individual fishing trips. These conclusions led to the Identification of a stressed area t-n which specific management measures are deemed necessary. This area Is characterized by excessive fishing pressure resulting In reduced catches of certain species, reduced catch per unit effort, and decreased average size of certain species. The stressed area was delineated through a consensus of fishery experts frO'l'l various st.3tes, the Council members, the AdviSOry Panel, and the public hearing processo Factors considered In delineating the stressed area Included local knowledge of: (I) the fishery and conditions of the stocks In localized geographical areas, (2) the amount of fishing pressure applied to the geographical area, (3) proximity of the offshore geographical areas to cities of high popula tion, (4) coastal access to the reef areas, (5) historical fishing practices occurring In the area, and (6) a need for protection of special habitat. At one point In Plan development, a single stressed area zone was proposed extending seaward to the 10o-foot contour canpletely around the perimeter of the U.S. Gulf of t-1exlco. In subsequent dialogue with state officialS and scientific personnel, recreational and comrrarclal advisors, scientific CO'l'I mlttee members and ~FS personnel, It became obvious that the stressed area varied geographically and that In some localities the stocks were not stressed. The Council redef I ned the stressed area based on a scientific evaluation from these sources. Portions of the Florida reef tract are encompassed by points 1 through 3 (Table 12, Figure 11). The reef tract supports large assemblages of reef fish. Key West Is a major attraction to tourists and supPOrt a relatively large fleet of recreatlon-tor-hlre vessels which target reef fishes. The Keys also support a relatively large commercial fleet ...,hlch targets reef fish, at least during some tl!Tl9s of the year when other fisheries are closed. The Importance of this canmerclal effort to the local 9 The contour lines described shall be generic lines consisting of a series of straight lines closely following the actual contours. Turning points on the series of straight lines will be defined by latitUde and longitude as '~ell as by loran C coordinates. 8-S ,/ (lJ ~ .-"1 94 90 '.-.j 0, .~\:, tl)r::: (,1 ::l ·.-;0 tl)U) tI) . ., ~ FIGURE 11. NAP OF THE STRESSED AREA. C!J .-;::n 'ri IT] ..QI::) o ::;:: , ... ~ • ", !:J ~ 'lJ k< 'V::n ~'il "(rQ 88 86 LONGITUDE (W) '~~ .-<; 81: \, 'v'", 7 ' 5 6/ ' 4 C3~- Key :.~est;./ --~-I':"""" 2 1 84 80 /,J "", 30 ....... :c--..:. kl 28 Q :.:J [-. f..j e-. ~ 26 \{;" j 0:' Table 12. Coordinates of stressed area Point Latitude Long I tude Loran C Coordinates 2 No. Reterence Location 1 (North) (West) W X Y Z 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 Key West 24" 33.0' 81" 48.7' 13927.8 30238.2 43654.2 62555.1 MarQuesas Key 24" 35.0 82° 06.2' 13894.5 30189.2 43748.8 52726.5 Gu I f/South Atlantic Boundary 24° 35.0' 83" 00.0' 13768.5 29992.2 44049.2 62941.1 Tortugas Bank South 24° 36.0' 83" 06.0' 13753.4 44084.4 52955.5 Tortugas Bank North 24° 44.0' 83- 04.0' 13772.3 44087.4 62950.3 West of Smith Shoal 24" 48.0' 82" 05.5' 13915.1 43760.2 52727.7 Off Cape Sable 25° 15.0 82° 02.0' 13974.7 43759.8 62704.9 Off Sanibel Island 26" 25.0' 82" 29.0' 14060.3 43117.4 62824.3 Off Sanibel Island 26" 25.0' 82" 59.0' 13990.0 43347.5 62970.7 Off Anc lote Keys 28° 10.0' 83° 45.0' 14145.8 45328.0 63265.8 Off Anclote Keys 28" 10.0' 83- 14.0' 14224.3 45092.0 63086.4 Off Deadman Bay 29" 38.0' 84" 00.0' 14412.4 45157.7 63442.2 SW of Cape San Bias 29- 30.5' 85" 52.0' 13873.2 46702.0 63976.2 Otf St. Andrews Bay 29° 53.0' 86" 10.0' 13815.5 45922.3 64050.8 Desoto Canyon 30° 06.0' 86° 55.0' 13434.5 30600.5 47045.8 A I abama/F lor I da II ne 29" 34.5' 87° 38.0' 12971.5 30023.4 46886.0 Off Mobl I e Bay 29" 41.0' 88" 00.0'· 12765.5 29841.2 46930.9 Mississippi/Alabama line 30° 01.5 ' 88- 23.7' 12537.6 29597.7 47029.3 Chandeleur Islands 30" 01.5' 88" 51.0' 12262.0 29422.2 47028.6 Sabine Pass 29° 39.0' 93" 49.5' 11027.8 25357.1 46966.6 Texas/Louisiana line, south 28" 38.0' 93° 32.0' 11139.4 26220.7 46815.1 Of f Sa I veston I siand 28" 28.0' 95° 00.0' 11086.2 25308.9 46817.0 Off Galveston Isiand 29" 09.5' 95" 00.0' 11036.9 25551.4 46909.0 Nearest identifiable landfal I, boundary, navigation aid or submarine area. Loran coordinates are provided to aid the fishermen affected by the measures and are subject to local variations due to atmospheric conditions, therefore, are not used as part of the legai description of the stressed area. 8-7 economy Is document~ In Section 3.5.8 and Table 9. Because of this high fishing effort, this area around the Dry Tortugas was Included In the stressed area. The outer boundary of this portion of the stressed area was set at the 10D-foot contour upon advice of Florida Department of Natural Resources scientists and fishermen advising the Council. The boundary was set based on the stressed condition of the fishery and fish stocks rather than on the outermost limit of the coral formations. The area encompassed by points 4 through 8 (Table 12, Figure 11) Is characterized by a large rela t Ively shallow expanse of bottom wh Ich has scattered low prof I Ie reefs and rough bottom support I ng reef fish. The shore line Is characterized by sma I I fishing ports of low population density such as Everglades City and Naples. The majority of tourists bypass this area and take other routes to south Florida; therefore, the recreation-for-hire fleet Is rather limited In size and the total effort applied to the reef fish fishery Is reduced. Consequently, the outer boundary of the stressed area was set at the 5D-foot contour. It should also be noted that the continental shelf Is very broad and gently sloping In this area and the boundary varies from 29 to 55 nautical miles offshore from the fish I ng ports. Between points 8 and 11 are the large metropolitan areas of Fort Myers, Sarasota, Bradenton, St. PeterSburg, Tampa, Clearwater, and Tarpon Springs with combined populations ?'(ceedlng two million persons. Because of this large population density and because this area at,r~cts large numbers of tourists, fishing pressure by private and recreat I on-for-h Ire vessels Is extremely high on the reef fish stocks. The area Is also characterized by scattered extensive tracts of low profile reefs and rough bottom extending from shore In a northwesterly direction out more than 100 nautical miles and Includes the Florida Middle Grounds reef tract In the outermost extremity. Because of these con siderations the outer boundary of the stressed area was set at the 120-foot contour, which Is approxi mately 45 nautical miles off Tampa Bay. Between points 11 and 13 there are no major cities of consequence with large populations. very few lodging accommodations for tourists and virtually no recreatlon-for-hlre vessels. There are The outer limit or boundary of the stressed area was set at the 50-foot contour for this low population dens I ty area. The area between points 13 and 17 (Table 12, Figure 11) Includes the 'Gold Coast' of Florida and the relatively high popUlation centers between Pensacola, Florida and Mobile, Alabama (5'00,000+). The entire area Is characterized by a very large recreatlon-for-hlre fleet caterIng to tourists. Also the density and frequency of natural reef tracts "declInes markedly In this area. The fIshIng pressure Is very high considerIng the amount of reef traCts. The boundary of the stressed area was set at the lSD-foot contour and encompasses vlrtu!!Illy all the reefs In the offshore areas. Commerclar fishing from ports In this area and In MIssIssippi Is a distant water operation. Between points 17 and 19, there are no natural reefs of consequence and the outer boundary of the stressed area encompasses the artificial reefs placed offshore by the States of Alabama and Mississippi. The Louisiana coast Is distinctly different from the coastal areas of the other Gulf states being characterized by an extensive marsh complex. This results In cities wIth high populations being ~uch further Inland and access to the Gulf waters being much more limited. Tourist accommodations In the coastal areas are severely limited as are the number of recreatlon-for-hlre vessels (about 30). The distance from the major metropolitan area of New Orleans to the major recreational port of Grand Isle Is In excess of 90 miles by highway. The offshore area of Louisiana Is also characterized by extensive 01 I and gas exploration and production. These structures contribute significantly to the available reef fish habitat resulting In Increased population size. Because of the lImited access, the limited amount of participatIon In t~e 8-8 fishery, the relatively large amount of habitat (as compared to other central Gulf states), and t1e scientific evaluation by Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Department biologists, the area off Louisiana did not demonstrate the characteristics common t~ the stressed area and, ther'efore, was not Included In the stressed area. Between points 20 and 23 the continental shelf again becomes a broad, gradually sloping expanse. The area also contains the large metropolitan complex of Houston-Galvaston, Texas with a population exceeding 1.5 million. Fishing effort on the available natural reefs and 011 structures Is very high. Texas biologists cited the result of a recent tagging study In which 50 percent of the tagged Individ ual red snapper were taken within a short period, Indicating extremely heavy fishing pressure. For this area off Texas, the boundary of the stressed area was set at the 10D-foot contour. The reef fish population off the remainder of the Texas Coast was Judged to be unstressed primarily because the reefs were at water depths of 40 fathoms or deeper, which Is out of the range of most recreational reef fish fishermen. Once the stressed area was de II neated, the Council then proceeded to determl ne means of reducl ng fishing pressure on stocks within the stressed area as well as measures to rebuild the stocks. In terms of reducing fishing pressure, the first order was to delineate user groups and to address each user group's activities within the stressed area. This approach was deemed necessary In order to establish management measures that would be equitable to al I users and to assure that management measures proposed are In compliance with the seven National Standards. The following user groups were considered In terms of management measures that might be applied to them: 1. Commercial hook and line fishermen 2. Recreational hook and line fishermen 3. Divers 4. Commercial fish trap fishermen 5. Commercial "roller-rig" trawlers Following Is a brief summary of Council conclusions with respect to management measures that might be applied to each user group within the stressed area. A more detailed rationale Is provided under spe cific management measures that were adopted as wei I as for those rejected. 1. Commercial hook and line fishermen. Virtually al I commercial hook and line fishermen fish offshore of the stressed area; therefore, this user group Is essentially not Involved In contributing to overflshlng In the stressed area and Is unaffeCted by the management measures proposed for the stressed area. 2. Recreational hook and line fiShermen. This user group Is the primary contributor to over fishing In the stressed area; however, It Is difficult to develop enforceable management measures that reduce effort by this group. For example, bag limits were cons Idered for the stressed area, but It was determined that this would not be enforceable unless they appl led to the entire management area. For this reason, bag and size limits are proposed for all user groupS for red snapper throughout the management area. 3. Divers. Again, management measures relating to bag and/or size limits apply to divers. Other management measures Include restrictions on power heads. 8-9 4. Commercial fish trap fishermen. Management measures that fol low prohibit the use of fish traps within the stressed area. These measures will eliminate catch by this user group wl"thln "the stressed area. Prohibiting f>lsh traps In the stressed area will have a minimal adverse economic Impact on fish trap fishermen In that it will Involve traveling an extra few miles to allowable fishing grounds. 5. Commercial "roller-rig" trawlers. This potential user group Is prohibited from fishing for reef fish within the stressed area In order to preclude future Increased effort and catch. Again, the adverse economic Impacts are negligible for Two reasons: First, currently this type of gear Is not used to take reef fish In the stressed area. Second, this type of trawlIng Is permlssable outside of the stressed area and, as In the case of fish trappers, only a few extra mIle's travel wll I be required to reach permlssable fishing grounds. And, In the case of both tr~lers and trappers, the fishing grounds are generally more productive outside of the stressed area. During 1981, fishermen began experimenting with the user of roller trawls for taking reef flsh- In the offshore waters of the Gulf. Without some restric tions on their use this practice would likely be extended to the stressed area with detrimen tal effects on the nearshore stocks of fish. In summation, establishing the stressed area Is the principal means by which this plan addresses the problem of overflshlng In nearshore waters. The Council evaluated management measures that could be applied to each user group to reduce catch within the stressed area while simultaneously considering the adverse economic Impacts resulting from management considerations. In addition, the Councl I eval uated the enforceability of management measures considered. Those adopted "are considered to be enforce able, effective In addressing "the basic problem of overflshlng, and do not result In a severe adverse economic Impact on any user group. The user group that might appear to be Impacted the most Is com mercIal fIsh trappers. However, this Is not the case as fish trappers can very easily fIsh outsIde of the stressed area because of the short additional "runnIng tIme" involved. At public hearIngs, com mercIal fish trappers supported the proposed management measures as being fair and equitable. 8.3.1.2 Fishing Gear (1) PROHIBIT THE USE OF POWER HEADS10 FOR THE TAKING OF REEF FISH WITHIN THE STRESSED AREA. (2) PROHIBIT THE USE OF ROLLER TRAWLS IN THE STRESSED AREA. (3) PROHIBIT THE USE OF FISH TRAPS IN THE STRESSED AREA. FURTHER, PROVIDE FOR SEIZURE OF SUCH GEAR ILLEGALLY DEPLOYED IN-THE STRESSED AREA. RatIonale: The purpose of Including these measures Is to help achieve specifIc managemenf objectives (I), (III) and (Iv) of Section 8.1.2. On establishment of the stressed area or areas subject to spe cial management, It became obvious that measures were needed to reduce fishing pressure within these areas. The Council, during Its deliberations, considered measures that would reduce effort by each user group fishing the resource within these areas. Measures (1), (2) and (3) were proposed by the Council to reduce fishing effort by other users wIthin the stressed area and to reduce conflicts and the potential for conflicts. Measure (1) prohibiting the use of power heads for taking reef fish In the stressed area results In a slight reduction of har vest by fishermen utilizing SCUBA gear within the stressed area. 10 Power head means a metal device with an explosive charge and usually a projectile that fires on cont3ct. It is usually attached to a speargun, spear, pole or stick. 8-10 Although other restrictions on fishermen using SCUBA gear sldered since no data supported rrore severe rest:;lctlons. 11,,1"1" restrict Ions of 8.3.1.3. were discussed. they were never seriously ~on­ SCUBA fishermen a\e also subject to the size Power heads are prohibited in Florida waters and possibly could be construed as being Illegal within the the territorial waters of the other Gulf states (Section 3.3.1). Persons armed with power heads can selectively harvest the largest spawning Individuals of many species. whereas through the use of. traditional hook and line gear. It Is difficult to dislodge these specimens from their refuges In the reef complexes. These large seditary specimens do not constitute a significant portion of the har vest, but because fecundity Increases with size the large Individuals contribute relatively more to the spawning capacity of the stocks. No prohibition Is proposed on the use of power heads as a pro tection device against sharks and other predators; however. their use In taking reef fish In the stressed area wll I be prohibited. Whereas most ful I-time commercial fishermen fish rrore distant. offshore waters outside the stressed area, two types of gear would al low them to economically fish the less productive waters of the stressed area. If the use of roller trawls and fish traps becOT1El comrron r:l9thods of harvest. they have the potential to adversely affect the rrore heavily exploited reef f Ish populations In the stressed area. By restricting the use of this gear for taking reef fish, fishing pressure by this segment of the commercl a I Industry w III be reduced I n the stressed area. Roller trawls (which are otter trawls equipped with very large rollers allowing operation over rough bottoms) when used In conjunction with side scanning sonar. have the potential to be highly effective for taking reef fish. Further. this gear Is nonselective and Its use would Inflict additional IlDr tallty on species which are currently overtlshed. Therefore. their use for taking reef fish will be prohibited In the stressed area. This gear also has the potential to damage coral reef habitat. The use of this efficient gear outside the stressed area Is not restricted. Fish traps are discussed In Section 3.2.1.4.1. This gear. If permitted In the stressed area. could seriously reduce the catch per unit effort for persons using the traditional fishing gear and aggra vate existing resource competition. Since the Plan Indicates that the offshore stocks of reef fish are not stressed. this gear Is al lowed outside the stressed a~ea with some restrictions. The prohibition of fish traps and roller trawls for harvesting reef fish In the stressed area would prevent the Imposition of a new fishery with rrore efficient gear on stressed stocks of the nearshore loIaters. It would also provide for conserving and protecting the reef fish habitats. The measures would help In rebuilding declining stocks only 1larglnal Iy except In some areas such as off south Florlda~ however, the restrictions would prevent further decline In most of the overflsh~ areas. With the exception of fish traps In south Florida. none of the gear prohibited for taking reef fish In the stressed area Is comrronly used In the fishery. The Plan does not prohibit the use of this more efficient gear outside of the stressed area. (4) REQUIRE DEGRADABLE OR OTHER SELF-DESTRUCTING PANELS OR ACCESS DOOR HINGING DEVICES ON FISH TRAPS AND WH ICH ARE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLL(),t/S: (4.1) REQUIRE THAT THE OPENING COVERED BY THE PANEL (OR ACCESS DOOR) BE AT LEAST 144 SQUARE INCHES OR LARGER WITH ONE DIMENSION OF THE AREA EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN THE LARGEST INTERIOR AXIS OF THE THROAT (FUNNEL). (4.2) REQUIRE THAT ONE PANEL OR ACCESS DOOR BE LOCATED OPPOSITE EACH OF THE SIDES THAT HAS A FUNNEL. 8-11 (4.3) REQUIRE THAT ONE 'fEAR AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN, ALL FISH TR.APS WITHIN THE Fez ~, BE CONSTRUCTED OF r.IATERI AL WITH MESH 5 I ZE OF I x 2 IIICHES CR LARGER AND THERE BE A MIN IMUM OF TIIO 2 x 2 IIICH ESCAPE WINDOWS ON EA'O-I OF TIIO 5 I DES OF THE TRAP.' (4.4) REQUIRE THAT ALL FISH TRAPS FISHED WITHIN THE 30o-FOOT CONTOUR OF THE FCZ BE 33 CUBIC FEET OR SMALLER IN VOLUME. THERE IS NO LIMITATION ON TRAP SIZE OUTSIDE THE 30o-FOOT CONTOUR. (5) REQUI~E THAT EAOI VESSEL FISHI~ IN THE FCZ BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 200 TRAPS. (6) pqOHIBIT THE WILLFUL PULLI~ OF ANOTHER PERSON'S TRAPS AND THE PULLI~ CR HARVESTI~ OF TRAPS AFTER SUNDOto/N CR BEFORE SU~ I SEe (7) PROHIBIT THE USE OF POISON CR EXPLOSIVES FOR THE TAKI~ OF REEF FISH. RaTionale: The purpose of the measures relatIng to degradable panels or hingIng devIces Is to prevent lost traps from contInuing to capture reef fish. Two studies of the south Florida wire fish trap fishery (Taylor and McMichael, In press; Sutherland and Harper, In press) Indicated substantial losses of traps for two groups of fishermen fishing Gulf waters. Fishermen operating fran th-e port of Miami reported losses averaging 100 percent per year and Florida Keys fishermen reported losses averaging 63 percent per year, while west coast~flshermen reported losses of less than five percent per year but constantly attended their traps. While Section 3.2.1.4.1 Indicates that many species can and will freely leave the trap by the funnel, data supportIng this behavior for IIDst Gulf reef fish species Is not available. Although Munro (1974b) reported that escapement reaches about a level of 50 percent In about seven to ten days, Munro, et al. (1971) reported that almost al I fishes confined for two weeks show obvious signs of physIcal deterIoratIon and often have fungal Infections. They speculated that mortality Increased greatly for perIods of confinement of somewhat less than a m::>nth due to STarvatIon and predatIon. ThIs observation was confIrmed by Taylor and McMichael (In press) In their study of the FlorIda Keys fishery. They reported on the catch of 55 traps whIch had been soaked (fIshed) for 20 days. Fifty-three percent of the angel fishes, 32 percent of the groupers and 40 percent of the snappers confIned to these traps were eIther dead or Injured. ThIs Information demonstrates the need for degradable panels or access door fasteners which '0111 I be constructed of material specifIed by regulation. Regulations governl~ the fish trap fIshery In Bermuda specIfy that the door must be secured by string yarn or other perishable material. The Caribbean Councl I spe cified an assortment of materIals which deteriorate wIthIn 90 days (Dammann, In press). Kumpf (In press) tested deterioratIon rates for several materIals. Both Jute and sIsal twines deteriorated within 42 days. Lost cages, with large openIngs as proposed in Measure 4.1, would al low ful I access for IIDSt fIshes and would become useable habitat. Both Taylor and McMichael (In press) and Sutherland and Harper (In press) reported that the access doors of traps fished In the Gulf were located on the sIde opposIte the funnel. In some trap designs the funnel occupIed one entIre sIde. Nearly al I the traps fished In the Gulf were rectangular. Only two "Z" shaped traps and a few cy II ndr I ca I and heart-shaped traps were reported I n the fIshery. If the lost trap wIth one funnel should land on the sIde wIth the access door, the funnel would be on top. The trap would not be very effective In fIshIng as evidenced by the lImited catch of fish by other traps wIth funnels on the top such as lobster and stone crab traps. Traps wIth two funnels wou I ,j have two access doors or degradab Ie panel s so that one funnel and one access door wou I d be In the vertical plane regardless of how the trap landed. Measure 4.3 wll I provIde for escapement of Juvenile fish confined to traps and fran traps pul led from water depths that may cause death by embolIsm. Although several researchers (Munro, 1974a; Stevenson, 1978; Wolf and Chlslett, 1974; and Olsen, et al., 1977) have suggested optImum mesh sizes for various specIes and areas, Taylor and McMichael (In press) found no sIgnIfIcant differences In the sizes of fIve grouper specIes confIned TO traps of 1 x 2 Inch and 2 x 2 Inch meshes In the south Florida 8-12 \ ./ fishery. Most traps In this fishery were constructed of 1 x 2 Inch mesh. The optimum 'll9sh size for Gulf species Is nat presently known; however, research Is being carried out In an effort to establish optimum sizes and Measure 8A provides a procedure for Implementation of mesh 'slze modifications. However, Measure 4.3 provides for 2 x 2 Inch windows which are slightly larger than optimum mesh sizes reported in the scientific literature for the Caribbean and which wll I serve as an Interim conser vation measure until research delineates the optimum mesh size for the Gulf fishery. Both Measures 4.4 and 5.0 are conservation measures which are designed to provide for a regulated growth of the trap fishery so that this segment of the fishery does not adversely Impact the stocks or other user groups. Studies of the south Florida trap fishery (Taylor and McMichael, In press; Sutherland and Harper, in press) Indicate that the participants In this segment of the fishery are pri marily new entrants Into the reef fish fishery. Almost al I of these fishermen were previously employed In the spiny lobster and stone crab fisheries. ~ny of these fishermen were displaced from fisheries In Bahamian waters where U.S. fishermen were denied access to those waters and began entering the U.S. trap fishery In about 1975 (Table 3). Approximately 80 percent of the trap fisher men are part-time fishermen who stll I participate In the stone crab and spiny lobster fisheries during part of" each year. The purpose of Measures 4.4 and 5.0 Is to place a reasonable upper limit on the fishing power of an Individual without reducing the efficiency of his operation. This limitation Is beneficial both to competing users of the resource utilizing other gear and also to the trap fishermen. Fishing power Is a measure of the catch of a particular gear or a particular vessel using standardized units of gear and Is related to the size (or volume) of the gear, the length of time deployed, and the catch taken by the gear from the available stocks (Gulland, 1977). Rothschild (1977) described the flshl~ power of crab traps and demonstrated Its relation to trap size. Limitations on fishing power by regulating size and units of gear are common methods used In managing fisheries. Often limits on fishing power are utilized to standardize the effort among partlcl:>anTs (vessels) In highly exploited fisheries to provide for equal access to the stocks by the fishermen, e.g., trawl size limitations In state wat9rs. Almost always these management restrictions specify a maximum number of units or maxi mum size of gear and fishermen are free to ut III ze less or sma I ler un I ts of gear. Usua I Iy, as the rate of exp 1.0 I tat I on I ncreases, the number or size of the un I ts of gear I s reduced by the regu I a TOry agency In order to control effort. Limitation on fishing power does nOT completely limit effort since It does not control Increases In participation (vessels). However, limitation of fishing power does provide an effective Interim method of control of fishing effort prior to the more sociologically disruptive control of limiting vessels In a fishery. It Is more equitable than catch quotas since each fisherman controls his effort and success within the restrictions on fishing power Imposed by the regulatory agency to conserve the resource. Both Measures 4.4 and 5.0 provide such limitations on fishing power which the Council felt were equitable .to the participants and necessary for conservation of the resource. These measures do not provide for an absolute control on fishing effort, such as limitations on participants, as this' was deemed as unnecessary at this time. A limitaTion on vessels could be accomplished under the procedure of r~easure 8.0, Part B, If" It should become necessary in the future. Measure 5.0, which provides for a restriction on the number of traps per vessel, Is a ~onservatlon measure designed to place a reasonable limitation on the fishing power of these new participants In the fishery. The proposed limitation will effect primarily the full-time trap fishermen. This group presently constitutes 20 percent of the participants and takes the greatest portion of the catch. SOIT1e of these fishermen fishing In the Gulf are presently using up to 100 traps per vessel (Oleson, 1981). The highest number of traps In use by one vessel was reported to be 200 but That vessel did not presently fish Gulf waters. Therefore, the measure will provide an effective IImlt!ltlon wiThout adverse I y I mpact I ng the present parT Ic I pants. 8-13 In addition, the restriction on the number of traps per vessel Is a reasonable conservation measure since It provides some limitation on effort and catch by trap fishermen so that they do not adversely affect the CPLE for hook and line fishermen. ~I;'hough other provisions of the Plan [8.3.1.2<:5») restrict trap fishing from areas where the most Intensive effort by hook and line fishermen occurs, both commercial and recreational fishermen do fish beyond the stressed area utlllzJng hook and line gear. The fixed gear utll Ized by trappers wi" have an effect locally on depressing the CPLE of hook and line gear. Because of the limited nature of the resource, the 'efflclency of this gear and the sma I I number of trap fishermen, unrestr Icted growth of the trap fishery wou I d red i str I bute the present catch and associated value from many hook and line participants to the few trap fishermen. The measure, therefore, also benefits the traditional hook and line fishery of the Gulf by plaCing modest restric tions on traps. The Council concluded that a reasonable limitation of 200 traps per permitted vessel Is warranted at this time. Stevenson (In press) Indicated the maximum number of traps fished per fisher man In Puerto Rico may range up to 200 traps. Because excessive numbers of traps obstruct navigation and Interfere with other fl.shlng operations, the State of Louisiana limits crab fishermen to 200 traps. In the long-term prospective, the measure'wll I greatly benefit the trap fishermen by preventing or greatly delayl ng techn Ical overcapitalization of his fishery. Overcapitalization (technical and economic) Is characteristic of other open-access, fixed-gear fisheries for stone crab and spiny lobster which exist In the same locality. Overcapitalization results In adverse economic ImpaCTS on the fishermen and society. The limitation of 200 traps per vessel Is a completely reasonable restriction for several reasons. First, a fishing vessel normally uses less than this number of traps (Section 3.2.1.4.1). As cited In this section an average of 1,248 traps are currently utilized by 51 vessels during the season, or an average of 25 traps per vessel. However, during the peak period of partiCipation by part-tlma fisher man an average of 39 traps per vessel were utilized (Taylor and McMichael, In press; Sutherland and Harper, In press). Ful I-time fishermen use more traps than the averages cited above and are the per sons ,.,ho wll I be primarily affected by the limitation. In pub IIc t'3stlmony on the plan one trap fisherman Indicated he was utilizing 200 traps and another was using 160 traps. Neither was presently fishing the Gulf. All Individual testimony supported a limitation of 200 or less traps as did the testimony by the fisheries associations representing trap fishermen. To Illustrate the reasonableness of this proposed restricTion an analysis of the estimated economic return for the 1979-1980 fiShing season Is provided as follows: In Section 5.3.DAH for the trap fishery Is computed to be approximately 1.5 mil lion pounds of grouper and snapper. This Is ~sed on average catch per trap and estimated effort for the first year. Assuming an exvessel value of $1.00 per pound (SO.90 for grouper species and $1.20 for snapper species) the total gross reven4e Is approximately $1.5 mil lion. This Is equivalent to an average annual gross Incame of $29,411 per vessel or per fisherman. It Is also equivalent to an annual gross Income of $1,202 per trap. Since ful I-time fishermen fish considerably more traps than the average for al I fishermen, their gros~ Income would be higher, poSSibly approaching four times this amount. The average catch and return per trap wll I decline as participants or traps Increase In the fishery. Without some limitation, the fishery wll I become technically overcapitalized as In the caSe for the spiny lobster and stone crab fisheries. To Illustrate the potential for such overcapitalization, flsherles statistics (Fishery Statistics of U.S.) for 1964 and 1976 are cited below: In the stone crab fishery In 1964 there were 20,974 traps being utilized. By 1976 the number of traps had Increased to 224,351, an Increase of 1,069 percent, whereas the number of fishermen Increased only by 416 percent during the same time period. Although catch Increased by 326 percent, catch per trap for 1976 declined to 30.4 percent of the CPLE for 1964 and the gross Incane per trap declined by 12 percent despite a 289 percent Increase In exvessel value. Gross Income per trap actually declined by an additional 34 percent ·.,hen Inflation at the producer level Is considered. 8-14 In the spiny lobster fishery In 1969 there were 96,955 traps being utilized. By 1978 the number of trap s had I ncreased to 529,200, an I ncrease of 546 percent, whereas the number of fishermen Increased only 187 percent. During this period, the catch remained stable whereas catch per trap declined to 19 percent of the CPUE for 1969 and the gross I nCO'l1e per trap dec I I ned by 42 percent desp I te a 307 per cent Increase In exvessel price. Gross IncO'l1e per trap actually declined by an ad'dltlonal 13 percent when Inflation at the producer level Is considered. The changes In the number of traps per vessel In the fisheries were as follows: In the stone crab fishery In 1964 there was an average of 262 traps per vessel which had increased to an average of 707 traps per vessel by 1974. In 1964 the number of traps per vessel In the spiny lobster fishery was 333 which Increased to 632 traps per vessel by 1975. In both fisheries some ful I-time fishermen use 3,000 to 4,000 traps per vessel. Both of these examples demonstrate the potential for over-expansion In an open access fishery. They demonstrate that fishermen may not gain In the long run with more effort and that society has mls allocated Its resource. Both also demonstrate that units of gear (which are relatively Inexpensive) proliferate much faster than number of participants, be they vessels or fishermen. By limiting the number of traps per vessel the potential rate of overcapitalization Is slowed, since entry Into the fishery requires Investment In additional vessels (which are very expensive) rather than just addi tional traps. In the long-term, limiting effort Is beneficial to all the participants In the fishery. The limitation proposed Is a reasonable one which provides for moderate expansion of the existing trap fishery by full-time fishermen and It allows the potential for a very reasonable return. Most trap fishermen operate only part-time In the reef fish fishery. Overcapitalization caused by excess units of gear should be avoided In the reef fish fishery for biological as wei I as economic reasons. The biological consequences of excess effort are ~uch more serious for reef fish than for crustaceans such as lobster or stone crab. For those crustacean stocks, natural mortality and fecundity are very high, maturity occurs at or before entry Into the fishery, the exploited population Is essentially an annual crop, and there does not appear to be any relation between spawning stocks abundance and recruitment, even at very high rates of exploitation. Trap gear Is designed to catch only one species. In such fisheries, If regulated by size limit, fishing effort In excess of that needed to harvest the maximum yield have little adverse Impact on yield per recruit and no apparent Impact on recruitment. For most reef fish stocks, exploitation nor mally begins before age at maturity, fecundity Is lower than crustaceans, natural morTality Is very low, the catch Is made up of many year classes, and IT Is much more likely That substantial decreases In spawning stock abundance WQuid reduce recruitment. Because fish trap gear Is designed to harvest many species of various sizes, size limit management Is much less effecTive than In crustacean Trap fisheries. If trap fishing for reef fish becomes as InTense as In the lobster or STone crab fisheries, It Is probable a very large decline In average sizEi and spawning stock abundance will result. Yield per recruiT would decline and recruitmenT would probably be reduced. Because of these econO'l1lc and biological concerns over unregulated expansion of the trap fishery and Its affeCT on conservaTion of the stocks, It appeared better to establish these limitations on fishing power early In developmenT of the trap fishery, rather than To Impose the restriction after the expan slon of the fishery. This serves two purposes, first, IT prevents Investments In excess units of gear or very large vessels by the trap fishermen, and secondly, provides for regulated expansion o~ the fishery to alleviate the adverse biological and economic consequences of such an expansion on the stocks and other user groups. The enforcement of this proposed measure may be conducted largely at shores Ide. The two studies of the south Florida trap fishery Indicated that 80 percent of all fish trap fishermen participated in the sp I ny lobster and stone crab fisher I es dur I ng part of the year; therefore, these trap s wou I j be stacked ashore during parT of the year. These studies also Indicated that more than half of the 8-15 fIshermen always returned their traps to shore on the vessel at the conclusion of each trip. These stud I es a I so reported that a I I traps f I shed i n t~e Gu I f were I nd I v I dua I Iy buC!yed a I low I ng aerl a I counts. Only on the east coast of Florida were "trawls" of traps used. The numbering and color code provisions of Section 8.3.1.4 are structured to enhance enforcement. Measure 4.4 would provide for a maximum volume whIch Is somewhat larger than most traps currently In use (Section 3.2.1.4.1). In baited traps, the volume Is directly related to the potential catch. In studies under FAO, Wolf and Chlslet (1971, 1974) demonstrated that the catch rate of snapper was almost directly proportional to the trap volume for two sizes of traps. Traps whIch were 157 percent larger caught 151 percent higher poundages of fIsh. All the traps fIshed In the Gulf fishery are baIted (Taylor and McMichael, In press). Juhl and Suarez-Caabro (1971) also commented on the ability of larger traps to yield gre,ater catches. Personal observations of the catches of a 384-cublc foot trap reported In the prelImInary draft of thIs plan Indicated that the dally catch averaged as hIgh as 1,200 pounds per trap during part of the year. Therefore, any proposed measure whIch Is deSigned to Impose an upper lImitation on the fishing power of each Individual particIpant must consider a limitatIon to,the volume of the traps as, wei I as a lImitation-on the number of traps (Measure 5.0). Throughout the early deliberations on the plan, a maxImum volume of 50-54 cubic feet was cons Idered since this was reported as the typical size In early drafts of the plan. However, this represents a maximum size which Is more than twice the volume of traps utilized In the fishery (Taylor and McMichael, In press). They reported the most common size to be 24 cubIc feet. Almost al I other traps descrIbed In their study were sma I ler In volume. The average sIze of traps used by fishermen from the port of Miami who fIshed the Gulf was 18.5 cubic feet. Only one vessel was reported as using traps exceedIng 33 cubIc feet (Sutherland and Harper, In press). FIshermen testIfyIng on the plan reported the use of traps varyIng In sIze between 24 and 15 cubIc feet. However, the majority of trap flshennan testIfyIng supported a maxImum lImitation of at least 54 cubic feet as dId the representatIves of the fisherIes associatIons affected. Their rationale for this Increase In trap size over the sizes used In the fishery was speculation that larger traps may be necessary to f Ish for deepwater specl es such as t" ef Ish. The Gulf Councl I while always supporting a limitation on maximum sIze recognIzed the Importance of specIal allowances for developIng fIsheries for deepwater specIes. In fact, the Council encouraged the harvest of the less utilized specIes, such as tlleflsh (Section 8.1.3), hopIng that an Industry Initiative for harvest of the,se sPecies 'would develop. ThIs would reduce fishIng effort on some of the snapper and grouper specles~ Therefore, the Council adopted a compromIse posItion of limiting trap sIze to 33 cubic feet Inshore of the 300-foot contour, bUT allowing unrestricted size offshore of the 300-foot contour. This Is a very reasonable conservaTion measure In that few trap fIshermen would be adversely Impacted by the measure as most traps were sma I ler than 33 cubic feet. In fact, ThIs limitaTion on size Is about 38 percent larger than trap,s commonly used In the fIshery. Bermuda, for Instance, limits all fish traps to 13.5 cubic feet. The measure Is reasonable In that the sIze lImitation Is restriCTed to the area adjacent to the stressed area while al lowing larger traps In the more dIstant and deeper waters. It should be recognized that the trap fIshery Is a new fIshery and has the potential to ylald a very good fiscal return (see rationale for Measure 5 of thIs subsection). Therefore, It Is lIkely that more participants will enter the fishery, but It should also be recognIzed that the Increasad catch by trap fishermen wll I be to the detriment of other user groups because the resource Is limited. This wll I decrease the CPUE of the traditional hook and line fIshermen In localized areas and transfer the benefits accruing to them to the trap fishermen. Therefore, the proposed limit on size Is a reasonable measure which will aid In reducing the affect on persons utilizIng trddltlonal flshhg practices while also allowing the new fishing methodology (Traps) to be pursued at a reasonable level. 8-15 Although enforceabilIty of thIs proposed measure appears difficult, In reality It Is expected t"lat InItIally very few fishermen will choose to utilize traps larger than 33 cubic f~el regardless of where they fish. ThIs observation Is supported 'by the historical developments In the trap fishery of the Caribbean. Those persons flshll1g larger traps will be known through the permItting requl:-a-nent ·'Jf the plan. These vessels can easIly be Identified by the color code requirements for vessels and buoys (Section 8.3.1.4) and perIodic enforcement overflights should Indicate Intent to violate the measure, partIcularly as all traps currently used In this fishery are Indlvl:lually buoyed. Also the species composItion of catches landed by these vessels would Indicate to a great extent the depths of water they are fIsh I ng (Tay I or and McM I chael, I n press). Th Is shou I d a I d enforcement of f I cers I n I den tl fyl ng, from those vessel s wh Ich are fIshing large traps, those wh Ich may be vlo latlng the restric tion on depth. Since 80 percent of the fishermen participate In other fIsherIes during part of the year and since the majority bring their traps back aboard the vessels, most of the enforcement could be done at shores Ide. Although both Measures 4.4 and 5.0 provide for restrictions on fishing power they do al low a moderate Increasa In fIshing power of trap fishermen which should partially offset the hIgher operatIng cost of bel1g excluded from the stressed area. Measure 6 would reduce conflicts and theft, discourage" legal trap fIsh I ng I n the stressed area and promote enforcaab III ty. . Measure 7 woul d prevent the destruc tIon and waste of reef fish resources and living habitat. (8) PROCEDURES FOR MODIPICATION OF FISHING GEAR MEASURES Part A. Adjustment of Mesh Size of Traps The concern of the Council Is that It may be necessary to specify the allowable mesh size for fish traps In order to reduce excessive mortality of Juvenile reef fish and incidental species. Morta II ty cou I d occur through extended conf I nement, predat Ion I n traps and embo II sm. The Coonc II desires to prevent excessive mortality but presently does not have the Information to: (1) assess whether mortality Is excessive, (2) assess the optimum mesh sizes, (3) assess whether larger meshes are necessary. (4) assess whether escape windows or panels would be as effective as larger mesh, or (5) assess the effects of larger mesh on fishing effectiveness of the traps. To prevent avoidable and unnecessary mortality, Information 1'111 I be collected and analyzed on the selective ness of and mortality associated with various mesh sizes of traps as It relates to species In the Gulf fishery. This Information 1'111 I Include statistical Information collected through Implemen tation of the plan, other studies and resear·ch. I f these data analyses are Inadequate for the Gul f fishery, NMFS 1'1.111 be requested to complete research specific In the fishery which 1'111 I provide Information on the optimum mesh size for traps used in the Gulf. Included In the factors that 1'111 I be considered by the study are the following: (a) Species and size composition of catches of traps. (b) Mortality rates of the various species and size classes of fish confIned to traps. (c) Escapement of the varIous species from traps via the funnel or escape windows. (d) Sizes of mesh that 'otOU I d a I low escapement of unut" I zed f I shes and unders I zed fI shes. (e) Effects of mesh size on fishing effectiveness of the traps. 8-17 SEFC* and the Operations Unlt** wll I continuously review and assess the Information which perTains to the selecTiveness of and mortality associated with verlous mesh sizes of traps and as It relates • to speCies In the Gulf fishery. Point of Concern Option 1: In the course of the continuous review, a Point of Concern occurs when the Information demonstrdtes a level of mortality occurring In traps as a result of mesh size which may adversely effecT recruitment to the adult populations of those species affected. Point of Concern Option 2: In the course of the continuous review, a Point of Concern occurs when one or more of the fol lowing Is found: (a) When the Information demonstrates a level of mortality among Juveniles or adults of species taken Incidentally to the direcTed fishery for reef fish that may adversely limit the abun dance of these species In localized areas, particularly when these species are Important to other fisheries (aquarium trade, for example) or are Important to continued survIval of the reef ecosystem; (b) When the Information demonstrates that fIshing effectIveness of traps Is not adversely .affecTed by larger meshes and such larger meshes al low escapement of fIshes of a size not desIrable for the market; (c) When the Information demonstrates excessive mortality of JuvenIle fish confIned In gnost (lost) traps and when there Is evidence of significant violation of the requirement for degradable panels or hinges and when the number of lost traps exceeds those In the fishery. Once a Point of Concern Is Identified by SEFC and the Operations Unit under Options 1 or 2: (I) They wll I evaluate current data to determine If the total mortality occurring as a result of Inadequate mesh size adversely Impacts any stock, local aggregation of speclas or any por tion thereof or whether such mortality Is Inconsequential In comparison to natural mortality for that species and size of fish. (2) They wll I evaluate whether an Increased mesh size wll I adversely Impact fishing effectiveness of the traps or have no such adverse Impact. (3) They will evaluate the optImum mesh size for traps conSidering all the biological and econonlc factors char~erlstlc of each mesh size. (4) If SEFC and the Operations Unit concludes that there Is evidence of excessive mortality or that fishing effecTiveness Is not changed or Is enhanced by larger mesh sizes, they wi I I make findings regarding Which one or more of the following managementmeastres will alia vlata the conditions cited above, while at the same time achieving the objectives ot" the Plan: a. Require the usa of the optimum mesh slze'wlre for construction of traps. b. Require the bottoms of traps to be construcTed of certain mesh size that excludes undesirable fish from the catch. * SEFC = Southeast Flsherlas Center of NMFS ** Operations Unit = Multidiscipline technical team comprised of Council staff and NMFS Management Division personnel 8-16 c. Require panels of the optimum mesh on two or more sides of the trap. d. Require four or more escape windows of an optimum size be cut In the mesh of each side. (5) Procedures (5) t~rough (9) of Part 8 of this section wll I be followed in Implementing the measures under this Part, except that the regulatlon(s) promulgated wll I become effective one year after publication In order to mlnl~lze economic Impact on trap fishermen. Part 8. Limitations on Gear The concern of the Council Is that major Influxes of new and more efficient gear may occur Into the fishery which would result In biological stress on the stocks, growth or recruitment overflshlng. and displacement of traditional users of the resource. Because of economic difficulties encountered In some fisheries (the shrimp fishery, for ex~mple) It Is no longer profitable to pursue these other fisheries on a continuous basis. other fisheries (spiny lobster and stone crab. for example) are seasonal. In al I of these other fisheries the participants are seeking alternative fishing activities for the slack or closed periods In their fishery. Sea Grant Institutions and other agencies are Instructing fishermen In the use of alternative types of gear and fishing methodology. Because of the high value of reef fish much of this activity Is directed toward that fishery and Includes fishing techniques utilizing fish traps. longllnes. roller trawls, buoyed drop lines. etc. BecausG the fishery Is being harvested at levels approaching OY; because OY was set at a level ~Iow ~SY to provide for rebuilding of stocks and to account for an anticipated equilibrium yield currently below ,"1SY; because fishing presstre from traditional users continues to Increase, the Council Is very concerned that major Influxes of new particIpants and new, more efficIent gear wll I occur to the detriment of the exIstIng fishery. To prevent ·avoldable and undesirably high catches of Indlvljual specl,;,s or species complexes, each specIes or species complex wIll be subject to continuous assessment and monitored throughout the calendar year for signs of biological stress, with particular emphasis on catch by gear type. SEFC and the Operations Unit wll I monitor statistIcal Information collected through Implementation of the plan and that provided from other surveys and research to assess the effects of each type of specific gear on the reef fish stocks or elements thereof. As new gear Is Introduced Into the fishery, the Council may request special ~FS surveys to assess" the effects of the gear on the stocks. Point of Concern OptIon I: In the c:ourse of the contlnuous.revlew, a Point of Concern occurs when the catch Is expected to.reach OY before the end of the calendar year. Point of Concern Option 2: In the course of the contl~uous review, a Point of Concern occurs when any one or more of the following Is found: (a) The use of any gear or combInatIon of gear Is resulting In an Increase In growth overf Ishlng or which may lead to recruitment overflshlng of the stocks or any portion thereof In any I oca II ty; (b) The use of any gear or combInation of gear Is resulting In displacement of historical users of the resource fran the fIshery or Is seriously affecting the catch per unit effort of historIcal users of the resource; (c) The use of any gear or combination of gear Is resulting In perSistent or prolonged conflicts between user groups; (d) The use of any gear or combination of gear Is resultIng In excessive IT'Ortallty of reef fIsh or species taken Incidentally to the flshl19 effort; 8-19 (e) The use of any gear or combInatIon of gear Is resultIng In meJor destructIon of reef fish hab I tat. Once a Point of Concern Is IdentIfIed by SEFC and the OperatIons Unit under Options I or 2: (I) They wll I evaluate current data to determIne If the specIes or stock shows legitimate signs of ~Iologlcal stress or Is merely demonstrating aberrant tendencies whIch have no potentIal tor biological stress or overflshlng; (2) They wll I evaluate the current data to determIne If hIstorIcal partIcIpants In the fishery are being dIsplaced or are changing fishing methodology and gear. They wll I evaluate the current data to determIne the Impact of the gear on the catch per unIt effort of remaIning hIstorIcal partIcIpants; (3) They wll I evaluate the current data to determIne If the gear Is resultIng In excessIve mortality or damage to reeffl,sh habItats; (4) If SEFC and the OperatIons UnIt concludes that there Is evIdence of stress, evIdence of overtlshlng, evIdence of excessIve mortalIty or habItat destruction or prolonged conflIct which are related to a specIfIc type of gear or combinatIon of gear, they wll I make findings regarding whIch of one or more of the followIng management ~asures wll I relIeve the con dItIons cited above, whIle at the same time achievIng the objectIves of the Plan: a. ProhibIt or reduce the use of the gear In areas where the stocks or habitat are adversely affected; b. Require a modificatIon In the construction characteristIcs or use of the gear to a I lev I ate the adverse effects; c. Limit the sIze and number of unIts of gear that may be utIlIzed by vessels In the FCZ or portions thereof; d. Require permIts and more detalied statistIcal InformatIon from participants usIng gear wIth "adverse effects on stocks or habitat; and e. Permanently prohIbit the use of the gear from the st~essed area or other localities as necessary. (5) The Operations UnIt wIth assIstance from SEFC wll I prepare a report contalnl~ ratIonale and all evidence documentIng the extent and Impacts of the adverse condItIons IIstad In (4) above, along wIth a recommendation and supportIng ratIonale IndicatIng whIch management measure(s) should be employed to al lavlate the adverse condItIon consistent wIth the obJec tives ot the Plan. The report wll I also contain reasons why other measures were not recom mended. An envlrorrnental assessment of the prCll)osed action and alternatives wi I I al so be prepared by the OperatIons UnIt and will accompany the report. A supplement.!!1 env I rorrnent:! I Impact statement and/or regulatory Impact review wll I be prepared, If necessary. (6) At the request of the Management Committee, the Council Chairman may schedule meetings of the AdvIsory Subpanel (AP) and/or ScIentIfic and St.!!tlstlcal CommIttee (SSC) or portions thereof concurrently with the CouncIl meeting to revIew the report and associated docu~n·5 and to advise the Council. The Council Chairman wll I also schedule a publIc hearing before the Council at thIs meetIng or may, at the request of the Management CommIttee, Schedule several hearIngs In apprCll)rlate locations prIor to the Councl I meetIng. 8-20 \ , j (7) The Counc I I, fo I low I ng r&v I ew of the report, su pport I ng da ta, pub II c comment, SSC and A? advice and other relevant Information," will recommend management measure(s) to the Sout'1east Regional Director of National Marine Fisheries Service (RO), acconpanl9d by all background data, Information and public comment. The reconmendatlon will explain the urgency In Impl-9 mentation of the measure(s), If any, and reasons therefor. (8) The RO wll I r&vlew the Council's reconmendatlon, supporting rationale, public comments and other relevant Information, and, If he concurs In the recommendation, will propose regula tions In accordance with t.he recommendations. He may also reject the recommendation, pro viding written reasons for rejection. (9) If theRO concurs In the Council's reconmendatlons, he shall publish proposed regUlations In the Federal Register and shall afford a reasonable period for public comment '~hlch Is consistent with the urgency (If any) of the need to Implement the management ~asure(s). Nothing In this section shal I be Interpreted to derogate from the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to· take emergency action under Section 305(e) of the FCMA. Rationale: The procedures under Measure 8.0 provide for changes In the regulations -Implementing the Plan while at the same time assuring r&vlew of any proposed major changes by the public, the fishermen and the sclantlflc conmunlty. Procedures under Part A of this measure provide for modification of the mesh sizes of fish traps. Scientific research Is presently being carried out to attempt to determine the optimum mesh sizes of the Gulf species. The alternative actions proposed In this procedure pro vide a reasonable statement of the changes thllt My need to be Implemented .In the future. Because the changes may have a considerable economic Impact on the trap fishermen, Implementation Is delayed f~r one year after publication of regulations to al low replacement of lost gear with new units having t'1e required mesh size. Overall for the fishery, more than one-half of all traps are lost each year. Procedures under Part a provide for regulatory controls on the Introduction of new gear which may have detrimental Impacts on the stocks. As pointed out In the expression of Councl I concern wlthl~ the procedures, the conmerclal Industry Is experimenting wlth.several types of new gear. The Council certainly does not want to limit the development and use of better, more efficient gear, but It also does not ."ant such gear to adversely Impact the stocks, especially as the stocks are being harvestsd near maximum allowable exploitation. The Implementation procedure provides for a report summarizing the conditions In the fishery, effects of the gear, reconmended regulatory changes and analysis of Impacts of the alternatives. Such a report would be SUbject to conment frO'll the fishery Advisory Panels, Scientific and Statistical Committee, the public and Council before reconmendatlons were made to the Regional Director for Implementation. Thus al I the safeguards for ful I consideration of tha merits of the proposed change are maintained and stll I th~ procedure 131 lows more timely action to pro tect the stocks than Is possible under plan amendment. 8.3.1.3 8ag and Size Limits (I) PROHI91T THE POSSESSION OF RED SNAPPER CLUTJANUS CAMPECHANUS) LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN FORK LENGTH SUBJECT TO TrtE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS AND CONDITIONS: (Al AN ALL~ANCE OF 1r(;IDENT.4.LLY HARV~STED RED SNAPPER LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN FORK LENGTH IS ESTABLISHED AT FIVE FISH PER PERSON IN POSSESSION, AND CBl ANY DOMESTIC VESSEL FISHING TRAWLS IN THE FCZ, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ROLLER TRAWL VESSELS FISHING IN THE STRESSED AREA, IS EXCLUDED FR~ THE POSSESSION LIMIT. 8-21 R~tlon~le: Yield per recruit estlmates ll Indicate that an Incre~se In minimum size ~II I Increase tot6 yield from the stock of red snapper. Several alternative sizes were considered. Present age and sIze at recruitment Is est~bllshed to be approximately one y9~r and eight Inenes fork length. Increases In yield per recruit are possible with Increasing minimum sizes up to a maximum of fifteen Inches. Fork length at r ecru I tment 8" (present) 12" 14" 15" M :11.3 Weight (( bs) 0.3 1.0 1.6 2.0 Yield per recruit (Y/R l ) given present fishing effort (grams) 342 - 370 458 - 470 474 - 499 480 - 513 Par~meters Percent of 1~~x I mum Y /R given presant fishing effort 55 - 77% 90 - 95% 95 - 9~ 98 - 100% F '".5 -.5 (~ssumed ~sed on results of surplus production model) to ... 324 tr '" 1.0 K ... 333 Loo '" 592 Woo '" 4488g Increase In Yield o 18 - 25% 22 - 31% 23 - 33% A minimum size of 12 Inches fork length Is recommended as optimum. This size wll I result In an esti mated 18 to 25 percent Incre~se In potentl~1 yield provided mort~lIty from embolism and hooking Is not excessive. The resultant yield wll I be within 90 to 95 percent of the theoretical maximum at present levels of effort. Some red snapper of this size wi I I have reached sexual ma1"Jrlty ~nd s~wned bebre entering the fishery. L~rger minimum sizes were rejected because the potential ~ddltlonal gains are small, only five to eleven percent. This would be further reduced by Increased mortality of released fish as more fish would be caught ~nd releaSed. Additionally, the data available, while adequaTe to Indicate that a moderate Increase In size was desirable, was not considered reliable to guarantee an Increased yield from large Increases In minimum size. The Plan documents 1:'1 Section 4.7.1.3 that the major stressed species Is the red snapper, the predom Inant snapper In the fishery. Institution of this measure ~ould address the first specific management objective of'''rebulldlng declining stocks.where they occur." This measure would be Instituted through out the FeZ and recommended to the states for Implementation. By Instituting the measure throughout the Gulf rather than.ln the stressed area, enforcement wll I be much easier and the benefit to the stocks would be greater. Also, most of the sma I ler red snapper occur In the nearshore waters and Individuals generally become progressively larger as they move farther offshore. This occurrence In shal lower waters assures 21 reasonable survival rate of releaSed undersized fish, whereas release of all fish exceeding a numerical bag limit would result In a relatively low survival rate for fls.h wh Ich were rele~Sed from deeper waters. Therefore, ~ size limit ~ppeared more beneficial than a bag limit. The exception allowing a possession limitation of five undersized red snapper Is to provide for ret"m tlon and prevent 'lfaste of fish that are de8d or probably will die. Since fishermen who Infrequently fish ~ specific reef have no Information whether the popul~tlon Is comprised of large I"ndlvldual5 or undersized Individuals, It allows the fisherman to test fish the reef and retain a limited number while at the same time discouraging them from fishing reefS' with predominantly undersized fish. 11 Analysis performed by Gulf Council st~ff using parameters supplied by Dr. Charles Manooch, Beaufort Laboratory, NMFS. 8-22 The exception for trawl fisheries for other specIes takes Into consideration the following factors: (al virtually all the vessels In the fishery are' not dl rected toward capture'of reef fish, but takes them Incidentally, (b) the reef fish are all usually dead when taken by trawl and return to the waTer does not promote conservation, (cl some vessels (e.g., groundflsh vessels) do not sort their catch at sea and may be In technical violation of a possession limit when landing the catch, (dl because of tl19 sma I I size of the major I ty of specl mens taken as bycatch, they are not acceptab Ie as human food, and (e) the Councl I hopes to reduce this bycatch problem by development of separator trawls or other sl~l­ lar gear (see discussion under Sections B.1.1 and B.6). Wh lie th Iss I ze II ml twas app II ed to the ent I re management un I t area (FCZ) to Improve entorceab I II ty" It Is expected to have the greatest Impact and beneficial effect on the stressed area since the great majority of the juvenl Ie (undersized) red snapper are taken from more shallow, nearshore waters. Juvenile snapper can also be released from these nearshore waters with a minimum amount of embolism mortality. Thus, this measure, In effect, results In a reduction of fishing mortality of juvenile red snapper by hook and line fishermen primarily In the stressed area. B.3.1.4 Permits and Gear Identification (1) REQUIRE PERMITS FOR ALL BOATS AND VESSELS FISHING FISH TRAPS IN THE FCZ (FOR IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING PURPOSES). SUCH PERMITS SHALL BE OOTAINED FROM THE REGIO~L DIRECTOR OF ~FS OR HIS DESIGNEE. (2) ALLOW THE USE OF FISH TRAPS IN THE FCZ ONLY FROM PERMITTED BOATS AND VESSELS OR BY PERSONS FISHIf'G FISH TRAPS FROM FIXED OR r.fJVABLE STRUCTURES WHO HAVE FIRST OBTAINED A PERMIT FRG1 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF NMFS OR HIS DESIGNEE. (3) REQUIRE THAT ALL FISH TRAPS USED IN THE FISHERY WITHIN THE FCZ BE IDENTIFIED BY A NUMBER AND ALL FISH TRAP BooyS BE I DENTI F I ED BY A COLOR CODE ISSUED Tf-ROUGI THE REG I ONAL D IRECT<R OF NMFS OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EACH BOAT, VESSEL OR PERSON DESIRING TO USE FISH TRAPS IN THE FCZ. FURTHER, REQU IRE THAT EACH TRAP ORSTRI NG OF TRAPS BE MARI<ED BY A FLOATI NG BUOY OR BY BUOYS DESIGNED TO BE SUBMERGED AND AUTCJ.1ATICALLY RELEASED IN A CERTAI N TIME; REQUIRE EAQi STRI!'.G OF TRAPS TO BE MARKED WITH A BUOY AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE STRING. FURTHER, REQUIRE THAT EACH BOAT, VESSEL OR STRUCTURE FISHING TRAPS BE CLEARLY MARI<ED WITH THE SAME NUMBER AND COLOR CODE TO ALLOW IDENTIFICATION FROM AERIAL AND WATER PATROL CRAFT. FURTHER, PROVIDE FOR SEIZURE OF ALL DEPLOYED GEAR NOT PROPERLY IDENTIFIED. (4) EACH VESSEL SO PERMITTED SHALL BE ISSUED METAL <R PLASTIC IDENTIFICATION TAGS THAT '-lUST BE PERMANENTLY AFFIXED TO EACH TRAP. SUCH TAGS SHALL HAVE THE PERMIT NUMBER OF THE VESSEL AND SHALL BE NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY. REPLACEMENT TAGS FOR TRAPS LOST MAY BE OOTAI NED FROM THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE, UPON REQUEST. TRAPS FISHED OR AOOA~ VESSELS IN T'iE FeZ WHICH HAVE NO SUCH TAG ATTACHED ARE ILLEGAL GEAR AND MAY BE CO~ISCATED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS. (5) AS A CONDITION OF OBTAINING A PERMIT TO FISH TRAPS, THE PERMITTEE MUST ALLOW FEDERAL OFFICERS REASONABLE ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY (VESSEL OR DOCK) TO INVENTORY TRAPS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE MEASURES OF THIS PLAN. (6) EACH APPLICANT FOR A PERMIT MUST SPECIFY THE NUMBER, DIMENSIONS AND ESTIMATED CUBIC VOLUME OF THE TRAPS THAT WILL BE FISHED UNDER THE PERMIT. Rationale: Because the trap fishing method Is a new element which has the potential to displace participants using historical methods and because the gear Is highly efficient (Section 3.2.1.4.1 I, and as no Information Is available on the potential Impact on the stocks by a rapid expansion of t'1e tri:lp fishery, the Council Is proposing the permitting of all vessels engaged In the trap flsl1ery t:1 B-23 provide for the collection of Information on the fishery and rrore closely follow the development .;,f the fishery. The purpose of the color code and numbering system for vessels; traps and buoys Is to provide for Identification of traps and vessels to assure compliance with the measures proposed under Sections 8.3.1.2 and 8.3.1.5. The management ~asure prohibiting the use of fish traps within t~'stressed area wll I result In fish traps beIng used InitIally Just outside the stressed area, I.e., between the concentrated recreational fishery nearshore and the offshore commercial hook and line fishery. The potential 9Xlsts for rapid expansion of this fishery and, therefore, needs to be closely monitored to measure Impacts on the stocks. As opposed to a voluntary reporting system, establishment of a permit system will ensure that data wll I be collected as fish trap fishermen will necessarily contact the permitting agency for their permits. In the development of this Plan, It has been extremely difficult to acquire accurate Intor matlon on this fishery; catch statistics ranged from eight pounds to 60 pounds per trap per pul I. Additional research was necessary to acquire accurate Intormatlon. With respect to the number ot treps I n the t I shery, data ava II ab ie from ~FS hes ranged fran 2,400 traps to as many as 8,000 trllps. Obviously, this type of Information Is too. Imprecise to adequatel.,. monitor this developing method of hervestlng. A permitting system offers the only means of acquiring the necessary Information. Measures 4 through 6 are designed to Improve the enforceability and reduce the cost of enforcement of tri!lp restrictions on number and size. 8.3.1.5 Stetlstlcal Reporting (1) BASED ON VESSEL ENUMERATION,I2 IT IS EXPECTED THAT THOSE VESSELS FISHING FOR REEF FISH WILL BE IDENTIFIED. THE PLAN SHALL REQUIRE A MANDAT~Y REPORTING SYSTEM, WITH PARTICIPATION LIMITS) TO RANDQ.1 SN-PLES SUFFICIENT FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT NEEDS F'R()4 (I) CHARTER, GUIDE AND PARTY BOATS; (") NOT-FOR-H IRE RECREATI~L BOATS; (" J) COMMERCIAL FISHING BOATS AND VESSELS ('!11TH THE EXCEPTION OF TRAP FISHlfIG BOATS AND VESSELS); AND (Iv) PROCESSORS AND WHOLESALERS ~ OTHERS PURCHASING REEF FISH. ~FS IS REQUESTED TO DEVELCP A DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PROVIDE USABLE DATA ON: LEVELS AND FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION IN THE REEF FISH FISHERY; LEVELS OF REEF FISH CATCH BY SPECIES; SIZE roMPOSITION OF THE CATCH; CATOi PER UNIT OF EFFORT; I/ICIDENTAL CATCHES OF OTHER SPECIES; AND INDICAT~S OF THE ECONQ.\IC VALLe OF THE FISHERY. (2) REQUIRE T~T ALL OOATS ~ VESSELS OR PERSONS FISHlfIG WITH TR~S REPORT THE FOLLCWI!'.G If'f"ORMATION ON A PERIOOIC BASIS: (I) SIZE OF VESSEL OR BOAT, (II) TOTAL Nl..to4BER OF TRAPS, (III) SIZE OF TRAPS, (Iv) MESH SIZE OF TRAPS, (v) COMPOSITION OF CATCH BY WEIGH AND SPECIES BY TRIP, (vi) WATER DEPTH, (vII) NUMBER OF TR~S HARVESTED BY TRIP, (vII J) LOCATION OF TR,4PS BY :-t4FS STATISTICAL ~ID, AND (Ix) THE NUMBER. OF TRAPS ~ULS PER TRIP. Ratlonele: Measure I will provide for collection of the statlstlcel Information needed to manage the fishery In the rrost cost effective menner and with the leest Impact on the users. Those persons randomly selected to report wll I be required to do so under this measure. The percentage ot aach group required to report under Measure 1 will be a function of the number of participants In each category, I.e., the greater the number of participants, the smaller the percentage required for a valid sta tistical sampling design. Details of reporting requirements are presented In the regulations. 12 The vessel enumeration sy!?tem utili zes the state boat regl stratlon system and t~e U.S. Coast3uar.j vessel document~tlon syst~ to Ijentlfy vessels fishing In ~rlne waters. 8-24 ~~easure 2 specifies the data that will be required to assess the effects of the trap fishery on t,e resource without great expense to the federal g~vernment. HI stor ICi!l I data a're available In more detail for other segments of the fishery and they are harvesting the resource very near the OY available. Slightly more detailed Information Is needed to assess the effects and expansion of the trap fishery. 8.3.1.6 Procedures for Adjustment When OY Is Exceeded NMFS and the Operations Unit '1111 I monitor sti!ltlstlcal InformatIon on fisheries catches by recreational and commercial fishermen. As soon as possible i!lfter the end of the fishing yei!lr, they '1111 I provide the Regional Director and the CouncIl with their assessment. If catches during the year exceed OY for the fishery, the Regional DIrector, after consultation with the Council, shal I take one or more ot the following actions by Field Order: a. If OY was exceeded by less than ·ten percent, the Regional Director shal I Implement size limits by Field Order as follows: (Il The optimum size limit which shal I result In a significant Increase In yield per recruit for the principal species In the fishery or for those species which were overtlshed. SEFC '1111 I be request9d to derive the optimum size limits for principal spec I es; and (Ill Increase the minimum allowable size ot those species with size limits specified I~ the Plan or subsequent amendments thereof, e.g., Increase red snapper from a 12 to 'S-I~ch size limit. b. If OY was exceeded by more thi!ln ten percent ~'t less than 20 percent, the Regional DI rector, after consultation with the Council, shal I take the following actions by Field Order: (I) Incorporate size limits as In "a" above; and (II) Place bi!lg and harvest lImits on the take of the principal species overflshed. SEFC '1111 I provIde Intormatlon on the bag and harvest limits necessary to rebuild the stocks. c. If OY was exceeded by more than 20 percent, the Regional Director, after consultation with the Council, shal I ti!lke one or more of the following actions by Field Order: (I) Close the entire fishery at a date proJected trom the previous year's data at which OY will be reached (Including the catch exceedIng OY from the previous year). For example, If OY was exceeded by eight millIon pounds, the fishery would be closed' when It was proJected to reach 45.5 mil lion pounds (8 + 37.5 = 45.5); or (I I) Close geographic areas where overflshlng was documented from statistical data for periods proJected to allow the rebuilding of the stocks as determined by·SEFC; or ( I I I) I mpose the size and bi!lg II ml ts under "a" and lib" above as we I I as the cI osuras under "c" (I) and (Ill. Rationale: These procedures al low the Regional Director of NMFS to take corrective regulatory action to conserve the stocks If fishing exploitation results In catches excaedlng OY In anyone year. The action would be taken Ir'I the following year. The procedures provlje for corrective action based uoon the degree by wh I ch OY "as exceeded. Upon OY be I ng exceeded by I ass than ten percent, size II m Its 8-25 wll I ~ set upon h~rvest of the principal species which are overexploited. As evidenced by the discussion of the size limit for red sn~pper (Section 8.3.1.3) this type of restriction can provide significant Increases In stock size and likely would alleviate the overflshlng problem. The SEFC would provide yield per recruit relationships for these species which would allow selection of a size I Imitation which should alleviate the overflshlng problem without major Impact on the activities of the fishermen. Such size limits should remain In effect for the time required to correct the problem which wll I probably be sever~1 years. During that time they should be re-evaluated to determine If they should become a permanent regulation 01'" should be modified. Upon oy ~Ing exceeded by less than 20 percent but more than ten percent, both size limits and bag and harvest limits wll I be set on the principal species overflshed. St~tlstlcal Information gathered by Implementation of the Plan wll I provide d~ta by which the bag ~nd harvest limits may be 'set to obtain the desired reduction In catch. Such d~ta Is presently unavailable except for the canmerclal sector of the flsh~ry. B~g limits are not as effective as size limits since the size limits provide for an' Increase In blom~ss, whereas bag limits Simply limit catch. Bag (recreational) and harvest (commercial) limits would remain In effect for the remainder of the fishing year In which they were Imp 19I1I8nted. In th I s fishery OY may be exceeded by 13.3 percent and MSY w II I not be exceeded. Exceed I ng OY by up to 20'percent Is not ~ntlclpated to result In any long-term adverse Impacts on the stocks as a whole, but may Impact on cert~ln species. The measures proposed under (~) ~nd (b) of this procedure would ~ I I ev I ate the spec I es-s pec I f I c ad verse Impacts. Upon OY be I ng exceeded by 20 percent or more, the ent I re Gu Iff I shery cou I d be closed at a d~te dur I ng the following fishing year at which It would be proJected that OY would be exceeded. Thet portion of the c~tch In excess of OY 'lfould be subtracted fran OY to provide the allowable level of catch for the fo I 10011 ng year. The Regional Director could also take ~ctlon to close II portion of the fishery by closing only the geographical area where overflshlng Is documented. The Information collected through t~e statistical system could wei I demonstrate that the overflshlng had occurred only otf Florida, for example. Any closure would have a major economic Impact on the user groups, and It would certainly be unjust to close the entire fishery for a coast line of 1,200 miles It It could be documented that the over fishing causing the catch to exceed OY by 20 percent occurred In certain geographical areas, par ticularly as the fish do not migrate throughout the region. Either of these closures, If Implemented, s hou I d rsma I n I n effect on I y for the r~ I oder ot the fish I ng year In whl ch they were I mp I emented • AI I actions taken under these procedures would be taken In, the year fol lowing that In which the catch exceeded OY. This Is necessary since the statistical system wll I not provide Information rapidly enough to Institute In-season ~dJustments. Whereas statistical catch data tran the commercial sector ~y be timely enough tor this purpose, the data for recreational catches Is not expected to be ' available until the following year. This Is due to the large number of participants In the recreational fishery (400,000 plus), statistical designs necessary for collection of recreational data and the seasonality of the recreational fishery. Likely or wll I be adjusted upward as the stocks are Increased through Implementation of the measures of the Plan which are designed to achieve objective (I) of rebuilding the stocks. If this occurs, this procedure and its provisions for activating action should remain unchanged. Even though OY ~II I more closely approach MSY, the recruitment ~tentlal stocks wll I not be seriously Impacted by catches exceeding OY by less th~n 20 percent and corrective action can be taken In the following year. 8-25 8.3.2 Other Measures Considered and Rejected (Measures considered and rejected are discussed in ~re detail In Section 4 of the EIS and In the'RA.) (1) Alternative of taking no action In the develop~nt of a plan or Instituting management measures. Rationale: This option was rejected for the following reasons: (a) of ::III the fishery management units In the Gulf area, the reef fish resource appe<!lred to be the one with the greatest need for management. Data developed subsequently In the Plan Indicated overflshlng of some species In certain geographical localities In the nearshore waters. The states were constrained frO!! adopting management regimes because the fishery Is largely In the FCZ; and, (b) a major foreign fishery had historically harvested approximately twenty percent of the commercial catch of domestic stocks, whereas, the domestic fishery was unable to satisfy domestic demand and had the capacity to take this portion of the stocks. Oomestlc Imports of reef fish exceeded six million pounds; (c) recreational flshennen Indicated deClining size, catches and catch per unit effort for certain species In highly fished areas. Because of the high domestic demand for reef fish, prices were high and many recreational fishermen were apparently taking IIDre flshthan needed for' home consumption and seiling them locally, thereby Increasing pressure on the nearshore stocks. (2) Require vessel permits for each boat or vessel In the fishery. (3) Mandatory reporting by al I vessels. (4) Require a permit to sell fish. Rationale: These measures were rejected as unnecessary and expensive. Adequate data for management could be collected In a IIDre cost effective manner and with less Impact on the users and gover~ent by randomly sampling participants Identified by the vessel enumeration system which uses Coast Guard documentation records and state boat registrations. (5) Prohibit commercial fishing .on artificial reefs. Rationale: This measure would be discriminatory and unenforceable as recreational fishermen are not prohibited from seiling their catch, therefore, there Is no way to separate canmerclal and recreational fishermen. The size limit and measures Implemented for the stressed area were considered better solu tions. (6) Prohibit trawling at times of peak abundance of Juvenile snapper and grooper In critical areas of concern. Rationale: This measure was rejected because there Is no data to Indicate that the bycatch of juve n lie snapper and grouper adversely affected the population abundance of adult snapper and grouper' (see discussion under Section 8.3.1.3 [I). Research Is planned to answer this question. (7) Discourage 01 I and gas drll ling activity on coral reefs. Rationale: This measure was rejected as being an option which should be considered In the Coral Fishery Management Plan. (8) Artificial propagation and stocking. Rationale: This ",easure was rejected because It Is Impractical. The natural populations are hl:;jhly fecund a,nd produce ITOre spawn than Is necessary to sustain the population. The oroblem 15 the fishery Is one of growth overflshlng whIch reduces the Individual size of fish available and the total bl~ass 8-27 aVIlII21bI9. problem In population Recruitment overflshlng which might result In col Illpse of the stocks Is apP21rently not 2l this fishery and it appears doubtful considering the econonlcs of "the fishery that the could be reduced to a point where this llould occur. (9) Areas that 101 I I I be closed to that segment or segments of the user grou p that Ilre oV9rf I sh I ng ·1 oca I geographlc!!1 portions of any stock. R!!t I on!! Ie: Areal closures were rejected In lieu of Implementing the stressed area In which special management measures would apply. The Council provided fr~ork measures through which other ~asures could be Implemented as Improved Information dictated the need for the additional measures. The dif fIculties with simple closures of areas are as follows: (a) would cause a major Impact on some segment of the user group, (b) diffIculty In assessing and IdentIfying the ara!!s that would benefit the stocks through closure, (c) the fishery Is !! multlspecles fIshery and SOf!I8 species are nat stressed. A closure would prevent access to these less heavily exploited species. (10) Closed seasons for specific locantles or zones for short durations to prevent overflshlng of one or more local geographIc!!I portion of any stock. Rationale: This measure was rejected. Because the fishery occurs entirely In the ocean, natural weather conditions cause frequent cessation of fishing effort. If a closed period were Implemented, weather conditions may have prohl~lted fishing during most of the open period causing drastic Impacts on the users. The pr"oblems of assessing and Identifying the localities to be clased are the same as d I scussad under Rejected Measure 9. The size I I ml t on the stressed spec! es and other measures pro vided a more useful and effective system. Data. available In the future may provide Information sup porting such closures. (11) Provide annual al locations to recreational and commercial users. Rationale: This measure was rejected as completely unworkable and of doubtful benefIt to the resource. A large number of recreational fishermen sell their catch and there Is no way to separate the t"~o groups. RecreatIonal catch data are of doubtful validity and al locations based on these data would be Incorrect and may allow additional overharvest. Commercial vessels fish wa"ters off forel,~n nations In Central America and the Carlbbea~ as wei I as the FCZ and assessing domestic catches from the FeZ would be difficult or Impossible. (12) Require the use of only one hook or lure per line for recreational f-ishermen fishing In the FCZ Including those of prIvate boats and recreatlonal-for-hlre boats (charter and party boats) • Rationale: The FMP Indicated th!!t It may become necessary to reduce the effort of the recreational fishery especially on red snapper. The Implementation of this measure would lower the effort and efficiency of the recreational fishery. Generally, recreational fishermen use two or three hooks per line. The maximum net effect could potentially reduce the recreational effort by 50 to 66 percent although this has not been verified. Enforcement costs llould have been extremely high for this measure. (13) Prohibit the use of "power" reels by recreational fishermen except by physically handicapped persons. Ratlon21le: The Implementation of this measure may h21ve little or no effect on reducing the overa' effort of the recreational sector as was Its Intent. Indications are that few recreational ffshe ,,1" make use of "power" reels at ;>resent. Addl-rlonally, there Is one study which Implies t'lat there i 3 little or no difference In effective fishing effort beheen ";:lOwer" and manually operated reef fish '\ fishing gear (Kawaguchi, 1974). 8-28 (14) ProhIbit the use o'f power heads for harvest of reef fish. RatIonale: Prohibiting the usa of these devices In all waters of the FCZ was deemed unnecessary. Power heads are used almost gxcluslvely by divers whose depth range does not generally exceed the depths ',ojlthln the boundary of the stressed area. (IS) Reporting systan: an alternative statistical system as presented below was considered and rejected. A. ReQuired of fishermen seiling catch: o Catch by species, pounds, and landed price by month, area and gear type o Number, size and species composition of catch o Effort Rationale: This measure,would require complete statistical coverage of al I commercial fishermen. It would require a great Increase In personnel to collect the InformatIon and greater demands on commer cIal tlshermen's tIme. Costs of this measure would amount to $135,330 for collection and S6,000 tor torms. B. RequIred of persons purchasIng catch for resale: o Sales by species, pounds and price by month and ~rketlng level o Location of wholesalers, processors and middlemen and number of employees Rationale: ThIs measure woul.j require reporting by all processors on a l1I1Indatory basis. The same type of InformatIon Is already collected by existing reporting systems on a voluntary basis. C. Collected by vessal enumeration systan and statistical survey trom commercial and recreational fishermen. o Number of boats and vessels·classlfled by I~ngth, tonnage and motor size o Catch by specIes and pounds landed by area and gear type o Number, sIze and specIes o Number of gear units o Number of fIshermen (ful I tIme and part time) o Home port, fIshIng area and landIng location o FIshermen characterIstics Rationale: This measure would provide statlstl~s, most of whIch are already available through sevaral present reportIng methods. With thIs system, reporting would be ~ndatory for al I. The cost tor C~­ merclal fishermen Is estimated to be S5,000 annually, based on a S25,000 survey every fIve years. Total costs for data trom recreational fishermen have not been quantifIed but they appear to be q~lt9 prohibItive due to the magnitude of recreational craft In the management area. 8-29 ~anagement Information about the recreational catch would become available through thIs measure. Catch data would be collected on a quarterly bas>,ls from a large portion of all recreational users. Th I s ~easure I s not proooSed because of Its cost (S270,000) and prooosed measures collect the same Information with a more cost effective sampling method. (16) Size limits for all species. Ratronale: Protection of all reef fish species would be furthered by this measure. It would not I i~lt economic activity or participation In the fishery like the measure above, but enforcement may be Just as burdensome. This measure Is not prooosed because of a lack of clear scientific evidence t~at all species of reef fish throughout the FCZ are overflshed or otherwise stressed. (17) Prohibition of commercial fishing Inshore of waters ten fathoms and less. Rationale: This measure was proposed to reduce fishing pressures In areas where the depth was tsn fathoms or less. The measure Is discriminatory, however, by only prohibiting commercial fishing. The effect of this measure would nat significantly reduce fishing pressure and relieve pressure on stressed stocks; most commercial fishing takes place In deeper waters. (18) Harvest Practices o Institute a bag limit of ten red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) per person per day for a II persons fishing the stressed area with the following e:occeptlons: (No limit on ot~er species.) o All persons aboard vassels Involved In the directed shrimp fishery within the stressed area are subject to the same beg limit of ten red snapper per person per day, except that red snapper Included in the bycatch and which are discarded shall not be Included In said limitation. o Vessels In the directed groundflsh fishery shal I ~ al lowed a one percent bycatch by weight of red snapper per trip In the stressed area. Rationale: This measure was rejected because It would be Ineffective In rebuilding stocks of red snapper In the stressed area. Data In the Plan Indicate commercial fishermen concentrate their efforts In deeper waters than the stressed area and the average recreational flshe~n catches far less red snapper than that proposed. Also, It was concluded that the measure, since It applied "to the stressed area only, was unenforceable. (19) Institute a bag limit of 25 reef fish In aggregate per person per day fran the stressed area. Rationale: Available data was Insufficient to determine elt,er the positive Impact on stocks or the adv9rse Impact on user groups If such a measure were to be Implemented. Also, the measure would be unenforceable Inasmuch as It could not be determined what was caught Inside and outside of the stressed area. Also there was no evidence of growth overflshlng for most of the species. (20) Include the Texas Flower Garden Banks and a portion of the Florida Middle Grounds In "the stressed area. Rationale: Incorporating the Flower Gardens and Florida Middle Grounds does not fit the criteria established In defining the stressed area. Both of these areas are substantially outside the flShln~ range of I110St r-ecreatlonal fishermen. 80th of these"areas '~III be addressed as potential Hablt"t Areas of PartiCUlar Concern (HAPC) In the Coral Plan. ~-30 (21) Require all traps to be constructed of mesh of 1 x 2 Inches or larger, one year after Imple mentation of the plan. Rationale: This measure was rejected In favor of the management measure that provides that ~ach trap must have at least t'!fo openl1gs on at least t'!fo sides of 2 x 2 Inches or larger to allow escapement -;,f smaller fish. (22) Require all traps to be constructed of mesh of 2 x 2 Inches or larger. Rationale: This proposed measure was deemed to have too severe of an adverse economic Impact on fish trap fishermen and there currently Is no data to support this measure. A framework procedure Is pro vided to enabla adjustment of required mesh sizes when scientific evidence supports a need to change the current measure. (23) Require all traps to be constructed with a volullB of 54 cubic feet or-smaller. Rationale: ·Thls measure was rejected In favor of a requirement of 33 cubic feet or sma I ler In depths of 300 feet or less and no size restrictions In waters 300 feet or deeper. Most fish traps currently In use are 24 cubic feet or sma I ler. The adopted measure, therefore, (I) Is conslstant with current fish I ng. pract Ices, (2) a I lows deve I opment of an off shore fishery where stocks are underut" I zed, and (3) alleviates potential overflshlng In nearshore waters bordering the stressed area. (24) Require one panel or access door be located on each of the sides of the trap that has a funnel. Rationale: ThIs measure was orIgInally proposed to prevent entrapment of fish In lost traps which are laying on the escape panel. However, recent studies completed which document the fIshery (Taylor and McMichael, In press) Indicate that nearly all traps have the access door located oppos Ite of the funnel. For roost traps this ,Is necessary since the funnel structure takes up most or all of one sl:le. Such a requIrement Is both Impractical and would create a severe economIc hardshl~ on the fishermen who would have to redesIgn each trap. The elImInation of excessIve roortallty from lost traps Is adequately handled In the revIsion of the measure. (25) Alternative procedures for adjustment '~hen OY Is exceeded: A. OptIon 1 (complete closure) N~FS and the OperatIons Unit will rronltor statistical ,jata on fisherIes catches by recreational and commercial fishermen durIng each fIshery year. Upon the catches reachIng a level of 80 percent of OY, they wll I provide projectIons on the data by whIch OY wll I be reached and when It wll I be exceeded ~y ten percent. They wll I begIn monItoring the catches more frequently and provide biweekly projections of the dates OY wll I be exceeded and exceed by ten percent. This Information wll I be provided to t,e Regional Director of NMFS and the Council as It Is derived. Upon the catches reaching 90 percent of OY, the Regional Director, atter conSUltation with the Council, shall Issue a Field Order to close the reef fish fiShery for snapper, grouper and/or sed ~~ss In the FCZ of the Gulf on either: a. the proj ectad da te for reach I ng/exceed I ng OY, or b. the projected date for eXCeeding OY by ten percent. 8-31 B. Option 2 (decrease effort prior to reaching OY) NMFS and the Operations Unit .11 I monitor the statistical data on fisheries catch by recreational ~nd commercial fishermen during each year. Upon the catches reaching 50 percent of OY, they .11 I begin making biweekly projections of the date that the catches wll I reach 80 percent of OY. Upon the catches reachIng 70 percent of OY, the RegIonal DIrector, after consultation .Ith the Council, shal I take the following actions by Field Order on the date that the catch Is projected to reach 80 percent of OY: a. Institute the size limits as described In 8.3.1.6, and b. Institute the bag and harvest limits as described above In 8.3.1.6. All subsequent adjustments .11 I be made In the fol lowing year. Rationale: Due to the Inherent time lag Involved In data collection, In-season adjustments are not feasible; therefore, both Options 1 and 2 were rejected In favor of making adjustments In the following fishing season, but 31 lowing the Regional Director ~o make In-season adjustments should t~e data becone avaIlable. 8.3.3 Relationship of the Recommended Measures to Existing Applicable Laws and POlicies 8.3.3.1 Other Fishery Management Plans Prepared by a Councilor the Secretary (I) Other Gu I f of Maxi co Fishery Management CouncIl sponsored or cosponsored management plans .hlch may Impact on the reef fish fishery are those for shark (direct), shrimp (direct), coral (direct), groundflsh (Indirect) and coastal migratory pelagic fish (Indirect). (II) The Snapper/Grouper Plan sponsored by the South Atlantic FI shery Management Council borders on this Plan at Its southernmost extremIty. 8.3.3.2 Federal Laws and Policies Those federal laws and policies which may have an Impact uponthe"Gultot MexIco reef tlsh fishery are discussed In Section 3.3.1. The management recommendations are consistent with those laws and pollclas and are supported by the appropriate provisions of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, tound In Section 303(b). 8.3.3.3 "StaTe Laws and Policies Those applicable state and local laws and policies are discussed In Section 3.3.1. There are no contllcts between the recommended measures and those laws. This Management Plan was compared with existing Coastal Zone Management (CZM) plans In ~Iabama, Mississippi and Lou I slana. There are no contllcts between t"e recommended measures and tflOse progr3'1s. Copies of the plan were provided to each state's CZM office tor their review for consistency. The plan was Judged to be conslst9nt with the CZM programs. 8.3.3.4 Other The recOTlmended l'I9asures <Ire cons I stent . ., I th ex I st I ng Govern I '1g I nternat lona I ~ I shery AgreS11en t 5. 8-32 8.4 Enforcement Requ I rements (I nspect Ion, surve II lance) Approprl ate enforcement "II9asures were detennl ned by the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Marl ne Fisheries Service. Enforcement costs are discussed In the EIS and RA and amount to $903,600. 8.5 Reporting ReQuirements (foreign, domestic, processors) The National Marine Fisheries Service and Bureau of Customs have responsibility for developing, collecting, compiling and publishing applicable statistics on domestic catches, landings, processing a nd Imports of reef fish and processed reef fish products. The U.S. Bureau of the Census has respon-" slbllity for collection and availability of employment data. Reporting reQulrenents for this Plan are cited In Section 8.3.1.5. 8.5.1 Data Standards These "III be prescribed by appropriate data collecting agencies and are appended In the proposed regulations section. 8.5.2 Time and Place of ReportIng These "II I be determined by appropriate data collecting agencIes. 8.6 Special Recommendations to the Secretary on Research and Development Requirements (1) InItiate research designed to evaluate the need for protection of juvenIle reef fish and habitat In specIfic locations fran damage or excessive mortalIty by gear such as traps or other gear taking reef fish. (2) Encourage Immediate development of escape panels or devices on trawls for use In areas where bycatch of Juvenile snapper and grouper are high. (3) Encourage and support the construction of permitted artificial reef habitats. (4) Initiate research to determine the optimum mlnl."um mesh size for traps which "III allow escapement of Juvenile reef fish. (5) Develop Information on sizes of reef fIsh that should be released by fishermen In the stressed area. (6) Initiate rese"rch to determine the Impact of fish traps on reef fish populations and the reef ecosystem. (This should Include catches of targeted species and bycatch of othe"r species as well as InformatIon on other relevant parameters.) (7) The development of self-destruct panels on fish traps Is an Immediate research need which must be developed and Implemented by 1981. (8) Since there Is " Question on the use of artltlclal reefs to Increase fish stocks, the need exists for a five-year program to be Immediately Initiated to determine the level of reef effectiveness. Research should be dIrected toward the following areas: (a) recruitment to reefs; (bl contribution of reef fauna to support the tood reQuirement of resident reef fish; 8-33 ec) determination of whether reef fish forage In areas adjoining the reefs for their prl rMry food sources; (d) the effectiveness of artificial reefs as habitat. (9) Modify current ~FS/FD~ study to provide Information on the optimum mesh sizes of trap material or Initiate research to provide this Information. (10) N~FS to provide Council with Information on the correct procedure for puncturing the air bladder of reef fish so that Council staff can prepare Information and education brochure on this procedure for, distribution to the public. (II) That NMFS SEFC place observers on vessels fishing with longllnes for reef fish In the Gulf, provided the vessel owners agree to such an arrangement. 8.7 Special RecolTIII9ndatlons to the States The Councl I reconmends that'the states Implement .the management measures proposed In this Plan within their territorial Jurisdiction, where applicable. The Council further encourages the states to assist the Secretary In addressing and supporting the research and other special reconmendatlons. 13 13 I. Specific management ~asures that should be considered for Implementation by al I the Gulf States Include the following: 1) Measures pertaining to .flshlng gear under Section 8.3.1.2 number (4) thrrugh (4.4) which regulate the construction characteristics of fish traps. Measure (7) of Section 8.3.1.2 which prohibits the use of poisons or explosives for taking reef fish. 2) The size and possession limit for red snapper proposed under Section 8.3.1.3 which limits the legal size to 12 inches (fork length) and possession of undersized fish to five per person. 3) /~easures pertaining to permits and gear Identification under Section 8.3.1.4 numbers (I) and (3) which require permits for vessels fishing traps and require a numerical and color code Identification system for traps, buoys and vessels. 4) Measures al lowing .the collection of statistical Information from vessel owners (Section 8.3.1.5). State statutes al lowing state agents to collect statistical Information on catches directly from vessel ownel"S or captains will greatly strengthen the statistical system upon wh Ich management Is based. 5) Procedures for adjusting the rMnagement measures of the plan are contained In Sections 8.2,8.3.1.1,8.3.1.2,8.3.1.3 and 8.3.1.6. If measures are Implemented In the future under these procedures, some wll I require state Implementation to be effective. The Council procedure for notifying the states of measures that they should consider for Implemen tation Is as fOllows: (I) Informative letters and a copy of the plan are sent to each governor with copies to legislative leaders and other appropriate state officials. These letters Inform the states of the measures that wll I affect their states and are mailed when the final plan Is submitted to the Secretary, (2) On Implementation of the plan by the Secretary, letters are sent to the governor, legislative leaders, and appropriate state officials requesting Implementation of certain measures In state waters, (3) The Operations Unit confers with the states on J~plamen­ tatlon schedules and advises the Council on progress of Implementation. 8-34 I I. Specific management measures which should be considered by the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Texas for Imp)ementatlon Include the foll,owlng: 1) Measures pertaining to fishing gear under Section 8.3.1.2 numbers (1) through (3). These measures woo I d proh I bit the use of power heads, ro I ler traw I sand f I sF! traps for tak I ng reef fish In the territorial sea of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi and that ~rtlon of the territorial sea of Texas as described In Section 8.3.1.1. III. Specific management measures which should be considered by the states of Louisiana and Texas for Implementation Include the fol lowing: 1) Measures pertaining to fishing gear under Section 8.3.1.2 numbers (5) and (5), These measures would limit each vessel to no more than 200 fish traps and would prohibit pulll ng of another's traps and harvesting of traps at night. 8.8 Flnandng Requirements 8.8.1 Management and Enforcement Costs These costs '01111 be apportioned among the various fishery mc!Inagement plans being enforced throughout the Gulf region by the appropriate enforcement authorities and are discussed In the EIS and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). 8.8.2 Expected State and Federal Revenues, Taxes, Fees No revenue wll I result from Implementation of the Plan. 8-35 9.0 COUNC I L REV I EW AND ~40N I TOR I NG OF THE PLAN The Gulf of MexIco Fishery Management Council,·wlll, after approval and implementation of this Plan by the Secretary, maintain a continuing revIew of the fishery managed under this Plan by the fo I lowing methods: 9.1.1 Maintain condition of the the regulations. close liaIson with the management and enforcement agencies Involved to assess the stocks and the effectiveness of the regulations and compliance by the fishermen with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard are the primary agencies with ...t1ich close liaison will be established for Plan 1TO':1ltoring. 9.1.2 liaison wi I I be maintained with member-s of the Reef Fish Subpanel of the Councl I 's Fi shery Advisory Panel to assess the effectIveness of regulatIons and the need for Implementation of other measures or revisions of existing measures. 9.1.3 Promote research to increase the knowledge of the fishery and resource by the following methods: 9.1.3.1 Identi fy the research required for better management of the fishery and resource. Emphasis wil L be placed on juvenile and habitat protection. 9.1.3.2 Request National Marine FIsheries Serlcs (NMFS) consider these research needs and identify those ...t1ich it can immedIately address and those which wi II require efforts by other agencies 01'" groups. 9.1.3.3 Request state and univer-slty partIcipation In research under their own programs to fill the: data needs. 9.1.3.4 Provide Council funding for research that cannot be addressed by flMFS, state and university entities. 9.1.3.5 Assess the effectiveness of the statistical reporting system in comparison to needs as specified in this Plan and recommend changes to /l.MFS 01'" fund specific one-time surveys for data collec tion where data gaps exist. 9.1.4 Conduct public hearings at appropriate times and locations in the areas where the fishing effort is concentrated to heal'" testImony on the effectiveness of all aspects of this Plan and from time to time during the lIfe of this Plan to determine the changes needed. 9.1.5 ConsIderatIon will be given by the Council and its advisory groups to all Information gained from the first foUl'" activitIes listed above, and If necessary, prepare amendments to the Plan. f-bld publ ic hearings on the amendments prior to sending them to the Secretary. 9-1 10.0 REFERENCES Abascal, J. 1968. Cuba y La Pesca: 10 anos de revoluclon. l.1ar Pesca 38/39: 8-15 Alabama Sfate Code. Title IX: Secs. 9-128,9-12-88,9-12-110,9-12-111,9-12-113,9-12-114 and 78..,I.'A-l0. Alabama State Employment Service, Department ot Industrial Relations. February, 1978. Labor Market News: Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Alexander, L.M. 1977. Reg.1onal Arrangements In the Ocean. Am. Journal ot International Law 71 :84. Allen, D.M. and J.E. Tashiro. 1976. Status ot the U.S. Coml18rclal Snapper-Grouper Fishery. In H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones (Editors), Proceedings: CollOQuium on Snapper-Grouper Fishery Resources ot the Western Central Atlantic Ocean, Florida Sea Grant Report No. 17, PD. 41-76. Alverson, D.L. 1977. The Role ot Conservation and Fishery Science Under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act ot 1976. Washington Law Review 52:723. Anderson, L.G. 1977. A Classltlcatlon ot Fishery Management Problems to Aid In the Analysis and Proper Formulation ot Management Problems. Ocean Development and International Law 4:113. Anderson, R.C. and J.A. Wilson. 1977. Economic Dimensions ot Fees and Access Control Under the Fishery Conservl!ltlon and Management Act ot 1976. Wash,lngton Law Review. Anderson, W.O., Jr. 1966. A New Species ot Prlstlpomoldes (Pisces: Lutjanldae) from the Tropical Western Atlantic. Bu I I. Mar. Sc I. 16 (4) : 814- 826. 1967. Field Guide to the Snappers (LutJanldae) ot the Western Atlantic. U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Serv., C I rc. No. 252. 14 pp. Bardach, J.E. and L. Mowbray. 1955. Bennuda Fisheries Research Program, Progress Report No.2, 8ermuda Government. Publ., Bermuda Trade Development Board, Hamilton, Bermuda. 96 pp. Bashlrullah, A.K.M. 1975. Biology ot Lutjanus grlseus (L.) ot the Cubagua Island, Venezuela. I. Length-Weight, Body ~ength-Gut Length RelationShips and Condition Factors. Bol. Inst. Oceanogr. Unlv. Oriente CUlMna. 14(1):101-107. Beebe, W. and J. Tee-Van. 1928. The Fishes ot Port-au-Prince Bay, HaIti, With a Summary of the Known Species of t-4arlne FIsh of the ISland ot Haiti and Santo Domingo. Zoologlca, N.Y., 10(1): 1-279. BII lings, V. and J. Munro. 1974. The Biology, Ecology and Bionomics ot Caribbean Reet Fishes Vee Pomadasyldae (Grunts). Sci. Rep. OOA/UWI Fish. No.3, Res. Rep. Zool. Dep., Unlv. West Indi~. 128 pp. Boardman, C. and D. Weller. In Press. Aspects of the Life History of Three Deepwater Snapper Arounj Puerto Rico. Proc. Gulf Carlbb. Fish. Inst. 32: BOhkle, J.E. and C.C.G. Chaplin. 1968. Fishes ot the Bahamas and Adjacent Tropical 'J/atars. Academy ot Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Livingston Publ. Co., Wynnewood, Pa. 771 pp. 10-1 8r~dley, E •• ~nd C.E. Bryan. 1973. Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Marine Fisheries Investigations Stud) No.2, 1970-1973. Project No.2, l09-R, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, St. Petersburg, Florida, 134 PP. Bright, T.J. and C.W. Cashman. and L'.H. Peguegnant, ed. 1974. Fishes: In Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank. Gulf Publ. Co •• ~ston. Texas: 340-409. T.J. Bright Bromberg, K.M. 1973. Determination of the Number of Commercial and Noncomm9rclal Recreational Boats In the United States. Their Use and Selected Characteristics. FInal Report. NMFS Contract No. 3-35490 to I nformatlon Concepts. Inc. 01 strlbuted by NTIS. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington. D.C. Browder, J.A. 1977. The Fishery Act of 1976. A Summery; the Management Councils: A Description. Unlv. of Miami Sea Gr~nt SpeCial Report No. 12. Brownell, W.N. and W.E. Rainey. 1971. Research and Development of Deepwater Commercial and Sport Fisheries Around the Virgin ISlands Plateau. Contr. Virgin Is. Ecol. Res. Sta., Carib. Rest. Inst., No.3. 88 pp. Buesa Mas, R.J. 1962. La nasa Antlll~na. Contr. Cent. Invest. PesQ. Habana (15):5-26. Bullis, H.R. and A.C. Jones (EdItors). 1976. Proceedings: Colloquium on Snapper-Grouper Fishery Resources of the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. Sea Grant Rept. No. 17. 333 Pp. Bul liS, H.R., Jr. and J.R. Thompson. 1965. Collections by the Exploratory Fishing Vessels OREGON, SILVER BAY, COMBAT and PELICAN Made DurIng 1956 to 1960 In the Southwestern North Atlantic. U.S. Fish and Wlldl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. FIsh. 510, 130 pp. Burdon, T.W. 1954. FishIng Methods of Singapore. J. Malay Brch. R. Aslat. Soc. 27:24-30. BUrke, W.T. 1977. Recapture of Economic Rent under the FCMA: Sections 303-304 on Permits and Fees. W~shlngton Law Review 52:681. Burnett-Herkes, J. 1975. merclally Important M I am I • 166 Pp. Contribution to the BIology of the Red Hind, Eplnephelus gutt~tus, a Com Serranld Fish from the Troplc~1 Western Atlantic. Ph.D. Dissertation. Unlv. Camber, C.I. 1955. A Survey of the Red Snapper Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico with Special Reference to the Campeche Banks. Fla. State Bd. Conser., Tech. Sere 12:64 pp. Carpenter, J.S. 1965. A RevIew of the Gulf of MexIco Red Snapper Fishery. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CIrcular 208. 35 pp. Cato, J.C. and F.J. Prochasl(a. ,1976. The Gulf of Mexico Commercial and Recreational Red Snapper Grouper Fisheries: An EconomIc AnalySiS of Production, Marketing, and Prices. Proceedings: Colloquium on Snapper-Grouper Fishery Resources of the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 17. PP. 95-128. 1977. A Statistical and Budqetary Economic Analysis of Florida-based Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper-Grouper Vessels by Size and Location, 1974 and 1975. Marine Fisheries Revlaw. 39(11):6-14. 10-2 Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1977. Econ~lc Activity Associated ~Ith Marine Recreational FishIng. Washington: U.S: Gover~nt Printing Office, June 1977. Cervlgon, F. 1966. Los Peces Mi!lrlnos de Venezuela. Fundaclon La Salle de Cienclas Naturales, Monografla II, Tome 1. 436 pp. Christy, F.T., Jr. 1977. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976: Management Objectives and the Distribution of Benefits and Costs. Washington La~ Review 52:657. Clark, J.R. 1963. The 1960 Salt-Water Angling Survey. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Circular 153. Clingan, T.A., Jr. 1972. A Second Look. at United States Fisheries Management, San Diego La~ Revl~w 9:432. Collette, B.B., and R.H. Tal bot. Nocturnal-Diurnal Changeover. 1972. Activity Patterns of Coral Reef FIShes ~Ith Emphasis on Los Angeles Mus. Sci. Bull. 14:98-124. Comment - Legal Dimensions of Entry Fishery Management. William and Mary La~ Review. 1976. Comment - Judicial Review of Fishery Management RegulatIons Under the FIshery Conservation and Management ~ct of 1976. WaShington La~ Review 52:599, 1977. Comment - Shellfish regulatIon: ConservatIon and DiscriminatIon. 29 Maine La~ RevIew 360. Comment - Constitutionality of State Fishing Zones In the High Seas: The Oregon Fisheries Conservation Zone Act. Oregon Law Review 55:121, 1976. Co~ment - The Effects of the 20~~lle U.S. Fishing Zone. louisiana Law Review. 37:853, 1976-77. Comment - The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976: Structure and Function of a ContIguous Economic Zone. Texas International Law Journal. 12:331, 1977. CraIg, K. 1976. TrappIng ExperIments with Snappers In South Florida. ProceedIngs: ColloquIum on Snapper-Grouper Fishery Resources of the Western Centr~1 Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Program, 17:222-236. CushIng, D.H. 1978. Fisheries BIology. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 200 PP. Damnann, A.E. In press. Caribbean Reef Fish, Fish Traps and Management. Proc. Gulf. CarIb. Fish. I nst. 32: Damnann, A.E., W.E. Swingle and J.A. Yntema. 1969. Study of the Fisheries Potential of the Virgin Islands. Special Report: Contribution Virgin Island EcologIcal Research Station. (1):1-197. Deuel, D.G. 1973. 1970 Salt-Water Angl I ng Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marl ne Fisheries Service. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1973. Deuel., D.G. and J.R. Clark. 1968. The 1965 Salt-Water Angling Survey. U.S. Department of Interior, FiSh and WIldlIfe ServIce, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and WildlIfe, WaShIngton. Ditton, R.B., R.N. Jarman, T.J. Mi!lrtens, M.P. Schui!lrtz, and S.A. Woods. 1977. Chi!lrter Fishing on t'1e Texas Gul f Coast. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (RecreatIon and Parks). Texas A&M UniversIty, Col lege StatIon. Texas. 10-3 Dooley, J.K. 1978. Systematics and Biology of the Tlleflshes (Perclformes: Branchlost~ld~e and Malacanthldae), With Descriptions of Two N~w Species. NOAA Tschnlcal Report, NMFS Circular, 411:1-78. Druzhlnln, A.D. 1970. The Range and Biology of Snappers (Fam. Lutjanldae). J. Ichthyol. 10(6):717-736. Elsenbud, R. 1971. Understanding the International Fisheries Debate. Natural Resource Lawyer 4:19. Erdman, D.S. 1956. Recent Fish Records from Puerto Rico. Bul I. Mar. Sci. Gulf and Carib. 6(4):315-340. Fidei I, E.R. 1977. Enforcement of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1975: The Policeman's Lot. Washington Law ReYlew 52:513. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Economic Development. 1975. Florida Community Data. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, Bureeu of Research and Statistics. 1978. Basic Labor Market Information. February, 1978. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security. "1977. Labor Market Trends. December, 1977. FlorIda, Special Acts. 1911. Ch. 6311; 1917, Ch. 7584 and 7613; 1947, Ch.23951; 1953, Ch. 29299 and 29432; 1963, Ch. 57-1844, 63-1220 and 63-1228; 1955, Ch. 65-1622 and 30655; 1969, Ch. 59-1097; 1976, Ch. 77-541 and 77-595. Fraser, M.B., J.A. Henderson, and J.F. Mdolanus. 1977. Survey of CommercIal Sports the Coastal United States. Oregon State University Sea Grant Col lege Program. ORESU-T-77-009. Corvel lIs, Oregon. Fish I ng Boa ts i., Publication No. Futch, R.B. and G.E. Bruger. 1976. Age, Growth. and Reproduction of Red Snapper In Florida Waters. Pages 65-184 ~ H.R. BullIs and A.C. Jones (EdItors). ProceedIngs: Colloquium on Snapper-Grouper Fishery Resources of the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant. Rep. 17:55-184~ Futch, C.R. and J.M. Torpey. The Red Snapper - A Valuable Marine Resource. Salt-Water Fish Leaflet No.4. FlorIda Department of ConservatIon. St. PeterSburg. F~orlda. Godcharles. M.F. 1970. Exploratory Fishing for Southern Sea Bass. Centroprlstls strlata.melana. In the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fla. Dept. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab., Tech. Sere No. 63. 26 pp. Grimes, C.B. 1976. Certain Aspects of the Life History of the Vermilion Snapper Rhomboplltes ~urorubens (Cuyler) fr~ North and South Carolina Waters. Ph.D. Dissertation. Unly. North Carolina (Chapel H II I ). 251 PP. Gulland, J.A. 1969. Manual of Methods for Fish Stock Assessment, Part 1. Fish Population Analysis. FMJ Manual In Fish. ScI. 4(FRs/M4). 154 pp. 1977. The Management of MarIne FisherIes. Unlv. Washington Press. Seattle. 198 PP. Gunter. G. 1935. Records of Fishes Rarely Caught In Shrimp Trawls In Louisiana. Copela 1935(1 ):39-48. High, W.L. and I.E. Ellis. 1973. UnderwaterObserYatlons of Fish Behavior In Trapps. Helgol. Wiss. Meeresunters, 24:341-347. 10-4 High, W.L. and A.J. Beardsley. 1970. Fish Behavior from an Undersea Habitat. Comm. Fish. Rev. 32( 10):31-37. Hildebrand, H.H. 1955. A Study of the Fauna of the Pink Shrimp Grounds In the Gulf of Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Unlv. of Texas 4:171-232. Hipkins, F.W. 1974. A Trapping System for Harvesting Sableflsh, Anoplopoma fimbria. U.S. Dep. Comm., NOAA, NMFS, Fish. Facts 7. 20 pp. Heese, H.D. and R.H. Moore. 1977. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and Adjacent Waters. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 327 PP. Hornell, J. 1950. Fishing In Many waters. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 210 pp. Hunt, F. 1972. Campeche Days. Thirty Years of American Neptune. Edited by Ernest S. Dodge. Harvard Un Ivers I ty Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Huntsman, G.R. In press. The Biological Bases of Reef Fish Production. Proc. Gulf Carlbb. Fish. I nst. 32: Jacobson, J.L. and D.G. Cameron. 1977. Potential Conflicts Between a Future Law of the Sea Treaty and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. Washington Law Review 52:451. Job, T.J. and V.R. Pantula. 1953. Fish Trapping In India. J. Asiatic. Soc., Calcutta 19:175-196. Jordan, D.S. and B.W. Evermann. 1923. Amerlcen Food and Game Fishes. Doubleday, Page and Co., Inc., N. Y. 574 pp. Juhl, R. 1969. Exploratory Fishing Survey and Gear Tests In Puerto Rico. Contr. Agr. and Fish. 1 (1 ) : 1-40. Juhl, R. and J.D. Suarez-Caabro. 1973. Fish Pot Fisheries In Puerto Rico. Contr. Agr. y Pesq. 5(4): I-Id. 1973. Fish pot fisheries In Puerto Rico. Cont. Servo Aux. Opere No.4. OeP. Agriculture, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 19 pp. Kawaguchi, K. 1974. Handline and Longllne Fishing Exploration for SnapP4pr and Related Species In tne Caribbean and Adjacent Weters. Merlne Fisheries Review. 36(9):8-31. Kelly, J.E. 1978. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976: Organizational Structure an,j Conceptual Framework. Merlne Potlcy, Jan. 1978:30. Klima, E.F. 1976. Snapper and Grouper Resources of the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. Florida S".l3 Grant Report No. 17:5-18. 1977. Commercial Catch and Effort of Cuban Grouper Fishermen on the West Coast of Florida (t~ls Information presented to Dr. Klima by Cuban officials during May, 1977). U.S. National ~arlne Fisheries Service. Knight, H.G. 1978. Menagement Procedures In the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. ~arlne Polley, J~~. 1978: 22. Kumpf, H.E. In press. Practical Considerations .:Ind Testing of Escape Material In Fish Traps. or::>,:. Gu I f ':a rib. F Ish. Ins t. 32: 10-5 Kury, C.R. 1974. App I I cat Ion of a Market Theory to the Regu I a t I on of I nternat lona I Fisher I as. f)cean '\ Development and International Law 1:355. j Lalo, 0.5. and J.B. Stevens. 1975. Oregon's Commercial Fishermen: Characteristics, Profits and Incomes In 1972. Oregon State University Sea Grant Col lege Program: Pub. No. ORESY-TI-75-001. Longley, W.H. and S.F. with Observations Wash., Pub. 535. Hildebrand. 1941. Systematic Catalogue on Color, Habits and Local Distribution. 331 pp. of the Fishes of Tortugas, Florida, Pap. Tortugas Lab. 34; Carnegi e I nst. Louisiana Department of Labor, OffIce of Employment Security. 1978. Telephone Conversation, Apr II, 1978. Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated (West). Title 36, Sec. 601; Title 56, Secs. 313, 317,320, 321, 328, 333, 334, 337 and 643. Lynch, S.A. 1954. Geology of the Gulf of Mexico. In p.S. Galtsoff (ad.) Gulf of Mexico, Its Origin, Waters, and Marine Life. Fish. Bull. 55:57-86. Lyons, W. 1965. Exploratory Fishing In Grand Cayman. (Mlneogr. Rep. to Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab.) Magnuson, W.G. 1977. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976: First Step Toward Improved Management of I~arlne FIsheries. Washington Law Review 52:427. Manday. D.G. and M.J. Fernandez. 1965. Desarrolo Embrlonarlo y Prlmeros Estados Larvales de 121 C~9rno Crlolla. Eplnephelus strlatus (Bloch) (Perciformes: Serranldae). Est. Inst. Oceanog. Habana, 1:35-45. McErlean, A.J. (Pisces: 1963. A Study of the Age and Growth of the Gag, Mycteroperca mlcrolepls Goode and gean Serranldae) on the West Coast of Florida. Fla. State 8d. Conser., Tech. Sere 41. 29 Pp. McErlean, A.J. and C.L. Smith. Mycteroperca mlcrolepls. 1964. The Age of Sexual Succession In the Protogynous Hermaphrodite, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 93(3):301-302. Menze I, D. W. 1950. U1" III zat Ion of Food by a Bermuda Reef Fish, Ep I nephe I us guttatus. J. Cons. I nt. Explor. Mer. 25(2)216-222. Mississippi Code Annotated: Secs. 49-15-5 and 49-15-29. M I'ss I ss I pp I Emp I oyment Securl ty Comml ss Ion. 1977. Pascagou I a-Moss Pol nt SMSA Labor Area Summary. Dec. 1977. MississippI Employment Security Commission, Department of Research and Statistics. 1978. Annual Planning Information for Fiscal Year 1979: Pascagoula-Moss Point SMSA. Moe, ~.A. 1963. A Survey of Offshore Fishing In Florida. Fla. State 8d. Conser., Tech. Sere 49:44 pp. 1969. 810logy of the Red Grouper, Eplnephelus morlo (Valenciennes) From the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida Dep. Nat. Res., Prof. Pap. Sere 10:95 pP. 10-5 Moe, M.A., Jr., 0.5. Beaumarlage and R.W. Topp. 1970. Return of a Tagged Gag, Mycteroperca ,11icroleois and Caribbean Red Snapper, Lutjanus campech~nus, After Six Years of Freedom. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 99: 428-429. Moe, M.A., Jr., and G.T. Martin. 1965. Fishes Taken In Mont,ly Trawl S?mples Offshore of Pinellas County, Florida, with New Additions to the Fish Fauna of the Tampa Bay Area. Tulane StUd. Zool. 1 2 (4 ) : 1 29 -151 • Moore, J .M. 1977. Fore I gn Po II cy and F I dell ty to Law: The Anatomy of a Treaty Vi 0 la t ion. Amer. Journal of International Law 70:802. Moore, L.M. 1978. An Economic AnalysiS of the Florida East Coast Finfish Subsector. Unpublished M.S. ThesiS, Food and Resource Economics Department, Unlv. of Florida, Galnesvll Ie. June 1978. Moore, R.H. 1973. The Effect of Temperature and Swlmml ng Speed on the Oxygen Consumption of T>lo Snappers, Lutjanus campechanus (Poey) and Rhomboplltes aurorubens (Cuvler). Contrlb. In Marine Sci. 17: 53-61 • Morris, R.A. 1977. Primary Economic Impact of Florida's ComllBrclal Fishing Industry. Unpubll shed M.S. ThesiS, Food and Resource Economics Depi!!rtment, Unlv. of Florid!!, Gainesville. 181 Pp. Moseley, F. Mexico. 1965. Biology of the Red Snapper, Lutjanus aYi!! Bloch, of the Northwestern Gulf of Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl.,Unlv. of Texas 11:90-101. Munro, J. 1973. Large Volume Sti!!Ck!!ble Fish Traps for Offshore FIShing. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst.25:121-128. 1974i!!. The Biology, Ecology, ExplOitation and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes. VI. SumrTBry of the Potential Productivity of Jamaican Fisheries. Sool. Dep. Univ. West Indies 5(3):1-82. 1974b. The Mode of Operation of Antll lean Fish Traps and the Relationship Between Ingress, Escapement, Catch and Soak. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 35(3):337-350. 1974c. The Biology, Ecology, Exploitation and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes I II. The Composition and Magnitude of Line Catches In Jamaican Waters. Zool. Dep. Unlv. West Indies. Res. Rep. 3. 28 pp. I Munro. J.L., V.C. Gaut, R. Thompson and P.H. Reeson. 1973. The Spawning Seasons of Carlb'bean Reef Fishes. J. Fish Bioi. 5:69-84. M'unro, J.L., p.H. Reeson and V.C. Gaut. 1971. Dynamic Factors Affecting the Performi!!nce of the, Antll lean Fish Trap. Proceedings Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst. 23:184-194. "1unro, J.L. and R. Thompson. 1973. The Biology, ExplOitation ,and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes II. Jamaican Fishing Industry. The Area Investigated and the Objectives and Methodology of t,e ODA/UWI Fisheries Ecology Research Project. Zool. Dep. Unlv. West Indies, Res. Rep. No.3. 44 PP. Murray, T.J. In press. Fish Traps: Reef Fish Boom or Bust. Proc. Gulf & Carib. Fish. Inst. 32: Nelson, W.R. and J.S. Carpenter. on OREGON II's First Cruise. 1968. Bottom Longllne Explorations In the Gulf of Mexico. ComllBr. Fish. Rev. 30(10):57-62. A Reoort Note - 1974. The Constitutionality of a Program Restricting the Number of Commercial Fishermen I, ~"'e Coastal '~aters of the United States. louisiana La>l Revl8>l. 34:801. 10-,7 Note - 1977. Congressional .~uthorlzatlon and Oversight of International Fishery AgreEments Under the Fishery Conserv!!tlon and Management Act of >1976. Washington Law Review. Note - 1977. Fisheries Jurisdiction - United States. Harvard International Law Journal. 18: 177. O'Connor, C.R. 1978. The Fishery Conserv!!tlon and M!!nagement .~ct of 1976: The Need for State and Federal Cooperation. Unlv. of Miami Sea Grant Special Report No. 16 (In press). 1978. The Fishery Conservat Ion and Management .~ct of 1976: The Regu I a tory Framework for Gu I f of Mexico Fishery Management. Unlv. of Miami Sea Grant Specl!!1 Report No. 16 (In press). Oleson, R. 1979. A Florida Tr!!p Fisherman Defends His Method. National Fishermen. 60(8): 15, 78. 1981. Trap FIShing In Florida Is Bruised by Outcry of Misinformed PUblic. National Fisherman. 62(5) :20. Olsen,oD.A. 1978. Virgin Islands Fisheries Remain Primitive. N!!tlonal Fisherman 58(13):164-165. Olsen, D.A., A.E. Dammann and J.A. L!!PI!!ce. 1975. Modernization of Virgin Islands Small Boat Fishing Techniques. Completion Report, Project 2-239-R-l, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, St. Petersburg, Florid!!. 1977. Mesh Selectivity of West Indian Fish Traps. Completion Report Job IV, Project 2-239-R-3. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, /'fo4FS, St. PeterSburg, Florida. 10 pp. 01 sen, O.A. and J.A. LaPlace. In press. A Study of a VI rgl n I sli!lnd Grouper Fishery Based on a Breeding Aggregation. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Ins. 31:130-144. Peldra, G. 1969. Materials on the Biology of the Yellowtail Snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus, Bloch). Pages 251-269 In A.S. Bogdanov, Ed. Sovl~t-Cuban Fishery Research. AI I-Union Sci. Res. Inst. of Marine Flshery~nd Oceanography, Fishery Res. Center Nat. Plsclcultural Inst. Rep. of Cuba. (Transl. from Russian.) Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1969. Keter Press, Jerusalem. Pontecorvo, G. 1977. Fishery Management and the General Wei fare: Implications of the New Structure. WaShington Law Review 52:641. Prabhu, M.S. 1954. Fishing Methods of Kelantan !!nd Tregganu. Indian J. Fish. 1:91-129; Proceedings of the 21st Annu!!1 Session Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute of Marine Sciences, Unlv. of Miami, Coral G!!bles, Florid!!, June, 1969. Higman, J!!mes B., Editor. Prochaska, F.J. !!nd J.C. Cato. 1975. Northwest Florida Gu I f 0 Coast Red Snapper-Grouper Party Soat Operations, an Econ~lc AnalysiS, 1974. Florid!! Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, SUSFSG-75-007. Galnesvll Ie, Florida. December, 1975. 1977. Economic Analysis of Production and Marketing of Florida East Coast King and Spanish Mackerel. M!!ckerel Systems Workshop. Unlv. Miami Sea Grant Spec. Rep. 14. 23 PP. 1977. An Econ~lc Profile of Florida Commercial Fishing Firms: Fishermen, Commercial Activities and Financial Considerations. Florida Sea Grant Program, February, 1977, 19: 1-22. Randal I, J.E. 1961. Clguetera: Troplc!!1 Fish Poisoning. Sea Frontiers: 7(3):130-139. 10-8 1962. Additional Recoveries of Tagged Reef.Flsh from the Virgin ISlands. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 15:155-157. 1962. Food Habitats of Reef Fishes of the West Indies. Stud. In Trop. Oceanog. 5:665-847. 1963. Methods of Collecting Small Fishes. Underwater Naturalist 1(2):6-11. 1968. Caribbean Reef ~Ishes. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, N.J. 318 pP. Ricker, w.E. 1975. Computation and Interpretation of Biological Statistics of Fish Populations. Bul I. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 191. 382 Pp. Ridgely, J. 1975. Selected Information on Recreational Boats In the United States. Marine Fisheries Rev I ew . 37 (2 ) • Rivas, L.R.1949. A Record of Lutjanld Fish (Lutjanus cyanopterus) for the Atlantic Coast of the United States with Note on Related Species of the Genus. Copela 1949(2):150-152. Rivers, J.V. 1966. Gear and Techniques of the Sea Bass Trap Fishery In the Carolinas. Comm. Fish. ~ev. 28(4):15-20. Robins, C.R. 1967. Florida Waters. The Juvenile of the Serranld ~Ish Eplnephelus mystaclnus and rts Status In Copela 1967(4):838-839. Rothschild, B.J. 1978. Fishing Effort. FiSh Population Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New Yor~. 371 pp. Sainsbury, J.C. 1971. Commercial Fishing Methods; an "Introduction to Vessels and Gears. Fishing News Ltd., London. Salmon, G.C. 1958. Report on the Fisheries Industry In the Countries Served by the Caribbean Commission. Rep. FAO/ETAP (781). 86 PP. Sal'nli<.ov, N.E. 1969. Fishery Research In the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Pages 78-171, ~Sovlet-Cuban Fishery Research. Ali-Union Sci. Res. Inst. of Marine Fishery and Oceanography, Fishery Res. Center, Nat. Plsclcultural Inst. Rep. of Cuba. (Transl. from Russian.) Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusal",,", 1969. Keter Press, Jerusalem. Saxeno, R.K. 1964. The Fishing Nets and Traps In a Section of the Middle Reaches of the Ganga River System of India. Proc. Indo-Pacific Fish. Cobn. 2(2):250-271. Smith, C.L. 1958. August 1958. The Groupers of Bermuda. In Bermuda Fisheries Research Program. Final Report, J.E. Bardactl, D.L. Smith andD.W. Menzel (Editors). Appendix: 37-59. Bermuda Trade Development Board, Hamilton. 1961. Synopsis of Biological Data on Groupers (Eplnephelus and AI lied Genera) of the Western North Atlantic. FAO Fish. Bioi. Synop. 23(1):1-12. 1971. A Revision of the American Groupers: Eplnephelus and AI II ad Genera. Bull. Amer. l.1us. Nat. Hlst. 146(2):67-242. 1974. Fishing Success In a Regulated Commons. Ocean Dev. ~nd Inter. Law 1:369. Smith, G.B. 1976. ECOlogy and Distribution of Eastern Gulf of Mexico Reef Fishes. Fla. OeD. ~aT. Res., Fla. Mar. Res. publ. 19. 78 PP. 10-9 Smith, G.B., H.M. Austin, S.A. Bortone, R.W. Hastings and L.H. Ogren. 1975. Fishes ot the Fforlja Middle Grounds with Comments on Ecology anq Zoogeography. Fla. Dep. N~t. Res., Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 9. 14 pp. Snell, J.E. Unpublished Data About Wholesale Dealers and Processors ot Gult of Mexico Reef Fish. NMFS, Miami: April, 1978. Snow, R. 1977. Lobster Fisher( Licensing: Injustice and Muddling Through? 4 Dalhousie Law Journal 119. Springer, V.G. and K.D. Woodburn. 1960. An Ecological STudy of the Fishes of Tampa Bay Area. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Prof. Pap. Sere 1. 104 PP. Starck, W.A., I I. 1971. Biology of the Gray Snapper, LUTJanus grlseus (Llnnaeus), In the Florida Keys. Pages 1-150. In W.A. Starck, II and R~E. Schroeder. Investigations on t~e Gray Snapper, LutJanus grlseus, Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. Miami. 10:224 pp. Stevenson, O.K. 1978. Management of Tropical Fish POT Fisher( for Maximum Sustainable Yield. Proc. 30th Ann. Meet. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 95-115. Stone, R.B. 1978. Artificial Reefs and Management. Fisheries 3(1):2-9. Strushaker, p. 1969. Demersal Fish Resources: Composition, DistribUTion and Commercial PotenTial of the ConTinental Shelf Stocks off SoutheaSTern United States. Fish. Indust. Res. 4:261-300. SUTherland, D.L. and D.E. Harper. In press. The Wire Fish Trap Fishery of Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, December, 1979 - September, 1980. NOAA Tech. Memo. ~FS-SEFC-75. 42 PP. Swingle, W.E., A.E. Dammann, and J.A. Ynterna. 1970. Survey of the Commercial Fisher( of the Virgin Islands of the United States. Proc. 22nd Ann. Meet. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst.: 110-121. Sylvester, J.R. 1974. A Preliminary Study of the Length Composition, Distribution and Relative Abundance of Three Species of Deep Water Snapper from the Virgin Islands. J. Fish. Bioi. 6(1):~3-49. Sylvester, J.R. and A.E. Dammann. 1972. Pot Fishing In the Virgin Islands. Mar. Fish. Rev. 34 (9-10) :33-35. 1973. Contribution to the Biology of the Silk ~napper LutJanus vlvanus from the Virgin Islands. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102:843-845. Tashiro, J.E. and S.E. Coleman. 1977. The Cuban Grouper and Snapper Fisher( In the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish Rev. 39(10):1-5. Taylor, R.G. and R.H. McMichael, Jr. In press. The Wire Fish Trap Fisher( In ~onroe and Collier Counties, Florida. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-75. 54 pp. Texas Employment Commission. 1978. Labor Market Review for Selected Texas Counties. March, 1978. Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Annotated (Vernon). Title IX: Secs. 1.011,46.0011,46.0051,47.002, 47.005, 47.009, 47.010, 47.011 and 47.015. Thompson, R. and J. Munro. 1974a. The Biology, Ecology, Exploitation and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes V. The Biology, Ecology and Bionomics of Caribbean Reef Fishes Vc. Carangldae (Jacks>. Zool. Dep. Unlv. West Indies Res. Rep. 3(5):43 pP. 10-10 \ 1974b. The BIology, Ecology, Explolt3tlon and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes Y. The Biology, Ecology and Bionomics of Carlbbean.Reef Fishes V":J. Serranldae (,Hinds and Grrupers). Zool. Dep. Unlv. West Indies. Res. Rep. 3(5):78 Pp. 1974c. The Biology, Ecology, Exploitation and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes. Scientific Report of the O.D.A. U.W.I. Fisheries Ecology Research Project 1969-1973. Part V. The BIology, Ecology and Bionomics of Caribbean Reef Fishes: V. Lutjanldae (Snappers). Research Report from the Zool. Dep. Un Iv. West I ndl es, No.3. 19 pp. Tunstall, J. 1968. Fish: An Antiquated Industry. Fabian Society, London. U.S. Bureau of the Census, .1970. Census of Population. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Ottice. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1975-1976. Current Fishery StatIstics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing OffIce. Annual Issues. 1962-1977. Fisheries of the Un I ted- States. Washington: U.S. Government Prlnflng Office. Annua I Issues. 1957-1974. (Formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.) Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual Issues. 1972. Production of Fishery Products In Selected Areas of Florida, Alabllma, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas. Market News Annual Summery, Gulf Fisheries. New Orleans. 1974-1975. Unpublished Data Based on Southeastern Regional Survey of Saltwllter Fishermen. 1978. Unpub II shed Data About I mports of Snapper and Grouper and AssocI ated Products Into Gu I f of Mexico Ports, 1973-1977. New Orleans: March, 1978. U.S. State Department. Document "GovernIng InternatIonal FIsherIes Agreenent BeNeen the United States of America and Mexico." WaShington, D.C. V I daeus, L. 1970. An I nventory of the Jama I clln FIsh I ng I ndu stry. UNDP /F AD Carl bbean Fishery Development Project, Rep SF/CAR/REG 18OM9. 47 PP. Wade, W.C. 1977. Survey of the Alabama Marine Recreational Fishery, Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin. Alabama Resource DivisIon, Dauphin Island: December, 1977. Wallace, R.K., Jr. 1977. Thermal Acclimation, Upper Temperature Tolerance, and Preferred Temperature of Juvenile Yellowtail Snappers, Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch) (Pisces: Lutjanldae). Flu I I. Mar. Sci. 27(2):292-298. Walls, J.G. 1975. Fishes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. T.F.H. Publ. Inc., Ltd., Hong Kong. Wolt, R.J. and G.R. Chlslett. 1971. Trap Fishing Explorations for Snappers and Related Species In the Caribbean and Adjacent Waters. UNDP/FAO Carib. Fish. Develop. Proj. Rep. SF/CAR/REG 189F6. 36 pp. 1974. Trap Fishing Explorations tor Snappers and Related Species In the Caribbean and Adjacent Waters. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36(9):~9-61. 10-11 ) APPENDIX TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for REEF FISH RESOURCES of the GULF OF MEXICO Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Counci I Tampa, FI or ida ,-, ' ' 1\ ---- I , " - - - - - - - 'c. \ ... , \ I , ./ " . / 9ULF OF MEXICO ..... " ........ ~~' .... Prepared by Florida Sea Grant College Gainesville, Florida 32611 REVISED BY GULF COUNCIL JULY 1980 ':", APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• A-i List of Figures ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• A-v NUMBER APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES Number of commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fisheries, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 2 Trend equations for total commercial fishermen in Gulf of Mexico snapper-grouper PAGE A-1 fishery, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-2 3 Trend equations for commercial landings for Gulf of Mexico reef fish, red snapper and grouper • • • • • • • A-3 4 Direction of change in commercial landings of individual reef fish species in the reef fish management unit using five-year averages for the Gulf of Mexico. • A-4 5 Direction of change in commercial landings of al I reef fish, red snapper and grouper and scamp by state using five-year averages in the Gulf of Mexico A-5 6 Quantity and value of commercial reef fish landings in the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-6 7 Quantity and value of commercial red snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 •••••• 8 Quantity and value of commercial grouper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 •••••• · . . . . . . . . . 9 Quantity and value of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish landings by state and species, 1975 and 1976 •••••••••• 10 Quantity and value of commercial amberjack landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 •••••• 11 Quantity and value of commercial sea bass landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 •••••• · . . 12 Quantity and val ue of commercial grunt landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • . . . . · · · · · · · . . · · · · · . · · · · . . · · · · . . · 13 Quantity and val ue of commercial jewfish landings in the Gul f of Mexico, 1957-1976 • . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Quantity and val ue of commercial porgy (scup) landings in the Gu If of Mexico, 1957-1976 • · · · · · · · . . · · · · · . · · · · . . · · · · · 15 Quantity and value of commercial gray snapper (mangrove snapper) landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • ••• · . • 0·. · . 16 Quantity and value of commercial lane snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 •••••• · . . . . . . . · . . . . . A-i A-8 A-10 A-12 A-14 A-15 · A-16 · A-17 · A-19 A-20 A-21 NUMBER PAGE 17 Quantity and value of commercial mutton snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-22 18 Quantity and value of commercial vermilion snapper landings in the Gulf of Mex i co, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-23 19 Quantity and value of commercial yellowtail snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-24 20 Quantity and value of commercial tllefish landings In the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• A-25 21 Quantity and value of commercial triggerflsh landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-26 22 Quantity and value of commercial warsaw grouper landings In the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-27 23 Average dockside price in dollars per pound for Gulf of Mexico commercially landed reef fish, 1957-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-28 24 Dockside prices of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish by state, 1975-1976 A-31 25 Commercial U.S. snapper-grouper fishery, port areas ranked by quantity landed, 1973 • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• A-33 26 U.S. commercial landings of red snapper caught off U.S. shores and caught in international waters off foreign shores, 1962-1977 • • • • • • • • •• A-34 27 U.S. commercial landings of groupers caught off U.S. shores and caught In internationl waters off foreign shores, 1962-1977 • • • • • • • •• A-35 28 U. S. commerc I a I land I ngs of reef fish by U. S. fishery craft by distance caught off U.S. shores and caught in International waters off foreign shores, and Gulf of Mexico landings, 1971-1977. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-36 29 Number of commercial vessels In the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fishery, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-39 30 Trend equations for total commercial vessels In Gulf of Mexico snapper-grouper fishery • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-40 31 Average commercial vessel size In gross tons in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish hand line fishery, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-41 32 Trend equations for Gulf of Mexico snapper-grouper commercial vessel size, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-42 33 Commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by gear type and state, 1972-1974 average. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-43 A-i i NUMBER PAGE 34 U.S. commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico red snappers by gear type and state, 1957-1974 ••••••••• A-46 35 Oommercial landings of Gulf of Mexico groupers by gear type and state, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••• A-49 36 Oommercial catch and effort of Cuban grouper fishermen on the west coast of Florida, 1940-1976 • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••• A-52 37 Oomparison of data on Cuban commercial fish catches In Florida fOr 1971-1975 A-53 38 Recorded commercial imports of snapper into Gulf states, 1952-1972 A-54 39 Oommercial imports of snapper, snapper fil lets, and other snapper products Into the Gulf of Mexico ports, 1973-1977 ••••• A-55 40 Recorded commercial Imports of grouper Into Gulf coast states, 1952-1972 A-56 41 Recorded commercial Imports of grouper and snapper Into Gulf of Mexico ports, 1977 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••• A-57 42 Average crew size fOr commercial vessels in the Gulf of Mexico handline fishery. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• A-58 43 Trend equations for average crew size In the Gulf of Mexico commercial handline fishery. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-59 44 Processed commercial snapper products in the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••• A-60 45 Processed commercial grouper products In the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1974 • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••• A-61 46 Gulf of Mexico processing and wholesaling plants and employment, 1970-1975 A-62 47 Gulf of Mexico total number of processing and wholesaling plants and employment, 1957-1975 •••••••••••••• A-63 48 Wholesale dealers and processors of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by state, 1976 • A-64 49 Estimated catch and effort in the recreational fisheries fOr reef fish in the Gu I f of Mex I co • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-65 50 Estimated number of finfish caught by marine recreational fishermen by species group and state of catch, Gulf region, 1975 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-68 51 Estimated weight of finfish caught by marine recreational fishermen by species group and state of catch, Gulf region, 1975 •••• A-69 52 Economic Information about marine recreational reef fishing in the east Gulf of Mex i co, 1975 • • • • • • • • • A-70 A-i i I NUMBER 53 Economic information about marine recreational reef fishing in the west Gulf of Mexico, 1975 ••••••• 54 Annual participation, private and commercial recreational boats, 1973 55 Estimated catch and effort in reef fish recreational fishing in the Gulf of Mexico . . . . 56 Quantity of reef fish landed per commercial handline vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1974 ••••••••••••••••••••• 57 Quantity of reef fish landed per commercial handline fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1974 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 58 Summary of ages of Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishermen by state from various sources. 59 Summary of income of Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishermen by state from various sources. 60 Summary of education levels of Gulf reef fish fishermen by state from various sources 61 Catch and catch per unit effort for sea bass in the Gulf of Mexico, 1967-1975 • • • • • • • ••••••••••••• 62 Average landings and value of landings for Gulf of Mexico commercially caught reef fish by species from 1972-1976 • • • • • • ••• 63 Price response equations for annual dockside red snapper prices in Florida, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and the United States, 1952-1971 • • ••• 64 Price response equations for dockside grouper prices in Florida and the Un ited States, 1952-1971 •••• • ••• 65 Dockside and New York wholesale values of principal reef fish, 1976 66 Percent effort on different species in the offshore charter boat fisheries by coastal area PAGE A-71 A-72 A-73 A-75 A-76 A-77 A-78 A-79 A-80 A-81 A-82 A-83 A-84 A-85 67 Selected demographic characteristics of the reef fishing community ••••••• A-86 68 Economic indicators of the reef fishing communities. • • • • • • • • • • • • •• A-87 A-iv APPENDIX LI ST OF FIGURES Number Page 1. Number of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishermen, 1957-1974 A-88 2. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish landings, 1957-1976 A-89 3. Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish landings, 1957-1976 •• A-90 4. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper landings, 1975-1976 A-91 5. Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper landings, 1957-1976 A-92 6. Quantity of Gu I f of Mexico commercial grouper land Ings, 1957-1976 • • • • A-93 7. Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial grouper landings, 1957-1976 A-94 8. Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi commercial red snapper dockside prices expressed as differentials from Florida prices, 1952-1973 • • • • • • • • A-95 9. Number of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish handline vessels, 1957-1974 • A-96 10. Grouper catch and catch per launch day fished by Cuban commercial fishermen on the west coast of Florida, 1940-1976 • • • • • A-97 11. A diagram of a typical bottom longline; Cuban Gulf fleet A-98 12. Average crew size in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish hand line fisheries, 1957-1974 . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · A-99 13. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico reef fish landed per commercial hand line vesse I, 1957-1974 · · · · . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · A-l00 14. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico reef fish landed per commercial handline fisherman, 1957-1974 • · · · · . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · A-l0l A-v ~' Appendix Table 1. Number of commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fisheries, 1957-1974a Year Florida West Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas TotalCoast Gulf 1957 478 86 29 14 436 1,043 1958 617 86 38 31 358 1,130 1959 1,138 95 47 76 499 1,855 1960 901 95 80 66 429 1,571 1961 1,046 119 94 130 522 1,911 1962 1,056 137 107 200 555 2,055 1963 1,218 201 117 172 545 2,253 1964 1,370 193 126 117 496 2,302 1965 1,334 184 137 104 443 2,202 1966 1,141 219 163 59 394 1,976 1967 1,084 181 202 18 358 1,843 1968 1,014 108 201 ' 15 238 1,576 1969 975 108 190 15 212 1,500 1970 930 78 175 22 98 1,303 1971 1,043 78 184 25 159 1 ,489 1972 1,038 86 192 39 232 1,587 1973 1,115 77 174 45 213 1 ,624 1974 1,214 80 163 47 201 1,705 aThe above data were taken from a table listing number of vessels by gear type. These numbers represent the number of vessels using handlines. Most reef fish are landed by handline vessels. However, a relatively small quantity of other species are also landed by handline vessels. The ratio of reef fish to other species landed by handline vessels may differ among states in some years. Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. A-I Appendix Table 2. Trend equations for total commercial fishermen in Gulf of Mexico snapper-grouper fishery, 1957-1974 , !1 DEPENDENT VARIABLE CON:STANT T . aTime T 2 T 3 R 2 F Statistic Durbin Watson Sta tistic Mean Std. Dev. Florida 123.1 361.42 -37.410 1. 1488 .79 17.362 2.04 103.9 212.92 fi shermen ( .939) ( 6.219) (-5.338) (4.730) Alabama 42.69 27.058 -1. 5099 - .60 11.102 .82 122.83 48.095 fishermen ( 1.608) ( 4.205) (-4.589) Mississippi 42.91 9.6295 - - .80 62.162 .35 134.39 56.021 ~ fishermen ( 3.246) ( 7.884) I N Louisiana 48.26 12.226 -8.3656 - .25 2.559 .47 66.389 54.304 fishermen ( 1. 173) ( 1.226) (-1 .641) Texas 559.1 -21.492 - - .62 25.625 .61 354.89 142.11 fi shermen ( 12.165) ( -5.062) aNumbers in parenthesis are t-values. Source: Calculated by authors. Appendix Table 3. Trend equations for commercial landings for Gulf of Mexico reef fish, red snapper and grouper Reef Fish 11545 3010.5 -261.7 6.2 (8.36) (5.42) (3.27) Red Snapper 8714 738.22 -43.779 (4.205) (-5.391 ) Grouper 5256 426.87 -19.083 (3.130) (-3.025) :z::,. I W Dependent Variable Landings Constant T Timea T2 T3. Durbin F Watson Std. R2 Stastic Statistic Mean Dev. .79 19.58 1.18 19346 1265 .74 23.957 .40 10183 1938 .37 4.901 1.54 7000 968 a Numbers in parentheses are t-values. Data are in thousands of pounds. Source: Calculated by authors. Appendix Table 4. Direction of change in commercial landings of individual reef fish species in the reef fish management unit using five-year averages for the Gulf of Mexico Direction of Change 1972-76 average Reporting 1957-61 1962-66 1962-66 1967-71 1967-71 1972-76 in relation to Categorya Average to Average Average to Average Average to Average 1957-61 Average Red snapper + Grouper and scamp + - - + Sea bass - + - + Yellowtail snapper + + - + Gray snapper (mangrove) + + + + Mutton snapper + + + + Vermilion snapper + + + + J ewfi sh + + + + Warsaw grouper + ):> Lane Snapper + + + + I Total reef fish ++:=0 a Listed in order of landings based on the 1972-1976 average from highest to lowest. Source: Calculated from U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Statistics of the U.S., Washington: 1957 1974. "~ Appendix Table 6. Quantity and value of commercial reef fish landingsb in the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1976. Florida, West Coast Alabama Mississippi Current Real Current Real Current Real Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds doll ars do 11 ars Pounds dollars dollars (Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars) 1957 13,246 2,349 2,410.51 1,050 250 267.95 569 146 156.48 1958 11,176 2,140 2,261.28 1,597 376 397.46 1,145 278 293.87 1959 12,398 2,259 2,382.91 2,068 490 516.88 1,097 266 280.59 1960 12,680 2,293 2,416.23 1,960 463 487.88 1,584 384 404.64 1961 13,216 2,318 2,452.91 2,030 500 529.10 2,287 553 585.19 1962 14,181 2,362 2,491.56 2,146 524 552.74 2,422 572 603.38 1963 14,115 2,480 2,624.34 2,651 709 750.26 2,157 501 530.16 1964 16,009 3,184 3,362.19 2,816 741 782.47 2,117 490 517.42 1965 16,,358 3,219 3,332.30 3,017 763 789.86 2,688 622 643.89 J:.::o 1966 13,946 3,045 3,051.10 3,184 864 865.73 3,010 795 796.60 I CJ) 1967 13 ,495 3,179 3,179.00 2,682 735 735.00 3,078 869 869.00 1968 13,301 3,458 3,373.62 1,636 375 365.85 4,055 1,156 1,127.80 1969 13,937 4,301 4,038.64 1,545 410 384.98 3,234 991 930.52 1970 13 ,463 4,160 3,768.12 1,321 367 332.43 2,785 969 877.72 1971 13,034 4,321 3,793.84 1,160 368 323.09 2,627 920 807.73 1972 12,843 5,145 4,319.73 1,360 484 406.38 2,499 979 822.00 1973 11,510 5,382 3,995.60 1,217 482 357.83 2,550 1,128 837.42 1974 13 ,497 6,908 4,314.74 1,049 465 290.44 2,031 967 604.00 1975 14,148 7,652 4,375.42 970 494 282.45 1,798 1,013 579.19 1976 13 > 708 8,526 4,606.48 727 415 226.90 1,972 1,233 674.14 Appendix Table 6. Quantity and value of commercial reef fish landings in the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1976 (contd.) Year 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 l:> 1966 I ....J 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Louisiana Texas Current Real a Current Real a Pounds dollars dollars Pounds doll ars doll ars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars~ 28 6 6.43 1,499 386 413.72 503 20 21.14 1,460 379 400.63 345 80 84.39 1,797 446 470.46 473 108 113.80 1,224 300 316.12 702 153 161 .90 1,920 464 491.01 751 163 171.94 1,932 463 488.40 424 98 103.70 2,372 610 645.50 329 80 84.48 2,474 653 689.55 262 59 61.08 2,381 644 666.67 227 61 61.12 1,749 522 523.05 306 78 78.00 1,494 472 472 .00 284 73 71.22 1,228 378 368.78 138 36 33.80 998 349 327.70 266 72 65.22 975 386 349.64 167 54 47.41 1,220 508 446.01 264 97 81.44 1,336 583 489.50 368 145 107.65 881 417 309.58 288 139 86.82 828 427 266.71 157 74 42.31 698 404 230.99 72 41 22.42 567 367 200.66 aWholesale price index, all commodities, 1967 = 100. blnclude both reef fish in the management unit, and those caught incidental to the directed fishery as identified in Section 2.3.2. Compiled from: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-76. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries), Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-74. Appendix Table 7. Quantity and value of commercial red snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Alabama Mississippi Current Rea1 a Current Rea1 a Current Rea1 a Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of do11ars 1957 5,587 1,443 1,546.62 933 232 248.66 550 143 153.27 1958 5,844 1,520 1,606.77 1,418 349 368.92 1,110 274 289.64 1959 5,400 1,420 1,497.89 1,819 452 476.79 1,022 255 268.99 1960 5,447 1,416 1,492.10 1,720 426 448.89 1,469 367 386.72 1961 5,446 1,449 1,533.33 1,784 470 497.35 2,152 537 568.25 1962 5,375 1,328 1,400.84 1,893 495 522.15 2,176 544 573.84 1963 5,918 1,562 1,652.91 2,315 663 701. 59 1,886 471 498.41 ):::> 1964 6,532 2,009 2,121.44 2,393 685 723.34 1,849 461 486.80I 00 1965 6,072 1,931 1,998.96 2,495 707 731.88 2,366 589 609.73 1966 5,190 1,809 1,812.63 2,701 803 804.61 2,775 771 772.55 1967 5,053 1,804 1,804.00 2,288 690 690.00 2,890 850 850.00 1968 4,308 1,757 1,714.15 1,214 328 320.00 3,726 1,118 1,090.73 1969 4,279 2,279 2,139.91 1,246 375 352.11 2,968 959 900.47 1970 3,864 2,122 1,922.10 983 326 295.29 2,519 930 842.39 1971 3,878 2,232 1,956.61 939 341 299.39 2,399 886 777.88 1972 3,691 2,526 2,120.91 1,051 443 371.96 2,266 944 792.61 1973 3,762 2,790 2,071.27 960 442 328.14 2,331 1,089 808.46 1974 4,612 3,650 2,279.83 891 439 274.20 1,900 942 588.38 1975 4,453 3,720 2,126.93 833 460 263.01- 1,709 988 564.89 1976 4,024 3,914 2,139.97 635 388 212.14 1,87;5 1,201 656.64 ~". Appendix Table 7. Quantity and value of commercial red snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976(contd) Louisiana Texas Total Gulf Current Real a Current Real a Current Real a Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 28 6 6.43 1,443 380 407.29 8,541 2,204 2,362.27 1958 88 16 16.91 1,399 373 394.29 9,859 2,532 2,676.53 1959 313 77 81. 22 1,665 435 458.86 10,219 2,639 2,783.76 1960 426 104 109.59 1,153 293 308.75 10,215 2,606 2,746.05 1961 677 150 158.73 1,829 455 481.48 11 ,888 3,061 3,239.15 1962 694 157 165.61 1,742 444 468.35 11 ,880 2,968 3,310.80 1963 388 95 100.53 2,169 590 624.34 12,676 3,381 3,557.78 )::- 1964 310 78 82.37 2,250 631 666.31 13,334 3,864 4,080.25 I 1965 243 57 59.01 2,212 628 650.10 13,388 3,912 4,049.69\.0 1966 208 59 59.12 1,653 512 513.03 12,527 3,954 3,961.92 1967 302 78 78.00 1,409 462 462.00 11 ,942 3,884 3,884.00 1968 277 73 71.22 1,128 367 358.05 10,653 3,643 3,554.15 1969 130 35 32.86 925 342 321. 13 9,548 3,990 3,746.48 1970 255 71 64.31 916 380 344.20 8,537 3,829 3,468.30 1971 162 54 47.41 1,082 495 434.59 8,460 4,008 3,518.88 1972 259 97 81.44 1,238 572 480.27 8,505 4,582 3,847.19 1973 354 144 106.90 781 402 298.44 8,188 4,867 3,613.21 1974 286 139 86.82 743 416 259.84 8,432 5,586 3,489.07 1975 151 74 42.31 627 393 224.70 7,773 5,635 3,221.84 1976 58 38 20.78 495 353 193.00 7~087 5,894 3,222.53 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. Source: (1) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly u.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: u.S. Goverriment Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 8. Quantity and value of commercial grouper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Alabama Miss tss i ppi Current Real a Current Real a Current Real a Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds doll ars dollars Pounds doll ars do 11 ars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 6,483 639 684.89 111 17 18.22 19 3 3.22 1958 4,155 457 483.09 172 26 27.48 :35 4 4.23 1959 5,750 656 691.98 231 35 36.92 75 11 11.60 1960 5,923 663 698.63 236 36 37.93 115 17 17.91 1961 6,370 643 680.42 221 28 29.63 135 16 16.93 1962 6,977 712 751. 05 237 28 19.54 246 28 29.54 ):::0 1963 6,579 651 688.89 295 42 44.44 271 30 31.75 I 1964 7,662 823 869.06 305 44 46.46 268 29 30.62t-' 0 1965 8,217 900 931.68 388 43 44.51 322 33 34.16 1966 7,169 905 906.81 383 51 51. 1O 235 24 24.05 1967 6,407 924 924.00 318 38 38.00 188 19 19.00 1968 6,176 1,051 1,025.37 306 36 35.12 329 38 37.07 1969 7,072 1,367 1,283.57 249 30 28.17 266 32 30.05 1970 6,902 1,298 1,175.72 265 33 29.89 266 39 35.33 1971 6,356 1,273 1,117.65 180 23 20.19 228 34 29.85 1972 6,479 1,732 1,454.24 229 32 26.87 233 35 29.39 1973 5,086 1,544 1,146.25 198 33 24.50 219 39 28.95 1974 6,111 2,107 1,316.05 129 22 13.74 131 25 15.62 1975 7,007 2,787 1,593.48 114 30 17.15 89 25 17.29 1976 6,657 3,157 1,726.08 76 24 13.12 97 32 17.50 Appendix Table 8. Quantity and value of commercial grouper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957 1976 (contd.) louisiana Texas Total Gulf Current Real a · Current Real d Current ReaTa: Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars doll ars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 (b) (b) - 48 5 5.36 6,661 664 711. 68 1958 - - - 31 3 3.17 4,393 490 517.97 1959 12 1 1.05 112 9 9.49 6,180 712 751.05 1960 24 2 2.11 43 4 4.21 6,341 722 760.80 1961 16 2 2.12 56 5 5.29 6,798 694 734.39 J:> 1962 53 6 6.33 114 11 11.60 7,627 785 828.06 I 1963 23 2 2. 12 156 15 15.87 7,324 740 783.07I-' I-' 1964 13 1 1.06 191 19 20.06 8,439 916 967.27 1965 13 1 1. 04 135 13 13.46 9,075 990 1,024.84 1966 16 2 2.00 89 9 9.02 7,892 991 992.99 1967 3 (b) .94 76 9 9.00 6,992 990 990.00 1968 6 (b) - 93 10 9.76 6,910 1,135 1,107.32 1969 4 1 - 53 5 4.69 7,644 1,435 1,347.42 1970 5 (b) - 59 6 5.43 7,497 1,376 1,219.20 1971 3 (b) - 138 13 11 .41 6,905 1 ,343 1 ,179. 10 1972 5 (b.) - 98 11 9.24 7,044 1,810 1,519.73 1973 8 1 .74 100 15 11. 14 5,611 1,632 1,211.58 1974 2 (b) - 85 11 6.87 6,458 2,165 1,352.28 1975 5 (b) - 71 11 6.29 7,286 2,853 1,631.22 1976 14 3 1. 64 72 14 7.65 6,916 3,230 1,765.99 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. bless than 500 pounds at' 500 dollars. Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishert Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2 ) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1957-1976. Appendix Table 9. Quantity and value of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish landings by state and species, 1975 and 1976 1975 Species Florida West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Amberjackd 90,875 10,586 Sea bass 39,020 6,622 Grouper and Scamp 7,006,577 2,787,250 114,079 30,370 89,100 24,736 5,264 748 71 ,488 11 ,212 Gruntsd 220,856 43,070 Je\'Ifi sh 185,402 22,162 22,861 4,210 A Porgiesa,d 108,414 24,846 Gray snapperb 484,537 167,142 Lane snapper 25,582 11,560 ):::0 Mutton snapper 259,575 134,053I I-' N Red snapper 4,452,777 3,719,815 832,950 460,025 1,709,100 987,895 150,756 74,286 627,449 393,442 Vermilion snapper 352,816 215,696 Yellowtail snapper 675,398 456,254 Til efi shd 32,422 9,170 Triggerfishd 78,090 8,861 Warsaw grouper 135,026 33,517 TOTALc 14,147,367 7,650,604 969,890 494,605 1,798,200 1,012,631 156,020 75,034 698,937 404,654 Appendix Table 9. Quantity and value of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish landings by state and species, 1975 and 1976 1976 Florida West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Species Pounds Doll ars Pounds Doll ars Pounds Dollars Pounds Do11 ars Pounds Doll ars Amberjackd 95,545 9,860 Sea bass 49,617 10,200 Grouper and Scamp 6,657,339 3,156,619 76,282 23,949 96,500 31,850 14,443 3,434 71 ,653 14,394 Gruntsd 207,419 40,974 J ewfi sh 184,800 22,894 15,893 3,262 Porgiesa,d 120,340 31,926 Gray snapperb 598,120 209,651 Lane snapper 47 ,506 20,663 Mutton snapper 236,689 143,336 Red snapper 4,023,809 3,914,063 634,855 387,670 1,875,400 1,200,885 57,877 38,488 495,092 353,157 )::0 Vermilion snapper 280,480 193,544I...... w Yellowtail snapper 922,321 704,120 Til efi shd 53,275 15,839 Triggerfishd 84,434 11,599 Warsm'l grouper 147,050 38,982 TOTALc 13,708,804 8,514,093 727,030 414,881 1,971,900 1,232,735 72 ,320 41,922 566,745 367,551 a Listed as scup in the landings data. b Listed as mangrove snapper in the landings data. c Totals may differ slightly from those shown in other tables. This is because other tables are in thousands and when less than 500 units were designated, a (1) was used, resulting in no number to add into the total of these other tables. Consequently, if several (l)'s appeared on these other tables, where values were actually 400 then the total would be slightly larger than shown. The above table takes this into account, so some of the above totals may be slightly larger than on the other tables. d Not reef fish species in the management unit but included in table for informational purposes since caught incidental to the directed fishery. Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual lssues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 10. Quantity and value of commercial amberjack landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957 1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Current Real a Current Real d Current Real a Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars doll ars Pounds doll ars doll ars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 57 3 3.22 a a a 57 3 3.22 1958 33 1 1. 06 33 1 1.06 1959 12 (1) - (1) (1) (1) . 12 (1) 1960 16 (1) - a a a 16 (1 ) 1961 7 (1) I I I 7 (1 ) 1962 10 (1 ) - I I I 10 (1) 1963 14 1 - I I I 14 1)::0 I 1964 10 (1) I I I 10 (1)..... ~ 1965 8 (1) I I I 8 (1) 1966 9 (1) - I I I 9 (1) 1967 34 2 2.00 I I I 34 2 2.00 1968 14 1 0.98 I I I 14 1 0.98 1969 80 5 4.69 I I I 80 5 4.69 1970 20 2 1. 81 I I I 20 2 1.81 1971 45 4 3.51 I I I 45 4 3.51 1972 44 2 1.68 I I I 44 2 1.68 1973 39 3 2.23 I I I 39 3 2.23 1974 58 4 2.50 I I I 58 4 2.50 1975 91 11 6.29 I I I 91 11 6.29 1976 96 10 5.47 0 0 0 96 10 5.47 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars. '-'-"'- Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries).." .... Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.s. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-76. Appendix Table 11. Quantity and value of commercial sea bass landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976. Florida, West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Year Pounds Current dollars Real a dollars Pounds Current dollars Real a doll ars Pounds Current doll ars Real a dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars )::::0 I I-' (J1 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976b 2 7 1 (l) o o o o o o (1 ) 303 305 149 106 121 112 51 39 50 (1) 1 (1 ) (1 ) o o o o o o (l) 35 39 17 11 16 18 7 7 10 1.06 34.15 36.62 15.40 9.66 13.43 13.36 4.37 4.00 5.46 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a a o o o o o a a a o a o o o a a o o o o o o o o o o o o a o a o a o a o o o a a o 2 7 1 (l) o o o o o o (1) 303 305 149 106 121 112 51 39 50 (1 ) 1 (1) (1 ) o o o o o o (1) 35 39 17 11 16 18 7 7 10 a Wholesale price index, 1967 = 100. b Preliminary. (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars. Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.s. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service~ Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government ~rinting Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 12. Quantity and value of commercial grunt landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Year Florida West Coast Current Real a Pounds dollars dollars Pounds Other Gulf Current Real a dollars dollars Pounds Total Gulf Current ReaTa dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars ):= I ...... 0'\ 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 238 95 201 134 85 63 60 37 78 120 279 383 310 315 357 277 239 258 221 207 18 7 14 10 5 4 4 3 6 10 27 42 40 44 51 45 44 53 43 41 19.29 7.40 14.77 10.54 5.29 4.22 4.23 3.17 6.21 10.02 27.00 40.98 37.56 39.86 44.78 37.78 32.67 33.10 24.59 22.42 o I o o I o o I o 238 95 201 134 85 63 60 37 78 120 279 383 310 315 357 277 239 258 221 207 18 7 14 10 5 4 4 3 6 10 27 42 40 44 51 45 44 53 43 41 19.29 7.40 14.77 10.54 5.29 4.22 4.23 3.17 6.21 :10.02 27.00 40.98 37.56 39.86 44.78 37.78 32.67 33.10 24.59 22.42 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. Source: (1) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly u.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fjshery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: u.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. I "'~ , "1 Appendix T~ble 13. Quantity and value of commercial jewfish landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957 1976 (contd.) Total Gulf Year Pounds Current dollars a Real dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of do11ars 1957 34 3 3.22 1958 90 8 8.46 1959 121 11 11 .60 1960 104 9 9.48 1961 85 7 7.41 1962 68 5 5.27 1963 122 10 10.58 1964 209 20 21.. 12 J::o 1965 196 18 18.63I I--' 1966 144 13 13.0300 1967 143 12 12.00 1968 215 18 17.56 1969 155 12 11 .27 1970 209 19 17.21 1971 192 17 14.93 1972 231 22 18 .47 1973 226 23 17.07 1974 190 22 13.74 1975 208 26 14.87 1976 201 26 14.22 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 collars. (l)Source: , U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 1~. Quantity and value of commercial porgy (scup) landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Year Florida West Coast Current Real b Pounds dollars dollars Other Gulfa Current Real 0 Pounds dollars dollars Total Gulf Current ReafD Pounds dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars :P I ...... ~ 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 48 54 69 48 52 55 54 47 30 53 57 68 72 89 84 71 80 108 120 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 3 6 7 9 10 13 14 14 17 25 32 4.23 4.22 B.27 3.17 4.22 4.23 5.28 4.14 3.01 6.00 6.83 8.45 9.06 11.41 11.75 10.39 10.62 14.29 17.50 414 2 1 o a a o o a a o o a a o o a a a 4 (1 ) (1) o a o o a a o o o a a o a a a a 4.23 o a a o a a a o o a a o a a o o 462 56 70 48 52 55 54 47 30 53 57 68 72 89 84 71 80 108 120 8 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 3 6 7 9 10 13 14 14 17 25 32 8.46 4.22 5.27 3.17 4.22 4.23 5.28 4.14 3.01 6.00 6.83 8.45 9.06 11. 41 11.75 10.39 10.62 14.29 17.50 aA11 landings appearing in this category were from Louisiana. bWholesale price index, all commodities, 1967 = 100. (1) Less than 500 dollars or 500 pounds. Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S National Marine Fi,sheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 15. Quantity and value of commercial gray snapper (mangrove snapper) landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf~ Total Gulf Current Real b Current Real b Current Real b Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Thousands of Pounds and thousands of dollars ::t>o I N o 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 322 446 288 263 262 338 311 325 407 312 373 471 480 442 469 530 557 587 485 598 52 67 45 42 40 54 53 58 77 63 83 106 123 112 131 164 185 206 167 210 55.73 70.82 47.47 44.26 42.33 56.96 56.08 61.25 79.71 63.13 83.00 103.41 115.49 101. 45 115.01 137.70 137.34 128.67 95.48 114.82 a a (1) 2 a o a a a a a a a a a a a a a o a a (1) (1) a o a a a a a a a a a a a a a o a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a o 322 446 288 265 262 338 311 325 407 312 373 471 480 442 469 530 557 587 485 598 52 67 45 42 40 54 53 58 77 63 83 106 123 112 131 164 185 206 167 210 55.73 70.82 47.47 44.26 42.33 56.96 56.08 61.25 79.71 63.13 83.00 103.41 115.49 101.45 115.01 137.70 137.34 128.67 95.48 114.82 a All landings appearing in this category were from Louisiana b Wholesale price index, all commodities, 1967 = 100 (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington:· U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 16. Quantity and value of commercial lane snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Current Real d Current Real d Current Real a Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds doll ars doll ars Pounds dollars doll ars Thousands of Pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 - - - a a a 1958 - - - a a a 1959 - - - a a a 1960 - - - a a a 1961 - - - a a a 1962 - - - a a a 1963 - - - a a a 1964 - - - a a a )::> 1965 28 3 3.11 a a a 28 3 3.11 I 1966 11 2 2.00 a a a 11 2 2.00N....... 1967 18 3 3.00 0 0 0 18 3 3.00 1968 10 2 1.95 a a a 10 2 1.95 1969 12 2 1.88 a a a 12 2 1.88 1970 14 3 2.72 a a a 14 3 2.72 1971 16 4 3.51 a a a 16 4 3.51 1972 15 4 3.36 a a 0 15 4 3.36 1973 25 8 5.94 a a a 25 8 5.94 1974 19 7 4.37 a a a 25 7 4.37 1975 26 12 6.86 a a a 19 12 6.86 1976 48 21 11.48 0 0 a 48 21 11.48 a Wholesale price index, 1967 = 100 Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 17. Quantity and value of commercial mutton snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Year Current Real a Current Real a Current Real a Pounds doll ars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 53 11 11. 79 0 0 0 53 11 11. 79 1958 40 8 8.46 40 8 8.46 1959 78 16 16.88 78 16 16.88 1960 94 20 21~07 94 20 21. 07 1961 90 18 19.05 90 18 19.05 1962 142 30 31. 65 142 30 31.65 1963 . 118 25 26.46 118 25 26.46 1864 134 30 31. 68 I, 134 -" 30 31.68 )::0 I 1965 110 26 26.92 110 26 26.92 N N 1966 82 20 20.04 82 20 20.04 1967 148 39 39.00 148 39 39.00 1968 166 48 46.83 166 48 46.83 1969 135 45 42.25 135 45 42.25 1970 234 85 76.99 .l 234 85 76.99 1971 274 101 88.67 274 101 88.67 1972 238 101 84.80 238 101 84.80 1973 259 117 86.86 259 117 86.86 1974 257 119 74.33 257 119 74.33 1975 260 134 76.62 260 134 76.62 1976 237 143 78.18 0 0 0 237 143 78.18 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. ~: .. ,.., .......... Source: (1) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly u.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fisher~ Statistics of the United States. ~~ashi ngton: U.S. Government .. Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. " (2) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. ,..,..,,"-, ,"-,,-" Appendix Table 18. Quantity and value of commercial vermilion snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Tota1 Gulf Year Pounds Current Rea l a Pounds Current Rea lP- . Pounds Current Real a dollars dollars dollars doTl~ars· dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 1 (1) a a a 1 (1) 1958 4 1 1. 06 I I I 4 1 1. 06 1959 2 1 1. 05 I I I 2 1 1. 05 1960 8 2 2.11 I I I 8 2 2.11 1961 22 4 4.23 I I I 22 4 4.23 1962 41 6 6.33 I I I 41 6 6.33 1963 68 11 11.64 I I I 68 11 11.64 1964 90 15 15.84 I I I 90 15 15.84)::> I 1965 72 14 14.49 I I I 72 14 14.49N w 1966 28 7 7. 01 I I I 28 7 7. 01 1967 52 14 14.00 I I I 52 14 14.00 1968 124 39 38.05 I I I 124 39 38.05 1969 108 42 39.44 I I I 108 42 39.44 1970 118 46 41.67 I I I 118 46 41.67 197T 126 53 46.53 I I I 126 53 46.53 1972 117 53 44.50 I I I 117 53 44.50 1973 177 104 77 .21 I I I 177 104 77 .21 1974 178 107 66.83 I I I 178 107 66.83 1975 353 216 123.50 I I I 353 216 123.50 1976 280 194 106.07 I I I 280 194 106.07 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars. Source: (1) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly u.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: u.S. Government Printing Office, Annual lssues,1975-l976. Appendix Table 19. Quantity and value of commercial yellowtail snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Tota1 Gulf Y-ear Pounds Current Real a dollars dollars Pounds Current Real a doll ars doll ars Pounds Current Real a dollars dollars Thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars ):> I N j::> 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 296 261 406 528 640 910 729 896 942 753 850 1,025 808 987 949 866 836 938 675 922 69 57 89 121 141 206 153 220 231 206 258 344 321 384 408 443 508 5Z7 456 704 73.95 60.25 93.88 127.50 149.21 217.30 161.90 232.31 239.13 206.41 258.00 335.61 301. 41 347.83 358.21 371.96 377.13 360.40 260.72 384.91 o I o o I o 0, I o 296 261 406 528 640 910 729 896 942 753 850 1,025 808 987 949 866 836 938 675 922 69 57 89 121 141 206 153 220 231 206 258 344 321 384 408 443 508 577 456 704 73.95 60.25 93.88 127.50 149.21 217.30 161. 90 232.31 239.13 206.41 258.00 335.61 301 .41 347.83 358.21 371.96 377.13 360.40 260.72 384.91 aWholesale price index, 1967 = 100. Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial ~ish~ries).Fi~hery Statistic~ of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 20. Quantity and value of commercial tilefish landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Current Real a Current Real a Current Real a Year Pounds dollars doll ars Pounds doll ars doll ars Pounds doll ars dollars Thousands of Pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 - - - a a a 1958 4 (1 ) - a a a 4 (1 ) 1959 2 (1 ) - a a a 2 (1) 1960 (1) (1) - a a a (1) (1) 1961 1 (1 ) - a a a 1 (1) 1962 4 (1) - a a a 4 (1) 1963 3 (1) - a a a 3 (1) 1964 (1) (1) - 0 0 0 (1) (1) 1965 26 3 3.11 a a a 26 3 3.11 )::- 1966 9 1 1.00 a a a 9 1 1.00I N <J1 1967 14 1 1.00 0 0 0 14 1 1.00 1968 6 1 0.98 0 0 0 6 1 0.98 1969 1 (1) - a 0 0 1 (1) 1970 5 1 0.91 a a a 5 1 0.91 1971 14 2 1. 76 a a a 14 2 1. 76 1972 10 2 1.68 0 0 0 10 2 1.68 1973 13 4 2.97 a a a 13 4 2.97 1974 15 5 3.12 a a a 15 5 3.12 1975 32 9 5.15 a a a 32 9 5.15 1976 53 16 8.75 0 0 0 53 16 8.75 a Wholesale price index, 1967 = 100 (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars Source: (1) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 21. Quantity and value of commercial triggerfish landings in the Gulf 9f Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Current Real a Current Real a Current Real a Year Pounds dollars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds doll ars dollars Thousands of Pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 17 1 1.07 a a a 17 1 1.07 1958 15 1 1.06 a a a 15 1 1.06 1959 10 1 1.05 a a a 10 1 1.05 1960 12 (1) 1.05 a a a 12 1 1.05 1961 6 (1 ) - a a a 6 (1) 1962 6 (1) - a a a 6 (1) 1963 12 1 1.06 a a a 12 1 1.06 1964 24 1 1.06 a a a 24 1 1.06 1965 26 1 1.04 a a a 26 1 1.04 ):0 1966 14 1 1.00 a a a 14 1 1.00I N O'l 1967 17 1 1.00 a a a 17 1 1.00 1968 12 1 0.98 a a a 12 1 0.98 1969 22 2 1.88 a a a 22 2 1.88 1970 24 2 1.81 a a a 24 2 1.81 1971 40 4 3.51 a a a 40 4 3.51 1972 63 6 5.04 a a a 63 6 5.04 1973 53 6 4.45 a a a 53 6 4.45 1974 54 6 3.75 a a a 54 6 3.75 1975 78 9 5.15 a a a 78 9 5.15 1976 84 12 6.56 0 0 0 84 12 6.56 a Wholesale price index, 1967 = 100 (1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 22. Quantity and value of commercial warsaw grouper landings in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1976 Florida West Coast Other Gulf Total Gulf Current Real d Current Real d Current Real a Year Pounds doll ars dollars Pounds dollars dollars Pounds doll ars doll ars Thousands of Pounds and thousands of dollars 1957 163 11 11.79 7 1 1.07 170 12 12.86 1958 172 13 13.74 0 a 0 172 13 13.74 1959 129 9 9.49 0 0 0 129 9 9.49 1960 119 8 8.43 15 2 2.11 134 10 10.54 1961 188 11 11.64 35 4 4.23 223 15 15.87 1962 215 14 14.77 76 8 8.44 291 22 23.21 1963 183 11 11.64 44 4 4.23 227 15 15.87 1964 159 12 12.67 34 4 4.22 193 16 16.90 )::> 1965 264 18 18.63 39 4 4.14 303 22 22.77 I 1966 177 15 15.03 8 1 1.00 185 16 16.03N ........ 1967 130 12 12.00 10 1 1.00 140 13 13.00 1968 147 17 16.59 8 1 0.98 154 18 17.56 1969 155 20 18.78 20 2 1.89 176 22 20.66 1970 187 24 21. 74 0 0 0 187 24 21. 74 1971 166 21 18.44 0 0 0 166 21 18.44 1972 157 24 20.15 0 0 0 157 24 20.15 1973 120 21 15.59 0 0 0 120 21 15.59 1974 118 25 15.62 0 0 0 118 25 15.62 1975 135 34 19.44 0 0 0 135 34 19.44 1976 147 39 21.32 0 0 0 147 39 21.32 a Wholesale price index, 1967 = 100 Source: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1957-1974. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table E-. Average dockside price in dollars per pouind for Gulf of Mexico commercially landed reef fish, 1957-1976 Triggerfish Jewfish vJa rsaw grouper Amberjack i- Sea Bas-s--~ 'Actual a 'A a Actual a Actual a Defl ated aDeflated ctual Defl ated Defl ated Deflated Actual Year price price price price price price price price price price 1957 .059 .063 .088 .094 .071 .076 .053 .057 -- I, ' 1958 .067 .071 .089 .094 .076 .080 .030 .032 .143 .151 1959 .100 .105 .091 .096 .070 .074 -- -- ..ri -- I.,\' "0' 1960 .083 .087 .087 .092 .075 .079 -- -- ,-.(1 -- I 1961 -- -- .082 .087 .067 .071 -- -- -:; -- I> 1962 -- -- .074 .078 .076 .080 -- ,==\1963 .083 .088 .082 .087 .066 .070 .071 .075 1964 .OLl,2 .044 .096 .101 .083 .088 -- --I 1965 .038 .039 .092 .095 .073 .076 -- -'- --):; ...::~ I 1966 .071 .071 .090 .090 .086 .086 -- --!': ",,<:' 0:' 1967 .059 .059 . 084 .084 .093 .093 .059 .059 -- ~I :;:,: 1968 .083 .081 .084 .082 .117 .114 .071 .069 .-116 .11I, 1969 .091 .085 .077 .072 .126 .118 .063 .059 .1~8 .120 1970 .083 .075 .091 .082 .128 .116 .100 .091 . ii\4 .1q)'1 1971 .100 .088 .089 .078 .127 .,112 .089 .078 .ro'(7, .091\ 1972 .095 .078 .095 .078 .153 .128 .045 .038 .13~ .111.t 1973 .113 .084 .102 .076 .175 .130 .077 .057 .161 .119\ 1974 .111 .069 .116 .072 .212 .132 .069 .043 .137 .OS6 f 1975 .115 .066 .125 .071 .252 .144 .121 .069 .1Sq .103 1976 .143 .078 .129 .071 .265 .145 .104 .057 .ZOO .109 #?--; ", Appendix Table 23. Average dockside price in dollars per pound for Gulf of Mexico commercially landed reef fish, 1957-1976 (continued) Yellowtail Snapper Red Snapper Grouper Gray Snapper Porgy (Scup) Actual Deflateda Actual Deflateda Actual Deflateda Actual Deflateda Actual Deflateda Year price price price price price price price price price price 1957 .233 .250 .258 .277 .100 .107 .161 .173 1958 .218 .230 .257 .272 .112 .118 .150 .159 .017 .018 1959 .219 .231 .258 .272 .115 .121 .156 .165 .071 .075 1960 .229 .241 .255 .269 .114 .120 .158 .166 .071 .075 1961 .189 .200 .257 .272 .102 .108 .153 .162 .063 .067 1962 .226 .238 .250 .264 .103 .109 .160 .169 .077 .081 1963 .210 .222 .267 .283 .101 .107 .170 .180 .073 .077 1964 .246 .260 .290 .306 .109 .115 .178 .188 .093 .098 1965 .245 .254 .292 .302 .109 .113 .189 .196 .085 .088 1966 .274 .275 .316 .317 .126 .126 .202 .202 .100 .100 ::t=o 1967 .304 .304 .325 .325 .142 .142 .223 .223 .113 .113 I .342 .334 .164 .160 .225 .220 .123 .120w 1968 .336 .328 0 1969 .397 .373 .418 .392 .188 .177 .256 .240 .132 .124 1970 .389 .352 .449 .407 .184 .167 .253 .229 .139 .126 1971 .430 .378 .474 .416 .194 .170 .279 .245 .146 .128 1972 .512 .430 .539 .453 .257 .216 .309 .259 .167 .140 1973 .608 .451 .594 .441 .291 .216 .332 .246 .197 .146 1974 .615 .384 .662 .413 .335 .209 .351 .219 .213 .133 1975 .676 .387 .725 .415 .392 .224 .344 .197 .231 .132 1976 .764 .418 .832 .455 .467 .255 .351 .192 .267 .146 a Wholesale price indexes were used, 1967 = 100. Derived from: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States, 1975-1976. (2) u.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics, Landings for Selected States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. ~ Appendix Table\24. Dockside prices of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish by state, 1975-76 1975 Species Florida, West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas ·---------------------------------dollars ::z:= I W ~ Amberjack Sea bass Grouper Grunts Jewfish Lane Snapper Mutton Snapper Red Snapper Tileflsh Triggerfish Vermilion Snapper ~~arsaw grouper Yellowtail Snapper Gray Snapper (Mangrove Snapper) Porgy. (Scup) . 121 .180 .398 .263 .195 .119 .174 .462 .515 .835 .552 .281 .115 .612 .252 .676 .344 .231 .281 .578 .490 .155 .627 \ I i Appendix Table~24 .. Dockside prices for Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish by state, 1975-76 (contd.) 1976 Species Florida, West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas ·---------------------------------dollars )::0 I .JJ N Amberjack Sea bass Grouper Grunts Jewfish Lane Snapper t1utton Snapper Red Snapper Tilefish Triggerfish Vermilion. Snapper Warsaw grouper Yellowtail Snapper Gray Snapper (Mangrove Snapper) Porgy (Scup) .104 .200 .474 .316 .198 .124 .188 .438 .603 .973 .611 .302 .143 .693 .265 .764 .351 .267 .330 .641 .214 .655 .194 .713 Appendix Table 26. U.S. commercial landings of red snapper caught off U.S. shores and caught in international waters off foreign shores, 1962-1977 ~Jaters off High seas off Year U.S. coasts foreign coasts Total Million Pounds (percent) 1962 7.4 (63.8) 4.2 (36.2) 11.6 1963 6.7 (53.2) 5.9 (46.8) 12.6 1964 7.2 (54.5) 6.0 (45.5) 13.2 1965 7.3 (56.2) 5.7 (43.8) 13.0 1966 5.4 (45.8) 6.4 (54.2) 11.8 1967 7.1 (56.8) 5.4 (43.2) 12.5 1)968 6.9 (66.3) 3.5 (33.7) 10.4 1969 5.7 (66.3) 2.9 (33.7) 8.6 1970 7.5 (79.8) 1.9 (20.2) 9.4 1971 7.3 (83.0) 1.5 (17.0) 8.8 1972 6.8 (80.0) 1.7 (20.0) 8.5 1973 7.8 (87.6) 1.1 (12.4) 8.9 1974 7.4 (90.2) 0.8 ( 9.8) 8.2 1975 7.6 (90.5) 0.8 ( 9.5) 8.4 1976 8.3 (89.2) 1.0 (10.8) 9.3 1977 5.9 (92.2) 0.5 ( 7.8) 6.4 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States. t~ashington: U.S. Government Printing. Office. Annual issues, 1962-1977. A-34 .f' / Appendix Table 27. U.S. commercial landings of groupers caught off U.S. shores and caught in international waters off foreign shores, 1962-1977 ~Jaters off High Seas off Year U.S. coasts foreign coasts Total Million Pounds (percent) 1962 5.6 (84.8) 1.0 (15.2) 6.6 1963 5.2 (81.3) 1.2 (18.8) 6.4 1964 6.7 (84.8) 1.2 (15.2) 7.9 1965 8.0 (87.9) 1•1 (12.1) 9. 1 1966 6.5 (87.8) 0.9 (12.2) 7.4 1967 5.7 (83.8) 1.1 (16.2) 6.8 1968 6.4 (92.8) 0.5 ( 7.2) 6.9 1969 6.1 (91. 0) 0.6 ( 9.0) 6.7 1970 6.5 (94.7) 0.4 ( 5.8) 6.9 1971 7.1 (94.7) 0.4 ( 5.3) 7.5 1972 7.2 (94.7) 0.4 ( 5.3) 7.6 1973 6.7 (95.7) 0.3 ( 4.3) 7.0 1974 7.0 (93.3) 0.5 ( 6.7) 7.5 1975 6.7 (95.7) 0.3 ( 4.3) 7.0 1976 9.1 (97.8) 0.2 ( 2.2) 9.3 1977 6.5 (95.6) 0.3 ( 4.4) 6.8 Source: U.S. Nation~l Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Print ing Office. Annual issues, 1962-1977. A-35 Appendix Table 25. Commercial U.S. snapper-grouper fishery, port areas ranked by quantity landed, 1973 y, QI Snappersy,~ Groupers 0,- 9.! Snappers &Groupers (Combined) f! Thousand . Principal Port Thousand Principal Port ThoLlsand Principal Port Rank Pounds by Port Area Pounds by Port Area Pounds by Port Area 1 2,327 Pascagoula, Miss. 1,951 Madeira Beach, Fla. 2,546 Pascagoula, Miss. 2 2,048 Panama City, Fla. 825 Ft. Myers Beach, Fla. 2,333 Panama City, Fla. 3 1,220 Key West, Fla. 691 Bradenton, Fla. 2,207 Madeira Beach, Fla. 4 738 Mobile, Ala. 535 Key West, Fla. 1,755 Key West, Fla. 5 688 Pensacola, Fla. 384 Ca ra be11 e, F1a. 1,443 Ft. Myers Beach, Fla. 6 618 Ft. Myers Beach, Fla. 285 Panama City, Fla. 961 r~obil e, Ala. 7 382 Port Isabel, Tex. 223 Mobile, Ala. 937 Bradenton, Fla. 8 363 Niceville, Fla. 219 Pascagoula, Miss. 808 Pensacola, Fla. 9 298 Golden Meadow, La. 120 Pensacola, Fla. 384 Carabelle, Fla. 10 264 r~iami, Fla. 119 Tampa, Fla. 382 Port Isabel, Tex. 11 256 Madeira Beach, Fla. 101 Nokomis, Fla. 363 Niceville, Fla. 12 246 Bradenton, Fla. 13 222 Bon Secour, Ala. 14 197 r~ayport, Fl a. ):::0 15 196 Aransas pass, Tex.I w 16 177 Riviera Beach, Fla.w 17 104 Galveston, Tex. y Landings are available by port area (county, parish, or district); for simplicity, the principal ports are used to designate these areas. b/ Listed in descending order by pounds landed (primarily gutted weight). fj Includes only those port areas with snapper or grouper landings that exceeded 100 thousand pounds. d/ Gulf red snapper is the predominant snapper landed at most of the ports listed. The exceptions are yellowtail snapper at Key West and Miami, Fla. and mutton snapper at Riviera Beach, Fla. e/ Red grouper is the predominant grouper landed at the ports listed. if Includes only those port areas with snapper and grouper landings (combined) that exceeded 360 thousand pounds. Source: Landings compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce (1973-75). Source: Allen and Tashiro, 1976. Appendix Table 28. U.S. commercial landings of reef fish by U.S. fishery craft by distance caught off U.S. shores and caught in international waters off foreign shores, and Gulf of Mexico landings, 1971-1977 Distance caught off U.S. shores Caught in Percent of totalinternational U.S. landings- waters off caught in the Species 0-3 Miles 3-12 Miles 12-200 Mil es foreign shores Total Gulf of Mexico Thousand Pounds (percent) Grouper 1971 524 (7.0) 1,264 (16.8) 5,339a (71.1) 381 (5.1) 7,508 92.0 1972 277 (3.6) 1,285 (16.8) 5,649a (74.0) 423 (5.5) 7,634 92.3 1973 425 (6.1) 1,172 (16.9) 5,063 (72.9) 287 (4.1) 6,947 80.8 1974 501 (6.7) 1,212 (16.2) 5,303 (70.7) 484 (6.5) 7,500 86.1 1975 515 (7.4) 1,109 (15.9) 5,071 (72.7) 279 (4.0) 6,974 100.0c :P 1976 275 (3.0) 1,305 (14.1) 7,507 (81.2) 155 (1. 7) 9,242 74.8 I w 1977 251 (3.7) 6,270b (91.5) 335 (4.9) 6,856 0'\ Red Sna~ 1971 83 (0.9) 503 (5.7) 6,723a (76.5) 1,476 (16.8) 8,785 96.3 1972 143 (1. 7) 823 (9.6) 5,872a (68.5) 1,734 (20.2) 8,572 99.2 1973 109 (1. 2) 579 (6.5) 7,073 (79.7) 1,118 (12.6) 8,879 92.2 1974 70 (0.9) 681 (8.3) 6,677 (81.4) 778 (9.5) 8,206 100.0C 1975 61 (0.7) 667 (7.9) 6,911 (81.6 ) 829 (9.8) 8,468 91.8 1976 124 (1.3) 632 (6.9) 7,505 (81.4) 955 (10.4) 9,216 76.9 1977 197 (3.1) 5,748b (89.7) 466 (7.3) 6,411 Continued Appendix Table 28. u.s. commercial landings of reef fish by U.S. fishery craft by distance caught off U.S. shores and caught in international waters off foreign shores, and Gulf of Mexico landings, 1971-1977 (continued) Distance caught off u.s. shores Caught in Percent of totalinternational u.s. landings waters off caught in the Species 0-3 Miles 3-12 Mil es 12-200 Mil es foreign shores Total Gulf of Mexi co Thousand Pounds (percent) Other Sna~ 1971 158 (7.4) 1,119 (52.7) 846a (39.8) 2,123 86.4 1972 140 (5.3) 1,368 (51.8) 1,064a (40.3) 67 (2.5) 2,639 66.9 1973 844 (33.2) 653 (25.7) 979 (38.5) 66 (2.6) 2,542 72.9 1974 832 (31. 8) 597 (22.8) 1,049 (40.1) 139 (5.3) 2,617 75.9 ::t» 1975 1,037 (38.7) 593 (22.1) 868 (32.4) 180 (6.7) 2,678 66.9 I 1976 365 (14.7) 864 (34.8) 1,187 (47.7) 70 (2.8) 2,486 83.9 w 1977 314 (17.7) 1,303b (73.3) 160 (9.0) 1,777-......J Scup (Porgy) 1971 2,851 (31.9) 1,397 (15.6) 4,690a (52.5) - 8,938 1.0 1972 1,086 (13.3) 1,186 (14.5) 5,915a (72.2) - 8,187 1.0 1973 4,965 (46.2) 1,482 (13.8) 4,311 (40.1) - 10,758 0.7 1974 6,735 (44.0) 1,216 (7.9) 7,371 (48.1) - 15,322 0.5 1975 7,667 (45.7) 797 (4.8) 8,302 (49.5) - 16,766 0.6 1976 6,142 (38.4) 1,310 (8.2) 8,546 (53.4) - 15,998 0.8 1977 9,157 (47.9) 9,955b (52.1) 19,112 Continued .. ' ...~ " Appendix Table 28. u.s. commercial landings of reef fish by U.S. fishery craft by distance caught off U.S. shores and caught in international waters off foreign shores, and Gulf of Mexico landings, 1971-1977 (continued) Distance caught off U.S. shores Species 0-3 Miles 3-12 Miles 12-200 Mil es Caught in international waters off foreign shores Total Percent of total U.S. landings caught in the Gulf of Mexi co Thousand Pounds (percenfJ Warsaw Grouper 1971 - 31 (13.0) 1972 - 16 (8.4) 1973 - 25 (14.3) 1974 - 28 (15.4) 1975 - 25 (14.7) 1976 - 25 (13.2) J::o 1977 25 (10.6) nob (89.4) I w co 187a 145a 150 144 143 165 (78.2) (76.3) (85.7) (79.1) (84.1) (86.8) 21 (8.8) 29 (15.3) 10 (5.5) 2 (1.2) 239 190 175 182 170 190 235 69.5 82.6 68.6 64.8 79.4 77 .4 a Greater than 12 miles. b Three to 200 miles. c Apparently there are data discrepancies. Sources: (1) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1971-1977. (2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Prfnting Office. Annual issues, 1971-1974. (3) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics, Landings for the Gulf States. Washington: u.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1975-1976. Appendix Table 29. Number of commercial vessels in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fishery, 1957-1974a Year Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas TotalGulf 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 108 120 300 179 219 232 280 334 377 274 267 256 242 257 282 306 331 353 11 11 12 12 13 15 22 22 20 22 19 12 12 11 11 12 11 11 5 7 8 11 12 12 13 14 14 17 20 21 20 19 20 21 19 18 2 5 12 13 30 36 30 23 23 13 6 5 5 6 7 11 13 13 129 89 158 118 151 152 118 93 85 64 66 ~50 46 23 30 45 41 40 255 232 490 333 425 447 464 486 519 390 378 344 325 316 350 395 415 435 aThe above data were taken from a table listing number of vessels by gear type. These numbers represent the number of vessels using hand~ lines. Most reef fish are landed by handline vessels. However, a relatively small quantity of other species are also landed by hand line vessels. The ratio of reef fish to other species landed by handline vessels may differ among states in some years. Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues, 1952-1974. A-39 Appendix Table 31. Trend equations for total commercial vessels in Gulf of Mexico snapper-grouper fishery t..• DEPENDENT VARIABLE CONSTANT· T Timea 2 T T 3 R 2 F Statistic Durbin Watson Sta tistic Mean Std. Dev. Florida 175.8 8.8431 - - .46 13.737 1. 32 259.83 67.502 vessels ( 6.808) ( 3.706) Alabama 7.456 2.2842 -0.23603 - .52 8.167 .76 14.389 4.2575 vessels ( 2.911) ( 3.680) (-3.971) Mississippi 6.732 .87616 - - .84 81.503 .48 15.056 4.9718 )::0 vessels ( 6.408) ( 9.028)I ~ 0 Louisiana 8.007 2.5610 -.15602 - .19 1.760 .44 14.056 9.8289 vessels ( 1.041) ( 1.374) (-1.63]) Texas 152.0 -7.2353 - - .74 45.109 1. 34 83.278 43.691 vessels aNumbers in parenthesis are T-va1ues. Source: Calculated by authors. Appendix Table 31. Average commercial vessel size in gross tons in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fishery, 1957-1974 );:0 I .~ I-' Year 1957~ 1958a1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Florida West Coast 27.19 25.05 28.59 18.44 20.93 21. 97 24.63 25.27 22.08 23.82 24.64 24.83 26.82 27.37 27.39 24.67 24.35 29.38 Alabama 43.64 47.55 51.08 51.08 46.92 49.27 52.45 52.32 55.75 57.50 57.63 58.50 58.50 60.64 60.82 63.08 64.73 68.91 r~ iss iss i Ppi 20.80 27.71 32.75 37.64 38.00 40.42 41. 08 42.64 52.14 58.00 66.75 65.76 66.65 68.32 70.05 70.81 71. 79 73.00 Louisiana 17.00 20.40 22.75 38.92 42.93 41 ~81 40.77 49.57 52.52 59.54 63.17 66.40 66.40 59.67 53.29 50.00 54.85 59.46 Texas ~ 39.57 40.21 40.14 50.49 49.74 49.11 41. 51 44.49 44.61 45.25 47.30 52.72 52.72 52.26 53.93 50.44 45.17 44.75 Tota 1 Gulf 33.96 31.91 32.79 32.41 33.99 34.20 31. 78 31.83 29.23 31. 92 33.10 33.16 34.71 33.42 33.67 31.93 30.61 34.49 aData reported in net tons and converted to gross tons based on statistical procedure yielding conversion factor of 1.5249. Derived from: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: u.s. Government Printing Office. Annual issues, 1957 1974. • Appendix Table 33. Commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by gear type and state, 1972-1974 average Gear Type Amberjack Grouper Grunts Thousand Pounds Florida Haul seines, common Purse seines and 1ampa ra nets Otter trawls, shrimp Pots &traps, spiny lobster Pots &traps, fish Gill nets, runaround Trammel nets Hand lines Troll 1i nes Albama Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines Mississippi Otter trawls, shrimp Otter trawls, fish Pots & traps, spiny lobster Hand lines Louisiana Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines Texas Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines 0.1 3.2 43.5 1.7 5,890.3 10.6 174.6 3.7 190.2 5.0 0.1 17.0 77.3 4.4 79.6 41. 9 0.3 131.7 Appendix Table 33. Commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by gear type and state, 1972-1974 average, (contd.) Gear Type Sea bass Jewfish Scup(Porgies) Mangrove snapper (Gray snapper) ~~Thousand Pounds Florida Haul seines, common Purse seines and lampara nets Otter trawls, shrimp Pots &traps, spiny lobster Pots &traps, fish Gill nets, runaround Trammel nets Hand lines Troll lines Alabama Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines Mississippi Otter trawls, shrimp Otter trawls, fish Pots &traps spiny lobster Hand lines Louisiana Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines Texas Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines 68.8 14.8 . A-44· 2.9 3.7 151.0 517 50.5 1.8 O. 1 O. 1 77.9 13.0 118.7 31. 6 394.6 Appendix Table 33. Commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by gear type and state, 1972-1974 average, (contd.) Gear Type Lane Snapper Red Snapper Total Caught State Total Percent Reef Fi sh Caught By Gear Type Thousand Pounds Florida Haul seines, common Otter trawls, shrimp Pots &traps, spiny lobster Pots & traps --;. fi sh Gill nets, runaround Tramme1 nets Hand lines Alabama Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines Mississippi Otter trawls, shrimp Otter trawls, fish Pots &traps, spiny lobster Hand lines Louisiana Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines Texas. Otter trawls, shrimp Hand lines 1.6 17.9 21.1 4,000.4 282.4 684.9 17.4 3.4 0.1 2,144.7 161 .8 138.0 146.1 774.7 20.4 26.5 1.7 148.4 163.8 31.9a12,211.1 298.7 910.0 21. 1 3.4 0.1 2,334.9 168.6 138.2 163.1 852.0 12,603.8 1,208.7 2,360.0 306.7 1,015.0 0.2 0.2 (b) 1.2 1.3 0.3 96.9 24.7 75.3 0.9 0.1 (b) 98.9 55.0 45.1 16.1 83.9 aThis total does not equal the sum of the individual figures because it also includes 1,488,999 pounds of mutton snapper, vermilion snapper, yellowtail snapper, tilefish, triggerfish, and warsaw grouper caught by hand1ines. (b) Less than .05 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual Issues, 1957-1974. A-45 ! . --~-- . -----------. ~~ \ ' lAPpendiX Iablej~J;,U.s.- commercial landings of Gulf of ~1exico red snappers by gear-type and state, 1957-1974 Year Florida'West Coast Hand Otter trawls, Otter trawls, Lines Shrimp Fish Long or Otter I Otter trawl s, Set Lines Trawls Shrimp Alabama Hand Otter Lines Trawls "- - - --- - -- -- - -- - -- -- - - --- -- -",;.-- - - -- -- - - Thou sa nd Pounds --- - -- -'- :.. -- --- - - - - --'- --- - - - - - - --'- -- - - -' )::> 'I f;:. :J) 1957 5,586.9 1958 5,844.3 1959 5,399.8 1960 5,447.0 1961 5,445.6 1962 5,375.0 1963 5,916.3 1964 6,455.5 1965 6,071.6 1966 5,185.1 1967 5,047.3 1968 4,306.3 1969 4,278.8 1970 3,864.2 1971 3,877 .5 1972 3,691.3 1973 3,698.3 1974 4,611.5 5.0 6.0 1.6 0.3 63.3 916.8 16.1 1,365.3 52.6 1,791.2 27.9 1,683.0 37.1 0.. 3 1,761.2 23.0 1,857.4 36.0 :11.5 2,303.0 11.9 76.7 18.7 2,374.2 60.8 2,434.3 109.2 2,592.1 161.0 2,127 .4 313.2 900.6 214.0 1,031.9 228.6 754.6 181.6 757.6 223.7 826.9 309.1 651.3 314.5 576.4 Continued I,-/(jjpendi x Table 34. Jeornl."erc ia11andi ngs of Gu 1f of ~1ex i co red snappers by gear-type and state, 1957-1 974, (contd.) r·1 iss iss iPpi Louisiana Otter Trawls, Otter Trawls, Hand Pots &Traps, Otter I Otter Trawls, Hand .Otter Trawls, Otter Year Fish Shrimp Lines Spiny Lobster Trawls Shrimp Lines Fish Trawls ~-------~--------------~---~~---------------Thousand Pounds-~-~-----------~-----------~ 1957 . 544.5 5. 1 12.8 15.4 1958 1,066.0 43.9 26.9 60.9 1959 1,017.0 4.7 251 .2 61.8 1960 1,467.0 1.5 372.7 53.3 1961 2,149.0 2.7 427.0 250.2 1962 2,175.8 o. 1 522.7 171 .2 ;t:> 1963 1,881.8 4.0 309.1 78.8.I ~ 1964 0.2 10. 1 1,838.9 63.9 246.0"-.J 1965 2.2 12.4 2,350.9 . 93.0 149.8 1966 0.7 7.0 2,767.2 119.3 88.4 1967 20.3 2,870.0 f 183.2 118.6 1968 2.5 71.8 3,651.4 133.2 143.7 1969 5.0 25.2 2,937.7 69.6 60.0 1970 5.9 28.5 2,484.6 226.1 28.7 1971 6.1 11.6 2,381.3 133.7 23.9 4.0 1972 2.6 14. 1 '2,249.1 196.6 62.4 1973 2.9 19.9 2,308.2 0.2 . 176. 1 117.8 1974 4.6 18.3 1,876.9 12.6 173.8 Continued r Appendix Table ~!c ~ommercial landings of Gulf of r·lexico red snappers by gear-type and state; 1957-1974,(continued) t ~ .""V .. Texas Year Otter Trawls, Shrimp Hand Lines Otter Trawls Thousand Pounds 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 )::> 1962 , I 1963 ~ 00 . 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Source: 1,404.3 38.7 .. 1,341. 9 57.1 1,630.5 34.6 1, 140.7 11.9 1,799.1 29.8 1,708.6 33.7 2,115.5 53.2 116.3 2,133.5 84.1 2,127.7· 86.7 1,566.4 111.3 1,297.3 81. 5 1,046.0 148.0 776.7 139.7 776.7 157.1 925.3 197.6 1,040.4 126.2 655.2 114.4 628.5 u.s. National Marine Fisheri~s Serv1ce, Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual rssue5;T957-1974. Appendix Table 35: Commercial landings of Gulf of ~1exico groupers by gear type and state, 1957-1974 Alabama Mississippi Year ~ Otter Pots &Traps OtterOtter Trawls, Hand Trammel Otter Trawls, Hand Spiny Trawls, Otter Shrimp Lines Nets Trawls Shrimp Lines lobster Fish Trawls Thousand Pounds 1957 109.0 2.3 19.0 1958 169.2 2.8 34.0 1959 229.1 2.3 73.5 1960 235.1 0.8 114.0 1961 220.1 1.2 135.4 )::0 1962 233.5 3.9 246.1I ~ 1963 294.5 1.0 271.40.0 1964 0.6 303.9 1.2 267.2 1965 1.7 386.8 0.6 321.1 1966 3.5 379.2 0.1 235.3 1967 10.6 307.6 5.4 182.6 1968 15.1 290.9 4:8 324.0 1969 10.6 238.2 2.8 263.7 1970 10.8 254.7 1.2 264.4 1971 6.9 172.9 1.4 226.6 1972 7.0 221.8 6.4 225.0 1.1 1973 13.8 183.9 4.0 215.0 0.4 1974 11.0 118.0 0.6 130.4 1.4 2.0 1.2 0.4 0.2 (continued) '~')t'" Appendix Table 35. Commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico groupers by gear type and state, 1957-1974 (continued) Appendix Table 35. Commercial landings of Gulf of Mexico grouper by gear type and state, 1957-1974 (continued) Florida West Coast Year Otter Trawl s, Shrimp Pots &Traps, Spiny Lobster Hand Lines Otter Trawls, Fish Pots & Traps Long or Haul Set Lines Seines 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 :t:> I U'1 1962I--' 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Source: ' ,. --,': ,-.... ""'" Thousand Pounds 6,482.6 4,154.8 5,750.3 5,922.5 0.2 6,370.5 6,976!7 6,552.3 2.0 24.4 10.0 7,634.5 17.7 10.5 8,206.4 2.1 12.0 7,154.9 29.0 13.0 6,364.6 6.2 40.0 6,130.3 4.0 30.9 7,036.6 49.0 6,852.5 47.3 6,308.9 5.1 6,473.7 5,086.4 6,110.8 U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual Issues, 1957-1974. Appendix Table 36. Commercial catch and effort of Cuban grouper fishermen on the west coast of Florida, 1940-1976. Catch Launch Catch per Year metric thousand days 1aunch day fi shed tons pounds fished ki 1ograms pounds 1940 1,508 3,325 5,010 301 664 1941 1,537 3,388 4,892 314 692 1942 1,914 4,220 5,842 328 723 1943 1,742 3,840 5,423 321 708 1944 2,592 5,714 7,062 367 809 1945 2,914 6,424 7,866 376 829 1946 3,701 8,159 8,897 416 917 1947 4,326 9,537 10,859 398 877 1948 4,740 10,450 11,599 409 902 1949 4,658 12,474 11,797 395 871 1950 4,713 10 ,390 11 ,438 412 908 1951 5,033 11,096 11,927 422 930 1952 4,477 9,870 11 ,892 411 906 1953 4,968 10,952 14,263 348 767 1954 5,722 12,615 15,029 381 840 1955 6,050 13,338 19,182 315 694 1956 4,880 10,758 12,140 403 886 1957 5,301 11,687 12,867 412 908 1958 4,939 10 ,889 15,748 313 690 1959 3,468 7,646 13,983 248 547 1960 2,708 5,970 13,021 208 459 1961 1,453 3,203 7,940 183 403 1962 930 2,050 4,604 202 445 1963 994 2,191 5,231 190 419 1964 417 919 2,452 170 375 1965 869 1,916 5,715 152 335 1966 1,188 2,619 9,337 127 280 1967 1,542 3,399 8,602 179 395 1968a 1,514 3,338 9,462 160 353 1969 1,458 3,214 9,467 154 340 1970 2,581 5,690 14,478 178 392 1971 1,482 3,267 11 ,202 132 291 1972b 2,224 4,903 12,708 175 386 1973 2,004 4,418 11 ,206 179 394 1974 1,905 4,200 14,767 129 284 1975 2,207 4,866 18,090 188 269 1976 2,505 5,533 19,269 130 287 a Best data from 1968 - present standard lambda vessels comprise whole fl eet. b Greater efficiency - fishing flotillas, better electronics gear, etc. 1972 to present. Source: Klima, Edward. Commercial catch and effort of Cuban grouper fishermen on the west coast of Florida (this information presented to Dr. Klima by Cuban officials during May 1977). U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, SEFC, May 1977. A-52 AppeDdix Table, 37 .~ Comp~ri~ o n of data on Cuban commercial fish catches in Flor';r!", ~...:. --:;c-"'~. ~----,-- - --Fhes in Florida for 1971-1975. ---·---------~------'-~~...:......:..-=-;I Year Grouper and snapper catch from Tashi ro .. and Coleman,(1977~ Catch of Cuban a grouper fishermen I ~-------------------Thousand pounds-- ----- 1971 3,960 3,267 1972 3,780 4,903 1973 4,960 4,418 1974 3,520 4,200 i 1975 4,880 4,866 fI ' aFrom Appendix -lable!39. 1:" --- .-- -- " A-53 ,/ ,/ Appendix Table 38. Year Recorded commercial imports of snapper into Gulf states, 1952-19721 Product form Snapper Snapperfilets Red snapper Red snapper Other2 filets Thousand Pounds 1952 713.6 1953 759.5 1954 768.8 1955 724.7 1956 730.9 0.6 1957 589.6 24.4 1958 587.6 12.8 1959 202.0 314.9 12.9 1960 243.8 230.7 1961 376.4 513.4 1962 60.4 563.8 80.5 1963 25.9 576.1 168.5 25.2 1964 73.8 1,063.7 93.7 3.6 1965 142.5 719.7 360.8 9.9 1966 163.1 566.2 484.0 25.2 1967 94.0 566.2 272.2 19.3 1968 435.1 185.7 1969 2.0 392.4 339. 1 0.7 1970 20.6 358.4 363.9 1971 5.3 142.0 183.4 1.2 : 1972 141. 1 12.2 208.7 299.3 71.0 lPorts included and recording imports were: Port Isabel-Brownsville, New Orleans, Morgan City, Miami, Houston (started collecting data in 1963) and Tampa (started collecting data in 1967). Ports included but recording no imports were: Mobile, Freeport, Port Arthur~Orange. 2 Includes red snapper steaks, throats and flanks, and dressed. Source: u.S. National r~arine Fisheries Service. "Production of Fishery Products in Selected Areas of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas." Market News Annual Summary, Gulf Fisheries. New Orleans: 1972. A-54 Appendix Table 39. Commercial Imports of snapper, snapper filets, and other snapper products into Gulf of Mexico ports, 1973-1977. Years Snapper Fil ets Othera (Thousands of Pounds) 1973 1,095.9 1,649.8 124.2 1974 1,700.2 1,384.1 70.7 1975 2,283.2 1,531.3 58.3 1976 1,844.0 2,025.5 50.8 1977 2,699.3 997.4 15.9 aIncludes steaks, heads, throats, tails, flanks, slabs, portions, and dressed. Source: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Unpublished data about imports of snapper and grouper and associated products into Gulf of Mexico ports, 1973-1977. New Orleans: March 1978. A-55 Appendix Table 4U. Recorded fommercial imports of grouper into Gulf Coast states, 1952-1972 . Product form 2Year Grouper Grouper filets Steaks Thousand pounds 1953 1955 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 4.0 1.7 237.0 62.3 173.9 33.9 644.0 24.0 1,082.9 70.6 1,812.1 143.8 1,989.7 54.8 2,535.0 60.4 264.0 302.9 20.6 453.3 54.1 305.9 230.9 17.7 3,026.3 221.4 2,378.5 191.3 1,425.4 184.5 1,684.3 248.8 1,844.7 539.0 2,166.3 32.2 199.0 292.7 182.9 207.3 7.1 25.2 0.1 0.5 1.5 27.8 17.6 106.7 97.2 26.9 42.7 500. 6 1,882.4 638.5 1Ports included and recording imports were: Port Isabel~Brownsville, New Orleans, Morgan City, Miami, Tampa (started collecting data in 1967). Ports included but recording no imports were: Mobile, Houston, Freeport, and Port Arthur-Orange. 2No imports recorded for 1952, 1954, 1956-1958. 3Includes grouper chunks, chips, throats, fingers, heads, and breasts, dressed, and portions. Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. IIProduction of Fishery Products in Selected Areas of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas. 1I ~1arket News Annual Summary, Gulf Fisheries. New Orleans: 1972. A-56 Appendix Table[41~ Recorded commercial imports of grouper and snapper into Gulf of iMexico ports, 1977 '. \ i Exporting Country Snapper Grouper Pounds Bahamas Belize Bermuda Brazil BWI Canada Co 1umb,IDa Costa Rica Ecuador French Guiana Guatemala Honduras Hexico Nicaragua Panama Peru South Africa Taiwan Tlwilnnd Venezuela Total 5,400 32,200 10,000 800 400 49,700 100,400 66,400 117,200 79,700 39,300 1,717,000 1,196,100 32,800 4,000 97,500 5,200 116,300 3,670,500 47,500 2,500 7,900 17,300 103,700 24,600 900 10,100 3, Of)!l, I~OO 36,850 10,900 3,356,650 Source: u. ~. National Marine. Fisheries~Service •. Unpublished Ofsj1c.f!ppersand grouper and. asspciated products into p·orts, 1973-1977 . New Orleans :1 Harch 1971L· A-57 , data about imports Gulf of Mexico Appendix Table gZ. Average crew size for commercial vessels in the Gulf of Mexico handline fishery. Weighted Total Gulf Year Florida Alabama Mississippi LOJisiana Texas Average 1957 4.43 7.82 5.80 7.no 3.38 4.09 1958 . 5.14 7.82 5.43 6.20 4.02 4.87 1959 3.79 7.92 5.88 6.33 3.16 3.79 1960 5.03 7.92 7.27 5.08 3.64 4.72 1961 4.78 9. 15 7.83 4.33 3.46 4.50 1962 4.55 9.13 8.92 5.56 3.65 4.60 1963 4.35 9.14 9.00 5.73 4.58 4.86 1964 4.10 8.77 9.00 5.09 5.33 4.74 1965 3.96 9.20 9.79 4.52 5.21 4.24 1966 4.16 9.95 9.59 4.54 6.16 5.07 1967 4.06 9.53 10.00 '. 3.00 5.42 4.&8 ):> 1968 3.96 9.00 9.57 3.00 4.76 4.5uI U"I 1969 4. 03 9.00 9.50 3.00 4.61 4.62 00 1970 3.62 7.09 9.21 3.67 4.26 4.12 1971 3.70 7.09 9.20 3.57 5.30 4.25 1972 3.39 7.17 9.14 3.55 5.16 4.02 1973 3.37 7.00 9. 16 3.46 5.20 3.91 1974 3.44 7.27 9.06 3.62 5.03 3.92 Derived from: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of COIl'1mercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States,Washinyton: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues. \~ (,~, 'c: Appendix Table 43. Trend equations for average crew size in the Gulf of Mexico commercial handline fishery. ,.," .'~ Appendix Table 44. Processed commercial snapper products in the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1974a Florida, West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Year . Pounds Dollars>" . Pounds Doll ars Pounds Doll ars Pounds Doll ars Pounds Doll ars '11957 53,322 44,253 16,300 10,590 1958 565,350 949,377 (b) (b) 1959 55,575 38,361 (b) (b) 196O 37,003 27,425 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1961 23,763 20,123 (b) (b) 1962 56,808 43,123 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 1963 150,006 130,515 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 1964 230,581 47,316 (b) (b) 1965 198,097 172 ,082 (b) (b) :t:o 1966 130,475 127,300 46,600 39,960 I m 0 1967 137,882 158,570 41 ,200 33,446 1968 90,029 91,052 (b) (b) 1969 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 1970 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1971 117,104 208,555 (b) (b) 1972 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1973 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1974 107,077 181,165 aprocessed snapper products consist of fresh and frozen filets, frozen stuffed specialities, steaks, etc. (b) Included in a category labeled unclassified. Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues . Appendix Table 45. Processed commercial grouper products in the Gulf of Mexico by state, 1957-1974a Florida, West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Year Pounds Doll ars Pounds Dollars Pounds Doll ars Pounds Doll ars Pounds Doll ars 1957 263,326 106,119 55,000 26,000 1958 412,846 182,263 (b) (b) 1959 283,714 117,947 1960 246,346 104,146 (b) (b) 1961 195,703 85,360 (b) (b) 1962 305,101 128,842 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1963 573,728 236,727 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1964 1,007,620 448,229 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1965 1,197,436 499,225 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1966 401 ,985 206,200 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1967 347,803 196,043 (b) (b) (b) (b) 1968 179,787 117,845 (b) (b) (b) (b) ):::> 1969 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)I m 1970 (b) (b) (b) (b)I--' 1971 356,042 277,909 (b) (b) 1972 472,362 550,902 (b) (b) 1973c 1,769,719· 1,155,074 1974 375,306 325,337 I aprocessed grouper products consist of fresh and frozen filets raw &breaded and steaks. (·b) Included in a category labeled unclassified, cSource data incorrect for 1973 lising processed grouper as floynder. Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues. Appendix Table 46. Gulf of Mexico processing and wholesaling plants and employment, 1970-1975. Processing Wholesaling Employees Employees Year Employees Plants per Employees Plants per Plant Plant 1970 11 ,527 434 26.6 1,900 383 5.0 1971 11 ,488 428 26.7 1,968 333 5.9 1972 11,477 417 27.5 1,840 379 4.9 1973 11 ,405 407 28.0 1,771 378 4.7 1974 9,316 360 25.9 1,785 382 4.7 1975 9,058 350 25.9 1,976 373 5.3 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues. A-62 Appendix Table 47. Gulf of Mexico total number of processing and whol e saling plants and employment, 1957-1975 , Year Employees Plants Employees per plant , 1957 8,898 749 11.88 1958 9,795 727 13.47 1959 10,373 737 14.08 1960 11,259 743 15.15 1961 10,438 768 13.59 1962 10,082 820 12.30 1963 10,446 809 1 ? . ql. 1964 11,804 780 Ij.U 1965 12,645 847 14.93 1966 12,822 839 15.28 1967 12,665 835 15.17 1968 12,767 831 15.~)6 1969 12,721 825 15.42 1970 13,427 817 16.43 1971 13,456 761 17.68 1972 13,317 796 16.73 1973 13,176 785 16.78 1974 11,101 742 14.96 1975 11,034 723 15.26 Sources: 1) U.S .. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual issues. 2) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (fgrmerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Annual issues. A-63 Appendix Table 48. Wholesale dealers and processors of Gulf of Mexico reef fish by state, 1976 State Number of Plants Employment Florida 35 221 \ Alabama 1 11 Mississippi 1 16 Louisiana 0 0 Texas 2 26 Total 39 274 Source: Snell, James Ernest; Unplublished data about wholesale dealers and processors of Gulf of Mexico reef fish. NMFS, Miami: April 1978. A-64 Appendix Table .49. Estimated catch and effort in the recreational fisheries for reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico 1960 Number caught by fishing method Number caught by fishing area Speci es group Number of fish Pounds Number of Boat of fish fishermen fishing Shore fishing Ocean Sounds, Rivers, and Bays '.'''''' Thousands Groupers 9,346 74,770 238 8,747 599 )::0 Grunts 1,877 1,310 106 1,588 289I ~ <..T1 Jacks 4,324 24,200 183 1,764 2,560 Porgies 8,550 12,770 317 6,185 2,365 Snappers 3,414 9,560 183 3,152 262 Snapper, red a a a a a Snapper, yellowtail 20b 30 3 - 20 Total 27,531 122,640 c 21,436 6,095 Appendix Table 49. Estimated catch and effort in the recreational fisheries for reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico (continued) 1965 Number caught by fishing method Number caught by fishing area Spec; es group Number of fish Pounds Number of of fish fishermen Boat fishing Shore Ocean fishing .Sounds, Rivers, and Bays Thousands Groupers 2,153 15,913 222 1,918 235 1,300 853 ):::> Grunts 2,440 1,502 110 400 2,040 665 1,775 I 0". Jacks0". 314 724 29 256 58 45 269 Porgies 9,360 9,t97 550 5,822 3,538 2,055 7,305 Snappers 5,675 25,166 156 5,594 81 3,761 1,914 Snapper, red 4,434 18,288 205 4,411 23 4,184 250 Snapper, yellowtail 135 135 34 65 70 55 80 Total 24,511 70,925 c 18,4·66 6,045 12,065 12,446 Appendix Table 49. Estimated catch and effort in the recreational fisheries for reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico (continued) 1970 Number caught by fishing method Number caught by fishing area Speci es group Number of fish Pounds Number of of fish fishermen Boat fishing Shore Ocean fishing Sounds, Rivers, and Bays '~-, \ Thousands Groupers 3,576 16,856 301 3,043 533 2,682 894 Grunts 20,645 11 ,430 203 16,425 4,220 13,934 6,711 Jacks 1,291 4,592 183 470 821 871 420 ::t:> Porgies 15,202 26,995 706 7,977 7,225 1,375 13,827 I Q) Sea bass 1,260 1,786 28 1,260 1,260........ - Snappers 1,341 2,644 71 938 403 1,058 283 Snapper, red 3,676 11,638 315 3,463 213 2,365 1,311 Snapper, yellowtail 581 814 51 347 234 294 287 Total 47,572 76,755 c 32,691 13,649 22,579 22,473 Note: East and West Gulf are combined in this table because they were not separated in the 1960 a saltwater angling survey. Not listed separately in the 1960 survey. Probably included under I/snappersl/. bYe110wtail snapper in the amount of 3,251,000 fish were listed separately as !'yellowtaill/ by inter viewees who did not realize this species should have been included in the I/snappers'l group. It is cbelieved that this represents only part of the catch. dThe number of anglers is not additive because of duplication of anglers among species groups. May also include jack crevalle. Sources: (1) Clark, J.R. The 1960 Salt-Water Angling SurveY, U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife. . ' (2) Duel, D.G. 1970 Salt-Water Angling Survey. U.S. Departme.nt of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington: U.S; GOlernment.Prj·hting Office, April, 1973. (3) Duel D.G. and·J.R. Clark. The 1965 Salt-Water Angling Survey. U. S. Department of Interi or, Fish Wil dl i fe Servi ceo Wash i ngton; U. S • GOVer.nment Printi 69 .'Offi ce,~ 1968. Appendix Table 50. Estimated number of finfish caught by marine recreational fishermen by species group and state of catch, Gulf region, 1975 Species Florida West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas (Number of fish) Groupers 2,364 (1) (1) (1 ) (1 ) Grunts 2,663 (1 ) (1 ) (1) (1) Jacks 1,408 52 (1 ) 83 73 Porgies 1,824 100 (1) (1 ) (1) Red Snapper 2,122 154 (1) 848 206 Sea bass (1) (1) (1) Snappers 2,637 (1) (1) (1) (1) Triggerfish (1) (1) (1 ) (1 ) (1) Represents a species group reported caught on less than 10 questionnaires ina state. Note: Severe methodological problems caused the standard error of estimates to exceed normal reporting limits. The data above should be used with caution. Source: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Unpublished data based on Southeastern Regional Survey of Saltwater Fishermen, 1974-75. A-68 / / Appendix Table 51. Estimated weight of finfish caught by marine recreational fishermen by species group and state of catch, Gulf region, 1975 Species Florida West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas (Thousands of pounds) Groupers 17,435 (1) (1) (1 ) (l) Grunts 1,994 (1 ) (1) (1 ) (l) Jacks2 3,704 272 (1) 1,774 1,029 Porgies 587 47 (1) (1 ) (l) Red Snapper 4,048 343 (1 ) 3,129 477 Sea bass (l) (1) (1 ) Snappers 4,666 (1 ) (1) (l) (1 ) Triggerfish (1) (1 ) (1 ) (l) (1) Represents a species group reported caught on less than 10 questionnaires ina state. (2) May include jack crevalle. Note: Severe methodological problems caused the standard error of estimates to exceed normal reporting limits. The data above should be used with caution. Source: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Unpublished data based on Southeastern Regional Survey of Saltwater Fishermen, 1974-75. A-69 Appendix Table 52. Economic information about marine recreational reef fishing in the east Gulf of Mexico, 1975a 59 17 141 22 219 149 104 45 8 422 461 194 96 62 363 110 304 155 98 76 143 3,248 22 28 141 28 129 360 177 264 25 17 571 6 14 93 647 222 11 25 152 37 155 126 3,250 885 264 891 337 205 2,583 1,366 1,923 219 124 5,675 79 132 430 3,067 1,074 160 247 871 430 1,020 866 22,848 905 422 2,032 337 2,935 5,341 2,890 3,964 700 613 1,226 4,804 2,122 613 261 8,405 1,181 975 1,386 1,138 2,479 1,442 46,171 1,993 2,718 3,219 3,612 7,677 6,623 12,172 18,212 4,290 6,392 7,531 13,330 4,053 1,313 1,577 21,015 6,828 10,162 11,961 4,902 12,453 7,210 119,262 Sales ($1,000) Fishing Tackle Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Boats Manufacturing Retail trade Motors Manufacturing Retail trade Trailers Manufacturing Retail trade Marinas Commercial Sport fishing vessels Fuel Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Food Lodging Travel Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Boat Insurance Bait Other Total .------IT:~ :: .... ------- . - , - ; ; ..... Wages & Annua1 capital Value-added Salaries Employment expenditures ($1,000) ($1,000) (person-years) ($1,000) a Includes Gulf Coast from the Florida Keys to and including the Mississippi River de lta. Note: The East Gulf reef fish recreational fishery was disaggregated into the following species: barracudas, groupers, grunts, jacks, porgies, snappers, red snapper, and yellowtail snapper. Derived from: Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Economic Activity Associated With Marine Recreational Fishing. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977. A-70 Appendix Table 53. Economic information about marine recreational reef fishing in the west Gulf of Mexico, 1975a Wages & Value-added Salaries ($1,000) ($1,000) Fishing Tackle Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Boats Manufacturing Retail trade Motors Manufacturing Retail trade Trailers Manufacturing Retail trade Marinas Commercial Sport fishing vessels Fuel Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Food Lodging Travel Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Boat Insurance Bait Other Total Sales ($1,000) 830 932 1,979 2,489 3,725 408 556 269 322 4,298 906 876 1,308 1,540 3,440 1,046 1,760 2,.620 3,085 999 3,213 1,859 26,968 524 87 757 1,093 591 186 86 125 54 1,719 542 144 125 251 1,239 548 305 252 358 232 639 372 10 ,229 229 69 230 528 279 69 42 44 25 1,160 263 16 27 87 791 277 41 64 225 87 263 224 5,040 Employment (person-years) 36 7 33 74 37 5 5 5 4 117 37 1 2 18 167 58 2 6 39 7 39 33 732 Annual capital expenditures ($1,000) 37 6 57 31 21 12 4 9 1 86 63 39 20 12 93 28 79 39 25 20 37 719 a Includes Gulf Coast from the Mississippi River delta to the Mexican border. Note: The west Gulf reef fish recreational fishery was disaggregated into the following species: barracudas, groupers, grunts, jacks, porgies, snappers, red snapper, and yellowtail snapper. Derived from: Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Economic Activity Associated With Marine Recreational Fishing. Washington: u.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977. A-71 Appendix Table 54. Annual participation, private and commercial recrea tional boats, 1973 Private recreational boats Commercial sportfi shi ng boats Total number of boats fishing in salt watera Number of boats fishing in open oceana Number of fishing trips in open oceana Number of fishing days in open oceana Percentage of trips seeking: b Number of trips seeking: b Number of days seeking: d Groupers Jacks Grunts Porgies Snappers Snapper, red Snapper, yellowtail Groupers Jacks Grunts Porgies Snappers Snapper, red Snapper, yellowtail Groupers Jacks Grunts Porgies Snappers Snapper, red Snapper, yellowtail 348,595 185,327 2,592,956 2,839,222 14. 1 2.7 0.8 14.0 365,607 70,010 20,744 363,014 400,330 76,659 22,714 397,491 437 437 59,066 60,521 36.4c 53.8c 15. 1 21 :44~ ~ 3,662 c21,500c21,778 8,919 c21,969c3,752 c22,030c32,560 9,139 aTotal for all species sought. bFor open ocean only. Does not include data for sounds, rivers, and bays. cThis species was named as being sought after by one or more respondents who refused to disclose the related number of fishing trips. As a result, the percentage (when compiled from the remaining respondent sample) associated with a particular species should be treated as a minimum estimate. dBased on percentage of trips. !May include jack creva11e. Taken and Estimated From: Bromberg, K.M. Determination of the number of com ~ercial and non-commercial recreational boats in the United States, their use, and selected characteristics. Final Report, NMFS Contract No. 3-35490 to Information Concepts, incorporated. Distributed by NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1973. A-72 Appendix Table 55. Estimated catch and effort in reef fish recreational fishing in the Gulf of Mexico Species Number Pounds Average Number of Number of fish Pounds per of fish of fish size fishermen per fisherman fishermen 1,000 -------- Pounds --- 1,000 Sea bass 1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 1965 0 0 0 0 0 0 1970 1,260 1,786 1.42 28 45.00 63.79 Groupers 1960 9,346 74,770 .80 238 39.27 214.16 1965 2,153 15,913 7.39 222 9.70 71.68 1970 3,576 16,856 4.71 301 11.88 56.00 Grunts :t:> 1960 1,877 1,310 .70 106 17.71 12.36 I ....J 1965 2,440 1,502 .62 110 22.18 13.65 w 1970 20,645 11 ,430 .55 203 101.70 56.31 Jacksd 1960 4,324 24,200 5.60 183 23.63 132.24 1965 314 724 2.31 29 10.83 24.97 1970 1,291 4,592 3.56 183 7.05 25.09 Porgies 1960 8,550 12,770 1.45 317 26.97 40.28 1965 9,360 9,197 .98 550 17 .02 16.72 1970 15,202 26,995 1. 78 706 21.53 38.24 Snappers 1960 2,414 9,560 2.00 183 18.66 52.24 1965 5,675 25,166 4.43 156 36.38 161. 32 1970 1,341 2,644 1.97 71 18.89 37.24 "oJ Appendix Table 55. Estimated catch and effort in reef fish recreational fishing in the Gulf of Mexico (cont.) Species Number Pounds Average Number of Number of fish Pounds per of fish of fish size fishermen per fisherman fishermen 1,000 -------- Pounds --- 1,000 Red Snapper 1960 a a - a 1965 4,434 18,288 4.12 205 21.63 89.21 1970 3,676 11 ,638 3.09 315 11.67 36.95 Yell owtail snapper 20b1960 30 1.50 3 6.67 10.00 1965 135 135 1.00 34 3.97 3.97 1970 581 814 1.40 51 11.39 15.96 ;r::. Total reef I '-J fish .j::> 1960 27,557 122,900 4.46 c 1965 24,626 71,562 2.91 c 1970 46,316 75,081 1.62 c Note: East and West Gulf are combined in this table because they were not separated in the 1960 saltwater angling survey. a Not listed separately in the 1960 survey. Probably included under IIsnappersll. b Yellowtail snapper in the amount of 3,251,000 fish were listed separately as lIyellowtailll by interviewees who did not realize this species should have been included in the IIsnappersll group. It is believed that this represents only part of the catch. c The number of anglers is not additive because of duplication of anglers among species groups. d May include jack crevalle. Sources: (1) Clark, J.R., The 1960 Salt-Water Angling Survey. u.s. Department of Interior, Fish Wildlife. (2) Deuel, D.G., 1970 Salt-Water Angling Survey. u.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1973. (3) D~uel,.D.G •. and J.~. Clark •.The 1976 Salt-Water Angling survetJ. u.S. De12artment of Interior, F1Sh Wlldllfe Servlce. Washlngton: U.S. Government Prlntlng ffice, 1968. c OJ 17 16 E 15 OJ ...c Vl ..... 4 S OJ 0. ...c Vl ..... 4 4 o Vl ""0 C ::::::; o 0. ""0 C res Vl ::::::; o ...c I 14 13 12 11 10 9 ~'-'!--'~r-'I-'I~i~l~l-rI-I~I~I~I~I~1 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 6768 69 70 71 72 73 74 Years Figure 14. Quantity of Gulf of ~1exico reef fish landed : per commercial handline fisherman, 1957-1974. Source: Derived from National Marine Fisheries Service data. A-10l ! . / i ; Appendix Table 56. Quantity of reef fish landed per commercial handl ine vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1974a j~ Florida Total Year West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Gul f (Thousands of pounds) 1957 122.7 95.5 113.8 14.0 11.6 64.3 1958 93.3 145.2 163.6 100.6 16.4 68.5 1959 41.3 172.3 137.1 28.8 11.4 36.1 1960 70.8 163.3 121.9 36.4 10.4 52.0 1961 60.4 156.2 190.6 23.4 12.7 47.4 1962 61.1 143.1 201.8 20.9 12.7 48.0 1963 50.4 120.5 165.9 14.1 19.9 46.8 1964 47.9 128.0 151.2 14.3 26.6 48.9 1965 43.4 150.9 192.0 11.4 28.0 47.6 1966 50.9 144.7 177 .1 17.5 27.3 56.7 1967 50.5 141.2 153.9 51.0 22.6 55.7 1968 52.0 136.3 193.1 56.8 24.6 59.6 1969 57.6 128.8 161. 7 27.6 21. 7 61.1 1970 52.4 120.1 146.6 44.3 42.4 59.5 1971 46.2 105.5 131.4 23.9 40.7 52.0 1972 42.0 113.3 119.0 24.0 29.7 46.3 1973 34.8 110.6 134.2 28.3 21.5 39.8 1974 38.2 95.4 112.8 22.2 20.7 40.7 a The above data were derived from a table listing number of vessels by gear type. These numbers represent the number of vessels using handlines. Most reef fish are landed by handline vessels. However, a relatively small q~an­ tity of other species are also landed by handline vessels. The ratio of reef fish to other species landed by handline vessels may differ among states in some years. This does not include sea bass since they are predominantly caught by traps. Estimated from: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual ·Issues. A~75 Appendix Table 57. Quantity of reef fish landed per commercial handline fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico, 1957-1974a Year Florida West Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf (Thousands of pounds) 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 27.7 18.1 10.9 14.1 12.6 13.4 11.6 11. 7 12.3 12.2 12.5' 13.1 14.3 14.5 12.5 12.4 10.3 11.1 12.2 18.6 21.8 20.6 17.1 15.7 13.2 14.6 16.4 14.5 14.8 15.1 14.3 16.9 14.9 15.8 15.8 13.1 19.6 30.1 23.3· 19.8 24.3 22.6 18.4 16.8 19.6 18.5 15.2 20.2 17.0 15.9 14.3 13.0 14.7 12.5 2.0 16.2 4.5 7.2 5.4 3.8 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.8 17.0 18.9 9.2 12.1 6.7 6.8 8.2 6.1 3.4 4.1 3.6 2.9 3.7 3.5 4.4 5.0 5.4 4.4 4.2 5.2 4.7 9.9 7.7 5.8 4.1 4.1 15.7 14.1 9.5 11.0 10.6 10.4 9.6 10.3 11.2 11. 2 11.4 13.0 13.2 14.4 12.2 11. 5 10.2 10.4 a The above data were derived from a table listing number of vessels by gear type. These numbers represent the number of vessels using handlines. Most reef fish are landed by handline vessels. However, a relatively small quan tity of other species are also landed by handline vessels. The ratio of reef fish to other species landed by handline vessels may differ among states in some years. This does not include sea bass since they are predominantly caught by traps. Estimated from: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). Fishery Statistics of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Annual Issues. A-76 Appendix Table 58. Summary of ages of Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishermen by state from various sources ):::0 I ...,J ...,J Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Alabama N/A N/A 18-over 65 range 46.2 mean crew, 18-30 range recreational N/A Florida Range 16-65 Mean 48 Majority between 41-60 years N/A lO-over 65 range 47.2 mean crew, 18-60 range 47.4 mean Louisiana N/A N/A N/A N/A Mississippi N/A N/A 45.0 mean crew, 18-60 range N/A Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A Sources: (1) Prochaska, F.J. and J.C. Cato, 1977. (2) Ditton, et al., 1977 (3) Information supplied by members of Industry Advisory Panel, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (4) Cato, J.C. and F.J. Prochaska, 1977. N/A: Information not available. Appendix Table 59. Summary of income of Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishermen by state from various sources Alabama Source 1 11,000 mean - owner 15,000 mean - owner captain 13,000 mean - captain Source 2 4,000 mean - crew Florida 10 , 000 owner 16,000 owner captain 15,000 captain 3,500 crew Louisiana N/A Mississippi 10,000 owner per boat 20,000 owner captain 15,000 captain 6,000 crew Texas N/A 33,000 mean - all Texas charter 21% with incomes over 50,000 ~ I .....J OJ Sources: (1) Information supplied by members of Industry Advisory Panel, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (2) Ditton, et al., 1977 N/A: Information not available. '-"~. )::> I ....J <.D Appendix Table 60. Summary of education levels of Gulf reef fish fishermen by state from various sources Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Source 1 N/A 1-18 years range N/A N/A N/A 11.3 mean Source 2 18-over 65 range 18-65 range N/A 12.0 mean N/A 12.1 mean 12.2 mean Crew, 1ess than high school, mostly temporary Source 3 N/A 12.2 mean N/A N/A N/A Sources: (1) Prochaska, F.J. and J.C. Cato, 1977. (2) Information supplied by members of Industry Advisory Panel, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (3) Cato, J.C., and F.J. Prochaska, 1977. N/A: Information not available. '. ~~ Appendix Table 61. Catch and catch per unit effort for sea bass in the Gulf of Mexico, 1967-1975. Appendix Table 62. Average landings and value of landings for Gulf of Mexico commercially caught reef fish by species from 1972-1976. Species Directed Catch a Red snapper Grouper and Scamp Yellowtai I snapper Gray snapper (mangrove) Mutton snapper Verm I I ion snapper Jewfish Warsaw Lane snapper Sea bass Incidental Catch b Fbunds (Thousands) 7,997 6,663 847 551 250 221 211 135 26 75 Percent 45.8 38.1 4.8 3.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 .8 .2 .4 Cb liars (Tho usands) 5,312 2,338 538 186 123 135 24 29 10 12 Percent 60.4 26.6 2.1 1.4 1.5 .3 .3 • 1 • 1 Grunt Porgy (scup) Triggerfish Amberjack Til ef i sh Total c 240 1.4 45 .6 93 .5 20 .2 66 .4 8 • 1 65 .4 6 • 1 25 .1 7 • 1 17,465 100.0 8,793 100.0 a Species in the management unit. b Incidental catch to the directed fishery. These are considered part of the fishery but not part of the management unit. c Totals may not add exactly to other tables due to rounding. A-81 Appendix Table 63. Price response equations for annual dockside red snapper prices in Florida, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and the United States, 1952-1971. 1 Independent VarIables 3 Equation Region Dependent Variable 2 Cbnstant °t Fla. P t It R 2 Durb In-Watson Statistic 2 Texas p Tex t 3 Alabama pAla. t :> pMiss.I(Xl 4 MississippiN t 5 United States pu.S. t Florida Fla. P t 0.4549 -0.05546 -- 0.00004 0.94 (4.16) (8.20) 0.1024 0.00724 0.54243 -- 0.94 (0.70) (14.44) 0.1605 0.01619 0.27158 -- 0.74 (2. 10) (6.97 ) 0.1493 0.00076 0.35962 -- 0.94 (0.25) (11.99) 0.2506 -0.01329 -- 0.00004 0.98 (8.95) (26.61) 1.27 1.70 1.86 2.04 1.79 Number of observations is 20 for all equations except Mississippi. There were no reported landings in 1952 In Mississippi. Number shown in parentheses Is the t statistic. 2 Dependent variable is annual dockside price of red snapper In dollars per pound in each region in year t. ,3 Independent variables are: 0t = Annual quantity of red snapper landed In each region in year t in mi II Ions of pounds. pF;a. = Annual dockside price of red snapper in dollars per pound in Florida In year t I = U.S. total personal income in billionsof dollars in year t t Source: eato and Prochaska (1976) Appendix Table 64. Price response equations for annual dockside grouper prices in Florida and the United States 1952-1971 1 Independent Variables 3 Equation Region Florida Dependent Variable 2 Fla. P t Chnstant 0.1032 Q t 0.01276 0.72) It 0.00002 (10.54) R 2 0.88 Durb In-Watson Statistic 1.52 2 United States U. S. P t 0.1035 -0.01012 (4.10) 0.00002 (11.32) 0.90 1.78 > I ex> Vl Number of observations is 20. Number shown in parentheses is the t statistic. 2 Dependent variable Is annual dockside grouper price in dol lars per pound in each region in year t. 3 Independent variables are: Q t = Annual quantity of grouper landed in each region in year t in millions of pounds. It = U.S. total personal income in billions of dollars in year t Source: Cato and Prochaska (1976) Appendix Table 65. Dockside and New York wholesale values of principal reef fish, 1976 Species Dockside Value (Gulf of Mexico) New York Market Va Iue •••••••••••••••• 1,000 dol lars ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Red Snapper Grouper Other 1 Total 5,894 3,230 1,458 10,582 12,253 5,692 4,718 22,663 Includes al I other species in the fishery. Source: Derived from Fishery Statistics of the U.S., and New York Market News Reports: National Marine Fisheries Service. A-84 Appendix Table 66. Percent effort on different species in the offshore charterboat fisheries by coastal area in Florida. PANHANDLE WEST COAST FLORIDA KEYS ~ Su Fa Wi ~ Su Fa Wi ~ Su Fa Wi n=19 -n=20 n=15 n= 7 n<=lO n=l1 n=lO n=lO-< n=18 n=15 n=15 n=19 BLUE WATER SPECIES billfish 2.0 6.0 5.6 15.5 9.5 39.3 41.8 dolphin 2.6 1.9 1.0 39.2 49.3 1.7 sharks 3. 1 2.7 4.7 4.0 tuna 4.2 6.8 6.7 2.4 wahoo -- -- -- -- -- 1.7 0.8Combined bluewater -- 8:4 -- 68.9 86.4 62.0 49.5 BOTTOM SPECIES grouper 31. 3 25.2 24.0 62.9 22.2 54.6 68.5 73.5 1.7 3.3 6.9 3.3 snapper 8.5 7.3 2.5 3.5 11.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 grunts 2.5 ):::0 seabass 2.9 2.3 1.0 2.5 I tilefish 0.9 4.0co U1 other Combined bottom 38.7 34.0 36.0 78.6 31.2 66.4" 72.0 77 .0 T3":T 6:=J 16.3 5:9 COASTAL PELAGIC king mackerel 31.4 49.5 50.7 7.9 49.0 19.0 13.0 3.9 9.3 34.3 Spanish mackerel 5.0 4.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 amberjack 7.6 6.3 6.7 7.0 8.6 5.0 3.3 5.5 OTHER barracuda 2.5 2.7 5.6 2. 1 cobia 10.5 tarpon 4.0 2.2 other(redfish, flounder, etc) 2.2 0.8 13.6 4.8 15.0 2.0 3.0 6.1 4.2 1.3 4.0 Source: U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Personal Communication with Dr. Joan Browder about percent effort on different species in the offshore charterboat fisheries by coastal area, 1978. n = number of respondents in sample, Sp = Spring, Su = Summer, Fa = Fall, Wi = ~~i nter • Append; x TABLE 67 SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC QiARACI'ERISTICS OF fHE REEF FISHING CQ\t.llJNITIES Percent Percent Forei gn Medi an : I Median Percent , Total Population Urban Born Age Net Higration Median Education' Family Income Below Poverty State/Count.dCity , County City County County County 'County' 'City County' City County City Level City Alabama Ba'o' ;in Boil Secour ~kJ' ..Ie Mobile 59382 850 317308 196941 26.6 82.0 5.5 2.6 27.8 25.5 ~ .' . , , 7.9 14.7 2.5 10.8 11.1 , 7337 1L9 7807 8095 18.6 FJ.'ida Bay EscaJ:lbia Franklin Hillsborough Lee :-:a."'1atee ~b:1roe Okaloosa Pinellas Sarasota =F' Louisiana' ~ La Fourche ~1ississippi Jackson Panama City Pensacola Cafabelle Tampa 'Ft. ~leyers, ~Bradenton Key l~est Niceville Madeira Beach Nokomis Golden Meadow Pascagoula 92884 59507 7943 600715 163978 126160 53886 164356 673603 165054 68941 122650 38740 67067 1180 278829 34434 26204 25574 6197 4774 4611 2681 27264 76.4 83.9 44.8 81.2 70.3 71.4 71.2 62.0 96.1 75.0 39.0 71.6 5.1 5.5 4.5 . 13.5 13.7 14.3 18.1 7.5 22.1 . 19.1 1.8 3.4 26.0 24.3 30.7 28.8 39.0 48.7 27.5 23.0 48.1 49.4 22 •.4 23.5 5.3 1. 0 3.6 11.8 83.1 41.4 8.6 17.2 44.2 57.9 .8 34~2 3.5 4.9 8.9 1.0 21.4 8.6 18.8 10.9 5.5 43.7 13.4 I 58.9 12.0 12.0 ' ,9.9 11.9 12.1 12.1 , 12.2 '12.4 12.1 i12.4 8.5 12.2 ' 12.0 ; 12.1 .'12.0 , 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 /12.3 ·12.1 7.2 112.3 7416 8020 4335 8161, 7878 6593 7:'J29 7873 7640 7737 7852 : 8543 i7292 ,8319 8162 :8142 6431 6918 6763 ·7802 6562 '7351 9427 (J.7.3 17.0 " 13.1 12.3 17.8 16.7 , 10.7 5.2 17.5 . 12.4 11.0 Texas Ca~eron Port Isabel Galveston Galvestori Ara11sas } \ueces Aransas Pass San Patricio 140368 169812 8902 236544 47288 3067 61809 5813 77.6 89.9 50.5 94.0 64.5 42.3 11.0 12.8 14.5 12.9 21.R 27 .8 35.9 24.1 22.8 32.1 7.8 17.4 12.7 15.0 14.2 \8.0 16.4 8.S 11.5 11.3 11.8 10.0 8.0 !; 10.7 :10~~ 5070 ,9774 6658 8165 1. 7266 =5397 8000 " 65,83 36.9 15.6 19.1 LL ~ i SCL~CE: 1970 Census of Population, U.S. Bureau of the Census and Florida Statistical Abstract, 1977. ":"~'~ , ~.: Appendix Table 68 ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE REEF FISHING COMMUNITIES City Unemploy- Male Population in County County Employment State/County/City ment Rate, 1977 Working Less Than 26 Weeks In Manufacturing Percent Rank a Percent Rank a Percent Rank a Alabama: Baldwin/Bon Secour 6.7 10 15.5 14 21.4 2 Mobile/Mobile 5.4 6 13.3 10 12.2 11 Florida: Bay/Panama City 8.9 15 11.5 5 12.2 11 Escambia/Pensacola 4.0 1 12.4 6 14.8 7 Franklin/Carrabelle 8.4 13 29.2 19 10.7 13 Hillsborough/Tampa 4.8 3 13.3 9 14.5 8 Lee/Fort Myers 4.9 4 15.1 12 7.6 16 Manatee/Bradenton 8.6 14 14.7 11 17.2 4 Monroe/Key West 9.6 16 10.6 4 4.7 17 Okaloosa/Niceville 7.2 12 8.5 1 10.6 14 Pinellas/Madeira Bch 6.4 8 16.1 15 13.5 9 :J=o Sarasota/Nokomis 5.1 5 16.1 15 8.3 15 I ro ........ Louisiana: La Fourche/Golden Meadow 4.4 2 12.5 7 17.1 5 Mississippi: Jackson/Pascagoula 6.1 7 9.4 2 67.6 1 Texas: Cameron/Port Isabel 11.3 17 16.8 17 18.9 3 Galveston/Galveston 7.D 11 12.7 8 16.7 6 Aransas JA 19.8 18ransas 6.4 8 9.7 3 12.4 10Nueces Pass San Patrici 15.4 13 a A rank of 1 signifies that the county performed the best on that particular economic indicator. Source: The'city unemployment rate and tluepercent employed in manufacturing: the employment security agencies/commissions of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; and the male population working less than 26 weeks: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population. t: (]J E ~ Cll ..t: C/) .r 4 4 o ~ Cll ..0 E ::i Z 2,400 j 2,300 2,200 2,100 ] 2,000 f 1' 900 1. 1,800 ] 1 ,700 ! f 1,600 -+,. 1,500 -1 1,400 j 1,300 1,200 I 1,100 ~..... ' 1,000 -i·r .. Io-\I----r-Tf I I Iii Ii III 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Years Figure, 1. Number of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishermen, 1957-1974. A-88 1 ., ... , ~1ississippi ~. l Louisiana .' '. '. j . -~... f.' · - ~ - .......""" ." ... ~~ ':."~~.t .. ~'t:M.";I"I#,,, r... ... ....."" iM'lill2ll ~ :-:-~&. l-# ,. ~it '..... • ..-r.,a "". , 'I''''', T.:fi#'¢""" ~-,.::' ",:A,I.'" , " • .11. ~ ....... "".~.,.. AI. .. ''11 .'.tl'~",-';l""~~''''''''.c-.•• -li ~l ".'" ....--------- w ~ <II oJ " II ~ ~ ':~..,."....---- ------- .. ----...----. .--r--.1'-r-r-- Br....,.--,...--r--ri -'"'1- , J~"""".. --r--",--r--r,.. I ii, I • I I I I I \ I I 1 I 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Years Estimated Trend Florida vJest Coast Texas Alabama 7 r T jv J 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 Ul 15 "0 s:: ::::l 14 0 0 s:: 13 0 'r- 12 r r 'r- 11:;;:: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 2. Quantity of Gulf of r~exico commercial reef fish landings, 1957-1976. A-89 Florida West Coast " --,' .,- -,- --, t~ississippi Louisiana - - - - - - Alabama .. " -lilt- •.•' ..... .... .-,tIJ ~-,.. .,.,.~'I"lI"w-~. .... ....... 0-"l!!' --':.- . ~ •••••~... -. - ;.'S-~:--" .. ,,....11 . .~ ~ ~ll1r's •• ...~ .... ! I 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 7374 75 76 Years I I 1] ,OOO~-J' 10,500 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 J3,000 I 2, 50°1 2,000 -i 1,500 -1 1,000 ] 500 III S co,..... ,..... o "'0 "'0 C co III ::::s o ..l:: I Figure 3. Value of Gulf of !4exico commercial reef fish landings, 1957-1976. , A-90 - Alabama ....... ........ Texas Iv'lississippi Louisiana .... ..... .. ... ~Total Gulf ~ ~ "/ \ ~\ ~ \ \ \ . \Florida West Coast i..... \ jI , If· , , l.,. :,,::".~" ~ ill" "",. .",.." ... ,-. \ ~ ~fia,:"s ..~ . -"' ---'.....-. ".... ,. ... \-.. .a- -. •<; 0:.. •.••• '.. • I •• ft ....f''' .',..... ... • '".tr .'(. ~. •. .. \. .J .Jtt ....~.. • •.r;:- ~.- .... ,. ., Ir I ,. ..' .. '. '-I :-....:-:.:- - -.:. "P:' ......-1 #.,. "'.-:-.""-. ~ 11 i ITTi--·!····j 1957 5859 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Years j r, l ~,--, I I l 14,000 13,500 13,000 12,500 12,000 11 ,500 11 ,000 10,500 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 Ul "0 8,000s:: :::s 0 7,5000 "0 7,000s:: co Ul 6,500:::s 0 ..s:: 6,000I 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Figure 4. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper landings, 1957-1976. A-91 , / / Total Gulf~ ..... Florida v·Jest Coast "->,."- ,.,.-..- .., &..... ,J I.. \ ."". . ..~~~ ~ . '" ~~ R ••~' tlIIlt ' -",. (,,- ,....~ .-.-.... . • ...;. ~ ...! ~ 2'11 .. 'L-c..-. -.-""" .... @- I. '0. 'f .., .".....-" :- . /.. -- .. ~: I J r r-r-,--r-r-rr 1 T I r r t rr 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Years Figure 5. Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper landings, 1957-1976. 6,000 -1 5,800 5,600 - - - - Alabama 5,400 ...' "$'''~n ..~..,......,.~. Texas 5,200- -- -- Hississippi 5,000 Louisiana 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 20 (/) s.. ttl r r o ""0 ""0 s:: ttl (/) :::::l o .s::: I A-92 Mtssissippi..... .... M· · . ---- - Alabama ••••..•..'.,....•~.-...-•...-.... Texas Louisiana .... ---- ..........~...- ..-.~ ~.-::: .-:-:- ""~' '-~.~." ···~·,.·It •~ - ~--.'- ..........---- --..-................... ., •.• ..-~ .. -- -,..... ..• .. - .Im- -- .. - - •. ~""""a-.. I Iii I I I I r I ! iii I 1 r 1 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 7470 76 Years 9,450 ~ 9,100 8,750 8,400 -i 8,050 -l.. 7,700 ~ 7,350 -t 7,000 --1. 6,650 l 6,300 1 5,950 5,600 5,250 4,900 4,550 4,200 j. 3,850 I 3,500 3,150 2,800 2,450 2,100 1,750 1,400 1,050 700 350 Vl 0 s:: ~ o C. 0 s:: CO Vl ~ o ..s::: I Figure 6. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico commercial grouper landings, 1957-1976. A-93 ; l Alabama ," ......,--.. .. .. Total Gulf ....... .,e ·., · Texas Mississippi Louisiana ~' ~~.- .- . ~ ..--;~. --- ....'--'~-~ - .~.--. ...... • •• • • • . , •• , •• , •••••••• , ••• ~t'P'.l""I"': IT'T'•••• ""n m .r.· ~ I -I ! r· I I I I I -T f--r . 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Years 3,300 3,150 3,000 2,850 2,700 2,550 2,400 2,250 +l s:: 2,100 OJ ~ 1,950~ :::s u........ 1,800 Vl ~ 1,650rt:l r r- 1,5000 "'0 "'0 1,350 s:: rt:l 1,200Vl :::s 0 1,050..c I 900 750 600 450 300 150 Figure 7. Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial grouper landings, 1957-1976. A-94 :x: I '-0 U'1 Di fferenti a1 in cents per pound +10 o 10 20 30 Florida (including East Coast).-.... ~." '\\. ..... \. \ ...... .' fl •• ~.....- ''lSSlssippi Wf --~1-, \,.,, ;\., 1.\ \\ Alabama Pf·\ /''-V' , \ ...-.- .\, \\'I...., 55 ;:;0 65 YEARS 70 Figure 8. Texas. Alabama. and Mississippi commercial red snapper dockside prices expressed as differentials from Florida prices 1952-73. > I \D U1 Di fferenti a1 in cents pel" pound +10 o '0 20 30 Florida (including East Coast). ..... '" ~'" ..\. .... \. \ ....... ~ .... I' ~....- \ 1',1 SS iss i ppi <r( - -~ ~\.;, \\ ;\ "'1.\ \\ Alabama p:f.\ A'-V' '\. \....-.... \ .. \\ \' "''--r. 55 GO 65 YEARS ~ 70 Figure 8. Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi commercial red snapper dockside prices expressed as differentials from Florida prices 1952-73. Source: Cato, James, C. and Fred J. prochaska, ,1976. ~;' .,::: +10 Florida (includh'uyEast Coast).-.... ~..... , \. ., \. \. --'......... , . . . ·iII ---~ M1SS1SS1PPl • , "" ,,\., 1.\ ~~\ /'.Alabama ,\/ \. '..-.-\ . , ~\ XI. ..., o 10 30 20 Differential in cents per pound ):::0 I 1.0 U1 YEARS Figure 8. Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi commercial red snapper dockside prices expressed as differentials from Florida prices 1952-73 /P;t'~ Source: Cato, Uame;.s, C. and Fred J. Prochaska'/l '~The,>Gulf 9'( Mexicp/Comme~cial and Recr 'a~i onC}t Red ~napper-Gro~p,~,r Fi she0es:. /An Eco~9lili c ~n~)ys i 5 of Pro ctlon/Marketlng, and Pn,ces. '1 Plioceedrhgs: C,cillogulu1n on Sna r-Gro er Fishe,,../ Resource's of thei'Western Cent/al Atlantic Dc n. Fl rida Sea/Grant ReP9'rt Number/17. ,Miami: ,/$outheast ,f , 1, F' sheri e Center, /November 1,976. r ;' ,,'f" I ( " " 1 iF I I-r A '"""!" r 1 j 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Years 530 500 480 460 440 Vl 420 r 400 JOJ Vl Vl OJ 330 J> 4 360 j0 s.. OJ 340 ..0 E 320 J::::l z: r 300 1 280 260 240 220 20 -{ Figure 9. Number of Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish handline vessels, 1957-1974. A-96 1 1 ~.. i.. L-L. ! i. Ll 64 68 72 J. L t-L-..:.-L...L..L l L t .L-J. 40 44 48 52 56 60 Years 1 14 ~ 13 • I~ f 12 Total 11 \ I. Catch /~1, 000 10 I I 0c-t 9 PJ 900 ..... (') PJ c-t (') 800 8 :::5" h :::i :3 700 7 ........... >, ..... n:l ...... U 0 ..c Catch per :::i u 600 ,. launch day 6 -0s:: 0 :::i 11; s::n:l T :::i..- 0 500 r 5 VIs f ;\ QJ 0.. VI "'0 400 4s:: :::i \/;J'r0 .,-~0- 3 ~ 2 Figure 10. Grouper catch and catch per launch day fished by Cuban commercial fish ermen on the West coast of Florida, 1938-1974. A-97 . :J;::o I ~ co B B Figure 11. Cuban Gulf Fleet: Diagram of a typical bottom longline for groupers and snappers. A. marker buoy, B. buoy line, C. drag weight, D. main line, E. branch line, F. bait and hook, G. target fish, the red grouper. Sources: Law Enforcement and Marine Mammal Protection Division, NMFS, NO~A, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702; Saez, 1973. Source: Tashiro and Coleman, 1977. r QJ II) II) QJ > S QJ Cl.. s:: QJ E S QJ ..s:: II) 'r l..L.. 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 .., l' t..T 1957 58 59 Estimated ~ Trend ,rl TI I II I 11! i 1 606162 63 6465 66 676869 707172 73 74 Years Figure 12. Average crew size in the Gulf of r"'exico reef fish handline fisheries, 1957-1974. A-99 j ,.". ill ( 1 1 I J I , [ 1 I t 'fl" I i 1957 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 76 Years 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 ~ 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 -:t 1" 'r ~ 0) til til 0) > S O) 0 ...c:: til 4 4 o til 0 s:: ~ o 0 0 s:: ttl til ~ o ...c:: I Figure 13. Quantity of Gulf of Mexico reef fish landed per commercial handline vessel, 1957-1974. Source: Derived from National Marine Fisheries Service data. A-100