Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW FINAL REGULATIONS FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS ) PREPARED FOR THE GUlf OF ~1EXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNC I LS FEBRUARY ~ i 983 FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL ENV I RONMENTAL I MPACT STATEMENT REGULA TORY I MPACT REV I EW FI NAL REGULATIONS FOO . COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS) IN THE GU.LF OF MEX I CO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION GULF OF MEX I CO FISHERY MANAGEMENT OOUNC I L LINCOLN CENTER, SU I TE 881 5401 W. KENNEDY BOULEVARD TAMA, FLORIDA 33609 SOUTH ATLANT IC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNe I L SOUTHPARK BU I LD I NG, SU I TE 306 1 SOUTHPARK CIRCLE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROL I NA 29407 FEBRUARY, 1983 Financial assistance for producing this report was provided by grant funds from the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under Publ IcLaw 94-265, the Magnuson Fishery Conservat Ion and Management Act of 1976 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 Flshery Definition The coastal migratory pelagic resurces (mackerels) ~re those species In the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and In the coastal and fishery conservation zone (FCZ) off the south Atlantic coast as spe cified below. The fishery year Is to commence July 1 and terminate June 30. 2.2 Mana~ement Area Area for mana~ement: Federal regulation pursuant to this plan will apply to the FCZ within the juri s diction of the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils. However, maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield are based on the stocks In the U.S. FCZ, the territorial sea, and internal waters of the various states. Consequently the allocations to various gear types Include catches both from the FCZ and waters land ward thereof. The states bordering the areas of jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Council. Fishery Management Councils are urged to adopt regulations which are cOIl1patlble wrth those applying In the FCZ. Regulations are not applied In the area of jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Council because the catches there and the quantities of regulated species occurring there are 9: small that regu lat Ion wou I d not be cost ef fect Ive and I s not necessary to accop II sh the object Ives of the pia". Similarly, catches there are not Included in OYor In catch al locations. Should a fIshery develop which significantly affects the stocks and Is In the FCZ beyond the area for management, the management area may be extended by p I an amendment. 2.3 Species 2.3.1 Specles In the Mana~ement Unit (for which regulations are proposed) King mackerel Span I sh mackerel Cobia Scomberomorus cava II a Scomberomorus macu latus Rachycentron canadum 2.3.2 Specles In the Flshery but not In the Mana~ement Unit (no regulation proposed) Cero mac.kerel Little tunny Do J ph In Bluefish (Gulf of Mexico only) Scomberomorus re~a II s Euthynnus alletteratus Coryphaena hi ppurus Pomatomus sa Itatr I x 2.4 Statement of MSY, OY, EDAH and TALFF (millions of pounds) !§ OY EDAH (1981) ~ King mackere i Span Ish mackerel 37 27 37 27 37 27 o o For cobia, optimum yield Is defined as all cobia equal to or larger than 33 Inches In length from the tip of the head to the center of the tall (fork length) wh Ich can be harvested by U.S. fishermen. MSY Is estimated at 1,057,000 pounds, EDAH Is estimated as 1,000,000 pounds In 1981, and TALFF Is zero. 2-1 2.5 Problems In the Fishery 1. Current and accurate biological and econoic data needed as a basis for management decisions are not available. 2. Intense conflicts exist between recreational and comercial users of the mackerel stocks. and between commercial users employing different gears. 3. Rapidly Increasing fishing effort for king mackerel could soon result In overflshln9 If no act Ion I s taken. 4. Cobia are presently harvested at a size below that necessary for maximum yield and may be o verf I shed I n some areas beyond the management area. 2.6.1 2.6 Mana~ement Ob i ect I ves King Mackere I 1. Inst I tute management measures necessary to prevent exceed I ng MSY. 2. Establish a mandatory statistical reprting system for ITnltorlng catch. 3. Minimize gear and user group conflicts. 2.6.2 Span I sh Mackerel 2.6.3 Cobia 1. Inst I tutemanagement measures necessary to prevent exceed I ng MSY. 2. Establish a mandatory statistical reprting system for ITnltorlng catch. 3. Minimize gear and user group conflicts In the event they arise. 4. Promote the maximum use of the resurce up to the OY estimate. 1. Institute management measures necessary to Increase yield per recruit and average sIze and to prevent overf I sh I ng. 2.7 Proposed Mana~emnt Measures 2.7.1 A. Proposed Mana~ement Measures for K I n~ Mackere i The Secretary of Commerce may Implement measures designed to provide limitations, where appropr I ate, on any gear or devl ce used I n the kl ng mackerel fishery to reduce gear and user group conf Ilcts. The Secretary, after consultation with the affected Councils, may take the fo i low I ng action by regulatory amendment based on the following criteria: ( 1 ) When a conflict arises through expansion of a historical fishery In a traditional fishing area or region, the Secretary shall Investigate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economic and sociological Impacts of any viable limitations on the expanded fishery or other users, other solutions to the conflict and other relevant factors. The Secretary, after con sultation with the affected Councils and states, may res Ive the conflict as fairly as poss I b Ie by takl ng one or more of the fo Iiowl ng act Ions: 2-2 (a) Separate the users or gear by area (f I sh I ng zone). (b) Separate the users or gear by time (day of week). (c) Assign local quotas to each gear or user group based on the historical catches of each for that loea I area. (d) Allow un limited usage of the gear or device. (2) When the conflict arises through the Introduction of gear or devices Into new regions where they have not been historically fished, the Secretary shall Investigate the harvesting capa city and efficiency of the new gear or device In the local area, the economic and soclo logi cal Impacts on users of historical gear, the historical level of stock abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultation with the affected Councils and states, take one or more of the following actions: ( a) Proh Iblt use of the gear or device In that geographical area. ( b) Allow only limited use of the gear or device to more fully evaluate Its Impacts and potent I a I s. (c) Limit the number of 161ts of the gear or device wh Ich can be utI! Ized In that area. ( d) Allow un limited usage of the gear or device. (3) When a conflict arises as a result of circumstances In the fishery, other than as described In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures designed to obviate such conflicts by meaStres provided for In (I) and (2) above, or take such other action as may be appropriate and necessary to reslve such conflicts In a manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan, the National Standards, the MFCMA and other applicable law. B. When the Regional Direcor, Southeast RegIon, NMFS, determines, based on rei lab Ie Infonnatlon,that a conflict, as described In FMP Section 8.2.6, exists or Is about to exIst, he will take one of the following actions by field order. The time period during whIch such restrictions shall be enforced wll i be determined by length of time a direc conflict exists or Is expected to exist. ( 1) Establish a fishing window within the following points: (a) Bethel Shoa I II ght (270 44.3'N, 800 10. 4'W). ( b) A wreck 15 miles southeast of Fort Pierce Inlet (270 23.5'N, 800 3.7'W). (c) Marker WR 16, five miles northeast of JupIter In let (270 0.6'N, 800 2.0'W). (d) 100 fm depth due east of po I nt c (270 0.6'N, 790 55.0'W). (e) 100 fm depth due east of po I nt b (270 23.5'N, 790 54.0 'W) . (f) 100 fm depth due east of po I nt a (270 44.3'N, 790 53. 5'W) . The Regional Direcor may proh Iblt USe of gill-net gear to take king mackerel within the area a-b-e-f, b-c-d-e or a-c-d-f. If additional action Is needed, prohibIt use of hook and line gear to take king mackerel within a window landward of a line between the points a-b, b-c or a-c. 2-3 (2) Estab II sh two fish I ng zones seaward (east) of state J ur I sd I ct Ion. waters of the FCZ between 27° 10' north latitude and 27° 50' north two areas along the line of 27° 30' north latitude. These zones shall be the latitude divided Into (a) In the first year In which a conflict arises, the use of gill nets for taking of king mackerel shal I be prohibited In the area south of 27° 30' north latitude and use of hook and line gear for taking of king mackerel shall be prohibited In the area north of 27° 30' north latitude. In any succeeding year when a conflict develops, the area In wh I ch each gear Is proh I b I ted may be ch anged. ( b) When a conflict arises, use of each gear within the zone between 27° 10'N and 27° 50'N may be a i ternated da I I y. (I) On even days of the month, use of gill-net gear to take kl ng mackerel may be proh I b I ted. (II) On odd days of the month, use of hook and line gear to take king mackerel may be prohibited. (c) Close the fishery for king mackerel to all users within the zone between 27° 10'N and 27° 50'N. This measure shall only be Imposed If the conflict results In: (I) Death or serious bodily Injury. ( 1) Procedures for evaluating the existence of a conflict: (II) Significant gear loss. (2) The following procedures must be employed by the Regional Director In his decision process regarding the existence of a conflict for which a field order Is appropriate and prior to the ImplementatIon of such a field order. ( a) At 'such time as the Regional Direcor Is advised by any party that a conf Ilct exists, he must confirm the existence of such a conflict through Information supplied him by NMFS, U. S. Coast Guard or other appropr I ate I aw enforcement agencl es. ( b) I n the event that such Info rmat Ion I s not ascert a I nab I e from those I aw enforcement per sonnel as provided In (a) above, such cont I rmat Ion may be made through Information supplied by personnel of the state agency with marine fishery management responsibility. (c) Confer with the Chairmen of the affected Councils, with the marine fishery management responslbil ¡ty, Regional Director deems appropriate, If any. the office of the state agency(s) and such other persons as the Restrictions on field orders (a) No field order may be Implemented which results In the exclusive access of any user group or gear type to the fishery during the time the field order Is In existence. ( b) A field order may be rescinded by the Regional Director If he finds through application of the same procedures set forth In (1) above that the conf II ct no longer exl sts. (c) No field order may be Implemented for a time period greater than five (5) days except under the conditions set forth In Section (e) above. 2-4 (d) At such time as the Regional Direcor submits to the Federal Re~lster a field order for Implementation under these provisions, he shall Immediately arrange for a fact-finding meeting In the area of the conf Ilct to be convened no later than 72 hours from the time of Implementation of the field order. The following shall be advised of such fact finding meeting: ( 1) The ChaIrmen of the affected Councils; (2) The office of the state agency with fishery management responsibility; (3) Loca I ma I a; (4) Such user group representat I ves or organ I zat Ions as may be appropr I ate and pract Icab Ie; (5) Others as deemed appropriate by the Regional Director or as requested by Chairmen of the affected Councils or the state agency. This fact-finding meeting shall be for the purpose of evaluating the following: ( 1) The existence of a conflict needing reslution by the fIeld order; (2) The appropriate term of the field order, I.e., either greater or less than five (5) days; 0) Other poss Ib Ie 9: I ut Ions to the conf ii ct other than federal I ntervent Ion; (4) Other relevant matters. (e) In the event It Is determined as a result of the fact-finding meeting that the tenm of the fIeld order should exceed five (5) days, the Regional Director may, after con sultation with the Chairmen of the affected Councl Is and the Involved state agency, extend such f lei d order for a per lod not to exceed 30 days from the date of I nit I al Implementation. In the event the Regional DIrecor determines that It Is necessary or appropriate for the term of such field order to extend beyond 30 days, such extensIon may be made after consultation with the Chairmen of the affected Councl Is and for such period of time as necessary and appropriate to res Ive the conf i Ict. C. A total allowable catch shall be established at 37 million pounds per year. ( 1) Annual stock allocations shal I be made as follows: 28 mil lion pounds for the recreational fishery and nine million pounds for the commercIal fishery. (2) The commercl al al locat Ion shall be dl vi ded between hook and II ne gears and net gears as fo i lows : Hook zznd II ne: Nets 3,877,200 pounds 5,122,800 pounds (3) I f the catch of any user group exceeds Its allocat Ion, the Secretary shall close the fishery to that group for the remainder of the fishing year. (4) Commercial and recreational fishermen defined as fol lows: 2-5 A commercl al f I sherman I s a person who se II s his catche A recreational fisherman Is a person who does not sell his catch. D. The mln Imum mesh sl ze In the FCZ for all king mackerel gl I I nets shall be 4-3/4 Inches stretched mesh In the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regional COuncils' areas of jurlsdlct Ion. E. ( 1) The Regional Direcor, Southeast Region, NMFS, may Institute a bag limit for kl ng mackerel taken by recreational or recreational for hire users and/or a trip limit for commercial users by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data becomes available and after consultation with the affected Counciise (2) The Regional Director, Southeast Region, IIFS, may Institute a size limit by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data becomes available and after consultation with the affected Councils. 2.7.2 Proposed Mana~ement Measures for Span Ish Mackere I A. The Secretary of Commerce may I mp I ement measur as des I gn ed to prov I de II m I t at Ions, wh ere appropr I ate, on any gear or dev I ce used I n the Span I sh mackerel fishery to reduce gear and user group conf Ilcts. The Secretary, after consultation with the affected COuncils, may take the following action by regulatory amendment based on the following criteria: ( 1) When a conflict arises through expansion of a historical fishery In a traditIonal fishing area or region, the Secretary shall Investigate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economic and 9:clologlcal Impacts of any viable limitations on the expanded fishery or other users, other so I ut Ions to the conf II ct and other rei evant factors. The Secretary, after con sultation with the affected COuncils and states, may reslve the conflict as fairly liS possible by taking one or more of the fol lowing actions: ( a) Separate the users or gear by area (f I sh I ng zone). ( b) Separate the users or gear by t I me (day of week). (c) Assign local qootas to each gear or user group based on the historical catches of each for that loca I area. ( d) A Ilow un II m I ted usage of the gear or dev Ice. (2) When the conflict arises through the Introduction of gear or devices Into new regions where they have not been historically fished, the Secretary shall Investigate the harvesting capa city and efficiency of the new gear or device In the local area, the economic and 9:clologl cal Impacts on users of historical gear, the historical level of stock abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultation with the affected Councils and states, take one or rrre of the following actions: ( a) Prohibit use of the gear or device In that geographical area. ( b) Allow only limited use of the gear or device to more tully evaluate Its Impacts and potent I \!i s. (c) Limit the number of un I ts of the gear or devl ce wh Ich can be ut I II zed I n that area. ( d) Allow unlimited usage of the gear or device. 2-6 (3) When a conflict arises as a result of circumstances in the fishery, other than as described In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may implement measures designed to obviate such conflicts by measures provided for In (1) and (2) above, or take such other action as may be appropriate and necessary to resolve such conflicts In a manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan, the National Standards, the MFCMA and other applicable law. B. ( 1 ) A 12-inch fork length minimum size limit shall be set on Spanish mackerel In both the com mercial and recreational fisherIes. (2) A catch allowance for underized fish wi II be allowed equal to five percent of the total catch by weight of Spanish mackerel on board a vessel In the Spanish mackerel fishery or any other fishery. C. The Regional Director, Southeast Region, NMFS, may Institute a bag limit for Spanish mackerel taken by recreational or recreational for hire users and/or a trip I imlt for commercial users by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data become available and after consultation with the affected Counci Is. D. If OY Is taken, the fishery for Spanish mackerel will be closed for the remainder of that fishing year. 2.7.3 Proposed Mana~ement Measures for Cobia The following measure Is proposed for cobia by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic CouncIls: A. PossessIon of cobia less than 33 Inches fork length shall be prohibited in the FCZ. 2.7.4 Proposed Mana~ement Measures for Purse Se I nes A. ( 1 ) Harvest of king mackerel by purse seine gear wi Ii be allowed up to a maximum of 400,000 pounds per year in the area of jurisdiction of the Gulf Council, and 400,000 pounds per year in the area of jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council. Any purse seine harvest will be counted within the commercial allocation for all net gears. (2) Harvest of Spanish mackerel by purse seIne gear will be allowed up to a maximum of 300,000 pounds per year in the area of jurisdiction of the Gulf Council, and 300,000 pounds In the area of jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council. B. Observers, under the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, must be required on all purse seIne vessels while fishing for king or Spanish mackerel during the first three fishing years after thIs plan Is In effect. 2.7.5 Stat I st I ca I Report I n9 Measures A. The Councils conceptually accept a vessel enumeration system and creel census data system that would provide suffIcient Information for fishery management. Mechanics of the system are to be developed by National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regulatory Measures Committee. B. Require a reporting system for all user groups and processors based on statistical sampling whereby It wou I d be mandatory for a se i acted respondent to prov I de answers to the samp II ng questionnaIre on a recurring basis that Is not of great frequency. 2-7 2.8 Recommndat Ions 2.8.1 Speclal Recommdatlons to the Secretary The Council s recommend several areas where specl al research I s needed. order In FMP Section 14.4. These are II sted In pr lor I ty 2.8.2 Spec lal Recommndat lons to the States A. In the future, effective and equitable management wi II require a workable means of differen tiating true commercial from true recreational fishermen. This Is particularly Important In Implementing allocations to user groups. Therefore: The Councils formally recmend to each state In their area that consideration be given to requiring all persons who sel I fish to have a commercial license, that the commercial license be of significant dollar value and that severe penalties be levied against any commercial operator purchasing fish from an Individual not possessing a commercial license. B. The Councils recommend that the states Implement the managemnt measures proposed In this plan wi thl n the Ir terrl tori al Jur I sd Ict Ion, wh'ere appll cab Ie. The Council s further encorage the states to assist the Secretary In addressing and supporting the research and other special r ec~l1mendat Ions. 2-8 4.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I NTRODLCT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 5.0 5.1 DESCRIPTION OF STOCKS COMPRISING MANAGEMENT UNIT. . . . 0 . . . .......... 5.1.1 DescrIptIon of SpecIes and TheIr Distribution ............. 5.1.1.1 5.1.1.2 5.1.1.3 5.1.1.4 5.1.1.5 5.1.2 5.1.2.1 5.1.2.2 5.1.2.3 5.1.2.4 5.1.2.5 5.1.3 DescrIptIon of King Mackerel ...... ...... ....... ... DistrIbution and Migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . General Behavior. . . . . . . Age and Growth Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . Reproduct Ion. . . . . . . Larvae. . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . 8--. ..... . . . . . . DescrIption of Spanish Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . DistrIbution and Seasonal Movements. . . . . . Genera I Behav lor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Age and Growh Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . Repr oduct Ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... Larvae. . . . . . ........... . . . . . . ...... ..... Descr I pt Ion of Cobl a ......... 5.1.3.1 5.1.3.2 5.1.3.3 5.1.3.4 5.1.3.5 5.1.4 ................. Distribution and Migration. . . . . Genera' Behav lor. . . . . . . . Age and Growth Parameters. . . . . Reproduct Ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . ...... . . . ...... Larvae. . . ...... ....... . . . ...... ..... ...... . . . . . . Descr Ipt Ion of Cero Mackerel ................... 5.1.4.1 5.1.4.2 5.1.4.3 5.1.5 Distribution and Seasonal Movements Genera I Behav lor. . . . . . . . . Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ..... DescrIption of Bluef Ish. . . . . ..... 5.1.5.1 5.1.5.2 5.1.5.3 5.1.5.4 5.1.5.5 5.1.6 ............ Distribution and MIgration. . . . . . . 0 Genera I Behav lor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age and Growth Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repr oduct Ion . . . . . . . 0 .. . . . . . . . . . . . Larvae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 DescrIption of LIttle Tunny. . . ...... 5.1.6.1 5.1.6.2 ............ Distribution and Seasonal Movements Other Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . .. . . . 3-1 5-1 . . . . 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-5 5-5 5-6 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-8 5-8 5-9 5-9 5-11 5-11 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-12 5-13 5-13 5-14 5-14 5-15 5-15 5-15 Table of Contents (continued) 5.1.7 Description of Dolph In . . . . . . ....11..00....19....0 5.1.7.1 5.1.7.2 5.1.7.3 Distribution and Migration. . . . General Behavior. . . . . . . . . . Other Data . . . . . . . . . . GO. . ..... ..... ..... ............ ...... .........eo............. 5.2 Abundance and Pr esent Cond I t Ion ....80........ 5.3 Ecolog I ca I Relat lonsh Ips .........5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7 5.3.8 5.3.9 ....~. ....... Prey-Predator Relationships of King Mackerel ..... Prey-Predator Relationships of Spanish Mackerel ............ Prey-Predator Relationships of Cobia. . . . 110............ Prey-Predator Relationships of Cero Mackerel .............. Prey-Predator Relatlonsh Ips of B I uef I sh ..............~. Prey-Predator Relationships of Little Tunny .............. Prey-Predator Relationships of Dolphin. . . ..... ...... Compar I son of Food Habl ts of Specl es of the Management Un It ...... Principal Prey Species of the Management Unit and Their Food Habits .......... . . . . It ..........5.3.10 Larval Food Chains. . .......... 5.4 Estimate of MSY, Abundance and Present and Future Condition 5.4.1 King Mackerel ............... . . ....... ..... 5.4.1.1 5.4.1.2 5.4.1.3 Calculation of MSY for King Mackerel. . . . Present Condition of King Mackerel. . . . . Future Condition of King Mackerel. . . . . ..... . . . . ...... . . . . ...... 5.4.2 Spanish Mackerel. .................... . . . . . . . 5.4.2.1 5.4.2.2 5.4.2.3 Estimate of MSY for Spanish Mackerel Present Condition of Spanish Mackerel Future Condition of Spanish Mackerel ...... ........ ..... ..... . . . . . . . ....... 5.4.3 Cobl a ................. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 5.4.3.1 5.4.3.2 Cobia: Cobia: MSY and Pr e5ent Cond I t Ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F utur e Cond I t Ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Cero Mackerel: MSY, Present Condition, Future Condition. . . . . . . . 3-2 Page 5-15 5-15 5-16 5-16 5-16 5-16 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-18 5-18 5-19 5-19 5-20 5-21 5-22 5-22 5-22 5-22 5-30 5-33 5-33 5-33 5-37 5-37 5-38 5-38 5-40 5-41 Table of Contents (continued) 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.4.5 Little Tunny: MSY, Present CondItion, Future Condition ........ 5.4.6 B I uef J 5 h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.6.1 5.4.6.2 B I uef Ish: B , uef Ish: MSY and Present CondItion. . . . . Future Condition. . . . . . . . . . ........~... 5.4.7 Dolphin: MSY, Present Condition, Future Condition ........... 5.5 Probable Future CondItion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT .............................. 6.1 CondItion of Habitat ........ ............. ........ 6.1.1 Adult Habitat ........ ....... ...... ........ 6.1.2 larva I Hab I tat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Habl tat of Prey Spec I es ........................ 6.2 Hab I tat Ar eas of Part I cu I ar Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Habitat Protection Progams. . ........................ FISHERY MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION, LAWS, AND POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Management InstitutIons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . 7.2 International Treaties and Agreements. .................... 7.3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies .................... 7.4 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies. . . . . . . . . . ........... 7.5 Local and Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and Policies. . ......... DESCR I PT I ON OF FISH I NG ACT I V I TIES AFFECT i NG THE STOCKS COMPR i SING THE MANAGEMENT UN IT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 8.1 History of Exp loltatlon . ............. ...... ........ 8.2 Domest Ic Commecl al and Recreational Fish Ing Act Iv I ties ............ 8.2.1 Participating User Groups ....................... 8.2.1.1 8.2.1.2 Pr Imary Commercial User Group. Recreational User Groups. . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . ...... ..... . . . . 3-3 Page 5-1 5-1 5-41 5-41 5-42 5-42 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-2 7-1 7-1 7-7 7-7 7-10 7-12 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-2 8-3 8-4 Tab Ie of Contents (continued) 8.2.2 Land I ngs/Catch . . . . . . .... .......0..8 8 ....... 8.2.2.1 8.2.2.2 8.2.2.3 Commer c I a I Land I ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recreat lona I Catch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fish Caught Recreatlonally and Sold Commercially. . . ............... 8.2.3 Fishing and Landing Areas 080.......000.......... Commercl al Recreational ..... ...... II ø II II CI . . . .....8.2.3.1 8.2.3.2 . . . II II II II . . . ........ II II II II 8.2.4 Vesse I s and Gear II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II Commercl al Recreational . . . ..... . . . .....8.2.4.1 8.2.4.2 8.2.5 II . II . . . II ...... . . . ..... ........ ..... Emp loyment . . . . . .. ......................... 8.2.5.1 8.2.5.2 Associ ated wi th Commercl al Harvest Associated with Recreational Angling . . . . . . ........... . . . ..... 8.2.6 Conf Ilcts Among Domestic Fishermen. . ................. 8.2.8 Assessment of U.S. Harvesting Capacity. . ....... II II II . II II II II8.2.7 Assessment and Specification of the Extent to Which U.S. Vessels W II I Harvest Opt I mum Y I e I d .................. 8.2.8.1 8.2.8.2 8.2.8.3 . II . II KI ng Mackerel. . ..............15......... Span I sh Mackerel ........................ Cobl a . . II II . . . II . II . II 8 . e 0 II . . II II . II . II II . II II II 8.2.9 Assessment and Specification of the Portion of the Optimum Yield Which U.S. Harvesters Propose to Deliver to Foreign Vessels. . . . . . 8.3 Foreign Fishing Activities. ..... ....... ....... ...... 8.4 Interactions Between Foreign and Domstic Participants ,............. . . . . . . . . ..-. . ............ 8.4.1 Harvest I ng I nteract Ions 8.4.2 Transfers at Sea to Foreign Vessels .................. 8.5 DomestIc Processing Capacity. . . . . .................Q.. 9.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY ............ 3-4 Page 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-12 8-18 8-18 8-19 8-20 8-20 8-25 8-25. 8-25 8-26 8-27 8-28 8-29 8-29 8-32 8-32 8-32 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 9-1 Tab I e of Contents (cont I nued) Page 9.1 Domestic HarvestIng Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 9.1.1 Commercl al . . .. ............ ....... ........ 9-1 9.1.2 Recreational. . . . .......................... 9-2 9.2 Domest Ic Process Ing Sector .......................... 9-7 9.3 Other Sectors of the U.S. Fishing Industry .................. 9-8 9.4 International Trade .............. . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . 9-8 10.0 DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS, MARKETS, AND ORGANIZATIONS . . . . ........... 10-1 10.1 Relationship Among Harvesting, Brokerlng and Processing Sectors ....... 10-1 10.1.1 KIng Mackerel Industry Structure and Markets. . ............ 10-1 10.1.2 Span Ish Mackerel Industry Sturcture and Markets ............ 10'-2 10.2 Fishery Cooperatives or Associations. . . . . . . . . ............ 10-2 10.3 Labor Organ Izatlons ........ ............. ........ 10-3 10.4 Foreign Investment. . . . . .......... ............... 10-3 11.0 sac i AL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMEST IC FISHERMEN ....... ........ 11-1 11.1 Ethnic Character, Family Structure, and Community OrganIzation ........ 11-1 11.2 Age, Education, and Experience of Commercial Fishermen ............ 11-1 11.3 Emp loyment Opportun Itles and Unemp loyment Rates ............... 11-2 ,~ 11.4 RecreatIonal Fishing. . . . . . . . ............ ......... 11-3 11.4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Recreational Fishermen ......... 11-4 11.4.2 Social Benefits of Recreational Fishing ..... . . . . ....... 11-4 11.5 Economic Dependence on Commercial or Marine Recreational Fishing and Related Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 11-5 11.6 Distribution of Income Within Fishing Communities .............. 11-6 12.0 DETERMI NATION OF OPTIMUM YIELD. . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 12-1 12.1 Specl f I c Management Object Ives . . ...................... 12-2 12.2 Description of Alternative Optimum Yields .................. 12-2 12.2.1 KI ng Mackerel .... ...... ..... ....... ....... 12-2 3-5 Tab Ie of Contents (cant I nued) 12.2.2 SpanIsh Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ...... ..... ........ .....12.2.3 Cobia 12.2.4 Other Species In the Fishery ...................... 12.3 Analysis of Beneficial and Adverse Impacts of Potential Management Options. . ... ....... ....... ..... .......12.3.1 King Mackerel .....12.3.1.1 12.3.1.2 Proposed Measures. . . . . . . . . . . Measur es Rejected for King Mackerel. . .......... ..... 12.3.2 Spanish Mackerel. . . . ................. ....... 12.3.2.1 12.3.2.2 12.3.3 Cobia 12.3.3.1 12.3.3.2 Proposed Measi.es . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . .--. . . . . . . . Measures Rejected for Spanish Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................. Proposed Measures. . . . . . Measur es Rejected for Cobl a ...... ............ ...... ....... .....................".....12.3.4 Other Spec! es ........................12.3.5 Purse Seine Regulations .......12.3.5.1 12.3.5.2 Proposed Purse Se I ne Measur es . Purse Seine Measures ReJected. ....... . . ...... ...... 12.3.6 Statistical Reporting Measures. . . . . . . . ............. 12.3.6.1 12.3.6.2 Stat I st I ca I Report i ng Measur as Adopted. . . . . . . . . . Statistical Report Ing Measures Rejected. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Tradeotts Between the BeneficIal and Adverse Impacts of the Preferred or Opt Ima I Management Opt Ions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................12.5 Specl f I cat Ion of Opt ¡mum Y I el d . .......................12.6 Recommendations by the Councils ......... 12.6.1 12.6.2 Spec I a i Recommenda t Ions to the Secr etary of Commer ce Specl a I Recommendat Ions to the States . ................ 13.0 MEASURES, REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS SPECIFIED TO ATTAIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Page 12-4 12-5 12-6 12-6 12-6 12-6 12-19 12-23 12-23 12-27 12-27 12-27 12-28 12-28 12-28 12-29 12-32 12-34 12-34 12-35 12-35 12-35 12-36 12-36 12-36 13-1 13.1 Perm I ts and F aes . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1 3-6 Table of Contents (continued) 14.0 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 16.0 16.1 16.2 17.0 13.2 T I me and Ar ea Res tr I ct ions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Catch Limitations .......... ...... ...... ........ 13.4 Types of Vessels, Gear, and Enforcement Devices ............... 13.5 State, Loca I, and Other Laws and Po II c I es .................. 13.6 Limited Access System ............................ 13.7 Habitat Preservation, Protection, and Restoration .............. 13.8 Deve I opment of Fishery Resour ces ....................... 13.9 Management Costs and Revenues ................ . .-.. . . . . . SPECIFICATION AND SOURCE OF PERTINENT FISHERY DATA. . . . . . . . ........ 14.1 General .. ....... ...... ..... ....... ........ 14.2 Domestic and Foreign Harvesters ....................... 14.3 Processors. . . . . . . ................... ........ 14.4 Areas of Research Needed to Improve the Management Information Base ..... RELATIONSHIP OF THE RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO EXISTING APPLICABLE LAWS AND POL i C I E S ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Fishery Management Plans. . . . . . ..................... Treaties or International Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Federal Laws and Policies ........................ .. State and Loca I Laws and Po II c I es ...................... COUNC I L REV I EW AND MON ITORI NG OF THE PLAN .................. .. General Approach. . . . . . . . . ...................... Spec I f I c Mon I tor I ng Cons I der at Ions. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . LITERATURE C I TED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . 3-7 Page 13-1 13-1 13-2 13-2 13-2 13-2 13-2 13-2 14-1 14-1 14-1 14-1 14-1 15-1 15-1 15-1 15-1 15-2 16-1 16-1 16-1 17-1 4.0 I NTRODUCT I ON The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act gives responsIbility to the RegIonal FIshery Management CouncIls to prepare and submIt fIshery management plans for fisheries within theIr geographical area. The South Atlantic and Gulf of MexIco FIshery Management Councils, In accordance with their legIslative mandate, have prepared a joint plan for the coastal migratory pelagIc resources (mackere Is) management un It. FollowIng the format for a complete fishery management plan, this report begIns with SectIon 4.0, Introduction, followed by Section 5.0, Description of the Stocks Comprising the Management UnIt. The latter ,ect 10" ,"C lade, d i scas s Ions of the b 10' og i co i ch or acter i st los of each spec i os i" the '"""ge ment unit, the abundance and condition of the stocks, theIr ecologIcal relatIonships, and estimates ofmaximum sustainable yield. Section 6.0 describes the condItion of the habItats of the varIous specIes. Section 7.0 presents a dIscussIon of the management Institutions and the laws that are rele vant to the species In the management unit. SectIon 8.0 describes the character of the commercial and recreational fishIng activities, and It Is fOllowed In Section 9.0 with an analysis of the economic characteristIcs of the fishery. In Section 10.0 the business and market characterIstIcs, and organI zations assocIated with the fIshery are descrIbed. SectIon 11.0 presents a dIscussion of the social and cultural aspects of the commercial and recreational fIsheries. Section 12.0 specifies management objectIves, optimum yield, and management measures and assesses theIr Impacts. Section 13.0 sum marizes management measures required under the plan. Section 14.0 specifies statistical reportIng requIred under the p Ian. Sect Ion 15.0 dIscusses the relatlonsh Ip of the p Ian to exl sting laws and policies. Section 16.0 discusses Council monitorIng of the plan. References cIted are In Section 17.0. 4-1 5.0 5. I DESCR I PT I ON OF STOCKS COMPR' SING MANAGEMENT UN' T Descr Iptlon of Specles and Thelr D Istr Ibutlon The Con'tal PelagIc SpecIe, F"he,y ",nagamnt P'an tor the 'outh Atlent,c and Gult of Ma'co f I 'he,y manag"'nt 'eg' on, COVe" the fa II ow I ng 'e'en 'pec I." Span i ,h macke'e I (Sc,,eromu, macu I at,,), k' ng macke'e I (Sc,, e,omoru, Ca,." a), cera mackerel (Scaer""us '9Qa fi 'I, b, ueff 'h (Pomtomu, 'a' tat, ,.), cob i a (Rachycent,on canadum), II tt I e tunny (E thYnnu, all ette,atu,), and the comn do' ph 'n-f "h (CorYphaena h I Ppu'u,), Fo II ow i ng a'e 'u.. I., of the I nfo'mat Ion on the d, str 1 but Ion and b 101 ogy of each 'pec' e,. Add I t lona' and mae deta' led, nfo'mat Ion may be obta I ned I n a Resau,ce Document a'al 'ab Ie th'oogh the Gu I f of ""co FI'her Management Councii. Se'eea I of the 'um.., ,., u'e the 'on Be'ta I an f fy 9'owth aquat I on to 'e I ate age to I ength. To f ac II , tate un dee, tand I ng, the geneea I fonn of the aq oat lon,s g' ven here and the tenns desc, 'bed, L = L (1 -e -K (t-t 0))t 00 where 't " length et a gIven age, '00 " theoet I ca' ma.i mum length, K " 'ate of change of gr owth 'ate, t I' a g' 'en age, and to " the theoretIcal age at beg Inn I"' of growth (.hen 't I' ,ero). 5.1. I Description of Klnq Mackerel (ScOmberomorus caVa i la) The king mackere I I s the feet in length, weighIng compressed. The body Is sa II y and s I I very on the 5. I. I. I Dlstributlon and Mlqration 'a'ge,t Sc,, e,,,us 'pec I., 'n the 'e,tern At I a nt, c and may ach I ewe 5.5 100 POunds. The fonn of the kIng macke'el Is e' ongate and latera' I y covered wIth rudImentary scales. The color Is bluish or iron gray dor sIdes and belly (BerrIen and FInan, 1977). The k' ng mackeee' 'n hab ,ts the wate" of the weste'n At I ant I c f,om the Gu I f B, a, II, I nc I ud I ng the Go I f of Mex i co and the Ca, 'bb ",n. The 'pec' e, OCr, V "g In la and No,th Ca,o' I na. It " a coa,ta' 'pec' e, Wh Ich is not nan Ily tal she' f. of MaIne to RIo de Janiero, regu' ar , y as far north as found beyond the cont I nen Seasona' movemt a I ong the Gu I f of Me. I co and Atl ant I c CQ,t II ne, of the Un i ted Stat., " appa,ent,and the 'pec les I' mo'e ab undant I n the northeen pa,t of I t, range du,' ng the 'umm, and In ,,th FlorIda du,'ng the "nte,. The mov"ent, a'e P'obably 'elat.. to wate, tempe,at"e. Annual or long te'm change, In tempe,atere ""y af feet 'ea'ona I m I g'at' on patterns or the I r t 1m I ng. Fable, et a'. (I n p'ep. I 'oport that king ""cke'e I occU"ed late, I n the yea, du,' ng yea,s of low men a " tempe,ato e than' n yea" 'hen the tempe'at"e 'as hIgh. 'n the a'ea, of f St. Peter'b u'g. F i or Ida, the t 1m I ng of the 'p,'ng "CUn" of kIng mackere' Is corce'ated wIth wInter aI, tempecatere a"d flmlted by a m'nlmum of f 'hoe 'ate, tempe, atu'e of 2D'C (68' F) (w III 'am, and T ay' or, In P'ep,). M i g'ato,y patteen, of k' ng macke'e' change., th 'nc,ea,' ng " ze or age, Such beha. lor a' change' are commo to ""ny 'c"""d 'peCle, (Beauma"age, 1973). In a gIven a'ea dIfferent "ze c'asse, a'e pres ent at dl ffe'ent tIme, of the yea,. 7h " ha, been dbse'ved off Ft. pi eece, F lor Ida, (R. W, ''',,, FDNR, pe". comm.) and can be 'n fer'ed f,om month I Y change I n the ave'ag. sIze of fIsh caught In North Ca,o II na (Manooch and 'aws, 1979). Ve,y large I nd I v I dua', a'e pr e'ent of f Lou " 'ana du, I ng th, ent I re yea" Such' ocge ff ,h are ab und..t In ., ntee off Lou '" "a, T ex." and northea,t FI or Ida, When 'ma I I f ',h a'e ve'y 'a'e. 't ha, been 'uggast.. that these cocent'at 'on, of 'arge f I ,h a'e sepa'at, stocks. ThIs seems un I Ikely gIven the narrow sIze distrIbutIon. 5-1 There appear to be at least two exploited groupS of king mackerel in U.S. waters which may be separate stocks. Tagging data, (Wi Ii iams, unpub. man., 1976, 1977) shows at least two migration pette,.s which me, ;.dleete two sope,ete stocks. Meobe,s of one 9''"P e,e fo..d elo.g the .,theest coast of FIori da near Ft. Pierce and Sebast I an I n I et from Decem er to March. i n the i ate wi nter and early spring, these fish reappear off Ft. Pierce at about the same time each year (Wi II iams, unpUb. man., 1977). This migration pattern has been shown for fish tagged off Ft. Pierce from Decemer to March and in August, off Islamorada in January, Key West In February, Naples In March, and Port Aransas, Texas, in August. Two tag returns from Mexico Indicate some Interaction with Mexican stocks. The extent of this is unknown. A second group was defined by tagging In the spring off Boynton Beach and Jupiter, south of Ft. Pierce. These fish (with two exceptions) travel north during the spring and summer as far as V; 'g I. I e. Age I'. s; ,e effocts m I g' et 10. pette,.s. Fish ,ocept.,ed I. su..e' i. So.th Ce'o I I.e. "",th Carolina and Virginia were larger than those recaptured In summer In south Florida (Wi Ii lams, 1977). The length-frequency data of Trent, et al., (In prep.) support this concept. Recent analysis of length-frequency data suggest at least three explo~ted groupS of king mackerel in U.S. waters which may be separate stocks (Trent, Williams, Saloman, and Manooch, In prep.'. These are the sma! 1- and medium-sized fish In Florida, the medium-sized fish along the northern Gulf and south Atlantic, and the large fish off Louisiana. Not al i of the Florida group seemS to join the northward m I geet 10', Some ,ome I. I. so.th FI ",Ide du,;'g the somme'. The,e eppeece to be a s I ,e d If fe,ent; a I in the migration pattern. Fish tagged In Ft. Pierce and recaptured In the northern Gulf are larger (approximately 8.75 pounds), and probably sexually mature, while those recaptured In south Florida during the summer averaged 5.5 pounds and were probably not sexually mature (Wi II lams, unpub. man., 1 977) . Size selective migration of larger fish to the northern extremes of the range does not adequately explain size of fish caught In these areas. Catches of king mackerel by the charter boat fleet In Panama City and Dest I n are pr ¡mar I i Y sma II fish averag I ng four to s Ix pounds (Capta In H. L. H I I pert, p ece. eomm.). Cetehes b, the No,th Caco lI.e ehed"- boet fleet ace p' I mac 11, ""II ti sh I. Apr 11 a.d May. Mean weight was 5.6 pounds during those months In 1977 (Manooch and Laws, 1979). In that area, mean weight of the catch Increases stead I Iy dur ing the season. The season average weight in 1977 was 8.43 pounds (Manooch and Laws, in prep.). Large fish are reportedly caught off Texas and Louisiana in winter. A possible explanation for this may be that some immature fish remain In south Florida, while others continue with the larger fish. The four to six pound fish caught in the northern Gulf of Mexico and along the North Carol Ina and Virginia coasts are approximately one year of age. They may not have been large enough for very many to have been captured during tagging the previous winter. If a sma i i er percentage of sma II er fish than larger fish m I gr ate northward, the average size of the recaptures from the northern areas will be larger. I f th I s I s not the exp I anat I on, then I tis poss Ib i e that other groupS ex ¡ st that have not been def I ned b, tagg I .g. F.,the' wo,k Is .eeded to ace.' ate I' def i.e the m I g' eta" pette,.s a.d poss Ib I e stoc divisions for king mackerel. If separate stocks do exist, they should be managed separately. 5.1.1.2 General Behavior solitary. school s Smaller Individuals of this species form immense schools, while larger individuals are often Schools are comprised of similar sized individuals, and sma! i king mackerel sometimes run In of Spanish mackerel of the same size. Schools of king mackerel tend to congregate In areas of bottom rei lef such as holes or reefs. Older, so! Itary individual s, in particular, are often found around structures such as wrecks and 011 rigs. 5-2 5. 1. 1.3 Age and Growth Parameters The only avallab Ie estimates of age and growth parameters for king mackerel In U.S. waters are found In Beaumarlage (1973). Namura and Rodrigues (1967) calculated age In king mackerel in Brazil by a similar method. However, the results were quite dIfferent. Data from Beaumariage is used In this analysIs as the most applicable to U.S. waters. a) Growth equation The calculated von Bertalanffy theoretical growth equations for male and female king mackerel ,are as follows: Males: SLt = 840 (l-e -.35(t + 2.5)) SLt = 1150 (l-e -.2ICt + 2.4))Fema i es: where SL Is standard length In mi Illmeters and t Is age In years. The following table developed from Beaumarlage (1973) shows average standard length and weight at each age. Males Fema I es SL W SL W .(mm) (g) (mm) (g) I 594 1867 614 2025 II 679 2765 699 3038 I II 718 3258 777 4228 I V 760 3850 819 4984 V 777 4109 882 6282 V i 789 4298 956 8082 V II 811 4660 999 9273 b) Age-Freq uency D i str Ib ut I on Although precise age-frequency data are not available, length-frequency distribution in two different commercial king mackerel fisheries, the trolling fishery on the southeast coast of Florida and the gill-net fishery on the southwest coast of Florida, was determined by Beaumariage (1973). King mackerel taken by gill net are slightly larger than those taken by hook and lIne. Eighty-eight point six percent of the gill-net catch was between 650 and 900 mm standard length, while 88.8 percent of hook and i Ine landIngs were between 600 and 850 mm. c) Age at Recru r tment King mackerel cohorts In FlorIda become fully vulnerable to capture at Age II and Age i ii In the handlIne fishery of Florida, and at Age ILL and IV In the gill-net fisheries (Beaumarlage, 1973). Full recruitment to the recreational fishery prcbably occurs at or before Age I. d) Life Expectancy King mackerel can achieve an age of at least 14 years; a 90 pound female of that age was caught off Key West (Beaumar I age, pers. comm.). 5-3 e) Survival Beaumarlage (1973) determined survival rate for FlorIda king mackerel from catch curves based on i ength frequency dlstr Ibutlons. Annual survival rate cal cui ated from the catch of the east coast trolll ng fishery was S = 0.46, and for the west coast g II I-net fishery, S = 0.52. 5. 1. 1.4 Reproduct I on a) Sex Ratios No precise estimate of sex ratio exists. Recent work Indicates that sex ratios vary significantly from a 1: 1 ratio both spatially and temporally (Trent, et al., in prep.). b) Age at Matur I ty Age at first maturity Is not well understood. Beaumarlage (1973), studying gonadal development in king mackerel from FlorIda waters, concluded that major spawning occu~s at Age IV and over In females and at Age ILL and over In males, although some Age ILL females and Age Ii males are reproductively active. Hook and line fishermen report that ripe ovaries are commonly found In five to six pound fish (R. Farlow, pers. comm.). ThIs suggests that significant spawning may occur In females as young as Age 11. However, histological examination of developing gonads from Age II and ILL .females indicated that those fish did not spawn (Beaumarlage, pers. comm.). Recent work by NMFS Indicates that some fish co I i ected I n the northeastern Gu i f of Mex I co of f Panama City had matur I ng ovar i es as young as Age 1+ which suggests that some females spawn in their second year (John Finucane, pers. comm.). c) Fecund Ity No fecund I ty stud i es measurements from 39 val Jd for Florida. have been made on king mackerel In Florida. Fecundity equations based on king mackerel In Brazilian waters were developed by Ivo (1974). These may not be d) Spawning Season (Excerpted from Berrien and Finan, 1977a) The spawning season in this specIes Is protracted (Beaumarlage, 1973; Ivo, 1972; Wollam, 1970) with several spawning peaks (Beaumarlage, 1973). Along the Florida west coast the season is fran April through November with a peak In May (Beaumariage, 1973). However, NMFS 1978 king mackerel data from Panama City Indicates spawning peak in the northwest Florida area occurs in the late summer and fall (John Finucane, pers. comm.). Larvae and juven II es are found from May to Nover er In U. S. waters (1972) observed spawning stage gonads In Brazilian waters the year the species spawns In Brazil dur Ing the first and fourth quarters. (Berrien and Finan, 1977). Ivo round; although Menezes (1969) said Gonada i development and spawn Ing appear to be correl ated wi th some seasonally vary I ng env ironmental factor such as photoper lod or temperature (Beaumar I age, 1973). e) Spawning Area The outward boundary of such as the Gu i f Stream areas of high turb Id ity spawning In kIng mackerel Is probably the landward edge of oceanic currents and the Loop Current, and the shoreward edge Is probably bounded by inshore and low salinity. This generalized statement Is based on examination of the 5-4 larval distribution patterns of Wollam (1970), Schekter(1972) and Mayo (1973), and Dwinell and Futch (1973). King mackere I apparent i y spawn further offshore than Span Ish mackere I (Wo II am, 1970; Dw i ne II and Futch, 1973; and McEachran and Finucane, 1979). There does not appear to be any small, well def i ned areas for spawn i ng. Larva I d i str Ibut ion Ind I cates spawn i ng OCcurs in the western Atl ant ic off the CarolInas, Cape Canaveral (Wollam, 1970), and MIami (Schekter, 1972, and Mayo, 1973); in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the Dry Tortugas (Wollam, 1970); in the northern Gulf of Mexico off the Florida panhandle (Wollam, 1970, and Dwinell and Futch, 1973), and the Texas coast (McEachran and Finucane, 1979); and in the Yucatan Channel (Wollam, 1970). Relative abundance of larvae off the Texas coast suggests that area may be a major spawnIng site (McEachran and Finucane, 1979). The abun dance of very large kIng mackerel off LouIsIana suggests that this may also be a significant spawning area. There is little spawning in the eastern Gulf between Naples and Apalachlcola (Houde, et al., 1979). 5.1.1.5 Larvae Larvae and juveniles have been found off southwestern Florida in May, in the Yucatan Channel in June and July, off eastern Florida and in the northern Gulf of Mexico in Septemer, and off Cape Hatteras, North Carol ina, in August, Septerer, and November (Wollam, 1970). Dwinell and Futch (1973) found~. cavalla larvae off Florida and Alabama every month that they sampled, from June through October. Juvenile~. cavalla were collected off LouisIana during June and September (Perret, et al., 1971) and in St. Andrew Bay, Florida (Nakamura, 1976). Larvae of king mackerel were captured from 1975 through 1977 off the Texas coast from May through October with the greatest number occurring over the outer continental shelf during Septerer (McEachran and Finucane, 1979). Schekter (1971) and Mayo (1973) found king mackerel larvae In the Florida current over a 16-month period, but did not report periodicity. Dwinell and Futch (1973) collected more king mackerel larvae at mid-depths than at the surface in June, but more at the surface than at mid-depths in September. Sampl ing OCcurred during the evening and at night at most stations. Sa i inities where~. cava i i a larvae were co, lected by Dwinell and Futch(1973) ranged from 25.85 ppt. to 34.47 ppt. 5.1.2 Description of Spanish Ma~ (Scomeromorus maculatus) 5.1.2.1 D i str ib ut i on and Seasona i Movements The species~. maculatus, as redefined by Collette and Russo (1979), Is restricted to the western Atlantic coast of the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico. The southward extent of its range is the Florida Keys and the northward extent in the Atlantic is normally New York or southern New Eng land, although occasional strays are found to the Gulf of Maine (Berrien and Finan, 1977). Spanish mackerel make seasonal migrations along the Atlantic and eastern and northern Gulf coasts and appear to be much more abundant in FlorIda during the winter. They move northward each spring to OCcur off the Carolinas by April, off Chesapeake Bay by May, and, In some years, .as far north as Narragansett Bay by July (Berrien and Finan, 1977). In the eastern Gulf of Mexico .they migrate to the west of Cape San BIas. They remaIn in the north until September and migrate south in the fall (Beaumariage, 1970; Wollam, 1970). Seasonal north-south movements of Spanish mackerel along the Mexican and south Texan Gulf coasts are suggested by one fish tagged In Port Aransas, Texas, whose tag was returned from Vera Cruz, Mexico. GenetIc dIfferences in Spanish mackerel from the Atlantic and Gulf were detected in biochemical studIes by Collette and Chittenden (M. Chittenden, pers. comm.). This suggests that mIgration patterns of SpanIsh mackerel may be different from those of kIng mackerel, which circumnavigate the FlorIda peninsula (R. Williams, unpub. man., 1977). 5-5 5. 1.2.2 Genera I Behav I or The Spanish mackerel Is a fast-moving surface-feeding fish that forms Immense schools of similar sized Individuals. Schools are often known to pass very near to the beach on their seasonal migration journeys. They frequently enter tidal estuarIes, bays, and lagoons (Berrien and Finan, 1977; and others) . 5.1.2.3 Aqe and Growth Parameters a) Growth Equation Female Spanish mackerel grow faster and reach a larger size than males (Powell, 1975). According to Powell IS (1975) growth equations, the theoretical maximum length of the female of the species is approximately 645 mm while the theoretical maximum length of males is about 515 mm. Power (1975) determ I ned the age of 128 ma i es and 183 fema i es by I nterpretat i on of annu i ar marks on otoliths. The theoretical growth equations he calculated for the two sexes are: Males: SLt = 515 (1 - e -0.48(t + 1.-12)) Femal es: SLt = 645 (1 - e -0.45(t + 0.78)) where SL I s standard i ength In m Ii II meters and tis age I n years. The following tables prepared from the data and equations of Powell (1975) show average standard i ength and ca I cu I ated we I ght at each age. Age Males Fema i es SL W SL W (mm) (g) (mm) (g) I 362 492 404 714 II 405 688 459 1065 ILL 445 911 528 1653 iV 476 1113 559 1922 V 497 1266 598 2443 Klima (1959) also estimated age and growth for Spanish mackerel in Florida. His estimated growth rates were much I ess than Powe II with ne I ther sex reach I ng one pound we i ght unt I i size Ii +. b) Age Frequency DIstribution Powell (1975) determined age of 2,060 fish from the commercial and sport catch In Florida In 1968 and 1969. I t can be 1 nferred from Powe II (1975) that 42.7 percent of the samp i e was Age i fish, 93 per cent was fish three years old or younger, and 99.08 percent was fish Age V or younger. One eight year old fish, a female, was found. Length-frequency Information could also be obtained from catch curves publ ished by Powell (1975); however, the curves are based on the catch obtained from gill nets of dif ferent mesh sIzes and all are based on relatively small samples. Commercial gear used In 1968 and 1969 was pr Incipally gIll nets wIth stretched mesh ranging In size from three to 3-5/8 Inches (7.6 to 9.2 cm), 3-3/8 Inches (8.5 cm) being the most prevalent. Other gear used commercIally In Florida for Spanish mackerel at that time were beach seines and by special permit a purse seine (Powell, 1975). Stretched mesh sizes of beach seines were 1-1/4 Inches and 2-3/4 inches (3.2 and 4.2 cm). Purse se I ne mesh size was 3/4 Inches (1.9 cm). Sport catch was by hook and I ine. Powell (1975) does not give the proportion sampled from each gear type. 5-6 c) Age at Reèru I tment Accord i ng to Powe I I (1975), Age I fish were the most ab undant size c I ass in the commerc i a I and sport catches of 1968 and 1969. Few Age 0 fish were taken possibly because Florida law prohibits taking Span ish mackere I I ess than 12 inches 004.8 mm) I n fork length. d) Surv I va i Rate Based on Powell's (1975) observation of one Age VIIi fIsh In a sample of 2,060 individuals, 42.7 per cent of which were Age i fish, It can be es+lmated that the survival rate (S) of Spanish mackerel is 0.38 08 percent of the populatIon) per year. The Instantaneous rate of total mortal ity (Z) is 0.9686. Calculations are based on the following equation and relationships: Nt = Noe-Zt where No is initial population, N is nUrrer at time t, Z Is Instantaneous total mortal ity, and t is age In years. The relationship between survival and Instantaneous total mortal ity is as follows: S = e-Z Based on Powell's (1975) data, let Nt = 1 (nurrer of Age VIII fish); No = 880 (nurrer of Age I fish), and t = 7 (Age V iII - Age i). Z = I n (1 /880 ) 7 = 0.9686 S = e-0.9686 = 0.3796 Doi and Mendizabal (1979) determined the Instantaneous total mortal ity (Z = 0.903), natural mortal ity (M = 0.693), and fishing mortal ity (F = 0.210) of Spanish mackerel on the Mexican coast on the basis of age-length relationships and length frequencies. The annual survival rate for this fishery can be calculated to be 0.41. 5.1.2.4 Reproduct I on a) Sex Ratio Percent of fema i e Span ish mackere i caught in south F I or I da by gill nets was 51 percent lIne 80 percent (Klima, 1959). Different feeding behavior between sexes was suggested reason for the high percent of fema Ie fish caught by hook and I I nee and by hook and as a likely b) Age at Matur i ty Although Powell (1975) found maturIng oocytes in Age i and Age II females his analytical resulTS suggested that very few of these actually spawned. This Interpretation Is questionab Ie (Houde, pers. comm.) because of the sma i i nUrr er of rIpe fish In his samp i e. Given a high morta I I ty rate and short life span, it Is more likely that Age Ii females make a significant contribution TO the spawning potent i a i of the stock. c) Fecundity Ear II's (1883) report from the Chesapeake Bay area appears to prov I de the on I y ex i st I ng I nformaT f on on fecundity in S. maculatus. He estimated that a six pound (2.7 kg) mackerel carr led 1,500,000 eggs. 5-7 He counted the number of eggs in the ovaries of one immature female weighing one pound 13 ounces (823 g) and 18.5 inches (470 mm) in length and determined that the ovaries contained approximately 525,000 eggs. Gesteira (1972) studied fecundity in the mackerel in Brazil that is now known to be a separate species (Collette and Russo, 1979). d) Spawn i ng Season Spawn i ng of Span ish mackere I occurs repeated i y dur i ng a pro i onged spawn i ng season from ab out Apr i I unti i September (Powell, 1975). e) Spawn i ng Areas The prolonged spawning season of Individual Spanish mackerel a wide area, which should reduce the chances of fluctuations tal var lations caused by nature or man. may a Ii ow spawn i ng to be d i str Ib uted over in year c I ass strength due to env i ronmen Indirect evIdence of spawning areas comes from larval collecting studi-es. Wollam (1970) found Spanish mackere i larvae in the Gu I f of Mex i co a long the west coast of F i or I da from Nap I es to Panama City. Dwinell and Futch (1973) found them widely distr fbuted in the northern Gul f fran Mobile, Alabama, to Cedar Key, Florida. McEachran and Finucane (1979) found them off the Texas coast. Larval abundance of Spanish mackerel is greatest In the eastern Gulf of Mexico (McEachran and Finucane, 1979). Spanish mackerel spawn closer to shore and in more shallow water than king mackerel (Dwinell and Futch, 1973; McEachran and Finucane, 1979). It seems i ikely that Spanish mackerel spawn In the Atlantic off North Carol ina and Virginia, although Spanish mackerel larvae were not found In the western Atlantic in the few sites examined by Wollam (1970), Schekter (1971) and May (1973), and the on I y pub i ¡shed ev i dence of spawn i ng by Span Ish mackerel In the western Atlantic comes from the early ooservations of ripe females In Chesapeake Bay by Earll (1883) and Ryder (1887). 5.1.2.5 Larvae a) i denti f ication Embryonic and early larval stages of 2. maculatus were described by Ryder (1881) and later stages were described by Wollam (1970). These descriptions are summarIzed, with drawings, in Berrien and Finan ( 1977b) . b) D i str ib ut i on Span ish mackere i i arvae have been found in nearshore sha I low water env i ronments of the Gu If from Florida to south Texas (Wollam, 1970; Dwinell and Futch, 1973; McEachran and Finucane, Abundance appears to be greatest in the northeastern Gul f (McEachran and Finucane, 1979). of Mexico 1979) . 5. 1.3 Descr I pt i on of Cob I a (Rachycentron canadum) 5.1.3.1 D istr ibution and Mlqration Cobia has a circumtropical distribution (Briggs, 1960). The species is found in the northern part of its range in summer and It winters in south Florida (Austin, et al., 1978) and the West Indies (Richards, 1967). Charterboat fishermen In the area from Mexico Beach, Florida, to Mobile, Alabama, report that the i r catch of cob i a is heav i est dur I ng the spr I ng, from l ate March to the first of May, when the species passes very close to the beach on a westward migration (Austin, et al., 1978). This 5-8 latter observation is somewhat at varIance with the statement by Reid (1954) that May to August is the season of occurrence of the species around Cedar Key, FlorIda. In the Bahamas, cobias are principally known from the Bimini area or the Grand Bahama Bank (Bohlke and Chapl in, 1968). AccordIng to Bohlke and Chapl in (1968), cob la are found in open water, In inlets, in bays, and In man groves. Br i ggs (1960) descr ib as cob ¡ a as a "shore spec I as." I n the F lor i da Keys it is often caught by sports fishermen In waters on Iy 20 feet (6 m) deep (Austin, et al., 1978). 5.1.3.2 General Behavior According to Bohlke and Chapl In (1968) young cobia, with their black and white strIpes, bear a striking resemblance to sharksuckers and sometImes behave very much like them by swimming along with a shark or a ray. Both young and adult cobia often associate with floating objects (Baughman, 1950; Reid, 1954). Cob ia often swim around pi lIngs, buoys and wrecks. 5.1.3.3 Age and Growth Parameters a) Length-we i ght Re i at ion Female cobia grow faster and attain a larger size than male cobia. By Age ViI, female cobia are the weight of males the same age (Richards, 1967). There is, however, no significant difference relationship of weight to length In the two sexes. Richards (1977) gave this relationship as: twice in the log10W = (3.088 logioL) - 3.506 where Lis fork length in 1 nches and W I s we I ght ¡ n pounds. b) Growth Equations Age of cob i a in Chesapeake Bay was determ i ned by Richards scales of 288 specImens measuring from 107 to 1,544 mm in from scal e Interpretations were later updated by Richards are: (1967) on the basis of annualar marks on fork length. Growth equations calculated (1977). The most recent growth equations Males: Lt = 1,210 rl-e 0.28 (t + 0.06)1 F ema i es : Lt = 1,640 rl-e 0.226 (t + 0.08) ) where Lt is fork length in mi Ii imeters and t is age In years. Richards (1977) a i so gives the growth eeuat I on for we i ght: Males: w = 21. 3( l-e -0. 28t)3. 088 Fema I es: W = 54.5(I-e-0.225t)3.088 The following table from Richards (1967) gIves the calculated fork length and we.lght of cobia for each age in the range of the samples. 5-9 Length and we ¡ ght so I ut ions for cob i a growth eq uat ions. 1 Feiia I es Males t in Fork Len~th We ¡ ~ht Fork Length We i ght years in cm Ibs k~ in cm Ibs kg 1 14.0 36 0.85 0.4 12.2 31 0.6 0.3 2 24.2 61 5.2 2.4 20.8 53 3.4 1.5 3 32.3 82 13.3 6.0 27.3 69 8.2 3.7 4 38.8 99 24.0 10.9 32.3 82 13.9 6.3 5 44.0 112 35.7 16.2 36.0 91 19.6 8.9 6 48.1 122 47.5 21.5 38.8 99 24.8 11.2 7 51.4 131 58.6 26.6 40.9 104 29.3 13.3 8 54.0 137 68.7 31.2 42.5 108 33.1 15.0 1 Adapted from Richards, 1967. c) Age-Frequency D i str ibut ion The following table adapted from a table in Richards (1967) shows the age frequency distribution of his samp I e. ~ Number Ma I es Number Fema i es Total I II ILL i V V V i V II V II i IX X 4 37 18 10 13 12 4 o 2 1 101 6 15 30 20 39 22 14 7 3 o 156 10 52 48 30 52 34 18 7 5 1 257 The samp i es were from the commerc i a i pound catch of cob I a I n Chesapeake Bay from 1960-1964. d) Age at Recruitment According to Richards (pers. comm.) sport catches of 15 inches (381 mm) cobia (Age i) are common for the average fishermen, but more knowledgeable fishermen usually return fish of that length to the water and predominantly take fish Age Ii or older. Cobia are not fully recruited to the pound net fishery in Chesapeake Bay until Age ILL (based on the age-frequency distribution from Richards, 1967). e) Life Expectancy The maximum life expectancy of cobia is at least ten years (Richards, 1967) and may be 15 years or more. 5-10 f) Survival No pub I i shed est imates of surv I va I In cob I a are ava I I ab Ie. Chesapeake Bay taken between 1960 and 1964 (Richards, 1967) using the methodology of Robson and Chapman (1961). Annual clated 95 percent conf idence lImits Is: S = 0.66.. 0.04. Data on age-frequency of 257 fish from were used to ca I cu I ate a surv i va I rate surv i va I rate for sexes caa I ned and asso 5.1.3.4 R eproduct I on a) Sex Ratios The ratio of females to males in the sample of Richards (1967) was 1.54: 1. b) Age at Matur ity Male cob ia are sexually mature at Age Ii and females are sexually mature at Age ILL (Richards, 1967). c) Fecund i ty The relationship between fecundity and body weIght In cobia, as determIned by Richards (1967), Is: F = (0.98W - 6.39)xI05 where W Is weIght In kilograms and F Is number of eggs. d) Spawn i ng Season Coia spawn at least from late June through mid-August in the Chesapeake Bay area (Richards, 1967). Spawning starts earlier in the year in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Dawson, 1971). Larval collections of cobia off south Texas Indicate that spawning occurs In late summer and early fall (Finucane, et al., 1978a) and off Galveston, Texas In July (Finucane, et al., 1978b). e) Spawn i ng Areas AccordIng to Richards (1967), spawning of cobia probably occurs along or near VirgInia's eastern shore in Chesapeake Bay or the At i ant i c. The presence of cob I a under 150 mm SL i n the northern Gu i f (Dawson, 1971). Finucane, et a I. (1978a) report I arvae as study in the northwester n Gu I f of Mex i co. of Mex i co i nd i cates cob i a spawn in that area sma Ii as 5. 1 mm SL tn the I r ichthyop I ankton 5.1.3.5 Larvae Juvenile cobia have been collected from the Chesapeake Bay area, off North Carolina and South Carolina on the Atlantic, and from Florida to LouIsiana In the Gulf. Fairly small cobia (less than 770 mm) are not uncommon in the Gulf of Campeche In the winter. Until recently, it was thought that cobIa was an I nshore spawner due to the occurrence of eggs I n Chesapeake Bay (Ryder, 1887) j however, accord i ng to D. Hammond (pers. comm.), cobia spawn well offshore (52 mIles off the coast of South Carolina) and the i arvae move I nto I nshore waters of low sa II n i ty (15-20 ppt) as soon as they are moile. Hass I er (Hassler and Rainville, 1975a) found cobIa eggs when he was searchIng for dolphin eggs in the Gulf Stream. The cob la that were hatched from the eggs were raised in the laboratory (Hassler and Ralnvi lie, 1975a). 5-11 Dawson (1971) noted that the specimens he IdentifIed showed a preponderance of smaller Individuals (13-15 mm) in collections made 30-40 miles offshore and larger IndivIduals (45-140 mm) had been most frequently collected In Inshore localities. There were, however, so few specimens and the specimens were taken by so many different collectors, that Dawson could not definitely attribute his observation to a differential onshore-offshore distribution of sIzes. D. Hammond (pers. canm.) obtalriëd all the specimens for his collection at marinas. They were Invarlab Iy associated with floating debris. 5.1.4 Descrlptlon of Cero Mackerel (Scomberomorus re~alls) Cero mackerel Is the third member of the genus Scomberomorus to occur in the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic regions. This species Is between the Spanish and the king mackerel In size. It Is not dis tinguIshed from king mackerel In landings so no catch Information Is available on cero mackerel. The cero Is silvery below and dark blue above. A blackish longitudinal band on the side runs from the base of the pectoral nearly to the base of the caudal, crossing the lateral line (Evermann, 1899). Be i ow the band are rows of ob i ong go i d spots. Biological information on the cero mackerel In the literature apears to be limited to brief mentIons and short descrIptions (Cervlgon, 1966). Apparently nothing Is known about the population dynamics of thIs species. Howell-Rivero (1953) discussed the importance of this species to the Cuban fIshery. 5.1.4.1 Distribution and Seasonal Movements The range of cero mackere I I s thought to be more restr I cted to the trop i cs than that of the other two Scomeromous species. Evermann (1899) gave the range of cero mackerel as Cape Cod to Brazil; not very canmon on the south Atlantic coast of the U.S., but abundant around Cuba; known also fran JamaIca, Martinique, and Puerto Rico. Cervlgon (1966) also gave Massachusetts as the northern limit of the range of cero. According to D. de Sylva (pers. comm.), Massachusetts as a northern range limit for cero Is unl ikely. The cero Is not normally found In abundance north of Dade County, Florida. In Cuba, the landings of this species are slightly greater than the landings of king mackerel (Howell-Rivero, 1953). Cero Is the species of Scomeromorus most frequently encountered near shore In the Bahamas (Bohlke and Chapl In, 1968). 5.1.4.2 General Behavior The cero mackerel Is prImarily a reef species. It Is found In small schools or as individuals. 5.1.4.3 Other Specific InformatIon Is not avallab Ie on growth, demography, or reproduction. 5.1.5 Descrlptlon of Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrlx) 5.1.5.1 Distrlbutlon and MI~ratlon The bluefish generally occurs In temperate and warm temperate continental shelf waters (Briggs, 1960). i n the eastern s I de of the New Wor i d, b I uef I sh have been reported from Nova Scot I a to Texas, Braz I i to Uruguay, I n Bermuda, Cuba, and Venezue i a. They a I so are reported from Portuga i to Senega I, Ango i a to South Africa, In the Azores, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Indian Ocean, the east coast of southern A fr I ca, Madagascar, the Maya i a pen I nsu I a, Tasman I a, and Austra I I a. On our At I ant I c coast, the bluefish aggregations migrate seasonally - northward In sprIng and summer and southward In fall and ear I y winter. In winter much of the popu I at I on rema I ns offshore (Lund and Ma I tezos, 1970). Groups of larger fish not only travel farther and faster but tend to congregate In the northern part of the I r range. 5-12 Bluefish In the Gulf of Mexico appear to be a different stock from those In the Atl~ntlc. Extensive tagging In the Atl~ntlc has been dÓne, ~nd no returns have been recorded from the Gulf. On the west coast of Florida comercial fishermen catch bluefish year around at dIfferent locations, but the fish are less abundant than on the east side of the peninsula. In addition. It Is common knowledge among fishermen that the bluefish caught In the Gulf of Mexico are smaller than those caught In the Atlantic and at Key West. 5.1.5.2 General Behavior The fish school by size and swim continuously at speeds varying with water temperature and body size. These groups are loosely associ ated Into larger aggregations. 5.1.5.3 A~e and Growth Par~meters Relationship between age, length, and weight of bluefish was studied by Kendall and Walford (1979) and Is shown graphically In Wllk, (1977). There Is no evidence of sexual variation In size In this species. There are large variations In length and weight In eac age group due to the bimodal nature of spawning (Wi Ik, 1977). a) Growth Equation Age and length at age In U.S. waters'have been estimated by Richards (1976), Lassiter (1962), Backus (1962), and Wllk and Walford (ms). Age and growth have been estimated In other parts of the world by van der E 1st (1976), Ko larov (1964), and Thomso n (1957). b) Age-Frequency D I str Ibut Ion Age I through Age I V fish made up the bu I k of the b i uef I sh s~mp i ed I n a study by Kenda II and Wa I ford (1979); however. fish older than Age IV were quite evident especially In the area from Maryl~nd to southern New England. Year classes 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966 all ~ppeared to be equal In strength. c) Age at Recru I tment It can be Inferred from Wllk (1977) that Age 0 fish are not Important In the catch and recruitment ef fect I ve I y occurs at Age I. d) Life Expectancy Out of 25,000 fish aged at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Sandy Hook Laboratory, the oldest was Age IX; however, I~rger, presumably older fish have been reported (Wllk and Walford, ms), (Wllk. 1977). The graph In Wllk, (1977) Includes fish to Age XiV. c) Surv I va i Rate An estImate could probably be developed from Information In Kend~11 and Walford (1979). It would probably be necessary to calculate separate survival rates for fish tagged In different areas because separate populations exist that may have entirely different survival characeristics (Wllk, 1977). 5-13 5.1.5.4 Reproduction a) Sex Rat los According to Wilk (1977) the sex ratio Is 1:1. II fe (W I I k, 1977). Bluefish do not appear to school by sex at any time of b) Age at Matur I ty Bluefish becane sexually mature In their second year of life (Wllk, 1977). size than fema I es. Males mature at a smaller c) Fecund Ity Number of eggs produced is a function of age and size (Lassiter, 1962). mm) long contained about 900,000 maturing eggs; one 23.0 Inches (585 mm) 1,100,000 eggs (Wi I k, 1977). A bluefish 20.8 Inches (528 long conta I ned about d) Spawn I ng Season There are two different groups of spawners In the western Atlantic. The first group spawns In the spring and the other group spawns In the summer. Spawning of both groups probably proceeds In waves (Wilk.1977). Collections of bluefish larvae In November off the Texas coast suggests that spawning occurs In the fall In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico (Barger, et. al., 1978). A spring spawnIng also probably occurs In the northeastern Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana and Panama City, Florida (H.A. Brusher, pers. comm.). e) Spawn I ng Ar eas Separate areas for spring and summer spawning groups have been defined. The spring spawning area Is In the offshore area of the South Atlantic Bight, roughly between Cape Canaveral and Cape Hatteras. The summer spawning area Is In the Inshore area of the Mid-Atlantic Bight, between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod. Although not well documented, spawnIng undoubted Iy occurs In the northern Gulf of Mexico. 5.1.5.5 Larvae a) I dent I f Icat Ion The original descriptions of eggs, larvae, larval, and juvenile al. (1966), Norcross, et al. (1974), and Pearson (1950). These Moran (1974) whose summary was recounted by Wi Ik (1977). development were given by Deuel, eT works were summarIzed by Llppson and b) DistrIbution Larvae from the spring spawning area In the South Atlantic Bight move Into the estuaries of the Mld Atlantic BIght to grow up. Larvae from the summer spawning area In the Mid-Atlantic Bight develop In the area where they were spawned and winter In the south Atlantic (Kendall and Walford, 1979). In the Gulf of Mexico, bluefish larvae have been collected off the Texas coast (Barger, et al., 1978). They probably occur through much of the northern Gulf of Mexico. 5-14 5.1.6 Descrlptlon of Llttle Tunn~ (Euthynnus alletteratus) The little tunny Is one of the most common scombrlds In the western Atlantic (Rivas, 1951) accounting for 40 percent of the fishes taken In a trolling survey off the southeastern U.S. coast (Anderson, 1954). This species also Is abundant In the Gulf of Mexico. In collections of young fishes In the Gulf of MexIco, this was the species that was the best represented (Klawe and Shimada, 1959). 5.1.6.1 D I str I but I on and Seasona ¡Movements The little tunny Is found on both sides of the Atlantic throughout tropical and subtropIcal areas Including the Mediterranean. It Is a coastal species (de Sylva and Rathjen, 1961; Marchal, 1963; Postel, 1950; Wh Iteleather and Brown, 1945; and Zhudova, 1969) wh Ich may be found In open ocean waters I n sma II numbers. The available literature Indicates that the majority of the stock or stocks of little tunny found In U.S. waters remaIn within U.S. jurisdiction throughout spring, summer,- and fall and may remain In U.S. waters during winter (Davis, 1979). Little tunny mIgrate seasonally, moving south and offshore during fal I and winter, then returning northward In the spring (de Sylva and Rathjen, 1962). In summer, i Ittle tunny Is abundant In the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic at least as far north as Cape Hatteras. In winter, large numbers of little tunny are found off south Florida, primarily In the Gulf, south and .west of Naples (Charles Carter, pers. comm.), and In the Tortugas (de Sylva and Rathjen, 1962). At the same time, some are found offshore In more northern regions such as off Georgia (Carlson, 1952). Some fraction of the stock(s) may extend Into the CarIbbean In winter; however, there Is no avaJ lable data to document such an extension (Davis, 1979). 5.1.6.2 Other Data More detailed biological data Is contained In a Resource Document which of Mexico Fishery Management Council. This material Is not Included In measur es ar e pr oposed at th 1st I me. Is ava" ab Ie thr ough the Gu I f the FMP because no management 5.1.7 Descrlptlon of DolphIn (Coryphaena hlppurus) The dolphin Is the larger of two open-ocean pelagic congenetors that are cosmopolItan In distribution In tropical and subtropical waters (Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968). It Is a valuable commercial species In Japan, Ch Ina, and Hawa I I and Is an Important Source of food In many Islands of the Pacl f Ic and Caribbean (Beardsley, 1967). In Florida the dolphIn Is an Important sport fish and Is taken on moretrips and In greater numbers by Florida east coast charterboats than any other species (EI lis, 1967). It Is also an Important sport fish In North Carolina (Rose and Hassler, 1969). 5.1.7.1 Dlstrlbutlon and Mlqratlon According to Shcherbachev (1973), C. hlppurus penetrates temperature latitudes to range above 400N in the summer. Gibbs and Collette (1959) give the latitudinal limit of the species In the AtlantIc asthe 45° line, which corresponds to the poleward limits of the 15°C (59°F) Isotherm. Rose and Hassler (1968) gIve Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and the southern tip of Africa as the range limIts of the dolphin In the Atlantic. Slghtlngs In the extreme lImits of the range reportedly are rare, and the general range of this species probably Is best described by the 20°C (680F) Isotherm (Gibbs and COllette, 1959). Hochachka (1974) alludes to the common dolphin as a "tropical eurythermal species." .f. hlppurus Is common In the Caribbean, the Gulf Stream, and the Gulf of MexIco. The occurrence of this species In large numbers off the Texas coast has been reported (Baughman, 1941). 5-15 This species comes close to shore where blue waters are found near the shore, notably southeastern Florida, Cape Hatteras, and Ocean City, Maryland (GIbbs and Collette, 1959). Schuck (1951) found that the best fishing for dolphin oft North Carolina was by trolling In areas where bottom depths were be tween 21 and 100 fathoms. Gibbs and Collette (1959) cited by de Sylva (pers. comm.) as saying that In south Florlda.f. hlppurus adults are caught both In the Gulf Stream and at Its junction with coastal waters. This species occasionally enters Inshore waters of somewhat high turbidity (Gibbs and Collette, 1959, citing de Sylva, pers. comm.). 5.1.7.2 Genera I Behav I or The dolphin Is well known for Its propensity to station Itself near nonmotile objects on the ocean surface. Kojima (1956, 1960a, 1960b, 1966) has published specifically on this subject. According to Kojima (1965), the high returns (27.2 percent average) resulting from his tagging study In Japan demonstrated the ecological significance and effects of floating objects on dolphins. There Is a greater availability of food near floating objects, and dolphins leave them only when there Is food nearby. In the FlorIda current and Gulf Stream, dolphin associate with Sargassum windrows and, according to Beardsley (1967) and Gibbs and Collette (1959), take much of their food from that commun Ity. Young dolphin school, but older Individuals are more solItary. Dolphin 300-500 mm long (fork length, probably) are referred to as "school" dolphin (Beardsley, 1967). Baughman (1941) considered the dolphIn a highly gregarious species, but his observations are of young Individuals. Although no spe cific descrIption of the size of dolphin schools was found In the literature, It Is the general Impression that they do not contain the vast number of Individuals found In schools of species such as the mackerel. 5.1.7.3 Other Data More detailed biologIcal data Is contained In a Resource Document which Is available throogh the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The material Is not Included In the FMP because no management measures are proposed at this tIme. 5.2 Abundance and Present Condition The Information for this section has been Included In Section 5.4.1.2 SpanIsh mackerel, 5.4.3 for cobia, 5.4.4 for cero mackerel, 5.4.5 for and 5.4.7 for dolphin. This was done because the Information leading followed more coherently the presentation In Section 5.4. for kl ng mackerel, 5.4.2~2 for little tunny, 5.4.6 for bluefish, to the respect Ive conc Ius Ions 5.3 Ecolo~lcal Relationships Prey-predator relationships, food chains, and competitive or mutuallstJc InteractIons are the most Important factors to consider In developing an understanding of biologIcal relationships of fishery species. A descriptIon will be given of the specific prey and predator organisms of each of the spe"' cles of the management unit, followed by a general discussion of the food chains affecting these species, Including larval food chains. Competitive and mutuallstlc .Interactlons wi Ii be discussed where any Information Is available. 5.3.1 Prey-Predator Relatlonshlps of Kln~ Mackerel a) Prey Specl es The primary food of king mackerel In Florida waters are clupeld fishes, particularly Oplsthonema o~llnum (the Atlantic thread herring) and Haren~ula !aquana (scaled sardine), and Invertebrates, 5-16 I nc Iud I ng penae i d Shr Imps and sq u I d. FI sh of the famlil es Carangl dae (Jacks), Lut jan I dae (snap per), and Pomadasyldae (grunts) make up a small percent of the dIet. The three groups accCXnt for 59 percent, 33 percent, and eIght percent of stomach contents by number respectively (Beaumarlage, 1973). Beaumarlage examIned 366 kIng mackerel stomachs, but only 70 held IdentifIable food; most (179) were empty. In a Texas study, Knapp (1949) a ccount I ng for 43.5 per cent of up 25.1 percent of food Items. stomachs. Of th Is, 7.9 percent achs of 327 were examined. found that shr Imp were the number one food Item of kl ng mackerel, food Items In stomachs. SquId was also an Important food Item, making FIsh of various types made up 50.6 percent of the food Items In were menhaden. Other fish specIes were not separated out. The stom Stomachs of 831 kIng mackerel were examIned from fish caught offshore of LouIsiana (C. Saloman and S. Naughton, pers. comm.). Fish were the dominant food, comprIsing over 99 percent by weIght, and volume, and frequency of occurrence of the stomach contents. Primary species were In the famIlIes Clupeldae, Carangldae, Sclaenldae, and Trlchlurldae. In the stomachs of 355 kIng mackerel collected off Panama City, the volume of food was 85.4 percent fish and 14.1 percent squl.d. Minor amounts of various crustaceans made up the remainder of the volume of food Items. Three fIsh species, Decapterus punctatus (rCXnd scad), Sardine i i a anchovla (Spanish sardine), and Brevootla patronus (Gulf menhaden), were domInant (S. Naughton, pers. comm.). b) Pr eda tor Spec I es The bottle-nose dolphin (Turslops truncatus) and several shark species are thought to be the major predators of both kl ng and Span I sh mackerel due to the Ir common occurrence around mackerel schoo Is. Bottle-nose dolphins ,are a problem for both handline and gIll-net mackerel fishermen on the Florida east coast (Cato and Prochaska, 1976), as they pull hooked fish off the line and tear them out of nets. Several shark species are mentIoned by Bigelow and Schroeder (1948) as predators of the mackerels. These are tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvler), bull sharks (Carcharhlnus leucas), the smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zy~aena), and the short-f I n mako (I surus oxyr Inchus). Sharks often are found In areas where gll I nets are beIng set around Spanish and king mackerel and damage to nets by sharks I s a common occurrence. The speed and sever I ty wI th wh Ich the sharks attacked the nets off Key West In 1978 suggested that the sharks were In the mackerel schools before the nets were set, rather than comIng to the area to feed on trapped fish. The lemon shark (NeQaprlon brevlrostrls) Is saId to be one of the prIncipal species Interfering with the kIng mackerel fishing operations off Key West (S. Gruver, pers. comm.). There Is little InformatIon on the diet of the lemon shark In the iiterature. Two lIttle tunny collected fran the Florida current by Klawe (1961) had 20-30 mm Scomberomorus larvae In their stomachs. Unfortunately, the larvae cCXld not be IdentIfied to species (Klawe, 1961), however, judgIng fran habitat they very likely were kIng mackerel. 5.3.2 Prey-Predator Relatlonshlps of Spanlsh Mackerel a) Prey Specl es The followIng organisms are given by Klima (1959) as food Items of Spanish mackerel In Florida based on analys Is of 292 stomachs, 38 percent of wh Ich were empty. Listed in order of abundance In stanachs the organisms are: herrIngs (the Clupeldae) (69 percent); pilchards (Haren~ula pen sacolae and related specIes) (nine percent); shrimp (Penaeus spp.) (sIx percent); mullet (!: sp.) (four percent); needleflsh (Stron~ylura) and anchovy (Engraulldae) (less than one percent). UnidentIfied fIsh made up an addItional eIght percent of stomach contents. 5-17 A Texas study determined that 30 percent of stomachs containing food contained menhaden (Miles and Slmllns, unpublished data). The stomachs of 3,428 Spanish mackerel were examined In this study. Thirty-four percent of the stomachs were empty. Klima (1959) reported on a subsidiary study using material collected by Miles and Simiins. In all 611 mackerel stomachs containing food were examined: 82 contained shrimp; 30squld¡ 53 rlbbonflsh; six menhaden, and four, other species. In another Texas study, Knapp (1951) found that fish, excluding total number of stomach contents. Shrimp made up 23.4 percent, and menhaden 3.7 percent. menhaden, made up 62.7 percent of the squid 10.9 percent, crabs 4.6 percent, No analysis has been made of the relative weights or \Alumes of types of food organisms In stomachs to help determine wh Ich food types provide the major part of the energy requirements of this specl as. b) Predator Specl as Sharks are a majo r predator of Span I sh mackerel. The spec I as has been II sted aiing the stomach contents of the dusky shark (Carcharhlnus obscurus) In Florida (Clark and I/n~Schmldt, 1965). According to Bigelow and Schroeder (1948), the smooth hMlmerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) preys on Spanish mackerel. The mackerels In general are referred to as a component of the diet of bull sharks (Carcharhlnus leucas), porbeagles (Lamna nasus), and tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvler) (BIgelow and Schroeder, 1948). 5.3.3 Prey-Predator Relatlonshlps of Cobia a) Prey Species The cobia feeds primarily on demersal organisms, especially crustaceans. In a Texas study (Knapp, 1951), mant Is shr I mp and eel s were the organ I sms that occurred the greatest percent of the tIme (58 percent and 50 percent respect Ivel y). Next I n percent occurrence were shr Imp (46 percent), crabs (42 percent), and squid (17 percent). Thirty-two percent of the stomachs contained fish, four percent of which were Spanish mackerel. A total of 29 stomachs were examined and 17 percent were empty. b) Predator Specl es None have been determined S) far. 5.3.4 Prey-Predator Relatlonshlps of Cero Mackerel The prey-predator relationships of cero mackerel are thought to be similar to toose of king and SpanIsh mackerel. 5.3.5 Prey-Predator Re I at lonsh I ps of B i uef Ish a) Prey Spec! es According to Wllk (1977), bluefish feed throughout the water column on a large variety of fishes and Invertebrates, both pelagic and demersal. Wllk (1977), observing populations In the northern part of their range, noted that they eat butterf Ish (Peprllus trlacanthus), menhaden (Brevortla spp.), round herring (Etrumeus teres), sand lance (Ammdytes amerlcanus), s II verslde (Atherlnldae), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), anchovy (Engraulldae), and Spanish sardine (Sardlnella anchovla). They . also eat Juvenile spotted seatrout (Cynosclon nebulosus), Atlantic croaker (Mlcropogon undulatus), and spot (Lelostomus xanthurus) (Wllk, 1977). Amng the Invertebrates fed on by bluefish are shrimps, lobsters, squids, crabs, myslds, and annelid worms (Wllk, 1977). 5-18 Richards (1976) examined the stomach contents of 66 bluefish In Long Island Sound from July to November. He found that 44 percent had empty stomachs. The most common prey organism was the adult bay anchovy (Anchoa mltchlllI) (37 percent of total Items). The squid (Loligo pealel) was next in abundance (18 percent). Menhaden (.ê. tyrannus) adu Its and juveniles and butterf Ish (P. tr lacanthus) juveniles were equally represented, each comprising 16 percent of food Items. Striped mullet (~cephalus), Atlantic thread herrIng (Qplsthonema o~lInum), plnflsh (La~odon rhomboldes), and shrimp (Penaeus sPp.) are. organisms common to Florida waters that were Included In Wilk's (1977) list of food Items of bluefish In the mid-Atlantic. Relative Importance of these organ Isms was not given by Wi Ik (1977). Apparently measurements of relative weight or relative volume of food types have not been made. b) Predator Specl es Sharks are thought to be predators of bluefish. Shark species that are known to feed on bluefish are the sand tiger (Odontaspls taurus) and the thresher (Aloplas vulplnus) (Bigelow and Schroeer, 1948). Wllk (1977) saId that sharks, tunas, swordfish, and wahoo would be the only potential predators that would pose a threat to the fast-swimmIng bluefish. 5.3.6 Prey-Predator Relatlonshlps of Llttle Tunny a) Prey Species The round herring (Etrumeus teres) was the most Important food species of Euthynnus alletteratus In specimens collected from the southern Atlantic coast of the U.S., makIng up 39 percent of stomach contents Items (Carlson, 1952). Squid also was Important, accounting for 28 percent of food Items, and the Spanish sardine (Sardlnella anchovla) made up 12 percent of food Items. OTher components of the stomach contents were the round scad (Decapterus punctatus), Spanish mackerel and mud parrotfish (Sparlsoma flavescens). Unidentified fish made up 11 percent of total food Items (Carlson, 1952). In another study, both little tunnys collected contained SpanIsh mackerel. One little tunny contained larval little tunny IndicatIng cannibalism (Klawe, 1961). Carangldae (Jacks), and Exocoetidae (flylngflsh) are some other groups fed upon by little tunny (Dragovich, 1969). b) Predator Specl es Little tunny was one food Item Identified In the stomach of a bull shark (Carcharhlnus leucas) collected on the central Gulf coast of Florida (Clark and von Schmidt, 1965). 5.3.7 Prey-Predator Relatlonshlps of Dolphin a) Prey Species The dolphin Is an opportunistic species, which wi I1 prey on most smaller fIshes or squId which may be available. It Is thought to be a day feeder (Erdman, 1958) and perhaps does not feed effectively In darkness (GIbbs and Collette, 1959), although they wi II feed at night on small fishes and squid attracted to light from ships. The Importance of the Sargassum community In providing food for common dolphin, particularly Juvenile and younger mature Individuals, has been noted by several authors. Rose and Hassler (1974) found sIgnificantly more empty stomachs In small female dolphin In a summer when tldellnes off the NorTh Carolina coast were relatively rare, whIch suggests that this carmunlty makes an Important contribu tion to the food supply of thIs group. Kojima (1965), Rose and Hassler (1974), and Beardsley (1967) considered the Sargassum communIty to have great ecological Importance to the dolphin because of the 5-19 food supply It provides. Furthermore, uals from predation by other species. loral differences reduces cannibalism. I nd I v I d ua i s to the Sargas sum commun I ty the Sargassum community prOlldes protection for younger indlvld Segregation of younger from older Individuals through behav An adaptive significance to the attraction of smaller Is suggested (Rose and Hassler, 1974). Apparently, emphasIs on different types of food Items changes throughout the life cycle of the dolphin. Shcherbachev (1973) noted that larvae and fingerlings of dolphin feed primarily on Invertebrates, par ticularly copepods, while adult common dolphin eat flying fish of the genus Cypselurus. Kojima (1963) found juveniles of the families Engraulldae (anchovies), Mul IIdae (goatflsh) and Oplegnathldae (a prIm Itive perclform) In the stomachs of dolphin 500 to 1,500 mm In length In Japanese waters. Erdman (1958) commented that the pelagic stages of young shore and reef fishes seemed to form the most abundant and frequent foods of the pelagic species he studied In Puerto Rico, which Included the do i ph I n. He ment loned f I i ef I shes, tr I ggerf I shes, goatf I shes, squ I rre I f I shes, doctorf I shes, and thread fins as young shore fishes which are Important food Items of pelagic fishes. He said that bot tom fishes such as snapper and grouper and deep sea fishes were noticeably rare In stomachs compared with shore fishes. b) Pr edator Spec I es Two known predators of the common dolphin In western Atlantic waters are the blue mar Iin (Makalra nl~rlcans) Gibbs and Co i lette (1959) and the swordfish (Xlphlas ~Iadlus) (D. de Sylva, pers. comm.). One 6.4 kg (14 pound) dolphin was found In the stomach of a whltetlp shark (Carcharhlnus longlmanus) by Schuck and Clark (1951)¡ although dolphIn did not occur In any of 88 wh Itetlp stomachs examined by Backus, et al. (1956). According to Backus, et al. (1956), the dolphin Is a common associate of the wh Itetlp shark. 5.3.8 Compar Ison. of Food Hablts of Specles of the Mana~ement Un It Clupeld fishes, penaeld shrimp, and squid are the principal prey organisms of fIve out of seven spe cies In the coastal pelagic management unit: the three mackerels ((f cero can be Included), the bluefish, and the little tunny. The cobia feeds primarily on crabs and mantis shrImp, which It takes from the bottom. The diet of the dolphin consists mostly of flylngflsh, jacks, trlggerflsh, and f I i ef Ish. The mackerels feed primarily on pelagic species, particular Iy herrings, although a fair Iy large per centage of the diet of king mackerel Is made up of shrimp. The diets of the Spanish and king mackerel over lap. The one quantitatIve study that was done on the food of these mackerels In the same area (Knapp, 1949) suggests that the Spanish mackerel Is more dependent on f Ish and less dependent on Invertebrates than the king mackerel, whIch eats a large percentage of shrimp and squid. The same herring specIes that was Identified as the king mackerel's principal prey In Forlda (Beaumarlage, 1973) was given as the principal prey of the Spanish mackerel In Brazil (Menezes, This was the Atlantic thread herring. 1970). The feeding spectrum of the bluefish appears to be wider than that of the mackerels. This species feeds throughout the water column. Small herring-like fishes and the juveniles of estuarine bottom fIsh such as spotted seatrout, Atlantic croaker, and spot serve as Its prey. Mullet are Included In the diet of bluefish as In the diet of Spanish mackerel. An Important prey of the little tunny Is the round herring (Carlson, 1952). Squid also Is Important to this species as Is the Spanish sardine. Little tunny also feed on flylngflsh, which causes the 5-20 diet of this species to overlap with that of the more oceanic dolphin. Scads (Decapterus spp.) also are thought to be Important to this species based on volumetric stomach analysis of a related species In Hawaiian waters. Mantld shrimp, crabs, eels, and squid are the main food organisms of cobia. The diet of dolphin consists of flylngflsh, jacks, trlggerflsh, and flleflsh. 5.3.9 Prlnclpal Prey Specles of the Man~ement Unlt and Thelr Food Habits Small schooling fishes In the family Clupeldae (herring and sardines) are the most Important prey fishes of the coastal pelagic unit. Major prey species of this family are Oplsthonema oqllnum (Atlantic thread herring), Haren~ula ja~uana (scaled sardine), Etrumeus teres (round herrIng), and Sardlnella anchovla (Spanish sardine). Other prey organisms of apparently equal Importance are penaeTd shrimp and squid. The only species name mentioned for squid was Loll~o pealel (Wllk, 1977). In subtropical waters this species Is replaced by LolI~o.. (Laroe, 1970). Other neritic squid that occur In areas frequented by the coastal pelaglcs.are the genera Seploteuthls, Dortheuthls, and Lolll~uncula (Voss, 1973). Other fish families that are major sources of food for one or more species of the management unit Include the Engraulldae (anchovies), specifi cally Anchoa mitchllll, the Exocoet1dae (flylngflshes and halfbeaks), the Carangldae (jacks, scads, and pompano) Including Decapterus punctatus, and Peprllus trlacanthus (butterflsh). Most of the clupelds, Including Atlantic thread herring and Spanish sardine, feed on zooplankton, par ticularly copepods (Low, 1973; Hildebrand, 1963; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968). Atlantic thread herring eat anchovy larvae as well as copepods (Low, 1973). Preferential rather than nondlscrlmlnant feeding Is apparent In those species of clupelds for which food habits have been determined (Low, 1973). Clupelds are capable of feeding In either the picking or the filtering mode. They filter feed when dense concentrations of food of a suitable sIze Is available (O'Connell, 1972; E. Houde, pers. canm.). Penaeld shr Imp are bottom feeders. The pi nk shr Imp (Penaeus duorarum) feeds In shallow Inshore areas where there are bottom grasses such as Dlplanthera and Thalassla. According to Burukovsky (1968), their food consIsts mainly of animals, although other workers have found plant material In their stom achs (Eldred, et al., 1961). In a quantitative volumetric analysis of pink shrimp (n = 305) off the coast of Africa, Burukovsky (1968) found that amphlpods and Isopods made up 20.4 percent by volume of stomach contents, followed by polychaetes (19.3 percent); mullusks (16.1 percent); pr Inclpally gastropods; shrimp (15.4 percent); and fish (10.6 percent). Other sIgnificant components (more than one percent) were crabs and hermit crabs. Vegetable remains accounted for only 0.03 percent and plankton only 0.02 percent of the volume of stomach contents. In another study Burukovsky (1975) found that the diets of fhree other penaeld shrimp were very similar to that of pink shrimp. NerItic squid such as Loll~o pealel are carnivores whose prey organisms change with age. At early stages they eat small crustacean such as euphausllds and similar organisms (Vovk, 1974). Later fish larvae and juveniles form a major part of their dIet (Vovk, 1974). They also eat~ther squids and small adult fish (Vovk, 1974). According to Lipinski (1973), the fish families of greatest Importance In the diet of squid are Clupeldae, Gadidae (codflshes), and Myctophldae (Ianternflshes). In general, the young feed on planktonic forms, whereas adults. feed on benthic and more motile nekton forms (Vovk, 1974). Laroe (1970) found that coral reef mys Ids and juven lie or larvae f Ish were the only organ Isms that elicited feeding response In newly hatched Seploteuthls and Doryteuthls In culture. According to Vovk (1974), LolI~o pealel may belong to three different tropic levels If all age groups are considered. Squid are voracious feeders that grow rapidly. Stomach contents frequently canprlse 12 percent of their body weight (LIpinski, 1977). 5-21 The diet of flylngflsh consists of small fish, the squId LOllQo, eggs deposited on Sargassum, and hemlpterus Insects of the genus Halobates (Barroso, 1967). Larval and juvenile flylngflsh feed prin cipally on calanold and cyclopold cq)epods (Schekter, 1971). According to Berkeley, et al. (1975), the principal foods of the ballyhoo species (Hemlramphus brasiliensis and.!. balao) are mlcrocrusta ceans (decapods, cq)epods, amphlpods, and cladocera), although manatee !Tass (Syrln~odlum filiforme) frequently Is the dominant food of large.!. brasiliensis (ballyhoo). Polychaetes are Important In the diet of .!. balao (balao) (Berkeley, et al., 1975). Young butterflsh feed primarily on jellyfish (MurawskI, 1978). The diet of adult butterflsh Is known to Include small fish, squid, crustacea such as amphlpods, cq)epods and shrimp, and annelid worms (Murawski, et al., 1978). Tunlcates and chaetognaths also are reported foods of butterflsh (Murawski, etal.,1975) 5.3.10 Larval Food Chains Size of potential prey relative to the size of the predator Is probably the single most Important determinant of who eats who In marine food chains and prey species change as the predator !Tows (Detwyler and Houde, 1970). Prey-predator roles sometimes reverse with -time, meanIng that marIne food chains are actually circles, larval fish being fed on by the prey of theIr parents. The Influence of relative size on predation puts an evolutionary premium on the abl Iity of a marine species to !Tow fast and attain a large size. . Coastal pelagIc species are not exceptions to the generalities just stated. All are carnivores throughout the Ir i I ves and are thought to eat cq)epods at ear iy stages. Young cob! a are known to require crustaceans In their diet and do poorly on a diet of pure fish (Hassler and Ralnvl lie, 1975a). 5.4 Estlmate of MSY, Abundance and Present and Future Condition Estimates of MSY for coastal pelagic specIes were developed especially for this management plan. These estimates were reviewed by the Scientific and Stàtlstlcal CommIttee and acceted by them as the best available given the constraints Imposed by the quality of available data. Additional detail on how some of the parameters were estimated and other technical discussIon Is contained in the Resource Document for this FMP. This document Is available through the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councl I. 5.4.1 K I n~ Mackere I 5.4.1.1 Calculatlon of Maxlmum Sustalnable Yield for KlnQ Mackerel The calculation of maximum sustaInable yield by the. dynamic pool (Beverton and Holt) rodel Is a three step process. First, yield per recruit entering the fishery Is calculated fran data on growth rate, maximum size, and rates of fishing and natural rortallty. Second, an estimate Is made of the number of recruits entering the fishery. Third, yield Is calculated by multiplying yIeld per recruit by number of recruits. Yield per recruit: estlmatlon of parameters Beverton and Holt (1957), Gulland (1969), Ricker (1975), and other texts, describe In detaIl, with some differences In symbols, the develq)ment of the simple Beverton and Holt yield equation and Its parameters. Chittenden (1977) concisely described technIques for estimating the parameters and employed Gulland's (1969) symbols for this equation and Its parameters. The present work follows Chittenden's (1977) format and symbols. The equation used to calculate yield per recruit Is the "long form" (Beverton and Holt, 1957). 5-22 The data required to use this equation Include what may be parameters. The procedures and rationale used to estimate (unpub. man.). A brief description Is given below. termed "growth", "mortality", and "time" these parameters were those of Ch Ittenden The "growth pattern" parameters, Loo' K and to were calculated usIng the von Bertalanffy growth equation (Ricker, 1975). Asymptotic length (Loo) Is defined as the maximum length obtaIned by the average fish if It continued to grow Indefinitely according to the von Sertalanffy formula. Asymptotic weignt (Woo) Is the weight at Loo. The Brody growth coefficient (K) is a constant, deter mining the rate of growth In length. Age to Is the theoretical age at which a fish would have been zero length If It always grew according to the von Bertalanffy equation. Data from Beaumarlage (1973) on length-weight relation and observed length at age were used to esti mate the values, Loo = 1099mm, Woo = 9411g, to = -3.4698, and K = 0.21. These values were estimated for sexes combined, assuming a 1:1 sex ratio (Chittenden, unpub. man.). The calculated Woo Is much lower than the actual maximum weight for king mackerel. This probably results from dependence of the age and growth estimates on the younger age groops and on the fact that this species schools by size. Younger, fast growing fish are found with older, slow growing fish. Therefore, the sample used to estimate age and growth Is not representative of the entire stock. However, that sample is represen tative of the sizes and ages being exploited. Therefore, It Is reasonable to use the calculated Woo. The "mortality" parameters Z, M, and F are the Instantaneous annual rates of total mortalIty, natural mortality, and fishing mortality, respectively, where Z = M + F. Data from Beaumarlage (1973) were used to estimate a total mortalIty rateZ = 0.71, the average of Z values for the two commercial fisheries (Chittenden, unpub. man.). No direct estimates of the actual values of M andF exist, but their upper boond must be Z = 0.71. Chittenden (unpub. man.) developed likely estimates for!: and £. based upon Beverton and Holt's (1959) suggestion that a relationship existed wIthin reasonable boonds between the mortality parameter M and the growth parameter K. Ch Ittenden estimated reasonab Ie boonds for theM/K ratio based upon Lenarz, et al. (1974) and Joseph and Calkin's (1969) studies on the related scombrlds of trccical and subtrop ical waters Thunnus albacares and Euthynnus pelamls. For king macker~I, assuming K = 0.21 based upon observed growth, the most likely range for M may be 0.3 to 0.6 and the "best" estimate of M would be about 0.4. Tanaka (1960) postulated a relation between M and maximum age. His work suggests that M may be less than 0.4, but greater than 0.3. The correspond i ng va i ues of Fare 0.41 to 0.11 and the "best" estimate of F Is 0.31. It shou i d be clear Iy recogn I zed that these" I I ke I y" and "best" est Imates may need to be rtN I sed as further research Is conducted and actual data become available. The validity of extrapolating M/K ratios from other scombrld species to Spanish and kIng mackerel Is not precisely known. The "time parameters" tr, tL, and tc define three states In the life of an exploited species. The parameter tL Is def i ned as the age at the ef fect Ive end of the f ¡ shab Ie II fe of a year c lass. That is, the age at which the year class no longer contributes a significant proportion of the catch. The parameter tr Is defined as the age of recruitment to the fishing groonds. Time at first capture, tc' Is the average age at which a year class becomes vulnerable to the fishing gear. The values tL = 8 and tr = 0 were chosen (Chittenden, unpub. man.) using data from Seaumarlage (1973), RodrIgues and Bezerra (1968), and Nomura and Rodrigues (1967). The average age of recruitment, tc' Is not precisely known but Is probably between age 1.0 and age 1.5. Three values of tc were chosen to estimate yield per recruit, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. 5-23 Yield per recruit: ca I cu latl on Maximum yield per recruit can be equated with maximum sustainable yield of the stock only if recruit ment Is completely Independent of the size of the spawnIng stock. Likewise, the value for fishing mortality that gives maximum yield per recruit (Fmax) will produce a maximum sustainable yield only If those conditions are met. If recruitment Is variable or dependent to some degree on stock abundance, fishing at Fmax can severely damage the stock. In many stocks of fish the relation between yield per recruit and Instantaneous fIshing mortality is a flat-topped curve. Yield per recruit rises rapidly at low levels of F, then levels off. There Is no clearly defined peak in the curve to define Fmax. In such cases, fishing at Fmax Is very likely to reduce the spawning stock below the level needed to maintain adequate recruitment. To deal wIth this problem, other more apprcprlate values of F have been proposed (Doubleday, 1976; Sissenwine, 1977). The most accepted at present Is FO.I' defined as the point at which an Increase In F of one unit wi II give an increase In Y/R equal to 1/10 the Increase In Y/R at F values near zero. This gives a small decrease In Y/R from that at Fmax but results In greatly reduced fishing mortality, I ncreased stock biomass, and Increased catch per un It effort. The relation of yield per recruit to fishing mortality In king mackerel was calculated for four levels of natural mortality (M) and three ages of first-capture cOlerlng the range of most reasonable values. Values for yield per recruit In this analysis are yield per recruit entering the fishery at age tc. Yield per recruit to the fishery was calculated from estImates of Y/R at age to (Chittenden, unpub. man.) by the following conversIon: Y /Rt c = Y /Rto 1/ -M(t - t )e c 0 The term e -M(tc-to) represents the mortality of recruits between age to and age tc. For all para meter combinations, these curves are of the flat-topped form previously described. In all cases, The value for Fmax Is not well defined but approaches F = 5. FIshing at Fmax at any of these levels of t c and any reasonab Ie va i ue for number of recru I ts will leave essent I a Ily no spawners at Age I V, The first year in which most females are sexually mature. FIshing at this level would certaInly affect recruitment. In additIon, even If recruitment was not affected, catch per unit effort at Fmax would be much too low to support a commercial fishery or to satisfy the sportflshermen. For king mackerel, FO.l Is clearly the more reasonable value both biologically and economically. Values for FO.l are much less than Fmax' varying from 0.5 at tc = 1.0 and M = 0.4 to 1.0 at tc = 2.0 and M = 0.6 (ExhibIt 5.1). YIeld per recruit at FO.l will be used to compute MSY. Values for yield per recruit at FO.1 vary from 1,625 g at M = 0.6 and tc = 1.0 to 2,595 at M = 0.3 and Tc = 2.0 (Exhibit 5-1). ESTlmatinq the number of recrults for klnq mackerel There Is presently no estimate of recruItment for king mackerel and no data available from which a precise estImate of recruitment can be obtained. However, using available data on total catch and total mortality rate and by assuming several rates of fishing mortality a range of estimates for number of recruits can be computed. 5-24 Exh Iblt 5-1 Estimated values for FO.l' Y/R,1 and Y for 12 combinations of tc and M for king mackerel, using 1970 commerci al landIng statistics (Wheeland, 1973) and 1970 uncorrected recreational land i n9s fr ar Deue I (1973). tc M FO.l Y/RI(g) R 1 (# fish) Y ( kg ) Y ( i b. ) 1.0 0.3 0.5 1980 14,042,000 27,803,000 61,240,0001.0 0.4 0.6 1792 18,572,000 33,281,000 73,306,0001.0 0.5 0.8 1722 27,416,000 47,210,000 103,988.0001.0 0.6 0.9 1625 52,340,000 85,053,000 187,340.000 1.5 0.3 0.5 2233 14,042,000 31,356,000 69,066,0001.5 0.4 0.6 2044 18,572,000 37,961,000 83,615,0001.5 0.5 0.8 1990 27,416,000 54,578,000 120,171,0001.5 0.6 1.0 1945 52,340,000 101,801,000 224,232,000 2.0 0.3 0.6 2595 14,042,000 36,439,000 80,262,0002.0 0.4 0.7 2394 18,572,000 44,461,000 97,933,0002.0 0.5 0.9 2320 27,416,000 63,605,000 140,099,0002.0 0.6 1.0 2217 52,340,000 116,038,000 255,590,000 1 R 1 s def I ned as number of recru I ts enter I ng the fIshery. Calculation of population and recruits Is possible If natural and fishing mortality Occur simulta neously, recruitment Is constant frar year to year and OCcurs continuously throoghout the fishing season, and the stock Is at equi Ilbr ium. King mackerel probab Iy do not satisfy these condItions exactly, but are close enough to make applIcatIon of the model valId. If these assumptions are met, the average population number (N) Is equal to the number caught (C) divided .by the Instantaneous rate of fishIng mortality (F). N = C/F The total number of recruits (R) at the average age of full vulnerability to the gear (tc) Is equal to the average number In the population (N) multlp lied by the total mortality rate (Z). R = ZN Each value of F whIch we assume gives a different value for Nand R. 5-25 Catch statistics from wh Ich number caught in the U.S. recreational fishery can be obtained are available In the saltwater angling surveys of 1960, 1965 and 1970 (Clark, 1962; Deuel and Clark, 1968; and Deuel, 1973). The recreational catch of king mackerel In 1970 was estimated as 7,282,000 fish. These surveys are generally cons Idered to overestimate the recreational catch. They are based on Interviews and require the angler to remember his total catch and its average size for the preceding year. The experimental design probably assures an adequate sample of anglers; and, therefore gives an' accurate picture of relative magn itude of catches from different areas. However, the possibilities for exaggeration of both the number and size of fish caught are, unfortunately, very great. An attempt was made to correct the 1970 survey using creel census data fraa localized studies. Two studies made In 1975 are available which represent a significant proportion of the recreational catch. Wade (1971) estimated catch of king mackerel In Alabama as 1,053,986 pounds for the year 1975. Data In that report on mean number and weight caught per trip were used to calculate a total catch of 91,189 fish. Brusher, et al., (1978) estimated the catch of king mackerel In Bay County (Panama City), Florida, for the same year as 222,020 fish. Calculation of total recreational catch In 1975 was made based on these two studies and the following assumptions: 1. Bay County catch equals 0.25 of the total catch on the Florida Gulf coast excluding the Keys. 2. Total catch in Mississippi and Louisiana east of the Mississippi River was equal to the A labama catch. 3. The rat 10 of the catch (1977) and Brusher, et the Florida Keys) wIll estimate reported in Deuel (1973) to that made fran data In Wade al., (1978) for the same area (the eastern Gulf of Mexico excluding rema I n constant for other areas. The estimate of recreational catch In the eastern Gulf of Mexico for 1975 was 1.070 x 106 fish. Deuel (1973) reported 2.813 x 106 fish for the same area, a ratio of 0.381:1.000. Deuel's estimate of total catch was reduced according to this ratio. The total recreational catch of king mackerel fran all areas was then estimated as 2.754 x 106 fish. Commercial landing statistics for each state are available fraa the National Marine Fisheries Service separated by type of gear. The vast majority of the canmercial catch Is made In Florida using either grii nets or hook and line. Total U.S. commercial landings were 6,732,500 pounds in 1970 and 6,442,100 pounds In 1975. Using data on length frequency of the catch of the two major gears (Beaumarlage, 1973; Wi I Iiams, unpub. man., 1971), a mean weight of 7.13 pounds for hook and line catches and 8.96 pounds for gi 11 net catches was estimated. From this, the estimated number of fish landed comrærclally in 1970 and 1975 was 826,500 and 814,000 respectively. Two estimates of total number caught from all sources were made. For one, the 1970 recreational catch statistics (Deuel, 1973) and the 1970 commercl al catch were used to estimate a total catch of 8,109,000 fish. For the other, the corrected estimates of recreational catch In 1975 and the 1975 commercIal catch were used to calculate a total catch of 3,568,000 fish. The total catch estimates were 8,109,000 fish from the 1970 uncorrected data and 3,568,000 fish using the 1975 corrected data. 5-26 Nu.ber of "'c," to was ca' co 'a fed ba'ed on the two est I mates of n'mber ce'gh t and three ",.., b Ie 'e'e', of fI'h' ng ""rtall ty wI th I n the 11.' ts pr ev 'oos I Y de" ned fo r F and". Us , ng the est '.ate for 1 '70, the est '."ed n,mber of rocr, Its ,ar les from 1 4,042,000 at F . 0.41 fo 52,340,000 at F . 0.' i I Exb' hi t 5-2). Us 'ng the correced es fI.ate fo r 1975, the n,mber of roc", to vor' ed frem 6, 17',000 at F = 0.41 to 23,030,000 at F = 0.11 (EXhIbit 5-3). Estlmates of MSY In klnQ mackerel Est'mates of OSY ,s'ng the "70 uncorreced catch stat'st'cs var'ed from 61,240,000 PO,nds at tc . 1.0 and" . 0.3 fo 255,5'0,000 POunds at tc . 2.0 end" . 0.6 IE,. 'b' t 5-1). By coparIson, the 1970 total uncorreced catch was estimated as 69,359,000 pounds. Est 'mates of OSY 's' ng the 1 '75 correced catch staf' st I cs var' ed from 26, 94B, 000 PO,nds at t c . 1.0 and" . 0.3 fo 112,461,000 PO'nds at t c . 2.0 end" . 0.6 IE,., b, t 5-4). By copOr I son, fhe fota' est' .ated I '75 catch I correc ed) was 30, 127,000 PO,nds. The lar,er es t 'mat.. of MSy ma be foo large. Est '.at.. of OSY a f va' 'es 0 f " . a. 6 's probab 'y fon h' gh If data on catch pOr .., t of fo rt , n the cemmorc' a' f' Shoey 's va" d. Catch per on, f per of forf has doc " ned 'n thO co..rc'al f' sher' as as ef fort has' n creosed I nd' cot, ng thaf fIsh' ng ""rt a' 'fy .,st be as' gn 'f I cant ",rt 10 n of fofal ""rfal' fy. In fhaf cosa, esf '.ates of OSY at " . 0.6 IF . 0.11) Is foo h 'gh and" 'a' uns of 0.4 or O. 5 ere ""re II ke' y. Th 's 's soppo rted by the "best" est , mate of " . a. 4, from fhe M/ raflo ICh 'tfenden, onp ,b. man.). The as t 'mate of aver.,e time af roc" '''nt. f c . 2. O. maya' so be too 'arg.. A'erage t '.. of roc", tment ..peers to be be"een 1.0 and I." 'f so, es f lmates of OSY of t c = 2.0 are too large. 'f 'a'..s of "SY oee from es f' mates of " . 0.6 and t c . 2.0 are d' scarded, the, the 'pper bo'n d as f , mates of OSY are red,ced. 'n fhaf caso, for the "70 oncorreced cafch do fa, fhe 'pper bond esf'mate of MSy I s 120, i 71 ,000 POunds If c . ). 5 end" . a. 5). For the esf'mates besed on the 1975 onrreced catch dafa. the" ke' y 'pper bo"d Is 52,B75,OOO poonds Itc . 1.5 and" . 0.5). 'f the ,so of the "/K raf,o 's 'a" d and the rocreat 'o,a' catch est Imatas 'n Oe.., (1 '73) are' nf 'a fed, then fhe "best" avallab'e est , mate of MSY for king marel's 36,792,000 poonds onrres",ndl,g fot c . I. 5 end" . a. 4. Th 's r'Presents "SY 'nder corrent f' sh' ng co'd' t Ions. In many fIsher les adJ ost, ng t c can' ncrease the y'eld. For ki ng mokere', the evallab'e data does not al low a proc' sa dete""'nat'on of fhe besf va"e for tc b,t 'nd/cates thaf fhe presenf bet est'mate of tc 's af or near the POInt where y'e'd per roc"'t 's ma'm'zed. "ere" 's greater than or equa' to 0.4, YIR (R at age 0) at Fa. 1 'acreoses s i ow, y as t c dec" nes. Th 's 'ncrease becs aSY""f' c be I ow f c . i. 0 when" . 0.4 and be'ow tc . 2.0 for" . 0.3. 'a fhe ca'e of " . 0.3, YIR decii,es when tc . 1.0 or less. E,. , bIt 5-5 so-r 'zes t he range of MSY ast'mates fo r ki ng mackerel based on cor rent I y "allab, e dat.. 7hese were der' ved ,,' ng the Bevrf n and He'f approach. Th" approac est 'mates MSY baed on ..t 1 matas of the val va, of a n'mher 0 f paramer pert al n' ng fo fhe k' ng mackeel f, shoey. Th e "Sf e,t , matas provided by th's approac 'so as an ''''' an esflmate of tofal catch for so year. Boose of ,ncert a' nty 'n the fot a' rocreat 'ona' catch, e't 'mates ha'e been provl ded ,,' ng da fa from the , '70 Sa'twater Anoll nn S'''e.) lOe,e', 193) wh'ch " be II 0V fo be an o,eresflmate and a'so os, ng adJosted data fo esflmate fhe foa' rocreat'ona' cafch. 'n elfher ca'e, the MSY e'flmates are 'n "mllar re'a t '.. proport 'on, fo the as t lmae of the 10fal cafch. The I' ke' y 'pper and i owr bo" ds r'Prese, f a r easonab Ie II m I t 10 fhe range of OSY as Umates ba'ed on correntI y ava" ab, e dat.. The "be, f e'fI.ate" r ",resenf, a re.. nab Ie es fi mafe fo r fhe "". f II ke' y va'", of MSY ba'ed on c"ren" Y avallab'e data. F "'''e rese..", ma prov Ide rev' 'ed data ., th wh I ch to rev I 'e the "SY as flmat.. The ast lmate, of the cr' fIca' paramfer" " I Ins fantaneo" f I ,h 'ng "" rfall ty'. and t c I t 'me at f' rs f captor e) fo r the MSY mode I are a I so presented In Exh I bit 5-5. 5-27 Exh Ibl t 5-2 Estimated number of recruits (R) and mean population number. (n) of king mackerel 1 using 1970 commer cial landing statistics (Wheeland, 1973) and uncorrected recreational landing statistics (Deuel, 1973 1973) . F M N (D of fIsh) R (D of fish) 0.41 0.30 19,778,000 14,042,000 0.31 0.40 26,158,000 18,572,000 0.21 0.50 38,614,000 27,416,000 0.11 0.60 73,718,000 52, 340~000 1 Assuming I = 0.71, C = 8,109,000 fish, N = C/F, and R = IN Exh Ibl t 5-3 Estimated number of recruits (R) and mean populatIon commercIal landIng statistics (preliminary estimate, from Deuel (1973) corrected with 1975 data from Wade number (N) of king mackerell based on 1975 NMFS) and on recreational landing statIstics (1971) and Brusher, et al. (1978). F M N (D of f ¡ sh) R (D of fish) 0.41 0.30 8,702,000 6,179,000 0.31 0.40 11,510,000 8,172,000 0.21 0.50 16,990,000 12,063,000 O. II 0.60 32,436,000 23,030,000 1 Assuming I = 0.71, C = 3,568,000 fish, N = elF, and R = ZN 5-28 Exh I bit 5-4 Estimated values for FO.I' Y/R,1 and Y for nine combInations of tc and M for king mackerel, using 1975 commercl al landings (prelIminary estimates, NMFS) and recreational landings from Deuel (1973) corrected with creel census data (Wade, 1977; Brusher, et al. 1978) from 1975. tc M FO.1 Y/R1 (g) Rl (II fish) Y ( kg) Y ( lb. ) 1.0 0.3 0.5 1980 6,179,000 12,234,000 26,948,000 1.0 0.4 0.6 1792 8,172,000 14,644,000 32,256,000 1.0 0.5 0.8 1722 12,063,000 20,172,000 45,754,000 1.0 0.6 0.9 1625 23,030,000 37,424,000 82,431,000 1.5 0.3 0.5 2233 6,179,000 13,798,000 30,391,000 1.5 0.4 0.6 2044 8,172,000 16,704,000 36,792,000 1.5 0.5 0.8 1990 12,063,000 24,q05,OOO 52,875,000 1.5 0.6 1.0 1945 23,030,000 44,793,OÒÓ 98,664,000 2.0 0.3 0.6 2595 6,179,000 16,035,000 35,318,000 2.0 0.4 0.7 2394 8,172,000 19,563,000 43,042,000 2.0 0.5 0.9 2320 12,063,000 27,986,000 61,643,000 2.0 0.6 1.0 2217 23,030,000 51,058,000 112,461,000 1 R Is defined as number of recruits entering the fishery. Exhibit 5-5 King Mackerel MSY Estimate Summary (mil" on pounds) "Best Est Imate" Based on Deuel's 1970 Based on Adjusted PaçameteralueDatal for Estimate of Estimates for 1975 Est ¡mates Recreational Catch Recreational Catch M Tc 120.2 52.9 0.5 1.5 83.6 36.8 0.4 1.5 61.2 26.9 0.3 1.0 Likely Upper Bound Like i y Lower Bound Corresponding Estimate of Total RecreatIonal and Commercl al Catch 69.42 30.13 1 From the 1970 Saltwater An~lln~ Survey (Deuel, 1973). 2 Unadjusted estimate for 1970. 3 Adjusted estimate for 1975. 5-29 The observed reduction In catch per unit effort (CPUE) discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 is generally con sistent with results one would expect under a slrpluS yield model of MSY approach If total catch in th.e fishery were approach I ng or s II ghtl Y above the pr aport Ion of MSY as typ I fled by the "best estimate" presented In Exhibit 5-5. 5.4.1.2 Present Condltlon of the Kln~ Mackerel Present condition of the stock(s) of king mackerel cannot be conclusively established. The data available to assess present condition Is somewhat contradictory. Detailed analysis of available data Is presented below. The weight of this data Indicates that the king mackerel stock is not presently overfished nor has been In the past. Effort and total catch are rising rapidly and may exceed MSY in the future If no meaSlres are taken to control the total harvest. Length frequency data from the commercl al catch for both hook and I ¡ ne and gl II-net gear has not changed at all from 1969 to 1977. ThIs suggests that the degree to which the stock has been affected by fishing has not changed during that period. Upon f~ther examination, however, these results can be expected when hIghly selective gears are used to harvest the resource. The mesh sIzes of gi Ii nets used In the king mackerel fishery have their highest efficiency In catcning ~d¡um sized king mackerel and may not be efficient In capturing small or large Individuals. Although only a limited amount of gl II-net selectivity Information exists for king mackerel CBeaumarlage, 1973), It Is clear that strong selectivity exists based on studies of Spanish mackerel (Trent and Prlstas, 1977; Powell, 1975; Klima 1959). The commercial hook and line fishery Is also selective In that they normally seek "school size" fish (sma II and med I um sizes) and when the large fish are hooked they often break of f. Based on preliminary analyses, it appears the recreational hook and line caught fish may be rore represent::tlve of the fished stock and these data do reflect changes In size composition between years, times of the year, and areas (Trent, et al., In prep.). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the two major commercIal gears in south Florida, measured as mean catch per boat year, declined by 59 percent for hook and line vessels and 60 percent for power roller gi II-net vessels between 1969 and 1976. This measure of CPUE Is a very crude one. Many factors such as gear competition and relative availability of alternative species can cause this meas~e of CPUE to change without any change In real CPUE. While these and other factors are probably depressing our measure of CPUE, they are not sufficient to explain all of the decline. DurIng the period for which CPUE was calculated, effort Increased 400 percent for hook and line boats and 200 percent for gIll-net vessels. The effect of Increasing levels of effort on CPUE, total catch, and fishable stock sIze depends to a !Teat degree on the relative magnitude of fIshing rortallty and total mortality. In a stock where fishing mortality Is large In relation to mortality, increases In fIsh ing ef fort do not yl el d equl va I ent I ncreases I n catch, catch per un It ef fort dec lines and the fishable stock declines. An extreme example of this Is the Florida spIny lobster fishery where essen tially all of the recruits are captured each year. Because the fishable stock Is reduced to near zero by the end of each season, Increases In effort do not yield any increase In catch and CPUE declines In Inverse relation to that Increase In effort. In a stock where fishing mortality Is very small In relation to total mortalIty, Increases In effort will give corresponding Increases in catch. The Increased catch Is still small In relation to the fishable stocks, so there Is very little reduction In stock size and little or no reduction In CPUE. The king mackerel lies somewhere between these two extremes. Increases In effort have brought both I ncreases In total catch and decreases In CPUE. It Is probab Ie that there has also been some dec line in stock abundance during that period. The data Is not sufficiently precise to estimate the magnitude of th Is dec i I n e. 5-30 Thr.. ",t. of data o. racreat 10'0' ti .hery CPUE are avo" ab 'a from the cørthwa.t co.t of F lor' da IE"" I b, t 5-). Two of the data "'ts are from catch recrd. of charterboat cat a 'os from Det'. (Capta ,. A. L. H', pert) a.d po... C'ty (Capta'. J. F I"ega. - 'ee Fab 'e, et 01., ,. prep.) a.d the t h I rd .et ,. from a pr' vote .ar"a I. 8ay eou.ty, F 'or' do (... ., thhe' d upo' req ue.t). The' etter I. a recrd of the tota' catch of kl.g "ckere' e.d the tote I 'u.ber of bot da,. dor'., 'h I ch k' ngmackerel were caught. AI I three data sets s/tw similar trends In CPI£. The magn Itude of annual cha'ges ,. CPUE ,. Ie" for the cherter capto'n, Thl. ,. .ot un""pected b""ose ot the profes,'o.a". greater sk II i and mo re cons I stent ef to rt. . These data are too var I ab Ie and from too short for the commercial data. They do s/tw clearly reprted by many recreational fishermen In the a long the west central Florida coast. a time period to perform the type of analysis done the decline In catch and CPUE In 1917 and 1978 northern Gulf of MexIco. Similar declines are reprted The cau.es of th'. dec"'e ere 'ot knwo. It co I d be attr' but ed to a dec" 'e ,. .tock ., ,e or cha.ges ,. ., grot '0' pe tter... 'b.t charter f' .heno.. elo., 'orthwes tern F I or' da bel' eve that th ere h.. been a doc"'e ,. aboo da'ce, It .e.." " ke', that .uc e dr..t Ie doc !J.e ,. abund.,,, wou' d hove bee. acCOpe., ed by reduced la'd' 'g. ,. the ., .ter f' 'her 'e. ,. ."th F 'or'da, both corc' a' and racr..t '0'0 I. Th ,. does .ot "'.. to be the ca'e, a' t ho'gh la.d'.g .t at I st I cs a.d other docu,", tat '0. are lackl ng. It'. po", b 'e thet the doc".e ,. catch a.d CPUE I. be"g cau.ed b, ch anes ,. the .'gr afory patter. of the tI.h. The ,'nter of 19'6-17 a.d ~'17-78 .ere boh exr-i, cold, cau",g reduced water t.. perat,res alo., the coa.t. Th', .'ght have cau'ed the kl.g "ckere' sci. to .tay off.hore, ,h"'e they vere cøt oval lab Ie to the f' .heno.. Data that .uppo rt th'. h,pothes'. are pr ese.ted b, F ab 'e, et al. ir. prep.). Other .uppo rt '.g data'. co.te"ed ,. ." "... and Toy 'or ir. pr.".). The ra.,e of est I.ates fo r MS, from e' ther of the two d It ferent es t i..tes of 'umber of rac"" ts 's rather broad. ,. both ca'e., the lOWr bo.d est,..tes of MSy ere '''ght', 'e" then the fota' catch, .h "e the upper bound est i..t.. are appro., "'te', 1.7 t i,", the e. t'mates of pr "e. t Jo a' catc. If e 'ther of the 'pper bou'd es t '.ates 's correc, then the sto ck Is 'ot pr es.t" ,. an, da.ger of be"g o vef 'shed a.d pros.t level. of f' sh '., pr "sure ere 'ot ., g. 'f, ca.t', ef foc I.g the "u.da."" of the stock. If One of the 10'er bo.d est ,..tes of MSY I s correc, t he. the sfock I. overfl 'hed a.d Is doc " . "g. If our 'be.t" est '.ate 's corre, the stock I s .ot no overfl shed, but I 'creel "" fi sh "g pressure In recent years may have caused some decline In abundance. The .e' ght 0 f the ave" able, .fo noetlo. 'nd' cates that the kl.g .ackerel . tock I. .ot pres.,tI, over fished but that fishing pressure has had SOme effect on the abundance of the stock. The abve e'al ,. I. I. be.ed o. data through '.77. Th ,. a'a' ,s 's, alo.g ., th ad d' t 'o.el deta o. catch, ef tort a.d s, ,e dl str' but 10, dor"g "78 and 1 979, were rev, ewd by the Gu' f eo,. c" Sc' ent, f' c a'd Statl.tlcai eo..lttee I. Apr", '.80. The "Jorlty of the eo..'ttee CO'c'uded that the addlt'o.al deta .0. I '''f tic' eot to ch a'ge the or' g' .0' cone' u. '0.. At "'st, It ,.troduces rea.,... 'e dO'bt thet the aver..e 'e.., of catc ma, be """at clOSer fo MSY tho. ..evlo,.i, bel 'eved. S'nce that tl.. no "Jor cha.ges have occured ,. the fIshery or the aval'ab'e data he"" Comerc'al harve.t "cr.. ,. i 980 to . I 'ght', above the hI .tor Ice' averege, ef ter hav I.g been depres se dor I "" i .78 a.d i 97~ Rocreet'o.al catch rates "pear to have f"ctuated gr..t", '.cr"".g ,. ".e erea. and decr"".g ,. others. A. est lmate of rec..tlo'al catch' n '.7. has beco ova" able.. 'ch I. "b.tantlell, Ie" than previous estimates (see Section 8.2.2.2). 5-31 Exh I bit 5-6 Fishing effort for king mackerel and catch per un it effort of two charter poat c~pt~lns in north western F lor Ida. Dest i n Panama City . . Fish i ng King mackerel/ Fishing King mackerel/ Year hours hour hours hour 1970 552 4.10 1971 550 3.57 1973 432 2.5 495 2.83 1974 440 1.4 329 1.98 1975 488 3.1 592 3.83 1976 424 1.7 589 2.42 1977 352 0.7 676 1.44 1978 706 1.29 Source: Captain A.L. Hilpert (Destin)¡ Captain J. Finnegan (Panama City). See Fable, et at., in prep. Effort, catch, and catch per unit effort by recreational fishermen from a commercial marina in Bay County, FI or Ida King mackerel Total number Catch/boat Year boat days caught day 1973 3, 000 8,100 2.70 1974 3, 300 2,700 0.82 1975 4, 000 19,000 4.75 1976 3, 700 4,900 1.32 1977 3,700 2,400 0.65 Source: Mar Ina Operator 5-32 5.4.1.3 Future Condltlon of KlnQ Mackerel The future cond I t Ion of the kl ng mackerel depends to a great degree on the rate of I ncrease In fish I ng effort and catch and on the true va I ue of MSY. Commercial effort has been Increasing rapIdly. ThIs has been prImarily In response to the great expansion of the power roller gll I-net fleet. The number of power roller vessels equipped with kIng mackerel nets Increased from 18 In 1973 to 33 In 1977. The present number Is unknown but exceeds 60 and probably approaches 80. The number of hook and line boats In the Florida king mackerel fishery has Increased from approxImately 100 In 1969 to 300 In 1976. Recreational fishing effort has also been Increasing, although It Is very difficult to quantify this Increase. f'rth (1976) estimated a 4.5 percent annual Increase In recreational fishing effort. Another estimate can be made from the rate of Increase In the number of recreational boats. The number of recreational boats 16-25 feeet In length can be used as a rough proxy of fishIng effort In salt water. ThIs size boat comprises the vast majorIty of private bo~ts fishing for king mackerel and other coastal pelagic species. The number of boats In this size class reglstered In Florida Increased from 58,998 In 1965 to 147,851 In 1975 (Florida registered boat records) at an annual rate of approxI mately 9.5 percent. It Is probable that recreational fishing effort has been Increasing at a rate approach I ng th I s. The rate of Increase In commercial harvest Is slowing. From 1971 through t Istlcs showed a fa Ir Iy rap Id Increas I ng trend. Catches dec II ned sharp I yIncreased In 1980 to slightly above the 1975-1979 average. 1977, commercial catch sta In 1978 and 1979, then How Increases I n both recreational and comercl al effort will affect the stock depends greatly on the true value of MSY. If one of the lower bound estimates of MSY Is most nearly correct, then the siuck Is already overflshed and Increases In effort will result In decreases In abundance. yield, and catch per unit effort. If one of the "best" estimates are most nearly correct, there Is roo for 5:me expansIon In effort and catch. HJwever, given the apparent rate of Increase In fishing effort, MSY will be reached In the near future. If one of the upper bound estlmates of MSY Is correc, then there Is room for large Increases In effort and catch. Such an Increase appears unlikely. given present trends In comercial harvest. Without precise estimates of the parameters, partlculi!rly M. used to calculate MSY, It Is Impossibleto be more specl f I c. Interpretat Ion of the future condl t Ion of the stock on the bas I s of MSY eST Ima t es sho u i d be very conservat I ve. 5.4.2 Span Ish Mackere I 5.4.2. 1 Est I mate of MSY for Span Ish Mackere i MaxImum sustainable yield for Spanish mackerel was computed using the dynamic pool and Holt (957). The procedure followed Is Identical to that used to estimate MSY Selection of paratters to I lows Ch Ittenden (unpub. ms.). rode I of Beverton In kl ng mackerel. Yleld per recruit: parameters The "growth" pattern parameters loo, K, to, and Woo were detennlned from data In Powell (1975). Estimates of K = 0.47, to = 0.8955, and loo = 558 were obtained by pooling Powell's (1975) data on back calculated length at age for each sex and calculatlng.a "sexas combined" Walford plot and lIn Bertalanffy growth equation. A 1:1 sex ratio was assumed (Chittenden, unpub. man.). An estimate of Woo = 1,816 g was made usIng Powell's length weight equation for sexes combined. 5-33 The mortality parameter Z was estimated from comparison of a variety of published estimates of mor tality and other data from which Z could be calculated (Powel I, 1975; Klima, 1959; Klima, 1976; Powell, unpublished). Estimates of Z from these sources varied from 0.71 to 1.25 depending on the data source and the method of calculating Z. The best estimate of present Z was 1.00 (Chittenden, unpub. man.). It falls between estimates CO.85 to 0.98) based upon Powell's recent data and estimates (0.95 to 1.25) based upon Klima's (1959) olâer data. No precise estimate of M and F exist for the U.S. stock of SpanIsh mackerel. Dol and Mendlzabal (1979) estimated M = 0.693 and F = 0.210 for a stock of Spanish mackerel In MexIcan waters. This stock mayor may not contribute to the U.S. fishery. The most likely range of values for M (and therefore, F) was determined using the ratio M/K In the same manner as for king mackerel. The most likely values for M varied from 0.50 to 0.80 and for F from 0.20 to 0.50 (Chittenden, unpub. man.). The tIme parameter tr = 0 was chosen (Ch Ittenden, unpub. man.) because spawn I ng occurs pr Imarl Iy In the northern Gulf of MexIco where there Is an active sport fishery for Spanish mackerel. Larvae enter the area of the fishery at birth. The parameter tL = 5 was chosen from :the age frequency data In Powell (1975), Klima (1959), and Powell (unpublished). Fish older than flve'"years exist but do not make a significant contribution to the catch (Chittenden, unpub. man.). Three values for tc' 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 were chosen to cover the most likely range for the true value of tc. Yield Per Recruit: Ca i cu I at I on As In the case of the king mackerel, the relation of Y/R to F Is mackerel, Fmax for most values of M and tc Is approximately 5.0, greater than 1.5 Is very small. a flat topped curve. For Spanish wh i I e the ga In' n Y /R for va I ues of F To estimate MSY, FO.1 was chosen as a more reasonable value than Fmax. Fishing at any of the Indi cated va i ues of Fmax wou I d reduce the age structur e of the stock to the po I nt that the fishery wou I d be almost entirely dependent on new recruits entering the fishery each year. Fishing at Fmax could also affect recruItment by reducing the spawnIng stock, although that is not as certain as In the case of king mackerel. However, one year of poor recruitment from natural or other causes combined with heavy fIshing pressure could severely reduce the number of spawners and further reduce recruItment in the following years. In addition, fishing at Fmax would reduce catch per unit effort below the level needed to support a commercial fishery or to satisfy the recreational fishermen. For Spanish mackerel, values of and M = 0.8. YIeld per recruit 625 g at tc = 2.0, M = 0.5, and FO.l varied from 0.7 at tc = at FO.1 varIed from 318 g at FO.1 = 1.0 (Exhibit 5-7). 1.0 and M = 0.5 to 1.3 for tc = 2.0 tc = 1.0, M = 0.8, and FO.l = 1.0 to Estimatln~ Number of Recrults for Span Ish Mackerel Two estimates of recruitment In Spanish mackerel were made using the same assumptions and formulae as wer e used to ca I cu I ate r ecru I tment for king macker e I . Two estimates of recreational catch were used to calculate total catch and number of recruits. For one, the 1970 landIng statistics (Deuel, 1973; Wheeland, 1973) were used. Because the estimates of recreational catch In Deuel, 1973 are generally cons Idered to be overestimates, they were adjusted downward by the same method used for kl ng mackerel and a second estimate of total catch was cal cu lated for 1975. Commercial landings for 1970 for the combined Gulf and Atlantic coasts from Texas to VirgInia totaled 12,138,000 pounds. The vast majority of this, 11,674,000 pounds, was landed by Florida fishermen 5-34 Exh Iblt 5-7 Estimated values for FO.l' Y/R,1 and Y for SpanIsh mackerel for 12 possible combinations of tc and M. Values for R estimated from 1975 commercial landings and adjusted values from Deuel (1973). tc M FO.1 Y/RICg) Rl (D of fish) Y C kg) y( I bs. ) 1.0 0.5 0.7 381 16,044,000 6,113,000 13,464,000 1.0 0.6 0.8 356 20,055,000 7,140,000 15,726,000 1.0 0.7 0.9 334 26,740,000 8,931,000 19,648,000 1.0 0.8 1.0 318 40,110,000 12,755,000 28,061,000 1.5 0.5 0.9 509 16,044,000 8,166,000 17,988,000 1.5 0.6 1.0 480 20,055,000 9,626,000 21,204,000 1.5 0.7 1.1 459 26,740,000 12,273,000 27,001,000 1.5 0.8 1.2 442 40,110,000 17,729,000 39,004,000 2.0 0.5 1.0 625 16,044,000 10,028,000 22,087,000 2.0 0.6 1.1 599 20,055,000 12,013,000 26,460,000 2.0 0.7 1.2 574 26,740,000 15,349,000 33,768,000 2.0 0.8 1.3 556 40,110,000 22,301,000 49,062,000 R Is defined as number of recruits entering the fIshery. 5-35 using gl II nets. Length frequencies and sex ratio from Powell (1975) were used to estimate a mean weight of 1,052 g (2.32 pounds) for the catch from gl f i nets of 3-3/8 Inch stretch mesh, the predomi nant mesh size In the fishery. A catch of 5,232,000 fish was estimated by assuming this mean weight for the entire commercl al catch. The total commercl al and recreational catch was 13,342,000 fish using the uncorrected Deuel data. Mortality parameters follow those used to estimate yield per recruit. Instantaneous total mortality rate (Z) was estimated as 1.0. Estimated values of F from 0.5 to 1.0 were used. Estimates of number of recruits varied from 26,684,000 at F = 0.5 to 66,710,000 at F = 0.2. A second estimate of total catch was made using commercial landings data for 1975 (preliminary esti mate, NMFS). Commercial landings In 1975 were estimated at 11,751,000 pounds. Assuming an average weight of 2.32 pounds, this represents 5,065,000 fish. The recreational catch estimate Is almost certain Iy Inf lated. For the kl ng mackerel, the ratio of Deuel IS estimate to the alternate estimate using local studies was 1:0.381. For lack of other data, the ratio established for king mackerel was used to adjust Deuel IS estimate. On this basis, the recreational catch of Spanish mackerel In 1975 was 2.957 x 106 fish using the-corrected data. The corresponding estimates of number of recruits varied from 16,044,000 at F = 0;5 and M = 0.5 to 40,110,000 at F = 0.2 and M = 0.8 (Exhibit 5-8). Although this adjusted estimate of total catch Is probably more accurate than Oeuel, (1973), the assumption used to adjust Deuel IS estimate cannot be directly demonstrated for Spanish mackerel. The adjusted catch estimate and the estimates of recruit ment made from It should be viewed with caution. Exh Ibl t 5-8 Estimated number of recruits (R) and mean population number (N) for Span Ish mackerel, 1 based on 1975 commercial landing statistics and recreational catch estimates from Deuel (1973), corrected with 1975 data on king mackerel from Wade (1977) and Brusher, et al. (1978). F M N R .5 .5 16,044,000 16,044,000 .4 .6 20,055,000 20,055,000 .3 .7 26,740,000 26,740,000 .2 .8 40,110,000 40,110,000 1 Assuming Z = 1.00, C = 8,022,000 fish, N = C/F, R = ZN Ca Icu lati on of MSY Estimates of MSY were made for both sets of recruitmnt estimates at 12 combinations of tc and M. Using recruitment estimates calculated from the 1970 uncorrected catch statistics, estimates of MSY varied from 22,393,000 pounds at tc = 1 and M = 0.5 to 81,698,000 pounds at tc = 2.0 and M = 0.8. Within that range the most likely value of M Is 0.7. This estimate lies near the middle of the range 5-36 calculated from the M/K ratio and Is the same as that calculated for a MexIcan stock of Spanish mackerel (Mendizabal, unpublished). The most likely value of tc Is probably 1.5 or slightly abc:e. At thIs combination of M and tc' MSY = 44,963,000 pounds. This compares with a total uncorrected catch estimate for 1970 of 35,515,000 pounds. Using the 1975 commercial landings and the adjusted estimate of recreational catch from Deuel (1973), estimates of MSY varied from 13,464,000 pounds at M = 0.5 and tc = 1.0 TO 49,062,000 pounds at M = 0.8 and tc = 2.0 (Exhibit 5-7). At the most likely combinations, M = 0.7 and tc = 1.5, the estimate of MSY Is 27,001,000 pounds. This compares with a total adjusted catch estimate of 20,158,000 pounds. In many fisheries yield can be Increased by adjusting age at recruItment, tc. For Spanish mackerel, the present value of tc Is at or near the age where Y/R Is maximized. At present tc cannot be pre c I se I y determl ned, but II es between age 1.0 and 2.0. i f natura I morta ii ty, M, equa IsO. 7 (the bast estimate) or greater, Y/R at FO.l Is maximized at tc = 1.0. At smaller values of M, Y/R Is maximized at progressively larger values of tc. ExhIbit 5-9 summarIzes the range. of MSY estimates for Spanish mackerel based on currently available data. The MSY estImates prCNlded by this approach use as an Input an estimate of total catch for some years. Because of uncertaInty In the total recreational catch, estimates have been prCNided using data from the 1970 Saltwater An~iin~ Survey (Deuel, 1973), which is believed to be an overestimate and using adjusted data to estimate the total recreational catch. In eIther case, the MSY estimates are I n similar relative proport Ions to the estimate of the total catch. The II kely upper and lower bounds represent a reasonable limit to the range of MSY estimates based on currently available data. The "best estimate" represents a reasonable estimate for the most likely value of MSY based on currently available data. Future research may prCNlde revised data with which to revise the MSY estimate. The estimates of the critical parameters, M (Instantaneous fishing mortality), and tc (time at first capture) for the MSY model are also presented In ExhibIt 5-9. 5.4.2.2 Present Condltlon of Span Ish Mackerel The present condition of the Spanish mackerel Is not well defined. There Is no documented Information on changes In length frequency of the catch, changes In catch per unit effort, relative abundance, or distribution. The only available Information which can be used to assess the present condition of the stock are the estImates of MSY presented In Section 5.4.2.1 and Its relation to present catch. i f the estimates of Deuel (1973) for the recreational catch are accepted, then the total catch, recreational and commercial, In 1970 was 35,515,000 pounds. This Is larger than the lower bound esti mate of MSY, but below the "best estimate" of 44,963,000 pounds, and much less than the upper bound estimate of MSY. If our best estimate Is correct, then the Spanish mackerel Is not presently over fished; nor has It been In the past. However, this estimate of MSY Is based on Imprecise estimates of many parameters. It Is advlsab Ie to be very conservative In Inferring present condl tlon from these est Imates of MSY a lone. 5.4.2.3 Future Conditlon of Span Ish Mackerel Predicting the future condition of the Spanish mackerel stock Is dependent on the rate at which the catch and fishing effort are Increasing and on the true values of MSY and present total catch. Recreational fishing effort for most species of saltwater fish Is Increasing and wi Ii continue to Increase In the foreseeable future. North (1976) estimated a rate of Increase In saltwater recreational fishermen as 4.5 percent per year. Recreational boats of The size class used by most saltwater anglers (16-25 feet) have been IncreasIng by approximately 9.5 percent in Florida. This 5-37 Exh Ibl t 5-9 Spanish Mackerel MSY Estimate Summery (mil lion pounds) "Best Estimate" Parameter Based on Deuel's 1970 Based on Adjusted Value Datal for Est ¡mate of Estimates for 1975 Estimates Recreational Catch Recreational Catch M tc 81.7 49.1 0.8 2.0 45.0 27 0.7 1.5 22.4 13.5 0.5 1.0 Like i y Upper Bound Like i Y Lower Bound Corresponding Estimate of Total Recreational and Commercl al Catch 35.52 20.13 From the 1970 Sa Itwater An~ Iln~ Survey (Deue I, 1973). 2 Unadjusted estimate for 1970. 3 Adjusted estimate for 1975. Is probab Iy a reasonab Ie proxy for an estImate of the rate of increase of recreatIonal fishing ef fort. Recreational fishing effort for Spanish mackerel Is probably Increasing at a rate withIn this range. Commercial fishing effort and fleet capacity have been Increasing for Spanish mackerel, primarily because of the rapId Increase In power roller gill-net vessels In south Florida. Most of these vessels are now equipped to fish for either Spanish or king mackerel. The total number Is unknown, but approaches 80. The Increase In number of vessels and ef fort Is expected to cont Inue. The effect of these Increases In effort depend on the true values of present catch and MSY. If either estimate of present catch Is correct, and the corresponding lower bound estimate of MSY Is correct, then the Spanish mackerel Is already overfished and further Increases In catch could result In severe reductions In the abundance of the stock, total yield, and catch per unit effort. If one of our "best estImates" is correct, then there Is some room for expansion. However, If effort and catch Increase as råpldly as seems possible, MSY will be reached In a few years. 5.4.3 Cobia 5.4.3.1 Cobia: MSY and Present Condition A crude estimate of MSY was obtaIned from the landing statIstics. Deuel (1973) reported the 1970 recreational catch to be 775,000 pounds In the Atlantic and 125,000 pounds In the Gulf. These may be overestimates, but no data exists with which to correct them. For the period 1965-1977, maximum reported commercial landings on the Atlantic coast were 24,000 pounds In 1965 and 23,000 pounds In 1970. The maximum reported In the Gulf was 133,000 pounds In 1974. The maximum total catch was, therefore, 1,057,000 pounds. 5-38 Th Is was aecapt"" as the bes t aVa II ab Ie es t lmate of MSY. I tis aece t"" with caot Ion and co", id.. ed an upper limIt estimate. UsIng maximum reported catch for MSY In a stock whIch may be overflshed (see below) could overestimate the real value. Additionally there Is a high probability that the recreatIonal catch Is overestimated. At pr esent, th.. e Is n of M fi e I eot data ~a II ab Ie to ca I CU late an accurate est I mate of MSY for eobl.. The only InformatIon avaIJable which could be used to make a crude estimate are canmerclal and recreational catch statIstIcs and data fran Richards (1977). These data Indicate that there may be two stocks of cobia In U.S. waters; one In the Atlantic wh Ich may be overexploited, and one In the Gu i f of Mexl co wh J ch appears to be underexp 101 ted. A I tho"gh tot a' y lei d or MSY cann ot be co I '" I at"" tr om the y I el d per r ecr" I t anal yses "sed for king andSpanIsh mackerel, It was possIble to examine the relation between present YIR and optimum YIR. Because of Jack of data, this analysIs was limited to bounding the Possible values for present and optimal YIR. The necessary paramers wer e es t lmat"" '5 fo II ows, The va i "es for tbe Br oay 9" ow h eoaf fie lent, K " .25, 'ax 1 '"' we Ight, W . 38.25 k9 and total mortal I ty, Z " .4 I, were eompoted fr om the overage ofval "es for "" les and fema i es given In Rich ards (1967, 1977), or es t lmated tr om da ta eonf.i ned ; n thoe publIcations Csee Section 5.1.3). Age at recruitment to the fIshIng grounds (tr) was assumed to be equal to age at recruitment to the recreatIonal fishery, tc = 1.0. Bounds for values of fIshing mortalIty, F, and natural mortality, M, within Z were established based on the theoretical relation between maxima, age and nat~al motality (T"a"", 19601. Maxlmam age record"" In a small sa'ple trom a r elat; ve i y heov 1I y f I shed POP" lat Ion was teo years. 1 tis r easooab Ie to ass"" that max 1 m", age for cobIa approaches 15 years. For thIs maxImum age, Tanaka (1960) predicts M = .17. To allow for uncertainty, a range of M~0.05 was arbItrarily set. Estimates of YIR, optimum size at recruitment for a gIven value of M and YIR at that optImum size are given below. At the "pper boon d estimate of F, t he POP" la ti on tr om ,h I eh th Is da ta was takeo ,,5 be I ng "'erfl 5 hed. Y lei d coo I d be i o creased by i ocreas I ng size at recr" I tmnt or deerea log fish In9 ef fort. "' Iota I n I n9 F and ¡ ncr eas i n9 t e fo 44 Inches ,6" id I ncr eae yield by 79 per canf. At the lowr boon d '" flmate of F, the POP" lat Ion w.s not av..f i shed. Ylel d coo i d be locreaed by i ncrea i n9 t e and/or I ocreas i ng F. MaintaIning F and Increasing tc to 33 Inches would result In increasIng yield by 23 percent. Estimated bounds of t4 and F when Z = .41 YIRCg) Tc = 1.0 OptImal SIze at Recru J tment Lopt Cinches) Y/RCg) at Lopt M F .12 .29 .22 .19 For Specl f i ad F 5,314 44 9,503 3,064 33 3,761 These sho" 1 d be cons I der "" very cr" de estImates for Y IR i n the ear I y 1960' s. S I oca that time, fish I n9 ef fort has I n creased by mae than 100 per caot. F Ish I n9 mortal I ty has on do" bt"" i Y IncreaSed al so. I ffish I n9 motal I ty has axee""ed on e hal f the va '"e of Z, then the POP" lat Ion fr om 'h I ch th Is da fa 'as t a""n Is pr ",entl y av..fi 5 hed, 9 i ven the ab"'e range of estimates of M and the ¡r eseot age af recruitment. Although there Is no recent data to quantify the Increase In F, or Its magn I tude In r elat 100 to Z, I t Is poss Ib Ie that th Is pop"lat Ion Is presentl y averf I shed. Th Is S"pports the cone 1" 5 Ion of Richards (1977). '''dln9s data '"ggests that this cone I"' Ion ew id be applied to tha eotlre Atlantic coast populatIon. 5-39 Data from Richards (1977) strongly suggests that there Is a population of cobIa whIch returns to the area In ànd arouhd Chesapeake Bay each summer and which Is presently being overflshed. Tagging returns IndIcate a high fIshIng mortality rate. Total number and weight caught have declined, in both the commercIal and recreatIonal fisheries, and the mean size of the fish caught by recreatIonal fishermen has dec i I ned. This trend may àpply to the entIre populátlon on the Atlantic coast. Commercial landings of cobia on the Atlantic coast declined from 48,000 pounds In 1960 to 15,000 pounds In 1977 (see Exhibit 5-10). ThIs decline has been consistent in all areas except Florida, where landings have been relatIvely stable since 1970 (Exhibit 8-8). ThIs may reflect a declIne In abundance. There Is little evIdence that the cobIa populatIon In the Gulf of Mexico Is following the same pattern. Cobia landings from the Gulf of Mexico rase from 40,000 pounds In 1960 to 133,000 pounds In 1974, then declined to 89,000 pounds In 1977. There Is no available documentation of any decline In abundance of cobIa In the recreational catch. Declining catch rates of charter boats (CaptaIn Charles SebastIan, pers. comm.) In Loúlslana Indicate some declIne In abundance In that area. ExhIbit 5-10 CommercIal Landings of Cobia Between 1960 and 1977 (pounds) (NMFS Commer cl a' FIshery Stat I st I cs) Year Atlantic Coast Gu i f Coast Total 1960 48,000 40.,000 88,000 1961 46,000 29,000 75,000 1962 44,000 37,000 81 ,000 1963 56,000 39,000 95,000 1964 36,000 25,000 61,000 1965 24,000 21,000 45,000 1966 17,000 38,000 55,000 1967 22,000 40,000 62,000 1968 20,000 82,000 102,000 1969 13,000 70,000 83,000 1970 23,000 106,000 129,000 1971 22,000 104,000 126,000 1972 21 ,000 118,000 139,000 1973 15,000 113,000 128,000 1974 18,000 133,000 151,000 1975 22,000 120,000 142,000 1976 19,000 110,000 129,000 1977 15,000 89,000 104,000 5.4.3.2 Cobia: Future CondItion The abundance of cobia is apparently much lower, even In unflshed populatIons, than the abundance of other coastal pelagIc species. It Is a moderately long-lived species wIth a correspondingly low natural mortality rate and low 'rate of recruItment. This combInation of characterIstIcs makes the cobia more susceptible to overflshlng than other coastal pelagic species. The cobia Is subject to Intense recreational fishIng pressure durIng the summer In Chesapeake Bay, In spring and summer In the northern Gulf of Mexico, and to a lesser degree durIng the wInter In 5-40 south Florida. If this fishing pressure Increases, as seems very likely, the cobia could becom severely overflshed. This may be happening already In the Atlantic; however, until more data Is avaIlable thIs conclusion Is not definitive. 5.4.4 Cero Mackere I : MSY, Present Condltlon, Future Condition There Is no available Information from which any estimate of MSY for cero mackerel can be produced. Neither recreational nor commercial catch statistics are available. The size of the cero mackerel stock In U.S. waters Is apparently much smaller than the kIng or Spanish mackerel. There Is no commercial fishery and very little recreational fishIng effort direced at the cero mackerel In U.S. waters. The current landings are primarily Incidental catches. It Is therefore unlikely that the cero mackerel Is presently overflshed or In any danger of becoing overflshed If current trends cont I nue. 5.4.5 Lltt Ie Tunny: MSY, Present Condltlon. Future Condition There Is no available Information from which any estimate of MSY for little tunny can be produced. The little tunny stock In U.S. waters Is apparently very large. It Is the most abundant scombrld larvae out of eight specIes found In the eastern Gulf of Mexico (E. Houde, pers. comm.). There Is very little commercial fishery and no comprehensive landing statistics available, eIther commercial or recreational. The recreational catch Is probably quIte large. Manooch and Laws (In prep.) reprted 58,953 pounds of little tunny caught by the charter fishing fleet In North Carolina. Gentle (1977) reprted the little tunny to be the second most abundant fish In the catch of the charter fishing fleet In Miami, Florida. In that study little tunny were often caught as bait for sharks and large bl Ilflsh (Edgar Gentle, pers. comm.). Data In Carlson (1952) IndIcated that the abundance of lIttle tunny along the Atlantic coast was very high. Wade (1977) estimated the Alabama recreational catch In 1975 at 388,444 pounds. Although there Is no estimate of present catch, It Is very unlikely that the little tunny Is being overflshed or that It wIll become overflshed In the forseeable future If present trends continue. 5.4.6 B i uef Ish 5.4.6.1 B I uef Ish: MSY and Present Condition The bluefish stock or stocks In the Gulf of Mexico appear to be small relative to those along the Atlantic coast. The available data Is not sufficient to calculate a reasonable estimate of MSY. The present condition of the stock appears to be healthy; no significant trends In catches. eIther up or down are seen In either commercial or recreational catches. There Is little directed fishery for bluefish In the Gulf and no reason to believe that the total catch Is approaching MSY. 5.4.6.2 B i uef Ish: Future Cond It Ion Without more accurate Information on MSY and present catch. It Is ImpoSSible to predict the future condition of the bluefiSh. BluefIsh populations are known to undergo large fluctuations In abundance of unknown cause. Some data Indicate that the bluefish may be In a perIod of stock expansion along the Atlantic coast. At present, It appears to be underexplolted In the Gulf. How rapidly this could change as the total catch Increases cannot be predicted wIth the available data. 5-41 5.4.7 Dolphin: MSY, Present Condltlon, Future CondItIon There Is no available data from which to rigorously attempt an estimate of MSY for dolphin; however, at the present time It Is unlikely that the dolphin Is being exploited at MSY. The dolphin Is a spe cIes with a high growth rate, high mortality rate, low age at maturity, and high fecundity (see Section 5.1.7 on biological description). A species with this combination of biological charac teristics Is difficult to overflsh, either In terms of recruitment overflshlng or growth overflshlng. 5.5 Probable Future Condition The Information for this section has been Included In Section 5.4.1.3 for king mackerel, 5.4.2.3 for Spanish mackerel, 5.4.3 for cobIa, 5.4.4 for cero mackerel, 5.4.5 for little tunny, 5.4.6.2 for bluefish, and 5.4.7 for dolphin. This was done because the Information leading to the respective conclusions followed more coherently the presentation In Section 5.4. 5~2 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF hASITAT 6.1 Condition of Habitat 6.1.1 Adu It Habitat The habitat of all adults of all the species In the coastal pelagIc management unit, except dolphin, Is the coastal waters out to the edge of the continental shelf In the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Dolphin Is an oceanic species that may be found on the shelf. Within that area, the occurrence of these species Is governed by temperature and salinity. All specIes except bluef Ish are seldom found In water temperatures less than 20°C. Bluefish are comonly found In water temperatures down to 12°C. Salinity preference varies, but Is generally for high salinity. Dolphin are seldo found In waters with salInity less than 36 ppt. The scombrlds prefer hIgh salinities, but less than 36 ppt. Salinity preference of little tunny and cobIa Is not well defined. Bluefish exhibit a wIde preference and can be found In estuarine waters of relatively low salIn Ity. Some populations of bluefish are estuarine dependent In the Juvenile stage. . There appears to be little dIrec effect of man on the adult habitat which adversely affects adults of these species, nor does It appear likely that there will be significant effect In the foreseeable future. Habitat degradatIon Is more likely to affect eggs and larvae or Indirecly affect the adults through predator-prey relations. 6.1.2 Larva i Hab Itat The larval habitat of all specIes In the coastal pelagIc management unit Is the water column In the area of spawning. These areas are Identified for each species In Section 5.1. WithIn the spawn Ing area, eggs and larvae are concentrated In the surface waters. There Is, at present, no documented evidence that larval habitats have been degraded by natural or man-made Impact to a degree sufficient to affect recruItment; however, man's Impact on the habitat has greater potential to af fect the larvae than the adults, and the magn Itude of man's Impact In the spawning area has been rapidly Increasing. 011 pollution from offshore 011 spills or chronic leakage or discharge from operating 011 wells Is a potential danger to the spawning grounds of coastal pelagic species. The water so luble aromatic hydrocarbon component of crude 0 I I Is damag I ng to fish eggs and embryos. Fifty percent irrta II ty was experienced In herring and anchovy larvae exposed to benzene In the range of 20 to 25 ppm In a labora tory experiment (Struhsaker, et al., 1974). Sublethal effects observed In laboratory experiments were abnormal development and altered respiration rates. Eggs and larvae were collected from San Francisco Bay and other locat Ions. San Francl sco Bay eggs showed a lower hatch I ng rate (20-25 percent dl d not hatch) and San Francisco larvae showed a hIgher percent of abnormalities than eggs and larvae collected from other sites (Struhsaker, et al., 1974). San Francisco Bay Is an area of chronic oil pollution. Other pollutants such as pesticides may act synergistically with 011 to produce the deleterious effects on the young stages of fish (Struhsaker, et al., 1974). 011 dispersants with water soluble aromatic hydrocarbon fractions also have been found to be damaging to eggs and larvae (Wilson, 1977), although the second generation dl spersants are less toxic than those originally used after 011 spills, due to the reduction In aromatic hydrocarbons (Wilson, 1917). Although no adverse Impacts have yet been documented, growing offshore drll ling activity In the Gulf of Mexico Is a potential threat to king mackerel In particular. A major spawning center Is located off the coast of Texas. The possible Impact of chronic oil leaks or 011 bearing brine discharges on 6-1 the development of king mackerel larvae should be considered. The recent IXTOC 011 spill demonstrates the potential for single accidents to Impact a very large fraction of the total spawnIng area. 6.1.3 Habltat of Prey Species Estuaries are critical habitats tor most of the major prey species of coastal reason, estuarine habitats and factors which affect them should be considered pelagic management un It. pelaglcs. For this critical to the coastal All the species of the coastal pelagic management unit, except the dolphin, have one thing In par ticular In common. They move from one area to another and harvest seasonal abundances of local resurces. Many of the prey species of the coastal pelaglcs are estuarine dependent In that they spend all or a portion of their lives In estuaries. This means that the coastal pelagic species, by virtue of the ultimate 9:urce of their food, are to some degree dependent upon estuarIes also. Therefore, coastal pelagic species can be expected to be detrimentally affected If the productive capabilities of estuaries are greatly degraded. 6.2 Hab I tat Areas of Part I cu i ar Concern The critical habitats of the species of the coastal pelagic management unit, generally speakIng, are: 1) Offshore areas of peak spawning activities 2) All the estuaries on their migration routes. Some general statements can be made as to actions that would serve to protect the areas of critical habl tat: 1) Locate the centers for spawning activity for the coastal pelagic species, evaluate their current habitat quality, and protect them from further degradation. 2) Determine whether or not king mackerel hatchIng or larvae development In the western Gulf, a major spawning area, are significantly affected by proximity to operating 011 wells (or brine discharges) and if this affects recruitment. 3) Recogn Ize the Importance of estuaries to the coastal pelagic specl es and act aga Inst damage to natural support capabilities of estuaries by dredgIng, filling, bulkheadlng, and change In freshwater runof f, etc. 6.3 Habltat Protectlon Pro~rams As dIscussed In the previous sections, the coastal pelagic fish do not InhabIt any site specIfic habitat. Rather they are spawned In very large (generally) offshore, geographical areas, and as adults, migrate over great distances. There are comprehensive coastal zone management programs being developed that focus on protecting and enhancing estuarine environments along with other coastal areas. Indirectly these programs will affect In a positive manner the productivity of the management unit. The status of theIr plans are summrized In ExhibIt 7-4. At the federal level no comprehensive habItat protection programs exist. A marine sanctuary progrêl was established by the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. The Act permits the designa tion (by the OffIce of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA) of specific marine sanctuaries (see FMP Section 7.3). ExIsting or proposed sanctuaries will not significantly affect the habitat of coastal pelagic specl es. 6-2 7.0 FISHERY MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION, LAWS. AND POLICIES 'e.eg .t '.,t, tut 1o., cO',eot I y ,.",, vad ., th the '"c'" ,. the coa,t e' pe' eg' c '"'.,-.t ""' t "c'od. the FI'h.,. Me'..e.t Coo.c'" e.d ve,'oo, ,tat.. ,'thl. the 'e... of the '''ck'. ".g meek.,." Spe., ,h meck.,.', c.no "'ke.,. db' phI. eOd cob' e e'e ceogh t el mo,t ..t, r.,y ., th 'n the sout h At 'e.t, c ood Go, f of 'ex 1 co '," '0", B 'uef ''" e,. cooght ,. ''',te.t 'e' "'o.t, fco """" pp' ., 'e',ech O'.ft" but e,. co., I d.rad by th', P 'e. 0" y ,. the Go' f of 'exl co II tt 'e t oo,y " cooghf by rocreet 'o'e' f' 'h."" ,. the ",of h At 'e.t Ic e.d Go' f of Mex' co ',"'0", e.d ther I s a moderate commercl al catch of f New Eng land. Exh 'b' t 7-, 'ho., the "opo rt '0. of the U. S, com..,c 'e' cotch coogh t ,." d. e.d oot" de of thr.. . "e, fnom 'ho,.. ",.g ,"ck.'e' " ceoght ",edm' 'e.t' y beYO'd thr.. mil., from ,ho '.. B , oell ,h " COoght predm' .ootl y I"" d. of t tree mil." Spo, I ,h meeker.' e.d II tll. too.y "..e, ., hev. ",,,"" tie' cetch both '",'de eOd 00"". of th,.. mil." The 'oc'..t'o'e' cotch "Ppee.. ., fo, '0. the , gOOerel petter. "' the co..", e' cotch, Wh II. 'peclf I c dete e,. .ot eve ii e"e fo, cob' e eOd do 'ph'.. the "..er ., be cooght both'., I d. e.d out" d. of th,.. m "" ,. 'ob'toot 'el emo.ts, Do 'p h 'n ,. per, co Ie, " f'eqo..t, Y ceoght co." d.'eb ,. d" te.," of f'hor.. Nb det e are eve "eb ,. 0' d', te.," f nom 'ho ,. .h.,e cono ,"cke,., " ""oght, e' t hoogh It, d', tr' botlo. " be, f evad ., b. p'ed' .ent" limited to southern Florida. . The'e ma be "'me I .t.roc '0. bet.... the '''cks of k"g e.d Spe., 'h ,"cke,., ceogh t ,. U" tad Stet.. waters and those caught by Mexl cans of f Vera Cruz. 7.1 ManaQement I nst I tut Ions Exh, b' t, 7-2 e.d 7-3 s..'"" ze be" c ch e'ocer I ,t I.. of the st ete , .,t, tot '0" '''''' I. f' 'h.,. mo'""e.t, B"ef 'e"ellv. de,., 'Ptlo", e'e "....tad be,o. for e8c 'tof.. The cheroce,',"1c of P"'"'y Imprte..e ,. th" de,., I pt '0. " the Ide.t If Icetlo. of ""ho,' ty fo, "'tob" ,h' "9 '"'eg-.f',"0' e "0"' '. the ve, '0., ,tet.., Wh "e e" ,tet.. ""ho,' z. ",.e dog,.. of .. hod ty ., ed.'" st,.. tlv. bod'.., 0. 'y Nbrth Ce,o" 'e, Alebe,", ""," 'Ppl, eOd ., e certe', dogree Texe" ot" 'ze ""mI . "t'etlv. ..tho" f '.. fo, ..teb, I 'h I.g 'ob,te.t Iv. '"'.,..e.t ',"o'et '0'" ,. the r""".g ,t et... the 'fetot., co.te'. the 'peclf,c '."o'e",. mee,.... "ed ., '"'eg. "'h.,. ","'"'c"', Fo, '",tenco, ,. F '0" de, the '.g'" eto,. PO"e, d.tel'e' 'tetot", to, f' ,h.r '.. ,.. 0' ce 'te'.. f d. e, .", e, spe c 'e' Ie., ep p" ce". ., port ico 'e, coo.ti.., Th. embodlme.t of 'och dete II.. 'ego 'e tlo", ,. ,totuto" Ie. "mlt, the lIexlb ii ify of '"'egem..t "-09"'m" Bec.,e che'ge, ,. ',"0 'etlo", reqo'r. 'egi "et Ive epp,ove', .ffort, ., co,,,.ete '"'egem""t "09''' ,,,, be h",..,,, by the '.'ellve'y "0' peco of the legislatIve process. North Caro II na Th. eg..., ,,,po",I,,. fo, the '"'eg.me.t of "'h.,. ""o"'ce ,. Nbrth Cero".e " the Depe""me.t of Net"e' R"",, ce eOd "". I ty Deve, op"".t, Th. 'e".. F' ,h.r ,.. Co.,,, '0. " e ,"V.'- be, bord eppo , ofad by the gwe"." .h' ch '."''' e, the pO" cy-,"" 'g body fo, .,,, ,.. ti ,he, '''. Th. Coml", 0' he, the po.e, to odopt '0'., e.' ',"0 'e t '0" 00'" ,teot ., th st etot", to P'op." Y '".eg. the tok'.g, proc""'.g e.' di '." If 'on of ",,' ,. """ "'c.., R."o 'etlo", e,. adoptad by ""Jo, I ty ""to of the Co""'" '0" Th.'e e r so ex"" ., thl. the dee.....t e . I ,..""., Com..,eI e' eOd Sports FI 'he, ''' Com.,tt... It " co,., of '''''..entotl "" of II sh ," 'ofe,,, ts eOd the"" e.t If Ie com"",, ty, Its r",po", I b ii 'ti.. e'e 'e'g., y ., od v,,, en' """'mend oc '0", to the Secrete,. of the Depert""'t. Nb.. h Ce,o" ,e ,tefot.. deel .,th mett.. 'och e, "c.",,, e.d f..., e'for...,t. e" '."'" ",oce d"", to, oy,te.. en' c 'e.., 'e,., ,t outho" ty '"" e, ,'z. "m' h. ,e"""" 0' goer ''' t" ct '0", " '.ft 'e..e' y to the di 'c,.tlo. of theMe" ,. F I ,h., ''' Coml" '0', e" Depe....t of Net.. e' Resources and CommunIty Development, DIvision of MarIne Resources. 7-1 Exhibit 7-1 commercial Landings by Spec ies and1 by Distance Caught off u. S. Shores (1000 1bs.) 2 3-Year species 1975 1976 1977 Average Percent King mackerel 0-3 miles 820 1,070 2,022 1, 304 16.2 3-200 miles 6,003 7 ,866 6,438 6,769 83.8 Spanish mackerel 0-3 4,428 5,093 7,756 5.,759 45.6 3-200 7,323 8,984 4,265 6,857 54.4 Little tunny 0-3 25 41 63 43 52.4 3-200 29 37 52 39 47.6 Bluefish 0-3 9,545 9,312 9,423 9,427 86.9 3~200 1,292 1,075 1,897 1,421 13.1 1 None of the fish in the Management unit were reported caught beyond 200 miles.. 2 Data on cobia and dolphin unavailable. Source: u.S. Department of Conuerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, annual reports for 1975, 1976, and 1977. 7-2 E X H IB IT 7 2 S T A T E M A A G E M E N T I N S T I T U I O N S S O U T H A T L A T I C R E G I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I V E B O D Y A N D I T S R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y N O R T H C A R O L I N A D E P A R T M E N T O F N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A N D C O M M N IT Y D E V L O P M E N T . a d m i n i s t e r s m a n a g e m e n t pr og ra m s . m a k e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o C o m m i s s i o n . e n f o r c e m e n t . c o n d u c t s r e s e a r c h S O U T H C A R O L IN A D E P A R T M E N T O F W I L D L I F E A N D M A R I N E R E S O U R C E S 'J I Lv . a d m i n i s t e r s m a n a g e m e n t pr og ra m s . m a k e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o C o m m i s s i o n a n d L eg is la tu re . e n f o r c e m e n t . c o n d u c t s r e s e a r c h G E O R G IA D E P A R T M E N T O F N A T U R A R E S O U R C E S . a d m i n i s t e r s m a n a g e m e n t pr og ra m s . c o n d u c t s r e s e a r c h . e n f o r c e m e n t . m a k e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o B o a r d a n d L e g i s l a t u r e 1 F L O R ID A D E P A R T M E N T O F N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S . m a k e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o L e g i s l a t u r e . a ò m i n i s t e r s m a n a g e m e n t pr og ra m s . c o n d u c t s r e s e a r c h 1 F l o r i d a i s a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h e G u l f o f M e x i c o M a n a g e m e n t C o u n c i l A D M IN IS T R A T IV E P O L IC Y M A K IN G B O D Y A N D D E C I S I O N R U L E M A R I N E F I S H E R I E S C O M M I S S I O N . s e v e n m e m b e r b o a r d . e s t a b l i s h e s r e g u l a t i o n s b a s e d o n a m a j o r i t y v o t e o f t h e m e m b r s co ns is te nt w it h st at ut es W I L D L I F E A N D M A R I N E R E S O U R C E S C O M M I S S I O N . n i n e m e m b e r b o a r d . e s t a b l i s h e s r e g u l a t i o n s b a s e d o n m a j o r i t y v o t e o f a q u o r u m ( f i v e m e m b e r s c o n s t i t u t e q u o r u m ) B O A R D O F N A T U R A R E S O U R C E S . 1 5 m e n b ~ r b o a r d . e s t a b l i s h e s ' r e g u l a t i o n s b a s e d o n m a j o r i t y . v o t e ò f . q u o r u m ( e m e m b e r s c o n s t i t u t e a q u o r u m ) D E P A R R M E N T O F N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S . m a y e s t a b l i s h r e g u l a t i o n s co ns is te nt w it h st at ut es ; r e q u i r e a p p r o v a l o f G o v e n o r a n d C a b in e t L E G IS L A T IV E I N V O L V E M E N T I N M A N A G E M E N T R E G U L A T IO N S A u t h o r i t y f o r d e t a i l e d m a n a g e m e n t r e g u l a t i o n s d e l e g a t e d t o C o m m i s s i o n . s t a t u t e s c o n c e r n e d w i t h l i c e n s i n g a n d en fo rc em en t. D et ai le d re gu la ti on s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e s ; c h a n g e s r e q u i r e l e g i s l a t i v e ap pr ov al A l l m a n a g e m e n t r e g u l a t i o n s c u r r e n t l y c o n t a i n e d i n s t a t u t e s ; ch a n g e s re q u ir e le g is la t i v e ap pr ov al . D et ai le d re gu la ti on s c o n t a i n e d f o r ~ n d i v i d u a l c o u n t i e s a n d e n t i r e s t a t e . in cl u d e d in s ta tu te s; r e q u ir e l e g i s l a t i v e a p p r o v a l a n d lim i t r e g u la to ry a u th o ri ty o f D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R es ou rc es ALABAMA MISS ISS IPPI LOU IS IANA TEXAS Exhibit 7-3 STA TE MANAGEMENT I NST I TUT IONS - GULF OF MEX I CO REG I ON 1 ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND ITS RESPONS I B I LIT I ES DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES o adm I n I sters management programs o enforcement o conducts research BUREAU OF MAR I NE. RESOURCES o adm I n I sters management programs enforcemento DEPARTMENT OF WI LDL I FE AND FISHERIES o adm I n I sters management programs enforcement conducts research o o PARKS AND WI LDL I FE DEPARTMENT o adm I n isters management programs o enforces statutes and regu I at Ions o conducts research o makes recommendat I on to legislature ADM I N I STRAT I VE POL ICY-MAK I NG BODY AND DEC I S I ON RULE CommIssioner of Department has author I ty to estab II sh management regu I at ion. COMMI SS ION ON Wi LDLIFE CONSERVATION o five-member board o estab II shes ord I nances on recommend at Ion of Bureau director. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES COMISSION o seven-member board estab II shes regu I at Ions based on major ity vote of a quorum (four members constitute a quorum) cons I stent with statutes. PARKS AND WI LDL I FE COMMISSION o s lx-member body establ ¡shes regulations for "regu I atory author i ty coun ties" based on maj or I ty vote of quorum (four members constitute a quorum). LEGISLATIVE INVOLVEMENT I N MANAGEMENT REGULAT IONS o author Ity for deta I I ed management regu I at Ions delegated to CommIssioner o statutes concerned pr Imar II y with I icenslng, enforcement, and general gear restr I ct Ions. Qauthor ity for deta I I ed management regu I at Ions delegation to CommissIon statutes concern Licenses and taxes with some spec I f i c restr ictlons on oysters. o detailed regulations conta I ned I n statutes; changes require leg i slatlve approva I . o detaIled regulations for "general law counties" conta i ned I n statutes; o licensing requiremenTs and sl ze limIts conta i ned I n statutes. Florida Is Included in both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Councils. See Exhibit 7-1 for summary of Florida Institutional characteristics. 7-4 ;egu I at Ions current I y In However, the flexibility ment of such regul~tlons effect do not specifically address the resurces of the management un It. allowed by the current Institutional arrangements would permit the establlsh without leglsl~tlve approval. South Caro II ne The Wildlife and Marine Resources Department Is res!Xnslble for marine fisheries resurce management In South Carolina. A nine-member gJvernlng board, the Wildlife and Marine Resources CommIssion, establishes policy for the Department. Regulations of the Commission are adopted by majority vote of a quorum (five members required for a quorum). Within the Department Is the Marine Resources Division. Its personnel serve as staff to the Commission. The Division has the authority to adopt and Implement rules and regulations for the control of fisheries consistent with the laws and po Ilcies of the state and Is responsIble for enforcement of the state's fisheries laws. The DivisIon has Jurisdiction over: All salt water fish, fishing and fisheries, all fish, fishing and fisheries In al I tIdal waters of the state and all fish, fishing and fisheries In all waterScof the state whereupon a tax or license Is levied for use for commercial purposes 1..lncludlng) shell fish, crustaceans, diamond-back terrapin, sea turtles, porposes, shad, sturgeon, herring and all other migratory fish except rock fish (striped bass). S.C. Code S28-159. The legIslature has passed rather detailed laws concerning the major species sought off South Carolina. Because all rules and regul~tlons are currently contaIned In the statutes, changes In the management scheme requIre legislative action. Current statutes Include provisIons for allowable fIshIng methods and seasons for oysters, prawn, shrimp, crabs, clams, Industrial f ISh, shad, sturgeon, terrapin and sea turtles. Geor~ I a Fisheries management Is the responsibIlity of the Department of Natural Resources In Gergia. The policies for the Department are established by the Board of Natural Resources, a fIfteen-member com mission. Regul~tlons may be adopted by a majority vote of a quorum (eight mebers constitute a quorum). Marine fisheries resurce management Is administered by the Coastal Resources Program of the DivisIon of Fish and Game. The Department and the Board have authority to fix creel limIts and establish closed seasons for all wildlife on a statewIde, regional, or local basis consistent with the state statutes. They may also regulate the method, manner and devIces used for the taking of fish except where otherwise provided by law. Migratory pelagic resources are currently not specifically addressed In the state statutes or regulations; however, under Its mandate the board has considerable latitude In establishing such regu lations If It deems necessary. Those resurces for wh Ich rehitlvely detailed statutes are In effect I nclude oysters, shrimp, prawns, and crabs. Florida In Florida, the DivisIon of Marine Resources In the Department of Natural Resources Is res!Xnslble for the preservation, management and protecion of marine fisheries. In addition, It Is the duty of the Division to regulate operations of al I fishermen and vessels engaged In taking state fishery resources both within and without the state. Any rules or regulations desIgned by the DIvision of Marine Resources and approved by the DI rector of the Department of Natural Resources must al so be approved by the gJvernor and his cabinet. WhIle rules and regulations may be established without legislative consent, any such rules must be consIstent with the existing statutes. Currently the state statutes Include extensive provIsions for 7-5 the managemerrt of shrimp, lobster and oysters. Specific statutory provisions for stone crab, b!!ii; crab and shad. The only provision dlrecte¡ specifically resurces statewide are size limits n)r maçkerel and blui;flsh. have a I so been i;nac ed at migratory pelagic In addition to laws passed by the legislature for statewide application, thi; li;glslature also passes special laws direced at local areas, usually counties, that regulate fishing practlci;s In the designated areas. Several special laws affect the mackerel fishery and are i;xplalne¡ In Section 7.4. A I abama Management authority of marine fishery resurces In Alabama Is held by the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the adminIstrative organh:atlons. that he designates. Th.e Commissioner may prQmulgate ruli;s or regulations designed n)r the prQteclon, propa gation and conservation of at i seafoods. He may prescribe manner of taking, the times when fishing may occur, a.nd designate the areas where fish mayor may not be caught. I-wever, al I regulations are to be directed at the best Interests of the seafood Industry. Within the Departmen,t of Natural Re9:urces Is the Division of for enforcement of state laws and regulations., for conducting as the administrative arm of the Commissioner with respect to Mar I ne Resource~. marine blo loglcal marine resurces. It has resj)ns Ib III ty research, and serves Currently th.ere are no statutes, rules or regulations direced specifically at coastal migratory gl c resurces. Current statutes n)cus on II cens Ing requl renent s and general. gear res tr lct Ions. are several pro\(lslons aimed specifically at the shrimp and oYster fls,herles. pela There MI ssl sslpp I The management of marl.ne fishery resurces In Mississippi Is the responsibility of the five-meber Commlssl.on on Wildlife Conservation. The Department of Wlld.llfe Conservation which Includes the Bureau of Marine Resources Is responsible for administrative and enforcement fi.ctlons. Regulations are promulgated by the Commission i.p(m recommendation of the Bureau Direcor. Loul s lana The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Is a seven member body with the constitutional mandate for the "control of supervlslo.n of wildlife of the state, Including all aquatic life. . ." (Louisiana Constitution., Article iX, Section 7(A)). The administrative body res¡pnsJble for management and law enforcement Is the LouJslana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries within which the Office of Coastal and Marine Resources Is located. AJI rules promulgated by the Commission require a majority vote of a quorum (quorum req,ulres four mebers) at any meeting of that body. Wh lie the Commission h.as authorl ty for promulgat Ing regulat Ions adml nhtratlvely, the,. Loulslana legIslature has. enacted a substantial amount of statutory law covering licensing of commercial and recreational fishing,. size limits n)r"partlcular fish, gear restrictions and a detailed sch.eme for regulating shrl,mp and oysters. To date there are no statutes or regulat'lons direced at coastal migratory pelagic resources., Texas In Texas, the. agency responsIble for mangement of marln.e fisheries Is the Parks and Wildlife Department. WJthin the Department, the Coastal Fisheries Operations section of the Fish and Wildlife Division serves. as the administrative arm for marine fl sherles management. All rules and. regulations perm I tted by statute are es tab II shed by the Parks and W Ii dll fe Comml ss Ion, a s lx-member body ap po I nted 7-6 by the g:vernor. Regulations are adopted by maJority vote of a qIDrum (four mebers constitute a quorum). The personnel of the department are responsible h)r developing recommendations fbr regula t Ions and for enforcl ng the laws and statutes a I ready adopted. The Commission and the Department of Parks and Wildlife have the authority to regulate only counties specified by the legislature. These are termed "regulatory authority counties." Each year the Commission Issues the statewide Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Proclamation which contains the regula tions for the various regulatory authority counties. The Proclamation contaIns regulations for seasons, bag limit, size limits and methods of taking for saltwater resurces which come under the Commission's jurisdiction. All remaIning counties, termed "general law countIes," are regulated direcly through the passage of laws In the legIslature. Statutes passed by the legIslature that apply to the entire state Include al i licensing requirements and regulations directed specIfically at oysters, shrimp, clams, mussels, and sponge crabs. The only regulation specific to the management unit Is a sIze limit on Spanish mackerel. In addition, the state codes Include local and specIal laws whIch adddress the fishing regulatlonscon a county by county basis. 7.2 i nternat lona i Treat I es and A~reemnts Other than agreements resulting from the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA), there are current I y no I nternatlonal treaties or agreements that dl rec i y affect the manage ment unit. The MFCMA directs the Secretary of State to negtiate Governing International Fishing Agreements (GIFA). These are general bilateral agreements In wh Ich the particIpating nations agree to abide by the fIshing laws and regulations of the other nation when fishing .In the other nation's waters. The specifics of the allowable catch, methods of fishing, and time frame for harvesting fish In U.S. waters are to be determined through the promulgation and Implementation of fishery management plans. GIFA's have been negtiated with Cuba, MexIco and Japan, the nations adjacent to the regIon or currently fishing In the fishery conservation zone. Currently there have been no applications for foreign fishing permits h)r the species In the management un It In the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic regions. Under ICNAF, the U.S. signed bilateral agreements wIth Rumania and Poland to restrict fishing for bluefish (and scup and butterflsh) In areas of the mid-Atlantic region during the winter. Currently, under the MFCMA, no foreIgn directed fisheries for bluefish are allowed. This Is because the windows for foreign fishing are s: far offshore that there Is no catch of bluefIsh, although limited Inciden tal catch Is allowed under current preliminary fishery management plans. The only foreign fishermen known to be currently fishing within the fishery conservation zone of the south Atlantic and Gulf of MexIco are the Japanese. They are seeking bluefln tuna. The tuna are "hIghly migratory species" and as such are exempt from the provisions of the MFQIA. The Japanese fishermen are operatIng under the regulations set forth by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). There Is currently no evIdence suggesting that theIr efh)rts signIfIcantly affect the coastal migratory pelagic resources. 1 7.3 Federal Laws, Re~u latlons and Policies Existing federal laws, other than the MFCMA, have no apparent significant Impact on the coastal migra tory pelagic resources; however, Implementation of coastal zone management programs may have Indirect beneficIal Impacts on the habitat of the fishery (see Section 6.3). Also, the Marine Mammal The NMFS Foreign Fisheries Observer Program reprts that there Is only an Inconsequential foreign bycatch. 7-7 Protect Ion Act I s rei ated to the Span I sh and kl ng mackerel and b I uefl sh fishery. 1 were reached after a review of the following legIslatIon: These conclusions o o Coastal Zone Management Act (and current status of state coastal zone programs); Mar I ne Mamma I Protect Ion Act; Endangered Spec I es Act; Fish and W II d II fe Act of 1956; Marine Protection, Research and SanctuarIes Act; Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. o o o o o This legIslatIon was IdentifIed and revIewed wIth the assistance of personnel from the NatIonal OceanIc and Atmospheric AdmInIstratIon and Department of Interior General Counsels' offices, and the NatIonal MarIne Fisheries ServIce. Coastal zone management programs were revIewed through com munication wlth'Offlce of Coastal Zone Management personnel and revIew of available program documen tat Ion. The Coastal Zol\e Management Act places responsibIlity for comprehensive land änd water management of the coastal zone upon the coastal states. The Act also requIres that federal actIons dIrectly affecting the coastal zone of a state be consistent (to maximum extent possible) with the approved state plans.2 ExhIbit 7-4 summarizes the status of the states' coastal zone programs. This FMP has been revl ewed by Coastal Zone Management Programs off Ices from each state and has been detennl ned to be consIstent with those programs. The final regulations of the Marine Mammal Protect Ion Act make It a federal crIme to kill, capture or harass any marine mammal. Amended regulatIons prohibit the IntentIonal killIng under any circumstan ces of the bottlenose dolphIn, a specIes whIch preys on fish In the management unit. Occasionally these porpoIses are a nul.sance to the fIshermen. They bIte and tear fIsh from gIll nets used to take SpanIsh and king mackerel or bluefIsh and sometImes damage fIshing nets. They pull hooked king mackerel off of handll.nes, sometImes damaging the hand liner's gear and InjurIng the fIshermen. There are no sectIons of the Act that restrict the provIsIons of the management plan. The remalnlng legislatIon listed above has no Impact on the management unIt. The Endangered Specres Act protects partl:ular species of marIne life, none of wh Ich are known to be affected by the har vest I ng of the pe I agl c fIsh I n the management un It. The FIsh and W Ii d II fe Act s affect I ng hab !tat pro tection are unrel.ated to pelagIc re9:urces. Under the MarIne Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, adminIstered by the OffIce of Coastal Zone Management, three marine sanctuaries have been established wIthin the area of management and several others have been proposed. These do not significantly affect present fishIng practIces or proposed management measures for these species. The Key Largo Coral Reef Sanctuary extends an ex I st I ng state coral reef sanctuary bounded at the three mil e I I ml t another five miles Into the conservat Ion zone. The Sanctuar I as Act does not affect the management p I.an. Porpoises, wh Ich are protected und.er the Act, reprted Iy Interfere wIth the catch Ing of these species. Porpolse.s are also a major predator of species In the management unit. 2 Plans must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 7-8 ~ North Caro II na South CarolIna GeorgI a FlorIda A I abama MississippI LouIsIana Texas ExhIbIt 7-4 Status of Coastal Zone Management Programs In the South Atlantic and Gulf of MexIco RegIons Program Status eZM Program In Plannln~ Phase CZM Progr am In RevIew Phase comp I eted comp leted camp I eted comp I eted under revIsion comp I eted comp I eted comp lated cop I eted camp lated near comp let Ion under revIsion 7-9 The Monitor Marine Sanctuary, located off the coast of North Carolina, Is tectlng the ral1alns of the U.S.S. Monitor. Restrictions within this area glc species. a very sma I I sanctuary, pro do not af fect coastal pe la Looe Key Marine Sanctuary, located between Marathon and Key West, Florida, Is a small sanctuary designed to protect an exceptional coral reef community. t' regulations within the sanctuary affect fishing for coastal pelagic species. Among the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are sections on the protection of estuaries, establishment of standards for marine sanitation, and prohibition of dumping hazardous substances Into marine waters. t'ne of these direcly affect the pelagic re9:urce plan. Finally. the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires that the character of fishing shall not be affected by the development of outer continental shelf resurces. If anything, this clause serves to protect the fishery resurces. 7..4 State Laws, Re~ulatlons and Policies Coasta.1 migratory pelagic resurces are regulated, to a certain extent, by the states of the 9:uth Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. t' states have extensive management r~trlctlons (as compared to shellfish, for example) directed at king or Spanish mackerel or other coastal migratory pelagic resurces. However, severaL. states do regulate size limits and have restrictions on the use of fishing gear that affect thl.s management unit. Florida, the state where ITst fish Ing for ma.c.kerel occurs, has several I2Iws wt Ich af fect the manage ment unIt. First, minimum size limits have been placed on mackerel and bluefish. They are 12 Inches and ten Inches respectively, measlJed from the nose to the rear center edge of the tall, and apply to commercial and. reGreatlonal fishermen a.llke. It Is Illegal to catch, buy, sell, or have In one's possession any fish not meeting the ml.nlmum size. Second, the use of pirse seines Is prohIbited for taking any food fish. Th Ird, there are several spec! al acts passed by the legl slature wh Ich have local appl Icabll Ity. The only special act direced specifically at fish. In the mangement unit Is for Monroe County. It prohibits the use of gill nets having stretched mesh oJ less than 3-t/4 Indtes for the taking of mackerel. Special acts also prohibit the use of seines and nets In desIgnated waters of Broward and Palin Beach Counties. In Duval, St. Johns, Vol us la, and Broward Counties, special acts place restrictions on mesh size of nets and seines for catching any fish In designated waters. An agreement was recently signed betw.een the State of Florida and the United States concerning the enforcement of MF()A provisions with respect to foreign fishing In the Gulf of Mexico. There, the state's jurisdiction extends to three marine leagues (approximately nine nautical mrres). According to the agreement, only federal fishery laws will be applied to foreIgn fishing between three and nine miles off the coast of Florida. Also, state personnel are authorized to enforce federal laws within that geographical area. 1 There Is another Florida law concerning jurisdictional IsslJs which Is wo.rthy of noting. Florida, In the absence of federal law, has claimed Jurisdiction over the "operations of all fishermen and vessels of this state engaged In the taking of such fishery resources within or without the boundaries of state waters" (Florida State Code, Section 370.02 (1) (a)). Such extended state Jurisdiction has been The same agreement was signed by the State of Texas, which al9: has a seaward boundary of three mar I ne leagues. 7-10 uphel d In the MFQ.A. 1 When waters beyond courts prior to the federal government's Initiation of a management plan Is Implemented, the MFQ.A apparently the state territorial sea to the 20o-mlle limit coming a management program under the supercedes the state code wi th all under federal Jur I sdlctlon. A law was recently passed In the Florida legislature to regulate the depth of gll I nets used for king mackerel. It was Instituted to reslve a gear dispute between hook and line and gll I-net king mackerel fishermen on the state's east coast. The new law restrIcts gill nets to 200 mesh (a hangIng depth of approxImately 57 feet) and a mesh sIze of 4-3/4 Inches In any county on the Atlantic Ocean except Monroe. One ef fect of the Act Is to separate the areas fished by the two groups of fishermen, thereby reducing gear conf Ilcts. The only other states that have laws or regulations specific to the mangement unIt are Texas and SouthCarolina. In both states, restrictions are placed on the minimum sIze of fish taken. In South Carolina, It Is unlawful to buy, sell, or offer to sell any mackerel of length less than twelve Inches, measured from the nose to the tip of the tall. In Texas, It Is unlawful for commercial fishermen, who lesale dealers or retal I dealers to possess (on a boat or plac.e of business), sell, or offer for sale, and for a person .to buy, any mackerel of length less than 14 Inches. Several states on the Gulf coast have general gear restrictions which may affect the management unit. In Alabama, minimum net mesh may not be less than 1-1/2 Inches from knot to knot with a 2-1/2 Inch stretch for use In the Gulf of Mexlco.2 Purse seInes may not be used within state waters to take spe cies In the management unit. MississIppi prohibits harvest of most food fIsh species, Including kIng. and Spanish mackerel, by purse seIne gear. Rossesslon of these species aboard a purse seIne vessel Is also prohIbited. louisiana has minimum limits ~r varIous types of nets; for seines minimum mesh of 7/8 Inches square or 1-3/4 Inches stretched; for gill nets not less than 1-1/2 Inches square or three Inches stretched; for trammel nets not less than one-Inch square or two-Inches stretched. For species other than menhaden, purse se Ines may be used I n state waters on Iy by specl al perm I t. At presentthere are no permits for specIes In the management un It. li nets or seines In Loul slana may exceed .2,000 square feet In length. In Louisiana, recreational fishermen are restricted to takIng game fish (IncludIng the species In the management unit) with a reel, artlflcal bait, spinner, spoon device, or spear, or from taking comercial fish with bows and arrows for sport. In Texas, gear restrictions I nclude a maxImum length of nets and seInes of 1,800 feet; mln Imum mesh size of nets and seines of 1-1/2 Inches square; minimum mesh of trammel nets of eight Inches square on the outer walls and 1-1/2 Inches square for the mesh of the center wall; and trot lines should have a maxImum length of 600 feet. Purse seines may not be used In state waters except for menhBden. ' The south .Atlantlc coastal states also have general gear restrictions for commercIal fishing that may affect the mangement unit. In IIrth Carolina, the use of purse seInes Is prohIbIted for takIng ~od fish, and no nets may be pulled by more than one boat except In long haul fishing operations. South Carolina restricts the mesh size of seInes to a minImum of 2-1/2 Inches. In GeorgIa, gilinetting Is prohibited, as Is the use of power drawn nets. The latter restriction effectively prohibits purse seines. Gear restrictions In Florida Include only those dIscussed earlier In this section. There are no gear restrictIons on recreational fishermen In any of the south Atlantic states. In Sklrlotes v. Florida the Supreme Court held that a state regulation Iflc gear for harvesting sponges outside the territorial limits of the of the po II ce power by the state upon one of Its cl tlzens, perml ss Ib Ie conflict with federal law. prohIbiting the use of spec state was a va lid exercl se I n the absence of any 2 In the Baldwin County area permissible net mesh Is 1-1/2 Inches from knot to knot. 7-11 The general management pro~irams of all states In both regions Include some licensing requlranents for comrrrclal fishermen, whol,isale dealers and retail dealers; however, none of the licensing require mmnt~ are species specl f Ie wltn respect to coastal migratory pelagIc resurces. On Iy Lou! slana and Texas have licensing requirements for reqreatlonal fishermen. Recreational licenses obtaIned In !3lther state can be used for both freshwater clnd saltwater sJ)rtflshlng. Closed seasons for fishing or taxes on fish landed are not used In the rnani3ement programs for coastal mIgratory pelagIc resur c~ by any of the states. 7.5 Local and Other Appllcablia Laws, Reççulatlons. and Policies There are no laws passed b. local jurisdictions that directly affect the management unIt. having local applicability are In effect In Florida, and are discussed In Section 7.4. State laws According to. officIals of ,-he Trust Res~nslbilltles, and FishIng and Hunting Rights Divisions ,)f the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 'J.S. Department of Interior, there are no treaties. that grant Indians rights to fIshery re9:urces. of th i open ocean In the south Atlantic and Gulf of r"'axko regions. . 7-12 8.0 DESCR I PT ION OF FISH I NG ACT I V I TIES AFFECT I NG THE STOCKS COMPR I SING THE MANAGEMENT UN I T 8.1 H I story of Exp lo I tat Ion The species In the management unit have traditionally been sought after by both commercial and recreational fishermen. King mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and bluefish have been historically Impor tant as target species of major commercial fisheries. The species In the management unIt have been Important In supporting recreational fishing from charter boats and private boats. King mackerel, In particular, has been traditionally Important as a mainstay of the commercial charterboat fIshery. Dolphin has been caught commercially as a seasonal supplement to other fisherIes. Cobia has been pri marily a recreatIonal species and the commercial catch Is Incidental. little tunny has been mainly a recri,atlonal species within the Gulf and south Atlantic regIons. Cero mackerel Is not particularly abundant In the Un Ited States and has been an Incidental comercial and recreational catch. To date there has been little, If any foreign participation In the coastal pelagic management unit fisheries In the waters of the United States fishery conservation zone. King mackerel In recent years has been caught commercially primarily In south Florida and to 9:me extent off North Carolina. Historically, there was a small amount of commercial fishing for king mackerel In Chesapeake Bay. Large scale commercial exploitation In Florida did not begin until the early 1900s. This coincides with the beginnings of the development of Florida fisheries In general. Total commercial catch appears to have averaged around four million pounds during the 1920s and 1930s. The trend In total commercial catch dropped to about two and one-half million pounds In the early 1950s, Increasing to about an eight mil lion pound catch In the mld-1970s. Catches declined In 1978 and 1979 then I ncreased to s II ght i Y above average dur I ng 1980. Traditional commercial user groups Include hook and line ,fishermen and gilinetters. King mackerel Is a primary target species for these groups, although they catch several other species In the off season. The number of participants In both of these groups has Increased dramatically In recent years. In 1969 there were an estimated 100 hook and line boats and 12 large gIll-net vessels operating In this fishery In south Florida. This has Increased to an estimated 300 hook and line boats and 33 large gill-net vessels by 1977. Just recently a significant number of large gl II-net boats which fished primarily for Spanish mackerel have entered the king mackerel fishery. The total number of larger gill-net vessels Is approximately 80. Over the past 20 years there have been several developments In gear and fishing techniques. Beginning approximately In the mld-1960s electronic fl~h finders came Into widespread use. Boat construct Ion changed from predominantly wood to predominantly fiberglass. Hook and line boats began to use power reels for hauling In lines. GII I-net boats Increased In size and the depth of nets Increased. A signIficant development beginnIng In approximately 1965 was the development and adoption of power rollers for hauling In gill nets. In about 1967, monofl I Iment mesh began to be used for nets. AI9:, In the late 1950s several fishermen began to use spotter aircraft for spotting schools of fish. The use of spotter aircraft has gradually Increased so that today nearly all of the gill-net vessels and some hoo k and ii n eves se i s use them. In recent years the center for commercial fishing activity for Spanish mackerel has also been centered In south Florida. Earll (1883) reports that Spanish mackerel were taken off Sandy Hook, New Jersey, beginning around 1850. Gill nets were Introduced Into Chesapeake Bay In 1887. Pbund nets were also used during that period In New Jersey, and by the 1880's were the principle means of taking Spanish mackerel In that area (Earll, 1883). A toorough discussion of the Spanish mackerel fishery was pro v I ded by Trent and An tho ny (1979). Large-scale commercial exploitatIon of Spanish mackerel comparable to today's levels did not begin until the early 1920s, when commercial exploitation began on a large scale In Florida. Total U.S. commercial landings averaged about six to seven ml i lion pounds between 1920 and 1940. The 1948 8-1 commercl al dropped to lata 1960s landings were reprted to be 12 mil lion pounds which was not equaled until 1976. landings about eight million pounds between 195Ö and 1965. Landings began to Increase again In the to a current commercl al catch of about 15 mil lion pounds (most recent stat I st Ics). As In the case of king mackerel, power rollers on the larger vessels and monofilament nets came Into use In the 1960só Spotter planes were first used In the 1950s, although widespread use by the larger glll~net vessels dId not oècur until the 1960s. The number and size of vessels In the fishery has Increased ovêr the last several years although precise quantification Is not possible at this t Imê. Saltwater sport fishing has been a major recreational activity In the southeastern portion of thn nation for many years. Much of the act Ivlty was shore-based or took place from boats relatively close to shore until the 1950s. As transportation systems Improved and as leisure time Increased with affluence, demànd for recreational opportunities grew dramatically. With the growth In demand for lalsure activity cama Improvements In recreational equIpment. Sales of boats and motors that could be used for offshora fishing climbed. Fishing tackle became more elaborate. Fishing by privata boat for the species In themangement unit has taken-pl.acEFfor many years. Howevêr, beginning In the late 1950s small boats capable of fishing for these species became àvallable to large numbers of pêopleò BegInning In the late 1960s specialized sportflshlng boats In the 2a-foot range were dàveloped and became popular with recreational fishermen. ThIs type of craft Is capable of venturing offshore to areas where species such as king mackerel, dolphin, and little tunny can be caught. These boats met a growl ng demand from recreat Ion I sts wi th growl ng Incoes. These developmants brought the opportunity to fish for species In the management unit to large numbers of people. Section 8.2.1.2 presents data on the growth of the number of private boats In the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic regions. Between 1967 and 1974 the number of private boats of 16-foot length and greater Increased at an average annual rate of 10.3 percent. 8.2 DomestlèCommerclal and Recreatlonal Flshln~ Activities 8.2.1 Partlclpatln~ User Groups King mackerel and Spanish mackerel are major target species of an Important commercial -fishery In south Florida as well as a major target species for the private boat and charterooat recreational fishery along wldaspread areas within the Gulf and south Atlantic regions. King mackerel Is particularly Important to the charterboat and offshore private boat fleets. In addition, smaller amounts of king mackeral are caught asa commercial supplement to the North Carolina charterboat fleet. Small amounts of Spanish mackerel arê caught as an Incidental cetch or supplemental commercial target species off Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, and to a smaller degree Georgia and South Carolina. Bluefish Isa commercial target species off the Florida east and west coasts. While the amounts caught In these fisheries are rather large, the nature of the catch Is that of a supplement to fisheries whose primary target Is other species. Minor amunts of bluef Ish are also caught commer clallyon a supplemental or Incidental basis off Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Bluefish Is also an Important recreational species. In the Gulf of Mexico region It Is caught predominantly from pr I vate boats. There appears to be a small COmmercial catch of little tunny within the Gulf of Mexico Atlantic regions. However, little tunny Is a major supplemental recreational species, for private and charter boats, In various localities throughout these regions. and south particularly Small amunts of dolphin are caught commercially es a seasonal supplement to other fisheries In south Florida. It Is caught recreatlonally In significant amounts .by the small boat and charterboat fleets I n th I s area. 8-2 Cobia are caught commercially as a minor supplement to other commercial fisheries In Florida and excess recreational catches are so Id by charterboat operators. There Is an Incidental catch by shrimp trawlers off Florida, Alabama, MIssissippi, and LouisIana. For the recreational fishermen, cobia Is a prized game fish throughout the Gulf and south Atlantic regions and Is partIcularly sought from Mississippi to Florida. 8.2. 1. 1 Pr I mary Commrc I a I User Groups The primary commercial user groups for species In the mangement unit Include: o o The Florida The Fiori da The Florida The Fiori da king mackerel hook and line fleet. kIng mackerel large boat gill-net fleet. smal i boat (20-28 feet) Span Ish mackerel large boat (45-48 feet) Span Ish mackerel gll I-net fleet. gIll-net fleet. o o Sign I f I cant secondary commercl a I user groups I nc I ude: Many gill-net vessels of all sIzes are equipped to fish for both king and Spanish mackerel. .. o The southeast Florida small boat gill-net fleet which takes a supplemental catch of king mackerel. o The North Carolina charter boat fleet which rigs up for commercial king mackerel fishing In the spring and fall. o The Florida haul seine fleet which takes a moderate catch of Spanish mackerel. Florida KlnQ Mackerel Hok and Llne Fleet The F lor I da kl ng mackerel hook and I I ne fleet I nc i udes a group on the east coast centered around the Ft. PIerce area. These have been a major traditional user group catch Ing kIng mackerel along the coast from approximately Palm Beach north to Cape Canaveral. The size of these boats range from about 24 to 36 feet. Their numbers have greatly Increased In recent years from about 50 In 1969 to 250 In 1976. These fishermen typically obtain about 70 percent of theIr value of landIngs from king mackerel (Morris, Prochaska, Cato, 1977). The other major hook and line user group operates out of the Florida Keys. The boats are somewhat larger -- from 32 to 40 feet. i-st of these vessels are primarily dependent upon other fisheries such as spiny lobster, stone crab, pompano, snapper or grouper. Their fIshing effort for king mackerel varies greatly, dependent upon the availability of fish and SUccess of the lobster season. The number of vessels from the Florida Keys actually fishing for king mackerel averages approximately 50 vessels per year. K I n~ Mackere I LarQe Boat Gill-net Fleet The Florida kIng mackerel large boat gl i I-net fleet had traditionally operated In the Florida Keys and along the Florida west coast around the Naples area. The Naples area has not been a major producer of king mackerel In recent years, and these vessels typically move around the coast In search of the kl ng mackerel. These vessles typically range In size from 40 to 65 feet and are equipped with power rollers. The number of such vessels Increased from an estimated 12 In 1969 to 33 In 1977. The pri mary reaSOn for Investing In these vessels Is the profItable king mackerel fishery (Prochaska and WIlliams, 1976); however, these vessels also fish for Spanish mackerel. In addition, they obtain support from other fisheries such as spiny lobster. The spiny lobster and king mackerel fisheries tend to complement each other durIng the year as they have different fishing seasons. 8-3 Sma II Boat Span I sh Mackere I Gill-net Fleet The Florida small boat Spanish mackerel gll I-net fleet has traditionally operated along the east coast from about Sa I erno (I n Mart I n County) to about Sebast I an (I n I nd I an River County). These boats are typ!cally 20-22 feet In length and may obtain roughly 40 percent of their value of landings from Spanish mackerel (Cato, Morris, Prochaska, 1978). They are also the major Florida commercial user group for bluefish which provides them with about ten to 15 percent of their value of landings. Other revenues for this fleet Include catches of king mackerel, pompano and mullet. King mackerel landings Include g;me Incidental catch along with Spanish mackerel, and a dIrected catch. Some of these fishermen use small gll i nets of 4-3/4 Inch mesh when king mackerel are present In shallow water. Lar~e Boat Spanlsh Mackerel GIII-net Fleet The Florida large boat Spanish gill-net fleet has traditionally operated In three main areas of Florida: the Naples area on the west coast, the Keys, and the east coast between Palm Beach and Cape Canaveral. These vessels typically range In size from 30 to 60 feet and are equipped wi th power rollers. They obtain up to roughly 80 percent of their value of landings from Spanish mackerel. Some of the vessels alg; fish for king mackerel. Other revenues for their fleet Include catches of bluefIsh (10 to 15 percent by value of landings) and spiny lobster for those~operatlng In the Keys. Secondary Commerc I a I User Groups Of the secondary commercial user groups there has traditionally been a sma I I boat gl I I-net fleet taking king mackerel on the9:utheast Florida coast from Dade to St. Lucie County. These are typically 18 to 30 foot boats. This fleet Is not particularly directed to any single species, although It does take substantial amounts of Spanish mackerel as well as king mackerel. Precise quantification of the number of boats. fishing for king mackerel Is not possible., but the total number of gill-net boats on the Florida east coast Is slightly over 300. The North Carolina charterboat fleet numbers approximately 130. Of these, approximately 25 percent fish commercially for king mackere.1 In the off season (C. Manooch, NMFS, Beaufort, pers. comm.J. The number of vessels and trolling effort expended has Increased significantly In recent years resulting In I ncreased catch. In Mississippi, proces9:rs have Inltl.ated purse seine operations to test the feaslbl Hty of small scale purse seines In that area. Target species vary with availability, at times Including bait species and foodflsh, thread herring, Spanish sardine, blue runner, creval Ie jack, lady fish, redflsh, mul let and Spanish mackerel. Spanish mackerel landings were expected to take place between May 1 and AugusT 31. An unknown amunt of mackerel was caught before passage of a state law proh Ibl tlng harvest of most food fl,sh species. Six to seven vessels, 48 feet In length each, are presently operating. These vessels were once part of the power roller gill-net fleet and are typical of such vessels. Spotter a I rcraft. are used to locate fish. 8.2.1.2 Recreat lona i User Groups Recreational users have Increased In numbers over time. Many come from outside the management un It as wel I as areas within It. Increased Income, leisure time, and a wide variety of supplies have Increased participation. This participation has, In turn, generated significant amounts of economic value and also employment. These aspects of this user group are described below. Estlmated Number of An~lers Exhibit 8-1 presents estimates of the number of fishermen who caught particular species In the coastal migratory pelagic resurces management unit. In 1975 there were an estimated 6.4 mil lion persons who 8-4 participated In saltwater recreational fishing In the 9:uth Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. These estimates are based on the state reprts of the 1975 Natlonal Survey of Flshln~ and HuntlnQ and Wlldllfe Recreation CU.S. Department of Interior, 1977) and historical data from the 1960, 1965, and 1970 Saltwater Anglln~ Survey. The total number of anglers In 1975 was determined by aggregating the number of participants from the various states for the state reports. The estimate of fishermen who caught particular fish In the management unit was based on trend data from the Saltwater Angling Surveys. An analysis of data for 1960, 1965, and 1970 showed that the ratio of anglers In the manage ment -area .who caught a part Icular fish In the mangement un It to total ang lers In the south Atlantic and Gulf regions, did not vary greatly over the period of the surveys. In fact, bluefish showed the largest variation, and that variation was relatively smal I. In 1960, 13.3 percent of all anglers In the two regions caught bluefish. In 1965 that figure was 7.9 percent and In 1970 It was 8.4 percent, a maximum dl f ference of less than s Ix percent of the total number of ang lers. Because these rat los were relatively stab Ie, It was assumed that the 1975 ratios were the same as those for 1970. RaTlos were calculated from the 1970 Saltwater An~lln~ Survey and applied to the estimates of number of anglers obtained from the 1975 Natlonal Survey of Flshln~ and Huntln~. While there may be accurate data from the 1970 Saltwater An~lln~ Survey, It Is relatively more accurate than data on participation (except for species which are caught with relative Infrequency such as- cobl~). The figures presented here provide a general Indication of the Importance of the species In the mangement un It to total recreational fishing. It Is also recognized that the number of anglers actually catching king and Spanish mackerel may have declined In the last two to three years. These species have not recent I y beerr as readily avallab Ie to recreational anglers In the eastern Gulf of Mexico and participation Is affected. The figures pre sented above Indicate participation Interest by recreational anglers In these species In what may be considered a "baseline" year. Type of F Ish In~ Exhibit 8-2 presents data from the 1970 Saltwater An~lln~ Survey on the method of fishing for coastal pelagic species. The categry reported as "Party or Charter Boat" relates mainly to charter boats because local studies show that the coastal pelaglcs are not a predominant portion of head or party boat catches, but they are of major significance to the charterboat catch. Charter boats refer to craft available for hire at a fixed price per day regardless of passenger or load, while head or party boats refer to craft which charge a per passenger fee and may have a regular schedule. It should be noted that there Is a high standard error In this survey associated with dividing data Into this many categorl es. Nevertheless, the data are probab Iy Indicative of general trends, and are generally con sistent with perceptions of persons knowledgeable In the fishery and other local studies. General conclusions Include the fact that king mackerel Is caught almost entirely from private boats or charter boats with a relatively even spilt between the two. Spanish mackerel Is caught predominantly by private boats, although signIficant catches are obtained from charter boats, pier fishing, and beach fishing. The majority of dolphin being found further offshore Is caught by private boats, although significant amounts are caught by charter boats. It Is generally true that cobia are caught predominantly In pier and private boat fishing, although a number of them are caught from charter boats. Commerclal Charter Flshln~ Boat Fleet The charterboat fleet Is heavily Involved In fishing for coastal pelagic species. King mackerel, In particular, has historically been one of the most Important species In sup!Xrtlng charter-boat opera tions throughout the 9:uth Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. This Is In contrast to head or party boats which tend to target other species such as snapper and grouper. In North Caroìlna, 92 percent of the total number of fish taken by anglers from charter boats In 1977 were coastal pelagic species. King mackerel accounted for 36.7 percent of the total number caught, 8-5 Exh I bit 8-1 Estimated Number of Anglers Who Caught F,lsh In the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Species In 1975* Number of Anglers** Spec I es Percent of Total South At I ant I c Gulf of MexIco Ang I ers Total 454,000 89,000 8.4 543,000 14,000 10,000 0.4 24,000 184,000 212,000 6.2 396,000 374,000 343,000 11.2 717,000 .382,000 397,000 ~:12. 1 719,000 *** -*** -*** B I uef I sh Cobia Do Iphln KIng Mackerel Span i ~h Mackerel LIttle Tunny Total Saltll,ater Ang i ers I n Reg Ion 2,820,000 3,608,000 6,428,000 * EstImates based on 1975 Natlonal Survey of Flshlng and Huntlng, State Reports and hIstorIcal data from the 1960, 1965, 1970 Saltwater Anglln~ Surveys. ** Ni,mber of anglers Is not addItive because an angler may catch several kinds of fish. *** Data InsufficIent to estimate number of fishermen who caught lIttle tunny. 8~ followed by bluefish (28.2 percent), Spanish mackerel (14.8 percent), dolphin (9.3 percent) and little tunny (2.9 percent) (Manooch and Laws, 1979). In southeastern Florida, these species are also Important to the charter fleet. In a study of the Dade County, Florida, charter boat sport fishery, Gentle (1977), found dolphin, little tunny and king mackerel accounted for 55.9 percent of the total catch. Do Iphln and kl ng mackerel were the second and th Ird most sought-after specl es. In a recent study (conducted In early 1978) of the charterboat fleet along the Florida coast from Escambla County (next to Alabama) to the Keys (Browder, et al., 1978), king mackerel was found to be a major target species of offshore charter boats. The percentage of total fishing effort direced to king mackerel by sea9:n and by Florida coastal area was found to be as fo I lows: Northwest Season Keys West Coast Coast Spr I ng 3.9% 49.0% 31.4% Summer 49.5 ~ Fall 9.3 19.0 50.7 Wi nter 34.3 13.0 7.9 Charter boats fish I ng I n the coas ta I waters adjacent to the St. Andrews Bay system (Bay County on the northwest Florida coast) are heavIly dependent on coastal pelagic species and king mackerel In par ticular. There, fish from the management unIt, accounted for 91 percent of the total charterboat catch In 1973. King mackerel was the most Important species, accounting for 74 percent of the total catch In numbers (Sutherland, 1977). In Alabama In 1975 the percentage of charterboat catch In weight was reprted by Wade (1977). He found that kIng mackerel made up 21.9 percent of the total catch, followed by little tunny (13.6 percent) and Span I sh mackerel (4.1 percent). SImilar patterns hold true for charterboat fishing In Texas. In a study of marine recreational fishIng In southern Texasl during the 1975-1976 season, (Trent, 1976) king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, dolphin, and little tunny were among the ten most abundantly caught species In fishing from Inboard boats. This pattern Is consistent with reports of the composition of catch from charter boats. King and Span I sh mackerel and cobl a were among the ten mOst abundant I y caught specl es from outboard boats. King mackerel was far and away the most abundant species caught In all types of boat fishing. The charterboat fleet In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico consIsts of an estimated 982 boats. Exhibit 8-3 presents the estimated number of boats by state for each region In 1977. The estimates were determined from local charterboat studies conducted between 1971 and 1978, and were adjusted up or down for 1977 based on whether charter activity was known to Increase or decrease In the area. Private Boats A wide range of types of private boats are used by recreational fishermen to pursue coastal pelagic species. They range from open outboards 16 feet In length or even smaller In some cases up through sportflshlng boats of 60 feet or larger. Typically, however, fishing for these species tends to be done by boats of about 18-20 feet or larger because the boats must be capable of venturing offshore. This Is particularly true of fishing for king mackerel, dolphin, and little tunny. The study area ranged from Port Aransas south to Port I sabel near Brownsville, Texas. 8-7 Exhibi t 8- 2 Percent of Fish Caught by Principal Method of Fishing by Species and by Area in 19701 Private or Rented Boat Party or Charter Boat Bridge, Pier or Jetty Beach or 2Area I 3 Species South Atlantic Bank Total Dolphin King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel 7/.5 50.6 69.4 27 .5 48.1 6.4 4 1.1 12.6 0.04 0.2 11.6 100. a 100.0 100. a East Gulf Bluefish Dolphin King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel 58 . 1 % 4% 4% 41.9% 100. 0% 100.0 -4 ...: ~ -4 100. a 62.8 31. 5 5.7 4 100. a 51. 3 23.1 21.1 4.5 100.0 West Gulf Bluefish Dolphin King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel 74.4% 16.2~ 2.5% 6.9% ioa. 0% 4 -4 - 4 100.0 47.5 45.2 7.3 -4 ioa. a 45.5 39.5 1. 7 13.5 100. 0 South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico BJ uefish Dolphin King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel 19.3% 9.2% 10. 2~ 61. 3 % 100. 0% 75.6 24.5 -4 100. a 55.2 41.6 3.1 o. i 100.0 62.5 13.4 14.5 9.6 100. a 1 3 Adapted from David Deuel, 1970 Saltwater Angling Survey, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government printing Office, 1973). pp. 21-24. South Atlantic includes Cape Hatteras, N.C., to southern Florida including the Florida Keys; East Gulf of Mexico includes coast from Florida Keys to and including the Mississippi River Delta; West Gulf of Mexico íncludes coast from the Mississippi River Delta to the Mexican Border. Data specific to little tunny not available. Cobia mackerel data are not included because of high error associated with the survey.. 2 4 Data shows no participation by this category due to low participation in this category relative to sample size. 8-8 No comprehensive data exist on the number of characteristics of private boats that are used specifi cally for species In the management unit. However, a study of the king mackerel fishery In Bay County, Florida, (Brusher, et al., 1978) does Indicate the size and relative use of private boats. In Bay County, Florida, private boats In a wide range of sizes are Involved In the king mackerel fishery. The fishing effort for king mackerel Increased with boat size. Boats greater than 20 feet In length tended to fish for king mackerel a considerably greater number of days. Approximately 50 percent of the catch and ef fort of kl ng mackerel was accounted for by boats greater than 20 feet I n length. Approximately 85 percent of the catch and effort was accounted for by boats greater than 15 feet In length. Exhibit 8-4 presents data on the total number of registered boats greater than 16 feet In length In the states within the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic regions by year. Not all of these boats are used In salt water and not all of them fish for species In the management unit. However, the number of boat registrations has Increased at a rate of 10.3 percent per year over the period 1967 through 1974. In order to estimate the recreational catch for 1975, and adjusting procedu~e was used which Is described In Section 5.4. This adjusted catch estimate Is the amount on which the best estimate of MSY I s based. 8.2.2 Land I n~s/Catch 8.2.2. 1 Commerc I a I Land I n~s Exhibits 8-5 through 8-8 present statistics on commercial landings In the United States In terms of weight and value for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, bluefish, and cobia, respectively. Cero mackerel Is not broken out separately In available landing statistics but Is aggregated with king mackerel. The current total U.S. commercial landing of king mackerel Is approximately 6.6 million pounds (average of 1975 and 1979). Roughly two percent or less of the landings occur outside of Florida waters. Record landings were 10.5 million pounds In 1974. Landings began to Increase significantly after 1973 from levels of 4.5 to 6.7 million pounds between 1965 and 1973. The current total U.S. commercial Spanish mackerel landing Is approximately 11.1 million pounds (average of 1975 and 1979). Roughly three percent or less of the landings occur outside of Florida waters. Record landings were 18.0 ml I lion pounds In 1976. The current total U.S. commercial bluefish landings Is approximately 13.3 million pounds (average 1978 to 1980). However, most of these landing occurred In the Mid-Atlantic region. Gulf of Mexico landings were stable from 1966 through 1976 at five to six million pounds. Gulf landings have since Increased to approxlmatel y one million pounds. The current commercial landing of cobia Is approximately 114,000 pounds (1975-1979 average), having ranged between 83 and 151 thousand pounds between 1968 and 1979. More than 95 percent of commercial cobia landings occurs within the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic regions. Commercial dolphin land Ings In the Gulf and south Atlantic regions have varied between 60 thousand and 189 thousand pounds over the period 1966 through 1977. Total reprted U.S. commercial landings Include about 60-80 thousand pounds landed In Hawaii. 8.2.2.2 Recreat lona I Catch Data on the recreational catch are much less comprehensive. Historical data on the catch of saltwater anglers are available from surveys for 1960, 1965, 1970 and 1979 for the entire south Atlantic and 8~ E xh ib i t 8 ' 3 N u m b e r o f R e g Ü ~ t é r e d B o a t s i n S o u t h e a s t e r n C o a s t a l S t a t e s G r e a t e r t h a n 1 6 F e e t i n L e n g t h 19 67 " 19 74 N or th S ou th Y ea r C ar ol in a C ar ol in a G eo rg ia F lo ri da A la ba m a M is si ss ip pi L ou is ia na T ex as T ot al 19 74 53 ,2 91 34 ,3 82 34 ,0 64 15 2, 37 2 32 ,7 74 18 ,4 15 57 ,2 51 14 5, 21 3 52 7, 76 4 19 73 48 ,2 35 31 ,6 27 24 ,9 12 13 2, 86 2 31 ,1 92 16 ,1 12 49 ,0 51 12 5, 75 6 46 0, 51 7 19 72 41 ,3 58 26 ,6 64 38 ,0 00 12 7, 05 4 27 ,9 56 19 ,0 23 47 ,6 21 11 1, 98 7 43 9, 66 3 co i 19 71 35 ,9 35 23 ,3 91 37 ,5 96 11 6, 20 5 25 ,7 24 14 ,6 65 47 ,; 30 1 10 2, 03 5 40 2, 85 2 ¡- a 19 70 39 ,9 52 20 ,8 65 31 ,6 83 10 6, 93 3 22 ,3 62 10 , 7 64 43 ,0 34 83 ,7 22 35 9, 31 5 19 69 37 ,1 84 20 ,3 26 30 ,3 49 96 ,2 27 20 ,3 19 10 ,7 60 40 ,7 14 80 ,0 96 33 5, 97 9 19 68 32 ,6 99 18 ,6 00 25 ,4 91 87 ,7 74 18 ,5 73 9, 40 0 38 ,2 47 64 ,9 63 29 5, 74 7 19 67 29 ,3 34 , 1 6 , 6 4 3 24 ,3 13 79 ,2 49 16 ,7 68 7, 24 4 33 ,9 17 58 ,6 97 26 6, 16 5 S ou rc e: o. S ~ C ba st G ua r~ !: Exhibi t 8-4 Estimated Numer of Charter Boats in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by State (in 1977) State Numer North Carolina 130 35South Carolina Georgia Florida (East coast) * 20 230, South Atlantic 415 Florida (West coast) * Alabama 382 25 Mississippi 40 30Louisiana Texas 90 Gulf of Mexico 567 Total 982 * Florida (East coast) includes Dade County to the Georgia state border; Florida (West coast) includes Monroe County to the Alabama border. Source: See text. 8-11 .. Gul f of Mexl co reg Ions. catch of little tunny. These are presented In Exhibit 8-9. Data are not available on the recreational Cero mackerel Is aggregated with Span Ish mackerel In these surveys. The data presented in Exhibit 8-9 should be viewed with caution. The National Surveys for 1960, 1965, and 1970 conducted to obtain the esttmates used relatively small regional samples. There was also recall bIas (those Interviewed were asked to recall the number and weight by type of fish caught for up to a 12-month period). Substantial positive bias Is believed to have been introduced Into the estimates. The NMFS researchers who conducted the 1970 survey suggest that the survey may overstate the recreational catch by perhaps a factor of two or more on the average for all specl es (Deuel, 1973, p. 34). In addition, there Is a high standard error associated with data on the catch of Individual specIes wIthin a region. Thus, the data may contain an additional error beyond the recall bias asso ciated with the statistical survey procedure. This latter error Is more severe for species not caught frequently such as cobia. The 1979 survey was designed to solve most of the problems associated with previous studies. It will be the bas i s for an ongo'l ng ser i es of surveys on an annua I or semi annua I bas I s. The result Ing catch estimates are believed to be more accurate than earlIer estimates. However,.6stlmates fran the first year should be used with caution. The Initial distribution of sampllng- effo!:.tdld not adequately cover all segments of the fishery. For example, charter boats were poorly sampled. In the case of king mackerel, this resulted in an unknown, but probably large, underestimate of the total catch. Th is type of error wIll be corrected in future surveys. Notwithstanding the problems that have been encountered In conducting recreational fishing research, the results consistently show that anglers are catching substantial numbers of fish In the management un I t. However, because of the high associ ated error, and dl f ferences In methodo logy between the three surveys, the data presented In Exhibit 8-9 are not considered reliable In drawing conclusions as to trends In the amount of catch over time. I n order to estimate the recreational catch for 1975, and adjusting procedure was used wh Ich Is described in Section 5.4. This adjusted catch estimate Is the amount on which the best estimate of MSY Is based. 8.2.2.3 Flsh Cauqht Recreatlonally and Sold Commercially In addition to the expenditures assocIated with purchases of goods and services for recreational fishing, some fish caught by anglers are sold In canmerclal markets. Very little Is known about the fInal disposition of the recreational catch. Existing evidence Is too limited to approximate the value of fish sold; however, Information fran several local areas does, by way of example, provide some Insight Into the amount of recreational catch sold çanmercially. Preliminary results fran a study of Florida Gulf coast charter boats reveal that 53 percent of the operators responding to the survey sold recreatlonally caught fIsh to canmerclal markets. Seventy percent of the fish sold went to wholesale fish houses, 13 percent was sold directly to the public, twelve percent went to restaurants, and five percent went to other retail establlshm~nts (Browder, et. al., 1978). Bay County, Florida, is a major recreational fishing area for king mackerel, but there Is virtually no canmerclal troll line fishery there for king mackerel. (As explained In Section 8.2.4.2, trol ling Is the dominant method of recreational anglIng for king mackerel.) In 1975 the estimated recreational catch of king mackerel from private and charter boats was 1.1 mil lion pounds (Brusher, et al., 1977). In that same year the National Marine FisherIes Service canmerclal catch statistIcs show that 48,30Q pounds of king mackerel sold In Bay County fish houses were caught using troll lines. Since there Is virtually no canmerclal troll line fishery, mot, If not all, of the reported troll line catch must 8-12 E x h I b I t 8 5 C o m m e r c I a l L a n d I n g s o f K I n g M a c k e r e l (1 00 0 po un ds a nd 1 00 0 do ll ar s) Y ea r B y S ta te i e x a s , A A a b a m a , N or th S ou th F lo rI da F lo rI da L o u l s la n a , C a ro I I n a C a ro i I n a G e o rQ I a (E as t) (W es t) M Is s I ss I p~ I po un ds do ll ar s 'p un ds d o l l a r~ ~ u n d s d o lla r I 'p un ds d o I l a r ~ ~ un ds d o l l a r I B 9u nd s do I a 1: s 19 79 38 2 27 4 80 60 16 12 28 00 22 40 15 70 91 1 * * 19 78 17 2 10 8 13 10 35 24 34 02 19 58 17 45 62 8 * * 19 77 24 5 12 6 7 3 4 2 32 36 17 83 49 50 17 32 19 76 15 6 10 9 8 5 4 2 48 21 25 38 28 01 89 1 19 75 10 0 60 8 4 1 1 36 97 17 15 26 22 64 0 19 74 40 24 4 2 6 2 42 67 16 78 61 33 15 94 19 73 26 7 11 5 37 12 15 37 22 17 59 7 19 72 9 3 1 * 34 89 10 51 13 78 25 5 19 71 9 2 6 1 1 * 29 07 82 0 27 38 47 2 19 70 12 3 * * 1 * 43 38 10 15 23 72 32 0 19 69 16 4 2 * 29 43 59 9 32 42 41 5 19 68 8 2 * * 25 86 50 3 36 04 46 4 19 67 24 5 29 88 49 7 30 84 35 1 19 66 95 19 4 * 17 82 32 3 26 33 32 0 19 65 13 9 28 25 49 37 4 18 98 23 2 Y ea r ..e w M Id dl e S o u t f i (j U i T 0 U n l t 9 ( co E nQ la nd A t l a n t l c C he sa pe ak e A tl an ti c M ex ic o S ta te s 1. po un ds d o i I a rs .2 un ds do ll ar s .2 ou nd s d o l I a r s B 9u nd s do ll ar s B 9u nd s d o l I a r s .2 u n d s d o l i a r s v. 19 80 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 70 35 53 61 19 79 1 * * 9 5 32 78 25 86 15 70 91 1 48 57 35 02 19 78 1 11 8 36 22 21 10 17 45 62 8 53 78 27 46 19 77 , 1 1 17 7 34 92 19 14 49 50 17 32 84 60 36 54 19 76 7 4 1 * 10 4 49 89 22 44 28 01 16 34 78 08 38 86 19 75 1 * 13 4 38 06 17 80 26 22 64 0 64 42 24 24 19 74 * * 15 4 43 17 17 06 61 33 15 94 10 46 5 33 04 19 73 1 1 7 1 37 49 15 49 22 17 59 7 59 74 21 48 19 72 2 * 34 99 10 54 13 78 25 5 48 79 13 09 19 71 7 1 29 23 82 3 27 38 47 2 55 68 12 96 19 70 5 1 43 51 10 18 23 72 32 0 67 28 13 39 19 69 2 * 29 61 60 3 32 42 41 5 62 05 10 18 19 68 3 1 25 94 50 5 36 04 46 4 62 01 97 0 19 67 3 1 30 12 5 0 2 ! :" 30 84 35 1 50 99 85 4 19 66 7 1 18 81 34 2 26 33 32 0 45 21 66 3 19 65 6 1 26 88 40 2 18 98 23 2 45 92 63 5 N ot e: * = ~ 5 0 0 P O u n d s o r $ 5 0 0 * * = N o t A v a I l a b l e 1 P r e l I m I n a r y S ou rc e: U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e . .. ,. .. u Q )v er nm en t 1 1 1 ' 1 V I I ' I t : U W I Q ' I " ' ~ ' W Q I i v y : . I l l a l ~ , . P r I n t I n g O f f / c e o F ls h e rv S ta tI st Ic !' n f + h 1 1 ''' ' . .. . .. ,, , . .. v \ " .'= = ~ :n g to n , D .C .: E x h i b i t 8 6 C o m m e r c i a l L a n d i n g s o f S p a n i s h M a c k e r e l ( 1 0 0 0 p o u n d s a n d 1 0 0 0 d o l l a r s ) Y ea r B S ta te N or th S ou th F I o r i d a F I o r i d a T e x a s , A l a b a m a , C ar ol in a C ar ol in a G e o r q i a (E as t) (W es t) L o u 1 s I a n a M is si ss ip pi po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s '9 79 ' 13 4 * * 2 1 47 09 98 9 16 03 33 5 14 6 29 30 7 '9 78 ' 13 4 * * * * 55 11 10 61 17 25 43 8 47 7 58 14 19 77 46 7 2 * 97 08 20 78 20 00 42 8 92 12 15 1 30 19 76 31 5 3 1 3 1 95 59 17 79 77 83 13 60 17 9 24 37 9 82 19 75 49 7 10 2 6 1 51 45 90 2 56 21 96 2 29 2 40 22 4 39 19 74 73 9 2 * 1 * 23 46 45 9 82 67 14 44 24 6 30 41 6 19 73 64 9 4 * 5 1 32 03 53 8 61 94 99 9 1 6 5 . 1 4 98 14 19 72 96 13 5 1 5 1 33 69 42 6 65 32 81 6 20 5 20 48 5 57 19 71 95 14 4 1 * * 25 82 30 8 73 83 83 0 96 8 17 9 20 19 70 63 9 2 * * * 35 74 45 9 81 00 93 9 15 5 28 43 5 19 69 39 12 4 1 23 59 25 3 81 75 94 6 15 5 12 12 1 19 68 69 8 8 1 1 * 44 06 38 2 70 66 79 7 52 14 11 4 11 19 67 73 8 2 * 2 * 18 02 15 3 58 67 61 1 33 3 76 7 19 66 78 10 1 * 1 * 21 81 23 2 70 04 81 3 57 6 5 * 19 65 11 7 12 13 2 1 * 29 01 29 0 48 83 58 6 19 2 3 * Y ea r B y R e q i o n N ew M ld d I e S ou th G u I f o f U n I t a d E nq la nd A tl an ti c C he sa pe ak e A tl an ti c M e x i c o S ta te s o: !. po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds do ll ar s po un ds d o ll a rs p o u n d s do ll a rs p o u n d s do ll ar s ~ 19 80 ' ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11 96 8 31 37 19 79 1 * * 2 * 47 24 99 4 17 79 37 1 65 05 13 65 19 78 1 * * * * 55 24 10 65 18 30 45 9 73 54 15 24 19 77 22 4 97 56 20 85 22 43 47 0 12 02 1 25 59 19 76 2 * 80 13 95 96 17 86 83 41 46 6 18 01 9 32 65 19 75 1 * 4 1 62 12 52 10 91 2 61 37 10 41 11 41 5 19 66 19 74 2 * 24 4 24 22 46 8 85 54 14 80 11 00 2 19 52 19 73 * * 50 9 32 76 54 8 64 57 10 27 97 83 15 84 19 72 * * 23 4 34 75 44 1 72 22 89 3 10 72 0 13 38 19 71 * * * * 52 9 26 81 32 3 76 58 85 8 10 39 1 11 90 19 70 * * * * 20 1 31 36 39 46 8 82 98 97 2 12 13 8 14 71 19 69 * * 12 4 18 24 52 26 6 83 42 95 9 10 91 8 12 43 19 68 * * 60 10 44 84 39 1 72 32 81 2 11 77 6 12 13 19 67 30 5 18 79 16 1 59 76 62 1 78 85 78 7 19 66 * * 14 2 23 22 61 2 4 2 ': , 70 66 81 9 94 69 10 84 19 65 * * 74 11 30 32 30 4 49 05 58 8 80 11 90 3 N ot e: * = ~ 5 0 0 p o u n d s o r $ 5 0 0 * f = N o t A v a i l a b l e P re l i m ln a ry S o u r c e : u . s . D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e . F i s h e r y S t a t i s t i c s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ( V a r i o u s Y e a r s ) . W a sh in g to n , D .C .: G o ve r n m e n t P r I nt i ng O ft i ce . .c~ II II L. .. CI CD-:J ã) .g ..0 r¡ og CO II~ 0) +- C:"O - c: .0 "0 CI c: .c CI II X--"O ll c: :J ~ &. u L.O ~gE~ 8~ ¡g¡.g +- + CI c: +- II :;11"0 * c: * :J Õ 8.g II ~: ~R~~~~~~~~g~~~~~1tI"Oo:~~COi-""i-i-1t101nN~~~~~~ iX g ~,.:;:; ~ ~ ~ d ~ g ~ o: ~ CO 1" .. ~ CO ItIt o: 1" N 0' o: N!i 0N~ ~ ooooi- ioi- It In o:ltln II L.~: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. x CD II 6~~: ~R~~g~g~~~~:~~~ :J O'COO'ltltltlnltlnlOltlOlnIOO' II L. * 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I CI * .g II CIX II CD "0 *I-c:* :J 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I II L. * CI * CI :5 .g II- II:J"O * * * I"~N~* * o c: * :J **** ~~** 1** 1 I I 1 1 * * I I I I i- N o: co N N ~ N ~ N 1" co co 0 co N ~ 10 10 In 10 0 o: 0' N 10 o: 0' N NI"~NIoi-~~~ NNcoi-Oi IIL. * ~~* * ~~I"~~NN* * ~~ CI * ~ .g CI .D CI II "0 * 1t00NNi-0'i-NI"NNo:o:O'Inoe c: * ~ NN-NI" :J CI ~ :¡ .g L. II o CD- :; IIlL-U * c: * :J L. CI Q) :) II L. ~ : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00 NOlO ~ 1" ~ 000'10 1" o: 0'o In In 0'1"0 0' ~ ~ it N il - co it 0' co 0' "' "' In "' In o: 10 it In ItIt co 00' co i- 10 In "' 1" N ~ 0 0' co ,. 10 it co ,. ,. i- i- i- i- i- i- i- i- 10 \0 \0 10 10 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' + c: CD E c: L. CD :: 8 c5.0 .. c: ~ 0) c: .c II CI:; .~ II L. CI CD:) II :J .2 ~. L. CI::~ II CD + CI + II "0 CD + c::: CD .c + .. 0 II U + II + CI +-II L. CD .c II u. . CD U L. 0 I0it 84A L. .. 0 CD o . 11.0 +- CD"0 10:: c: 0c:-L. ~ :;:J - CI &. 10 c: +-..::- L. 0 oe E ClO Co C)o+-- CD c: 'V:2~ 0-+ II i: . c:II (1 . L.* *- :; a.* CD 0 Q) L. +- :J :2 ~ 8-15 Y eà r E x h i b i t 8 8 C o m m e r c i a l L a n d i n g s o f C o b i a ( 1 0 0 0 p o u n d s a n d 1 0 0 0 d o l l a r s ) B y S ta te '9 79 ' 19 78 1 19 77 19 76 19 75 19 74 19 73 19 72 19 71 19 70 19 69 19 68 19 67 19 66 19 65 C D .! 0\ Y ea r 19 79 1 19 78 1 19 77 1, 97 6 19 75 19 74 ' 19 73 19 72 19 71 19 70 19 69 19 '6 8 19 67 19 '6 6 19 65 N ot e: S o u r c e : N or th C ar ol i na p o u n d s d o li a r s 4 1 2 * 1 * 2 * 2 * 1 * 2 * 3 * 1 1 1 7 * 6 * 7 * 10 .¡ f 1 0 * 10 N ew E n q L a n d p o u n d s d o lla rs ,. S ou th C ar ol i na p o u n d s d o lla r' s * , . * * * M ld d Ie A tl an ti c Ë o u n d s d o lla rs * = ( 5 0 0 p o U ' n d s r Y $ 5 0 0 1 P rè l i rr in a ry u . S . D ê p ê l r t r i n T o f C o m m e r è e ó P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . G eo rq ia po un ds d ol la rs * ' * ' * ' . C he sa pe ak e p o u n d s d o lla rs * * * * 2 * 3 * 6 1 5 1 2 * 4 * 4 * 2 * 3 * 4 ' * . 3 * 2 * 1 0 1 F l o r i d a (E as t) p o u n d s d o I i a rs 6 3 9 5 1 2 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 7 1 1 4 2 4 .1 9 1 9 1 5 * 4 * B y R e g i o n S ou th A tl an ti c p o u n d s d o lla rs 1 0 4 1 1 5 1 3 4 1 6 6 1 6 4 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 7 2 1 8 . 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 6 . 1 1 9 . 1 :1 ' 1 5 * 14 F lo ri da (W es t) p o u n d s d o ll a r s 7 8 2 4 8 7 2 6 6 8 1 4 1 0 4 2 1 8 4 1 3 8 9 1 0 7 7 8 7 4 6 7 7 6 6 0 5 4 5 3 4 1 3 2 4 2 2 8 2 1 1 1 G u n o f M e x i c o po un ds d ol la rs 8 4 2 5 9 0 2 7 8 9 1 9 1 1 0 2 2 1 2 0 1 8 1 3 3 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 8 1 0 1 0 4 7 1 0 6 9 7 0 6 8 2 7 4 0 3 3 8 2 2 1 2 F i s h e r y S t a T l s T i c s o f t h e U n i T e d S T a t e s ( V a r i o u ~ ! ~ a r s ) . W as hi ng T on , D .C .: T e x a s , A I a b a m a , L o u I s i a n a , M is si ss ip pi po un ds d ol la rs 6 1 3 1 2 1 5 6 * 3 5 5 4 4 5 3 6 3 4 4 4 2 7 1 4 6 4 2 5 3 4 1 4 1 6 1 1 0 * 3 un i T ea S ta te s p o u n d š i a r s 9 4 2 9 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 4 1 3 1 2 9 2 8 1 ' 4 2 2 3 1 5 1 1 8 1 2 8 1 3 1 3 9 1 2 1 2 6 9 1 2 9 , 1 1 8 3 7 1 0 2 : 8 ' 6 2 4 5 5 2 4 5 4 G ov er nm en t E x h I b i t 8 9 E s t I m a t e d W e I g h t a n d N u m b e r o f C o a s t a l M I g r a t o r y P e l a g I c F I s h C a u g h t b y A n g l e r s I n 1 9 6 0 , 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 7 0 , a n d 1 9 7 9 b y S p e c I e s a n d R e g I o n ( w e I g h t I s I n 1 0 0 0 ' s o f I b s . , n u m b e r s a r e I n 1 0 0 0 ' s ) 19 60 19 65 19 70 1 97 9* * N o . o f E st Im at ed N o . o f E st Im at ed N o . o f E st Im at ed N o . o f E st Im at ed A dj us te d E st l m at e S o u t h A t l a n t i c F Is h W el ~ ht F Is h W e I ~ h t F is h W e I ~ h t F Is h W e I ~ h t o f W e l ~ h t f o r 1 9 7 5 C ob Ia 26 77 5 D ol ph In 15 2 1, 00 0 16 6 1, 11 8 2, 16 6 27 ,8 06 2, 76 2 14 ,1 26 K I n g M a c k e r e l * * 6, 63 9 74 ,1 32 4, 16 5 34 ,9 42 37 3 4, 03 3 S pa n I sh /C er o M ac ke re l 7, 38 0 24 ,8 30 7, 5 48 18 ,1 86 4, 96 7 14 ,6 23 89 8 2, 09 8 L I t t l e t u n n y 13 6 59 3 T ot al 14 ,7 13 39 ,4 70 22 ,4 23 10 4, 72 8 24 ,1 75 97 ,4 17 4, 16 9 20 ,8 50 G u l f o f M e x i c o B lu ef Is h 54 80 68 5 2, 70 0 56 3 1, 65 9 1, 05 7 1, 48 1 C ob Ia 21 6 2, 02 9 93 12 5 D ol ph In 31 3 1, 25 0 46 4 87 3 26 8 2, 13 3 36 36 3 K I n g M a c k e r e l * * 1, 67 5 16 ,2 99 3, 07 2 27 ,4 59 59 8 5, 93 1 0) S pa n I sh /C er o M ac ke re l 5, 14 9 11 ,3 30 1, 70 8 4, 28 3 2, 79 3 7, 80 8 1, 19 6 2, 25 7 .. L I t t l e t u n n y 14 7 28 8 T ot al 5, 51 6 12 ,6 60 4, 74 8 2 6 , 1 8 4 6, 78 9 3 9 , 1 8 4 3, 03 4 1 0 ,3 2 0 S o u t h A t l a n t I c a n d G u l f o f M e x I c o C ob Ia 21 6 2, 02 9 11 9 90 0 D o I p h I n 46 5 2, 25 0 63 0 1, 99 1 2, 43 4 29 ,9 39 2, 80 5 14 ,8 72 K I n g M a c k e r e l * * 8, 31 4 90 ,4 31 7, 23 7 62 ,4 01 97 5 9, 93 1 23 ,7 00 S pa n I sh /C er o M ac ke re l 12 ,5 29 36 ,1 60 9, 25 6 22 ,4 69 7, 76 0 22 ,4 51 2, 10 7 4, 57 4 8, 50 0 L I tt I e t u n n y 'i~ ' 30 3 99 5 T ot al 20 ,2 29 52 ,1 30 2 7 , 1 7 1 13 0, 91 2 30 ,9 64 13 6, 62 1 6, 19 0 30 ,3 72 * 19 60 s ur ve y I nc I u de d kl n g m ac ke re l w I th S pa n I sh a nd c er o m ac ke re l. ** 1 9 7 9 c a tc h I n c I u d e s fI sh I a n d e d w h o I e a n d f Is h g u t te d o r f I II e te d a t se a . R e l e a s e d f I s h a r e n o t I n c l u d e d . S ou rc es : S a l t w a t e r A n g l I n g S u r v e y s f o r 1 9 6 0 , 1 9 6 5 , a n d 1 9 7 0 ; M a r I n e R e c r e a t I o n a l F I s h e r y S t a t I s t I c s S u r v e y , 1 9 7 9 . S e e S e c t I o n 5 . 4 f o r a d j u s t e d w e I g h t f o r 1 9 7 5 . come from recreational landings. Thus, 4.3 percent (.048 million pounds/l.1 mIllion pounds) of the total recreatIonal catch was sold through fish houses In one county alone. If king mackerel caughT from pr Ivate boats are dl sposed of In a manner s Iml lar to those caughT from ch,arter boats, then the 48,300 pounds represents about 70 percent of the king mackerel sold in the county. The total sold, then, wou i d be 69,000 pounds, or 6.2 percent of the recreational catch. In another area of Florida, Dade County, an estimated 12.5 percent of all fish caught from charter boats In 1976 were sold. Other fish caught were used for baIt (24.8 percent), consumed by customers (19.6 percent), mounted (14.8 percent), and released (1.5 percent). The dispositIon of the remaining 26.8 percent of the catch was unknown. The researcher also found that kl ng and cero mackerel w.ere generally consumed by customrs or used for ba It (Gentle, 1977). 8.2.3 Fish I n~ and Land I n~ Areas 8.2.3.1 Commercial Total U.S. commercial landings of both king and SpanIsh mackerel take place almost entirely wIthin Florida, over 95 percent of both In the last five years. The king and Spanlshrrckerel fisheries are local fisheries In the sense that the catch is generally landed at pa-ts wlth;ln a few hours run of where the fIsh are caught. Typical onErway trip lengths between fishing and landing areas average abot 20 miles on the Fla-Ida east coast. In the Florida Keys These distances may be abOJt 40 miles. However during the winter, king and Spanish mackerel season boats may travel arOJnd The coast of FlorIda and temporarIly operate out of ports closest to where the fish are currently available. The three main traditional Florida landing areas for king and SpanIsh mackerel have been: o Collier and Lee Counties on the west coast of south Florida o Monroe County I n the F I a- I da Keys o Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties on the east coast of south Florida. I n Co I Ii er and Lee Count I es major ports at wh I ch fish are landed I nc lude Nap I es and Ft. Myers. I n the Florida Keys major landing ports Include Key West and Marathon. On the Florida east coast major landing ports Include Boynton Beach, Palm Beach, JupitEr, Port Salerno, Ft. Pierce and SebastJ.an. The major fishing areas have Included an area known as "No Man's Land" located approximately 40 miles west of Key West between the Marquesas and the Dry Tortugas. Another major area on The F lorldä west coast Is located southwest of Cape Romano near Naples. Spanish mackerel are frequently caught in Florida Bay. On the Florida east coast major fishing areas are located along the narrow continental shelf just InsIde the Gulf Stream from about Palm Beach north to Sebastian. During the winter season, schools of SpanIsh and king mackerel wIll migrate and congregate In certaIn areas, such as over reef outcropplngs, for a period of time. The boats will converge to the areas where the fIsh are located. Specific areas and times at which fish are available will vary from year to year due. to ocean and weather condItions. There has historically been considerable season-to-season variatIon In the proportIon of the king mackerel catch landed In areas of the state. While Col lier and Lee CountIes have been major landing areas 1 n many past seasons, I n some seasons they account for on I y a sma II percentage of the catch. Th Is has been the case for the last couple of seasons. In the 1976-1977 season, Monroe and Dade Counties accounted for the majority of the landings as they did In 1959 through 1961. Most of these landings were believed to be from' fish caught In "No Man's Land", west of Key West. 8-18 rhere appears to be somewhat greater consIstency In the areas In which SpanIsh mackerel are landed. The Dade/Monroe County area and the southeast coast area account for about 80 percent of the catch. In northwest FlorIda there Is a small catch of king and Spanish mackerel, taken primarily by haul seInes. This generally occurs In the summer season. Bluefish are taken at many locations around the FlorIda east and west coasts. In North Carolina king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel are caught off various points along the coast such as Wanchese, Oregon Inlet, and Beaufort. In addition, there Is a small commercial catch of king and Spanish mackerel off South Carolina and Georgia. In addition, Spanish mackerel are caught commercially off Alabama, Mississippi, and LouisIana. Small amounts of bluefIsh are taken commercially off Alabama, MississIppi, and Louisiana. DolphIn are taken commer cially primarily In the Florida Keys, although significant amounts are also taken off St. Lucie County on the Florida east coast, and In northwestern FlorIda. Cobia are taken commercIally In Florida (partIcular Iy off St. Lucie, Monroe, Pinel las, and Bay Counties) and In Texas. In Texas cobIa are frequently caught In the vicinity of shrimp trawlers. 8.2.3.2 Recreatlona i UnlIke the commercIal harvesting of fish In the management unIt, the recreational fishing activity is widely distributed throughout both the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. FIshing occurs out of virtually all marinas and boat docks that have access to coastal waters. Similarly, anglers can be found on most accessible beaches and shore-based locations such as bridges, piers or jetties. The following discussion mentions those locations that are generally thought to be heavily frequented by anglers catching species Included in the management unit. In the south Atlantic during typical years, recreational fishing for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel occurs heavily In North Carolina and along the eastern coast of Florida. While dolphin, and I ittle tunny are among the fish caught by anglers, they are landed much less frequently in the northern part of the region than I~ southern Florida. Cobia is a prized sportflsh, but Is the least frequently landed of the species In the management unit. In North Carolina areas such as Morehead City, Oregon Inlet, Harker's Island, or Hatteras are often frequented by anglers. Along the Florida east coast there Is consIderable recreational fIshing activity out of the Jacksonvi lie, Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and MIami areas. In South Carolina considerable fIshing occurs out of Charleston and Murrel's Inlet, and In Georgia the St. Simons Island area Is a popular offshore angling site. In the Gulf of MexIco, recreational activity Is most heavy In FlorIda, Texas and Alabama; significant recreational effort also occurs off Mississippi and Louisiana as well. For recreational fishIng, kIng and Spanish mackerel are the most important species of the management unit In the Gulf of Mexico. Cobia, dolphIn and little tunny are landed by anglers throughout the Gulf coast, but as In the south Atlantic they are caught much less frequently. There Is very I ittle fish Ing from shore-based loca tions for species In the mangement unit. Most fishing occurs offshore from privately owned boats and charter boats. On the west coast of Florida major fishing areas Include the Keys, the Fort Myers-Naples area, the Clearwater-St. Petersburg area and the Panama Clty-Destln area. These areas are popular for charter boat fishIng as well as fishIng from private boats, although charter fishing Is most concentrated in the Keys and Panama City-Destln (Bay county) locations. Angling for kIng mackerel Is normally par tIcularly heavy In the Bay County area. In Alabama, the Mobile Bay area, DauphIn Island, and Gulf Shores are heavily frequented fishIng areas. Blloxl and Ocean Springs are major areas for coastal recreational fishing In Mississippi, and In Louisiana anglers seeking to fish offshore often depart from areas such as Eades or South Pass. The long Texas coast has many fIshing locations. Among the more Important recreational fishing ports for the coastal migratory pelagic specIes are areas such as Freeport, Port O'Connor, Rockport, Port Aransas, South Padre and Port Isabel. In short, recreational activity Is hIghly dispersed, but In the aggregate It accounts for a large amount of fishing effort. 8-19 8.2.4 Vessels and Gear 8.2.4.1 Commer cia I a) King Mackerel King mackerel are caught commercl ally wi th a var I ety of gears wh I ch I nc lude gll I nets, tr oiled II nes, hand lines, haul seines and trammel nets. Currently, trol ling and gilinetting are the most widespread fishing methods in use. Exhibit 8-10 presents catch by gear type for the Florida east and west coasts. From 1971 through 1975, of the total Florida king mackerel catch, 58 percent was by gill net, 40 percent was by hook and line (either troll line or hand line), and less than one percent each by haul seine and trammel net. During the year up through 1975, the reported east coast gill-net catch was by boats in the smaller (20 to 30 feet) size ranges. The reported west coast catch was predomi nantly by larger boats (up to 40 to 65 feet) operating In the Keys and Naples area. Traditionally, nearly all of the catch In other states (which is small compared to the Florida catch) has been by troll line. Hook and line boats operating on the Florida southwest coast typically range from about 24 to 36 feet. Of a survey of ten such boats In February, 1977 (Morris, Prochaska, Cato, 1977), the average boat had a length of 29.9 feet and a fish carrying capacity of 4,000 pounds. Eighty percent were bui It of f ¡berg lass and 20 percent wood. These boats are usually operated by one man, although some may have one crew member. Hook and line boats operating out of the Florida Keys are somewhat larger typically ranging in size from 32 to 40 feet. These boats may operate with crews of two or three men. Most hook and line boats are now equIpped with electronic or hydraulic reels for retrieving lines~ Many boats have loran for navigation and marking good fishIng spots. Fish are caught on lines with art if 1 cal spoons or feathered jigs. Strips of mullet, squid, or dead ballyhoo may also be used for bait. North Carolina fishermen usually use 300 pound irnofllament line trolled on the surface or at various depths using planers or weights. Florida hook and line boats usually use No.9 trolling wire. It has been reported that In the past, hook and liners could land 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of king mackerel per boat per day on a good day In the Florida fIshery. Off North Carolina catches of 1,000 to 2,000 pounds per day are not unusual. Much of the North Carolina king mackerel fleet consists of charter boats which rig up for commercial fishing during the sprIng and fal I. Troll line boats genera I Iy fish by seekl ng Electronic flshflnders aid In locating the king mackerel are expected to congregate. centric circles over the schools. out spots where mackerel congregate, such as reefs. fish, and many fishermen know and mark specific spots where As fish are found, the boats wi II begin operating In con The other major component In the king mackerel fishery Is the large gll I-net fleet. These are vessels typically ranging In size from 40 to 65 feet with an average size which Is probably between 45 and 55 feet. These vessels have typlca I carrying capacl ties of 25,000 to 35,000 pounds. The typical set of the net yields about 8,000 to 10,000 pounds although sets as high as 50,000 pounds have been reported. Most of these vessels are constructed of fiberglass and have diesel engInes. Vessels are operated by a captain and crew of three to five. Fishing gear consists of gi II nets of nylon mesh with a center band of monofi lament mesh. The common mesh size is 4-3/4 Inches stretched. Typical nets are 400 to 700 yards long with an average of about 500 to 550 yards. Typical stretched mesh depths are about 80 feet. This allows fishing In waters of up to 57 feet. These vessels use power rollers mounted near the stern for retrieving nets. These are usually hydrau I ¡cally powered. Aircraft are generally used as spotters. The spotter pilot wi Ii locate schools of king mackerel and wi II direct vessels to their location. The vessels wI Ii then proceed to 8-20 E x h I b I t 8 1 0 K I n g M a c k e r e l C o m m e r c I a l C a t c h B y G e a r F l o r I d a E a s t C o a s t (p ou nd s) Y ea r H a u l S e I n e O t t e r T r a w l ( s h r i m p ) R u n a r o u n d G l i i n e t H an d L In e T r o I I L I n e '9 77 ' 1, 18 3, 80 7 63 ,6 88 2, 65 3, 39 9 19 76 ' 2, 06 8, 70 0 10 9, 70 0 2, 64 2, 50 0 19 75 1, 19 7, 50 0 63 ,4 00 2, 43 5, 90 0 19 74 1, 59 3, 20 0 10 9, 20 0 2, 56 5, 00 0 19 73 1, 17 5, 60 0 69 , 5 00 2, 44 6, 60 0 19 72 1, 29 0, 50 0 15 ,2 00 2, 18 3, 70 0 19 71 1, 62 9, 90 0 52 ,2 00 1, 22 4, 50 0 19 70 2, 35 4, 00 0 13 ,4 00 1, 97 0, 50 0 19 69 1, 75 6, 00 0 17 ,0 00 1, 16 9, 70 0 19 66 1, 46 3, 10 0 22 ,0 00 1, 08 1, 10 0 19 67 1, 69 9, 60 0 32 ,2 00 1, 05 6, 20 0 (X F l o r i d a W e s t C o a s t ,. (p ou nd s) Y ea r P u r s e S e I n e H a u l S e i n e R u n a r o u n d G l i l n e t T r a r r l N e t H a n d L In e T r o l l L I n e D r i f t G l i i n e t 19 77 1 * 4, 66 8, 39 7 * 16 ,0 99 47 9, 08 2 * 19 76 ' * 2, 39 6, 60 0 * 10 4, 30 0 30 0, 40 0 * 19 75 80 ,8 00 1, 89 5, 40 0 23 9, 90 0 40 6, 20 0 19 74 33 ,4 00 5, 10 9, 10 0 44 5, 40 0 54 5, 60 0 19 73 74 ,4 00 1, 74 7, 30 0 40 0 10 6, 90 0 28 7, 80 0 19 72 46 ,4 00 9 7 7 , 9 0 0 21 3, 10 0 14 0, 50 0 19 71 5 1 , 2 0 0 2, 29 3, 90 0 80 0 13 5, 90 0 20 3, 70 0 52 ,0 00 19 70 97 ,3 00 1, 79 6, 00 0 66 ,9 00 39 0, 50 0 19 ,0 00 19 69 11 6, 40 0 63 ,2 00 2, 38 9, 40 0 60 0 88 ,3 00 53 9, 50 0 44 ,7 00 19 68 33 2, 70 0 78 ,2 00 2, 88 0, 90 0 1, 10 0 68 ,9 00 22 6, 70 0 15 ,0 00 19 67 28 3, 30 0 4 1 , 8 0 0 2, 39 8, 90 0 13 ,0 00 5 5 ,9 0 0 . 24 7, 10 0 45 ,0 00 P re I Im ln a ry * N o t A v a I l a b l e S ou rc e: U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e . G o ve rn m e n t P r I n t I n g O f f i c e o F I s h e r y S t a t i s t i c s o f t h e U n I t e d S t a t e s ( V a r I o u s Y e a r s ) . W a sh In g to n , D .C .: "set" the net around the school or portions of It. The net will then be closed driving the fIsh Into the net. The process of setting, retrIeving, and unloading a net takes several hours. There has been a small boat gl II-net fleet operating on the years. Historically this cafch was made from 18 to 30 foot small monofl lament king mackerel nets. These boats are not main fishing area was from Dade County to St. Lucie County. Spanish mackerel. King mackerel has not been their primary landed. southeast F I or I da coast for a number of boats. Some fishermen In th is gr oup have usually equipped wIth power rollers. The Many of these boats f Ish pr I mar I I Y for target although sign iflcantquantltles are Landings by haul seine or trammel net are not a significant part of total king mackerel landings. Most of this catch takes place on the northwestern FlorIda coast. King mackerel are not the primary target species for craft using this gear. Bycatch of king mackerel In otter trawls appears to be Ins Ignlf Icant. b) Span Ish mackerel Spanish mackerel are caught commercially primarily with run-around gl II .nets.i~.Small amounts are taken by haul seine, trammel net and hook and lIne. Minor amounts are taken as a bycatch in shrimp otter trawls. Exhibit 8-11 presents catch by gear type for the Florida east and west coasts. Florida accounts for about 90 to 95 percent of the U.S. Spanish mackerel catch. In Florida from 1971 thrOlgh 1975, 85 percent of the Spanish mackerel catch was caught by gill nets. This Includes both small boats (18 to 20 feet) as well as larger boats (up to 60 feet). During those same years approximately nine percent of the catch was caught with haul seines and six percent was caught by hook and line. Less than one percent was caught in trammel and shrimp otter trawls In Florida. In North Carolina less than one percent of the total U.S. catch Is taken through a combination of haul seine, anchor nets, and long seInes. One or two percent of total U.S. catch Is typically taken in shr Imp otter trawls off the Gulf states. The rest of the Gulf states catch is primarily by gill net. There is both a small boat and large boat gl II-net fIshery for Spanish mackerel off the Florida southeast coast. The small boats are typIcally open skiffs, 20 to 22 feet in length with a fish carrying capacity of 2,500 to 6,000 pounds. The average capacity was approximately 4,900 pounds of f ish In 1977 (Cato, et al., 1978). Of the boats In the survey, 14.5 percent used a spotter plane. These boats are frequently operated by one man although they may have one or two crewmen on board for some trips durIng the year. Both strike or run-around gIll nets and drift nets are used. The large Spanish mackerel gill-net boats typically range In size from 30 to 60 feet In length and have a fish carrying capacity of 15,000 to 50,000 pounds. According to the survey of Cato, Morris, Prochaska (1978), the average capacity was approximately 29,000 pounds of fish. Of the boats In the survey, 83 percent used a spotter plane. These boats operate with a captain and from one to five crewmen with an average of three crewmen In addition to the captain. Nets with a typical mesh size of 3-3/8 to 3-3/4 Inches are used when fishing for Spanish mackerel. c) Cobl a Cobia Is not a primary commercial target species. It Is caught on a supplemental basis in the Florida hook and line and gi II-net fisheries. In Texas It Is caught by hook and line as a commercial supple ment to the charterboat fleet. It is also caught by shrimp trawler crews. 8-22 E x h I b I t 8 1 1 S pa n I sh M ac ke re l C o m m e r c I a I C a t c h B y G e a r F l o r I d a E a s t C o a s t ( p o u n d s) Y ea r H a u l S e I n e O t t e r T r a w l ( s h r l m ) R u n a r o u n d G i l l n e t H a n d L I n e T r o l l L I n e 19 77 1 * * 10 ,2 02 ,2 53 14 ,0 67 76 9, 76 6 19 76 1 * * 8, 73 1, 40 0 19 5, 40 0 62 7, 00 0 19 75 16 ,4 00 60 0 4, 75 3, 90 0 16 1, 20 0 21 2, 70 0 19 74 6, 9 00 7, 00 0 2, 16 4, 40 0 79 ,2 00 88 ,6 00 19 73 7, 00 0 20 ,9 00 3, 02 0, 30 0 78 ,6 00 76 ,2 00 19 72 40 ,0 00 3, 40 0 3, 22 1, 20 0 3 8 , 2 0 0 66 ,2 00 19 71 25 , 0 00 5, 50 0 2, 41 6, 40 0 32 ,3 00 10 2, 60 0 19 70 6, 00 0 7, 00 0 3, 45 7, 30 0 60 ,9 00 43 ,2 00 19 69 1 5 ,0 0 0 4, 70 0 2, 23 9, 90 0 36 ,3 00 62 ,9 00 19 68 22 ,0 00 13 ,6 00 4, 21 9, 00 0 56 ,1 00 95 ,8 00 19 67 un cl as sI fI ed 3, 30 0 1, 66 7, 40 0 5 7 , 0 0 0 73 ,8 00 o: ~ VI Y ea r F l o r I d a W e s t C o a s t (p ou nd s) H a u l S e I n e R u n a r o u n d G i l i n e t T ra m m l N et H a n d L I n e T ro I I L In e * 6, 61 9, 60 0 * 11 7, 10 0 61 3, 80 0 * 1, 70 9, 96 9 * 61 ,1 87 48 2, 92 9 26 5, 60 0 4, 52 7, 90 0 88 ,0 00 18 4, 00 0 55 5, 80 0 48 6, 40 0 6, 97 2, 00 0 16 2, 10 0 29 8, 10 0 34 8, 60 0 60 2, 40 0 5, 37 0, 10 0 10 1, 80 0 61 ,6 00 58 ,4 00 1 , 5 4 1 , 0 0 0 4, 52 4, 70 0 13 0, 90 0 10 5, 30 0 23 0, 10 0 1, 31 9, 40 0 5, 65 1, 30 0 12 6, 80 0 13 0, 00 0 88 , 9 00 1, 22 4, 00 0 6, 47 6, 50 0 11 9 , 5 00 10 3, 00 0 78 ,7 00 88 2, 20 0 6, 90 3, 50 0 96 , 1 0 0 1 0 8 , 1 0 0 71 ,3 00 82 2, 10 0 5, 64 6, 90 0 11 3, 70 0 13 0, 60 0 83 ,6 00 64 8, 60 0 4, 60 4, 50 0 88 ,0 00 10 3, 70 0 12 9, 30 0 P u r s e S e I n e 19 77 1 19 76 1 19 75 19 74 19 73 19 72 19 71 19 70 19 69 19 68 19 67 * * 19 8, 80 0 19 4, 60 0 P re lI m In ar y * N o t A v a I l a b l e 'J ' S ou rc e: u . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e . G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f I c e . F Is h e ry S ta t I st I c s o f th e U n I t e d S ta te s (V a r lo u s Y e a rs ). W a sh In g to n , D .C .: D r I f t G i l i n e t * * 66 ,9 00 98 ,2 00 11 3, 40 0 70 ,0 00 70 ,0 00 d) Cero Mackerel Cero mackerel Is an Incldent~1 catch to the king mackerel fishery. No separate landing statistics are available. They are aggregated with king mackerel. Cero mackerel Is not thought to be particularly abundant In United States waters. d) B i uef i sh Bluefish are caught commercially In the Gulf of Mexico region primarily wIth haul seines, gill nets, and hook and line. Smal i amounts are landed In shrimp otter trawls, and trammel nets. Exhibit 8-12 presents bluefish catch within the Gulf region for 1973, a typical year. Of the total catch of 531,000 pounds, 39.4 percent was landed by haul seine, primarily In Florida. Gill nets landed 43.7 percent, the bulk of which was In Florida. The hook and line catch was 8.5 percent of the total and this was all In Florida. In Florida bluefish provide a supplement to fishermen targeting other fisheries. Bluefish are caught here In small gill-net boats (18 tQ 22 feet), of the same type used for SpanJ!£h mackerel using stretched mesh nets. In their survey of small Spanish mackerel net flshermen-'Gato, et al., 1978) reprted that 13 percent of the value of catch and 19 percent of the weight of catch was bluefish. Florida haul seiners use smal I open boats In the 20 foot size class. operated by two persons. These boats are typically Exhibit 8-12 B I uef I sh Commercl al Catch by Gear 1973 ( 1 000 I bs.) Haul Shr I mp Trammel Gilinet Hook and Seine Otter Traw i Net Line. Florida (West) 209 32 206 45 A i abama 9 3 15 MI sslsslppl 11 Louisiana (1) Texas Total 209 10 35 232 45 Percent of Total Landings In Gu I f and South Atlantic Regions 39.4 1.9 6.6 43.7 8.5 (1) Less than 500 I bs. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. N.M.F.S. Fishery Statistics of the Un Ited States, (Various Years). Wash I ngton, D.C.; U. S. Government Pr I nt I ng Off Ice. 8-24 f) L I i-le Tunny There appears to be a small canmerclal catch of lIttle tunny wIthin the Gulf regIons. Purse seInes are the ma in gear used for catch Ing I I ttle tunny. It bait. and south Atlantic Is used pr I mar i I y for g) Dolphin DolphIn Is caught commercially exclusIvely by hook and line. It is not a primary commercIal target specIes. It serves as a seasonal supplement to the Florida mackerel troll lIne fishery. It Is caught commercIally mostly In April through July, prImarily In Monroe County and the souTheastern Florida coast. 8.2.4.2 Recreatlona i Recreational fishermen use rod and reel when they ang Ie for f Ish In the man:agement un It. Both natural and artificIal baits are used, and three different fIshIng methods are empl'oyed. Trolling Is the most canmonly used technique by charter and private boat fIshermen. Charter boats often use four lines, two unwelghted lines for fishIng at the slrface and two weighted lines at some depth below. Private boats generally troll wIth fewer II nes and rema In closer to shore. Boats troii In a straight II ne or In a random pattern until fish are hooked, and then trollIng contInues In circles until fish are no longer being caught. Trol ling often Is used when circling surface structures or underwater reefs. Both natural and artificIal baits are used. A second technIque, jIgging, Involves casting a lure or bait Into the water and retrieving It wIth a jerkIng motIon. This method Is often used fran fIxed platforms such as brIdges or piers. JiggIng Is also employed fran boats when the boat Is near a Slr face or underwater structure. The third method Is float fIshing and Is usually done fran a drifTIng or anchored boat, although It can be employed fran a fIxed platform. Hooks are baited and suspended below the surface in the water column wIth a float. Frequently chum Is used to attract the fish(Manooch, 1978; Brusher, et al., 1977). SectIon 8.2.1.2 presents a discussIon of the types of private boats used by recreational fIshermen for specIes In the management unit. Studies of charter boats from North Carolina, Florida and Texas pro vide a somewhat more detailed descriptIon of these commercIal boats than Is available for private boats. The length of charter boats In North Carolina range from 29 to 55 feet and have an average length of 42 feet. Charter boats there range In age fran new to 44 years old and on average are 16 years old. SIxty percent of the boats have sIngle dIesel engInes, and approxImately 25 percent have twIn diesel engines. The remaining boats have gasoline engInes. Nearly all boats were equIpped with CB and VHF radIos and a fathometer. Just over one-half of the charter boats are equipped with long range navigational devices (loran C or loran A) (Abbas, to be published). In Texas the average length of boats Is about 31 feet. More boats are gasoline powered than diesel powered. Gasoline powered boats accounted for 76 percent of those sampled. Nearly all boats were equipped with VHF and CB radios and fathometers. Only 28 percent were equipped with loran mitton, et al., 1977). On the west coast of Florida the average boat length Is 37 feet. Seventy-eIght percent of the boats are diesel driven, the remaining boats having gasoline engines (Browder, et al., 1978). 8.2.5 Emp loyment 8.2.5.1 Assoc I ated wIth Commer c I a i Harvest This section descrIbes the estimated employment associated with the canmerclal harvest of king and SpanIsh mackerel. An estimated 657 fishermen are Involved In the canmerclal fishery for king 8-25 mackerel, 525 hook and line fishermen and 132 gill-net fishermen. For Spanish mackerel, an 772 gill-net fishermen are employed. There Is some crossover of fishermen between king and mackerel. In addition, there are 1,719 charter fishermen partially dependent on species In ment un It. estimated Span I sh the manage The employment associated wIth commercial king and Spanish mackerel Is seasonal, occurring predomi nantly In the winter months. This Is also true for recreational fishing, although the peak season varies wIth the area. Also there Is an additional number of people who fish for eIther kIng or Spanish mackerel on a supple mental bas Is and who can be cons Idered secondary user groups. Precise quantlf Icatlon of the number of such fishermen Is not possible; however, In a survey of Florida commercial fishermen, Prochaska and Cato (1977) reported that 13.4 percent responding caught king mackerel and 10.6 percent caught Spanish mackerel. Prorating these results to the total number of Florida fishermen would suggest that roughly 1,300 Florida fishermen catch at least some kIng mackerel, and 1,000 catch Spanish mackerel. In addition to employment In the direct fish harvesting, the fishery can be associated with employment generated in Industries providing Inputs to fish harvesting (I.e., gear manuf.acture, boat building, gear repair, fishing supplies, etc.). The amount of additional employment generated In these sectors was estimated at approximately 40 person-years of employment for king mackerel and 25 person-years for Spanish mackerel. Note that the actual number of people Involved may be considerably greater than this; the above estimates were pro duced by prorating the time actually devoted to producing goods and services used in the king and Spanish mackerel fishery. Also In certain years when a number of boats are built for use In the fishery, the above estlmàtes (which are long-term averages) would be greatly Increased. These esti mates were derIved using the economic Impact ratios to determine average expenses for the boats and vessels In the fisheries. The results of a national Input/output study of the Impacts of the U.S. commercIal fishing Industry (Centaur Management Consultants, 1975) were then used to estimate employment In the direct economic sectors supplying Inputs to fIsh harvesting. In addition to the above employment, there is employment associated with the processIng and distribu tion of the products from the fishery. Using technIques similar to those described above, employment associated with thÈÈ processing and distribution of king mackerel was estimated to be approximately 220 person-years for king mackerel and 230 person-years for SpanIsh mackerel. The estimate for Spànlsh mackerel is higher even though the value of I'andlngs for Spanish mackerel Is lower; the value per pound for SpanIsh mackerel Is lower than that for king mackerel because they are not sold as fresh. The above employment estimates Include employment In processIng as wel i as wholesale and retail trade. 8.2.5.2 Assoclated wlth Recreatlonal Anqlln~ Employment In manufacturing, wholesale trade and retaIl trade related to recreational fishing activity for the coastal migratory pelagic fish of the mangement un It In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Is estimated to have been 2,990 person-years In 1977. Employment related to thù king and Spanish mackerel fisheries Is estimated to have been 1,170 person-years and 900 person-years, respectively, In 1977 for the two regions. These estimates Include employment related to purchases of equipment such as boats, motors, traIlers or fishing gear; nondurable goods such as boat fuel or live bait; and ser vices such as charter boat fees, use of marine facilitIes, or food, lodging and travel. The estimates represent employment benefits which regions. For example fishing equipment purchased factured In New England and distributed through a accrue to the nat Ion and not Just to the two In Florida for use In mackerel fishing may be manu mid-Atlantic state. This nonlocal manufacturing and 8-26 wholesale distribution employment related to equipment used In Florida Is Included In the employment estImates presented above. The method for determIning these estimates Is presented In Section 9.1.2. As dIscussed In Section 8.2.1.2, the coastal migratory pelagIc resources management un It Is par ticularly Important to the charterboat fleet. Charterboat fIshing Is often not a full-time occupa tIon for the boat operators. For some It provides seasonal employment. Other operators may charter these boats only on weekends. For example only 34 percent of Texas operators surveyed In 1975 said that charter fIshing was their only occupation. Nearly 60 percent of the operators earned less than 50 percent of their Incane fran charter fishing mitton, et al., 1977). In North Carolina very f~w captaIns rely on charter boating as a sole source of Incom (Abbas, to be published). Because of the seasonal and Intermittent characteristics of charterboatlng activity, It Is not possible to provide an estimate of related employment In terms of person-years; however, the estimated number of persons Involved in providIng charterboatlng services Is presented below. In SectIon 8.2.1.2 the number of charter boats that operated In 1977 was estimated to be 982. Each boat requires a captain, and many boats also used a mate. In Texas 60 percent of the boats used mates (Ditton, et al., 1977). On the west coast of Florida just over 90 percent of the boats used mates (Davis, et al., unpub. ms.). Assuming then that 75 percent of all charter operators employed a mate for their trips In 1977, the total number of persons Involved In providIng charter fishing services was 1,719; 982 captains and 737 mates. RegIonally 727 persons are estimated to have been Involved In charter fishing In the south Atlantic and 992 provIded services In the Gulf of Mexico. A sIgnificant portion of those employed In charter boatIng In both regIons are affected by the mackerel and other pelagIc species fisheries. As described In Section 8.2.1.2,92 percent of the catch of boats operating fran North CarolIna ports were fish In the management unit, 37 percent of which were king mackerel. In southeastern Florida, 41 percent were fraa the management unIt, and fran portions of northwest Florida over 90 percent (74 percent were king mackerel) of the fish caught were fran the mangement un It. Potential employment In charter boats Is related to the management un IT in simIlar proportions. 8.2.6 Conf II cts Amon~ Domest i c Fishermen In recent years there has been a significant degree of controversy among the various user g"oups par ticipating In the Florida king mackerel fishery. Although It Is difficult to document these conflIcts through scIentifIc studies, théy are substantIated through public testimony, advisory panel meetings, and personal observations. Because kl ng mackerel Is a specl as wh Ich Is very Important to both the commercIal and recreational fishermen, there has been significant canpetltlon for the resource which has heightened In recent years. In addition the hook and line and gIll-net canrrrcial fishermen (two of the main canmercial user groups) have been Involved In a continuIng conflict which escalated durIng the 1977-78 season. TraditIonally the southern Florida peninsula has been the center of the king mackerel canrrrclal fIshery durIng the winter season. Northwestern Florida has recreatIonal fishing durIng the summer season. Since 1975 kIng mackerel became less and less available to the recreational fishermen along the Florida Gulf coast fran Naples north and west. The 1975 season was reported to be the last good year for recreational fishing In that section of Florida. The recreational catch then dropped In 1976 and 1977 and has been variable In 1978. A somewhat simIlar pattern has existed wIth respect to The northern Gulf of Mexico In recent years. DurIng this period the number of large king mackerel rot ler rIg gill-net vessels showed a significant Increase. This has led to a wIdespread perception among recreational fishermen that the large gll I-net vessels are depleting the resources. This Is denied by the gill-net fishermen. This clImate has led to a series of Initiatives by recreatIonal fishing Interests to curtail or prohibit the large-scale gllinetting of king mackerel. See Section 7.4 for a 8-27 description of à recently enacted Florida state law placing certain limitations on king mackerel 911lnettlng. On the southeast Florida coàst there have recently been occasional reports of vessel conflicts for fishing grounds between recreational and comrorclal fishermen. Significant gear conflicts have occurred between large king mackerel gill-net vessels and the king mackerel hook clnd line boats on the southeast Florida coast between Sebastian, and Ft. Pierce. The conflicts occurred because the two types of craft would disrupt each other's fishing operations. The large net vessels must move In circles of roughly 200 yards diameter while setting theIr nets on a school of fish. Hook and line boats must troll above and around such schools. This causes physical gear conflicts when both types of craft are attempting to fish In the same area. It Is widely bell eved that the two types of gear are bas Ica I Iy Incompat Ib Ie when fish I ng I n loca I i zed areas. It is also beileved that gill nets scatter the fish, deëreasln9 the catch rates for hook and line boats for some time afterwards. This gear conflict issue errupted to a significant extent in February, 1978, over ridge areas between Sebastian and Ft. Pierce In southeast Florida. This became an Important public Issue and resulted In the Florida legislature enaëtlng a law limiting gll I-net depth to an effectiveflshlng depth of approximately 57 feet along the Fiorida Atlantic coast. It was felt that the-conditions are such that the potent I a i for the above type of gear conf II ct may exl st a long the eastern F i or I da coast cover i ng Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. The primary fishing area of hook and line boats In that area are relatively narrow, rocky ridges. These ridges run parallel to shore and are rrre productive In approximately 60 to 90 feet of water. These ridges tend to attract the rickerel Into a relatively small, well defIned area where they can be cons I stent i y located and f I shed on a da 11 y bas Is. The primary fishing area of glll-nét vessels Is In the expanses of relatively flat sand,! bottom be tween the ridges. The majority of the favorable bottom lies between 40 and 60 feet of water. Because of the strong currents oftèn present In that area, setting the net on rocky bottom of ten results In damage to the net, loss of the catch and occasionally loss of the entire net. However, given con ditions of no current and calm seas, nets can be effectively set on a rocky bottom. Until recent years the conflict between the two groups was minImal both because the best fishing areas were on different types of bottom and because the nets were not deep enough to effectively fish water as deep as the best area for hook and line fishermen. The severity of the conflIct has Increased with the Increase In depth of the nets (before the Florida law was passed) and the number of net vessels In the area. 8.2.7 Assessment of U.S. HarvestlnCJ CapacitY Harvesting capacity has been growing rapidly In the U.S. king mackerel fishery In recent years. The number of king mackerel hook and line boats operatIng In Florida has increased from an estimated 50 to 300 In the last eight years. The number of roller rig gill-net boats has Increased from an estimated 12 In 1969 to 33 In 1977. In the 1977-78 season many Spanish mackerel gill-net boats rigged up to fish for SpanIsh mackerel and the number of roller rIg gill-net boats capable of fishing forking mackerel Is believed to range between 60 and 80. The recreational fishing pressure and corresponding capacity has been increasing at approximately ten percent per year or möre (see SectionB.2.1.1.). Exh tbl t8-13 presents a lower bound estimate of current U.S. harvesting capacity for king mackerel. i tis based on tak I ng the highest catch per un I t of gear for the var lous user types of exper I enced over the last ten years. The estimate for the Florida east coast hook and line Is based on the catch per boat experienced in 1970 using the current estimate of the number of boats In the fleet. The estimate for the large rol rer rig gil I-net fleèt Is the estimated catch per boat experienced in 1974 8-28 using the current estimate of vessels capable of fishing for king mackerel. nominal capacity Is expressed as the greatest amount of landings experienced the last ten years. The .recreatlonal capacity Is expressed as the estImated 1978 by the estimated 10.3 percent annual Increase In fishing effort. For the other user groups by that user group over 1975 catch Increased to Current capacity Is considerably above current catch levels. Using the estimates In Exhibit 8-13, current capacity Is estimated at 56.6 million pounds (using adjusted recreational catch data) (see Section 5.4.1) versus an estimated adjusted total catch for 1975 of 30.1 mil lion pounds. Similar relationships hold If the unadjusted recreational catch data Is used. Exhibit 8-14 presents a lower bound estimate of harvesting capacity for Spanish mackerel. The capa city for the large and small Florida gill-net fleets Is based on an estimate of the number of boats In each fleet times the average harvest during the 1976 season of a sample of each vessel type (Ca~, Morris, Prochaska 1978). While the sample may represent those vessels that target Spanish mackerel more heavily than others In the fleet, It does provide an Indication of the capacity of each vessel In the fleet. Current Spanish mackerel harvesting capacity Is considerably above current catch estimates. From Exh Ibl t 8-14 It I,s est I mated at 59.1 mil lion pounds versus an adjusted total catch est Imate for 1975 of 20.1 million pounds. ,. While these estimates of capacity for both king and Spanish mackerel would seem to Indicate overcapitalization, the fact that these boats and vessels participate In two or more other fisheries precludes such an obvious conclusion. There have been no direct studies of this Issue for this fishery, and methodology until very recently has been lacking to deal with capacity for multlspecles craft. In addition the catch rates used to compute commercl al capacity were for years of near perfect weather cond I t Ions and very high ava II ab ILL ty. The ef fect I ve capac I ty I siess under average con ditions. 8. 2. 8 Assessment and Speclflcatlon of the Extent to Whlch U.S. Vessels WIII Harvest Optlmum Yield It has been determined that U.S. fishing vessels will harvest the entire optimum yIeld specIfied by the Councils both for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel. There Is, therefore, no total allowable level of foreign fishing CTALFF). 8.2.8.1 K I n~ Mackere I The Councils have specified optimum yield to be 37 mil lion pounds. There Is an allocation of nine million pounds to the commercl alfl shery and 28 ml I lion pounds to the recreational fishery. Commercial users have the Intent and capacity to take their allocation. The commercial fishery has exceeded nine mil lion pounds In the past (1974). GIll net users exceeded the proposed net allocation In 1974 and possibly In 1977 (statistics Incoplete). In order to estimate the 1982 expected comercl al harvest, the Increase In landings between 1965 and 1977 was assumed to be a linear flrrctlon. The following linear regression was calculated: Annual I~nd I ngs (toousand pounds) = -5.513 x 105 + 283.00 (year) r2 = .44 From this formula, commercial landings for 1982 were estimated at 9.6 mil lion pounds, slightly above the proposed allocation. Actual landings, If the catch was not li.l1lted, could vary greatly from this estimate due to weather and aval lability of fish. Under proposed management restrict Ions, the esti mated catch would be limited to nine mil lion pounds. The recreational fishery harvested an estimated 8-29 23.7 million pounds In 1975 (based an the adjusted catch estimates for 1975 - see Sect Ian 5.4). If the catch I ncreased at the Same rate as the est lmated 10.3 percent annual I ncrease In recreat lonal fishing pressure, the 1980 ràCreatlanal catch would be considerably In excess of 28 mil lion pounds. Because catch per unit effort will decrease as effort Increases, the actual catch Is nat expected to. aXCeed the 28 million pound allacatlon. Currently available data Is nat suffIcient to accurately estimate recreational catch. For the purposes of estimating domestic annual harvest, recreatlona.\ catch In 1981 Is estimated at 28 mIl lion pounds. Recreatlanal harvest should be clo.sely monitored In the first years of the plan to Insure that excess harvest does not occur. Expected domestic annual harvest by all users In 1982 was estimated as 37 million pounds, equal to. OY. 8.2.8.2 Span I sh Mackere i The Council shave specl fled opt Imum y I el d to be 27 mlilian pounds. In arder to estimate commercIal harvest In 1982, the Increase In commercial landings between 1965 and 1977 was assumed to be a linear fLfctlon. The follawlng linear regress.lon wa--calculated: Annual landings = -8.003 x 105 + 411.65 (year) ~ = .41 From this formùla, commercial landings for 1982 were estimated to be 15.6 mil lion pounds. The actual I~ndlngs may vary widely fram this estimate due to weather or avaIlability of fish. The recreatlo.nal fishery harvested an estimated 8.4 mil lion pounds In 1975. If the catch Increased at the same raTe as the estimated 10.3 percent compounded annual Increase In fishing pressure, the 1982 recreational catch wou I d be 15.1 million pounds. However, catch per un I t ef fart dec II nes as ef fort I ncreases. The actual recreational catch cannot be accurately predicted, but Is expected to be between 8.4 and 15.1 million pounds. For the pirpose of determining expected domestic harvest, the expected recreational catch for 1981 was estimated at 12 mil lion pounds. Expected domestic annual harvest by all users In 1982 was estimated at 27 mil lIan pounds, equal to. OY. 8.2.8.3 Cabla The Councils have determined that aptlmum yield for cabla Is the available amunt of cobia equal TO or greater than 33 Inches fork length. Th Is amount Is estimated to be equal to 1,004,000 pounds per year under present conditions and Is expected to Increase under the proposed managemnt regime. Expected domes"tlcharvest In 1982 ls estimatad as 1,004,000 pounds. ThIs Is the best estImate of pres ent catch. The U.S. fishermen hava the Intent and ~paclty to harvest ~II available cobIa larger than 33 Inches. M:st of the present catch Is larger than 33 Inches. Although comercIal landings have decreased In the Atlantic and Increased In the Gulf, total landl ngshave remained relatively stable since 1970. Recreational catch since 1970 has Increased In some areas and decreased In others according to participants In the fishery. f' clear trend In the amount af the total catch Is discer nible from the limited data available. Data on grawth, mortality, and catch, Indicated that the rrst recent estimate of total catch Is approximately eq.ual to MSY (see Section 5.1.6.4 and 5.4.6.1). 8.2.9 Assessment and Speclflcatlon af the Partlon of the Optlmum Yleld Whlch U.S. Harvesters Prapose ta DÈÈllverto Forel~n Vessels U. S. harvesters do not prapose to dell ver any fIsh I nthe management unl t to foreign vessels. 8-32 8.3 Forel~n Flsh inQ ActIvItIes Ther e a, e '0 fere I g' fish I 'g pa't I c I pa,ts be II eved 10 be oper at I 'g I' the coasta I pe I ag I c me'ager,t "' It f I s her I es wi th I, the fishery conse'vat 10' 'O'e (FCZ). The 0' I Y know, fo, e I g, fisher,", ope' ,t I '9 wi th " the FCZ of the SO"th At I a ,t Ie aM G" If of Mex leo a, e the Japa'ose seek I 'g b I "e", t", as. The Natlo'al Ma,I,e Fisheries Service Ferelg, Flsh..Ies Observe, PP'7" reports fhat only a ''9l1glble ,"',t of fo,elg, bycatch for the 'pecles I' the me'agme,t "" It. There Is '0 h Istery of fo,elg, fish I 'g fer the spec I es 10 the me, agemeot '" I t as terget spec I es wi th I, the U, I ted States FCZ. Ther e a, e extons I ve Mex Ica, fi sher I es fo, kl 'g mecke'e I a'd Spao Ish mecker e I. These are oo,ter ed off the Sta te of V e, acr",. F, om i 968 thr OOgh i 976 r "Po,ted I a'd! 'gs 0' the Mex I oa, G" If coos t var led be tweeo 7.3 a'd 14.4 mili 10' po"'ds for Sp" Ish meckerel a'd 1.7 a'd 4.8 mill I on PO"'ds for kl 'g mackerel (G. Nakam", a, MMFS, pe,s. com..). There mey be soe I ,terac 100 be"'een these "d the U.S. stocks. 8.4 Interactions Between ForelQn and Domestlc PartIcIpants HarvestlnQ Interactions8.4.1 Ther e .. e cure en" y '0 lofer actl Oos be"'een domestl c aod fer e I g' partl c I paots " the" shery (see SectIon 8.3) except for an Ins Ign If icant bycatch. 8.4.2 Transfers at Sea to ForelQn Vessels The'e a'e '0 know, fra,sfe,s of fish I' the me'ageme,t "" It from U.S. harvesters to ferelg, vessels. None have been proposed or are anticIpated. 8.5 Domest I c Process I n~ Capac I t~ There Is C"'r eot I y s"f f I c I ent domes tic .- oo s I 'g cepac I ty to herves t the com,", c I a I harvest of k I 'g a'd Spa, Ish mecker e I. The domes tic pr oos i 'g "d"sfry has I' 'ecent vaars haod I ad the expect ad com mercial harvest necessary to take optImum yIeld (see Section 8.2.8). Capac I ty I s to be ,"as" ed 10 terms of ade", te cepael ty ond the I ,tent to "till ,e that oapac I ty 0' fish oa"ght by U.S. f I sherme,. I,tent to "t III ,e c'pacl ty Is OSse,t I ally a' ecooomi c decl s 100 by f I'm ow, "-s. " th Is, '9,r d oapac I ty Is def I 'ed as the mex I m"m s "sta I oab Ie I eve I of '"tp ut the i,d" s fr y oa 0 attal, wlthlo a very short time If dem',d were 'of , Coosfral,l'g factor, a'd wheo the "d"sfry Isope, at I 'g I ts ex I st I 'g stock of oap I ta I at Its cu stomry I eve I of I ,t,,s I ty (K I e " a'd S"m,",s, i 966). Pr oæssocs eo peer to have the ab III ty a'd I ,toot to "till 'e the Ir æp,c I ty. FI sh hO",es I' St. '"cle, M,rtl" Palm Beach ',d Moo,oo CO"'tles, Flerlda, heve f,om 29 to 59 percet of their fish spe c I es '''' ose,ted by Spa, Ish mecker e I . KJ 'g mecke e I '''' ese,ts fr om 47 to 53 pe, æ,t of the II sh vo '"me of fish ho"ses " I'd I a, R Iv.., St. '"CL e a'd P"m Beach Cou,t los. B I mef Ish 'epr ose,t ~om two to 'i 'e per cet of the f Ish vo I"me of those the eo c,",t I es a'd Mart 10 C,", ty. Th I s I eve I of depeo de, 06 00 thos e spec I es I ,d I cates a high I eve I of 6CO'om I c depe,de, 06 "d th" s the des Ire to coot I '"e the ut II i zat Ion of thes~ spec I as. The h,,vest ereos ii e " fa Ir Iy elose proxl mlty to process I"" ereas of those ti sh. 51 '06 the ""jo, com.. c la I .- od"ct 10' I s I' F I er Ida, the fi s h hooses a,d pr oos sors h"'e erga' I 'ed en ef fi c I eot sys t"" to accommod, te the m ," atory patt..os of those fish. The erga' I 'a t I o'a I systems fo II ow the ee bes I c p'tter,s. Firs t, some fish ho" ses h"'e es tab II shed themse I ves I' the mot high I Y .- od"ct Ive a'eas ',d are highly depe'de,t 00 lo,"iiy '""ght fish. Other fish ho"sas "',"'d Flerlda mey also ow, vessels wh I ch "fo" ow" the fi sh. T,"cks", e the, seof to the seasooal la'd! og I octl oos aod the fi sh are tr "spoted to the fish ho"se er po I ot of haod II 'g er s,l e by the iT"cks. The th I'd ""thod has seen 8-33 some processors set up satellite freezers they ar e h arves ted n ear these I ocat Ions. freezing capability near harvest areas. or handling locations along the coast to handle the fish as These techniques have Insured adequate refr Igeratlon and KIng mackerel are predominately marketed fresh or frozen whole. Much sma i ler amounts are processed Into the steak or smoked form. About 65 percent of Florida's east coast production has in recent years gone to the New York market Iced In boxes In whole form. About 75 percent of kl ng mackerel pro duction from the Florida Keys and the FlorIda west coast has gone to Puerto Rico. This "lack" of pro cess Ing has been the resu It of market preference rather than be I ng due to the I nab I II ty to "process" the fish. Spanish mackerel production Is usually sold as fillets In either fresh or frozen form with frozen the predominant market form. During 1974 slIghtly over one half of all landings were marketed In that form. Some sources suggest this market form may account for as high as 90 percent of total landings. I n recent years record high harvest levels were not fully absorbed by the market and some freezer Cqn pan I es and a cafeter I a cha I n had carry-over fr eezer stocks one year 0 I d; however, the avera' I market for Span i sh mackerel fillets has Increased. Availability and capacity of labor force, processing machinery, freezers, et¿-. appear adequate. Secondary handlers presently use machInes for gutting and raaovlng backbones of Spanish mackerel; therefore, there Is no constraint by avaIlable labor supply In this segment of the Total Industry. Capacity In the king mackerel processing sector Is a function of available labor supply since the pro duct Is mainly handled fresh whole and Iced or frozen whole; however, since this requIres relatively unskIlled labor the supply can be expanded rapid iy. The ch lef capacity restraInt In the king mackerel sector Is. the market distribution system; however, the markeT is expected to handle Increased supplies since prices have been Increasing along with Increased landings and because of the expanding markeT in Puerto Rico. Seasonal schedules are variable due to the variability In seasonal landings for king and Spanish mackerel. During peak production months In the king mackerel fishery, much of the landings move Into adequate freezing facilities and thus fill markets needs during peak demand periods. During the record production year for Spanish mackerel. fishermen were placed on a 15,000 pound per day limit. This gives an indication of the capacity which Is approximately 18.0 mil lion pounds. This Is con s iderab Iy abave the average or expected commercl al harvest. 8-34 9.0 DESCR I PT I ON OF ECONOM I C CHARACTER I ST I CS OF THE FISHERY 9.1 Domest I c Harvest I n~ Sector 9.1.1 Commercl a I Va I ue of Land 1 n~s ExhIbIt 8-5 In Section 8.2.2 presents complete data on the value and amount of the total U.S. commer cIal landings of king mackerel. It should be noted that a predominant portion of the exvessel land Ings of kIng mackerel Is sold rather than passed through non-market transactions. This Is true for the other specIes In the management unit as we I I. About 95 percent of total value landed comes fromF i or Ida. About 95 percent of the U.S. Spanish mackerel COOmerclal landings occur In FlorIda, although at least some landings occur In all of the states In the Gulf and south Atlantic regl ons except Texas. The value of Spanish mackerel landings In North Carolina, South CarolIna, GeorgIa, and Alabama has averaged less than $10,000 per year over the last ten years. COOplete data on the value and amount of total U.S. landings for Spanish mackerel Is presented in ExhibIt 8-6 in SectIon 8.2.2. SpanIsh mackerel prices have not risen as fast as have king mackerel prIces. In the late 1950's Spanish mackerel pr ices were about seven to nine cents per pound wh Ich was only about three cents per pound below prices of king mackerel. Spanish mackerel prices began to rise In 1973 and reached 21 cents per pound in 1977 whIch was about half the prIce per pound of kIng mackerel. ThIs may help explain the recent trend for boats formerly exclusIvely In the SpanIsh mackerel fIshery to becOOe Involved in the king mackerel fIshery as well. ;; FlorIda is the only state In the Gulf of Mexico to have significant COOmerclal landings of bluefish. The value of cOOmerclal landings of bluefish has generally been less than two thousand dollars per year In each of the other states In the Gulf. Bluef Ish pr Ices are relatively low compared to other fish, and landings easily glut the market. They are not a primary target specIes but are sought when other more valuable species are not available. Cobia and dolphin are not major target specIes for cOOmerclal fishermen, supplemental basis. They are both landed cOOmerclally, predOOlnantly In commercial value of landings In the Gulf and south Atlantic regions have $30,000 for dolphIn and $20,000 for cobIa. but are caught on a Florida. Total annual typically been less than EconomIc Character Istlcs of the Fleet Cost and return data was obtaIned from surveys of boats In the king mackerel hook and line fleet, and the Spanish mackerel small and large boat gIll-net fleets, (Morris, et al., 1977, 1978). Of the boats In the survey, the average hook and line boat had total revenue of $24,500, $17,500 of which was frOO king mackerel. The average small Spanish mackerel net boat In the survey had total revenue of $26,700, $10,500 of which was due to Spanish mackerel. The average Spanish mackerel large boat In the survey had total revenue of $96,400, $76,000 of which was due to Spanish mackerel. The net returns to the captain/owner were $14,900 - kIng mackerel hook and lIne boat; $15,900 - small Spanish mackerel net boat; and $21,800 - i arge Span I sh mackerel net boat. Overall year Iy prof It for vessels and boats In the coastal migratory pelagic fishery Is the remainder of total revenue after fixed and variable costs are paid. Variable costs, which Include fuel, crew shares, gear repaIr, and maintenance, must be paId to contInue fishing during one season. FIxed costs, whIch Include boat payments, Insurance, and deprecIation, could be postponed temporarIly eIther 9-1 totally or in part if total Income Is Inadequate. Vessels and boats such as these that do participate In several fisheries have their fixed costs spread over several activities. Therefore, analysis of the financial performance of a boat or vessel In only one fishery Is Incomplete or would be biased if it Included all fixed costs. Data from these surveys were used to calculate economic ratios of Investment, casts, and personal Income to value of the catch for these fleets. These ratios were then appl led to estImate the econo mic characteristics for the respective commercial fisheries as a whole. Catch was estimated as the 1976-77 average. Then the current (1977) price was applied to determine the value of landIngs. To estimate personal incom, the ratio of personal income/value of catch from the surveys was applied to the valu,e of landings. A similar procedure was used to estimate investment In the fishery. The Total personal income Ln the commercial fishery derived from the king mackerei in the. Gulf and south Atlantic regions was estimated to be $2,111,000, from the Spanish mackerel fishery $1,888,000, and from the bluef Ish fishery $326,000. 9.1.2 RecreaHonal Fishing The following sections present a description of the direct economic contributl()n to the nation asso ciated with recreational fishing for the coastal pelagic species. The eSTimates are prese'nted in the context of Impacts associated with all marine recreational fishing In the southeast to illusirate the relative Importance of the fisheries. Presented first are estimates of TOTal expenditures by r ecreat ional. fishermen and the associated emp loyment, wages and salar res generated by their piT chases. It is conceptually difficult to Identify economic effects associated w:ith a particular species of fish. Often, fishermen seek multipl,e species. Similarly, those fishermen who do direct their effort at particular fish often catch other fish Incidentally. These confounding characterisTics of recreational fishing activity make I,t difficult to clearly delineate activity atirlbutable' to a par ticular species. Fully recognizing these conceptual difficulties, species. specific estimates were determined by prorating total economic activity using an Indicator of parTicipation such as catch or effort. The Indicators chosen were largely dictated by the limits of avaHable data. In all InsT.an ces where prOfatlng procedures were used, the method has been descr Ibed. Thus, wh ¡Ie the accuracy range, pelag I c fishery estimates presented may not fully represent they do provide a reasonable perspective of vis a vIs other salTwater sportfishlng. the economic impacts wlthln the' des Ired the relat.lve magn Itude of the coasta.1 Total Direct Economlc Impacts Participation In marIne recreational fishing results In subSTantial pi.chases of goods and servicês. It has been estimated that In 1975 the expenditures associated wIth saltwater angling activity In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions were $289 million and $644 million respectively (Centaur Management ConsulTants, 1977, pp. 39-42). Exh Iblt 9-1 presents estimates of direct econccfc Impacts associated with coastal pelagic species In 1977. As can be seen from the exhlttlt, anglers' expenditures related to the coas.taJ pleagic species amounted to nearly ten percent of expenditures for all saltwater fishing In the TWO regions. Regionally, angler expenditures in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico related to coastal pelagic species amounted to an estimated 15 percent and eight percent of total angler expenditures In the respective regions. In dollar terms, however, expenditures related to these species were greater in the Gulf than In the south Atlantic. With respect to Individual species, total expenditures attdbutable to king mackerel were estimaT(''¡ to be $40 mill Ion, and for SpanIsh mackerel about $36 million. These figures each represent about f r 9'-2 rl UJ it Q) s: "H ~ 0000 0000 0000 0 s: UJ H 0 Lf Lf r-"" rl\O""0I \0 rl rl \O "H -- 0 0 Q) it 0 r- "" rl CO (Y a) 0 (Y 0 (Y 01 r- -- s: "H "H tJ rl 0 it Q) +J 4 it it 00 (Y 01 CO N \0"' (J (Y (J r- Q) ~ it "H 3: UJ rl \0 rl "' rl 0 N H 0. 0 vr rl 01 0 b1".- Q) '' ~ Q) it U 0. r- s: H S:".- UJ r- it it +J '' (J Q) :: \. i: Q) rl s: it 0 +J .- Q) o."H it s: H .. .¡ "H ".- UJ ii +J Q) ii 0 +J H E :; 0. 0 tJ i: ii s: ".- "H UJ s: Q) Q) 00 0 0 0000 000.0 .,. ".- +J 0 UJ ".- E .~ a) (J a) 1. 01 0 (J 1. 0 (J r- 0I .: rd "H,: .. :; i r- N (Y M "" r- r- Lf N (J rl (J "H UJ r- +J UJ 0 s: ~ Q) Q) H UJ ".- rl 0 r- rl r- rl Lf N rl °H \. ii +J Ii ~ U) rl N r: 0 0. M 0 \. Q) Q) s: I it rl ri Q) -- 0. 0 i: Q) (J 0. it p. ii UJ 0 rlE s: ~ "H 'Ö .Q +J H 0 0 0 Q) ii cO "H ".- 0 +J If) +J rl .Q 0 +J UJ ii ii"H "H "H ii 4- 0000 0000 0000 UJ ''.QQ ro.. E Q) 0 UJ 0 a) r- (Y Lf rl "" Lf rl (J rl a) 1. ii Q) :; X 0 \. Q) 0 (JO""CO (J 0' r- r- a) 0 rl Lf +J cO ri i: 0 Q) rl 0 UJ ii :; 0 Q) ;: it 0 rl "" M (J r- Lf r- 0 (J 0 Lf +J UJ H s: (j .¡ 0 p: rl UJ r- (Y Lf rl r- "" i- 01 01 a) 0 "" M 0 Q) 0 s: H 0 ri ii vr (Y r- 0 rl ii "H H ;: iJ i: Q) :: 0. 0 0. -- rl '' s: rl E Q) Ö' iJ Q) ".- "H 0. (j Q) ~ H +J H (j +J r- ro ii ii N r- N rl N r- rl 0 +J E :: +J Q) +J Q) +J Q) ii rl ro +J rl :; :x "H rl "H \. rl "H \. "H \. +J rl o.".- cO i: Q) +J .. 0 i: rl Q) 0 i: rl Q) i: rl Q) 0 cO E r- i: ~ £: UJ +J "H :: Q) .y 0 :: Q) .y :: Q)'y +J "H 0 ri ".- +J H U "H H U H U H +J "H +J Q) ~ i: +J Q) it X +J Q) c¡ +J Q) .rd U) 0 UJ 0..¡ Q) ro i: .Y:: Q) i: .y :: i: .Y:: +J 4- +J Q) ro iJ U)rl Q) 0 ~ iJ U Q) 0 i: i: u iJ rl +J S ii .r S ii .. S ii .. iJ Ö' Q) :X H .¡ ,: iJ ~ U) 4- iJ ~ UJ iJ ~ Ù) UJ i: UJ Q) 0 +J tJ ".- 0 Ö' 0.- rl tJ 0.- iJ "H Q) iJ "H Q).. ro tJ s: cO tJ i: rl ro tJ s: H ~ H +J H rl U +J s: s: ii 4- i: i: rd ii i: i: ii 0. In o..0.- \. ;: it "H 0. rl it ".- 0. +J CO".- 0. iJ "H iJ s: :: 0 :: o ~ ~ UJ ;: ~ ~ UJ 0 ~ ~ (f po 4- p: P .Q.¡ 0 UJ 19 8 rl 01 U) 9-3 to flye percent of the total of both regions. Regionally, expenditures associated with king and Spanish mackerel In the south Atlantic were about $14 million for each, while In the Gulf expenditures amounted to an estimated $26 million for king mackerel and $22 millIon for Spanish mackerel. Angler purchases create and sustain employment and personal Incane In the production, distribution, and retail sale of the goods and services bought. These employment and wage and salary Impacts are also presented In Exhibit 9~1. Of the estimated 25,200 person-years of employment generated by expen~ dltures of all anglers In the Gulf and south Atlantic regions In 1977, approximately 2,990 person years can be attributed to all coastal pelagic specIes. Wages and salaries generated were just over $23 million. Approximately $9.2 million can be associated with king mackerel and $7.2 mil lion WITh SpanIsh mackerel. Regionally, employment and income Impacts were greater for fishing that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico than occurred in the south Atlantic. It should be noted that these direct econanic Impact estimates represent benefits that accrue to the entire nation and not just to the two regions. Included In the estimates are Impacts assoclatéd with purchases of durable goods such as boats, motors, boat trailers, and fIshIng tackle; nondurable goods such as boat fuel, car fuel, or live bait; and services such as charter and head boat fees, use of marine facilities, equipment rental, or food, travel, and lodging. . ~ The above estimates were determIned by allocating the estlmatéd regional direct econanlc Impacts asso ciated wIth all saltwater sportfishlng in the southeast to coastal pelagic species using a methodology employed in a recent report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service (Centaur Management Consultants, 1977). Econanlc Impacts are prorated based on the number of anglers who caught fish In the management unIt. This procedure was modified to adjust for the significant role that the charter fleet plays In the fishery. The methodology provides a reasonable estimate of the national Impacts associ ated with a part i cu I ar fishery. The procedure employed takes Into account the fact that many purchases by anglers are not made for the singular purpose of fishIng. This Is particularly true of durable goods. For example, a boat may be purchased for fishing as well as for cruising or water skiing. Moreover, a boat used solely for fishing is rarely ((f ever) used for seeking only one specIes of fish. On the other hand, It would be inappropriate to canpleTely discount purchases that are not wholly attributable to a particular activity (e.g., angling for king mackerel). Here It Is assumed that the expenditures for the purchase of equipment are attributable to a particular activity in proportion to the amount of time that the equipment Is used for that activity. I mpact estimates for 1977 NMfS (Centaur, 1977). To emp loyment was assumed to are based on the 1975 estimates presented In the report prepared for the obtaIn the 1977 estimates, real growh In ang ler expenditures and associ atéd increase at 3.6 percent annually (North, 1976, p. 42).1 The effects of Inflation were accounted for by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price Index for expenditures and labor cost Index for wages and salaries. It has been reported that sales of fIshIng equipment for king mackerel F lor i da have recent I y dec i i néd because fIsh have dec ii néd In abundance three years. However, the data presentéd in this section are designed if 1977 were a typical or average year. fishing In northwestern there over the past two to to r.epresent the Impacts as 9-4 harter Boats Of the estimated $1.1 billion In total expenditures associated wIth all marine recreational fishing In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regIons in 1977, an estimated $23.9 mIl lion were for charter boat fees. Estimates of charter revenues and personal Income Illustrating the relative Importance of the coastal pelagic fIsh are presented In Exhibit 9-2. Charter fees associated with coastal pelagic species were estImated to be $11.5 millIon. Similarly, estimated charter fees associated with fishing for king and Spanish mackerel were $6.2 million and $1.8 million respectively. Personal Income of the charter operators Is estimated to attr Ibutab Ie to coastal pelagic specl es was an estimated with king and SpanIsh mackerel was $2.2 million and $0.6 be $ 8.3 mil ii on I n 1977. $4.0 million. Estimated million respectively. Personal I ncaae income associ ated The revenue estimates were determined by using recent studies of charter operations In North Carolina (Abbas, to be published), Georgia (Brown and Holemo, 1975), southeastern Florida (Gentle, 1977), the Gulf coast of Florida (Browder, et al., 1978), and Texas mitton, et al., 1977). The abOle research provided estimates of the average annual gross revenues for a boat operating In the area studied. These estimates were assumed to be typical of the proximal geographic region. Data on North Carolina boats were also assumed to represent boats from South Carolina. Data frcr studies of charter boats In Georgia and Dade County, Florida were used to represent the remaining portion of the south Atlantic coast. Northwestern Florida charter boats were assumed to be representative of Alabama charter activities and Louisiana and Mississippi boats were assumed to be similar to those In Texas. ~ WhIle revenues may vary from year to year because of weather conditions, availability of fIsh or other reasons, the studies (which were conducted In different years) were assumed to represent typical fishing years. Revenue estimates were normalized only for Inflation. To obtain the total revenue estimates, the number of boats In each area (see Section 8.2.1.2) was multiplied by the respective average annua i revenue per boat. Personal Income earned by the operators was estimated through an analys is of cost and revenue data of charter boats presented In studies of North Carolina, Georgia and Texas boats. Operators' income as a percent of gross revenues was 32 percent In North Carolina, 33 percent In Georgia, and 39 percent In Texas. Personal Income here Includes all prof It remaIning after fixed expenses (excluding depreciation) and variable expenses have been paid, but before payment of interest and taxes. Based on the relatively small range of personal Income observed In the three studies, It was assumed that operators' Income Is 35 percent of all charter operations. This percentage was applied to gross reve nue estimates for the two regIons. The allocation of gross revenue and personal Income to coastal pelagic species and separately to king and Spanish mackerel Is based on catch statistics for all areas except the Florida Gulf coast and A labama. There the allocation was determined us Ing effort data. Statistics on the number of fish caught from North Carolina boats (Manooch and Laws, unpub. ms.) and southeastern Florida (Gentle, 1977) were used In prorating gross revenue and inccre for the eastern Gulf (Browder', et al., 1978). In the absence of catch or effort data specific to charter boats In the western Gulf, statistics on the catch from Inboard boats fishIng In the Gulf off the Texas coast were used to determine the allo cation factors (Trent, 1976). Tour Ism TourIsm Is a signIficant aspect of the marine recreatIonal fisheries of the southeast. Recent regional surveys conducted by the National Marine FisherIes Service show that a substantial number of ang lers In the eastern Un ited States do at least some of their fish ing I n the coastal states of the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, most of them traveling to Florida, (Ridgely and Deuel, 1975). 9-5 Exhibit 9-2 Estimated Gross Revenue and Operator IS I ncome for Charter Boats In the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 1977 South At I ant I c Gu I f of Mex I co Total Total A l I Coas ta I Pe i ag I c King Mackerel Span I sh Mackerel Specl es 9,899,000 5,445,000 2,324,000 1,485,000 14,081,000 6,230,000 4,064,000 365,000 23,980,000 11,675,000 6,388,000 1,850,000 Charter Operatcrsl Income South At I ant I c Gu i f of Mexl cO: Total Total All Coastal Pelagic King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel Spec I es 3,465,000 1,906,000 814,000 520,000 4,928,000 2,181,000 1,422,000 138,000 8,393,000 4,087,000 2,236,000 648,000 Source: See Text. Comprehens Ive tour I sm data specl f Ic to the charter boat operations (the Importance of Section 8.2.1.2) show that tourism Is very coastal pelagic fisheries are not available, but studies of the management un I t to the charter fleet is discussed in Important to the charter fishery. A recent study of charter boat fishermen In Mississippi revealed that only 17 percent of the par ticipants live In the coastal counties of that state, and that 57 percent of the participants were from outside Mississippi (Etzold, et al., 1977, p. 10). A study of Texas charter boat fishing In 1976 shows that only two percent of the participants were fran Texas coastal camtles, wh lie 92 percent were from Inland areas of the state miTTon, et al., 1977, pp. 41-42). In Dade County, Florida, 81 percent of the participants In charter fishing surveyed were non resIdenTs of the coonty, and 77 per cent were from outside of Florida (Gentle, 1977, p. 101). Also, charter boat operators In Bay County, Florida, have estimated that 98 percent of their customers are nonresidents of the county (Brusher, et a I., 1977). C I ear i y, the charter boat fleet Is heav II y dependent on tour I sm for I ts bus i ness. In addition to the business tourists bring to the charter boat operators, they spend considerable sums of money In the local economy for other Items such as food, lodging, and travel. It Is estimated that approximately 456,000 tourists participated In charter fishing In 1977 In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In addition to the $23.9 million they spent for charter fees (see previous section), an estimated $17.9 mi III on was spent on food, lodging, transportaTion and miscellaneous Items for the days they fished. Approximately $8.2 million of that total was spent In southern Flcrlda. Tourist expenditures attributable to king mackerel and Spanish mackerel were estimated using a pr or at i ng pr ocedur e s 1m i i ar to that ap p lIed I n the ana i ys I s of ch arter boat r avenues and i ncan (i. e. , based on the proportion of coastal pelagic species that were caught while charter fishing to tot a , 9-6 Ish caught). Accordingly, expenditures by tourists for food, lodging and travel attributable to coastal pelagic species were an estimated $10.0 million In 1977. Tourist expenditures associated with kIng mackerel charter fishing were an estImated $5.6 mil lion. ApproxImately $0.85 million were asso ciated wrth Spanish mackerel. It should be noted that while tourists who engage In charter fishing likely comprise the majority of nonlocal participants, there are other tourists who also fish for recreation. Many persons trailer their boats to the southeast for long winter vacations. There are also nonlocal anglers who catch coastal pelagic species from shore-based locations such as beaches, pIers or jetties. These tourists are not Included in the estimates presented abCNe. Therefore, the abCNe expenditure estimates should be viewed as a lower bound of total tourist expenditures associated with coastal pelagic resources. 9.2 Domestlc Processln~ Sector King mackerel Is sold In fresh whole (eviscerated), frozen whole, frozen steak, and smoked product forms. The great majority Is sold in either fresh or frozen form. Although data are Incomplete, a review of NMFS processed product statistics Indicates that less than ten petcent Is steaked. It Is reported that the amount of smoked product Is very minor. A survey conducted by Prochaska and Cato In 1975 (Prochaska and Cato, 1977) Indicated that 65 percent of total U.S. king mackerel landed on the Florida east coast was shipped to New York Fulton Fish Market. Fish fraa this area Is roughly half of total U.S. king mackerel production. Fish are landed at primary wholesalers and boxed and Iced by them. The fish are then trucked to New York by I ndependent truckers. These kl ng mackerel do not change form until they are sold through the New York market. In 1971 prices at the New York Fulton Fish Market (these are prices for fish sold by New York wholesalers) generally varied between 40 and 70 cents per pound, while Florida east coast exvessel prices varied between 20 and 40 cents (Prochaska and Cato, 1977). The average New York price was estimated at about 50 cents, and average FlorIda exvessel price was estimated at about 30 cents. The marketing margin during this period typically varied between ten and 30 cents, with an estimated average of about 20 cents. By 1974, king mackerel prices on the Fulton Fish Market generally varied between 70 cents and $1.00, with an estImated average price of about 90 cents. The Florida east coast pr Ice was estimated at about 60 cents, and the marketing margl n had Increased to about 30 cents. (The abOJe Is based on data presented In Prochaska and Cato, 1977.) In addition to the Jew York market there Is a similar product flow for a significant amount of king mackerel sold fresh In the local Florida market (e.g., In MlamJ). A large volume of king mackerel Is frozen and shipped to Puerto Rico. An Ings In the Florida Keys and Florida west coast is reported to be shipped market began to greatly expand In the late 1960's, when widespread use of available In the Caribbean areas (Austin, et al., 1978). estimated 75 percent of to Puerto R I co. Th Is refr Igeratlon became land King mackerel Is pr Imarlly sold In fresh and frozen form, and there Is no real processing involved, except for handling and freezing. CapacIty In handling at fish houses is maInly a. matter of labor, which can be Increased on a relatively short-term basis. Capacity In freezing Involves Interaction with all other frozen fish products. King mackerel Is only a moderate portion of total Florida freezings. The chief capacity constraint on processors Is dictated by the market. The frozen market in Puerto Rico Is continuing to expand. Evidence of the continually expanding market for king mackerel is the fact that while landings have Increased In recent years, prices have continued upward (see Section 9.1.1). Processors indicate that there Is considerable room left for expansion of king mackerel production and marketing. 9-7 Major product forms for Spanish mackerel include frozen bu i k of Span Ish macker el I s so I d as fr ozen f II lets. In fillets were processed, valued at $2.342 million. Most fillets and 1975, 3.057 of th I s was fresh who Ie. Currentl)', the g'eat ml Ii Ion pounds of Spanish mackerel prQcessed In F I or Ida. Amounts of Spanish mackerel also go to the local Florida fres.h fish market. Spanlsh maq~erel Is. also sold as marine mammal food to aquarium-type attractions. A certain arrQunt ls also sold for bait. Processing capacIty for Spanish mackerel appeared to be reached In the 1975."76 winter season~ ~t'en boats were placed on 15,OOO-pound limits. The landings during that season were apprQxlmately 18 million pounds, which represents an approximation of market/processing capaclty at that time ba!:ed on the earlier definition. Processors Indicate that the market Is continuing to expand. Bluefish Is sold In fresh, frQzen and fil let product form. Historical data are not available on amounts. Bluefish Is a rather low priced fish. The market for blueflsh Is unorderly. There Is not a consistent marketing channel for bluefish. When they are available In the fishery and other more attractive species are not, fishermen will catch them. However, they glut the inarket rather easily. CobIa and dolphin are primarily sold In fresh form. There Is not a wel.1 deveJoped marketing channel for them. They are generally sold In local areas to a small g-oup of consljmérs who are familiar with them. 9.3 Other Sectors of the U.S. Flshln~ Industry The dependence of other sectors of the fishing Industry follows the relatlonshi¡:s presented in Section 11.3. 9.4 i nternat I ona i Tr ade International trade of king and Spanish mackerel appears to occur on a relatively small scale In com parison to domestic trade for these fIsh. (Trade with Puerto Rico, a major market for king and Spanish mackerel Is not Included In the analysis of International trade.) Imports orlginÇite from Latin America, chiefly Mexico, Venezuela, and Ecuador (E. Berry, NMFS, pers. comm.). Foreign markets are reported to include Canada and Venezuela (Austin, et al., 1978). Records of International trade In king and Spanish mackerel are generally aggregated wIth all mackerel, making International activity somewhat di f f I cu It to trace. United States Imports of mackerels are relatively small, and most Is other speclesthan those In the management unit. Mexico Is a major source of king and Spanish mackerel Imports, but In 1977 the Total Imported to the United States was less than 55.,000 pounds. The fish Is generally sold frozen, a Ithough small amounts of fresh Mexican fish do make their way Into Brownsvi lie, Texas, markets. Other Latin American countries which exported mackerel to the U.S. Include Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Combined, these countries exported less than 50,000 pounds of frozen mackerel to the U.S. In 1977. Near Iy 150,000 pounds of canned mackerel from Peru entered southeastern markets through Mobile and New Orleans In 1977, but these are believed to be Pacific varieties.. Historically, the largest Imp.orter of canned mackerel from southeast ports was Japan, but Its Imports dropped dramatically (from a high of nearly 5.8 million pounds In 1973) to just over 100,000 pounds In 1977. The substantial amounts of canned mackerel are In all likelihood Atlantic and/or Pacific mackerel. Because these fish sell at a lower price than king and Spanish mackerel and are sold canned, they probably have little effect on king and Spanish mackerel marketswhl.ch generally are sold In fresh and frozen forms. Moreover, Japanese Imports should have little Impact now because they have been so drastically redljced. 9-8 European countries Intermittently export mackerel products to the southeast U.S. The nations Include Holland, Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Spain, and Portugal. Like the Imports to Japan, these are bel I eyed to be other than kl ng and Span Ish mackerel. Also, they appear In sma Ii quantities and should not affect U.S. king and Spanish rrckerel rrrkets. As In the case of imports records on exports of king and Spanish rrckerel are also highly aggregated. Canned products are Included with all other mackerel and frozen products are aggregated with many non mackerel species. Data on canned products suggest that exports of king and Spanish mackerel e;re quite small. In total only 1.2 million pounds of all types of canned mackerel were reported to have been exported fran U.S. ports; however, the majority of this is believed to be Atlantic mackerel. According to U.S. census statistics Venezuela received no canned mackerel fran the U.S. In 1977 and the only shipments to Canada were fran Pacific coast ports. Shipments fran Florida ports went to Guatemala, the Bahamas, and the Dominican Republic. Except for Venezuela, tariffs on mackerel products do not appear to be restrictive to International trade. Tariffs for selected nations for frozen and canned mackerel products are presented below. As can be seen fran the exhibit V.enezuela has strong protective tariffs, 30q;eercent on the value of canned products. Canada, the other export market, has no tar Iff on frozen products and a 15 percent tariff on canned products. This Is canparable to the U.S. tariff of 12.5 percent on the value of s h I pments. Tar Iff Rates for Selected Nations Frozen Canned Canada Japan Mexico United States Venezuela o 10% 35% 0.35itjl b. 1 15% 15% 15% 20% 12.5% 300% The U.S. tariff Is being phased out and wi Ii be zero by 1985 9-9 10.0 DESCRIPTION Oi' THE BUSINESS, MARKETS, AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FISHERY 10.1 Relatlonshlp AmonÇJ Harvestln~, Brokerln~, and Processln~ Sectors Historically, king and Spanish mackerel have been sold by fishermen to local fish dealers. These pri mary wholesalers In turn sell to fresh fish markets and restaurants, freezer companies, and secondary wholesal ers. The rei atl vel y recent organ I zatlon of several fishermen's cooperatives and corport Ions has modified the market structure for king mackerel by eliminating the primary wholesale level In some Instances. The Industry structure and markets for king and Spanish mackerel are separately described below. 10.1.1 K I n~ Mackere I Industry Structure and Markets Commercial fishermen have traditionally had a rather close relationship with the fish houses. The fish houses and fishermen generally have operated under unwritten agreements In which the wholesaler provides a guaranteed market for the catch and boat services such as free dockIng facilities and Ice, fuel, and f ¡ sh I ng eq ul pment for a fee. I n exchange, the fishermen agree to .;se Ii the I r catch to par ticular fish houses. There Is some evidence that these relationships are decreasing In Importance. There are approximately 30 fish houses In Florida that purchase king mackerel from coomerclal fishermen. Three are located I n Co III er County (F i orl da west coast), and the rema I nl ng fish houses are divided about equally between the Keys and the east coast of Florida. While fishermen are guaranteed a market for their catch, the price they receive Is not guaranteed. Fish houses pack the fish I nice, find a buyer and genera I i Y arrange and pay for sh I p pi ng. The fish are transported by truck, usua Ily by Independent firms. Because of concern for the low prices receIved for theIr catches, several groups of fishermen have organIzed cooperatives In order to bypass the fIsh house and sell dIrectly to the secondary wholesaler. The fIshermen organizations have had a significant effect on dockside prices. These organIzations are discussed In Section 10.2. i n past years a i most a i I gill net-caught kl ng mackerel so I d has been passed wholesalers. Firms In Miami, Palm Beach, St. Petersburg, and Jacksonville ary d i str I but Ion. Several new fIrms reported Iy have entered the market. through fIve secondary hand Ie most of the second In Instances where fIsh houses cannot process any more fIsh either because the facility Is temporarily overloaded or the market Is saturated, fishermen are Informed In advance which species of fIsh will not be accepted. In some Instances catch limits wIll be set for each fisherman. In the Florida Keys where truck loads are limited to 15,000 pounds of Iced fish, the availability of trucking facilities may al so limit the catches that fl sh houses will hand Ie. The major markets for king mackerel are Puerto Rico, New York, mackerel Is marketed In several product forms IncludIng gutted steaks, smoked, and as a canned smoked paste. Florida, Canada and Venezuela. KI ng and I ced fresh fish, frozen who Ie or In An estimated 75 percent of the catch from the Florida's southwest coast and Keys are marketed frozen to Puerto Rico. This Is primarIly the gill-net catch. The remainIng portion of the catch Is sol d fresh primarily through Fulton's Fish Market In New York. On the east coast of Florida, approximately 65 percent Is marketed fresh. The local Florida market Is attributed largely to the Miami Cuban popu lation (Austin, et al., 1978). This Is primarily the hook and line catch. 10-1 10.1.2 Span I sh Maakere I Industry Structure and Markets The arrangement between Spanish mackerel fishermen and fish houses Is similar to that for the king mackerel fishery (see Section 10.1.1). The major primary and secondary whlesalers are the same as those dealing' Inking mackerel. There are s I z~b I e markets for both fre~h and frozen Span I sh mackerel. Important product In the fresh fish market. Gegraphically the major mackerel Is the southeast, Including Florida. Trad I t lonally It has been an market for fresh Spanish ,e",. "", The market for frozen Spanish mackerel fillets has seen recent expansion. A large maJority, possibly a.s much as 90 percent. are now sold In frozen form, most goIng to InstitutIons. One large cafeteria chain Is purchasing as much as five million pounds of frozen Spanish mackerel yearly or nearly 50 per cent of total annual landings. Product fo.rms are determined In part by the size of the fish. Fish over one and one quarter pounds are pre.ferable for fll lets. Some companies ship whole frozen fish three pounds or greater to Puerto RI.co. .' AI.though the demand Is Increasing, the record production of exceeded expected demand. For examp Ie, record high harvest not tully absorbed by the market. At the end of 1977, some stllll:ad stocks of 1976 landings. Spanish mackerel recently has sometimes In the 1975-76 wlnter-spr Ing season was freezer compan'es and a cafeteria chain Th,ere are three major markets for Spanish mackerel. By far the IISt Important market outlet Is to approximately 15-20 cafeteria chains In the southeast that purchase frozen Spanish mackerel flHets. It Is estimated that about 75 percent of Spanish mackerel landings are so Id to cafeteria chains. The se.cond largest outlet Is to. retailers who service home consumers. ProductsSõld to retailers consist primarily of fresh and frozen fillets and who Ie drawn, the latter beIng bot.~.' fresh and frozen. The th Ird market out i et cons I sts of two major user groups, I. e.. for an Ima.1 feed I ng I n zoos, aquarIums, etc., and for bait by both commercial and recreational fishermen. The Spanish mackerel 9:ld to. these outlets consists primarily of the smaller sl'zed fish that have limited acceptance In the restaurant and retail outlets. 10.2 Flshery CoPeratlves or Associations Two fishermen's coperatives have been IdentifIed In the coast a.! mIgratory peJagtc fishery. offices and facilIties are located In (1) the Port Salerno-Sebastian area. and (2) Key West. The Ir The formation of coperatives results from. two or more firms desiring to Increase competition and/or to ta~e advantage of conso I I dated purchasl.ng of supplies. Increased copet'ltion takes place through the addition of one or IIre buyers In the market bidding on supplies or through the cooperative returning part of the marketing spread to Its members. The advant8Qe of canso 11dated purchase enab les a cooperatlve:to benefit from quantity discounts offered by se.!.lers for ma:terlals. Through these means, cooperatives can operate both as buyers and sellers fo:r theJr members. ...~~ King mackerel fishermen are the predominant mebers In both cooperatives. The Florida Fishermen's Association In Port Salerno-Sebastian Is are made up of hook and line king mackerel fishermen. In Key West another cooperative was recently formed by five kl ng mackerel net fishermen.. The new cor poration sells directly to a. secondary wholesaler In Miami. It provides docking facl I I ties, boat 10-2 equipment, Ice, and covers some overhead expenditures for the fishermen Involved. The fishermen's catches are packed In Ice and loaded directly onto trucks from the boats. The trucks are provided by the wholesaler specIfically for the day's catch (Austin, et al., 1978). There are three other groups of fIshermen associations Important to the fIshery. Several organiza tions promote commercIal fIshIng Interests. These associations tend to represent different fishermen constituencies such as small hook and. lIne or net boats, large net operations, and processors. From a statewide area all are Involved In lobbying for legIslation supporting commercial fIshIng and devel opIng markets for their products. They have also been Involved in resolving disputes among fishermen such as the recent conflict between hook and line and net mackerel fishermen on the FlorIda east coast. Charter boat operators have also formed associations, but membership Is generally lImited to a local area. Associations have been organized In communities throughout the south Atlantic and Gulf regions. Among their activities are the promotion of charter fishing services through advertising as well as Involvement In supporting sport fishing Interests In their state legislatures and local governments. In northwest Florida several charter associations have expressed their conc ern over the recent decline In king mackerel In that area of the Gulf of Mexico which they attribute tethe growh of commercial net fl shlng in southern FlorIda. Recreational fl shermen al so are I nvo I ved in organ I zatlons and associ atl ons that serve sport fish I n9 Interests. In addItion to the organizations that have a national or International membership, there are a large number of local angler clubs established for social reasons and concern about the decline of king mackerel caught In northwest Florida. Several sportflshlng associations have also expressed their organizational purposes. There are an estimated 184 sport fishing clubs In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal states. They are distrIbuted by states as follows: North Carolina, 23; South Carolina, 2; Georgia, 13; Florida, 40; Alabama, 39; Mississippi, 20; Louisiana, 25; and Texas, 22. Not all of the members of these clubs are salt water ang lers. Based on the preliminary results of a recent survey of sport fIshing organizations, the estimated total club membership In the two regions Is 14,720. Of these an estimated 10,300 are salt water recreational fishermen (Stroud, pers. comm. ) . 10.3 Labor Orqanlzatlons There are no known labor organIzations In the harvesting or processing sectors that are Involved in the fIshery. 10.4 F ore I ~n Investment There Is no sIgnificant foreIgn Investment In the domestic sectors of the fishery. 10-3 11.0 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMESTIC FISHERMEN 11.1 Ethnlc Character, Famlly Structurè, and Communlty Or~anlzatlon CommercIal fishermen who fIsh for coastal pe.laglc species, In general, have an ethnic and social character similar to the cross section of people In the states and counties In which they reside. The major exceptIon to this Is the hook and line fishery for king mackerel operating out of the FlorIda Keys (Monroe County), which contains a concentration of fishermen of Cuban-American heritage, although specIfIc numbers are not avaIlable at this time. The boat captaIns In the fisheries for the species In owner/operator entrepreneurs although there are a few capta I n own I ng more than one boat or vessel, In wh I ch the management unit are predominantly cases of company-owned boats or vessel s or a case captains may work on an employee basis. The hook and line king mackerel fishery and small scale Spanish mackerel net fishery typically consist of an owner/operator who may fish alone or who may have one or possIbly more crew members for at least part of the year. In these cases the crew member frequently is a relatlve: such as a son. The larger net boats operating In the king and SpanIsh mackerel net fisheries usually~conslst of an owner/captain and three to five paid crew members. Many of the captains try to work with the same crew year after year. In other cases boats may be operated with one or more Itinerant crew members. There Is a considerable number of Instances where fishermen In this fishery have come from families where the father, was a fisherman operating In the same or other local fisheries. Currently, a number of father/son combInations are commercially fishing for species In the management unit. Many of these fishermen appear to express a desire that their sons may be able to continue with a famIly tradition of commercial fIshing. The predominant portion of the fishermen reside In those coastal communities surrounding the ports from which they operate. Certain of the communities In whIch the commercial fishermen live such as Monroe County (Florida Keys), Salerno, Ft. Pierce, Sebastian, (Florida east coast), and Naples (Florida west coast) have a large proportion of the total population Involved in the fIshIng com munity. 11.2 Age, Educatlon. and Experlence of Commercial Fishermen Sp'3clflc data on age and years of fishing experience for king and Spanish mackerel fishermen are avaIlable only from surveys conducted of Florida Atlantic coast king mackerel hook and lIne fishermen (Morris, Prochaska, Cato, 1977) and Florida east coast large and small boat Spanish mackerel fishermen (C~to, Morris, Prochaska, 1978). The kl ng .and Span I sh mackerel fishermen I n the surveys are about the same age as F I or Ida fishermen as a whole, but they have considerably more years of fishing experience than Florida fishermen. In 1974, the average age of Florida commercial fishermen was 48 years with a range of 16 to 85 years. Florida Atlantic coast hook and line king mackerel fishermen had an average age of 49 years In 1976 (Morris, Prochaska, Cato, 1977). Similarly, Spanish mackerel fl shermen on the AtlantIc coast averaged 45.6 years of age for small boats and 45.6 years of age for large fishing boats. With respect to years of experience In commercial fishing, Florida fishermen as a whole, averaged 16.5 years In 1974. In contrast, hook and line king mackerel fishermen In the survey had 20.9 years of experience. small boat Spanish mackerel fishermen had 27.3 years of experience and large boat Spanish mackerel fIshermen had 33.7 years. 11-1 It should be noted that the fishermen In the survey were boat captains and may be skewed toward the more experienced persons in the fishery. However, contact with people In the fishery Indicates that Florida king and Spanish mackerel fishermen have demographic characteristics sImilar to those of Florida fishermen as a whole. The majority (52 percent) of all Florida fishermen were between 41 and 60 years of age with only eleven percent less than 31 years 01 d and 19 percent over 61 years of age, (Prochaska and Cato, 1977). The average Florida fl sherman hasfl shed for approximately 16 years and most have fished between seven and 30 years. Educational attainment averaged 11.3 years for Florida fishermen surveyed In 1974. Years of schooling declined with the age of the fishermen. Data on edu cational attainment specific to mackerel fishermen are not available. 11.3 Employment Opportunltles and Unemplo~ent Rates Unemployment has risen sharply In the Florida counties (Martin, IndIan River, St. Lucie, Palm.Beach, Monroe, Collier) where most canmerclal fishing of king and Spanish mackerel occurs. 1 Despite rela tively high rates of unemployment In the local econanles, overall employment opportunities In canmerclal fishIng appear to have remained favorable as have opportunItIes In the mackerel fisheries. In all six counties the 1977 unemployment rate was more than double the 1973~ate. With the exception of Martin County, all areas had rates well above the 7.7 percent rate for air-of Florida In 1977. In Martin and Monroe Counties the unemployment rate dropped between 1975 and 1977 while In Indian River and St. Lucie Counties the rate contlned to climb during that period. Thus opportunIties for employment In the local econanles have generally declined since the early part of the decade. No directly canparable unemployment data are available specifically for fIshermen, but estimates of the number of fIshermen In all types of fishing activity by county between 1970 and 1975 do provide an Indication of the employment opportunities In flshlng.2 The total number of fishermen In the six counties Increased from nearly 3,150 In 1970 to Just over 3,900 in 1975, Indicating that employment opportunities In fishing Increased during the time when unemployment rates for the. local econanies also increased. Not all counties gaIned In fishing employment, however. The number of fishermen In Monroe County I ncreased by more than 50 percent fran 1970 to 1975. Dur I ng that per I od the county unemployment rate tripled. On the east coast of FlorIda a similar pattern occurred in St. LucIe and Indian River Counties although the percent Increase In the number of fishermen was not as large. In contrast the total number of fishermen In Martin, Palm Beach and Collier Counties decreased between 1970 and 1975. There is no clear reason for the declIning trend there. The statistics on number of fishermen are gathered at the location where fish are landed. The temporary migration of fishermen to other fishing areas (e.g., Monroe County) may partly explain the decline. Employment opportunities In the mackerel fisheries have llicieased as demonstrated by the Increase In number of boats partlcl patlng In the fl shery. For example, the estimated number of hook and II ne boats on the east coast of FlorIda Involved In the king mackerel fishery Increased fran approximately 50 In 1970 to over 200 In 1975. During that period the number of fishermen In the area remained rela tively constant. In 1970 the total number of fishermen In St. Lucie, Martin, and Indian RIver was 384, and In 1975 the total was 391. It Is likely that much of the Increase In boats Is due to fisher men temporarily entering the fishery when fish were readily available, or are drawn In by rIsing pri ces for king mackerel relative to other fIsh (see Section 9.1). Source of all unemployment estimates: Secur I ty. F I or Ida D epa rtment of Commerce; D I v I s I on of Emp I oyment 2 Source of number of fIshermen employed: National Marine Fisheries Service. unpublished data. 11-2 .Ike hook and line boats, the number of net boats In the fishery has also Increased. In 1970 there were an estimated 15 boats. By 1975 the number of boats had nearly doubled and In 1977, 33 gl II-net boats participated In the kIng mackerel fIshery. At present, the total Is near 80. Overall then, opportunities for employment In fishing and In the fishery have been favorable despite the rather poor overall employment situatIon In the local areas of concern. On the southern Florida Atlantic coast (I.e., Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach Counties) employment In the king mackerel fishery Is a very major component of total fishery employment. An estimated 70 to 80 percent of fishermen In that area are major participants In the king mackerel fishery. These are predominantly the hook and line fishermen. The Spanish mackerel fishery Is also of great Importance to total fishing In the area. While total employment In that area Is high because of the large population, the amount of total unemployment Is several times higher than the total employment in the fishery. In Monroe County fishing Is an extremely Important Industry to the local economy. The number of fishermen reported for the county Is nearly 15 percent of total county employment. Major partlcl pants In bath the king and Spanish mackerel fisheries comprise about eight percen!of total fishermen. Unemployment Is high In the area being nearly ten times the number of major-participants In either the king or SpanIsh mackerel fisheries. On the southern F i or I da west coast (Co Ii I er and Lee Count I es), emp i oyment Is relatively small. However, major participants In the Spanish mackerel of tota I fishermen. Aga I n, the tota I county un emp I oyment rate I s severa I fishery. I n the kl ng mackerel fishery are about 15 times the employment fishery percent I n the Still many fishermen are nat employed full time In fishing (see Section 11.5). A recent survey of Florida fishermen showed that those with Income from nonflshlng activities had widely varied employment. Based on those who specifIcally reported type of employment, 28 percent were In residen t I d I or commercl a i construct Ion. Seventeen percent were emp I oyed in mar I ne rei ated jobs such as tug b~it cpatalns, marl na operators and boat bull ders. Ten percent were Involved' n agr Iculture, nine percent were employed In security type jobs, and seven percent held jobs as mechanics and repairmen. Twenty-two percent hel d ather occupations such as teachers, chemists, optometrists, broadcasters and f light Ins pectors. On i y 21 percent of the res pondents sa I d that the I r nonf I sh I ng emp I oyment was seasona i (Prochaska and Cato, 1977, pp. 2G-21). King and Spanish mackerel fishing In the major commercial areas In south FlorIda takes place primarIly In the months of December through February. However, the king mackerel hook and line fleet In the Atlantic coast and the large boat gill-net fleet depends heavily on the kl ng mackerel season to Justify Its Investmnt. In Monroe County participants In the king and Spanish mackerel fishery gain additional Incom from the spiny lobster fishery. Spiny lobster fishing takes place predomlnanty from August through November; thus the two fisheries are seasonal complements to one another. Mackerel fishermen also fish for other species such as snapper, grouper, stone crab, mullet, spiny lobster, and pompano. 11.4 Recreatl ona I Fish I n~ The motivations and cultural characteristics of anglers seeking species In the management unit are diverse. Many seek the excitemnt of the sport, the chance to relax and socialize with their friends, or the opportunity to be In a natural environment. A discussion of the demographic characteristics of marine recreational fishermen and their values In participation Is presented below. 11-3 11.4.1 Demographlc Chøracterlstlcs of Recreatloni'l Fishermen Basic demogràphlc characteristics of marl ne recreational fl shermn In the south Atlantic and Gul f of MexIco were determined by the U.S. Department of Interior (1972, 1977i', 1977b). Over 51 percent of part i cl pants Were bétween the i'ges of 25 and 54 In 1975. Ang' ers under 25 accounted for 32.4 percent of the participants; and anglers 55. years old or older aCCounted for 16.3 percent of the fishermen. Salt water anglers are predctlhantiy male. Nearly one third of the participants were female In 1975. Forty~three parcent of the recreational fIshermen had Incomes between $10,000 and $25,000 (U.S. Depàrtment of Ihterior; 1977b). A 1971 study of southeastern wildlife recreation suggests that of the ànglers surveyed, there was no heavy concentration of participation from any particular occupational group, although prOfessionals, managèrnnt; and skilled crafts persons tend to participate more often than members of other occupational groups (Horvath, 1974). These characteristics apply to anglers In general frct the southeast. Data specIfic to anglers that seek or catch the coastal pelagic spacles are not available. With the exception of bluefish, these species are caught predominantly by private or charter boats (see Section 8.2). Because of the widespread and growing popularity of smaller boats In the 18-22 foot category capable of fishing for klhg mackerel as well as other species In the managernnt unit, these speclesi:Tend to be hIghly sought by middle Incdm fishermen as well as flsherrnn ownIng the larger sportflshlng craft. Recent research on charter boat fIsh I ngl n the G u I f of Mexl co, the other .1 mportant component of the coastal pelagIc reèreatlÒna'lff shery, suggests that charter ti shermenare ofh Ighar socIoeconomIc sta t us thanang i ersas an entire group. MIssissippi charter fishermen tend to have hfgherl ncans Than a ng Lers overa i I. Eighty percent of the charter 'f I shermen had I ncomes over $15,000 and 36 percent had I ncààes CHer $25,000. Occupatl ona lIy, charter fl shermen In MI ss I ssl ppl were much more often amp' oyed In professlonàl and rnanagerlal posItions than the general population of southeastern anglers '(Etzold, et al., 1977). A study of Texas charter fIshermen yielded similar results. There, 78 .percent of charter fishermen surveyed had Incctes over $20,000 and 34 percent had Incomes over $40,000 mitton, et al., 1977)¡ 1 i.4.2 $oc làl Benefl tsof Recreatlonal FI sh In~ Recreational fishing yields signIficant .bèneflts CNer and above thoselnasured by the value of expen diturespresented In Section 9.0. Researchers have found that participants pursue angHng oppor tunities for multiple reasons. Among the beheflts ar'e the fulflllmeTìtof ades'lrefor solitude; to be outdoors In à natural environment; to have companionship; to explore and have an adventurous experience; for the scenery; to getaway frct It all and reduce tens Ion; to experience achIevement In catching fish or obtalhlng a trophy; or for the opportunity to "think thîngs through." These, of course, are In addition to the satisfaction gained from the feeling of sportlngaccanpllshment in suc cessfullycatchlng fish (Bryan, 1976, p.85),. For example, a study of sport fIshermen In Rhode Island showed that "catch I ng the fish" ranked secbnd behind "exper lencl ng Tensl anand/or rei axatJon"among the six categorl es of va lues of recreational fl sh I ng expressed (Spaul dl ng, '1970).. There i s genera i agreement that the great maJority of persons go fishing with at least the expectation that flshwlll be caught. In efforts 'toestlmatehbW fishermen value these benefits of recreational fishing, .researchers have devised methodologies for expressing .them In iionetary terms. For example, a 1971 study..of the southeast Indicated that saltwater fishermen receIved benefits valued at $59.80 for each day of fishIng (Horvath, 1974,p.F-48). In contrast, a 1970 national study S'howedthat saltwaterang lers spent an average of only $10.77 per day CU.S. Department of Interior, 1972, p. 10l.Although the va I uatl on procedure uSed by Horvath Is not necessarll y .preclse because of Its subject Ive nature, the results of such a methodology prCHlde a benchma.rk of the value of 'the social benefits associated with recreat I ona i fish I ng. 11-4 11.5 Economlc Dependence on Commerclai or Marlne Recreatlonal Flshln~ and Related ActivitIes In many Instances persons employed In both commercial and recreational fishing activIties are not wholly dependent on fishing for their entIre Income. Often the seasonality of fishIng activity makes It necessary to find other employment. For example, In North Carolina the charter fIshing season generally begIns In April and runs through part of November, but the heavy season Includes only The summer months. Most charter boat operators there must find a i ternate sources of I ncome to support themselves during the off-season. There are also a significant number of "casual" fishermen, persons who fIsh to supplement the Income of their essentIally full-time Jobs. A survey of Florida commercial fishermen found that a number of respondents were employed In occupatIons such as chemistry, optometry, education, or broadcasting (Prochaska and Cato, 1977). Recent research on commercial fishermen In FlorIda and charter fishermen In Texas and Florida provides a pIcture of the Importanceof fish I ng as a source of Incom. . In 1974, 48 percent of FlorIda commercial fishermen surveyed fished full time. Fifty-two percent of the fishermen reported that some of theIr Incom was earned from employment outside of fishing. Approximately 30 percent of the fishermen earn over 50 percent of theIr Incgme from nonflshlng emp I oyment. On average a i i fishermen (exc I ud I ng shr I mp I ng operat Ions) earn~ about 38 percenT of their Income from outside sources (Prochaska and Cato, 1977). Spanish and king mackerel fishermen are more dependent than the average Florida commercial fishermen on fIshIng for a livelihood. A 1976 study of hook and line king mackerel fishermen revealed thaT 67.7 percent of theIr Income was earned from fishing (MorrIs, et al., 1977). SImilarly, small boat SpanIsh mackerel gIll-net fishermen earned 71.2 percent of their Income In 1976 from fishing. Large boat Spanish mackerel gill-net fl shermen dl ffered somewhat, earnl ng 91.7 percent of theIr I ncome from fishing (Cato, et al., 1978). The latter statistic Is probably typIcal of the proportion of Income earned from fIshing of large boat king mackerel fishermen. Two studIes of charter fishing, one In Texas (DItton, 1976) and one In Florida (Browder, et al., 1978) also Include Information on the operator's dependence on the commercial sport fishing business as a source of Income. Of those operators surveyed In Texas, 66 percent responded that charter fishing was not their only source of Income. On average 61.5 percent of an operator's working time was devoted to charter fishing. When asked what percent of their Income comes from charter fishing, 59 percent said that less than 50 percent of their earnings came from charter fishing (DItton, 1976). In Florida the situation differs somewhat. Preliminary results of a study of charter fishermen on Florida's west coast reveal that 60 percent of the operators surveyed had other I ncome, but less than 28 percent of the operators had a second job; I.e., retirement Income. Addl tlonally, 90.4 percent of the operators fIshed full tIme In season. In short, while fishing Is often not a full-time occupation, It Is a substantial source of Income for those who are directly employed In commercial harvesting and commercial sportflshlng. Very little Is known about the economic dependence of those employed In the processing, distributIon, and retail sale of fishery products and of those Involved In producIng and selling. recreational fishing goods and services. It Is reasonable to assume though that where fIshIng activity Is seasonal (e.g., In North Carolina), some employment Is also affected. For example, this would likely be True for employment In processing commercially harvested fIsh, and for recreatIonal fishIng, those employed In activIties such as selling baIt would also be affected. It Is unclear though to what extent these persons are dependent on king and Spanish mackerel or other coastal pelagIc fIsh In the management unit. WIth respect to the production of recreational fishing gear (e.g. tackle, boats, etc.) most gear Is not made specifically for use In one fishery. Boats and boat related Items are used for activities other than fishing, and most fishing tackle can be used to catch many kinds of fish. However, there are approximately four or five small firms that manufacture fishing tackle produced 11-5 specifically for catchIng king mackêrel. According to a southeastern distributor of fishing tackle products, these firms are more dependent ön the kl ng mackerel sport f I shefr than most other manufacturers. Sales of these products have reportedly declined In the iast two seasons, possibly because of the decline òf kln9 måckej-el fishing In the eastern Gulf of Mexlèò (G. Fotl, Mlàml, pars. cóóm.). The preèl se extent of econcmi c dépendence on the kl ng mackerèl fishery of these f I ris Is urikìiöWn presently. 1 í.6 D I strl butl on of .I ncOOèW Itb I n flsh I nqCoimun I ties Specific dàta on Incane distribution frdn this fishery are not available. On Florida's east còast In st. LucIe, Indian River, Martin and Pal'm Beach Counties, thè private I ndustry sectors that contribute thèrnst to total personal Incane äre wholesale-retâi i trade, services, cöntract constructlön and manufacturing. Palm Beach Cöunty has thè largest populatlön of these counties, 460,100 In 1975, and the highest per capita Incaae¡ $6,940 Ih In5. st. Lucie County Is the next most populous area, but it Is much sma I ler, only 66,300 persons. Its per capita Intome was the lowest of four coontlês In 1975, $4,814. Fisheries, forestry, and agriculti:e accòunt for about two percent of the përsònal Inèäie In each of the counties except Pälm B--aèh,wherè less than one percent Is derlvëd fraa those sourCes. It Is not possible tó subdivide the avallable data Into fishery derived perSönál Incdte.1 Monróe County, the southernmost county ofF I orl da, has a soiewhat i:.1 fferent ecòndtl c ~base. Pel"'sonal Incdte derived frdn government Is significant In all six countlès, but In Monroe Couhtylt Is the leading Incdie source. This Is largely because öf the federal governientlMtallatlöns In Key West, wh Ich can be quite cyclical. Retail and wholesale trade andservlèes are the hext largest sedors contributing to personal lrìcane. In 1975 Monröe CoUnty had a populatloo of 51,400 and thepêr capita 'ncane was $5,478. The cóuntyhäs virtually no agriculture or forestry, so that thepersonallnccme estimates for ¡'other Industries" represents the contributIon öfflsherles to loælpersohal Incøne. i t amounts tó about flvè përcent,or $5mll lion, of the Incaae derived frdd private Industry. Note that this döes nOt InclUde InèOO relatèd to processIng and retail sale òf flshëry products which are Included In the whólesalè and rètail trade secfor.l i n the sòuthwestërn pórt I on óf Fiori dé, Còlll er County I s I inportant to thekln9 and Span I shrrackerel canmerClal fishery. In 1975 the population there was 62,400 and fhe përêaplta Incane was relatively high, $6,647. As 'with the coontles on the east coast,servltes,wholesaleandretall trade, and constructlóhioere the prlvatè Industries contributing th'e ttst to persohal Incdne In 1975. "Other lridustrles" (Inciuding fisheries) accounted for just OVer three percent of the tòtal. Thus the fisheries (harvestIng) sector cònstltutes a slgnlflcaht element of thelöèaleconctles where k.ihg and Spanish mackerel are landed. While contributions of two or three percent of total petsohal Incdíe may not seem large at first glance, In terms of dollars of IntOne each percentage point repre sents a substantial amount of monEE earned. Unfortunately aVailable data do not show all flshery related (processing, retail sale) personal Incd'e. Such data would Illustrate more clearly the even larger contr I blit Ion that fisher I 'as rike to the I òèa i economl es. Racreat I ona i fish I ng a I 'so rrakesan Important corìtr Ibut Ion to the i Oèa låtöh()les of canmlin rtles throughout the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. There are hurrròus ~ommunltles In both reglòhs fran whkh anglers embark to catch coastal pelagic species, and the available data Is too limited to show precIsely the variations In Intane contribution that sport fishing makes. But several studIes of Data sOUrce: u.s. Departmnt of Cönmerte, Bureau of Econanl cAnal ys Is. 11';6 economic Impacts of marine recreational fIshing show that salt water angling adds substantIally to the local economies. A 1971 study of Morehead City (Carteret County), North Carolina, estimated that marine recreational fishing there by nonresidents yielded $1,046 million In direct net Income to the local area. Charter boat fishing activity which is heavily dependent on king and Spanish mackerel and bluefish yielded over $310,000 In direct net Income (Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, 1972). In a study of Texas charter fishing, It was estimated that charter fishermen spent over $4.2 million In five Texas coastal communities In 1976 for charter fees, food, lodging, travel and miscellaneous expenses (Ditton, et al., 1977). And In Dade County, Florida, charter fishermen spent an estimated $4.1 millIon (Gentle, 1977). While the last two studies dId not estimate personal Income derived from fishermen expendItures, It Is easily seen that the Income portion of these services Is quite sizeable. Furthermore, as Ditton notes, because charter fishing Is so much a tourist activity, the Income derived Is a nonlocal addition to the coastal economies. Thus recreational fishing In general and charter fishing In particular (because It Is so Important to the coastal migratory pelagic resources management unit) also are Important contributors to local economies where the activity occurs. ~ 11-7 12.0 DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM YIELD OptImum yIeld (OY) from a fIshery Is the amount of fish whIch wI II provIde the greatest overall bene fIt to the natIon wIth particular reference to food productIon and recreatIonal opportunItIes, 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. 94-265). ThIs sectIon contaIns a dIscussIon of the Important factors whIch affect the selectIon of OY and the management measures to achIeve OY In the coastal migratory pelagIc fIshery. The def i nIt Ion of the fIshery I s as fo I lows : The coastal migratory pelagIc resources (mackerels) are those specIes In of the Gulf of MexIco and In the coastal waters and fishery conservatIon off the south AtlantIc coast as specIfIed below. The fIshery year Is to July 1 and termInate June 30. the waters zone (FCZ) commence Area for management: Federal regulation pursuant to thIs plan wIll apply to~the FCZ wIthIn the juris dIction of the Gulf and South Atlantic CouncIls. However, maxImum sustaInaBle yIeld and optImum yIeld are based on the stocks In the FCZ, the terrItorial sea, and Internal waters of the varIous states. Consequently the allocatIons to varIous gear types Include catches both from the FCZ and waters land ward thereof. The states borderIng the areas of JurIsdIctIon of the Gulf of MexIco and South AtlantIc Fishery Management Councl Is are urged to adopt regulatIons whIch are compatIble wIth those applyIng In the FCZ. Regulations are not applIed In the area of jurIsdIctIon of the Mid-AtlantIc CouncIl because the catches there and the quantItIes of regulated specIes occurrIng there are so small that regulation would not be cost effective and Is not necessary to accoplIsh the objectIves of the plan. SImIlarly, catches there are not Included In OYor In catch allocatIons. Should a fIshery develop whIch sIgnIfI cantly affects the stocks and Is In the FCZ beyond the area for management, the management area may be extended by p I an amendment. Man agement un It: kl ng mackerel, Span I sh mackerel, and cobl a. Other specIes In the fl shery: do Iphln, 'Ittle tunny, cero mackerel and other specl es caught IncIden tal to the dIrected fishIng effort are mInor specIes In the fIshery. In the Gulf of MexIco, bluefIsh Is Included as a mInor specIes In the fishery. f\ management measures other than data collectIon are proposed for those specIes at present. BluefIsh In the south AtlantIc regIon are not Included because a separate B l uef I sh Management P I an for the ent I re At I ant I c coast I s be I ng prepared. The scIentifIc names of the above specIes are as follows: K i ng mackerel (Scomberomorus cava II a) SpanIsh mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) Cero mackerel (Scomberomorus re~a lIs) LIttle tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) B I uef I sh (Pomatomus sa I tatr I x) Cobl a (Rachycentron canadum) Do I ph In (Coryphaena hI ppurus) Problems In th~ Fishery 1. Current and accurate blo logIcal and economIc data needed as a basis for management decl slons are not avaIlable. 12-1 12.1 2. Intense conflicts exist between recreational i!nd commarclat users of the macker..l stocks, and between commercial users employing different gears. 3. Rapidly Increäslng fishing effort for king mackerel could soon result In overflshlng If no action Is taken. 4. Cobia are presently harvested at a size below that necessery for rnxiinumyleldand may be overf I shed I n some areas beyond the area for mànagement. Spec If 1 c Management ObJect, yes In consideration of the relevant biological, economic, social and ecological factors, the following Specific Management Objectives have been specified for the coastal mlgratory pelagic reSurce manage ment unit. King Mackere I 1. I nst I tute management measures necessary to prevent exceed I ng MSY. ¡; 2. Establish a mandatory statistical reporting system for monitoring catch. 3. Minimize gear and user group conflicts. Span I sh Mackerel CobIa 12.2 12.2.1 1. Institute management measures necessary to prevent exceeding MSY. 2. Establish a mandatory statistical reporting system for IIhltorlng catch. 3. M I n I ml ze gear and user group conf ii cts I n the event they arl se. 4. Promote the maximum use of the resource up to the OY estlmatéo 1. Institute management measures necessary to Increase yield per recruit and ave.rage sIze and to prevent overf I sh I ng. Description of Altern.atlvë Optlmum Yields Kln~ Mackerel Optimum yield (OY) was determined to be 37 mil lion pounds per year for king mackerel. Defennlnatlon of opt Imum y I el d was hampered by the lack of precise blo logl cat and catch data. The lack of def Inl tlve data has resulted In an Irrreclse estimate of MSY. The Councils realize that the estimate of MSY used to determl ne OY and user group catch allocat Ions was, to a great degree,b&sed on the best available estimate of present catch. If better landing statistics beCdavallable and IndIcate that the present landIng statistics and associated estimate of MSY are In error, then the Councils wi I t re eva I uate MSY, OY and user group a Ilocat Ions before act Ions to severe i y resTr I ct any part of the migratory pelaglcs fishery are taken. Six specific optimum yield options were considered. They cover the IIst probable range within which the true value of MSY Is found. These are listed and discussed below. 12-2 Aiternative 1. Optlmum yleld eQual to 27 mlilion pounds per year. This optimum yield Is equal to the likely lower bound estimate of MSY. It Is a very conservative approach to protecting future yield from the fishery and requires a reduction In present catch. The risk of growth or recru I tment overf I sh I ng I s reduced to a ml n I mum. Converse I y, the ch ance of OY be I ng less than the real value of MSY Is considerable. If this OY were adopted and the present catch reduced, there Is a high probability of a small Increase In standing stock, availability, average size and catch per unit effort. Reducing the present catch would require very restrictive management measures. These would probably Include. size limits, Qu:tas and/or effort restrictions for the commarclal fishery, bag limits for the recreational fishery, and possibly time and area closures on a routine basis. ThIs value for OY was rejected as too conservative. The possibility that this would result In less than optimal use of the resurce, negative Impacts of regulation on the users, and high cost of restrictive management were considered nore adverse than the slight risk that a higher OY Is above the true leve I of MSY. ~ Having to restrict the fishery to this OY alternative would result In lesser supply to consumers and a corresponding higher consumer price, reduced employment and ecnomic returns to the commercial fishery. The recreational for hire fishery and businesses selling goods and services to recreational fishermen would reduce recreational opportunities to the recreational fishermen. In recent years unemployment rates have been high In several activity centers of the fishery (see Section 11.3). Alternative 2. Optlmum yleld eQual to 30 mlilion pounds per year. ThIs option lies between the likely lower bound estimate for MSY and the nost likely point estimate. It Is a moderately conservative approach to establishing OY. The risk of overflshlng the stock Is stili minimal, while the chance of having set OY below the true value of MSY Is less than In Alternative 1. This option Is approximately equal to the estimated catch In 1975, the last year for which data was available. Because effort In the fishery has continued to Increase, this OY would probably requIre some reduction In the present C8tch. Harvesting at this OY would cause little or no change In abundance, average size, or catch per unit effort. If the actual present catch Is much above the 1975 estimate, some Increase In these para meters might occur as the actual catch Is reduced. Limiting the present catch to the 1975 level will require restrictive management, although It would be less severe than that requIred under OY Alternative 1. These management measures would probably Include minimum size limits, commercial Qu:tas, and recreational bag limits. This measure was not accepted because there was not adequate Justification for restricting the fishery to an OY less than the best point estimate of MSY, and adverse economic and social .effects would occur to users and consumers. A I ternat I ve 3. Optlmum yleld eQual to 37 mlilion pounds per year. This optimum yield Is equal to the best estimate of MSY. The risk of overflshlng Is evenly balanced agal nst the chance of fa II I ng to maxi mlze ut III zat Ion of the resource. Adoption of th I sOY penn Its some Increase In the present catch and may result In slight declines In abundance, average size, and catch per unIt effort. The magnitude of changes .In these parameters depends on how large the present catch Is. If the total catch has Increased since 1975 and Is now approaching MSY, as Is probable, 12-3 then lIttle change wIll occur. Management measures requIred to obtalnthh OY are much less restrk tlve than the two lower OYs. The prImary measure needed to maxImIze the bIologlt:al yIeld Is a total catch lImIt. ThIs optIon was selected as optimal yIeld. It was consIdered to be equal to the best estImate ofMSY and offered the most fa~rable trade-off between the rIsks Involved In eIther overflshlng or under fIsh Ing the stock. Management restrIct Ions assocI ated with the negat Ive Impacts needed to obta In th Is OY are minImal and are greatly outweighed by the posItIve Impacts. ThIs OY allows for the optImIza tIon of economic and socIal benefIts to current and future users of the resurce, IncludIng comercIal fishermen, recreatIonal for hIre fl shermen, prIvate recreatIonal fIshermen. consumers, processors, bus I nessmen se III ng goods and serv Ices to recreat lona I fishermen and other af feet ee users. AlternatIve 4~ Optlmum yleld equal to 45 mlil lon pounds per year. ThIs optImal yIeld Is larger than the best poInt estImate for MSY but st1l1 wIthIn the Hkely range of the true value. The rIsk of overflshlng h consIderably greater than the lower OY optIon, while the possIbIlIty of underuH Ilzlng the stock Is mInImized. ThIs optIon should be consIdered a hIgh rIsk, hIgh benef I t approach to OY. ~ If thlsOY were adopted, abundance, avaIlabIlity, average sIze, and catch per unIt effort would decline even If the OYestlmate were equal to or less than MSY. The management measures requIred to achIeve thIs OY are mInImal. li restrIctive measures would be necessary In the fIrst years of the plan. ThIs option was reJected. Theposslble was equal to or greater than 45 mIll Ion the stock, and the expected dec II nes In true va i ue of MSY. benef I ts of an Increased total catch I f the true val ue of MSY pounds were not cons I dered to be worth the r i sk of overf I sh I ng catch per unIt effort whIch would be expected whatever the AchIevement of thl~ optImal yIeld would likely requIre specIfic measures to encourage from the fIshery. ThIs OY would have the rIsk of adverse 9:clal and econoic Jmpacts I f the stock were overflshed and avaIlabIlIty were reduced for future needs. Increased yl el ds I n the future, AlternaNve 5. Optl mum y lel d equa I to 53 mn Ilon pounds per year. ThIs optImum yIeld Is equal to the upper bound of the most likely range In whIch the true value ofMSY lies. Of all the optIons considered, It has the hIghest risk of overflshlng the stock and offers the greatest potentIal If the true value of MSY Isas large as OY. The effect of harvestIng at th.ls OYls sImIlar to the 45 mIll Ion pound opt Ion, but has a more extreme effect on the blo logIcal parcleters of the stock. Th I s measure was rejected for the same reasons gl ven for reject Ing the 45 mIllIon poundopt Ion. . A i ternat I ve 6. Optlmum yleld equal to a ran~e from 30 to 37 mlillon pounds per year. The concept of OY as a range of values was dIscussed. (twas rejected because It was felt that It was better to have a poInt estImate of OY. SuffIcIent data to JustIfy a varIable OYwerenot avallable nor was any system avaIlable whIch could be used to calculate an annualOYwlthln the g:lven range. 1 2. 2. 2 Span Ish Mackere I OptImum yIeld was determ'lned to be 27 mIllIon pounds for SpanIsh mackerel. Four specIfIc optimum yIeld options were considered coverIng the probable range of the true value of MSY. 12-4 A Iternat I ve 1. Optlmum yleld equal to 13 mlillon pounds per year. ThIs Is a very conservatIve approach to protectIng the stock. It would requIre severe curtaIlment of the fIshery wIth severe adverse economIc and socIal Impacts on users. AlternatIve 2. Optlmum yleld equal to 20 mlillon pounds per year. ThIs Is a moderately conservatIve approach to protectIng the sieck. The OY Is equal to the estImated 1975 catch. GIven expandIng effort It would requIre restrIctIons on allowable catch In the fIshery by the tIme of plan ImplementatIon. ThIs OY was not accepted because there was not adequate justIfi catIon for restrIctIng the fIshery to an OY less than the best poInt estImate of MSY gIven the adverse economIc and socIal Impacts on users of curtaIlIng the fIshery. A I ternat I ve 3. Opt I mum y lei d equa I to 27 mlil lon pounds per year. ThIs optimum yIeld Is equal to the best avaIlable estImate of MSY. The rIsk of overflshlng Is evenly balanced agaInst the chance of faIlIng to maxImIze utIlizatIon of theresutce. ThlsOY permIts some Increase In the present catch. Management restrIctIons to attaIn It are mlhlmal, and It allows optI mIzation of economIc and socIal benefIts to all users. A i ternat I ve 4. Optlmum yleld equal to 49 mlilion pounds per year. ThIs optImum yIeld In the upper lIkely bound on the range of the true value of MSY. It has the hIghest rIsk of overflshlng the stock. It was rejected because the possIble benefIts of Increased catch were not worth the risk of adverse socIal and economIc Impacts In the future If the stock became depleted. 12.2.3 Cobl a Opt Imum yl el d for cobl a was greater than 33 Inches fork This amount Is estimated as measures are Implemented. determined to be the avaIlable amount of cobIa at a sIze equal to or length, as measured from the tIp of the head to the center of the ta Ii. 1,000,000 In 1981 and I s expected to I ncrease I f the proposed management Two alternatIves for optImum yIeld were consIdered: A Iternat I ve 1. Optlmum yleld equal to the best estlmate of MSY, 1,057,000 pounds. This alternative was rejected. The estImate of MSY Is extremely crude, due to Incomplete and Inac curate estImates of catch and lack of any estImates of fIshIng effort or recruItment. Harvest at any numerIcal estImate based on such poor data may sIgnIfIcantly overflsh or underflsh the stockCs). NeIther possIbIlIty Is In the best Interest of the natIon. Enforcement and data collectIon costs requIred to lImit the harvest to a fIxed amount would be prohIbItIve. AlternatIve 2. Opt I mum y leI d equa I to the amount of cobl a of a sIze equa I to or ~reater than 33 Inches fork len~th, whlch Is harvested by U.S. flshermen ~Iven prevallln~ economlc condItIons and flshln~ technIques. ThIs optimum yIeld wIll greatly reduce the possIbIlIty of recruItment overflshlng, stabIlIze catch at or near MSY, and Increase present yIeld, average sIze, and avaIlabIlity of large, trophy-sIze fIsh. The proposed lImIt protects the cobIa untIl the age at fIrst maturity. ThIs greatly reduces the possIbIlIty of recruItment overflshlng. Under the estimated levels of fIshIng mDrtallty In the early 1~5 19605 (thå latest åvalláblå data) this measure wouid increase yield between 23 percent and 58 perceiit. If the cobia stock In the Atláhtlc Is preSehtly åVerf Ishèdj this QY will restore the stock and prevent óverfishlhg In the future. See Section 5.4.3.\ for å more detaIled analysis of yield per recrult~ Estlnnatéd Llrilts of M &. F whereZ == .41 Y/R(g) for pr êsent size át Recr u I tment Y/R(g) for 33" slžå àt Recr.u ttinent Y/R(g) for Opt iinum Sh:ë at REiq- uJtrrerrt . M F .12 .29 ó 22 .19 5,314 3,064 8,416 3,761 9,503 3,761 As fishing rirtallty Increases, the gålnlh 'ý'lêldfràm rñcreaslng the iilh'N"Iúrr 'size also In'iî"eàses'O Because flshlrrgetfort and motållty have undoubtedly liicreased sliiçe fheêarlyl96ÔS"theexpected Increase in yleldfrââ this irêåsire Is greater than estimated above. Reducing themort.,Hty 'of smaller fish will Increase theàVerage slzeaiid number of largérflsh 'ava,nàbj'í:. rhlsb'eheflts'the recreational user who prefersà tràphy fish. It Is expected that there will baa small nnrtalltyof unders IzedflshwhH:h are caught and released" Itï~as felf that this mortalltywòuldbefaroufwelghed by the 'g'alh rnylè'l which would result from th J sOY. This sIze limit wås adopted rather than sólieöther size because Itprövl'Öes aläi"gegaln In yIeld and protects the sped es fran r ecruTtmènt överflsh I ng,whll e red uc rhganypossl bl el bSs'frbr möi"talltyof released fish to a mInimum. According to the best available data, a 33-lndi limIt wöuld provIde 'be tween 89per'cent and 100 percent of the theoretlè:almaxlmum Y/R at given values of f Ishlngiirtaiity (see Section 5.1.4). WhIle a larger limIt would theoretically resultlh 'f.irthèi Increases In y'l,eld, mortalIty of released fish wòuld Ihcrease. The small additional gain frán'a largerslze Ilmltwasno't cons lder èd'worth the r Iskof sIgn iflcant Iylàrgér mOta II tyof cindêr'sÜéd fish or the .added lmpos l't Ion on the f I sherrien. 12.2.4 Other Species In the Fishery opt Imumy I eld wås not spec i fl èd fbrthé other species becàuséofTaëkbfdatato est I mate 'MSY..When sufficient dàti:becãre available to est hilate MS'fànd/orOY fór other 'specIes I nthef Ishery, and 'the need 'arl sesfor riånágeh1ntmè'ásires, the Cöuncil ""ILL 'déve I dp such estlintes.'At .th'atflrr,these 'species wi II 'be added to fhe management un It by plan amendinnt. 12.3 Ana I ys J'sof BeneficIa! and Adverse I mpacts of Potênt la IMan~~é"'ent,QptIØns 12.3.1 K lii~ Mackerel 12.3.1.1 Pr opdsédMeasur es A. The5ecretary of Côôirrcemåy ImplementíTasures designed 'to prOVide Iliritaflons,'where ap.propr fate, òn any gåär ordev Ice used I n theklngmackerelf I'sheryfo r'educegeararid user ..g- oup conf II cts. The 'Secretary,afterconsu Itatlon with theaffecfed Councils, nìy'takethe following actlonbyregu la.tory åïïendínntbased on the fo Ilowlng criteria: 12-6 ( 1) When a conf Ilct arIses through expansIon of a hIstorIcal fishery In a traditional fIshIng area or region, the Secretary shall InvestIgate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economIc and soclologlc.al Impacts of any vIable lImItations on the expanded fIshery or other users, other solutions to the conflIct and other relevant factors. The Secretary, after con sultation wIth the affected CouncIls and states, may resolve the conflict as faIrly as possIble by takIng one or more of the followIng actIons: ( a) Separate the users or gear by area (fIshIng zone). ( b) Separate the users or gear by t I me (day of week). (c) AssIgn local quotas to each gear or user group based on the historical catches of each for that loca I area. (d) Allow un limited usage of the gear or devIce. ( 2) When the conf Ilct arIses through the Introduction of gear or .devlces Into new regIons where they have not been hIstorIcally fIshed, the Secretary shall Invest~gate the harvestIng capa city and effIciency of the new gear or devIce In the local area, the economIc and 9Oclo logi cal Impacts on users of hIstorical gear, the hIstorIcal level of stock abundance In the area and the other rei evant factors. The Secretary may, after consu Itat Ion wI th the af fected Councl i s and states, take one or more of the fo Ilowl ng act Ions: ( a) Prohibit use of the gear or devIce In that geographIcal area. ( b) Allow only lImited use of the gear or devIce to more fully evaluate Its Impacts and potent I a Is. (c) LimIt the number of unIts of the gear or devIce whIch can be utIlIzed In that area. ( d) A Ilow un II ml ted usage of the gear or devl ceo (3) When a conflIct arIses as a result of cIrcumstances In the fishery, other than as descrIbed In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures desIgned to obvIate such conflIcts by measures provIded for In (1) and (2) above, or take such other actIon as may be approprIate and necessary to reslve such conflIcts In a manner consIstent wIth the goals and objectIves of the plan, the NatIonal Standards, the MFCMA and other applicable law. Background: Gear and user group conflicts occur withIn many fIsheries In the southeast. These conflicts are the result of competItIon for the resurce. They may take the form of competItion for a i Imlted available yIeld or competition for fishing space. In some cases the area where fIsh are avaIlable may be quite small and/or the operation of one gear may be IncopatIble wIth other gears In the same area. These conflIcts can become very serIous, resultIng In property damage, vIolence, even death. ConflIcts between shrImp fIshermen In Texas recently lead to the death of one fIsherman. In Florida, conflicts between shrimp and stone crab fishermen caused tens of thousands of dollars In property loss to stone crab fl sherrnen and resulted In gun battles wIth automatic weapons. These conf Ilcts usua Ily occur when a new or technIcally Improved gear Is Introduced or a traditIonal gear Is expanded Into new areas. COnflIcts often arIse suddenly wIth lIttle advance warning. Gear and user group conf II cts may endanger proper tlonal atmosphere whIch develops. In some cases, regulation. However, In an emotionally pohirlzed blo logical management because of the hIghly emo there may be legitimate blo loglca I grounds for gear fishery, where all groups are makl ng poorly docu 12-7 mented claIms and counter claIms, It Is often ImpossIble to determIne whether or not a bIologIcal problem exIsts. DecisIons made In such an atmosphere may eIther Inadequately protect the stock or, converse I y, òverregu I ate the fishermen. I n the mackerel fIshery there I sa iong h I story of conf 11 ct between users of net gear and of hook and lIne gear. Because of the sea9:nal nature of the fishery, dIrec conflicts are usually of srort dura tion, one to eIght weeks per year, and may reoccur In the same area each year. (See SectIon 8..2.6.) Because of the mobIlIty of the gIll-net fleet and the mIgratory habIts of ~he fIsh, these conflIcts may arIse suddenly, wIth lIttle warnIng. The present conflIct In the Fort PIerce area Is an example (see kIng mackerel Measure B). As effort by all groups Increases and comercIal gear tecnology contInues to Improve, expandIng the fishable area avaIlable to net gears, the potentIal for conflIcts Increases. It Is expected that such conflIcts wIll further Intensify In the future and spread to areas where no dIrect conflIct exIsts today. RatIonale: Measure A Is desIgned to enable the CouncIl to address gear and user group conflIcts as quI ck I y as poss Ib i e through the use of the regu I atory amndment process. 1 t support s Management ObjectIve 3, and to a lessor degree, ObjectIve 1. It follows the framework plan concept whIch Is Intended to greatly Increase the f!exlbl Ilty of managèment under the MFCMA. J.t delegates authorl ty from the CouncIl to the Secretary of Commerce to address such conflicts. The delegatIon of authorIty Is lImIted by certaIn flxed guIdelInes. In practIce, the RegIonal DIrector of the Southeast RegIon of the NatIonal MarIne FIsherIes ServIce acts as desIgnee for the Secretary In ImplementIng thIs measure. Any conflict which arIses wIll còe to the attentIon of the CouncIl before the Secretary or the RegIonal Director Is aware of It. The problem and potentIal 9: lutlonwl ii be conveyed to the RegIonal DIrector by the CouncIl. It Is Intended that any actIon taken by the RegIonal DIrector wI 1100 based on consultatIon wIth and recommendatIon by the CouncIls. Should the actIon (or nonactlo.n) of the RegIonal Director be unacceptable to the CouncIl, the plan amendment process can be started. If actIon Is needed, the RegIonal DIrector, after consultatIon wIth the Councils., will Issue proposed regulatIons. If sIgnIfIcant, an EnvIronmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Analysis wIll be pre pared. PublIc hearings wI II be held to allow full publIc revIew before Hnal regulatIons are Issued. The entIre process requIres a minImum of 90 days but Is. expected to requIre more tIme under normal cIrcumstances. Because mackerel fIsherIes are hIghly seasonal, It Is lIkely that a regulatory amend ment could not be Implemented untIl the fIshIng season one year after a conflIct develops. In 9:me cases, where conflIcts are particularly Intense, regulations wIll be needed very quIckly. At such tImes the CouncIls expect that emergency ImplementatIon of a regulatory amendment wIll be necessary. ThIs wI II reduce the requIred ImplemntatIon tIme to less than 30 days. ThIs measure can be used to address almost any gear or user conflict whIch may arIse. II has two major benefits. First, It can quIckly prevent vIolence and property damage. Seond, It can allow tIme for a scIentific study to obtaIn relIable InformatIon on whIch to base long-term management measures. As an example of the type of problem whIch may arIse and a solution desIgned to obtaIn t.he fIrst type of benefIt, see kIng mackerel Measure B. As an .example of the second, see the measur.es proposed for purse seine use. Spec1flcpos1tlve benefIts wI II result, but cannot be quantifIed untIl a specIfic conf I Ict Is addressed. SpecIfIc po.sltlve and/or negatIve Impacts of thIs measure wIll vary greatly with the cIrcumstances surroundIng any particular conflIct. Impacts of future conflicts cannot be analyzed In advance because It Is Impossible to predIct the cIr cumstances before the fact. The regulatory amendment process requIres such analysIs at 'the tIme a specIfIc conflict Is addressed. Public revIew of the proposed regulatIon Is also required. Numerous alternatives to thIs measure were consIdered by the CouncIls.. These alternatIves fell I.nto three categorIes, no actIon, plan amendment, and field order. None of these alternatIves offered an accept.'Jble combInatIon of speed and f lexlbl Ilty. 12-8 If neither the Councl Is nor the RegIonal Direcor takes actIon on gear conflIcts, It Is expected that these conflIcts wIll grow IncreasIngly more severe and more costly. The potentIal for vIolence and physical Injury wIll steadIly Increase. The IncreasIngly emtional nature of thIs fIshery wIll make It more and more dIfficult to make correct management decIsIons. ThIs would not be conducIve to the economIc, bIologIcal, or socIal wellbeIng of the fIshery and would Interfere wIth achIevIng optImum yIeld. The Councl Is do not consider thIs optIon to be consIstent wIth Its responsIbility under the Act. Gear conflIcts could, In theory, be dealt wIth through plan amendments. However, the process of revIew and approval of FMPs and plan amendments Is very long. A conflIct arIsIng In one year could not be dealt wIth untIl the followIng season, at the earlIest. Past experIence IndIcates then that an amendment would not be Implemented untIl the begInning of the thIrd fIshIng season. Two seasons of conflict would pass before actIon could be taken. A further consIderatIon arIses from the fact that such conflIcts often change rapIdly In character and extent. PotentIal solutIons that can only be Implemented two years after the fact may never catch up wIth changIng condItIons In the fishery. The Councl I does not consIder the plan amendment process to be a vIable or tImely process to use In addressIng most gear and user group conf Ilcts. . The CouncIls consIdered ways to use a fIeld order to address future conflIcts. A fIeld order Is, In effect, a specIfIc regulatIon whIch has already been approved but whIch Is not enforced untIl certaIn specIfIed condItIons occur. The advantage of a fIeld order Is very fast response tIme, a fIeld order can be Implemented In fIve days or less. However, a fIeld order must be very specIfic In Its actIon. ThIs Is a serIous dIsadvantage where future action cannot be predIcted accurately, as In thIs case. A measure was developed whIch Incorporated the provIsIons of the preferred alternatIve Into a fIeld order and set up guIdelInes for ImplementatIon whIch were very sImIlar to those In kIng mackerel Measure B. ThIs alternatIve was rejected because Its lack of specifIc actIons was legally questIonable. AddItIonally the regulatory analysIs requIred at the tIme a specifIc fIeld order was proposed would greatly decrease the speed of Implementation, remvIng most If not all of the advan tages of the fIeld order approach. The followIng management measure addresses a specifIc gear and user group conflIct whIch has already developed In the FCZ off the coast of FlorIda between 27° 50' north latItude and 27° 0.6' north i at I tude. B. When the RegIonal DIrector, Southeast RegIon, NMFS, determInes, based on relIable InformatIon, that a conflict, as descrIbed In FMP SectIon 8.2.6, exIsts or Is about to exIst, he wIll take one of the followIng actIons by field order. The tIme perIod durIng whIch such restrIctIons shall be enforced wIll be determIned by length of tIme a dIrect conflIct exIsts or Is expected to exIst. ( 1) EstablIsh a fishIng wIndow wIthIn the followIng poInts: ( a) Bethel Shoal lIght (27° 44.3'N, 80° 10.4'W). ( b) A wreck 15 miles 9:utheast of Fort PIerce Inlet (27° 23.5'N, 80° 3.7'W). ( c) Marker WR 16, fIve mIles northeast of JupIter Inlet (27° 0.6'N, 80° 2.0'W). ( d) 100 fm depth due east of poInt c (27° 0.6'N, 79° 55.0'W). (e) 100 fm depth due east of poInt b (27° 23.5'N, 79° 54.0'W). ( f) 100 fm depth due east of poInt a (27° 44.3'N, 79° 53.5'W). 12-9 Thé Re.glonal Director may proh Iblt use of gIll-net gear to take kIng mackerel with In the area a-b-e-f, b-c-d-e or a-c-d-f. If additional action Is needed, prohibit use of hook and Iinsgear to take king mackerel within a window landward of a line between the points a-b, b-c or a-c. t2) Estab II sh waters of two areas two fishing zones seaward (east) of state JurisdIction. the FCZ between 27° 10' north latitude and 27° 50' north along the lIne of 27° 30' north latitude. These zones shal lbe the latitude dIvIded Into (a) I n the first year In wh Ich a oonf II ct arl ses, the use of gill nets for takl n9 of klog mackerel shall be proh Ibl ted I n the area south of 27° 30' north lat Itude and use of hook and line gear for taking of king mackerel shall be p1'ohlbltadln the area north of 27° 30' north latitude. In any succeeding year when a conflict develops, the area In which each gear Is prohibited may be changed. ( b) When a conflict arises. use of each gear within the zone between 27° 10'N and 27° 50'N may be alternated da Ii y. ( I) On even days o.f the flnth, use of gill-net gear to take kfií mackerel may be proh Iblted. (II) On odd days of the flnth, use of hook and line gear to take kIng mackerel may be proh Iblted. (c) C lose the fishery for king mackerel to a II users wi th I n the zone between 27° 10'N and 27° 50'N. This measure shall only be Imposed If the conflict results In: (I ) Oeath or serious bodily Injury. (II) 5 I gn I f I cant gear loss. Procedures for evaluating the existence of a conflict: ( 1) The following procedures must be employed by the Regional Director In his decision process regarding the exIstence of a conflict for which a fIeld order Is appropriate and prior to the Implementation of such a field order. ( a) At such time as the Regional Director Is advised by any party that a conflict exIsts. he must confirm the existence of such a oonfllct through Information supplfedhlm by NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard or other appropriate law enforcent agencies. ( b) I n the event that such I nformat Ion I s not ascert al nab Ie from those law enforcent per sonnel as provided I n (a) above, such oonf I rmatlon may be made through I nformat Ion supplied by personnel of the state agency with marine fishery management responsIbility. (c) Confer with the Chairmen of the affected Councils, w.lth the marine fishery management responsibility. Regional Director deems approprl ate. If any. the offl ce of the state agency (s) and such other persons as the (2) Restrl ct Ions on f I el d orders (a) No field order may be Implemented which results In the exclusive access of any user group or gear type to the fishery dur I ng the time the f lei d order I sin ex Is tenca. 12-10 (b) A field order may be rescinded by the Regional Director If he finds through application of the same procedures set forth In (1) above that the conf II ct no longer exl sts. (c) No field order may be Implemented for a time period greater than five (5) days except under the conditions set forth In Section (e) above. ( d) At such time as the Regional Direcor submits to the Federal Register a field order for Implementation under these provisions, he shal I Immediately arrange for a fact-finding meeting In the area of the conflict to be convened no later than 72 hours from the time of Implementation of the field order. The following shall be advised of such fact finding meeting: ( 1) The Chairmen of the affected Councils; (2) The office of the state agency with fishery management responsibility; (3) Loca i med I a; ;; (4) Such user group representat I ves or organ i zat Ions as may be appropr I ate and pract Icab Ie; . (5) Others as deemed appropriate by the Regional Director or as requested by Chairmen of the affected Councl is or the state agency. This fact-finding meeting shall be for the purpose of evaluating the fo Ilowlng: ( 1) The existence of a conflict needing reslution by the field order; (2) The appropriate term of the field order, I.e., either greater or less than five (5) days; (3) Other possible solutions to the conflict other than federal Intervention; (4) Other rei evant matters. (e) In the event It Is determined as a result of the fact-finding meeting that the tenm of the field order should exceed five (5) days, the Regional Director may, after con sultation with the Chairmen of the affected Councils and the Invo Ived state agency, extend such field order for a period not to exceed 30 days from the date of InItial Implementation. In the event the RegIonal Direcor determines that It Is necessary or appropriate for the term of such field order to extend beyond 30 days, such extension may be made after consultation with the Chairmen of the af fected Councils and for such period of time as necessary and approprl ate to res Ive the conf Ilct. Rationale: ThIs measure addresses an existing conflict (see Section 8.2.6) by separating groups of fishermen who use different gears. ThIs will reduce the severe social and economic conflicts which have occurred In th Is fishery I n recent years. The measure offers considerable flexIbility In response to this gear conflict. If, after the 'plan Is Implemented, little or no active conflict exIsts, no action need be taken. If an active conflict again develops, several options are available. The nDst approprlööte can be Implemented by field order within a very short time period. The procedures for evaluating the existence of a conflIct (see king mackerel Measure A) ensure that no unnecessary action will be taken. RapId public review, through 12-1 I u' t.~ (\ ~ Y' t' Ft. Pierce Florida ~ 10 Fa horns \ 100 F thorns 27 50'.N f ". 27 30' N e 27 10' N d Exhibit 12-1 Area divisions possible uLL~r king mackerel ~easure B. 12-12 the requIred fact-f¡ ,dIng meetIng, wI II ensure that the most approprIate actIon had been taken. ThIs Is particularly Important If the fIshery Is totally closed. In that case the fact-fIndIng meetIng can then be used as the basIs to choose a less restrIctIve solutIon to the conflict. OptIon (I) would establIsh an Inshore, offshore dIvIsIon of the users. Several alternatIves for closed areas are provIded to ensure that a vIable solutIon Is avaIlable whIch affects the least possIble area. The dIvIsIon corresponds to a natural and tradItIonal separatIon of fIshIng grounds. Hook and lIne fishermen normally fIsh over rocky reef areas, most of whIch are enclosed wIthIn poInts a-c-d-f. Net fishermen more often fIsh over smooth bottom, most of whIch Is located Insl're of a lIne between poInts a-b-c. Nets can only be used over rocky areas when wInd and currents are unusually calm. OptIons (2) (a) and (2) (b) would establish a north/south dIvIsIon of fIshIng grounds. WIthIn a des I gnated zone, fIsh schoo I I ng at any depth or over any type of bottom wou I d be ava I I ab Ie to the desIgnated gear. ThIs measure Is equally restrIctIve to both user groups. Neither group Is per manently restrIcted from any area. The average avaIlabIlIty and catch of each user group Is not expected to be affected, although short-term fluctuatIons may be IntensIfIed. KIng mackerel are pres ent In both areas every year, but the area of greatest concentratIon and ~est catch per un It ef fort may shIft from year to year. ShIftIng avaIlabIlIty may be advantageous or dIsadvantageous to eIther group In the short term, but each group shares an equal rIsk. OptIon (2) (c) provIdes for total closure of the fishery In cases of extreme conf I Ict. ThIs measure can be used as a coolIng-off perIod. RapId publIc revIew through the requIred fact-findIng meetIng can result In a less restrIctIve fIeld order wIthIn a very short perIod of tIme. The area affected Is a major fIshIng zone. It lIes off the coast of two countIes, St. LucIe and IndIan RIver. For the perIod 1972-1977, an average of 17 percent of the total annual U.S. commercIal harvest was landed In those countIes durIng the affected time perIod. ApproxImately 200 of the estImated countIes and fIsh prImarIly In the other areas a I so fIsh I n the area. mated at 320 or more. 300 hook and lIne vessels In the fIshery are based In these two affected area. A sIgnIfIcant, but unknown number of vessels from The number of commercIal hook and lIne fIshermen affected Is estl The number of large power roller gl II-net vessels based In the area Is unknown. Because of the hIgh mobli Ity of the gl II-net fleet, all of the vessels In FlorIda could be expected to fish thIs area at some tIme. In most years, approxImately 30 vessels or less are present. The number of fIshermen affected Is estImated at 120. The number of prIvate recreatIonal or charterboat fIshermen who mIght be affected by thIs measure Is unknown. EffIcIency of both gears wI Ii be Increased by separatIon. At present the settIng of gl II nets Is sometImes delayed or prevented by the presence of hook and line fishermen over schools of kIng mackerel. Oonversely, many fIshermen allege that the settIng of gl II nets on a school of fIsh whIch have congregated over a gIven spot dIsperses that school and makes the fIsh less avaIlable to hook and I I ne fIshermen. ThIs measure If Implemented, wI II probably result In Increased fuel and maIntenance costs In some years; thIs Is expected to be mInor. PartIcIpants In the present fIshery follow the largest con centratIons of fIsh up and down the coast. ThIs often Invo Ives dIstances In excess of twenty mIles, the length of the proposed area of restrIctIon. Because the present pattern of travel to the fIshIng grounds varIes greatly from year to year, It Is not possIble to calculate the amount of Increased costs, If any, from the proposed regulatIons. 12-13 Th1s measure replaces one very sImIlar to OptIon (2) (a). It offers several addItIonal advantages through Increased flexIbIlity of actIon. li restrIctIons wIll be Imp1emented unless they are necessary. AddItIonal options allow flexIbIlIty to choose the best possIble solutIon In a rapIdly changIng sItuatIon. The CouncIls have determIned that the decrease In socIal and economIc conflict and Increases In effIcIency of both gears are of greater value to the natIon than the small Increases In costs and year-to-year fluctuations In catch by each gear. c. A total at lowab Ie catch shall be eshb II shed at 37 mill Ion pounds per year. ( 1) Annual stock allocations shall be made as follows: 28 mil lion pounds for the recreatIonal fishery and nIne mIllion pounds for the commercIal fIshery. (2) The commerc1al allocatIon shall be d1v1ded between hook and lIne gears and net gears as fo I lows: I-ok and i I ne: Nets 3,877,200 pounds 5,122,800 pounds ~.... (3) I f the catch of any user group exceeds Its allocat Ion, the Secretary shall c lose the fIshery to that group for the remaInder of the fIshIng year. (4) CommercIal and recreatIonal fIshermen defIned as follows: A commercIal fIsherman Is a person who sells hIs catch. A recreatIonal fIsherman Is a person who does not sell hIs catch. RatIonale: These measures support Management Object Ives 1 and 3. MSY Is Intended to prevent overexploltatlon caused by IncreasIng cause a long-term dec ii nel n yhl d from the fIshery. SettIng a total catch limit equal to effort. Such overexploltatlon would DIvidIng the total catch Into allocatIons between the three major user groups wIll prevent one or more groups fromtakl ng such a large fract Ion of the total allowable catch that other users areunab leTo engage In theIr tradItional fIshIng actIvIty. Fish produced by each group has a dIfferent price structure, dIstrIbution system and eventual consumer. AllocatIon by user groups prevents the dlsrup tlonofthe present, orderly systems and helps assure the supply of Hsh to the tradItIonal consumers. The amounts allocated to hook and i I negears and net gears, was based on theIr average percent contrI bution to the total commercIal landIngs during the perIod 1971 through 1975. PlacIng a limIt on total catch may potentIally result In closure of the fIshery before the normal end of the fIshIng year. ThIs may cause short-term ecnomIc Impact on the fIshermen and those who provIde support facilities and suppl les.ln the case of the commercIal for hIre Industry, busInesses servIng tourists who cone to an area to fIsh wIll be affected. It wIll ëilsoresult In dIsruption of the prIce structure, d I'str I but Ion system and consumpt Ion of the product by consumers. The severity of these Impacts would depend on when, where and on whIch .gro.upsa closure was Impo.sed. Because of the present structure of the fIshery and Its tImIng In relation to the fl-shlng year, It Is unlIkely fhatsuch closures would last very long or have a large Impact In relatIon to the total value of the fIshery. However, the fleet using net gears may be sIgnIfIcantly Impacted In some years. Hypothetical catches In excess of the allocatIon should be regarded as opportunity costs, I.e., fore gone revenue In an alternatIve enterprIse whIch cannot be engaged In, In thtscase. The oplXrtunlty 12-14 cost concept can b applIed to the gIll-net segment In whIch the proposed allotment was exceeded In 1974 and possIbly in 1977. The estImate for the dIfference In catch In 1974 (1.63 mil lion pounds) would be $1.24 mIllIon usIng the $0.76/pound kIng mackerel prIce for 1980. It Is possIble that a closure could be applIed to one or more groups In a year when the total catch dId not reach 37 mIllion pounds. ThIs measure could, therefore, prevent attaInIng OY In some years. It Is probable that OY wIll be exceeded In 9:me years wIthout a limItatIon on the total catch. Effort by a I I user groups 1 s I ncreas I ng. The capac I ty of the fleet I s now we i I above OY and the expected annual catch Is very close to MSY and OY. The economIc Impacts of closIng the fIshery for a short perIod near the end of some years are small In relatIon to the total economIc val ue of the fishery and the potential for depletIon of the resurce through exceedIng OY. ThIs simple allocatIon system balances the benefits of allocation agaInst the rIsk that the system wIll cause the fIshery to be unnecessarIly restrIcted. A great deal of effort was expended In attempts to desIgn a complex system whIch would have dIvIded the catch be area, time, and user group In order to guarantee that no user group would be unfaIrly restrIcted or denIed access to the resource. ThIs proved exceedIngly dIffIcult; IncreasIng the complexity 0l.the systEI merely Increased the risk of unnecessary restrIctions, and made the systEI admInIstratIvely unwIeldy. Management Measure C(3) replaces a measure whIch would have allowed fIshIng slightly In excess of the allocatIons If the negatIve economIc Impacts of a closure were greater than the bIologIcal benefIts. The old measure was consIdered unworkable. The new measure gIves more protectIon to the stock. Measure 'C(4) provIdes defInItIons of commercIal and recreatIonal fIshermen whIch are necessary to Implement the allocatIons In Measures C(1) and C(2). ThIs measure Is Intended to establIsh a basIs for the allocatIon between user groups using the avaI lab Ie commercl al landIng statistIcs. These sta tIstIcs Inherently contaIn the assumptIon that when a fIsherman sells h1s catch, he Is a commercIal fisherman. In order to use the available statIstIcs for allocatIon purposes, thIs assumptIon must be maintaIned. One potential negatIve Impact of the accepted defInitIons along wIth Measure C(O Is that recreatIonal fishermen who do not depend on the fIshery for a livIng can contrIbute to the al locatIon of the com merc1al fIshery. Once the quota was fIlled, the recreatIonal fIshermen could continue to fIsh recreatlonally, but the commercIal fIshermen dependIng on the fIshery for a source of livIng would have to become unemployed. Another potentIal problem Is the fact that the usual means of obtaInIng "recreatIonal" landIng statIstIcs n.e., some form of askIng the fishermen what hIs or her catch was) may double count fIsh whIch are subsequently sold. No adverse Impacts are expected If the allocatIon Is not exceeded or If the percentage of fIsh sold by those who are In reality recreational fishermen does not change. However, If the hook and line allocatIon was exceeded and a larger than normal fraction of the catch had been so Id by recreatIonal fIshermen, then the tradItIonal commercIal fIshermen would be unable to harvest hIs normal share ofthe resource. In the fIrst year or two of the plan, It Is unlikely that the percentage of fish 9:ld by dIfferent user groups fIshIng wIth hook and lIne wIll change enough to cause a restrictIon to sales by other user groups. Therefore, no negatIve Impact Is expected withIn that tIme frame. In the long term, better statistical data wIll allow the development of better defInItIons to use In allocatIng the resurce. ThIs data wIll be avaI lab Ie as the result of other recomendatIons contaIned In thl s manage ment plan. 12-15 D. The minImum mesh sIze In the FCZ for all king makerel gIll nets shall be 4-3/4 Inches stretched mesh In the Gulf of Mexico and South AtlantIc RegIonal CouncIls' areas of JurIsdIctIon. Rationale: ThIs measure wIll slIghtly Increase bIological and economic yields of kIng mackerel, pre vent recurrence of wasteful fIshIng practIces, help reduce user group conflIcts and Increase the effectiveness of regulatIon by the State of FlorIda. ThIs measure wIll eliminate the recurrence of a wasteful fIshIng practice, the use of small mesh gIll nets to take kIng mackerel. At tlrnes, partlcul"rly along the 9:utheast FlorIda coast, gIll-net fIshermen have used small mesh gill nets desIgned to catch SpanIsh mackerel, In tryIng to catch kIng mackerèl. DurIng 1978 and 1979, an extremely Intense conflIct developed along the 9:utheast coast between gll I-net fIshermen and llok and lIne fIshermen. Much of thIs conflIct concerned alleged loss or ¡'drop-out" of kIng mackerel from gIll nets. Subsequent testImony at several publtc hearings and r'eSearch Into the drop-out problem IndIcated that dropout from 4-3/4 Inch stretch mesh nets was pro bablymlnlmal but that sIgnifIcant waste had occurred when small mesh nets were used. To the degree that-waste occurs wIth use of small mesh nets, this measure wIll Increase the potentIal yield from the f i shery. USe of large mesh netsresl.dts I n harvest of larger, more va I uab Ie fIsh. Freezer processors are the rnajor market for gnl-net catch'es. TheSe processors report that smaller fIsh are less desIrable and that large catches of smallfl sh wo.u i d result In lower exvassel prIces. The sIze dl strlbutlon of catches made wIth 4-3/4 Inch stretchriesh results In the optImal marketable product. TrIal and error experlmerrtatlon by commercIal fIshermen IndIcates that the 4-3/4 Inch mesh sIze Is the opt.mal mesh sIze for maxImum average catches out of the average sIze dIstrIbutIon In fIsh schools on whIch the nets are normally set. Only when set on scllols of fish whIch are prImarily smaller than 25 Inches fork length wIll thIs mesh sIze be InefficIent. During the normal fIshery, schools of such small fish are ûncormon. This measUre wll' aId the St"te of FlorIda's enforCément of theIr IdentIcal regulatIon, r,oouclng .ènforcemerrt costs to the 'state and I mprov I rrg effect Iveness of that enforcement. ThIs measOre wIll help defuse some of the Intense user conflIcts In the fIshery, contrlbutlng to king mackerel plan ObjectIve 3. the use of gIll nets Is and has been a very contentIous Issue. Sport and commercIal hook arrd lIne fishermen perceIve th.ls measure as one bad Iy needed as one form ofcontro I òver netf Ishl ng. Stateregulat Ion on rnesh sIzes has hel ped reduce perce Ived conH let between these user-groups. Federal regulatIon will malnt"ln thIs benefIt. Conversely, failure to adopt thIs measure wI II Increase uSer- 'conf IIcts. Th I s measure wIll have ml nlmaladverse Impacts. Because of FlorIda law and norma;1 fl shl ng pract Ices, most vessels whIch could fIsh for kIng mackerel have 4-3/4 Inch mesh nets. Only a small percent of the .gl II-net fleet does .nOtnormalfyf I sh for kIng mackerel and, therefore, does not have a suI tab Ie net. ThIs measure does not prohlbl tany fIsherman from enterIng thekl ng 'mackerel flshery. The cost of a net Is relàtlvelysmailln relatIon to the overall cost of gIll-net flshlngand the potential benef Its wh I ch cou i d be reall.zed from the net. Most gl II-net operators own three to .flved'l ferent nets. AdditIonal enforcement costs wI II be mInImal. The prImary Impact of thIs measure wIll be In the State of FlorIda. It win have little, If any, Impact I'n other states. In areas other than 'the Florida coast ,'kl ng mackerel do notrrormal 'i y school In densities hIgh enough foref fectlve glll'nettlng.1' s Ignlflcantglll-net HSheryforklng mackerel exl sts In other states, nor Is any likely to develop. No fIshermen from states other than Florida are Involved In the gill-net ftshery of:f Florida. In FiorI da ,ex 1st Ing state enforcement agents are cross-deputIzed for MFCMAenfo rcementand can enforce 12-16 thIs mE'asure wIth no addItional federal expenditure. Any Increase In thIs measure wI Ii be balanced by reduced state expenditures resulting FCZ and state waters. federal expend I ture to enforce from unIform regulatIon In the BenefIts and costs of thIs measure cannot be stated numerIcally due to lack of data. The above dIscussion descrIbes the types and relative magnItudes of the costs and benefIts. Although they can not be accurately quantifIed, It Is clear that the benefits substantIally exceed the costs and that thIs measure Is necessary and approprIate for management of the fishery. A Iternat Ive mesh sIzes were cons Idered and rejected because (1) there was no reason to bel I eve that any mesh sIzes, eIther slIghtly larger or slIghtly smaller than 4-3/4 Inches would be more benefIcIal than the proposed mesh; (2) a mesh sIze smaller than 4-3/4 Inches would conflIct wIth FlorIda law causIng dIffIcultIes In enforcement for both state and federal agencIes; (3) the proposed mesh sIze Is consIstent wIth advIce of the AdvIsory Panel, revIew by the ScientIfIc and StatIstIcal COmmittee, and present fIshIng practIces In the Industry; (4) an Increase In the mInImum mesh sIze would adversely affect the Industry by forcIng many operators to purchase new nets. ¡; ". It may be argued that no regulatIon Is needed, that the fIshery wIll polIce Itself. This argument Is patently false In open access fIsherIes such as thIs one. CompetItIon and economIc pressure often force fIshermen Into InefficIent fIshIng practIces or practIces whIch are detrImental to the stock. even though many fIshermen may realize the long-term negatIve aspects of their activItIes. The use of small mesh nets to catch kIng mackerel on the east coast of FlorIda Is a prIme example. It has been well established by trial and error of other fIshermen sInce the early 1960s that large mesh nets (approxImately 4-3/4 Inches) result In the best and most efficIent harvest of kIng mackerel. On the southeast coast of FlorIda small mesh nets were used by fIshermen who dId not yet have large mesh nets, many fishermen knowIng that small mesh nets were less effIcIent. Less than optImum catches and waste through drop-out were the resu It. The wholesaler and processor face sImilar problems. A procesSJr may not wIsh to buy or process small kIng mackerel. However, In a competItIve atmosphere, he must often buy a less desIrable product In order to guarantee hIs future supply of more desIrable fIsh. ThIs measure may be mIsInterpreted to be an unfaIr restrIctIon of one user group when no restrIctIons are proposed whIch would control waste of fIsh by other gear types. ThIs InterpretatIon Is Incorrect because (1) thIs measure benef Its rather than penalIzes users of gl II nets; (2) there does not appear to be any feasIble way to reduce losses from hook and lIne gears; (3) there Is no economIc advantage to restrIctIng catches of small fIsh by recreatIonal fIshermen;. and (4) there Is less economIc advan tage for commercIal hook and lIne fIshermen to harvest larger fIsh than there Is for gIll-net fisher men. Most hook and lIne catches enter dIfferent marketIng channels, goIng either to local, fresh markets or to the New York market. Smaller fish are relatIvely more desIrable In these markets than I n the freezer processor market. ThIs measure Is a clear case of the Industry askIng for a regulatIon to help polIce theIr Industry. for the benefIt of fIsh, fIshermen, processors, and consumers. E. ( 1) The RegIonal DIrector, Southeast RegIon, ttFS, may Institute a bag limIt for kIng mackerel taken by recreatIonal or recreatIonal for hIre users and/or a trIp lImIt for commercIal users by the regulatory amendment process when supportIng data becomes avaIlable and after consultatIon wIth the affected Councl Is. (2) The RegIonal Director, Southeast RegIon, NMFS, may Institute a sIze limIt by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data becomes avaIlable and after consultatIon with the affected Councl Is. 12-17 Ratlonalé: ThIs measure contributes to Natlona;1 Standard 1 and Plan Objective 1, provIdIng an addI tional mechanIsm to prevent the catch from exceedIng optimum yIeld. ThIs measure Is an alternatIve to the total closure of the fIshery, offerIng several advantiles to fish, flshennn and consumrs. Total closuré of the fIshery Is a necessary part of thIs FMP, but It Is a drastic mea;sure and requIres accurate and tImely catch data to be effectIve.. At present, delays In collectIon of recreatIonal catch statistIcs rnake It ImpossIble to enforce a closure on the recreatIonal u$er group wIthIn a gIven year. Càtc:hest Imates are notava I I'ab Ie unt I I the fo I lowIng year. Preen ct Ing when to clos'e the fishery In the followIng year on the basIs of one year old data wI! I be dIffIcult at best and could result In eIther bIological damage to the stocks o.runnecessary regula'tlon o'n the fishermen. Commercial catch stat 1st Ics suffer delays sImilar, If less seve're, than for recrest lonal data. Commercläl allocation closures are possible wIthIn a gIven year but may not be Implemented until rriiths after thé allocation Is reached. Such delays may result In substant lal overharvest. Closures of the flsheryCs) wIll have substantIal adverse effects on flsher'en and consumrs, par ticularly some recreatIonal fIshermen. Closure wI II InevItably result In some fishermen beIng more serIously affected than others because of their location or avaIlabIlIty o.f H~h. Th Is is par ticularly true for recreatIonal fIshermen ánd charter boat operators who flsh.;l.nthe summr In the nbrthern Gulf and along the CarolIna coast. A closure late In the fIshIng year could deny ttDse users an oppOrtunIty to fish during the first two nDnths InwhJch king mackerel are avallablefo them. Closures '101 II dlsrlJptthe presentrràrketlng structure, especIally toose channels whlchlTand Ie fIsh caUght by coriirrcl ál hook and line f IslYermen. Th Is wIll ádversel y affect 9ip loyment In those marketlngchdnnels. It wI II ellmlnàte the supply of fresh fIsh to the consumer durIng the closed period, àdversel yaffect Ing consumers, restaurants and reta I I fl sh markets. These negåtlve aspècts of closure ãr'e acceptable only If the alternatIve Is overharves,t and even more severe long-term Impacts on àll concerned. The Intent of Measure E Is to prevent overf Ishlng at a lower econOrnlc and 5Òclal cost than a clòsureand to spread the burden of contro Illngthé catch anDng many users. Ar'umber of optlons áre available to provIde a flexIble approach to future regulatory needs. If catch data Indicates thatreereatlohal harvest has exceeded the allocatIon In a prevIous year or '(ars, a bag lImIt could be Imposèd. Dáta on catch rates and total effort available at the tIme would be used to calculate a bag lImit whIch would reduce the catch to the allocàtlon anDunt. ThIs bag IImlti\ùld r6laln In force until the followIng year, when new data becoe avaIlable. At that tIme, the dewer data \'uld be arialyzed to detenilne If the bag limIt was effective and If modlfIcatlons are neêdÉÉd. So.lorrg as a bag limIt àllows a reásónåbleopportun Ity to retaIn some fIsh, It appears un lIkely that It 'v.uld result In any slgnlflèàntecónömlc costs to charter or prIvate recreatIonal fIsherman. Much of the recreat lonal va i ue to the fIsh I s In the exper I ence of catch I ngrather than I n I andl ng many pOUnds. A bag limIt will spread the burden of controllIng the total recreational catch among all rocreatlonal fIshermen. HIgh economIc and socIal costs on local areas which could result from the c lósures I'l II beellmlnàted. Trip limIts on commérclal fIshermen could be used to spread the total catch over a longer perJodof the fishIng Year. ThIs could Inèreasethe economIc value of the catch by maxImizIng the amunt goIng Into fresh fish marketlng chaIns where It has a hIgher value per pound. ThIs would benefIt the con sumers byrnalntalnlng a hlghavallablilfy of hIgh qualIty fresh fIsh. Costs to the fIshermen would Increase as more trIps wou Idbe madefbr the same total catch. Trip limits could al9: be Useful to slòw Th I s 'wou i d rEEUce or prevent ovèrharvest C los Ingthe 11 shery. down the catch rate asOY or anal location Is approached. resultIng from slow data reprtIng and subsequent delays In 12-18 i f trIp lImIts are proposed under thIs measure, the specIfIc proposal wI II be analyzed to determIne If the Increased value of the catch, reductIon of socIoeconomIc costs for local areas and bIologIcal protection of the stock outweIgh any negatIve aspects, such as Increased operatIng costs Imposed on the fisherman and Increased cost of government regulatIon. SIze lImIt restrIctIons could be appl led to all users as another method to keep the total catch wIthIn optImum yIeld. If the total catch must be lImIted, It Is economically advantageous from the commer cIal standpoInt to place the greatest restrIctIon on smaller, less valuable fIsh In order to maxImIze the catch of larger, more valuable fIsh. LIkewIse, recreatIonal fishermen generally desIre larger fish. The Impact of size limits would dIffer between areas and user groups because fIsh size varIes wIth area and selectIvIty of the gear. For Instance, at certaIn tImes recreatIonal catches of kIng mackerel In the northeastern Gulf of MexIco are almost entirely composed of fIsh less than 25 Inches fork length. If a sIze limIt Is proposed under thIs measure, size dIstrIbution by area wIll be com pared with potentIal sIze lImIts to determIne Impacts on all users and estimate effectIveness of the measure In control I Ing the total catch. The Councl Is have requestedresea~dd to IInltor sIze dl strl butlon by area (see SectIon 14.4). SelectIon of a specIfic sIze limIt wI iTdepend on the tradeoff between effectIveness In controllIng the catch, Increased economIc value of the total catch, and dIf ferentIal Impacts on dIfferent groups of fIshermen. ActIons under Measure E wI Ii reduce the danger of overftshlng contrIbuting to Plan ObjectIve 1. If closures were the only measure controllIng total catch, problems wIth data reportIng delays coul d easily result In repeated catches In excess of optImum yIeld and lead to overflshlng and stock decline. The flexIble, framework approach under thIs measure can reduce the degree and fraauency of such excess catches, protect Ing the stocks and long-term benef Its to the natIon. Th Is measure wI II spread the total catch over a larger tIme and area. Th Is may also be advantageous to the stock. Recent taggIng data IndIcates that king mackerel aggregate In local populatIons to a signIficant degree. ThIs tendency Is not accounted for In the MSY analysis. SpreadIng out the catch would reduce the fIshIng effort on heavily fished populatIons and Increase fishIng pressure on lightly fished popu latIons. To a degree that these populatIons exIst, such actIon under thIs measure would Increase and protect the total yIeld from the stock. As an' alternative approach withIn thIs measure, strict guidelInes and parameters for ImplementatIon whIch would be wrItten Into the measure were consIdered. Such parameters for ImplementatIon would clarify the Intent and better Inform the publIc of when the measure was likely to be Implemnted and what effect It would have. ThIs approach was rejected In favor of broad wordIng of the measure because the CouncIl dId not feel that they could adequately antIcipate all possIble sItuatIons that mIght arIse In the future. To specIfy parameters for Implementation In advance would severely lImIt the flexIbilIty of the measure, leavIng the probabIlIty that loopholes would exIst and that adverse sItuations would develop whIch could not be addressed other than through plan amendment -- a very slow process. The Intent and posslb Ie use of the measure are clearly descrIbed In the ratIonale and do not need to be specIfically Included In the wordIng of the measure. . The Interest of the publIc Is protected by the process Involved In regulatory amendment. When data become avaIlable whIch IndIcate a need for actIon, approprIate regulatIon wI Ilbe proposed, Its posI tive and negatIve Impacts analyzed, and publIc comment requested. Thus, flexIbIlity to respond to a wIde varIety of problems Is retaIned and, at the same time, an adequate analysis of regulatory Impacts Is stll I requIred. 12.3. 1.2 Measures Rejected for K I n~ Mackere i The to ilow I ng management measures were rej ected fo r. kl ng mackerel: 12-19 F. A four (4) pound sIze limIt for all fIshermen both commercIal and recreatIonal. RatIonale: The four pound size lImIt corresponds. to a 25-lnch lImit. Th Is measure woul d prevent har vest of kIng mackerel below the sIze of a maxImum economic yIeld (see dl scussJon of M8nag~ent Measure S). It was rejected because surv I va I rate of rei e.ased kl ng mackerel by the average. recreat'lonall st wou i d: b~ low and because most recreatIonal fishermen are nonsel ect Ive In. th.e s.lze o.f fl sh they catch. In addItIon, the measure. would have had a severe economIc. and socIal Impact on the recreatIonal sector In some, areas sInce In some years In specifIc locatIons as much as 79.5 percent of the, catch Is less than 25 Inches In fork length (northwest FlorIda In 1978, based on data supplied to COuncil by NMFS, Panama City Laboratory) thIs measure would be to. vIrtually elImInate a very valuab.le fIshery In that and other areas. The potentIal gaIn In total yIeld was not consIdered of great enou,gh value'at thIs time. to offset the adverse Impact on the recreatIonal fl shery. G. Bag lImIt of fIve (5) fish per person per day for recreatIonal fIshermen. RaNonale: ThIs measure would temporarIly decrease the total catch by recreat'lona.l. fls.hermen by an amount whIch cannot be calculated wIth avaIlable data. As effort Increases the total catch wou.ld rIse. It would probably make kIng mackerel more avaIlable to the lesse))pess ~nced fishermen by, lImIting the catch of the more experienced In the. same area. The avaIlable. data does not IndIcate that a reductIon In recreatIonal harvest Isneed.ed atth,lstlme. H. . Mln Imum mesh sIze of five Inches and 5-1/2 Inches for gIll nets. Rationale.: ThIs measure would Inc.rease the mesh sIze used In gIll nets, IncreasIng. themlnlinum sIze at capture. li data are avallab.le to estImate what the mInImum sIze would be fo.r these two mesh sIzes. There would be no beneficIal Impact on total production and mIght slIghtly reduceto,tal productJon. Furthermore, avaIlable bIologIcal InformatIon suggests thIs mesh slzewo.uld result InamHIHnum sIze. at capture greater than the optImum for harvestIng fIsh. Management MeasureD wh1c.h, requIres a 4-3/4 I nch mesh. was proposed as a subst I tute measure. I. The plan shall Incorporate machInery desIgned to provIde length and heIght lImItatIons. on: net's used In the kIng mackerel fIshery, or other gear restrIctIons where ap.proprlate, shJuld an expandIng net fishery develop In areas not hIstorIcally fIshed, and when such a Ilmlt'hg measure I s dIctated by deveJoplng condl tlons adversely affectIng the stocks. RatIonale: Measure i was rejected and Measure A(I) was proposed In Its p.lace sInce Measure A (.1 was more. completely defIned and would. provIde for a more expedIent approach. J. RequIre permIts for all vessels fIshIng In the FCZ. RatlonaJe: ThIs measure was dlscus.sed as a possIble method to facIlItate datacollect-on and allocatIon between user groups. The statIstical reprtIng system dIscussed In SectIon 12.3.5 was proposed as substItute measures to accomplIsh the same results at less cost and burden to. the publlc. K. ProhIbIt the use of purse gIll nets and that thIs Issue be dIscussed atpubllchearlngs., RatIonale: The concept of a gIll net whIch could be pursed was dIscussed by the, management committee. Llttle,was.known about the feasIbIlIty of thIs type of gear and there was IlttlelndJcatlon that It wouldbe Introduced Into the fIshery at thIs tIme. li actIon was deemed necessary. ThIs measure,was rejected because a study Is currently underway whIch wIll as.sess the Impact of thIs fishIng method. 12-20 L. That a 25-lnch ,nlnlmum sIze limIt be established for the commercIal fIshery and that no sIze lImIt be set for the recreatIonal fishery. RatIonale: ThIs measure Is very close 10 Measure S proposed by the CouncIl and would have the same benefIcIal Impacts. It was rejected, In favor of Measure S because It Imposed less burden on the fIshermen. The reasons for wh Ich Measure S was later rejected also apply to thIs measure. M. RestrIct the usa of spotter aIrcraft In the kIng mackerel fIshery. RatIonale: ThIs measure would, reduce the effIcIency of fishIng effort of a partIcular user group. Spotter aIrcraft are used predomInantly by large boat gliinetters and by a small percentage of hook and lIne boats. These actIons may make more fIsh avaIlable for other user groups. Th Is measure was rejected because It would reduce economIc effIcIency, and Increase the varlablil ty of the catch. ThIs would adversely affect the economIc returns of the user groups beIng restrIcted, and cause InterruptIons In the supplies of fish to consumers. SInce catch lImIts (Measure C) are provIded to prevent exceed I ng MSY, the use of spotter planes wi II not lead to overf l:ttl ng. N. RestrIct the number of lines and hooks used In the kIng mackerel fIshery. Rationale: This measure would also reduce the efficIency of fIshing effort for a particular group. It was rejected because of the adverse economIc affect on the user group beIng restrIcted and possibly reduced supply to tradItIonal consumers. It was not consIdered to be necessary because of catch limi tatIons to prevent exceedIng MSY. o. When a conflIct results In repeated acts of vIolence, the Secretary shall aId In the prosecutIon of the perpetrators of the vlo lence, and shall Implement as a temporary emergency measure one or more of the optIons under A(I). SaId temporary emergency measure shal I remaIn In effect no more than 45 days (or 90 days). RatIonale: Th Is measure was orglnally part of the recommended measures for res Ivlng gear and user group conf Ilcts. It was felt to be unnecessary. P. (I) Annual stock allocatIons wIll be made as follows: 8.0mllllon pounds for the commercial fishery and 25.0 mIllIon pounds for the recreatIonal fishery wIth the remaInIng 4.0 mil lIon pounds held In reserve. Furthermore, If tIme/catch and effort data IndIcate that eIther or both allocatIons mIght be exceeded, one or more of the management measures In (5) wIll be InstItuted, after consultatIon with the affected Councils, to prevent closure of the fIshery. (2) Annual allocatIons of the stock wIll be made fo!" commercial hook and lIne and for net fIshermen In accordance wIth theIr percentage contrIbutIon to the total catch 'for the years 1971-75 and thereafter for the latest fIve-year perIod for whIch statIstIcs are avaIlable. (3) No area quotas wIll be established, except In an emergency. (4) Commerc I a I f I sherman def I n ed : A commercIal fIsherman Is a person who sells hIs fIsh. ( 5) A time/catch and effort by area table sh¡:ll be utIlIzed by the Secretary both for allocatIon of a port Ion of the reserve to eIther commercl al and recreatIonal segments and for Imp lemen tatlon of the management measures to prevent closure of the fIshery under (1). These measures are as fo i lows: 12-21 (a) Recreat lonal FIshery A dally, per person lImitation of king mackerel landed shall be three fish. If projected landIngs al perIodic Intervals of the fishIng sea9:n Indlcate that one geographic area (state or zone) shall exceed an average proportion of theland Ings In relation to the annual available resurce, the Secretary shall InstItute IIre restrIctive "bag" lImits for the remaInder of the fishIng sea9:n In rrre "favored" zones after consultation wIth affected CouncIls. (b) Commercl a i FIshery CommercIal landings/catch shall be lImIted to no more than 10,000 pounds per day per gIll-net boat, 400 pounds per day per hook and line commercIal boat throughout the range. If the projected commercIal landIngs In any geographlcal.area (state or zone) IndI cate that proportionally higher landings wI Ii occur over;that of historIcal landings In proportion to the expected annual resurce, the Secretary, after consultatIon with the affected Councils, shall eIther (1) adjust the allocation of the reserve so that It wIll be equally avaIlable to commercleel fIshermen In the "less favored" geographical areas on a proportion releetlve to theIr hIstorical catches or (2) reduce the per boat allocatIon In the more "favored" zones while not restrictIng those boats In other zones until the total qoota Is reached. The Secretary, after consultatIon wIth affected Councl Is, shall have the latItude to allocated part of the reserve for newly developIng fIsherIes. Ratl.onale: ThIs allocatIon system was desIgned to provIde the same benefIts as Management Measi.e C. It Included a much rrre 9:phlstlcated system of controls to restrIct the fIshery once the reserve was reached and to provIde the flexIbIlIty needed to allow for fluctuatIons In abundance and availabIlIty. These w.ere Intended to provide maxImum protectIon agaInst an unnecessary closure of the fIshery. ThIs measure would have been adminIstratIvely complex. The complex allocatIon system was consIdered to be too unwleldly because of InsuffIcient data and the tIme leeg ,needed to copl Ie the required catch statIstIcs. It was to be based on a "tIme/catch and effort table" which effectIvely allocated the catch by area, tIme and gear. The avallab Ie statistIcs were Inadequate to construct thIs tab Ie, par ticularly for the recreatIonal catch. In the commercIal fishery, annual fluctuatIons In avaUabl Ilty by month and area make It dIfficult to establIsh guIdelInes for predIcting whether or not restrictive measures would be necessary. GuIdelInes whIch allowed sufficIent time to compile the needed statistics and stIli effectIvely restrIct the ca:tch before the reserve was exceeded would frequently result In unnecessary restr I ct Ions on the user groups. Q. In the areas of Brevard, IndIan RIver, St. LucIe, MartIn and Palm Beach CountIes of FlorIda, dense concentrations o.f IncopatIble gears, partIcularly commercIal hook and line gear and glll Itet gear, cause Inefficiency In the use of both of these gears. Therefore, optImum use of the resurce Is not achIeved. In order to achIeve optImum use, the followIng gear restrIctIons are proposed. The fo i lowIng Is to be In effect from AprIl 1 to April 15, In the FCZ off of Brevard, Indian RIver, St. LucIe, MartIn and Palm Beach CountIes of FlorIda: o That commercIal net boats be prohIbIted from fIshIng for king mackerel In a water depth of more than 60 feet, but less than 110 feet. 12-22 o That commercIal hook and line boats be prohIbIted from fishIng for king mackerel depth of less than 50 feet. Charter and recreational fIshermen are specifically thIs restrIction. In a water exc I uded from o That In the overlappIng zone where both groups are allowed equal fIshIng rIghts, commercIal hook and line, charter or recreatIonal .boats are requIred to maIntaIn a reasonable and proper dIstance from gl II-net boats In the process of fishIng and that gIll-net boats maIntaIn a rea9:nable and proper dIstance from commercIal hook and lIne, charter or recreatIonal boats engaged In trollIng over a body of kIng mackerel so as not to dIsrupt the fishIng activItIes of the hook and line boats by settIng nets In the area where troll boats are engaged In fishIng. RatIonale: ThIs measure would separate two groups of commercIal mackerel fishermen to avoId gear conf i Icts. The separatIon Is by depth and tIme. ThIs measure was not proposed because (1) there are overlappIng zones In whIch fIshing can take place by both gear types; and (2) the length of the separation In time, although at the peak of the season, Is not long enough ~to allow for dIfferent availabilitIes of mackerel yearto year. Because of these factorsenforc8lEEht would be difficult, conflicts may stili occur, and efficient use of both gear may be InhIbited. Measure 8 was adopted as a flre flexible alternatIve. The posItIve aspects of this measire were Incorporated Into SectIon 1 of Measure B. R. It wIll be Illegal to buy, sell, or process for commercial use, kIng mackerel urder 25 Inches fork length. Rationale: ThIs measure would have slIghtly Increased the abundance of larger fish, slIghtly decreased commercIal catch, and slightly Increased the average price per pound. When proposed, thIs measure did not appear to have any sIgnIfIcant negatIve Impacts. Its major benefit was to prevent development of a large commercial effort dIrected at small fish. Objections to thIs measure were raIsed at public hearings and durIng a National MarIne FisherIes ServIce revIew of the plan. Public comment Indicated that a bycatch of small kIng mackerel occurred In gIll-net catches of SpanIsh mackerel and that this measure would cause unavoldab Ie and at times substantIal waste. ThIs measure was rejected by NMFS because It dIscriminates agaInst commercIal fIshermen when no sImIlar restrIctIon Is placed on recreational fishermen who also have a large catch of small kIng mackerel. The CouncIls rejected the measure for the above reasons. Further, they reasoned that If the ccltch of small fIsh needed to be reduced In the future, the plan could be amended at that time. S. Several measures concernIng use of purse seInes were considered and rejected, these are found In Sect Ion 12.3.5.2. 12.3.2 Span I sh Mackere I 1 2. 3. 2. 1 Proposed Measures A. The Secretary of Commerce may Implement measures desIgned to provIde lImItations, where appropriate, on any gear or device used In the Spanish mackerel fIshery to reduce gear and user group conf Ilcts. The Secretary, after consultatIon wIth the affected CouncIls, may take the followIng actIon by regulatory amendment based on the followIng crIterIa: (1 ) When a conflIct arises through expansIon of a hIstorIcal fIshery In a tradItIonal fIshIng area or regIon, the Secretary shall InvestIgate the causes and extent of the conflIct, the economic and socIologIcal Impacts of any vIable limItations on the expanded fishery or other 12-23 users, other so I ut Ions to the conf I I ct and other reI evant factors. The Secretary. after con sultation wIth the affected CouncIls and states, may reslve the conflict as faIrly as possIble by taking one or more of the followIng actions: ( 1) Separate the users or gear by area (fishIng zone). ( b)i Separate the users or gear by tIme (day of week). (c) AssIgn local quotas to each gear or user group based on the hIstorIcal catches of each for that local area. ( d) A Ilow un lImIted usage of the gear or devIce. (2) When the conf I Ict arIses through the Introduction of gear or devIces Into new regIons where they have not been hIstorically fished, the Secretary shall InvestIgate the harvestIng capa cIty and efficIency of the new gear or devIce In the local area, the economIc and 9Jclo logI cal Impacts on users of hIstorIcal gear, the hIstorIcal level of sTOc.k abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultatloo~wlth the affected CouncIls and states, take one or more of the followIng actIons: ( a) ProhIbIt use of the gear or devIce In that geographIcal area. ( b) Allow only limited use of the gear or devIce to more fully eval uate Its Impacts and potentIals. (c) L I m I t the number of un I ts of the gear or devIce wh I ch can be ut I I I zed I n that area. (d) A Ilow un H m I ted usage of the gear or dev Ice. 0) When a conflIct arIses as a result of cIrcumstances In the fIshery, other than as described In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures desIgned to obvIate such conf I Icts by measures prov I ded for In (I) and (2) above, or take such other act Ion as may be appropr I ate and necessary to res i ve such conf II cts I n a manner cons I stent wI th the goa I sand object Ives of the p Ian, the NatIonal Standards, the MFCMA and other appl Icab Ie law. RatIonale: These measures support Management Object Ive 3 and, to a lesser degree, Object Ive 1. These measures gIve the RegIonal DIrector and, IndIrectly the CouncIls, the abIlity to provIde lImItatIons through regulatory amendments to reduce conflicts where appropriate on any gear or devIce used In the SpanIsh mackerel fIshery. These measures are IdentIcal to those desIgnated for the kIng mackerel fishery and are dIscussed under kIng mackerel Measure A In SectIon 12.3.1.1. li adverse Impacts are antIcIpated untl I a speclttc conflict Is addressed. The benefIts of havIng a framework In the plan to deal wIth gear conflIcts whIch could occur suddenly and requIre rapId actIon are clear. Because the SpanIsh mackerel fIshery Is much less controversIal than kIng mackerel, thIs measure Is lIkely to be emp loyed less often than kl ng mackerel Measure A. B. SIze LImit (1 ) A 12-lnch fork length mInImum sIze limIt shall be set on SpanIsh mackerel In both the com mercIal and recreatIonal fIsheries. (2) A catch allowance for underlzed fish wI I i be allowed equal to five percent of the total catch by weIght of SpanIsh mackerel on board a vessel In the SpanIsh mackerel fIshery or any other fishery. 12-24 ~atlonale: ThIs mccasure supports Managerrent Objectives 1 and 4. It would prevent the harvest of Spanish mackerel below the sIze requIred for optImum bIologIcal yIeld. A 12-lnch SpanIsh mackerel Is 0.5 years old and weIghs approxImately 0.5 pounds. MaxImum yIeld per recruIt Is obtaIned wIth an average age at recruItment of 1.0 years, when fIshIng at FO.I. Because age at recruItment Is an average and not all fIsh In a year class become vulnerable at exactly the same age or sIze, fIshIng mortalIty must begIn at a slIghtly younger and smaller sIze to obtaIn the requIred average. Under the present condItIons In the fIshery, both the beneficIal and negative Impacts of thIs measure are relatively mInor because the catch Is small. The major benefIt of thIs measure Is to prevent the development of a large fIshery for small fIsh. Such a development would have a negative Impact on the total yIeld of the fishery and on the avallabtllty of the more desIrable, larger fIsh. The State of FlorIda already Imposes a 12-Inch mInImum size lImIt. Ninety-eIght percent of the commercIal catch and a large proportIon of the recreational catch Is currently caught In Florida. South CarolIna also Imposes a 12-lnch mInImum size. There appears to be little or no negatIve economIc or socl al Impact of these management measures. The deslrabl I Ity of fish smaller than 12 Inches Is much less. Sport flshermen: generally prefer a larger fish. Such small fIsh are too small to fillet or cut Into steaks, i Imltlng'7helr marketabIlity. The meat yield Is low lImItIng Its food value to sport fishermen and other consumers. FIsh thIs small are currently not caught to a signIfIcant extent In the commercIal fIshery. Measure 8(2) also prevents waste through the variance allowed sInce gIll nets are not perfectly selectIve. FIsh that are caught and whIch would not survIve release may be retaIned withIn the fIve percent variance. A Iternatlve percentages for MeastTe B (2) were rejected because fIve percent was cons Idered large enough to provIde for any lncldental harvest and small enough to dIscourage marketing of small fIsh. There wI II be a sll ght negat Ive Impact on some recreat lonal fIshermen who wI II be prevented from catchIng smaller fIsh. ThIs catch Is not thought to be large; most occurs wIthIn state waters. Release mortalIty Is not expected to be hIgh since It Is faIrly easy to release SpanIsh mackerel In the recreatIonal fIshery. These fish would soon enter the fishery at legal sIze. C. The RegIonal Director, Southeast RegIon, NMFS, may InstItute a bag limIt for SpanIsh mackerel taken by recreatIonal or recreatIonal for hIre users and/or a trIp lImIt for commercIal users by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data become avaIlable and after consultatIon wIth the affected CouncIls. Rationale: ThIs measure contrIbutes to National Standard 1 and Plan ObjectIve 1, provIdIng an addI tIonal mechanIsm to prevent the catch from exceeding optImum yIeld. ThIs measure Is an alternatIve to the total closure of the fishery, offerIng several advantages to fish, fIshermen and consumers. Total closure of the fishery Is a necessary part of thIs FMP, but It Is a drastIc measure and requIres accurate and tImely catch data to be effective. At present, delays In collectIon of recreational catch statIstics make It Impossible to enforce a closure on the SpanIsh mackerel fIshery wIthIn a gIven year. Catch estImates are not avaIlable untIl the followIng year. PredIctIng when to close the fIshery In the followIng year on the basis of one year old data wIll be dIfficult at best. Under such condItIons, closures Imposed too late could result In bIologIcal damage to the stocks, whIle closures too early would be unnecessary regulatIon on the fishermen. Closures of the fIshery wI Ii have substantIal adverse effects on fIshermen and consumers, partIcularly some recreatIonal fIshermen. Closure wI Ii InevItably result In some fishermen beIng more serIously affected than others because of theIr locatIon or avaIlabIlIty of fish. This Is partIcularly true for recreatIonal fishermen and charter boat operators who fIsh In the summer In the northern Gulf and along the CarolIna coast. A closure late In the fishIng year could deny those users an opportunIty to fish during the fIrst three months In whIch SpanIsh mackerel are avatlable to them. 12-25 These negatIve aspects of closure are acceptable only If the alternatIve Is overharvest and even nPre severe long-term Impacts on all concerned. The Intent of Measure E Is to prevent overflshlng at a lower economIc and social cost than a closure and to spread the burden of controllIng the catch anPng many users. WJthlnthls measure a number of options are avaIlable to provIde a flexIble approach to future regula tory needs. If catch data IndIcate that optimum yIeld has been exceeded In a prevIous year or years, a bag limIt could be Imposed on recreatIonal fIshermen. Data on catch rates and total effort avaIlable at the time ltuld be used to calculate a bag lImIt whIch would reduce the catch to below OY. ThIs bag lImIt would remaIn In force untIl the followIng year, when new data became avaIlable. At that tIme, the newer data would be analyzed to determIne If the bag lImIt was effectIve and If modIfIcatIons were needed. So long as a bag lImIt allows a r ea9: nab Ie opportunIty to retaIn some fIsh, It appears unlIkely that It would result In any sIgnIfIcant economIc costs to charter or prIvate recreatIonal fIsherman. Much of the recreatIonal value to the fIsh Is In the experIence of catchIng rather than In landIng many pounds. A bag lImIt wI Ii spread the burden of controllIng the total recreatIonal catch arrng all recreatIonal fishermen. High economic and socIal costs on local areas whIch io.uld result from the closures wI Ii be elimInated. TrIp lImIts on commercIal fIshermen could be used to spread the total catch over a longer perIod of the fIshIng year, possIbly elImInatIng any need for a closure. This wI II reduce any adverse socIo economIc effects on local areas whIch would have mackerel avaIlable to them during potential closure perIods. This would benefit the consumers by maIntaInIng a hIgh avallabl I Ity of quality fresh fish. Costs to the fishermen would Increase as rrre trips would be made for the same total catch. Trip lImits could also be useful to slow down the catch rate as OY Is approached In order to assure that the catch does not sIgnificantly exceed OY. ThIs ltuld protec the stock and long-termbenef Its from the fishery. If trIp lImIts are proposed under thIs measure, the specIfic proposal wIll be analyzed to determIne If maintaIning the flow of fresh fIsh to consumers, reductIon of socIoeconomIc costs for local areas and bIological protectIon of the stock outweIgh any negative aspects, such as Increased operatIng costs I mposed on the f I sherman and I ncreased cost of governmentregu I at Ion. ActIons under Measure C wI Ii reduce the danger of overflshlng contrIbutIng to Plan ObjectIve 1. If closures were the only measure controllIng total catch, problems wIth data reprtIng delays could easIly result In repeated catches In excess of optImum yIeld and lead to overflshlng and stock declIne. The flexIble, framework approach under thIs measure can reduce the degree and frequency of such excess catches, protectIng the stocks and long-term benef Its to the natIon. As an alternatIve approach wIthIn thIs measure, strIct guldel I"es and parameters for Implementation were consIdered. These guidelInes would have been wrItten Into the management measure and regula tIons. Such parameters for ImplementatIon would clarIfy the Intent and better Inform the public of when the measure was lIkely to be Implemented and what effect It would have. ThIs approach was reject.ed In favor of broad wordIng of the measure because the CouncIl dId not feel that they could adequately antIcIpate all possIble sItuatIons that mIght arIse In the future. To specIfy parameters for ImplementatIon In advance would severely limIt the flexIbIlIty of the measure, leavIng the prob abl I Ity that loopholes would exist and that adverse situatIons would develop whIch could not be addressed other than through plan amendment -- a very slow process. 12-26 The Interest of the public Is protected by the process Involved In regulatory amendment. When data becane available which Indicate a need for action, appropr late regulation will be proposed, Its pos 1 tlve and negative Impacts analyzed, and public canment requested. Thus, flexIbility to respond to a wide variety of problems Is retained and, at the same time, an adequate analysis of regulatory Impacts Is stili requIred. D. If OY Is taken, the fishery for Spanish mackerel will be closed for the remainder of that fishing year.1 Rationale: ThIs measure could result In a short-term closure of the fishery. The assocIated short term economic and social costs were considered to be small In relation to protection of the stock and must be accepted If long-term economic biological and social yields are to be maximized. Adverse Impacts of this measure could be avoided through application of bag limits or trip limits under Span ish mackerel Measure E. 12.3.2.2 Measures Rejected for Span Ish Mackere I ;;.00 The following management measure was not adopted for Spanish mackerel: E. When the conflIct results In repeated acts of violence, the Secretary shall aid In the prosecu tion of the perpetrators of the violence, and shall Implement as a temporary emergency measure one or more of the options under Measure A(1). Said temporary emergency measure shall remain In effect no moe than 45 days (or 90 days). Rationale: This measure was rejected since Its designed use was more adequately outl ined and dIscussed In Measur e A wh I ch was pr oposed to accanp II sh the same purpose. Other measures were not deemed necessary because there are no Indications that the Span Ish mackerel fishery Is In danger of being fished beyond the best estimate of MSY. 12.3.3 Cobia 12.3.3.1 Proposed Measures The following measure Is proposed for cobIa by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic CouncIls: A. Possession of cobia less than 33 Inches fork length shall be prohibited In the FCZ. Rationale: This measure supports and Implements the chosen OY alternative. It protects the stock fraa recruitment overflshlng, should stabilize the fishery at or near MSY and will Increase the present total yield, average size and availability of large, trophy-class fish. For a detailed analysis of these Impacts and supporting data, see Sections 12.2.3 and 5.4.3.1. Although the majority of the stock(s) and total catch occur In the management area, there Is some evi dence that the extens Ion of this measure Into the waters off the mid-Atlantic states may have a bene f Iclal effect on some populations of cobia. The Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councl Is wi i I provide the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Secretary with the available data In order that the Mid-Atlantic Council can determine the suitability of this measure for their area of jurisdiction. No action taken on thIs measure by the South Atlantic Council. 12-27 ThIs measure would Interfere wIth the current fishIng actIvIty of those now takIng fIsh smaller than 33 Inches. Because the cobIa Is prImarIly a sport fIsh and most sport fishermen desIre a large fIsh when seekIng cobIa, the negative Impacts on user groups of thIs measure are small. It appears that much of the small cobIa are caught IncIdentally while seekIng other specIes. There wIll be some short-term loss of production to the commercIal fishery, but potential yIeld wIll Increase In the long term. ThIs long-term Increase In yIeld Is estImated at between 13,000 and 41,600 pounds worth $8,150 over the next fIve (present value wIth ten percent dIscount factors). ThIs fIshery Is of the nature of a supplemental catch. The total value of commercIal cobIa landIngs has been less than $60,000 per year In the Un Ited States and most are bel I eved to be larger than 33 Inches. The landIngs are wIdely dIstrIbuted between Texas and VIrginIa. 1 2.3.3.2 Measures Rejected for CobIa The to Ilowl ng management measures were rejected for cobl a: B. A bag i Imlt of one cobIa per person per day be Implemented In the South Atlantlc Councl I area where data support the need for the measure. -""~. RatIonale: ThIs measure would have reduced recreatIonal enjoyment of the fishery on 'those occasIons when more than one per day Is caught. It would have also had a sIgnIfIcant Impact on cobIa tour naments whIch are held throughout parts of the regIons. The potentIal benefIts In reducIng harvest were felt to be unnecessary at thIs tIme. C. ProhIbIt the sale of cobIa. RatIonale: The commercIal fishery for cobIa Is not a major dIrected fishery and the total commercIal catch Is small compared to the recreatIonal catch. Thus, thIs measure would have lIttle benefIcIal bIological Impact. It would, however, Interfere wIth the operatIons of a certaIn number of fIshermen. 12.3.4 Other Spec I es No management measures were deemed to be necessary for the other specIes In the fIshery. ThIs Is because there are no IndIcations that they are beIng overflshed or In need of specIfIc protection. There are no sIgnIfIcant problems In the fisheries for these specIes whIch warrant regulatIon at thIs t ¡me. 12.3.5 Purse Selne Re~ulatlons Back~round: ImplementatIon of a management plan for mackerels wI II remve hIstorIcal legal barrIers to the use of purse seines. HarvestIng kIng or SpanIsh mackerel wIth purse seInes has always been legal In the FCZ. However, state regulatIons, IncludIng possessIon and landIng laws, have effectIvely prohIbited use of thIs gear In the mackerel fIshery, both In state waters and In the FCZ. WIth Imple mentatIon of a management plan, Federal authorIty wI Ii supercede that of the states and de facto state regulatIon In the FCZ wi II no longer be possIble. Purse seIne harvest of mackerels In the FCZ Is expected to begIn and Increase rapId Iy after renval of limitatIons Imposed by the states. Therefore, the Councl Is have consIdered the need for regulatIon of thIs gear. DurIng development of thIs plan, the two CouncIls have dIffered In theIr approach to thIs Issue. The Gulf CouncIl elected to allow lImIted purse seIne operatIons to study Its effect and lImIt any nega tIve Impacts should problems develop. The South AtlantIc Councl I orIgInally consIdered the use of purse seInes as InadvIsable In thIs fishery. Consequently, the CouncIl proposed a researdh program to 12-28 determine the Impacts of purse seines. o,mmerclal use was to be prohIbIted until better InformatIon was available. However, the CouncIl was unable to establish an acceptable rationale for total prohI bItIon of commercIal use of the gear and sUbsequently adopted the approach of the Gulf o,uncil. Vessels most lIkely to use purse seines for mackerels are presently part of the large boat, mackerel gIll-net fleet (see SectIon 8.2.1.1.) Several of these vessels presently use purse seInes to harvest specIes other than mackerel. These Include several specIes of herrIngs, sardInes, and jacks. Other types of purse seIne vessels may attempt to enter thIs fIshery, but are not expected to be successful. These Include some of the smaller menhaden purse seIners, or the small scale bluef In tuna purse seIners. It Is unlIkely that these vessels could compete successfully wIth gIll-net vessel conver sIons. ThIs Is prImarIly due to lack of speed. In the present fishery, competItIon Is Intense and speed Is a major factor In productivIty. Many gl II-net vessels are capable of speeds between 20 and 30 knot s. Purse se I n eves se i s from ot her fisher I es se i dam exceed 1 2 knot s. A study of the economIc and socIal characterIstIcs of potentIal purse seIners (Centaur, 1981) IndIca tes that the same type of vessel presently used In the large scale, gl II-net fleet can harvest mackerels at a lower cost wIth a purse seIne than with a gl Ii net. The slugy also IndIcates that purse seine operatIons are substantIally more efficIent than gl Ii net or hokand lIne. It can be concluded that, IntroductIon of purse seine. gear offers econoic advantages to the commercial fIshery but, wIll Increase fishing pressure on the resurce and IntensIfy competItIon between dIfferent user groups. 1 2. 3. 5. 1 Proposed Purse Selne Measures A. ( 1) Harvest of kIng mackerel by purse seIne gear wIll be allowed up to a maxImum of 400,000 pounds per year In the area of JurIsdIction of the Gulf Council, and 400,000 pounds per year In the area of jurisdIction of the South AtlantIc Council. Any purse seIne harvest will be counted withIn the commercl al allocatIon for all net gears. (2) Harvest of SpanIsh mackerel by purse seIne gear wIll be allowed up to a maxImum of 300,000 pounds per year In the area of JurisdIction of the Gulf o,uncll, and 300,000 pounds In the area of JurIsdIction of the South Atlantic CouncIl. RatIonale: RegulatIon of the use of purse seines to harvest mackerels Is needed. ImplementatIon of a FMP wi II remve legal barriers Imposed by state laws and result In almost un lImIted purse seInIng If no actIon Is taken. Both o,unclls and virtually all users of the resurce, IncludIng purse seIne operators, believe that unrestrIcted purse seInIng wI II result In overflshlng and serious socIo economIc Impacts on all users of the mackerel stocks. A recent study (Centaur, 1981), research by F lorlda D~ (Mae, 1967; Ingle, 1967) and experIence of purse seine operators, are all consIstent wIth the conclusion that control of thIs gear Is necessary If Its potential economIc benefIts are to be realIzed wIthout overflshlng the stock or adverse ecnomic Impacts on other user groups. At the same time, the CouncIls are Ina poor positIon to specIfy a long-term management strategy for purse seInes because there Is no hIstory or experIence In purse seInIng for these specIes. For thIs reason, the proposed purse seIne regulatIons are considered temporary and wI II be modI fled as soon as sufflcl ent InformatIon Is avaIlable. The purse seIne allocatIons chosen by the Councl Is are large enough to allow several vessels to operate. ThIs wIll allow the CouncIls to observe mackerel purse seInIng under normal condItIons and develop a long-term management approach to thIs gear. At the same tIme the amounts are small enough to have little adverse effect on other user groups. If any unexpected adverse Impacts develop, the allocatIon wI ii iirrlt them to a minImum until appropriate amendments In the FMP can be made. 12-29 The number of purse seIne vessels Is not expected to exceed four or fIve In the fIrst year and Is not expected to exceed ten In subequent years. EstImates of purse seine costs and returns (Centaur, 1981), IndIcate that the allocatIons for kIng and SpanIsh mackerel could be harvested by eIght purse seIne vessels, and that partIcIpatIon of more than ten vessels would reduce profItabIlity below that of an equIvalent gIll-net operatIon. Less than eIght vessels are expected In the fIrst year due to conversIon costs and the limIted number of operators wIth the necessary combInation of capItal, experIence with the gear, and wIllIngness to take the rIsk of losses If purse seInes do not prove suc cessful. Purse seIne allocatIons are a small fraction of the present catch and are not expected to have sIgnIf Icant adverse Impacts on other users. The kIng mackerel allocation Is approxImately one-quarter of the average net landIngs (1975-1977) In the south AtlantIc area, and one-seventh of the average Gulf landIngs. The total Is approxImately one-tenth of the total comercIal harvest. The SpanIsh mackerel allocatIon Is approxImately four percent of the average south AtlantIc commercIal landIngs of SpanIsh mackerel and five percent of Gulf commercIal landIngs. The allocatIons are dIvIded between the Gulf and south AtlantIc to reduce or elImInate any local effects of purse seIne operatIons. If they were not dIvIded by area, It Is prPbable that the entIre allocatIons would be taken In a shórt time In the fIrst place where the fish beï:öre avaIlable. In the case of kIng mackerel, thIs would probab Iy occur along the southeast FlorIda coast. That Is the area of most Intense fl shlng effort and greatest conf Ilct between user groups. Harvest of the entIre kl ng mackerel allocatIon In that area would probably decrease the catch rate of other fIshermen, and Inten sIfy user conflicts, contrary to kIng mackerel ObjectIve 3. In the case of SpanIsh mackerel, the major problem Is short-term overloadIng of processIng capacltye The maxImum processIng capacIty Is approxImately 500,000 pounds per day (Centaur, 1981). When fishIng condItIons are very good, large catches are made, often In two or three days, temporarIly absorbIng the available processIng capacIty. At those tImes, whIch normally occur once or twIce a year, lImits are placed on the amount of fIsh a vessel can sell. It Is expected that the use of purse seines wI Ii Increase thIs cIty because of the gear's abl i Ity to harvest large amounts of nets. The specIfIc amount proposed Is consIdered too small to sent processIng facl i Itles. tendency to overload processIng cap a fIsh In a shorter tIme perIod than gIll cause sIgnIfIcant overloadIng of pre An alternatIve SpanIsh mackerel allocation of 750,000 pounds In the south AtlantIc area was consIdered and rejected by the South AtlantIc CouncIl. ThIs would have Increased the total SpanIsh mackerel allocatIon to approxImately one mIllIon pounds. The larger amount could cause a sIgnIficant Increase In frequency and degree to whIch processIng capacIty was overloaded, adversely effectIng other users. It was consIdered larger than necessary to allow study of the Impact of thIs gear. The larger amount Span I sh mackerel was cons Idered to conf i I ct wI th Nat lonal Standard 4. In the fIrst year or two of the plan very few operators are likely to enter the fIshery because there are few operators wIth the necessary combInatIon of experIence, gear, and rIsk capItal to do so. In effect, a i arge a Ilocat Ion wou i d grant these operators the opportun I ty to harvest an excess Ive .share of the resource. ThIs excessIve share would not be faIr and equItable to other users because competItIon from purse seIners would reduce theIr catch rates and because Increased or overloadIng of processIng capacIty wI II result In longer and more frequent trIp lImIts on them. The CouncIls consIdered less restrIctIve alternatIves whIch would durIng whIch the allocatIon would apply. These were rejected for could not predIct how long a period would be needed to obtaIn the management. Second, unpredIctable delays In the approval process have lImIted the number of years two rea9:ns. FIrst, the Councl Is necessary I nformat Ion for long-term for management p i an amendments ~ake 12-30 It ImpossIble to assure that an amendment could be Implemented before any specified time limit expired. This could result In unlimited purse seining with negative Impacts on the stocks and other users. B. Obser vers, under the direct Ion of the Nat I ona I Mar I ne purse seine vessels while fIshing for king or Spanish years after this plan Is In effect. Fisheries Service, must be required on all mackerel dur I ng the first three f i sh I ng Rationale: The Councils consider observers to be the only effective method to monitor purse seine activity In thIs fishery. There are two major reasons why observers are necessary: (1) to accurately count the total harvest and (2) to obtaIn an accurate and unbiased repo~t on purse seIne activities. Rapid accounting of purse seine catch Is absolutely requIred to assure that the purse seine allocation Is not exceeded. Purse seines have the capability of making very large catches In a very short period of time. It may be possible to harvest the allocations In a few days. The present data collection system cannot provide catch data In less than two weeks and normal reporting delays are on the order of one to two rrnths. Substantial overharvest could result. Observers woùld be able to provldè Imme ,,"." dlate catch reporting wIth no delay. Reliable accountIng of the total catch can only be accomplished by observers. Land-based accounting alone will not give acceptable reliability. Because of the characteristIcs of the gear and the fIshery, It will be very easy to transfer the catch from purse seiners to other vessels for transport ashore. In addItion, It Is probable that purse seIne vessels can catch rrre fish than the carrying capacity of the vessel, requiring other vessels to participate In transporting the catch. GIven these factors, accounting for purse seine catches at dockside will be difficult, at best. Because of the controversy surrounding purse seines, there would be serious doubt among other users about the accuracy of purse seine landing statistics taken at docksIde. BeGause the gear has not been used In this fishery, there may be real problems with Its use which can no~ be predicted at this time. For example, observations by Florida Department of Natural Resources of experimental purse seining showed that purse seInes may become snagged on rocky bottom. Retrieval of the net may cause localized damage to hard bottom communities (Ingle, 1967). This finding was not expected prior to the study. Such Information can only be gathered by observers. Other Information neGds of the Councils In developing a long-term regulatory approach to purse seines are the ability of fishermen to determine species Identity and size of fish prior to setting the net, and theIr ability to release sma i I fish or undesirable species wIthout harm. This can only be determIned through on site observat Ion. Because the gear Is so extremely controversIal, there will InevItably be many rumors and allegations concerning purse seine operations. An unbiased observer Is needed to provide reliable Information. Th I s poi nt I s more I mportant than I t may appear to someone unfamlll ar wi th the fishery. Many f i sher men are convinced that any use of purse seines Is bad and they are highly suspicious of the motives of purse seIne ad\Ocates (see FE IS Comments). Conversely, fishermen In faiir of purse seInes are equally suspIcious of the motives of those opposing their use. In this highly emotional atmosphere, exaggerated claIms and counter-claims by both sides are expected. Without an unbiased observer aboard It wIll be Impossible to confirm or deny such claims and the Councils would be In no better position to plan long-term management than at present. The Councl Is considered and rejected the alternative of requiring observers on a sample of purse seIne vessels. From a purely scientIfic point of view, one hundred percent coverage Is not necessary. Statistical analysis of a small sample Is, In theory, sufficient for most scientific purposes. However, the Councils must consider more than purely scientific questions. In thIs case, the Councils considered the highly controversial nature of the gear and concluded that a sample sufficIent for 12-31 scientific validity was not sufficient for management purposes. A controversial act occurring on even one \esse I which did not have an observer would seriously damage, probably destroy, the credlbi Iity of the I nforrnat Ion produced by obser vers and of any act Ions of the Council s wh I ch are based on that Information. The three-year time limit Is Intended to limit the burden on the fishermen while stili providing suf f Icient time to gather enough data for development of long term management rr..5ures. There was, and stl II Is, some concern by the Councl Is that observers may be needed for a lon~ier period. This measure, as originally proposed, did not specify a tlrr lImIt (see Rejected Purse Seine Measure E). Howe ver, i ega I ad vice from Genera i Counse I CD.O.C.) ¡ nd I cated that I t was not i ega I I Y defens I b i e In this case to requIre observers for an unlimited period of time. Therefore, the CouncIls, after receiving advice from D.O.C. lawyers and scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, pro pose the three-year limit. This Is expected to be sufficient to provide the necessary scientific I nformat Ion. i f so, long-term management rrasures for purse se I ne use can be Incorporated into the plan. If not, the plan may be amended to lengthen the time during which observers will be required. The Councl Is expect that observer costs wi Ii be shared by National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Management Councils, and Interested states. NMFS Is expected to direct and cÈordlnate observer acti vities. Observer personnel wI II be provided by the Southeast Fisheries Centër";Southeast Regional Office, and cooperating state agencies. Several states, Including Florida, Alabama, and South Carolina, have already Indicated Interest In supplying some observers. Cooperation Is expected from the other states which might be affected. Cost of the program wi II be small and wèll within the existing combined resources of and Interested states. If no Increase In funding Is avaIlable, a slight decrease In to other projects must be expected. ThIs Is a high priority effort. NMFS, Councl Is i-esources devoted The effort which will be required for this rrasure can be estimated within a reasonable range. A high estimate of 520 observer days Is estimated using data from Centaur (1981). The data Indicates that eIght vessel s would be requIred for an entire season, consisting of 65 fishing days. This Is believed to be an overestimate. Purse seIne operators and the CouncIls belIeve that the Centaur study substan tially underestImates the efficiency of purse seines. A lower and more reasonable estImate of 47 observer days can be estimated based on an average catch of 30,000 pounds per vessel for each possible fishing day and assumIng the entire allocation for both species Is harvested. A small amount of additional effort wIll be required to coordinate the program and analyze the resulting data. 12.3.5.2 Purse Selne Measures Rejected C. Use of purse seInes to harvest king or Spanish mackerel In the area of jurisdiction of the South AtlantIc Council shall be prohibIted except for specified research (see purse seIne Measure D). Rationale: The South Atlantic CouncJ I proposed this measure because of theIr belIef that use of purse seines would be detrimental to the fishery and that Its use should be prohibited until research showed that It could be used safely. The measure was dl sap proved by the Secretary of Commerce for the followl ng reasons. There was not enough Information In the plan to demonstrate that purse seines would be harmful to the fishery and that total prohIbitIon was necessary and approprIate. The measure appears to violate NatIonal Standard 2, whIch specifIes that regulations be based on the best scIentific Information available. The rrasure restricts purse seInes more severely In the south Atlantic than In the Gulf, wIthout devel opIng a reason for the difference. This vIolates National Standard 3. The total prohibItion of 12-32 purse seines was considered an allocation of fishIng prlvi lege to users of other gear. WIth no con servation or other rationale given, this violates National Standard 4. Finally, a total prohibition without clear reasons violates National Standard 5 which requires efficient utilization where prac t Icab Ie. The South Atlantic Counci I was unable to develop sufficient reasons to answer the objections of the Secretary of Commerce, and rejected the measure I n favor of measures a I lowi ng I I ml ted use. D. The lack of documental evidence has left the Council sin a poor ently considerable disagreement ava i I ab Ie ev I dence. Because of resolve this disagreement. on the possible positive and/or negative Impacts of purse seines posItion to evaluate the proper use of thIs gear. There is pres between the two Councils on the conclusion to be drawn from the this, the CouncIls wish to obtaIn additional data In order to ( 1) That, because of the question of the effect of purse seinIng on the wise conservation of the resources, the Secretary is requested to develop a research program to be carried out In the first generation of the plan to determine the effect of purse se):nlng on the king and Spanish mackerel fisheries to be presented to the Counci Is for Counci I concurrence. Further, It is recommended that the research program be i Imlted to a maximum of 400,000 pounds of king mackerel and 400,000 Ibs. of Spanish mackerel. The results of this program s ha I I be presented on or before March 31, 1981. (2) During the time required for commercial harvest of 400,000 pounds of king mackerel by purse seine, a scientific observer under the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service shall be assigned to each purse seine vessel In the Gulf of Mexico. This shall be for the purpose of supplying scientific data. (3) That, because of the questIon of the effect of purse seining on the wise conservation of the resource, the Secretary Is requested to assess the existing purse seining effort for Spanish mackerel In the FCZ of the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of determining the effect of purse seining on the Spanish mackerel fishery. A report of the assessment shall be presented to the Gulf Councl I within one year after Implementation of the FMP. Until that time, the purse seine fishery Is allocated 225,000 pounds per year in the FCZ of the Gulf of Mex i co. (4 ) Until such time as the research program Is completed, purse seining for Spanish mackerel wi Ii be allowed only under the conditions In D(I) and D(3). Rational e: Th Is measure requi res research by NMFS, and req ul res observers on commerci al purse se I ne vesse Is fish I ng for kl ng mackerel I n the Gu I f unt i I the first 400,000 pounds has been harvested. Presumably this would be In the first season. The measure also limits commercial purse seining of Spanish mackerel In the Gulf to 225,000 pounds In the first year of the FMP. The measure was rejected on the bas is of comment by the Secretary of Commerce and because a more effective measure was developed to control purse seine use. The Secretary objected to the measure because much of it was research and shou I d not have been I nc i uded as a management measure. The Counci Is agreed and placed the research portion of the measure in Section 14.4, Research Requested. Further, the Counci Is concluded that the one-year I Imitation on observers and Spanish mackerel catch In the Gulf was insufficient. More stringent requirements for both are Included In Purse Seine Measures A and B. 12-33 E. Observers, under the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, will. be required on all purse seine vessels fishing for king or Spanish mackerel. Cost of the observers may be borne by the user. Rationale: This measure Is very similar to proposed purse seine measure B, with the exceptions that vessel operators may pay part of the observer costs and that there Is no specified time limit on the observer requirement. When this measure was proposed, the Councils originally concluded that it was reasonable to expect vessel operators to pay part of the observer costs because they would be benefiting from the Increased efficiency and profitability of purse seine gear. No time limit was established because the Councils were uncertain how many seasons of observer coverage would be required before enough data was ava I i ab Ie to estab II sh long-term purse se I ne regu I at Ions. A legal review of this measure by the D.O.C. General Counsel's office indicated that there was Insuf f icient Information to legally defend an open-ended requirement of observer coverage due to the un ique and extreme nature of an observer being required upon a domestic fishing vessel. The legal review further determined that it was probably not possible within MFCMA to charge fhe vessel operators for ~.,' observer cos ts. The Counci Is concurred wIth the legal review and adopted Purse Seine Measure B, which sets a three year time I imit and deletes the option for operators to pay observer costs. 12.3.6 Statistical Reportin~ Measures 12.3.6.1 Stat i st I ca I Report I n~ Measures Adopted A. The Councl Is conceptually accept a vessel enumeration system and creel census data syst8f that would provide sufficient information for fishery management. Mechanics of the system are to be developed by National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regulatory Measures Committee. B. Require a reporting system for all user groups and proces9:rs based on statistical sampling whereby It would be mandatory for a selected respondent to provIde answers to the sampling questionnaire on a recurring basis that Is not of great frequency. Rationale and Impacts: One of the major problems in this fishery Is lack of data needed to estimate MSY and monitor the proposed user group allocations. This greatly Increases the risk of overflshlng. The present data collection system is Inadequate to provide the Infonnatlon required for this FMP. The above measures have been carefully considered In order to minimize costs and burdens on respondents, while obtaining the necessary Information. This is achieved using a statistical sampling, rather than a complete census approach. Also, the statistical reporting system specified In this plan will be Integrated with those for all plans In the respective Councl I areas I n order to achieve efficiency and standardization. Reporting Measure A provides a method of Identifying both commercial and recreational users and an estimate of recreational catch and effort. It is Included In all plans now In development by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Counci Is. "Vessel enumeration" refers to a system using Coast Guard and state boat and vessel registration lists to Identify, locate, and classify recreational and commercial users. Statistical surveys by mall and/or telephone will further delineate the statistical universe of users and gather data on participation rate and economic characteristics. Creel census samples will be used to obtain data on recreational catch rate combined with data from the vessel enumeration study to estimate total catch and effort. 12-34 ThIs m',asure is required to provide the data needed to Implement the proposed allocatIon systen for the re, reatlonal sector and to develop catch and effort data needed for MSY detenninatlon. This system is consIdered to be the most cost effectIve way to provide that data with the least Imposition and cost to the Users of the resource. Impacts on the users would be lImited to the amount of time required to answer the required questions and would be imposed on only a smal i sample of the users. The system Is still in the pro~cess of development and there is little Infonnation available on required sample sizes or survey costs. Costs to the government cannot be accurately estimated at this time, although they are expected to be substantIal. Costs are tentatively estimated at approximately $80,825 to $81,859 for all cQastal pelagic species. Because this system is used for all plans in the Gulf and south Atlantic, the costs per management plan are expected to be smal i In relation to the value of the fIshery. The proposed measure has cost advantages over other systems. RelyIng entirely on a creel census system would be accurate but would be prohIbItively expensive. Statistical surveys by phone or mail of the entire population of the southeast Is expensive and has proven to be highly inaccurate. The vessel enumeration system wi i i greatly reduce costs and the number of samp~es needed from a statisti cal survey by reducing the statIstical universe of users by two to three o;ders of magnitude. Combining statistical surveys with a creel census wIll reduce the required creel census sample. Therefore, the costs of obtainIng catch per unit effort and total catch data will be greatly reduced. Reporting Measure B Supports Measure A by requIring a reply from those persons selected for the survey. It also includes processors In the mandatory reporting requirement for that information deemed necessary by NMFS. This Information Is already being collected on a voluntary basis, but some processors do not report at present. Costs of thIs measure are Included in Measure A. 12.3.6.2 Stat I st I ca I Report i n~ Measures Rej ected C. Permits for al i users for statistical purposes only. This measure was considered and rejected because It was unnecessary. Existing boat and vessel registration records can be used to obtain the same information at less cost. D. For Spanish mackerel - A mandatory trIp ticket system for all charter and headboat operators. This measure was considered and rejected as not cost effective. obtained from a sample of operators. Sufflcl ent information can be E. Require ccmmercial fIshermen to report catch and effort using trip tickets. Rationale: This measure would provide greatly Improved measures of total catch and fishing effort needed to monItor the fishery. It was rejected because funding required to Implement the system is not available. The National Marine Fisheries Service Is developing a unified approach to data collec tion in the Southeast Region which wi Ii attempt to collect the required data at a lower cost. Approved Measures A and B are consistent with this approach. F. ( J) RequIre logbook reporting of king mackerel for al I charter and headboat operators. ( 2) RequIre logbook reporting of SpanIsh mackerel for a statistical sample of charter and head boat operators. The sample shall be i imlted to the minimum necessary for management needs. Rationale: This measure would provide precise measure of catch and effort and catch per unit effort for a significant portion of the recreational fishery. It was rejected because (I) funding may not be available and (2) It Is discriminatory to one user group. 12-35 12.4 Trade-offs Between the Benef I c I a I and Adverse Impacts of the Preferred or Opt I ma I Mana~ement Options Optimum yield was selected by trading oft the risk of overflshlng against the failure to maxinize full uti Ilzatlon of the resource. The selected management regime allows exploitation up to the be,t esti mate of MSY based on ava liable data. The preferred management options represent the trade-of fs involved In minimizing the adverse Impacts on anyone user group. Specific discussion of the trade offs between the beneficial and adverse Impacts of specific management options is presented in Section 12.3. 12.5 Speciflcation of Optlmum Yield The optimum yield which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation has been determined to be the maxImum yield which can be produced on a sustained basis. Optimum yield is specified as follows: King mackerel - 37 million pounds annually. This is equal to the current best .estlmate of MSY for king mackerel based on.;:the adjusted recreational catch estimate for 1975 (see Section 5.4.1.1). Spanish mackerel - 27 million pounds. This is equal to the current best estimate of MSY for SpanIsh mackerel based on the adjusted recreational catch estimate for 1975 (see Section 5.4.2.1). Cobia - Optimum yield equal to the available amount of cobia of a size equal to or greater than 33 inches fork length. This amount is estimated to be approximately 1,000,000 pounds for 1981. The Councils realize that the estimates of MSY used to determine OY and user group catch allocations were to a great degree, based on the best available estimate of present catch. If better landing statistics become available and indicate that the present landing statistics and associated estimates of MSY are In error, then the Councils will reevaluate MSY, OY and user group allocations before actions to severely restrict any part of the coastal migratory pelagic fishery are taken. 12.6 Recommendations by the Councl Is 12.6.1 Spec i a I Recommendat Ions to the Secretary of Commerce The Counci Is recommend several areas where special research Is needed. order In FMP Section 14.4. These are listed in priority 12.6.2 Spec i a I Recommendat Ions to the States A. In the future, effective and equitable management will require a workable means tiating true commercial from true recreational fishermen. This is particularly Implementing allocations to user groups. Therefore: of d i f feren Important in 12-36 The Counci I s forma II y recommend to each state I n the I r area that cons Iderat Ion be given to requiring all persons who sell fish to have a commercial license, that the commercial license be of significant dollar value and that severe penalties be levied against any commercial operator purchasing fish from an I nd i vi dua I not possess i ng a commercl al license. B. The Councl Is recommend that the states implement the management measures proposed In this plan withIn their territorial jurisdiction, where applicable. The Councils further encourage the states to assist the Secretary In addressing and supporting the research and other special recommendations. ,-'. 12-37 13.0 MEASURES, REQUIREMENTS. CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS SPECIFIED TO ATTAIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The followIng summarizes the management measures which were specified for the coastal migratory pelagic fishery. Specific details and Impacts of specified management measures are presented In Sectl6n 12.3. 13.1 Permits and Fees No permits or fees will be required for vessels fishing In the coastal migratory pelagic fishery. However, a statistical reporting system Incorporating mandatory reporting of catch by user groups and a vessel enumeration system to determine the vessels fishing the FCZ will be Implemented. 13.2 Time and Area Restrictions Potential time and area restrictions are specified as a contingency measure for resolving gear and user group conflicts In the king and Spanish mackerel fIsheries. These are described under Management Measure A In Section 12.3.1.1 (king mackerel) and A In Section 12.3.2.1 (SpanIsh mackerel). Time and area restrictions are potential. tools to be Implemented, If appropriate, bj.the Secretary after con sultation with the affected Councils to resolve a specific conflict. Management Measure B for king mackerel In Section 12.3.1.1, If Implemented, will separate hook and line and net vessels In the FCZ off the counties of Indian River and St. Lucie, on the Florida Atlantic coast. This Is to resolve an existing gear conflict. 13.3 Catch Limitations A. Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing The total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) Is specified as Spanish mackerel fisheries. U.S. fishing vessels have the capacity, vest the optimum yield In both these fisheries In 1982 (See Sections zero for both the king and Intent, and are expected to har 8.2.7, 8.2.8 and 8.5). B. Types of Catch L I ml tat Ions Management Measure C In Section 12.3.1.1 establishes a total annual allowable catch of 37 million pounds In the king mackerel fishery. There Is a 28 million pound al location for the recreational fishery and a nine million pound allocation for the canmerclal fishery. The canmerclal allocat.lon Is divided Into hook and line gears - 3,877,200 pounds, net gears - 5,122.800 pounds. If any of The allocations are exceeded, the fIshery will be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. Management MeasureD In Section 12.3.2.1 specifies that the fishery for SpanIsh mackerel will cease when the OY of 27 million pounds Is harvested. Management Measure E In Section 12.3.1.1 and C In Section 12.3.2.1 establish framework measures for Im~' lementlng recreational bag limits and canmercl al tr Ip limits for kl ng and Spanish mackerel, If the need arises. Measure E also provides for a size limit for king mackerel. Management Measure B In Section 12.3.2.1 sets a 12-lnch minimum fork length size limit for Spanish mackerel In both the canmerclal and recreational fisheries. A catch allowance for undersized fish of five percent of total catch by weight of Spanish mackerel on board a vessel wIll be allowed. Management Measure A for cobia In Section 12.3.3.1 sets a minimum size limit of 33 Inches fork length. Limits on purse seine harvest of king and Spanish mackerel are established by Measure A In Section 12.3.4.1. 13-1 13.4 Types of Vesse Is, Gear and Enforcement Dev Ices D i Section 12.3.1.1 sets a mInimum mesh sIze of 4-3/4 Inches stretch mesh forManagement Measure n king mackerel gIll nets. 13.5 State, Local and Other Laws and PolicIes SpanIsh mackerel Managment Measure B sets a 12-lnch minImum srze lImIt (commercIal and recreatronal) whIch Is the same as lImIts Imposed by the states of Florida and South Carolina. King mackerel Management Measure E sets a mInImum gIll-net mesh sIze of 4-3/4 Inches for dIrected kIng mackerel fIsheries. This Is the same as FlorIda law. 13.6 L I m I ted Access Sy stem A system of limited access to the coastal mIgratory pelagic fishery was found not to be appropr late at this tIme. 13.7 Habitat PreservatIon, ProtectIon and Restoration --,,". WhIle there are certaIn areas of habitat Important to the coastal mIgratory pelagic fishery, no specIfIc preservatIon or restoratIon measures were found to be necessary In thIs plan at this tIme. 13.8 Development of FIshery Resources There Is a specIfIc objectIve In the plan for Spanish mackerel (number four In Section 12.1) to pro mote the maximum use of the resource up to the OY estimate. 13.9 Management Costs and Revenues No sources of revenue, other than fInes from violators, have been IdentifIed in thIs plan. are not req u r red from any user group. Permits The mechanIcs of enforcement of the measures In this plan have not been finalIzed at thIs poInt. On sIte enforcement under the Fishery Management and Conservation Act Is the responsibility of the U.S. Coast Guard. It rs possIble, also that enforcement agreements would be entered Into with varIous states. Prel rmrnary estImated costs to government for data collection and enforcement of the proposed regula tions Is $376,303. Thrs estImate Includes: Monitoring and data collectIon $ 81,859 Enforcement Coast Guard NMFS Total $184,444 $110,000 $294,444 T ota I An nua I Costs $376,303 13-2 14.0 SPEC I F I CAT I ON AND SOURCE OF PERT I NENT FISHERY DATA 14.1 Genera I Certain key data are vital to effective fIshery management. Better statistics on catch and effort are needed to provide more precIse management Information for the coastal pelagIc fishery. The type of data specified In this plan to be required from the public has been carefully consIdered to minImize the burden on respondents wh lie obtaIning the necessary Information. Th Is will be ach leved by usIng statistical sampling where practical, rather than a complete census approach. Also, the statistical reprting system specified In this plan will be Integrated wIth those for all plans In the respectiveCouncil areas In order to achIeve effIcIency and standardization. The requIred data elements have been carefully consIdered so as to requIre only those for which there Is a critical need. In addition to statistIcal data collection, areas of needed research have been specIfied In order to encourage approprIate groups to undertake efforts to Improve the Information base for effectively managing the fishery. 14.2 Domestlc and Forel~n Harvesters rO-. Reporting requirements for domestic fishermen are discussed In Section 12.3.5. In addition to the above data reporting provisions, the Councils have recmended that the National Marine Fisheries Service provide the Councils with a draft logbook for distribution to the coastal migratory pelagIc recreational fishermen that could be filed on a vo luntary basis. There are currently no foreign fIshermen participating In the fIshery except for an Inconsequential Incidental catch. li TALFF (total allowable level of foreign fishing) wIll be available under this plan. However, foreIgn fishermen taking species In the managment unit as a bycatch must coperate In reprting the amount of such catch. 14.3 Processors ".. Processors are required to report under the provisions In Sect Ion 12.3.5. Such reprt Ing will Include the duty to coperate In gathering comercial catch and trip ticket data for those who purchase direct I y from fishermen. 14.4 Areas of Research Needed t6 Improve the Mana~ement Informatlon Base Effective management of the coastal migratory pelagIc resurces wIll be fostered as Improved research Information becomes available. The Councils have recommended: A. That the research needs as they apply to king mackerel be Instituted according to the following priority order: 1. Provide better estimates of recruitment, natural mortality, fishing mortality and standing stock for kIng mackerel. Information Is neeed on mortality resulting f rom the bycatch of king mackerel In the Spanish mackerel fishery. SpecIfic Information should Include an estI-mate of total amount caught and dIstribution of catch by area, season and type of gear. DetermIning the catch In gill-net gear should be given first priority. 2. DetermIne the number of separate stocks of king mackerel, their seasonal distributIon and migratIon patterns and the dIstribution of fishing effort between stocks. 3. DetermIne sIze dl strlbut Ion of the catch by area. 14-1 B. 4. Determine the effect of purse seine use on king mackerel stocks. Research should Include size distributIon of the catch, by catch of other species, catch per unit effort, ability of fisher men to determine the size and species composition of the catch prior to pursing the net, and ability to release a school unharmed. If this research results In any harvest of king mackerel, other than normal commercial catches, that harvest should be limited to no more than 400,000 pounds. 5. O:nduct migration studies to determine normal king mackerel migration routes. variatIons In these routes, and the climatic or other factors responsible for these variations. 6. Determine the relation between migration of prey species (I.e., herring), and the migrations of kl ng mackerel. 7. Assess the extent and effect of gill-net fallout. That the research needs as they apply to the Spanish mackerel stock be Instituted accord I Ilg to the following priority order: 1. Provide better estimates ot recruitment, natural irrtallty rates, flst.Jlgirrtality rates, and stand I ng stock. 2. Determine the number of separate stocks, their seasonal distribution, migration patterns and the distribution of fishing effort between stocks. 3. Determine the effect of purse seine use on Spanish mackerel stocks. Research should Include size distribution of the catch, bycatch of other species, catch per unit effort, ability of fishermen to determine the size and species composition of the catch prior to pursing the net, and ability to release a school unharmed. If this research results In any harvest of Spanish mackerel, other than normal comercial catches, that harvest should be limited to no more than 400,000 pounds. 4. Conduct migration studIes to determine normal and changes In coastal migratory pelagIc migra tion routes and the climatic or other factors responsible for changes In the environmntal and habitat conditions which may affect the habitat and availability of stocks. 5. Assess the extent and effect of gill-net fallout. 6. Determine the relation between mIgration of prey species (I.e., herring), and the migration pattern of the stock. Better estimates of recruitment, naturalirrtallty, fishing mortality, and size of standing stocks are Important to provide irre precise eslmates of MSY. Knowledge of king mackerel bycatch In the Spanish mackerel fishery Is needed because of the posslbl I Ity that this bycatch may be large enough to adver sely affect the directed king mackerel fishery. DeterminIng the number and characteristics of separate stocks (If any) of king and Spanish mackerel Is Important because of the possibility that separate stocks exist and that some stocks may be fished irre heavily than others. Size distribution of the catch and any differences by area will be very Important If the Councils consider sIze limits on king mackerel as a method to limit total harvest. This may require a long-term, on-going sampling program. Migration studies are needed because questions have arisen as to the reasons for king and Spanish mackerel not being as abundant In certain areas during certain years. In particular, fisher men have pointed out that king mackerel became less and less abundant during 1976, 1977, and 1978 In areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico. A better understanding of the cyclic nature of king and Spanish 14-2 ma':kerel migrations and the possible relationship to migration of prey species \luld greatly contrl buteto their effect Ive management. Research on the extent Md effect of gill-net fallout Is needed to resolve questions which have been raised as to the number of fish killed but not harvested during gilinetting operations and the effect that this has on the status of the stocks. A research project on thIs topic has been Initiated for king mackerel. ~.. 14-3 15.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO EXISTING APPLICABLE LAWS AND POLICIES 15.1 FIshery Mana~ement Plans Existing or anticIpated fIshery management plans have lIttle effect on the Coastal PelagIc Management Plan. Implemented plans which affect the management area are the ShrImp and Stone Crab Plans In the Gulf and the Surf Clam Plan on the Atlantic Coast. FIshIng for, or regulatIon of stone cr~bs have no signIficant Impact on coastal pelaglcs. The ShrImp Plan may effect coastal pelaglcs through predltor prey relatIons. The Shrimp Plan wI I I promote long-term reduction In bycatch of groundflsh, a sIgnifi cant food source for mackerels. ThIs may have some benefIcIal effect on mackerel populatIons. Plans lIkely to be Implemented In the near future Include spiny lobster, Gu If reef fish, and coral. "bne of these plans Is expected to have sIgnIfIcant Impact on coastal pelagIc resurces. ImplementatIon of thIs FMP will have lIttle Impact on other management plans. Harvest of coastal pelaglcs has little If any Impact on species regulated by other FMPs. There Is substantial overlap of fishermen and vessels between coastal pelaglcs and spiny lòpster, stone crab, and reef fish. However, this FMP Is not expected to result In any dIsplacement of user groups or ma~or changes In abundance of coastal pelaglcs. Therefore, It. Is not likely that the FMP wI II substantlal-'Iy affect fishIng act Ivlty for other spec I es. The statIstIcal reprtIng system proposed In thIs plan will be Implemented as part of the total data collectIon effort for all plans In the Gulf and south AtlantIc regIons. ThIs will achIeve cordInatIon, minimize costs and keep to a minImum the burden on respondents. 1 5.2 Treat I es or I nternat Ion a I A~reemnts There Is no sIgnIficant foreIgn partIcIpation In the Gulf and south AtlantIc coastal pelagIc fIshery. There are no specifIc treatIes or International agreements applIcable to thIs management unit other than the general governIng. International fishery agreements. These are general bl lateral agreements In whIch the particIpatIng nations agree to abide by the fishIng regulatIons of the other nation when fIshIng In theIr waters. Currently there have been no applications for ~relgn fIshing permits for any species In the mangement unit In the Gulf and south Atlantic regions. There Is reprtedly an occasional but Insignificant Incidental catch of kIng mackerel by Japanese longllne vessels. 15.3 Federal Laws and PolIcIes Many federal laws and polIcIes relate to thIs management unit In a perIpheral way. However, there are no applicable federal laws or policIes whIch wI Ii sIgnificantly constraIn any of the measures of this plan. The Intent of all data collectIon efforts under thIs plan Is to maIntain the confidentIalIty of IndivIdual responses as specIfied by the Privacy Act. PorpoIses which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act occasionally Interfere with catching specIes In the management un It, and cause certaIn problems for fIshermen; however, the provIsIons for thIs plan do not threaten the exIstence of the porpoIse. Section 7 consultatIons have been conducted to determine If measures In thIs plan have adverse Impacts on any threatened or endangered specl es as I I sted under the Endangered Specl es Act. A SectIon 7 consultatIon with the NatIonal Marl.ne FisherIes ServIce concernIng sea turtles and marIne mammals resulted In a bIologIcal opInIon that the plan was not lIkely to jeopardize these specIes. ConsultatIon with the U.S. Fish and WIldlIfe ServIce resulted In a conclusion that the FMP will have no affect on the brown pelIcan or the West IndIan manatee. The plan Is In keepIng wIth the Coastal Zone Management Act (see SectIon 7.3). Other federal laws such as the MarIne Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act may constraIn fishIng for the specIes In the management unIt to a lImIted extent; however, there are no adverse affects to management under thIs plan. 15-1 15.4 State and Loca I Laws and Po II c I as Florida, and some other states In the absence of federal law, have claimed Jurisdiction over the "operations of al I fishermen and vêssels of this state engaged In the taking of such fishery resurces within or without the boundaries of state waters." (Florida State Code, Section 370.02 (1) (a)). Such extended state jurisdiction has been upheld In the courts prior to the federal government's I nit I at Ion of a management program under the FCMA. The FCMA Is assumed to supercede the state code In all waters beyond the state territorial sea to the 200 mile limit coming under federal JurisdIction. In most cases, those state laws and policies not In agreement with this FMP will not adversely Impact proposed management measures for the FCZ, nor will they Impact overall management of the fishery. There are two cases where conflicting state laws may Impact measures In this plan. Texas prohibits possession of Spanish mackerel smaller than 14 Inches fork length. This Is not expected to be a severe problem. The State of Florida prohibits possession of foodflsh (except tuna) taken with a purse seine both Inside and outside state waters. This law will conflict with activIty legal under the plan. Florida also prohibits possession of gill nets used for taking of king mackerel which have a hanging depth of more than 200 meshes, 4-3/4 Inch stretch mesh In any county along the Atlantic coast, with the exception of Monroe County. This may Interfere with glll-net~perators fishing In the FCZ. If tested In court, It Is likely that the portions of these laws which iÍply to fishing In the FCZ will be struck down. If this happens, It will become more difficult for the state to enforce these regulat Ions as they apply to state waters. In the future, effective and equitable management will requIre a workable means of dl fferentlatlng true commercial from true recreational fishermen. This Is particularly Important In Implementing allocations to user groups. Therefore, the Councl Is have recommended that each state give con sideration to requiring all persons who sell fish to have a commercial license, that the comercial license be of signIficant dollar value and that severe penalties be levied against any commercial operator purchasing fish from an Individual not possessing a commercial lIcense. 15-2 16.0 COUNCIL REVIEW AND MONITORING OF THE PLAN 16.1 Genera I Approach The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils will, after approval and Implemen tation of this plan by the Secretary, maintain a continuing review of the fishery managed under this p I an by the fo Ilow I ng methods: A. Maintain close liaison with the management and enforcement agencIes Involved to assess the con dItion of the stocks and the effectiveness of the management measures and regulations and compll ance by the fishermen with the regulations. The state resurce agencl es, NatIonal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Coast Guard are the primary agencies with wh Ich especially close liaison will be established for plan rrnltorlng. B. Maintain close liaison with the members of the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Subpanel of the Council IS Fishery Advisory Panel to assess the effectiveness of the management measures (and regulations) and the need for Implementation of other measures or revIsions of exl~t.lng measures. c. Promote research to Increase the knowledge of the fishery and resurces by the fo I lowing methods: a. Identify the research required for better management of the fishery and resurce. b. Request the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to consider these research needs and Identify those which they can Immediately address and those which will require efforts by other agencl es or groups. c. Request state and university participation In research under their own programs to fill these data needs. d. Provide Council funding for research that cannot be addressed by NMFS, state and un Iverslty ent It les. e. Assess the effectiveness of the statistical reporting system and recommend changes to NMFS or fund specific one-time surveys for data collection where data gaps exIst. D. Conduct public hearings at appropriate times and locations In the areas where the fishing effort Is concentrated to hear testimony on the effectiveness of all aspects of the plan and the changes needed In the plan. Ë.Consider by Council and Its advisory groups all Information gained from the first four actIvitIes listed above, and If necessary, prepare amendments to the plan. H: Id public hearings on the amendments prior to sending them to the Secretary. 16.2 Speclflc Monltorln~ Considerations A. Status or cond I t Ion of the stocks. Maximum sustainable yield will be determined based on best available data. The condition of the stocks will be periodically reviewed to determine If overflshlng Is occurring. As the statistical reprt Ing system Is Improved and other research Is copleted, these addl tlonal data wIll be care fully reviewed to determine If changes In management measureG are needed. 16-1 B. Catch Limits. If the catch appears as If It will exceed or has exceeded any of the catch allocations In the plan, the Councils wll I review the data as of that time to determine whether the excess catch Is a result of high abundance of fish, Increased local avallabll Ilty, Increased effort, or Inaccuracies In the historical landings dataD If appropriate, recommendations for bag limits or size limits will be forwarded to the Regional Director, NMFS. If the updated MSY so Indicates, the allocations will be changed accordingly by plan amendment. C. Gear or .user Group Conf Ilcts. If gear or user group conflicts arise, the appropriate Council will Investigate the causes and extent of the conflict, potential 5:lutlons to the conflict, the economic and 5:clal Impacts of any proposed limitations on any user group, and other factors as appropriate. Recommendations for appropriate action will be made to the Regional Director, NMFS. Public hearings wi I Ibe held as appropr I ate to hear test lmony concern I ng sign I f i cant conf II cts. D. ...~ Harvest I ng Pract Ices. Harvesting practices proposed under the plan will be evaluated for theIr effectiveness and for the additions, deletions or modifications needed. In particular, the results of limited collrclal purse seining and the proposed research programs to determine the effects of purse seining of king and Spanish mackerel will be carefully revlewedD E. Standard Izat Ion of Management Measures. The Council wIll continue to work with the affected states to attempt to standardize regulations for the fIshery In the FCZ and state territorial waters,wtere such standardization wi II .serve a useful purpose. 16-2 17.0 LITERATURE CITED Abbas, L. In press. The North Carolina charter boat Industry. Marine Recreational Fisheries Symposium. Washington, D.C. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Sport Fish I ng I nst I tute. Alves, M. I. M. and G. S. Tome. 1967a. Algusn aspectos do desenvolvlmento maturative das gonadas da cavala, Soomberomorus cavalla (Cuvler, 1829) I In Portuguese, with Eng II sh summary). Arqulvos da Estacao de Blologla Marlnha da Unlversldade Federal do Ceara 7(1): 1-9. A I ves, M. I. M. and G. S. Tome. 1967b. Not as so bre os anexos digest I vos da cava I a, Soomberomorus cavalla (Cuvler, 1829) (In Portuguese, English summary). Arqulvos da Estacao de Blologla Marlnha da Unlversldade Federal do Ceara 7(2): 173-175. Ander9:n, W. W. 1954. Appendix SA-2, progress report, South Atlantic fishery Investigations. In: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 13th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, pt. 2:211-213. (M I meograph). Anonymous. 1980. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantlë~and Gulf coasts, 1979. Current Fishery Statistics Number 8063, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Serv Ice, 139 PP. Austin, C. B., R. D. Brugger, J. C. Davis and L. Siefert. 1977. Recreational boating In Dade County. University of Miami Sea Grant. Special Report No.9. Coral Gables, Florida. Austin, C. B., J. A. Browder, R. D. Brugger and J. C. Davis. 1978. Mackerel workshop reprt. University of Miami Sea Grant. Special Report No. 14. Coral Gables, Florida. Axelò0n, F. and J. B. Lewis. 1967. Food of the dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus Llnnaeus, and the yellowfln tuna, Thunnus albacares Lowe, from Barbados, West Indies. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 24: 683-686. Backus, R. A. 1962. 159: 1-4. Age In a small sample of bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrlx, Llnnaeus). Brevlora Backus, R. H., S. Springer and E. L. Arnold, Jr. 1956. white-tip shark, Pterolamlops lonQlmanus (Poey). A contribution to the natural history of the Deep-Sea Res. 3: 178-188. Bannister, J. V. 1976. The length-weight relationship, condition factor, and gut contents of the dolphin fish Coryphaena hlppurus In the Mediterranean. J. Fish Bioi. 9: 335-338. Barger, L. E., L. A. Collins, and J. H. Finucane. 1978. First record of bluefish larvae, Pomatomus saltatrlx, In the Gulf of Mexico. Nbrtheast Gulf Scl. 2(2): 145-147. Barroso, L. M. 1967. Biology and fishery of flying fish (Hlrundlcthys afflnls Gunther) ln the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. So i. Estud. Pesca 7: 9-37. Baughman, J. L. 1941. 1941 (2): 117. On a heavy run of dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus. off the Texas coast. Cope I a, Baughman, J. L. 1950. Random notes on Texas f I shes, Part I I. Tex. J. Scl. (2) 42-263. Beardsley, G. L., Jr. 1964. the Straits of Florida. Contribution to the biology of the dolphin fish, Coryphaena hlPPurus, In M.S. Thesis University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 79 p. 17-1 Beardsley, G. L., Jr. 1967. Age, growth, and reproduction of the dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus, In the Straits of Florida. Copela, 1967: 441-451. Beaumarlage, D. S. 1969. Returns analysis of previous results. T echn I ca ISer I as 59. 38p. from the 1965 Schiltz tagging program Including a cumulative Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Laboratory, Beaumarlage, D. S. 1970. Current status of biological InvestIgations of Florida's mackerel Hsherles. Proc. Gulf and Carlbb. Fish. Inst. 22nd Annual Meeting, 1969, p. 79-86. Beaumarlage, D. S. 1973. Age, growth, and reproduction of king mackerel,Scomberorrrus caval la, In Florida. Florida Marine Research Publication No.1. 45 p. Berkeley, S. A., E. D. Houde and F. Williams. 1975. Fishery and biology of ballyhoo on the southeast Florida coast. University of Miami Sea Grant Special Report No.4. 19 p. Berrien, P. and D. Finan. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on king mackerel, Scomberorrruscavalla (Cuvler). National Marine FIsheries Service, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, N. J., Tech. SereRep. No.8. 42 p. . ~,.~ Beverton, R. and S. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Mlnlst. Agrlc. Fish. Food (G. B.) Sere 2,19: 1-533. FI she Invest. Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1948. Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Sears Found. Mar. Res. Mem. 1 (1): 104-172. Part 1. Sharks. Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fish. Bull. 74(53): 383-343. F I shes of the Gu I f of Ma I nee U.S. Fish WI I d. Servo Bohlke. J. E. and C. G. Chaplin. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and adjacent tropical waters. Livingston Publ. Co., Wynnewood, Pa. 771 p. Briggs, J. C. 1960. Fishes of world wide (circum-tropical) distribution. Copela, 1960 (3): 126-180. Browder, J. A., J. C. Davis, and C. B. Austin. 1978. Study of the structure and economies of the recreational paying-passenger fIsheries of the Florida Gulf Coast and Keys, from Pensacola to Key West. University of Miami Contract Final Report to National MarIne FisherIes Service, Southeast Fishery Center, Contract Number NOAA/03/7 /042/35142. Brown, E. E. and F. J. Ho lem. 1975. Industry. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(4): An economic analysis of Georgia's marine charter boat fishing 11-12. Brown, H. H. 1942. Bulletin No.1: The sea fisheries of Barbados. 1-32. Development and wel fare In the West Indies. Brusher, H. A., L. Trent and M. L. Wi I IIams. 1978. RecreatIonal fishIng for king mackerel In Bay County, Florida during 1975. In: IC. B. Austin, et al.1 Mackerel Workshop Report. UnIversity of Miami Sea Grant. Spec. Rep. No. 14. Coral. Gables, Fla. p. 117-139. Bryan, H. 1976. The 9:clo logy of fish I ng: a rev I ew and crl t Ique. In: IR. Stroud and H. CI epperl Marine Recreational Fisheries. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C. 17-2 ,3urnett-Herkes, J. N. 1966. An ecologIcal study of the parasites Infesting the gil Is and buccal cavity of the dolphin-fiSh, Coryphaena hlppurus Llnnaeus, caught In the MiamI area. M. S. Thesis, UnIversity of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla. 72 p. Burukovsky, R. N. 1968. The feeding of the western African coast shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad). In: Symposium on the Living Resources of the Africa Continental Shelf between the Straits of Gibraltar and Cape Verde, 1965. Burukovsky, R. N. 1975. The feeding of four shrimp species of the genus Penaeus occurring In the Atlantic Ocean. Tr. Atl. NIRO 58: 157-167. Cadenat, J. 1950. Po I sso ns de mer du Sen ega i . Inst. Franca I s: No Ire, Inst. D'Afrlcalnes III. 345 p. C8rlson, C. B. 1952. Exploratory fishing for the little tuna (Euthynnus alletteratus) off the Atlantic coast of the UnIted States. Proc. Gulf C8rlbb. Fish. Inst., 4th Annual Session, 1951, p. 89-94. Cato, J. C. and F. J. Prochaska. 1976. fishermen National Fishermen 56(9). Porpoise attacking hooked fish IrK~and Injure Florida Cato, J. C., A. R. Morris and F. J. Prochaska. 1978. Production, costs, and earnings by boat size: Florida SpanIsh mackerel fishery. University of Florida Sea Grant Program, Marine AdvIsory Program Report No.4. 16 p. Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 1975. Economic Impacts of the U.S. commercIal fishing Industry. A reprt prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 307 p. Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 1977. Economic activity associated with marine recreational fishing. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, 206 p. Centaur Associates, Inc. 1981. Socioeconomic study of mackerel purse fishery. Two \Klumes. reprt to the Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries ServIce. COntract No. NA79-GA-C-0049, 445 pp. Contract Cervlgon, F. 1966. Los peces marlnos de Venezuela, Vo I. 2. Estaclon de Investigaciones Marinas de Margarita, Fundaclon la Salle de Clenclas Naturales, Caracas, Monografla no. 12, p. 449- 951. Chittenden, M. E., Jr. 1977. Simulations of the effects of fIshing on the Atlantic croaker, MlcropoQOn undul8tus. Proc. Gu If Carlbb. Fish. Inst. 29th annual sessIon, p. 68-86. Clark, E. and K. von Schmidt. 15: 13-83. 1965. Sharks of the central Gulf coast of Florida. Bull. Mar. Scl. Clark, J. R. 1962. The 1960 sa It-water ang" ng survey. U. S. .Flsh Wlldl. Servo Clrc. 153. 36 p. Clarke, M. R. 1966. 91-300. A review of the systematics and ecology of oceanic squids. Adv. Mar. Blo I. 4: Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1972. The economic Impact of commercIal s¡xrt fishing activities In Morehead City, North Carolina. A reprt prepared for the Department of Administration, State of North Caro II na. 178 p. 17-3 Collette, B. B., R. H. Gibbs, Jr. and G. E. Clipper. 1969. Vertebral numbers and Identification of the two species of dolphin (Coryphaena). Oopela, 1969: 630-631. Collette, B. B., J. L. Russo, and L. A. Zavala-Camln. 1978. species of Spanish Mackerel from the Western Atlantic. 76:. 273-280. Soomberomorus brasiliensis, a new U.S., Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Fish, Bull. Collette, B. B. and J. L. Russo. 1979. An Introduction to the Spanish mackerels, genus Scomberomorus. In: Nakamura and Bullis (eds.), ProceedIngs: 00 lIoqulum on the Spanish mackerel re9urces of the Gu I f of Mexl co. Gu I f States Marl ne F I sheri es Comml ss Ion, No. 4, p. 3-16. and KI ng Dan I el, D. L. 1974. A survey of sport fish I ng rei ated expend I tures I n a sa I ectad port Ion of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. A reprt prepared for the Mississippi - Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, University of Southern MissIssippi. MASGP-74-019. 22 p. Davis, James Connor. 1979. Migratory status of the little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus). Mexico Fishery Management Council. Inhouse review paper. 6 pp. Gu' f of ..:.~ . Dawson, C. E. 1971. Occurrence and description of preJuvenlle and early juvenile Gulf of Mexico cobia, Rachycentron canadum. Oope I a, 1971: 65-71. deSylva, D. P. and W. F. Rathjen. 1961. from the southeastern Un Ited States. Life history notes on the little tuna, Euthynnus alletteratus, Bull. Mar. Scl. Gulf andCarlbb. 11: 161-190. Detwyler, R. and E. D. I-ude. 1970. Food selection by laboratory-reared larvae of the scaled sardine Haren~ula pensacolae (Pisces, Clupeldae) and the bay anchovy Anchoa mitchllll (Pisces, Engraulldae). Mar. Bioi. 7: 214-222. Deuel, D. G. 1973. The 1970 salt-water angling survey. Statistics, li. 6200. 54 p. U.s. Nat. Mar. FI she Servo Current Flsherl as Deuel, D.G., J. R. Clark and A. J. Mansuetl. 1966. Descrlpt Ion of embryonic and early larval stages of b 1 uef Ish, Pomatomus sa Itatr I x. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95 (3): 264-271. Deuel, D. G. and J. R. Clark. Service, Resour. Publ. 67. 1968. 51 p. The 1965 sa It-water ang II ng survey. U.S. Fish and WIldlife Ditton, R. B. 1976. Texas charter fishing survey: summary highlights. Parks, Texas A & M UnIversity. 5 p. Department of Recreation and Ditton, R. B., N. J. Jarman, on the Texas Gu I f Coast. University. 195 p. T. J. Mertens, M. P. Schwartz and S. A. Woods. 1977. Charter fIshing Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (Recreation and Parks), Texas A & M Dol, T., and D. Mendlzabal. 1979. Evaluclon prellmlnar de la pobloclon de sierra, Soomberorrrus maculatus (Mitcheli), Frente a las costas de Vera Cruz. In: Nakamura and Bul lis (ads.). Proceedings: OolloQulm on the Spanish and King mackerel re9urces of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, fi. 4, p., 43-55. Doubleday, W. C. At I ant. Fish. 1976. Environmental fluctuations and fisheries management. Selected Papers (1): 141-150. Int. Comm. f\rthw. 17-4 Dragov I ch, A. 1969. Spec. Scl. Rep. Review of studies of tuna food In the Atlantic Ocean. Fish., No. 593. 21 p. u.s. FIsh and Wild. Servo Dwlnel I, S. E. and C. R. Futch. 1973. Spanish mackerel and king mackerel larvae and Juveniles In the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, June through October, 1969. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Leafl. Sere Vol. 4, Pt. 1, No. 24. 14 p. Earll, R. E. 1883. The Spanish mackerel, Cyblum rnculatum (Mitch.); Its natural hls~ry and artificial propagation, with an account of the origin and development of the fishery. U.S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, Report for 1880, p. 395-426. Ehrenbaum, E. 1924. Report on the Danish oceanographic expeditions 1908-10 to the Mediterranean. (Blo logy), A II: 1-30. 2(8) Eldred, B., R. M. Ingle, K. D. Woodburn, R. F. Hutton and H. Jones. 1961. Biological observations on the commercial shrimp Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad, In Florida waters. Fla. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. Sere 3. 139 p. ",. EI lis, R. W. 1967. Catches of fish by charterboats on Florida's east coast. Fla. St. Bd. Conserv., Spec. Servo Bull. No. 14, 6 p. Erdman, D. S. 1958. Foods of pelagic fishes from Puerto Rico and the Bahama Islands. Third International Game Fish Conference, Miami Beach, Florida, November 1958. 10 p. (Unpublished). Etzo Id, J. E., N. O. Murray and C. C. D. Veal. 1977. Charter boat fishing on the MI sslssJppl Gulf Coast. A Report prepared for the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consort lum, Un Ivers ity of Southern Mississippi. MASGC-T-002. 15 p. Evermann, B. W. 1899. Investigations In Puerto Rico of the United States Fish Commission steaar FISH HAWK, In 1899. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. Washington, D. C. Finucane, J. H., L.A. Collins, and L. E. Barger. 1978a. Assessment of an Act Ive 011 F I el d In the Northwestern to EPA. NMFS SEFC Galveston Laboratory. IchthyopI ankton. In: Environmental Gulf of Mexico, 1977-78. NQQA Annual Report Finucane, J. H., L. A. Co Illns, L. E. Barger and J. D. McEachran. 1978b. Ichthyoplankton/mackerel eggs and larvae. In: Environmental Studies of the South Texas Outer Continental Shelf, 1977. NOAA Final Report to BLM. NMFS SEFC Galveston Labora~ry. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. draft. Tallahassee, Florida. 168 p. 1978. The Florida coastal zone program: legislative Fluchter, J. 1974. Laboratory rearing of comiin sole (Solea ~ L.) under controlled conditions at high density with low mortality. In: J. H. S. Blaxter (ed.). The early IIf~ history of fish. Springer-Verlag. New York. p. 725-730. Fowler, H. W. 1945. A study of the fishes of the southern Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Scl. Philadelphia, Monograph No.7, 406 p. Acad. Nat. Freeman, B. L. and S. C. Turner. lkpubllshed. The effects of anoxIc water on the bluefIsh, Pomatomus saltatrlx, an actively swimming fish. National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandy Hook Laboratory, New Jersey. 17-5 Gentle, E. C., III. February, 1977. 1977. The charterboat sport fishery of Dade County, Florida, March, 1976, to M. S. Thesis, UniversIty of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. Gestelra, T. C. V. 1972. Sobre a reproducao e fecundldade da serra, SoombenJmorus maculatus (Mitch II i), no Estado do Ceara (In Portuguese, English summary!. Arq. Clenc. Mar. 12(2': 117-122. Gibbs, R. H., Jr. and B. B. Collette. 1959. On the IdentIfication, distribution, and biology of the dolphins, Coryphaena hlppurus and C. eQulsells. Bull. Mar. Scl. Gulf Carlbb. 9: 117-152. Gods II, H. C. 1954a. Euthynnus yalto. A comparison of Japanese and HawaiIan specimens of the black skipJack, Calif. Fish Game, 40 (4): 411-413. Godsll, H. C. 1954b. A descriptive study of certain tuna-like fishes. Bull., 97: 1-185. Ca" f. Dep. Fish Game Fish Gorbunova, N. N., and N. Y. Llpskaya. 1975. Jorden et Snyder (Pisces, Istlophorldae). 15: 1 09-116. Feeding of larval blue marlin Makalra nl~rlcans J. Ichthyol. (Engl. Transl. Vopr. Ikhtlol.). ~";7 Gulland, J. A. 1969. Manual of methods for fish stock assessment. UN F AO Man. Fish. Sc I. 154 p. Part 1. Fish populatIon analys Is Hall, D. N. F. 1955. Recent development In the Barbadian flying-fish 11shery and contributions to the biology of the flying-fIsh, Hlrundlchthys afflnls (Gunther). ColonIal Office, Fish. Publ. 7: 1-41. Hassler, W. W. 1964 (Unpublished). Life history aspects of the cobia Rachycentron canadum (Linnaaus) In Pamllco Sound, N. C. Report to Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D. C., 8p. Hassler, W. W. and W. T. Hogarth. 1977. Carolina. Aquaculture 12: 115-122. Growth and culture of dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus, In North Hassler, W. W. and R. p. Rainville. 1975a. Techniques for hatching and rearing cobia, Rachycentnon canadum, through larval and Juvenile stages. North Carolina State University Sea Grant Publication UNe-SG-75-30. Raleigh, N. C. 26p. Hassler, W.W. and R. P. Rainville 1975b. Techniques for hatching and rearing dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus, through larval and juvenile stages. North Carolina State University Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-75-31. Raleigh, N.C. 22 p. Hildebrand, H. H. 1955. A study of the fauna of the pink shrimp grounds In the Gulf of Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl. Unlv. Tex. 4(1): 169-232. Hildebrand, S. F. 1963. Family Clupeldae. Mar. Res. Mem. No. 1 part 3: 257-454. In: Fishes of the western North Atlant Ic. Sears Found. Hochachka, P. W. 1974. Temperature and pressure adaptation of the binding sIte of acetyl cholln esterase EC-3.1.1.7. Blochem J. 535-539. Haese, H. D. 1958. A partially annotated checklist of the marine fishes of Texas. Scl. Un Iv. Tex. 5: 312-352. Pub i. Inst. Mar. Haese, H. D. 1965. Spawning of marine fishes In the Port Aransas, Texas area as determined by the distribution of young and larvae. Ph.D. Dissertation, UniversIty of Texas, 144 p. 17-6 Horvath, J. C. 1974. Southeastern economic survey of wi i d II fe recreation, execut ive summary. State University, Atlanta, Georgia, 68 p. Georg i a Hoss, D. E., W. F. Hettler, Jr. and L. C. Coston. 1974. Effects of thermal shock on larval estuarine fish-ecological Implications with respect to entrainment In power plant cooling systems. In: J. H. 5. Blaxter. (Ed.) The early life hIstory of fish. Springer Verlag, New York. p. 357-372. Houde, E. D. and W. Richards. 31(12): 32-34. 1969. Rearing larval tunas In the laboratory. Commer. Fish. Rev. Houde, Edward D., J. C. Leak, C. E. Dowd, S. A. Berk i ey and abundance and diversity In the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Management, Contract Number AA550-CT7-28. 546 pp. W. A. Richards. 1979. Ichthloplankton Final report to the Bureau of Land Howell-Rivero, L. 1953. Los Investigaciones Pesqueras Cuba. p. 1-105. escombrldos en Cuba su blologla e Industrialization. Centro de del Banco Fomento Agrlcolas e i ndustrl al s, Contrlbucion No.2, Habana, .;c.. Hunter, J. R., and C. T. Mltcheel. 1966. Association of fishes with flotsam In the offshore waters of Central America. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Serv., Fls,h. Bull. 66: 13-29. Huntsman, G. R. 1976. Offshore headboat fishing In North Carolina and South Caroli na. Rev. 38(3): 13-23. Mar. Fish. i ng Ie, R. M. 15 pp. 1967. Purse net studies In Florida. Spec. Scl. Rep. No. 19. Fla. ST. Bd. Conserve Inque, M., Y. Iwasaki, M. AokJ, A. Mlyashita and H. Yatoml. 1972. Studies on culture and domestica tion of tuna, bl Ilflsh and other large-sized oceanic fish. Part 1. Culture and domestication of Thunnus thynnus, Katsuwonus pe I am Is, Sarda or i enta II s, Auxl s thazard, Aux I s tape i nosoma, Euthynnus afflnis, Hlstlophorus orienTal I, and Coryphaena hlppurus In a fish preserve and a portable pool at Mera, 1970-1971. J. Coli. Mar. Scl. Technol. Toka I Un Iv. 6: 69-78. Ivo, C. T. C. 1972. Epoca de desova e Idade na prlmelra maturacao sexual da cavala, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvler), no Estado do Ceara (In Portuguese, English summary). Arg. Clenc. Mar. 12(1): 27-29. Ivo, C. T. C. 1974. Sobre a fecundldade da cavala, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvler), em aguas costelras do Estado do Ceara (Brasil) (In Portuguese, English summary). Arq. Clenc. Mar., 14(2): 87-89. Jlnadasa, J. 1972. Predators of flying fish Hlrundlchthys coromandelensis and its suitability as a bait fish. Ceylon Association for the Advancement of Science, Proceedings of Annual Session. 28 (I): 88. Joseph, E. B., J. J. Norcross and W. H. Massman. 1964. Spawning of the cobia, Rachycentron canadum, I n the Chesapeake Bay, with observations of Juvenile specimens. Chesapeake Scl. 5: 67-71. Kendall, A. W., Jr. and L. A. Walford. sa Itatrlx) larvae and juveniles off Fish. Bull. 77. 1979. Sources and distribution of bluefish (Pomatomus the United States east coast U.S., Nat. Mar. Fish. Servo Kirsch, A. D., E. L. Mabrey and southeastern Un I ted States, 7333, 13 p. D. G. Deuel. 1977. ParticIpation In marine recreational fishing, 1974. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Servo Current Fisheries Statistics No. 17-7 Klawe, W. L. 1961. Young scombrolds from the waters between Cape Hatteras and Bahama Islands. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carlbb. 11(1): 150-157. Bu 11. K lawe, W. L. and B. M. Sh Imada. 9: 110-115. 1959, . Young scombrold fIshes from the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Carlbb. KleIn, L. R. and R. Summers. 1966. the Wharton index of capacIty utilization. Wharton School of Finance, Dept. Econ., Philadelphia, Pa., 94 p. Un i v. Pennsy I va n i a, Klima, E. F. 1959. Aspects of the biology and the fishery for Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus macu latus (Mitchfll), of southern Florida. Florida St. Conserve Tech. Ser., No. 27. 39 p. K i I ma, E. F. 1976. An assessment of the fish stocks and f Is her I es of the Campeche Bank. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAF) Studies, No.5. 24 p. FNJ, Knapp, F. T. 1949. Menhaden utilization In relation to the conservation of food and game fishes of the Texas Gulf coast. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 79:137-144. Knapp, F. T. 1951. Food habIts of the sargeant fish Rachycentron canadum. -Copeia, 1951: 101-102. Kojima, S. 1955. A study of dorado fishIng conditions In the western part of the Japan Sea, i. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Scl. Fish., 20 (12): 1044-1049. Kojima, S. 1956. FishIng for dolphins in the western part of the Japan Sea -- ri. Why do the fish take shelter under floating materials? Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish., 21 (10): 1049-1052. Kojima, S. 1960a. Fishing for dolphins In the western part of the Japan Sea -- iv. fish gathering around bamboo rafts. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Scl. Fish., 26 (4): 379-382. Behav i ors of Kojima, S. 1960b. Fishing for dolphins In the western part of the Japan Sea -- V. attracted to bamboo rafts. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Scl. Fish., 26(4): 383-388. Specl es of fish Kojima, S. 1963. Studies of fishing conditions of the dolphin, Coryphane (sic) hlppurus L., In the western region of the Japan Sea -- Vii. Comparison of juvenile fish fauna In the sea and in the stomachs of dolphin. Bull. Jpn. Soc. scr. Fish., 29 (6): 507-513. Kojima, S. 1964. Studies on fishing conditions of the dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus L., in the western regions of the Sea of Japan. -- iX. Quantatlve analysis on stomach contents. (Eng. Abst.). Bull. Jpn. Soc. Fish. 30: 619-623. Kojima, S. 1965. Studies on fishing conditions of the dolphin Coryphaena hlppurus L., in the western regions of the Sea of Japan. -- X. Results of tagging experiment. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. FIsh. 31: 575-578. Kojima, S. 1966. Studies on fishing conditions of the dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus, in the western regions of the Sea of Japan. -- XI. School of dolphins accompany I ng various kl nd.s of flotages. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 32:647-651. Kolaro\i, P. 1964. Razmeren Iv "Zrastous" stav na lefera (Pomatomus saltatrlx L.) ot Bulgarskoto chernomorsko Kralbrezhe. (Size and age composition of P. saltatrlx off the Bulgarian Black Sea coast) Izv. Inst. Rib. Varna. 4:207-220. Laroe, E. T., III. 1967. A contributIon to the biology of the Lollglnldae (Cephalopoda: Myopslda) of the tropical western Atlantic. M. S. Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla. 220 p. 17-8 Uiroe, E. T., III. their behavior Fla. 136 p. 1970. The rearing and maintenance of squid In confinement, with observations on In the laboratory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Lassiter, R. R. 1962. Life history aspects of the bluefish Pomatomus seltatrlx (Llnnaeus), from the coast of North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, I'rth Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. 123 p. Lenarz, W. H., W. W. Fox, Jr., G. T. Seekagawa, and B. J. Rothschild. 1974. An examinatIon of the yield per recruit basIs for a minimum size regulation for Atlantic yellowfln tuna, Thunnus albacares. Fish. Bull. U.S. 72(1): 37-61. Lewis, J. B. and F. Axelsen. 1967. Food of the dolphin, Coryphaens hlppurus Llnnaeus, and of the yellowfln tuna, Thunnus albacares (Lowe), from Barbados, West Indies. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 24:683-686. Lipinski, M. 1973. The place of squids In the biological and fishery structure of the world ocean. Squid Symposium, Gdynla, June 5-6 1973. (Symposium Kalmarowes 5-6 Czejwlec 1973, Gdynla). Translated from Polish. Published by Sea Fishery Institute. 173 p. -" Llppson, A. J. and R. L. Moran. 1974. Manual for Identification of early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac River estuary. Martin Marietta COrporation Environmental Technology Center. PPSP-MP 13, 282 p. Llpskaya, N. Y. 1974. Metabolic rates In the young of some tropical fish species. (Engl. Transl. Vopr. Ikhtlol). 14: 934-943. J. Ichthyol. Low, R, A., Jr. 1973. Shoreline grassbed fishes In Blscayne Bay, Florida, with notes on the avail ability of clupeld fishes. M. S. Thesis, UnIversity of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla. 145 p. Lozano-Cabo, F. 1961. Blometrla, blologla y pesca de la lampuga (Coryphsens hlppurus L.) de laslslas Baleares. Mem. Rei. Acad. Clenc. Eactas. Fls. Mar. Sere Clenc. Nat. 21:1-93. Lund, W, A., Jr. and G. C. Maltezos. 1970. Movements and migrations of the bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrlx, tagged In waters of New York and southern New England. Trens. Am. fish. Soc. 99:719-725. Lyles, C. H. 1969. F. S. no. 4936. The Spanish mackerel and king mackerel fisheries. 21 p. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Serv., c. Mabrey E. L., D. G. Deuel and A. D. Kirsh. 1977. Southeestern regional survey of saltwaterfishermen, 1974-1975. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Servo Magnuson, J. J. and J. G. Heitz 1971. Gill-raker apparatus and food selectivity among mackerels, tunas, and do i ph Ins. U. S. Fish. Wli d I. Servo Fish. Bu II. 69: 361-370. Magnuson, J. J., and A. E. Murch lson. 1966. I'tes on the coloretlon and behavior of the COlTn dolphin, Corypheena hlppurus. Pac. Scl. 20: 515-517. Manooch, C. S., ill. 1979. Recreational and comercial fisheries for king mackerel, Soomberomorus cavalla, In the South Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. In: Nakamura and Bullis (Eds.). Proceedings: COlloquium on the Spanish and King Mackerel Resources of the Gulf of MexIco. Gulf States Marine Fisheries COmmission, t-. 4, p. 33-41. Manooch, C. S., ILL and S. T. Laws. 1977. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41 (4): 1979. 15-27. Survey of North Caro II na charter boat tro lied II ne fishery, 17-9 Manooch, C. S., III, E. L. Nakamura, and A. B. Hall. 1978. scombrids: Scomberomorus brasillensls,~. caval la, ~. Comm., NOAA Techn. Rep. NMFS Circ. 418, 166 p. Annotated bibliography of four Atlantic macu latus, and~. reQa II s. U. S. Dept. Marchal, E. 1963. Expose synoptlque des donnees biologiques sur la Thonl ne Euthynnus alletteratus (Raflnesque) 1810 (Atlantique Oriental Medlterranee). Synopsis on the biology of little tuna Euthynnus alletteratus (Raflnesque) 1810 (East Atlantic and Mediterranean). Species Synopsis No. 20, FAL Fisheries Biology Synopsis No. 63, Fisheries Division, Biology Branch, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Mather, F. J., ILL and C. G. Day., Copela, 1954: 179-188. 1954. Observations of pelagic fishes of the tropical Atlantic. Mayo, D. A.. 1973. Rear I ng, growth, and deve I opment of the eggs and I arvae of seven scombrl d f I shes from the Straits of Florida. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Cables, Fla. 138 p. Menezes, M. F. 1969. Allmentacao da cavala, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), em aguas costeiras d.o Estado do Ceara (In Portuguese, English summary). Arq. Clenc. Mar. 9(1):.15-20. ....-:" Menezes, M. F. 1970. Allmentacao da serra, Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitch III), em aguas costelras do Estado do Ceara i In Portuguese, English summary) Arq. Clenc. Mar. 10(2):171-176. McEachran, J. D., and J. H. Finucane. 1979. (Abstract). Distribution, seasonality, and abundance of larval king and Spanish mackerels In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Nakamura and Bullis, (eds.), Proceedings: Colloquium on the Spanish and King Mackerel Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No.4. p. 59. McHugh, J. L. 1972. Marl ne f Isherl es of New York State. U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Fish. Bull. 70: 585-61 O. Mcilwain, T. D. 1976. Salt water angling In MissIssippi. J. Miss. Adad. Sc ¡ . 21 (Suppl). 85 p. Mlto, S. 1960. Egg development and hatched larvae of the common dolphin-fish Coryphaena hippurus L. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Scl. Fish. 26: 223-226. Moe, M. A. 1967. purse nets. Basic consideration of fishery production and management with special reference to Spec. Scl. Rep. No. 20. Fla. St. Bd. Conserve 12 pp. Morl, K., and M. Takahashi. 1973. Studies on relative growth In body parts compared In Coryphaena hlppurus and~. equisel is, and notes on gonadal maturation In the latter specIes. Jpn. Far Seas Fish. Res. Lab. Bull. 8:79-113. Morris, R. A. 1977. Primary economic Impact of Florida's commercial fishIng industry. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 180 p. M.S. Thes Is, Morris, R. A., F. J. Prochaska and J. C. Cato. 1977. An economic analysis of king mackerel produc tion by hook and line on the Florida Atlantic Coast. University of Florida Sea Grant, Marine Advl s lory Program Report No.1. 8 p. Morris, R. A., F. J. Prochaska and J. C. Cato. 1978. Production costs and earnings by boat size: Florida Spanish Mackerel Fishery. University of Florida Sea Grant. Mowbray, L. S. Bahamas. 1956. The game fishes of Bermuda. First International Gameflsh Conference. The Mar I ne Laboratory, Un I vers I ty of M I am I : 1-8 (M I meogr) . Nassau, 17-10 Munro, I. S. R. 65-95. 1943. Revision of Australian species of Scomberomorus. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 12(21): Murawsk i, S. A., D. G. Frank and Pepri lus trlacanthus (Peck). Laboratory, HIghlands, N. J. S. Chang. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on butterfish, U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Servo Tech. Sere Rep. No.6. Sandy Hook Murch I son, A. E. 1966. hlppurus. Pac. Scl. Notes on the coloration and behavior of the common dolphin, Coryphaena 20:515-517. Nakamura, E. L. 1976. Scombrld fishes In St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 26(4): 619-621. Nakamura, E. L., and H. R. Bullis, Jr. (eds.). Mackerel Resources of the Gu i f of Mexl co. 1979. Proceedings: Colloquium on the Spanish and King Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No.4, 117 p. Nomura, H. 1967. Dados Blologlcos Sobre a Serra, Scomberomorus Maculatus (Mitchill), Das Aguas Cearenses. Arq. Estac. Bioi. Mar. Unlv. Fed. Ceara, 7(1): 29-39. Nomura, H.. and R. S. Costa. from northeastern Brazl i. ';-,-. 1968. Length-weight relationship of two species of Scombrldae fishes Arq. Estac. Bioi. Mar. Unlver. Fed. Ceara, 8(1): 95-99. Nomura, H. and M. S. S. Rodrigues. 1967. Biological notes on king mackerel, Scomberomorus cava I I a (Cuvler), from northeastern Brazil. Arq. Estao. Bioi. Mar. Univ. Fed. Ceara. 8(1): 95-99. Norcross, J. J., S. L. Richardson, W. H. Massman and E. B. Joseph. 1974. Deve I opment of young bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrlx) and distribution of eggs and young in Virginia coastal waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103(3): 477-497. North, R. M. 1976. EconomIc values for marine recreatlon,al fisheries. In: Clepped, (eds.), Marine Recreational Fisheries. Sport Fishing Institute. R. Stroud and H. Wash I ngton, D. C. North Caro II na Department of Natura I Resources and Commun I ty Deve I opment. Carol I na management program and draft env I ronmental Impact statement. 264 p. 1978. State of North Rale igh, North Caro Ii na. O'Conell, C. p. 1972. The InterrelationshIp between biting and fettering in the feeding activity of the northern anchovy. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29: 285-293. o Ila, B. L. and A. L. Studho Ime. Pomatomus sa I tatr I x. (Pages Corp. 1972. Daily and seasonal rhythms of activity In the bluefish, 303-3261 In: Behavior of Marine AnImals (Vol. 3). Plenum Publishing Ommanney, F. S. 1948-1949. 1953. The pelagic fishes. Report on the Mauritius Sychelles fisheries survey, Colonial Off., Publ. 1(3): 58-104. Ovcharov, O. p. respIration. 1970. Hydrodynamic role of the branchial system In fish under the passive way of Zoo I. Zh. 49: 1583-1585. Padoa, E. 1956. Uova, larve e stadl glovanlll di Teleostel. Divlslone: Scombrlformes (Famlglie Scombrldae, Thunnidae, Gempylidae, Trichlurldae, Istlophorldae, Xlphlidae, pages 471-521 In: (Fauna e flora del Golfodl Napoll-38J. 17-11 Pearson, J. C. 1950. The young of some marine fishes taken in lower Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, with special reference to the gray sea trout, Cynosclon re~alls (Bloch). U.S. Fish Wlldl. Serv., Fish. Bu II. 50: 79-102. Perret, W. S., W. R. Latapie, J. F. Pollard, W. R. Mock, G. B. Adkins, W. J. Galdry and C. J. White. 1971. Fishes and Invertebrates collected In trawl and seine samples In Louisiana estuaries. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Phase iV, Biology, Section I, p. 35-105. Pesson, L. L. 1973. The coastal fisherman of Louisiana: their characteristics, attitudes, practices and responsiveness to change. Louisiana State University Sea Grant Office, Baton Rouge, Lou i s I ana. LSU- T -73-004. 60 p. Pew, P. 1957. Occurrence of young do i ph i n, Coryphaena hi ppurus, in a Texas bay. Cope la, 1957: 300. Postel, E. 1950. de surface de Africa. (2): Peche sur les cotes la presqu' lie de Cap 1-77. d'Afrique occidentale. Rapport et note sur quelques poissons Vert. Inspection generale de I'elevage Dakar, French West ..,oc Postel, E. 1954. Comparison entre la tall Ie des males et des femmelles tall Ie de premiere maturite chez Euthynnus alletteratus (Raf.) Bull. Soc. Sci. Bretagne 29: 155-157. Postel, E. 1955. Contribution a I 'etude des thonldes de 1 'Atlantique tropical. Mer. 137: 31-32. Rap p. cons. Exp lor. Postel, E. 1956. Contribution a I 'etude de la blologle de quelques Scombridae de I 'Atlantique tropico-orlental. Bull. Soc. Scl. Bretagne 31: 107-111. Potthof f, T. Atlantic. 1971. Observations on two species of dolphin (Coryphaena) from the tropical mid U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Fish. Bull. 69(4): 877-879. Potthoff T. 1978. Deve i opment and structure of the fins and fin Coryphaena hlppurus and~. equlsel Is (Pisces, Coryphaenldae). Coral Gables, Fla. 120 p. supports In the two dolphin fishes M.S. Thesis, University of M ami, Powell, D. 1975. Age, growth, and reproduction In Florida stocks of Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. No.5, 21 p. Prochaska, F. J. 1976. F I or I da commercl al mar I ne f I sheri es: trends. Un I vers I ty of Fiori da Sea Grant. Report No. 11. growth, relative Importance, and input 47 p. Prochaska, F. J. 1978. Prices, marketing margins and structural change In the king mackerel marketing system. Southern Ag. Econ. Journal. 7: 105-109. Prochaska, F. J. and J. C. Cato. 1977. f ¡shermen, commercl al act Ivltles and Report No. 19. 22 p. An econanlc profile of Florida commercial fishing firms: financial considerations. University of Florida Sea Grant. Prochaska, F. J. and J. S. W ¡ i II ams. 1976. lobster fishery by boat and vessel size. SUSF-SG-76-004. Econanlc analysis of costs and returns In the spiny University of Florida. Marine Advisory Program. Putter, A. 1909a. J ena. 168. Die Ernahrung der Wassertlere und der Stoffhaushalt der Gewasser. Gustav F I scher, 17-12 Putter, A. 1909b. Ole Ernahrung der F I sche. Ze Itsch. Allg. Physiol. 9: 147-242. Reid, G. K. Jr. 1954. An ecological study of the Gulf of Mexico fishes in the vicinity of Ceder Key, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carrlbb. 4(1): 1-94. Richards, C. E. 1965. Availability patterns of marine fishes caught by charter boats operating off VirgInia's eastern shore 1955-1962. Chesapeake Scl. 6: 96-108. Richards, C. E. 1967. Age, growth and fecundity of cobia Rachycentron canadum, from Chesapeake Bay and adjacent mid-atlantic waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 96: 343-350. Richards, C. E. 1977. growth equations. Cobia (Rachycentron-canadum) tagging wl.thln Chesapeake Bay and updating of Chesapeake Scl. 18: 310-311. Richards, S. W. 1976. Age, growth, and food of bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) from east-central Long i sland Sound from July through November 1975. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105(4): 523-525. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of. fish population.----'.~ . Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 191: 1-300. Bull. Ridgely, J. E. and D. G. Deuel. 1975. Participation in marine recreational fishing northeastern United States, 1973-74. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Servo Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6236. 8 p. Rivas, L. R. 1951. A preliminary review of the western North Atlantic fIshes of the family Scombridae. Bull Mar. Scl. Gulf Carrlbb. 1 (3): 209-230. Robson, D. S. and D. G. Chapman. 181-189. 1961. Catch curves and mortal i ty rates. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 90: Rodr i q ues, M. S. S. and R. C. F. Bezerra. 1968. Nota sobre a marta i I dade da cava I a e da serra no Estado do Ceara (In Portuguese, English summary). Arq. Estac. Bioi. Mar. Univ. Fed. Ceara 8(2): 157-161. Ronquillo, I. A. J. Fish. 2: 1954. 71-83. Food habits of tunas and dolphins based on their stomach contents. Philipp. Rose, C. D. 1966. The biology and catch distribution of the dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus (Llnnaeus), In North Carolina waters. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. 167 p. Rose, C. D. and W. W. Hassler. I n North Carol I na waters. 1968. Age and growth of the dolphin Coryphaena hlppurus (Linnaeus), Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 97: 271-276. Rose, C. D. and W. W. Hassler 1969. Application of survey techniques to the dolphin, Coryphaena hi ppurus, fishery of North Caro II na. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98: 94-103. Rose, C. D. and W. W. Hassler. 1974. Food habits and sex ratios of dolphIn Coryphaena hlppurus captured in the western Atlantic off Hatteras, North Carolina. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103: 94-100. Ryder, J. A. 1887. On the development of osseus fishes, including marine and freshwater forms. U.S. Fish. Comm. 13(1885): 489-605. Rep. Schekter, R. C. 1971. Food habits of some larval and juvenile fishes from the Florida current near Miami, Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables. Fla. 85 p. 17-13 Schuck, H. A. :35-39. 1951. Notes on the dolphin (C. hlppurus) In North Carolina waters. Q,pela, 1951 Schuck, H. A., and J. R. Clark. 1951. Record of a whltetlp shark, Carcharhlnus 10n~lrnnus, from the northwestern Atlantic. Cbpela,1951: 172. Shaw, D. A. and R. E. Warner. 1978. The mackerel r99urces of Monroe County and ad Jacent areas. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Key West, Florida. 74 p. Shcherbachev, Y. N. 1973. Biology and distribution of dolphins (Pisces, Coryphaenldae). Ichthyol. (Engl. Transl. Vopr. Ikhtlol.) 13: 219-230. J. Sissenwlne, M. P. 1977. Is MSY an adequate foundation for optimum yield? Report of the National Workshop on the concept of Optimum Yield In Fisheries Management. Pt. II, 91-117. Snedaker, S. D., de Sylva, M. Corbett, E. Q,rcoran, J. Richard, P. Lutz, E. Sullivan and D. Cottrell. 1977. The ro Ie of freshwater I n an estuary. Summary reprt for a II terature search for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, Florida by Unlverslty:~of Miami Rosenstle.. School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Miami, Fla. -~" Solchl, M. 1978. Spawning behavior of the dolphin, Coryphaena hlppurus, In the aquarli.m and Its eggs and larvae. Jpn. J. Ichthy. 24(4) 290-294. Spaulding, i. A. 1970, 403. Kingston, R. I. Selected Rhode Island fishermen and their fishing activity. AEA Bulletin Springer, V. G. and N. Plrson. 1958. Fluctuation In the relative abundance of sport fishes as Indi cated by the catch at Port Aransas, Texas, 1952-1956. Pub. Inst. Mar. Scl., Un Iv. Tex. 5: 169-185. Struhsaker, J. W., M. B. Eldridge and T. Echeverria. 1974. Effects of benzene (a water-soluble component of crude 011) on eggs and larvae of Pacific herring and northern anchovy. P. 253-284. Vernberg and W. B. Vernberg, eds. Academic Press, New York. Sturm, M. G. de L. 1968. Aspects of the biology of Soomberomorus maculatus (Mltchlll) In Trinidad. J. Fish. Bioi., 13: 155-172. Sutherland, D. F. 1977. Catch and catch System, Florida, and adjacent coastal Report NMFS SSRF - 708. 9 p. rates of f I shes caught by ang lers I n the St. Andrew Bay waters, 1973. U.S. Department of Q,mmerce, NOAA Technical Sutherland, D. F. 1978. Estimated average dally Instantaneous numbers of recreational and commercial fishermen and boaters In the St. Andrew Bay System, Florida, and adjacent coastal waters, 1973. U. S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Techn I ca' Repo rt NMFS SSRF 724. Tagatz, M. E. and D. L. Dudley. 1961. Seasonal occurrence of marine fishes In four shore habitats near Beaufort, N. C.. 1957-1960. U.S. FlshWlldl. Servo Spec. Scl. Rep.. Fisheries, No. 390.19. Tanaka, .S. 1960. Population dynamics. Bu 11. Toka I Reg. Fish. Res. Lab. (28): 1-200. Tester, A. L. and E. L. Nakamura. 1957. Catch rate, size, sex, and food of tunas and other pelagic fishes taken by trolling off Oahu, HawaII, 1951-55. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Servo Spec. Scl. Rep. 250: 1-25. 17-14 Thomson, J. M. 1957. The size at maturity and spawning times of some western Australian estuarIne fish. Fish. Bull. West Aust. (7): 1-13. Trent, L. 1976. Evaluation of marine recreational fisheries In the northwestern Gulf Port Aransas to Port Isabel, Texas, 1975-1976. A reprt prepared by the NMFS Gulf Center for the Bureau of Land Management. 236 p. of Mex I co from Fisheries Trent, L., and E. A. Anthony. 1979. Commercial and recreational fisheries for Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus. In: Nakamura and Bullis (eds.). ProceedIngs: collogulum on the SpanIsh and king mackerel resurces of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Marine FisherIes Commission. No.4. p. 17-32. Trent, L., and P. J. Prlstas. St. Andrew Bay, Florida. 1977. Selectivity of gill nets on estuarine and coastal fishes from U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Servo Fish. Bull. 75(1): 185-198. U. S. Department of Commerce, Nat lonal Marl neF I sheri es Servl ceo States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Annual Fisheries of the United U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Annual. FTshery statIstics of the UnIted States (Statistical digest). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Commerce, Nat lonal Marl ne F I sheri es Servl ceo Southeast Fishery Center, Miami, Florida. 1965-1976. Florida Landings. U.s. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1972. hunting. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1970 national survey of fishing and U.s. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife ServIce. 1977a. and wildlife-associated recreation; State technical reports. by National Analysts, Booz, Allen and Hamilton. The 1975 survey of hunting, fIshing Individual state reprts prepared U.s. Department of Interior, Fish and WIldlife Service. 1977b. 1975 survey of hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation. A study conducted by Nation Analysis, Division of Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 91 p. Van der Elst, R. 1976. Game fIsh of the east coast of southern Africa. I. The blo logy of the el f, Pomatomus saltatrlx (Llnaeus), In the Coastal waters of Natal. S. African Oceanogr. Res. Inst. Invest. Rep. 44, 59 p. Veno, T. 1965. On two rare pelagic fishes, Luvarus Imperial Is and Rachycentron canadum recently captured at Yolch, I-kkaldo, Japan. Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 12: 99-103. Voss, G. L. 1973. Cephalopod resurces of the world. Nat Ions Food and Agr I cu Iture Organ I zat Ion, Rome. FAD Fisheries Circular No., 149. Un I ted Vovk, A. N. 1972. 0 pltanll severoamerkans kogo kal'mara Lollgo paelel Les. (FeedIng habits of the North American squl d Lo II go paelel Les.). (Tr. Atl. Nauchno-issl ed. Inst. Rybn. Khoz. Okeanogr. I 42: 141-151. (Translated by the Translation Bureau (NDE) Multilingual Services Division. Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, (Dept. Env. Fisheries and Marl ne Servo I, Biological Station, St. Johns, Newfoundland, 1974. 14 pages typescript. Translation Series No. 3304. 17-15 Vovk, A. N. 1974. Polozhenle dllnnoperogo Kal'mara Lollo pealel Les. ve ekoslsteme. (The position of the longfln squId Lolio pealel Les. In the ecosystem). (Translated by the Translation Bureau (NDE) Multilingual Services Division. Department of the Secretdry of State of Canada, (Dept. ~nv. Fisheries and Marine Serv.) Biological Station, St. Johns, Newfoundland, 1977. 13 pages tYPescr I pt. Trans I at 10 n ser I es No. 3977). Wade, C. 8. 1950. Juvenile forms of Neothunnus macropeterus, Katsuwonus pelamls and Euthynnus yalta from Phllllppine seas. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Servo Fish. Bull. 51: 395-404. Wada, C~ 13.1951. Larvae of tuna and tuna-like fishes from Philippine waters. Flstt. B~II. 57: 445-485. u.S. Fish Wlldl. Servo Wade, ~. C. 1977. S~rvey of the Alabama marine recreational fishery. Resources, ~arlae Resources Division. 22 p. Alabama Department of Natural Warmke, G. L~ 1961. Brown paper nautilus (Argonauta hlans) recovered fro~ fish stomach (Coryphaena hlppur~s) In Puerto Rico. Carlqb. J. Scl. 1: 142. Wheeland, H. A. 1973. Fishery Statistics of the UnIted States, 1970. Service, Statistical Digest No. 66. NNtlo.à~l Marine Fisheries Whiteleather, R. T. and H. H. Brown. 1945! An experimental fishery survey In Trinidad, T()ttgo and British Guiana. Anglo-American Caribbean Comm., Washington. 130 pp. Wlckttam, D. A., J. W. Watson, Jr~ and L. H. Ogren~ stqJct4r~ for attract liig Pelagic sport fish. 1973. The efficiency of mid-water artificial Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102: 563-572. Wl1k, S. ~. 1977~ Biologlcal and flsherles data on bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrlx (Llnnaeus). Tech. , Seer. Rep. No. 11. National Mc!rlne Fisheries Service, t-rtheast Fisheries Center, Sandy fbok ~aboratory, Highlands, N. J. 56 p. WIIk, S! J. ~Unputt. man!, 1976). alueflsh bibliography. Sandy HoQk Laboratory, t'rtheast Fisheries Center, NatIonal Marine Fisheries Service. Highlands, N. J. 97 p. Wli !!ams, F. i!iid a. S. l'el'ElII. 1957. t-tes on the biology of the dorade or dolphin-fish (Coryphaena hlppurus) In East African waters. East Afr. Agrlc. For. J., 23: 113-118. wIlllalJs~ R~ O~ (u!lpub. man., 1976) King mackerel tagging and stock assessment study. 2nd Annual Progress Report to National Marine Fisheries Service from Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee FlorIda. July 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976. Wllllc3s, R. O. (unpub. fIan., 1977) King mackerel tagging and stock assessment study. 3rd Annual Progress Report to National Marine Fisheries Service from Florida Dep¡:rtment of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977. WIlliams, ~ Q~, and D. F. Sutherland. 1979. (Abstract). King mackerelmlgratlons! In: Nakamura and Bullis (Eds.) Proceedlngs: Colloquium on the Spanish and KIng Mackerel ReSQurces of the Gulf of MexIco, Gulf States Marine Fisheries CommissIon, No.4, p. 57. Williams, R. 0., and R. G. Taylor. (In prep.) Effects of winter weather on spring king mack.erel migration along the west Florida continental shelf. Florida Department of Natural Resources Laboratory, St. Petersburg. 17-16 WII9:n, K. W. 1976. 36: 259-268. Effects of 011 dispersants on the developing embryos of marine fish. Mar. B 10 I. WI 19:n, K. W. 1977. Acute toxIcIty of 011 dispersants to marine fish Larvae. Mar. Bioi. 40: 65- 74. WItman, R. 1974. Nenate sea turt I es from the stomach of a pe I ag I c fish, Cope I a, 1974: 548. Wollam, M. B. 1970. Description and distribution of larvae and early Juveniles of king mackerel, Scomberomorus cava 118 (Cuvl er), and Span I sh mackerel, Scomberomorus macu latus (M I tchell); (P I sces: scombrldae): In the western North Atlantic. Florida Department of Natural Resources, MarIne Research Laboratory, TechnIcal Series, No. 61. 35 p. . Zhudova, A. M. 1969. Materials on the study of the eggs and larvae of some specIes of fish from the Gulf of GuIana and from the adjacent waters of the open ocean. Translated from Russian by W. L. Klawe, 1971. "'",. 17-17 :. FINAL ENV I RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT . FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS) FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED BY CENTAUR ASSOIATES, INC. 1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. WASH I NGTON, D.C. 20036 AND STAFF MEMBERS GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCI L PREPARED FOR THE GULF OF MEX I CO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNC I L LINCOLN CENTER, SU I TE 881 5401 W. KENNEDY BOULEVARD T A'PA, FLOR I DA 33609 SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCI L 1 SOUTHPARK CIRCLE, SU ITE 306 CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29407 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 9450 KOGER BOULEVARD ST. PETER93LRG, FLORIDA 33702 .;0-' .,', Summary Sheet Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery Management Plan ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Agencies: Gu i f of Mex I co Fishery Management Counc II Contact: Wayne Swl ng Ie . Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 W. Kennedy Bou levard Tampa, Florida 33609 .. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Contact: David H. G. Gould 1 Southpark Circle Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Nat lonal Contact: Marine Fisheries Service Harold B. Allen Acting Regional Direcor 9450 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, F lor I da 33702 1. Name of Act Ion (x) Adml n i strat Ive ( ) Legl slat Ive 2. Descrlpt Ion of Act Ion: . " The proposed action will result In management of the coastal migratory pelagic fisheries In the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ). The species Involved are king, Spanish, and cero mackerel, little tunny, cobia, dolphin and bluefish. The basic objectives are 1Q manage the fishery to obtain the optimum yield, establish a statistical reprting systEI for rrnliorlng catch, and minimize gear and user group conflicts. Management measures Include mechanisms for preventing gear and user group conflicts, a total allowable catch for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel, certain size limits, and limits on purse seines while their effects are evaluated. Limited mandaiory sta tistical reprting will be required by user groups. The management actions will be Implemented under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management. Act of 1976. 3. Summry: a. Impacts The plan will help prevent maximum sustainable yield from being exceeded for king and Spanish mackerel and will contribute to stock abundance of cobhi. Other stocks In the management un It are not In danger of being overflshed. There are no significant adverse Impacts to the siocks being addressed as a result of the proposed action. No changes to other aspects of the physical environment are expected as a result of this iiction. illlno;;v,seueconcml';c :hiipaè's "1Iy:occur "oode'r c'cèm ',n .~codf;t lons('bút,.wl Ii I 'ìrot ¡~tt ~Y'~ )~'to t:pi:-è tiuse~s:of~he "r-esolJæ. (~~~ '!UJ'::"'::COOll lCh'''II: I "..irnhlhiil.zèd. Lb. ~.UnvOtdàb Ie /.Ad verse ;tinpatt.. ¡.~.ettO;:iJot~ct 't,be ! lon,r.uo;vt.l;d ior ;,';'1ohl 'conf 11 C's ; ''1 'i't.hi f tshEy ;'teve... ;,-- l , i)~WWI it.. QCS ~ MltlAör ,.con GI I.c.'d lsr:.u'P lcon. ::8 l:ótgl.dl "managment 'tools ('do: 'A?O leXf,S'ttO( curr~ntty'wal\wl't-h : I~ lize; f hlctai'tltO ¡ f¡ns~ is'l,4 l l.à l l tty. \\ 1::~ar'8 ;,bè l teved: t.o::,ttidue~'t '. .'llai'tuRiI ';'8nv lronn'tàl 'j feêtors. ,.:4. lA tfenne't hlèS : ;;.U'f~1't.,.ert +t,he ¡;proposd act 1.01' : lI'CCi:ded,no .r,,g let 10(1. f'egú hi tl~ ,'t.o'.:òtä I;n i:/*,.t' ,--1l-- .;qifl"" ,1- ,Ý 1\èI:ds..:1nd'1"1r ltf l"' :oett.a In.as$rgrOlps lim01ie':thanoth$t:s. :.~. (Coo"ts 'Rques'ted : ",0-" cOepartnn't.óf i€anmerce r~rit':óf:fl; l"''tetto~ LO~partt.óf ': S'tàte ,Emítrömt~ 1 'Protect Ion "Agen cy ~S'tà'e (resource ;~gencl"8 : ,i--s ',.lò. M liaa '-Ml:sstssl:ttpl. "A .la J'J' tot IJc 'Ge~gl'8 :,SQtll rCèT.olln~ ?llGlh :'Caróll'n~ 'Ii I' l"f Isheiwmanl.gementcon:c L J:s ."s-l1~l-fl:.:F ls.tttes !Assocl~tton ';,I;oohslmt ròStlr.l.mp iAssocl'álon ,rAAl:n.:5hr I:mp Canners ,'Assoè:hlrtlon ,f: torld.be~gue'óf~glél's 'dGûli~'S1ii. Marløe 'F Isllertes'Caatss 1:on ~'Søa\:n1' 'A'dvlsory 'Service: rr..xs "M toS tss Ipp I.,A hi.bama 'I', tor l'da ,I:oul-- lam! ¡:G~9Jèa ~Soûh':Car,ol lna Nortt ';Carol Ina ,¡ :dSport ';:F 1'5n tng ..I,n5't ltU't ,;.lbú is Nrna,W lId 1 tfe 'F;eder:a'tlon :Or:Sl!ff lledf lsl1ennn~ofF loohia .i~é, "i'H't'.I:l1arter,'Bcøt"As'socl'atiion :. l,slàada:Charter.Boat/AS'oCI\àf l:o '¡Hll,OIa1 'Doe I P1' lon'forMarlne:Conservat I on ll Coastal Zone Management Offices: Texas Loul slana Alabam8 Florida South Caro I I na North Caro II na 6. The Draft Fishery M8nagement Plan and Environmental Impact Statement were subjected to a 45-day period of public review beginning Febru8ry 7 and ending March 24, 1980. During this period, 25 hearings were held and a large number of written comments received by mall. Following rejection of the FMP by the Secretary of Commerce and revision of purse seine restrict Ions for the 9:uth Atlantic region, four more hearings on the FMP were held In June, 1981. Summaries of the com ments and a response to each are provided In Appendix I. D8te The public hearings on the DEIS/FMP were held as follows: February February Febru8ry 20, i 980 21, 1 980 26, 1980 March 3, 1980 March 4, 1 980 March 5, 1980 March 6, 1980 March 10, 1980 March 11, 1980 March 12, 1980 March 13, 1980 March March March March 10, 1980 11, 1980 12, 1980 13, 1980 March 10, 1980 March 11, 1980 March 12, 1980 March 18, 1980 March 19, 1980 M8rch March March March 13, 1980 18, 1980 19, 1 980 20, 1980 il Ft. Lauderda Ie, F lor I d8 Jacksonville Beach, Florida Ft. Pierce, Florida Brunsw I ck, Georg I a Savan nah, Georg I a Beaufort, South Caro II na Charleston, South Carolina Hatteras, I'rth Caro II na Morehead City, North Carolina Wilmington, I'rth Caro ii na Myrt I e Beach, South Caro ii na Marathon, Florida Fort Myers, Flodda St. Petersburg, Florida Destln, Florida Port Isabel, Texas Port Aransas, Texas Houston, Texas Mobile, Alabama B Iloxl, MI sslsslppl Lake Charles, Louisiana New Orleans, Loulsl8na Baton Rouge, louisiana Houma, Loul sl8na LOC8t Ion .""u Broward County Court House City Council Chambers County Civic Center County Regional Library S8vannah Scl ence Museum County Council Meeting Room Marine Resources Center Hatteras Civic Center Carteret Technical Institute Auditorium Hilton Inn Swamp Fox Motel Marathon High Schoo i Cafeterl a Hall of Fifty States Bayfront Center, Neptune Room St. Andrews Ep I scopa i Church POrt IS8bel Community Center POrt Aransas Commun I ty Center Shamrock Hilton Hotel D8vldson High School Cafeteria Blloxl Cultural Center (Llbr8ry) Downtowner Motor Inn Ch8mber of Commerce Audl tori um Knapp Hal I, LSU Cooperative Extension Center Houm8 City Auditorium (Wing) " I ¡j1Ritt. I htttlteör.r'ng.s0'on Yl:l:er&evtsèd~P:W'icwèr.e~)'bêtd E'âs 'M I ~'OWS: ,r~ \erty J;ltO//,4\14, j f9ä i J1h:ltt~'i4, 1t981 J;'iiorteii:t" t l:lS 1 '¡¡Jarte;;!~, lM8 1 ,.eI:arl-eslcu;; ,;Soi:th..'Øapó 11'lta ;Srnen V I 14'e ,':'NörtheàP611'na ;?Sa'Jìi1f.àb, : Geö!J9 I'a ."gä:hn'6Bé.ath..'GardeFis, i'Florlda 11. ~JÓrMjlt!)$11ääiìt"toCCËQ: "ilài:al"yi:2~, \1'9S0. 06. HìMá I $S1!äi''iít \:"'o~J¡\eQ: t;l\pr ¡ I ,,'2~, ;1'982. SLòèàft..n ,iMar'lne;~RéSOiJr:a::èsi~:fientêr ~Eàst,.;ØâPø I hlaAJn J;r!Sl'ty '.,SáVännàh;StN:lnôe2;Øérr'tr ,. ,Nor-1th';.;CoO/'ty\;'Coor'tdliøase ~. iI,¡ V III. X II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. I NTODUCT I ON . . ........ ..... . . . . . . . ....... . . . . II. STATEMENT OF THE PROPOS ED ACT I ON . . . . . . .. . . ...... ....... I 1.1 Spec I f I c Man agement ObJ ect I ves . . . MaxImum SustaInable YIeld . . . . ............ . . . 11.2 ......... . . .. . . ........ 11.3 11.4 SpecIficatIon of OptImum YIeld Total Allowable Level of ForeIgn FIshIng. . . ..... . . . ....... . . . . . . ..... . . . ..... 11.5 Management Measures and StatIstIcal Reporting Measures Recommended. . . 11.5.1 11.5.2 11.5.3 11.5.4 11.5.5 11.5.6 KI ng Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Span I sh Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ò .. . . . . Co b J ¿. ..'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:.-. . . . . Other Spec J as ....................... . . Proposed Purse SeIne Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . StatIstical Reporting System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 DescrIption of EnvIronment. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... III. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND AND WATER USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... iv. PROOABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT . . . ....... I V.l Overa I I Impacts ......... ..... ..... ..... . . . . IV.2 Impacts of SpecIfic Measures. . ...... ...... . . . ..... V. IV.2.1 KIng Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I V. 2. 2 Span I sh Mackerel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I V. 2. 3 Cob J a .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.2.4 Purse SeIne RegulatIons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . IV.2.5 Statistical Reporting Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V.I fi Act Ion . . . . . . . . . . ....... ..... . . . ....... V.2 Alternative OYs ..... ..... . . .. . . . . . ..... ..... V.3 A i ternat I ve Management Measures . . . . ...... ....... . . . . V I. PROOABLE UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . .. . . . . . . . ...... . . . V II. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ix. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMITMENTS OF RESOURCES OTHER I NTERESTS AND CONS I DERAT I ONS OF FEDERAL POLICY OF FSETT I NG ADVERSE ENV I RONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACT i ON ..... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . x. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . X I. LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . ....... . . .. . . ..... ..... . . . APPEND ICES ..... . . . . ..... ..... ..... . . . . . . . . . . v Page 2 2 ,,- 2 2 3 3 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 19 I. I NTRODUCT I ON This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes the probable Impacts of Implemnting regu lations for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Th Is FMP has been prepared jointly by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management CouncIls. The Coastal Mlgratcry Pelagic Resqurces are those species In the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and In the coastal and fishery conservation zone (FCZ) off the south Atlantic coast as specified below. The area of proposed management Is the fishery conservation zone In the JurIsdiction of the Gulf and South Atlantic FIshery Management Councils. The management unIt consists of the following species: King mackerel (Scomberomorus cava Ila) SpanIsh mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) CobIa (Rachycentron canadum) Specl es cons I dered to be I n the .f I shery but not I n the management un I t are:-"~ Cero mackerel (Scomberomorus re~alls) LIttle tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) Do I ph In (Coryphaena hI ppurus) B I uef Ish (Pomatomus sa Itatr I x) These species are closely assocIated with the species In the management unit and are caught In the fishery. BluefIsh Is only Included In the Gulf of MexIco because a separate B luef Ish Management Plan Is beIng prepared for the Atlantic coast. This FMP has been prepared under the authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA) and the FEIS has been prepared In accordance with the National Envlrònmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The fishery management plan provIdes the basIs for the determination of regulations to IISt effec tively manage the fishery and harvest the optimum yIeld (OY) which will provIde the greatest benefit to the nat Ion. The p i an cons I ders the needs of the var lous user groups I n the fish I ng Industry, recreational groups, consumers, environmental organ Izatlons, and other Interested part les. Much of the background Information and analysis used to produce the EIS are contained In the FMPI tse If. Where appropr I ate, references are made to the rei evant sect Ions of the p I an. The coastal mIgratory pelagic management unit Is Important both to commercial and recreational fishermen. All of the species In the management unit are sought after by recreational fIshermen I nc I ud I ng both charterboat and pr I vate boat fishermen. King mackerel, Span I sh mackerel and b I uef Ish are of major commercial Importance. While the other species are caught commercially to some degree, they are relatively unimportant as primary commercIal t~rget species. Ii. STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action Is to Implement a fishery management plan for coastal migratory pelagic resurces establishIng a management regIme for the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic fishery conservation zones. Th Is area extends from NorthCaro II na to Texas. FEIS-l l;l;;Jzz S'ØeøUlètMäaii--l'iObåeottves)',. I DÚèODs:lêèØa;;rlôn\IOof' tlte!'i..el:eYant.~ bloJog:tc:a:l " eo,noJc ¡, $Olal : and!1 ee..ogJ;êaJ. ¡ f aGt,~,,! mmllag~t1' ab¡¡,le'l vøshave,.be8&,-' sp!tol:HWt föt'rthe,:c:astal! mlgr,a1nry:, p!!agl'c' . reeucceSi IMllaglmrdr' uoil'h.; ~Jiq('MMk--&li . i~" I list" tttei\maagemn*~ rruoe&o,næ8S'sarry'¡ ro,;, p..e'lenl1 e"eeecUngtm.¡drn;jSustUDIIMêi~Yfèid.." Z~'. ES'tábiil slll'!a1:mandator.yv ssallstieali.\ r8pI"'l 09;,! sys:tèmi!¡ fór.tiiJ;'I1n c:"ngqcatchih . 3¡,. M.'¡BiiriLze~)g!!n'-and;J usei7!'g~prconfil ctsii, S'IUiRRsbhMééekec&l,j, 1.,. I nst" tùte$manage,enttl1asurres';.,n eoessa~y . toe preveQt' exceaU nggmll~d.RRIli'r,sustdnab::~Y4'.li~" z,,, Est\!billsJ:N!lc-mmdatò..yy statt stl caJ : reprt i ng,:sys.tem:" fOo!irllnHo:r, J r:g¡. cetcbio.. ;;. 3i.~ Mlinlrï~iZe';¡g~ar,r'and,.; use.."gr-Ooup.;)confll ct5:.; In'"th.; event'; theYi1ar:l 5e8', 4¡¡" Pi"oncè~the~"liaJ,nlum';:use..'of.;: the\(!resuiice"upi-ifo' thet,OY'; est.1 rite.., GaU""l=... i ;., Inst,i tu:."manag~en1:-: mesurØ$j.necessar,y; tOo:: Increase., y lèlcLpltrr;reer:ltl\,t1andiJa--ag~",slte~,a9d;) pr:ev.entìo.verrtt$bingi-, ii ;,Z2 l-l:iinSuslalóab!!e!\Xl èlid:i: VälìJes.,~ fc¡!iy.thef,maxllÌunnmsustälnab'lé"yiél,d..~. (MSn,: fó""specl:è9\ I tt..;the,, ag~t'!oo;ltt:afJ'glß'em,~. Dët,aJ"i éQ:idtscussl.òns~;a"'e\';pl!esntedt; I !':;Sëet lòm.. 5i:i4,iOot: the.,att8Gh8d;:FMJ~., Kilg§)maker:elil --3T'mUI lÔfl"potlnds~:annu&:U yl Sp¡!I.;;h~,m8Gkeret; ." 21'/ mlc II lonr.pounds" annua:\d ý. Cõbti!H;--1 ¡9~i¡()OO¡'P9unds".aßnu8H y.. I'" 3"; SpCCl, U catlönr;of+OØitlIÌDli;Yleld,', Dè't,Ü'1 ëd'j anà!ysss!:orfY the."O¥' va f, ties' ,; belOlc,c'al"e,"gl:ven" I no; the,: att'--riFMfirj:, SeC'Uònn 12a~" Klttgz.¡mackefJe.l: :-,317rn1H lén'PÇunds.,annua:: Iy.. Sf"nllbHnackeret¡ -.21;mUI16nqllundsi;annua,11 ý. Cõbl"ë!:,,-.,AJL c:bhii"eqÌ¡Ji 1n';or' I 8rger::than".3J".1 nches':; foir-k.f, I éngthh ichhch!', wlllJ ba,hal!vestèdn b¥y U~S.z, t1sher.en... II ~.§l; Tõ~'~ A.tlòlcabbe,:cleveJi of'Föi'elQI1"Fl sbHlqi:~ na,ltòlel:i a,llówabìle~ level: off' fói"e~'9!V' H sh' ng.; (TALFH. IShspeclfl eEL! as,'zero" fårdher" kl-ttgJ;mokepøliL S~!!nlsb¡;.mak--et i andÔ c::bliedl sher I ÉI'¡,. lbJted,i St'itè!v. ff stH ng~' vessels', have,'.' t bét;,copj!cl1y';" I ntenti,¡ and,:; FElS;;2;, are expected to harvest the optimum yIeld for all three of these species. I n Sec Ions 8.2.8 and 13.3 of the attached FMP. This Is explained In detail I 1.5 Mana~ement Measures and Stat I st I ca I Report I n~ Measures Recommended The followIng measures are recommended to the Secretary of Commerce for action: 11.5.1 Kln~ Mackerel A. The Secretary of Commerce may Implement measures designed to provide limitations, where appropriate, on any gear or device used In the king mackerel fishery to reduce gear and user group conf Ilcts. The Secretary, after consultation with the affected Councils, may take the fo i lowing action by regulatory amendment based on the fo I lowing criteria: ( 1) When a conf Ilct arises through expansion of a historical fishery In a traditional fishing area or region, the Secretary shall Investigate the causes and extent of the conf Ilct, the economic and 9:clologlcal Impacts of any viable limitations on thtt.expanded fishery or other users, other 9:lutlons to the conflict and other relevant factor~~~ The Secretary, after con sultation with the affected Councils and states, may res Ive the conf Ilct as fairly as possible by taking one or more of the following actions: ( a) Separate the users or gear by area (f I sh I ng zone). ( b) Separate the users or gear by time (day of week). (c) Assign local quotas to each gear or user group based on the historIcal catches of each for that loca I area. ( d) Allow unlimited usage of the gear or devIce. (2) When the conf Ilct arises through the Introduct Ion of gear or devIces Into new regions where they have not been historically fished, the Secretary shall Investigate the harvesting capa city and efficiency of the new gear or device In the local area, the economic and soclo logi cal Impacts on users of historIcal gear, the hIstorical level of stock abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultatIon with the affected Council s and states, take one or more of the fo Ilowl ng act lo-ns: ( a) Prohibit use of the gear or devIce In that geographical area. (b) Allow only limIted use of the gear or devIce to rrre fully evaluate Its Impacts and potentials. (c) LImit the number of unIts of the gear or devIce whIch can be utilIzed In that area. ( d) Allow un lImIted usage of the gear or devIce. (3) When a conflict arises as a result of cIrcumstances In the fIshery, other than as descrIbed In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures desIgned to obvIate such conflicts by measures provIded for In (1) and (2) above, or take such other act Ion as may be approprIate and necessary to reslve such conf Ilcts In a manner consistent with the goals and objectIves of the plan, the National Standards, the MFQ\1A and other applicable law. FEIS-3 Tff&, fò,l.1 òw.. Ì'R: manag,ment. rrasu".&, add" es.ses a', s ~cl fl c. gear" and; user, oc'oup~ conlllCt wt,l chi, has'i. aJ í:eadYr dé.ve.l oped;' I h the' FCZ.: off,. the,' coest. of i FIori dè; between. 27°' 50' ' nort h,. I ãll tt~" andiJ 2it~.. O';6~' ' n'odh la:tttodèo., B,¡., Wlii!ln., th&., Reglona,J ' DJ ,.,ectot.,. SoutheaST' RêgJ on, , ,,FS.~.. detennl ìiesj . based.;\ on:, r:l IsI &'1 I M'ol!1"lon'.., tttat"i!o:conf'll Ct" as: described I hFMP Section. 8'1Ii~6" exls;fs.o,.1 s; ab'out, to;'ei"'st~" h&,~wUI1 take,' one:, of.! the" foIl ow. Ì'g act I ons' by.. 'fl eJ d:' order. The" tf ri. ~r'1 ad: dùl" I ng:; wh'l Chi', 5'uch', r.~1 eN ons'! s'hal:1 j be'! eii,forced w.11I be de''el\ml ned by length of. tlrr;,e dl r-' conf'l J ct' 8Xs.ts" or I s"exp,!ct'Ød. to~;ex" s1".. (J ).' Eštalill Scn a,' fl sh'l ng wI ndow wI thl h. the. folli:l Ì'g; pol nos: (¡d B:th8'l; Shoid' If g~,t: (27. 44n'N, 80°'1 O,¡!lVi) Ò" (b:) , A, wreck' 15':mlles: southeast"of. Fòrt,PI erce,'1 hlèt~ (27°.23~5.'NÎ.. 80,~' 3¡T1W;).~.. (C)i Ma"iier:"WR: 16'~" f've;,ml les" nor'heas.t'.of' Jii,p;lterr, I n:l&t' (27".- O~6'1Ni; 80." ~O:'VfH,; (d)' 100;'fm, dépth,due' east of point' C,. (27°'.0.6j'N~, 79'" 55~O'\t)~ ..""-. (e)' 10Q,:fm:' dep;thdll8'eas;f of polht.b(27°'23~5;'N, 79"504òO:.'\íH., (H 100.fm'dep:th:. due' east' of pol-nt; a: (27~" 44~3!N',. 79'!' 53;:HW,)." Tne.:, Aè9J onal DI ~ecor, may prohl bl t use.. of.' 9JI ,i -net' ~ar. to take,: kl n!!i mackerel:; wlt'M "': the~a1"ea" à~b~&-f;, ~c""d"'e'"or 'a,.c..d..f., If' addl.tlonal. act'lon., Is" needed.,: prdl IbIT' use.: of:: hooki.and:,: II he')ggar'ta"Tà.:c, MÌ'9~macker:el'" wJthln.'. a'. wi ndow: landward: of' a:,; II n:e;,betWeeB.: the) pØ:: nts:,~b:,.. !)C"; ();"a::c,., (2,)) Edàb:l Ish'; two.J f l sh'l iig: zonØ$.. seaward (east): of state:. J u".1 sd,1 ctl on;;. Thes&." zones", s:haUi be:, "th:& wa ters of' the' FCZ. b&TWeen' 27 0. 1 0' norh I à:tt tude.. and". 21° 50" n'orh', I â:tl tude',. cti v,1 deddlllo.:.: two,.,el"eas~~a,1 bng. the,' I I n'e'. of. , 27°: 30'.. nOlh'. lâ--'lì:de., (á;) ~ I n' the.' fl rST. yeer,' lit wh I th a' conl I c1": ar,hès.:. "the' use" em 9l. J 'i ; ne:t,; fa"." takl hg;i of: kl ng:, mackeF',al sha,I'1 ¡ be pr 00'1 bi ted,' In.,. thai ar,e8'. south' of': 27,° 3t)'' n:OPh lat'l tUd,' aJ:d~; use.$ of, hoolf, and: II he" ~8ri' for' tàk' ng. of' klo!!) maekel\et' shal:I: be:' pr,ohl blitèdv I hi: 'the,;&rè8:':hoch:, of 27. JOt' n'orh': laNtud&ô. In:, an,y' succeedJ og" year, when" a": coH Ibt dêYel,bpiS,.. th8,. area,' I hi wh;1 chi: each. gear Is, pr:OOI bel Ted: nny.. be:" ch.enged.. (b:) W:hen" a' confl f c.t' arlses:,; use of each,: gear wi thl h' 'the,'. zone:' b&1"ween" 27'~:'1 O,'N') and'i 2U . 5ÐJN. may., bb:aJ ternated da,l I y. (I) On even. da'ys, of' the.. month,. use of gl;ll-net geal" to 'take;:: kl ng;,mackereli may be,. prOOI baed., (II) : On. odd: da,ys: of' the., month; use' of. hook;, ai:d :. II ne,: gEair, , to', take;:; klng) maeke;re" nay'.! tie' pl"OO'1 b:1 ted. , (c)' CJ 05e:, the' H Schery. for kl hg' mackerel; to. al :1 i users~' wI i'Mii., the', zonet, batwe.en", 2.7 0., 1 O! N': and;, 27°' 50,'N.. Thls':.meas:ur:&:shall on,l y' be.. Irnp.Osed, If' the.,confl I ct,' res:uJts, Ini:. (I) Deaah'.ew'serlbuS'bodll'f: InJ.ury., (¡ H' SI gnH i è:ant. gear lOSs. FEfS,.4. ( 1) Proced ures for eva I uat I ng the ex I stence of a conf II ct: (2 ) The following procedures must be employed regard I ng the ex I stence of a conf II ct for Implementation of such a field order. by the Regional Director In his decision process which a fIeld order Is appropriate and prior to the ( a) At such time as the Regional D I rector Is advl sed by any party that a conf II ct ex I sts, he must confirm the existence of such a conflict through Information supplied him by NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard or other appropriate law enforcement agencies. ( b) In the event that such Information Is not ascertaInable from those law enforcement per sonnel as provided In (a) above, such confirmatIon may be made through Information supplied by personnel of the state agency with marine fishery management responsibility. (c) Confer with the Chairmen of the affected Councils, with the marine fishery management responsibility, Regional Director. deems appropriate, If any. the office of the state agency(s) and such ather persons as the ,.,,~ Restrictions on field orders (a) No field order may be Implemented whIch results In the exclusive access of any user group or gear type to the fishery during the time the field order Is In exIstence. (b) A field order may be rescInded by the Regional Director If he finds through applIcation of the same procedures set forth In (1) above that the conflict no longer ~Ists. (c) No field order may be Implemented for a time period greater than five (5) days except under the condItions set forth In Section (e) above. (d) At such time as the RegIonal Director submits to the Federal Reççlster a field order for Implementation under these provisions, he shall Immediately arrange for a fact-finding meeting In the area of the conf Ilct to be convened no later than 72 hours from the time of Implementation of the fIeld order. The following shall be advised of such fact finding meeting: (1) The Cha I rment of the af fected Council s; (2) The office of the state agency wIth f. shery management res pons Iblil tv; (3) Loca i med I a; (4 ) Such user group representatives or organizations as may be appropriate and pract I cab Ie; (5) Others as deemed ap pr opr I ate by the Reg I ona' D I rector or as req ues ted by Cha I rmen of the af fected Council s or the state agency. This fact-findIng meeting shall be for ,the purpose of evaluating the following: (1) The existence of a conflict needing resolution by the field order; (2) The appropriate term of the field order, I.e., eIther greater or less than five ( 5) da ys ; FE15-5 ", Otht) ~sslble S(.I l.lons tø.'. theconfHçt' Qther th,allf$Ø"';OJi"l11,y~lINQßL (4) Otller ".l&VBnt~tt~:s~ hi'. I'" the,&!lanl' It ls,.iii:teolneØi;s.a, r--l/,It'o.f the, f~çt..flMII1, rrhg, lttat: tb9"ttlt'''k.Ot' the. fhd~order slnl;l ii~~C,&i; flYe (i;, døys~ tlleRegJ9Jln1 O'rC9rll".llttN'.ÇIB": ,sl,f t¡;t10II .,WIJ tl' the, Cb1Jl rmeof" tJ:e ."f leçt.~ Co~Çi ~ ~Ì: an~ th.e, lrwol v.; sl--.~ll~q;. 8K'er.d sllçhfhiild9r4erfor llh pJi.f:lød nøt to, e::çe~; 30d.'Y~ fr:Q/ ttte"çIlI;fe,qfl f.nlt¡liH, ,.IIP) eiir.laklGf,:,. J n 1'11 81'131'1': the. ~eg fønølDI reçor .det~:ln~ tnot,1 :!h '1-.. ßiاgg'Y9.r .ppr;eprl ¡!te fpr. tl'fi. tø.rmof si,çl' H el d nr-der 1'9 fixtend~Yønd 39 4lI$c",s,i.b .&lctm:$'ion, 1!îîY .~ .,. m¡i;e ,ofte.r C9(\!,1 tatløowJ to tfu Ch a J nne!i øt t,he. af:ftPP ~:.~~H s;eal\d;f.n $lJh pefJQØ pf tfii I), nece$;;l',y !)nd øPpr:,çpr L"te to. r,e&J va the9-QJll H ct.., ç.~, A..tQhlj. ~How.bleç¡ti:h s.Il'ølJ ~.eetab.JJsll~ at 31; mH;lløßpoui:d,$Pßry~ar. (t) MJHlll! §tQ~KaHøçi:t1o".. shaH b§m¡e asføHp.w.$; 2ß,IIJ H lO.f. P!wdd~ fGntll,r~tjoJJ.l! H s~y, 8nc: nl ne.IIH Hp¡; PøLIIHls fÇ)r the. .ÇOI1,çhi fh"ry~ ~7 (2) rhhÇ9miirçl 0'1 al,Iocot J9JI shaH ~ d I vJdaa bbtWfJ\'O ho9k ar:d II n4i;;ge1iS áØØ: n,,l; ~¡¡tS. ii S. fol ilows; tQK 8!'d IJ nll; Net $ien..2øø'pQi.~ds , i In, ßOO . P('l;i:tts (;5'1 f ttw, cot",b ,9f any.l;sergI'Ol;j), aiççe!!sl ts lHQ.i:tJp,n, t.h.e $ec.r~t.ry. sl:.n ç10$(: , thee H sj)ery to that .fir.oYP for. t~ rßf¡;1 rrd~r Q f' tlle, ,.. f il ßtl rr year~., (1ft Co"'~t;.f.l 8""lil: r"r,~.tfoJt!iJ fhllerm~l1 dGf;Jn.. as foHows; '"A'~ffrçhil fJJiieFman Is a per~spJlwb.p ~H$:hJ$ ~l!:l;., "'- A.r~rø¡!t1p.!i¡¡l U sherman Is. ji' perSQf) wh.ø ØQ.e$..., not !õIiJ :ltts~1'çtl.., D~, rl'tHi,J.nlOOl,!!.Iß$h$:L,e, In llleFCZ for¡;H kIng maç..rel glH neh sb1'LtbbA"'~/4lJ~.str,øtebed ""e$! H),t.he, Gulf 9fMexlcq aoc:Sp.ut'hAHí!,nt/i: Reg'Ionill' Cøl,l)çHsJ8r~... of JurI§9h:;tJØAo, g:", (l) Tll,Re.9Jorr¡,i ,pirector, SQiit:heast R~l9ß" ttFS, miiY InsTUutøø b.oSIc Hm~l'før'kJ.o9,~k$l"cØØ taken by r'ffreBtJopalorr--rsotJ oool for ,h.. r,tI,. ,l;.~ers end/or: a,' it,. 1 p:. H mil lê f(r ,çem.c'al lJ.s~r;$ by: tM. ri;,Yhl,to ry amendment prpces$wbeJJ s!.lP9rrl "9 - dat.!!b.~e$. .a,v.iaH aQ l13a,nd..aflØ( .Ç~).l$!.JtlltIØ! wI th the aff~.ee C9uneJI s~ (2) The. Ri'g 19 01'1 Qlreçtør, S9uthøa$t Re!i J911, ""FS" iiy J I)sllllJte l.u.J i,e U iiJ it by- ttte.c fleg,iJatpry .amen!:mmnt prøi:es:: wten s\JPpprtlng data beççee 8viiJlabJe ~ød ~,fl~-C9n$.ult¡atlen ,wJtll tlle., i:fJø.Nd; C91Jnç J Is" j c'l .?;,2.' ~nl$b.~Ma~~erøl A. Tne :S.et;r:et'ary of Commer,çemay Implement mesuree d--lgrred tp pn9vhle HiiHl)t,lo.I1.$" wbere ll:ppr9prhltø,,9n any !Jøar 9r iie¥Jçe.u,sedln the SP,arrJsI: mackerel.f¡lshwy. tored,lAe.egg-w"rrdussr 9l\oupC!n11 Jd's~ The ,Seçret ar.y, afferçøo$ul t at1Qn wI t:h t;h aHeçteØ :Gø.Yrrc:H 1S,rfO:Y.' tø: the fl)HpwJnQ. !Jtlonbyr~tlla''r¥ amerrdrnent b8S~ on the .foHo~lngç.raerli!; (H When" CQ"f ::darJ $$s th/QJ,gl: exptlos:lon of a hll11rl c:al fhhe"Y In atraaJ itJ~);l)øj flstt,1 ng areaQr r~lott, the$~retary s,hall I nvestl gate . thØc8l;~esand 'e~l.entof the, i:nU Jø:t, e th$ , FEJS..6 economic and sociological Impacts of any viable limitatIons on the expanded fishery or other users, other solutions to the conflict and other relevant factors. The Secretary, after con sultation with the affected Councils and states, may reslve the conflict as fairly as possible by taking one or more of the following actions: ( a) Separate the users or gear by area (f I sh I ng zone). ( b) Separate the users or gear by time (day of week). (c) Assign local quotas to each gear or user group based on the historical catches of each for that local area. (d) Allow un limited usage of the gear or device. (2) When the conf Ilct arises through the Introduct Ion of gear or devIces Into new regions where they have not been hIstorIcally fished, the Secretary shall InvestIgate the harvestIng capa city and efficIency of the new gear or devIce In the local area, the economIc and socIologI cal Impacts on users áf hIstorical gear, the historIcal level of 1ftock abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultation wIth the affected CouncIl s and states, take one or more of the fo Ilowl ng act Ions: ( a) ProhibIt use of the gear or devIce In that geographical area. ( b) Allow only limited use of the gear or device to iire fully evaluate Its Impacts and potent I al s. (c) LimIt the number of unIts of the gear or devIce which can be utIlized In that area. ( d) Allow un lImited usage of the gear or device. (3) When a conf Ilct arises as a result of cIrcumstances In the fIshery, other than as described In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures desIgned to obvIate such conflIcts by measures provided for In (I) and (2) above, or take such other action as may be appropriate and necessary to reslve such conflIcts In a manner consIstent wIth the goals and objectIves of the plan, the NatIonal Standards, the MFCMA and other applicable law. B. Size LI m I t ( I) A 12-lnch fork length mInImum sIze lImIt shall be set on Spanish mackerel In both the com mercial and recreational fisheries. (2) A catch allowance for underlzed fish will be allowed equal to fIve percent of the total catch by weight of SpanIsh mackerel on board a vessel In the Spanish mackerel fishery or any other fishery. C. The Regional Director, Southeast Region, NMFS, may Institute a bag limit for SpanIsh mackerel taken by recreational or recreational for hire users and/or a trip limit for commercial users by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data become available and after consultatIon wIth the affected Councils. D. If OY Is taken, the fishery for Spanish mackerel wi' i be closed for the remainder of that fishIng year. FEIS-7 , f i :;5~;3':.:GQPJ'~ t'A. ¡;Pø§ges~H:ón '.:Öf " dòbl;a ' l'Eiss ; fh'ân \33 ' l;r't:és; fOrk fèÖgfh. s'hM I ;::be (ipróó lb ¡i't. '. (tn "th'Eif' F.cZ. : II ~i5~'4 ::Qf.Jj~r'~SfJegtes rt'lïé""eèiát'e":A''O.'mârlág'éìlfW,meäsúl's 'fer"õftté'r"spët res ¡ I'n '.thiP'martaaén'nt c,p ~áR. i I; I ~'5 ;5t)~t:ep-QS~!:F:l-y.t$e::;$~È!lue(cjMe¡;$,((tØs "A. ( f) :'ili,tã'''''êstcôt "I( hig I;:rlöl(êt-ÉI ¡by .';.pui"se'šEi Ine .gé'är-w i r i tbe':á rl,Oîféd.üp ':1'0 r'a "rïxtmam'~f ,i'4aQ~øOO Hj'otiñds "tJé.r '! yeär ! In 'tlie:âFéaóf, jar" I§d I. è1'lcinI. 6f .theGù t f ",0önci f I, "ã'rid '~'4¡OOiö,(Of1P0l1n'ds ("PÊiriY-èifr , Fn;fhe òáfèa'.;óf ijûr fsdlètlon' òf' theSöô'th.Atlantlc.:,:Coürfè II,. "..,y ':pOrise 'Jsé lir'et\'i'âl"ést'iW II, i';bb '::con1'éd"w ffh l'n't.he':ó'tt'l"cl'âl'á Jlócátl'Ón j fõr:á II Tn'åt:;,gè'ârs. ;c;o !jl%""~ëst"'Òf '::S'pi!n fgh'''''âCkéi'él ;"by,:pt.u"S'e.se l'ooi;geäri':W II' I:;be!á Ilo~êd ''';¡p'toi~a:!rïxtriam';'Öf 3;JOO;OOO ¡"'poOñdsf;jjr;ýèár' l'nltnedärèa'Of !j'or HM 1ê"l"dnóft:nec;GÜ If';:Còtirl'C! L, \\âr'd::1~O;OOO;¡pøúrids '¡'ntthe (ial'èa':i'fijM Hid lct J:ónôf 'tfte"Soufh"Aflat'lcCQuncl ~. ;;7 to's. \.:QDDéfveps, "úridér"tfie";direë'Hdn'Óf 'the,"Në!tlor'áIMárHleF l,shérrés:;Sérvl:ce, '~mdst;l)q~;~'i1l,t8d'::n.ià 1.1 "p'ûrse'!,§éhre"Véssét,s'wh Ite i f r'slÌfrr' ~ för' kI1r'1or,Span l,shlinâèker'áI1dUr !'fg 'the f f lr-tftfnt:ee~f ¡;shliJ "rêãf.s Üààt-êr:th Is1p tän í I,S : I;n"ef'éêt. l 11;'5~6i$:f:âtJ$tH'tâJ?R¡;J'tqrHgg,;~ysf:ønn '.AGcúrâfe'aÃdrHIr I'y'f I"shery 'dà"fa.' tsriÁfiêdéd 'fór"éHecflve')1íârtagêIIÂt;òf . th'eçGòš'taliTÍJ,g&ctörYf'ø1Hagtc '¡-.esõÙtìæs. 'Thêfefórie, ".The¡:ptan,.s'pê6! l ¡'es "the 'fö r lowl'llq,r:øv r;S'ohs~w rth"."'é$'jCt f'to;¡s'tät¡,Nöa I 'r:ep'ÕH fiñg: ¡ 1. TTfie'.:CöUn'cl (;s ièôtiêaplûâ II y:áêêèpt;;a"'VEissé 1;:éntlrr..8f.ôn'sýšT-8;';&nd(:cl"éèl~;Òêffús';dcff,a(is'fs--tthãt "iýjt,u ,id;pr1tI'¡je',sIHHcf"éi' i l'IÌ'ór'tlon' for' f FSffry"'mM'ëiénìnt. "'Mëbltaiitôs";Ôf l1\l1e,syst'.æ:1'O'1be'''deyel oõpêd ¡)by ";Nâflónå I "'Maliline! F Hi I\r i;és .'Serv föe,;.ánd fthéf\Rø u Mt6ry MMèâSUl:ès (;C'(r' r'ttee. .'2. 2Rgèl'~i'l"e':á!.r'ê¡)\\Htilg ";sý~f' .'for"'eÍ f I "osërigriOOps"'àTd;pl"òces,Sór-s ?::bâSèdi:'6n'¡stafisfhi:å I ';,saapi 11) ~wl''êjiêby ; It"w(jY i!d;';be"mândâ1'~ry' för'.~a's"HéêTêd frasPóndêr't ito';;prov rdeçafi$weîts:to 1'ftteôsaml))e:'¡qùéSt:lön '¡If~f~at~6n'''ar ~êêÜrf' I"rig rbâsls 'that; is'n'ÖÖ':òfigt;ëat¡ ifr'Ùèricy. i 11~6 Pø.!~tJjtt,J:ÓJ):-Qt.taMri:Mrnerj:t ;,'a'J;øJ't;gt~~ .ILi;'t~:JJ~ônnl~ôt .'A¡fdêšct.tlpflòn-'Ôf "the'liåbttâtofèöästål ¡'petâgic',speèlJes i is' H'jcHúd~d !1!n::SëèN6n66QO ¡ In;.1'he,¡ãttãèh'è :?M? ~¡WL th''tl'ei;exccéIH J6n'óf ':'(161 ptlfn,'fhe':Scpi:l'ësl'hcHudêd f'n:the'.èôastâl !'fél"ägfcil't:.. Hihåbrt'the "'wtlfefs,iove¡- H'fte';êóiítHìéfffàl :'sl'ål f.; The'dò:Øhtn;:âr.e,:OoCEanlc'ratMr"thàn::ëöastàl i;bút,.iareii:ncHiidéd : In 'Tlie".f ¡¡§ltryj'''Lìëaò~e "f H;ffri:is ..tôr":'dò,I,Øhln'ând if.6r::C()stal'pe'loiglc;'S1elJèsic;a"e; N'itëÎÎN'iêd. fThe' f''iEi Còsila I 'is'PPtl'ésáár'e,ìh'öt;cöroonly"tllugtît';:ófå$ i,;belng"!Élsti:Û li he"'dëpéi\dei'it; 1c.hô~e''Eir ,\\f0èhi;;6f ìtlic:f rrlo ~ö6íês; ,fl"~"èStUâi"h~s.iThai.'b'I'ûef i.áh; lis'ôftên 'found i'n~s'tiJârlfEis, ~bût"ther'.'raokè"'èiS..tötdMarr ly =âr.e ;foOhd!òiì I'yl;n ' Hirtgër'èstuá rf.!ês"itltèpe'fhe 'frës''afêr':d Ilutlòn \ isnriót"g""eàt. ;' íThetbl'ûM J:h ~ ls.:i:ots'1dére 'tol"be':a 'T'pël"á''e'and"Wí!'"m' t~pèråte'.$1Jch~s; "'Whëréás, if,he;r:''á;¡i'lii -'s'pe .ctê$; Jon ttffls.~pH¡n'af.e~siibtl"1) Icá I ;'and' tfbplCiá I. . Two':'spëèi'es, ;,MoM l'Šh:"änd"dò~pli'¡'n,i":ât.eC~pót rotân ¡ "n f+!ti r" dlSttlbûf4òn. ~K l'rìg"r'ckèpÉÉI ! I;s. f-outid 'l'n'.fhe'wësternAAt'I'âr'++ciá1'd,iâdJáCêlit"'Wälël"S. 'CCer.o; ts ~Efs':8 confIned to the West IndIes and FlorIda. SpanIsh mackerel Is restrIcted to the AtlantIc and Gulf of MexIco coasts of North AmerIca and, unlike the kIng and cero mackerels, does not occur In the West IndIes, except for Cuba. The ranges of all three mackerel specIes overlap In extreme south Florida. All of these specIes, except the do Iph In, move from one area to another and harvest seasonal abundance of local resurces. Many of the prey specIes of the coastal pelaglcs are estuarIne dependent In that they spend all or a portIon of theIr lIves In estuarIes. ThIs means that the coastal pelagic specIes, by vIrtue of the ultImate source of theIr food, are to some degree dependent upon estuarIes also. MaxImum sustaInable yIeld Is a functIon of the carryIng capacIty of the envIronment. DetaIled analy sIs of MSY, present and possIble future condItIon of the stock Is contained In SectIon 5.4 of the attached FMP. Section 5.3 gives the avaIlable Information on ecologIcal relatIonships wIth other specIes. SectIon 6.0 comments on the condItIon of the habitat and possible Impacts by man. Human Env Ironment The U.S. commercial fisheries for king and Spanish mackerel take place al~st entIrely wIthIn the Gulf of MexIco and south Atlantic regions. Between 1973 and 1977 over 98 percent of U.S. commercial kl ng mackerel landIngs and approximately 95 percent of U.S. commercIal Spl!llsh mackerel landIngs were In FlorIda. Roughly fIve percent of total U.S. bluefish landings take place In the Gulf of MexIco. The primary commercial user groups for species In the management unit Include: o The Florida kIng mackerel hook.and line fleet, o the Florida kl ng mackerel large boat gIll-net fleet, o the FlorIda small boat Span Ish mackerel gIll-net fleet, and o the FlorIda large boat Span Ish mackerel gill-net f i Bet. Many gIll-net vessels of all sizes are equipped to fish for both king and SpanIsh mackerel. Significant secondary commercial user groups Include: o The southeast Florida small boat gill-net fleet which takes on supplemental catch of king mackerel, o the North Carolina charterboat fleet which rigs up for commercial king mackerel fishing In the spr I ng and fa I i , o the FlorIda haul seIne fleet whIch takes a supplemental catch of bluefish. The species In the coastal pelagic fIshery are highly sought after by recreational. fIshermen. Harvest of these species provides a sIgnifIcant recreational experience to a broad group of anglers throughout the Gulf of MexIco and south Atlantic regIons. The fishery helps support a sIgnIficant amount of eco nomic activity and assocIated employment In the businesses whIch cater to the recreational angler. In 1975 there were an estimated 6.4 mil lion persons who participated In saltwater recreatIonal ffshlng In the south AtlantIc and Gulf of Mexico regions (see Section 8.2.1.2). PartIcIpation by specIes Is estImated as follows: FEIS-9 S:pecles Toted .. Anglers Pe,,centof. Tot.a¡1 AngiJ$r$ BlueH sh Cobila DoJ ph 1,1' 1(11'9. maker.e:1 S;pan'lshm8Ckør:e1 L1 Ule tun:ny. 543,000 24,000 396,000 717,000 719,0,00 8.4 0..4. 6.2 11.2 12.1 Tot.a'l. saltwater anglers In . .r,egJons 6,428.,00.0 Theattaehad FMP p.ro~flde detail ad des(;r I p.tlon ai;d 80al ysJs af parilc.i petlhg useg~oUP$" (see S~øe;jons 8.2. J lInd 11..0),.1 and,l,ngs :(Sectlo,n .8.Z2)., 11 sh 1 ng .ar.øas (S,eçlon' 8,.2.31.,V95'et5 and9Nr(5~t 'loa. 8..,2~4) ",emloyment (SeCl!1on 8",2.5), domestIc gear and soclaJ con,f Hch.(Sec)lo:o '&'.2.6') "hlarvø.t and proceslng oap.aclty(Se.lons.8.2.1 and 8..2.8',eeonomH: vi''l ueo;f the flshery. (5øclo.n 9.0), ,iuidr"ela tlonsb lp.sbetweend,lfferent seto.r,s. o.f the comerchiil Hshery(5ecI0,n1 0.0).. ~7. RElAT:J))ilShltPOF THE PROPOSED ACTlON TO LAND AND 'WATER USfP,LANS. PDL'lCJE:.S,.ANDOOII!fQLSF.oR THE Af1FEED AREA 1:lh The Go.astiiIZòn:e,Màagement Act of '1912 (P.,L. ~,.58.3J pJaees r ;pnslbH:ITy, forcoprEuis:IMe liindand water manageent of the.Q).8sta:1 zone uppn the coasta:1 states.. The Act alsør,øqiu:k.es "th:et fedr,8:1 iJCC'lonsd'li':et!ly .af'fect:log the co.iista,.1 zone o;f acstetebecons:1slent (lo.ttmaxhiumexte,nt posslb;le) wl'th theappro.ved.stat:eprogr,aRl The. Goastcal Mtgr.ato;r.yPelag1 c Flsbery Managemnt P'I an hub.e.enrwlewedb:,t,b.eO:U1è:Ø5:Ø2f. Co,as;h,t Zone M.anagENtforth. vorlou.s states. Bach .detenn,ln,ed. that' the.p.1 an Is consls,t:Ønt ;wlth Q:,estJl ZQn,. ManagEln'tPlans In 1":sstates (see FE: I S Ap,pendJx HI). Th' sflshrymaaagementplai: Is. ,nø¡t' ,8nfJçJ pat:ed:1':prad:uCthany sJgnlUcant allunt of :a~el"secoastaJ area la.od de,veilopmen1'¡,no,rw;I;H :ltadver,seJy affect lJny . .hab:itet protected. . uiid.er. cøshhl .zone programs.. Q:ast~d c zonèpl";Øgrams gef)--~,i 'Iypr~te: th.e encouragmentand.,pr:o,tect;lò.n.ofcorclal H.shlng and reerætlona:lboatilng fac;!:1 U\lee.The cQast~l:. zonepragr.amswl :Whelp. .prevent degr'ada:t.10n 0.1 ,estuørl near'eas. Theco.as:fa;lpeJagJcs;p,cløscao ,be exp:ect:ed:l'.b.e døtr'lment~f) yaf:ected H the.produc:t'v.8 cap.ab1Ia¡les of estuarl'Ø$are,gr,eatlydegr:ai:te:. o.f'f:sll:)1~.El'o:Jil,dr¡¿hlilngln' The Gulio.f MexIco and otherso.urces o,f on po'IJIJ;I01($hlp,& d;Lscb,arglng,oJJ wasté) 1I..pøsepJ:tllt¡l:ai d.angerto. thespawnlng act:lvltyofcoas.tal p.e,lag,l'C. specr., p.art'lcu:t~J:y 'k'lngmakerEiI,. Nospec:1'Tc pro;bJems have yet be.endocunnnted", l:,wever,the.rngnJtudeo.f'r~ei:;to.H spl:L!ss.uch.as't1te lX'rOCwe.H .b.lowoutmake.c:e.ar thepo.tent'lal fo.rser'ol:,s.ad,verse lmpise:t:..TMi; Ls p-al"t:lcuJarlytr.ueforegg andlarv.ae o.f the.se specles(seefMP S:ec:lon 6,.J..2).. Programs whlch,work to preventoH; dlscharg.esof!fstoe help prevent development. of apotenTlail pr.o,bJee. WhHe noneot the af.eced states. currently have a coreeer:s lve.moi:agement plo.gram fOf"tllecøa.sTa-1 . pelagIc ;spaeJss.. .c:ø'aln .stat.B. .l'eguhst'lons. nelat,e tothlsmanagemeatplan (see FMP S~;1øns 7.4.. 7....5 andI3...'4l. Se.vealss:at:e:proh1bJtuse olpurseselnes to takefoo.d fJsh lns:lde5,tiite.watørs.. Florldà.prdhlbJ:tsuseofpurseseJnes to t~ke.fo.odflsho:r .psse's.lonof fo,odf1sh, C8.ught by p,urs,e selnestexCB,t.una) .w,rthln or wI ttoutst-atewa,ters.. florI dahas recent'lyp,as'søal awr~trlctJ 09. t'hedepth ,otgl.;1 net's to20.0meshes.of4-3/4Inches (approx1mately 57 fO.ot fJshlng dçt:tt) lnamy count¥on'the Atlant;lc coast:except Monro.e. This was des1gnedtoachres.sth.ege conf;Llc.t whlch Is 8'læaddrr.es-sedbyt:l11spJàn. Ttes.etwo florldalaws wcH:! conf:lJct WITh .actlo,ns .In The'PCZ whlçb.ane legal under thIs plan. South Car.oJlnaand FlorJda havemlolmumslze Ilmlís 0'112 lncbfor.Sp,an'lsh FE:! 5-.1:0 mackerel. Texas has a 14-lnch size limit for Spanish mackerel. The Councils have recommended to each state that they adopt measures consistent with the FMP. In addition, they have recomended that each state adopt a commercial license of significant dollar value. iV. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT iv. 1 Overa II Impacts This plan Is not expected to have any severe adverse biological or ecological Impacts on the species In the management unit. The optimum yIeld (OY) has been set equal to the best currently available estimate of maxImum sustainable yield (MSY) for king and Spanish mackerel. The OY for cobia I nherent I y prevents growth overf I sh I ng and makes recru I tment overf I sh I ng un II ke I y. The OY' s fo r mackerel permit some Increase In the current catch and may result In slight declInes In abundance, average size, and catch per unIt effort. The catch limits should prevent overflshlng of the stock since the best biological estImates available Indicate that the stocks have not, to date, been fully exploited (see FMP Section 5.4). Harvest of mackerels by purse seine Is strictly limited by this FMP and will be carefully monitored to prevent any adverse bIological Impact on the stock. The sIze limit for Spanish mackerel will help ensure larger average fIsh sizes and help prevent recruitment overflshlng. ., There are some Indications that cobia may be overflshed In certain areas. Increase average fish size and yield under anticipated fishing effort even sent I y overf I shed. The sIze limit will If the stock Is not pre There are no Indications that the other species In the fishery are being overflshed or will be adversely affected to any sIgnificant extent. The plan will have no significant Incremental Impacts on stocks not In the management unIt either through prey-predator or bycatch relationships. If the king mackerel allocation Is reached, there may be some sh I ft of ef fort to spec I es not I n the management un It. The p i an I s not be II eved to have any significant Incremental Impacts on other marine biota, water quality, or benthic habitat. The measures In the plan do not cause any changes In estuarine and wetlands habitats although prevention of degradation of such habitats Is Important In protecting the stocks In the management unit. There are not expected to be any severe adverse Impacts on present users of the resurce as a result of the plan. The plan Is designed to protect the stock for future users until more defInitive data becomes available while keeping the adverse effects on present users to a minimum. The plan provIdes for a minimum of disruption to present comercial, recreational for hire, and prIvate recreational fishermen as well as consumers, procesSJrs, and recreational fishing Industries. There Is 9:me possi bility that the allocation for king mackerel would be exceeded by one of the allocated user groups and fish I ng by that user group stopped. This possibility Is most likely for the net fishermen but would only occur occasionally because their annual catch varies greatly, and has exceeded the allocation In the past. A smaller possibility exists that other user groups \'uld be Impacted. Commercial hook and line land Ings are much less variable than net landings and have never yet exceeded theIr allocation. Recreational catches may exceed their allocation In some years. Closure could occur for a short perIod In early summer In some years. Because of the difficulty In quIckly obtaining recreational landIngs data, It Is possible that total landIngs will not be known soon enough to allow closure of the fIshery. If thIs sItuation occurs, measures In the FMP allow Imposition of bag limits and sIze limits to limit or reduce total catch In the fo I lowing sea9:n. FEIS-11 .The.managementmeasures for reducIng gear conflIct have a beneficial Impact ,onaffected.iusers'by..pre venting strife and economic waste. They may result Insomerestrlctlonalt,hough It Isconslder:ed i l.kel y.that the.greater eff Icl encydue to elImInatIng' the conf I Ictoutwelghssuch negat Ive.aspect.s:.of . the restr I ct Ions. Other:management measures have only minImal effects on users. Also, there areno.curr,entdor,è.Jgn ';users-of the fishery so the zero allowable level of foreIgn fishIng will have no adverse lmpacton,',any . fOi"e Ignnat Ion. IV.2 . Impacts of Spec If I c Meesures IV.2~ 1 K In~ Meckerel Man~gement Measure A recommends a framework wh Ich allows the: ilcretary.and,the.Councl IS;.tocoAsJder ,and/orres I ve any future gear and user group conf I I cts through r'egu latory:amendment ..Thefi:IHa,IQry : amendment process wIll. provIde for publIc revIew of envIronmental Impacts.of..the:'r.:ulalorpmeasJ..es ,proposed and their alternatIves before any actIon Is taken. Becauseofthe'tlme requlr.éd'by'thls.:;pro cess and 'the hIghly sea9:nal nature of the fIshery, a regulatory amendment c~nnot.normally:r:iIui.ate :.a conflict .untll the fIshIng season one year after the conflict develops. For-êonfllcts"wher.eHmmedlate 'actJon Is needed, It may be necessary for the amendment to be Implemented onanemergen'cy,basls,durlng the publIc revIew perIod. ThIs would only occur If the conflIct Is partlcularly;serlous,'a':clear :solutlon Is-available, and the costs of delay outweIgh the need for publIc revløw. I Lnecessary, 'the regulation can be further modifIed In response to publIc review. ..Gear.and user group conflIcts can occur suddenly and often requIre rapldactlon;pronnpt.'and;equJ-ab~e solutIons toa developIng conflict wIll contribute to the faIr and orderly-managemnt,òf 'the: Hsbery and .efflclentuse of the resurce. li adverse Impacts are antIcIpated Urilessaspeclflc.confll.ct'h "addressed. Any negative Impact wIll depend on what actIon, Ifeny, Is taken. Ifaconfiict~equlring action does occur, a user group may berestrlcted9:mewhat; however, any adversesoclakand¿'8Conolc Impacts are expected to be minImal and more than outweIghed by the Increased eff Icl..ency , and~pr,eventJon of. destruct longa Ined by an orderly so lut Ion. Impacts of thIs measure are dIscussed In. .detall 'I.n: the FMPSect Ion 12.3.1.1. Man~gement Measure Baddresses an exIsting conf Ilct (see Section 8.2.6). It wIll be IIJPI:eeentedonly If necessary. It would restrIct commercIal hook and line users and net users by prohlbltlng,.use,of each gear In certaIn areas and times. A detaIled analysIs of the Impacts of thIs measure'are found In .'theFMPSectlon 12.3.1.1. Management Measure C wh Ich sets a total catch limIt equal toMSY Is Intended toprev.entove~exp,,ol11a tlon caused by Increasing effort. Such overexploltatlon would cause a long-term declIne In,yteld'from the fishery. ThIs measure Is desIgned to ensure the long-term productIvIty of the stock ,and Its ;.envlronment. There. are certaIn short-term adverse Impacts whIch are dIscussed In the f'W.Sectlon 12.3. I. 1. The use of the minImum mesh sIze In Management Measure D wIll prevent the harvest by.gliinetofkl'ng mackerel .below the optimum economIc sIze and waste of fIsh lost from small mesh glll..nets. 'f.;.adverse Impacts are expected. This measure wIll not requIre any change from gIll-net gear pl"esently In.;uS$. ThIs measure Is .also consIstent wIth current FlorIda law where nearly all kIng mackerelgliinettlng takes place. li sIgnIfIcant additIonal economIc Impact Is estImated for thIs measure. Management Measure E provIdes a method for rapId response to anyfutureoverflshlngsltuatJon If.o'ther measures are IneffectIve. It al9: provIdes a way to restrIct the fIshery wIthout clostng Itentl~ely If It seems likely that the total catch allocatIon wI II be.exceeded. Untl I Implemnted,thlsmeasoce 'has no Impact of any kInd. A more detaIled analysis of Impacts Is found In FMP SectIon 12.3.1.1. FEIS-12 IV.2.2 Span Ish Mackere I Management Measure A gIves the Secretary the abIlity to reduce conflIcts by provIdIng Ilmlt~tlons where approprIate on any gear or devIce used In the Spanish mackerel fIshery. These measures are IdentIcal to those designated for the king mackerel fIshery and, simIlarly, will provIde the same opportunIty for public review of environmental Impacts of the proposed measures and their alter natives. HavIng a framework In the plan to deal with gear conflicts Is Important because they could occur suddenly and requIre rapId action. ~ adverse Impacts are antIcIpated unless a specifIc conflIct Is addressed. (See FMP Section 12.3.1 and 12.3.2). If a conflict requIrIng actIon does occur a user group may be restricted somewhat; however, any adverse socIal and economIc Impacts are expected to be minImal and ncre than outweIghed by the Increased effIcIency and preventIon of destruction gained by an orderly solutIon. Management Measure B would prevent the harvest of Spanish mackerel below the sIze required for optImum bIologIcal yield. Under the present condItIons In the fishery both the benefIcIal and negative Impact of thIs measure are relatIvely mInor because few fish smaller than 12 Inchas are caught. The major benefIt of thIs measure Is to prevent the development of a large fIshery fur small fish. Such a devel opment would have a negatIve Impact on the total yIeld of the fIshery and on the avaIlabIlity of the more desIrable larger fish. There appears to be little or no economIc or 9:clal Impact of thIs manage ment measure (see FMP Section 12.3.2.1). Management Measure C, a catch limIt, has no Impacts of any kInd until Implemented. It provIdes a method for rapId response to possIble overflshlng If other proposed measures are Ineffective. For a detailed analysIs of Its potentIal Impacts see FMP SectIon 12.3.2.1. Measure D provIdes for closure of the fishery In any year when optimum yield Is exceeded. Under pres ent Interpretation of the law, such a closure Is requIred when OY Is expressed as a fIxed amount. The measure clarifIes for the general public the effect of setting a numerIcal OY for Spanish mackerel. Short-term adverse economIc and 9:clal Impacts may occur If the fishery Is closed. long term ecnomIc and socIal values are protected. LDng-term abundance of the stock and Its contrIbutIon to the marIne ecosystem wlJ I be protected. More detaIl on the effects of thIs measire may be found In FMP Sect Ions 12.2.2 and 12.3.2. 1. IV.2.3 ~ Management Measure A wIll protect the cobl a unt II the age at matur I ty and Increase yl el d. analysIs of Impacts Is found In FMP Sect Ion 12.3.3. I. A detaIled IV.2.4 Purse Selne Re~ulatlons Purse seIne Measure A provIdes a lImIt of purse seine harvest of kIng and Spanish mackerel. The spe cIfIed amounts are small and are not expected to result In any adverse Impacts to the stocks or other user groups. A slIght Increase In value of the comercial fIshery may occur. More detail on the effects of thIs measure Is found In FMP SectIon 12.3.5.1. Purse seine Measure B requIres observers on any purse seIne vessels whIch begin fIshIng for mackerels. ThIs measure Insures that use of purse seInes wIll not result In excess harvest. Information gaIned by observers will be used to develop a long-term management approach to pirse seInes. ThIs protects the long-term benefits of the fishery. For a more detailed analysIs of thIs measure see FMP SectIon 1 2. 3. 5. 1. FEIS-13 w. ,2. ~;Stat lstlcal ReportlngMeas ures T:he iproposedstatl stlcalreprtl ngmeasures are not expected tohav.e anI! dlr,ec ;Jimp.act 'o.nthe ¡blQ(løgl c,a'lot" ;physIcal ,envlronment of the fish stocks concerned. Thesemeasires 'sho,uld ,r:esu:l\t 'hi !bitl-er management 'by ¡provldlng 'betterdafalnd:1 r,ectLy Jmpro,vlngand 'protect I '1~ 1mesi.ck æænd 1115 ¡enll~1'ø:ment. :Someadcl'ltlona:1 cost,sandlnconven lencewlllbe ,Imposed onfJ sherman" prø.cesø:rs cenci The'sp'Iennmerr. A .cletaJied .analysls of Impacts of these measures I sfound In 'FMP SectIon '12.3..:6.il. v. .ALi-ERNAT1V,ES TO THE PR0POSED ACTION V.l1No Aotløn Ifhealt'ernatlve of ,Imposlng 'noregul at Ions on the ti Sherymay resu'lflln 'sever.e :I'mpacciõwnthe 1ito.cks." partlcu:I'arlN 'klngmackerel ,and on users of fheresurce. TMs Is 'becau.se ,0frapJdihyrils:1ng ,fiLstt:Jing e'tfètrf and ifheprobäbTlI ty thatMSY may be reached or exceeded 1n then',ear :f,uturiØ. 'Marv..s!t:: 1m '8XC4i'S of 'MSYw'I'llrlecrease theabundanceoffhe stocks ,and 'soonresu'lt 'In decreasedharve.s'ts .andøconorJc losses.tothecountry. AT thIs time It lsnotpo.sslble toaccuratelypredlct.,the degr'se :t ',wh'lch mackerelsTocks cou'l dbe overfl shed In any gl vsn year because of ¡limited aval%ble.data :8nd 'Ur.cer ta:1 ntyàbouttheprecl s 10noftheMSY est ImZltes. There lsapoten'tJzz'lfor'largelosses resul1'lngfrom an alternatIve of no ac:tlon. 'Recen1" 'h'lsifr,y ,of aslmnarflshery.,Atlantlcmackerel, gIves an IndIcatIon of ethls :potlentlal.Maxlmums.usta'lnable .yIeld for cthlss'tckls .estlmated at 2m,OOO t0230,OOOmt. During the early '19705, 'excess ;f!shllng 'ef"fCJrtgreatLy 'reduced the stock sIze and ylelddecll ned. TOTal present catchfr.Oß 'U.5.:andCanadlan 'Wat.erslsapproxlmately'65,OOO.mt, 'less than one thJrd of 'MSY. The current Atlantlc 'M.acker.el :PMP rlRitts 'catches In U.S. waters to 3Q,000 mtlnanat.tempt 'tolncr,eases.pawnJng 'slo:Cks:loze 'and Iffpr,eiie "r:ecr.u I ,tmerit.. I.nthe .~s8o'f;4t:ant:lc macker.el,thedrastlcreducf,oiiln ;harves:t :needed to'r.èbiiHl'd 'the ',stock ,wa.s acæmp'llshedby :reducl ngallowedforelgn harvesT and -was rela'tlvel,y paln'less:forU.'s. 'l'nJt.eres"".s. :M slnitl.ar reducNonsbecame necessary for ktng or SpanIsh mackereL, U.s.. 'fIshermen would 'bear '.flle ;en1':lre :burden,wrthser'lousadver:se .Impacts on sport and comercIal :f'sherman. GI,venthe .presenttrend Inf,I'sttlng effort In the mackerel :f;lsher,l:esand :pr,esent ,cond,);,lonof 'rtlDse .stockg"Tt:l.s.pròbablethatMSYwlll be exceeded and .yl.el ddecTlne In the ,near 'f.uture \uo+es.s 1'i:ihil harves'tls Ihiilted.Forthe ,purposeofestlmatlng po1'.entlal cQstoftaklng ino ,actlon, ¡I~t :Is :r:easo ,nàbletoassumelosses offJve to 25 percent 'wrthln the nex 'fIve years,ëlnd:20;to 50iper,centiw.l:tlln therîextten 'Years. These estImates aresomewtiat arbltrary,butare.belJev.edto '.beconservat¡l,ve.',As can be seen from the example of Atlantic mackerel, greater losses.are poss'lble.Assuul'ng 'l;hæar.I'ty between economIc val ue and catch, the economIc cost of such 'reductlonsvarl es.bet-ween .:$5.~.6 'nil LUon 'to $2--..9mHllonannuaHy wIthIn the next ,five years. TheaF"ternátlveòf no action .would cleave no framework for dealing wIth bofh ,extsUng.and ,po1oenit;l:al ,gear.conU I.cts. i f,suchCOrîf II ctscannot be preventedorread'Hy so: Ived"econOllc ,':osS" :p.el"sonal 'h'ât-diihlp"and'8ven 'vIolence can result. Lack .CJfcatch TI'Iltsandallo.c.tl:onslor :Klng 'ßIcksl'sl '~.e.v.es open the, posslbl Htyof harvests s Ign IHcantlyln excess ofMSYwlth ,consequent ;future .advel"se ..afil.e.cts on !the'stock. 'Also, the amouiitof 'f I'sh ava Ilàb letorecreat,lonaL,recreat lonalfor 'h:lre,and 'hook ..and line oom~r:clalflshermen wou 1(1 be sIgn I' Icantl-yreduced ,wIth ,adverse 'sodl aland ,.econolc ,I,mpacts. Lack ..o'fs Ize i 1m I;t.scou l.d 'resu I,t In 'target Ing of sma Ilertlsh such that tot a I y,Lel'd 'cou.J:dbe ,reduc.ad. ..lJlsck '0 f 'measures to beg In 'res I.v I ng the Issue of .p urse se I n es wou Idexacerbatethe:contro,vel"s,y -that current I.y .,eXtsts. t-act lonwou Ida Iso prevent or postpone the dave lop,ment oforg8rHzed .:appl"oaches for .dêallogwlththe problems8nd Issues In thIs fIshery. 'FEI's..r4 The No ActIon alternatIve would result In a small savIng of government expendItures. mated at $376,353 annually. ThIs Is estl V.2 Alternate OYs AlternatIve optImal yIelds above and below the best current estImate of MSY for the mackerels were consIdered. Specific poInts of focus for kIng mackerel Included optImum yIeld alternatIves of 27, 30, 37 (the one chosen and equal to the best estImate of MSY) 45 and 53 ml II Ion pounds. SpanIsh mackerel OY alternatIves were 13, 20, 27 (the one chosen and equal to the best estImate of MSY) and 49 mIllion pounds. These span the II kely range for the true val ue of MSY, and represent the range of reasonab Ie alternatIves. OptImum yIelds less than the best estImate of MSY were rejected because they would requIre greater restrIctions on allowable catch wIth resultant adverse economic and 9:clal Impact on commercl ai, recreatIonal for h Ire and prIvate recreatIonal fIshermen, consumers and others. These adverse Impacts would Include reduced employment, economIc returns, recreatIonal opportunItIes, and consumer food supply. OY alternatIves above the best estImate of MSY were rejected because of the rIsk of adverse bIologIcal, socIal and economic. Impacts In the future If the stock was overflshed and avaIlabIlity was reduced for future needs. The chosen optImum yIeld evenl'GJ;alances the risk of overflshlng agaInst the chance of faIlIng to maxImIze utIlIzatIon of the resurce. An OY range of 30-37 ml II Ion pounds for kl ng mackerel was cons Idered but was rejected for admln I strat Ive reasons. SufficIent data to Justify a varIable OY were not avaIlable, nor was any system avaIlable whIch could be used to calculate an annual OY wIthIn the gIven range. For cobIa, an alternatIve of OY equal to a fIxed number of pounds was cons Idered. It was rejected because the available data was not sufficient to calculate an acceptably accurate numerIcal estImate. A harvest equal to the "best" numerIcal estImate would probably result In eIther substantially over fIshIng or underutlllzlng the stock. An addItIonal problem wIth thIs ~pproach Is enforcement. The catch of thIs specIes Is small, scattered among many dIfferent users, often not a dlrectèd catch, and frequently unreprted. The costs of data collection to obtaIn a numerIcal, estImate of total catch and enforcement needed to prevent harvest beyond a fIxed amunt would be prohIbItIve. V.3 AI ternat I ve Mana~ement Measures AlternatIves of restrIctIng the catch by certaIn user groups mbre heavIly In return for greater catches by other groups were rejected because of the more severe adverse economIc and socIal Impacts whIch would result. M;re detaIled catch lImItations (I.e., phased In by tIme and area) would have resulted In much greater admInIstratIve and enforcement burdens and would Increase the varIabIlIty of the catch and returns to user groups. Gear lImItations to sIgnIficantly reduce fIshIng power and effort from the present could unduely cause InefficIency because there Is no clear need for reducIng effort at thIs time. SImIlarly, there Is no need for lImited access In thIs fishery at thIs time. Only lImIted purse seInIng was allowed because of controversIal questIons regardIng theIr bIologIcal Impact on the stock. TakIng no actIon on purse seInes was consIdered and rejected because lack of action, In effect, means no restrIctIon. Unregulated purse seInIng was considered a possIble threat to the stock. (See FMP SectIon 12.3.4.) AlternatIves consIdered Included: (1) allowIng purse seIne use for research use only, (2) allocatIons for commercIal purse seIne use only In the Gulf of MexIco, (3) larger allocatIons to purse seIne users, and (4) a one-year limIt on observers. These are lIsted and/or dIscussed In FMP SectIon 12.3.4.1 or 12.3.4.2. Other management measures whIch were consIdered but not adopted are lIsted and dIscussed In detaIl In FMP SectIon 12.3.1.2 for kIng mackerel, SectIon 12.3.2.2 for SpanIsh mackerel, and Section 12.3.3.2 for cobIa. StatistIcal reprtIng measures consIdered but not adopted are lIsted and dIscussed In FMP SectIon 12.3.6.2 FEIS-15 VI. PR~NNJ.E UNAVOIi)~LEAi)VE1~SË I~ACtS The frantWOrk for réSlvlng cûrrétt and potenthll ge8r conflicts CMànëfgert Med5ureS A aM B for kIng lIeec:kélel, 8M A for Spàn ISh mackerel) may IntroduCe rêStrl ct Ions on one or ntr. IJSêr ggoups wlHëÌ' could rrmlt thefr éCi'omlc returns to 8 certaIn. extent. Thl s wI I I only hapPèn under MttUlIi A H a spéClfk g.eãr conflict occurs. They WOuld be mltfg8ted by thé fad that an òt'erly cortdoct-of the fIshery wit i lIkely fncrè8se efflef ency and reduce ecnofc lóss. . ihe fbta'f cøtCh l Imlts and alloc:t Ions (kIng makerel M81'8gèlt MeasUIe C and span tsh. rRcker'el ManagEiment Meìiurè F) nn Intròduce advérSé ecnOrIC, employment, and other social fcmp8cts béyond "the base rr ne CSsé ll the al 10èat Ions àre exceedèd by óne or nDre user groups. Th I s alfwr5e Impct coU fd bø mftlgat-- s-mewMt by fIshermen VI luitarlly swItchIng fø other fisher!.. Porsesel:ne hàNests will !llfghtlr decrease catch per unIt effort nét eeooomlc return tc other U5éé groups. ÒÒtiilled ànit lysIs of ecnomIc lö$$Øs and potential gaIns are dllcussed In Sectlón 12.3.101 and l2.3.4.1 öf theattachéd FMP. . Anothér advel"se Impact of Measure C (kIng rrcker.I)õccurs. If the hook and IIn.e allocation Is e)Cceeded and a larger than nOr'a I tract Ion of the Cêtch I s so I d by recreat lonal f I shèt. In that CIISEl, the tradItIonal c:rnnnCl81 fl$herman \1llld be unable 1\ harvElsthls nonnal share óf theréSUi"ce. À way to mltlgalé thl$ would bé fô requIre that 81 I persons who sell fish have a comercläl lJcense of slgnlUc:ant dollar "alû". Implélentlng such a measure Is not wIthin the 8\Jthortty of the CõUhclls; thérefore, thii Councll$ have förmally recmended 10 each state In the II" a,.ea that such a ìiasUlè be cons f del"ed. VII. RELATlQNSHI~$ aETWEEN LOCALSHOrn~TERIi USE$AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENTOf LPN~rERMPFtDUCTIVliY . TM nlJor object Ive of the p Ian Is 10 protect the resurcé and aäslle long-tér prodIJct i "fty. The plan Is desfgnèd 1' allow for the InstIgatIon of menagernnf rlasûies necessary tó prevent haI"ØØ1'lng kIng and SpanIsh mackerel beyond the revels of m8xlmi.m $ushìlnablé yIeld. BluêHSh, IIttl. tliny, c:etò i'kërél and dolphIn do not apPèar to be In any Immeiate danger of bélng overflshèd, and S¡)cl f Ie conservatIon rtasures for thèm havè not been found to be necessary (seé Séctlon .5.4). AveHable data Indlcate that cobIa iiy be overflshèd. A sIze lImit Is pì"òposed whIch wll I dintrlbu'te tö long term productIvity wIth only mInImal advel"se Short..term effects. r-nltcrlng and data gatherIng mé8Sur-es havè béèn Instituted and support gIven to reséarch efforts In ordèr tc Inêréae the Infor matIon bSSê fo" USë In enhanclnp long-term productIvity. the harvest levels to be allowed by the plan are bel I eYed to be sustaInable ón II iong-term basIs based òn the best sCIentific: Infonnatlon currently aval lab Ie. VIII. IRREVERSIBl.~AND IRRETRIEVN3LE COITMENTS.OF RESOURCES Thère are iilnlmal IrreversIble or Irrøtr"léVablè commltrrnts of réSurces réSultlng tr"01 the Illplélen tat Ion of thIs management plan. The plan Is deslgnéd fu protect the coastal mIgratory pelêlglc resur" céS and prèServè thE! long..term yIeld from the fIshery.. There Is a short".tenn COmltment of necessary publIc funds for IInltörlng and obtaInIng InformatIon for managing the resurce. These al"e dlsêussed In SeCtlon 13.9 of the attached FMP. The plan In no way signifIcantly curtails pótentlal u- of the ënvlronment and réSurces éXCept for "the potentIal catch limits al located 1\ varIous uSérgroups. BlologlcaIRé$urce$ ~ After" consIderIng the best InformatIon cUl"rertly available, the Côunclls believe that the plan wi i i not result In any Srretrlevable loss to aquatIc flora or fauna populatIons. The plan will prevent takIng of thé specIes In the managemnt uilt béond the levels whlch are sustaInable on a yett after year basIs. The plan has a negligIble Impact on other plant and anImal populations In the 81"e8 of concern. FEIS"'16 Land Resources - There are no discernible changes In the commltmént of land resurces as a result of Implementation of the plan. Any changes brought about by the plan wI Ii neither Increase nor decrease the amount of land commItted or the manner of Its use. Water and Alr Resources - There are no Irreversible or Irretrievable comItments of water or air resurces due to the plan. Water or air quality should not be Impacted to.a measurable extent by thIs plan. Manpower, Materlals, and Ener~y Resources - There will be an Increase In labor expended for the monI toring of the plan and for obtaining Information for management purposes. Beyond this, the current plan should not result In an.rilncrease In labor aS9:clated with harvesting, processing, and other acti vities associated with the resurce. A small amount of material and energy resurces will be expended In monitoring and obtaining Infor mation for the plan (see FMP Sections 12.3.5, 13.9, and 16.0). The plan does not significantly change material and energy usage In fish harvesting, processing, and other poten~lally Impacted activIties. The plan limits mackerel purse'selnlng while Its positive and negative eftåèts are studied. Purse seining could potentially reduce the amount of labor, material, and energy resurces consumd In the harvest of king and Spanish mackerel. However, Its high efficiency requires a cautIous approach. Other Natura i Resources - There are no other natural resurces potentially Impacted by the plan to any discernible extent. Cultural Resources - While the plan Imposes a more complete management regime on the fishery than had previously been utilized, the plan Is designed to result In a minimum of disruption on the 9:clal structure of the users of the resurce and their commun Itles. iX. OTHER INTERESTS AND CONS i DERAT IONS OF FEDERAL POL I CY OFFSETT I NG ADVERSE ENV i RONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACT i ON The proposed management plan complements certain other federal policy Interests. By protecting the resurce and allowing exploitation up to the best estimate of MSY, the plan contrIbutes to necessary food production and recreational opportunities. The plan also minimizes economic dislocation In the areas of concern. There Is no Indian treaty fishing or significant foreign Involvement In fishIng for the species In the management un It. x. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS During the development of the plan, the plan development team repeated Iy contacted the National Marine Fisheries Service, state natural resurce agencies, university officials of coastal zone planning agencies. Information was frequently solicited affected fishermen. Several meetings were hel d with the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Council s i Fishery Advl sory Panel. representatives of researchers, and from potentIally Subpanel of the Section 7 consultations have been conducted to determine If measures In this plan have adverse Impacts on any threatened or endangered species as listed under the Endangered Species Act. A Section 7 con sultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service concernlng sea turtles and marine mammals resulted In a biological opinion that the plan was not likely to Jeopardize these species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted In a conclusion that the FMP will have no af fect on the brown pe i I can or the West I nd I an manatee. F~IS-17 XI. LIST OF PREPARERS The EIS and the FMPwere pl"8pared by amultldlsclpl I nary l88.Many people contrIbuted 1" each section. The followlngllst gIves the major workers and the al"eas to 'WJch they mmde sfgnlfJcant contributIons. Bradly S. Ingram, t-A. ApplIcable ExperIence: ContrlbutJons: General E IS SectIons III - Vii. EconomIc Impact analysts, market research - statIstIcal anafysls and samplIng. cordInatIon of Fr4 and E15, FMP SecJonsS.O, 9.0, 1.0.0,1 t.O, 12.0, 13.0; Sandford B. FaIn, tvP, PlannJng Theory. ApplIcable ExperJence: Program development and evaluatIon, poUcy analysts, statIstIcs. ContrIbutIons: FMP Sections 7.0, 8.0, 9.0; EIS SectIon III. Carl H. 51lsbee, MS, Econoic Systems EngIneerIng. ApplIcable ExperJence: DecIsIon analysIs, econoIc analysIs. ContrlbulJons: FMP SectJon 11.0; EIS SectIons Vi l -IX, 11-6. : Mark E. Chltlenden, Jr. PhD, Aquallc Blology. ApplIcable ExperIence: FIshery populatJon dynamIcs. ContrJbutlons: 'Yleldper recruIt analysIs of mackerels - FMP SectIon 5.4. Fred J. Prochaska, PhD, EconomIcs. Applicable ExperIence: Cost and return analysIs, sportandcomerclalflshery economIcs. ContrIbutIons: FMP 5ectlonsS.O, 9.0; EI5 Section IV. James C. Cato, PhD, food and Resource Economlcs. Applicable ExperIence: FIshery economIc analysIs. ContrIbutIons: FMP SectIons 8.0, 9.0; EIS Sectton iv. Joan A. Browder, PhO, EnvIronmental Engtneelng. Appllcable ExperIence: Systems ecology, ftshery ecnomIcs, wetland ecology. ContrIbutIons: FMP SectJons 5.0, 6.0;EJS SecIons 1.1 t - VII. J.Connor DavIs, MS,MarlneFlshery BIology. App 11 cab I e Experl ence.: Population dyn am I cs and 11 sherymanageent. ContrIbutIons: General ed1tlng FMP and EIS; FMP SectIons 5.0 and 12.0. FE15-1S FE I S APPEND IX I SUMMARY OF PlB LI C COMMENT MSY JOY Comment: MSY and OY are not valId estimates: a) b) c) EstImates Est I mates Est Imates declIned. are too are too are too large because recreatIonal catches are overestImated; low because present catch Is underest Imated; large because catch data Is too old. More recently, catches have Response: The only estimates of recreatIonal catch avaIlable when MSY and OY values were estImated were based on telephone surveys and are generally considered to overestImate the actual harvest. Before IncludIng these estImates In the MSY analysis, they were reduced by 52 percent. The amount of reductIon was based on a comparIson with local surveys where catch wss metfsÜred by onslte IntervIews. (See FMP SectIon 5.4.1). These local surveys were the only documented data whIch could be used to adjust the avaIlable catch estImate. A surveyor recreational catch for the year 1979 was publIshed after publIc hearIngs on the FMP/DEIS. It IndIcates that recent recreatIonal catches may be less than estImated In the FMP. Problems wIth thIs study's methodology make It only slightly more reliable than prevIous estImates (see FMP SectIon 8.2.1.2). Improvements In the methodology used during 1980 should result In relIable estimates of recreatIonal catch. These will be Incorporated Into the MSY analysIs durIng the monItoring process (see FMP SectIon .16.2). No supportIng evIdence Is avaIlable to IndIcate that recreational catch data was underestimated. Mackerels are mIgratory, avaIlabIlIty and catches In a gIven area have hIstorically varIed from year to year. Much of thIs varIabIlIty appears related to water temperatures or other envIronmental fluctuatIons. There Is no documented evIdence for a sustaIned declIne In catch over the entIre range of the stocks. King mackerel commercIal landIngs declIned In 1978 and 1979 In Florida, but recovered In 1980. LandIng trends wI II be closely monItored to determIne If thIs was the result of changes In ava I I ab III ty or abundance. Commnt: KI ng mackerel catch rates I n many areas are dec II n I ng. Response: Total catch of kIng mackerel Is near MSY. RapId Increases In effort In recent years has brought little Increase In catch and a declIne In catch rates. This does not necessarIly mean that the stocks are threatened or declinIng. In some areas declines In total catch have occurred. It Is not possIble to determIne whether thIs Is due to declinIng overall abundance or declInIng aval lab I i Ity. Commet: The relatIon between the adult spawnIng populatIon and recruItment of young fish should be considered In MSY. Response: No data Is avaIlable to estimate the relation. When or If such data becoes available, It will be Included In the MSY analysIs. US$ of the Fo.1 concet In the MSY analysIs (FMP SectIon 5.4) Is a conservatIve approach to estimating sustaInable yIeld. This concept results In a hIgher standIng stock and Is Intended to provIde some Insurance agaInst recruItment faIlure. A-I Commnt: MSY and OY estImates should be made separately for the Gulf of MexIco and AtlantIc. Response: TaggIng studIes show that there Is substantIal seasonal migratIon of kIng mackerel between the Gulf 'and south Atlantic. Therefore MSY estImates must Include both areas. Commnt: KI ngmackerel are underut III zed I n LouIs I ana and shou I d be managed separatel y. Response: There Is no re~n to belIeve that the population of mackerel In louIsiana Is not part of the same stock as In the rest of the Gulf of MexIco, or should be managed Ina dIfferent manner. Comment: stocks. The CouncIls should consIder the MexIcan fIsherIes for mackerels; they may be the same Response: TaggIng studIes IndIcate a small degree of Interchange between MexIco and U.S. waters. At thIs tIme InsuffIcient data Is avaIlable to determIne the number of stocks Involved. In m:nltorlng the plan, the CouncIls wIll carefully consIder the possIbIlIty of fisherIes In MexIco affecting .those In the U.S. and promote research to determine stock dIstrIbutIon. Comment: Allow no foreIgn fIshIng In the FCZ. -0".-. Response: t- surplus has been declared for any specIes In the management unIt and no foreIgn fIshIng wIll be allowed. Commt: A one year delay In plan ImplementatIon Is requested In order to gather better data. Response: Several problems exIst In the fIshery whIch need attention. group conflIcts and a total harvest whIch Is rapIdly approachIng MSY. Implementation of the FMP as necessary to protect the fIshery. These Include gear and user The CouncIls cons Ider rapId Commnt: MSY/OY and management measures for SpanIsh mackerel should be consIdered temporary subject to m:re detaIled study and stock analysIs. Response: The FMPclearly states the uncertaInty of the MSY analysis for SpanIsh mackerel. OYwas based on the best data avaIlable. Management measures were desIgned to allow consIderable flexIbIlIty to respond to changIng condItions In the fishery. f-.onltorlng procedures allow new data and new manage ment measures to be Incorporated In the plan on a tImely basIs. Gear and User Group Conf II cts Commet: Gill nets should be prohIbIted In areas where they have not been tradItIonally used. Response: ArbItrary prohibItIon of any gear sImply because It has not been used before Is contrary to the NatIonal Standards. If gIll nets are used to catch mackerels In nEÌ areas and conflIcts result, those conflicts can be addressed In kIng mackerel Measure A or Spanish mackerel MeasureA. Comment: Large gIll-net vessels should be kept out of the waters off North Carolina. Response: If a conf Ilct develops In thIs area between gIll-net addressed through kl ng mackerel or Span I sh mackerel Measures A. and no action Is recommended by the CouncIls. fishermen and other users, It can be At present no serIous conf Ilct exl sts A-2 Comment: Use of new types of gear to take king mackerel should be prohibited. Response: Such a total proh Ibltlon Is contrary to the National Standards. Commnt: Beach. Use of gill nets to take king mackerel should be prohibited from Cape Canaveral to Palm Response: Gill nets have been used to take king mackerel In this area for many years (see FMP Exhibit 8-10), without serious conflict. The recent conflict between hook and line flshennen and flshennen on large power roller gill-net vessels Is addressed In king mackerel Measure B. Total prohibition of gill nets In this area was considered discriminatory and contrary to National Standard 4. Fort Plerce Option Commnt: Opposed to kl ng mackerel Measure B, Fort Pierce gear conf II ct : a) b) c) d) e) Hook and line fishermen cannot use much of the area where th!i~ are allowed; Hook and line fishermen need the northern area every year; The measure wou i d put some fish houses out of bus I ness, they need both groups to Too difficult to enforce; The measure does not cover a Ii of the area of conf II ct. survive; Response: Measure B, as presented for public coment Included only Section B(2)a of the presenT measure. The Councils recognize substimtlal problems pointed out In public testllIny. Measire B was modified In response to comment In order to make It IIre flexible and provide IIre options for action by the Regional Director. As a field order, no acion need be taken unTII the problem recurs. Regulations can be Implemented quickly and changed, or remved, Quickly In response to changing conditions. Negative Impacts Indicated by comments a, b, and c, above, can be reduced to a minimum by choosing the best option allowed under Measure B to address specific situations as they arise. Enforcement of this measure will require substantial effort, this has been considered In the Regulatory Analysis and FMP. The area affected by king mackerel Measure B covers the major area of conflict on the southeast FlorIda coast. Conflicts arising In other areas can be addressed within kl ng mackerel Management Measure A. Comment: Recommend a north/south separation line off Fort Pierce at the 85 foot depth contour. Response: This recommendation was Incorporated Into king mackerel Measure B(!). Comment: Recommend alternating use of each gear between the northern and southern hal ves of the area with a 1,OOo-foot neutral zone In between. Response: This recomendation was partially adopted as king mackerel MeasureB(2)b. Catch A Ilocat Ions Commnt: The p I an fa \1 rs : a) b) Recreat lonal fishermen; Commercial flshennen. Response: The Councils have been as fair as possible to extended to all groups In proportion to their historical have been placed on all groups. all users. Access to the resurce has been catch levels. Likewise some restrictions A-3 Commnt: Avalhible data Is too poor to support ancunts for allocation. Response: Recorded commercial landIngs are considered to be relatively accurate for king mackerel because of the nature of the fishery. Est I mates of recreat lonal land I ngs are less rei I ab Ie but the best presently .avallable. However, present data collection efforts will Improve as the FMP Is Implemented. Better estimates of recreational catch will be used to modi fy the allocation as they become avail ab Ie. Commnt: Ban all sale of king mackerel and make It exclusively a gameflsh. Response: This suggestion was rejected because It would as some mebers of the recreational fishery. In effect, from access to a comnc.n property resurce. severel y Impact commercl al f I shennen as well I t un f a I r I y exc I udes comercl a i fishermen Commnt: Allocation Is unenforceable. Response: Some enforcement prob I ems are expected at Increased ,speed of data collection which will result quate basis to monItor and enforce the allocations. first. I-wever, Improving catch data and from mandatory reprtln~:wii I provide an ade Comment: There Is no effective way to limit the recreational catch. Response: The plan provides for closure of the fIshery to any user group If It exceeds Its allocation. If slow data collection makes It dIfficult to close the recreational fIshery, bag and size limits can be Imposed to restrict recreational harvest. "ml ts Comment: Sal.e of fish caught by recreational fIshermen will be counted against the commercial hook and line allocation, unfairly reducing the allowable catch of full-time comercial hook and line fl shermen. Response: Landings data used to compute the hook and line alloaatlon Include fish so.ld by recreational f,lshermen. Therefore, It Is fair to count such sales against the af location. If, In the future, the percentage of catch which Is sold by recreational fishermen Increases, the al location can be IIdlfled accordingly. Mandatory reprting Is expected to provide adequate Information to make any necessary adJ ustment. Commnt: Opposed to the allocation amounts: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Present allocation not fair and equitable; Recommend 1:1 division between recreation and comercial; Recommend total oomercl al allocation be IIre than 50 percent of the total; Recommend a hook and" ne allocation larger than the net al location; Recommend reduction In net allocation; Recommend regional allocation; Recommend zero a Ilocat Ion to nets. Response: The allocation Is a fair and equitable divIsion of the available harvest based on the best estimates of the percent of total harvest presently taken by each user group. The small allocatIon purse seine catch In the Gulf was subtracted from the allocation for all types of nets on the premise that present users of other types of nets were mo.st II kely to experiment wi th pirse seine use. Other recommended divisions of the total allowable harvest would unfairly reduce catch while often providing additional alloaatlon to other users which could not be utilIzed the present distribution of fishing effort and availability of fish. by some users, by them due, to A-4 Regional allocations were considered but not adopted due to highly variable availability and Insuf f Iclent data with wh Ich to determine a regional allocation. Commnt: If purse seines are allowed, prohibit use of spotter airplanes. Response: Purse seines are allowed with a small allocation. considered unnecessary and unfair. Further restriction of efficiency was Commnt: Ccncern that the entire allocation could be taken In one area leaving no allowable catch for other areas. Response: The designated fishing year, July 1 to June 30, In combination with the migratory habits of king mackerel assure that fishermen In all areas will have the opportun Ity to harvest In each year. 25-lnch Llmlt for Sale of Kln~ Mackerel Comment: Opposed to the limit because It would result In waste of a bycafch of small king mackerel presently taken In Spanish mackerel gill nets. In some areas this bycatc~~mày be 50 percent or more of the catch. Response: Public comment Indicated that large Incidental catches are taken In the Gulf. Therefore, the Gulf Council deleted this measure from Its area of Jurisdiction. Such Incidental catch In the south Atlantic appears to be small and the measure was retained for that area. The measure was sub sequently rejected by the Department of Comllrce as discriminatory to comercial flshennen. (See Ft4 Section 12.3.1.2.) Commnt: KI ng mackerel caught on hook and II ne are often too damaged to rei ease. Response: While some mortality of released fish wI! i occur, the loss was expected to be small. Comment: The measure does not protect the I arge spawn I ng fish. Response: The measure was not Intended to protec spawners, but to maximize the catch of larger, more valuable fish, by limiting the harvest of small fish. Such a limit would help maintain, and possibly Increase, the abundance and catch of large fish; Indirecly protecting the spawnIng population. Comment: The measure Is unfairly applied only to comercial fishermen. Response: The Secretary of Commerce agreed and rejected the measure on that bas I s and because there appeas to be little biological benefit gained from restriction only on sale. Comment: Recommend a 12-lnch size limit for king mackerel, equal to that for SpanIsh mackerel. Response: r' benefit would result from a size limit as smal I as 12 Inches. i ass than 12 I nches are caught. Very few king mackerel Mlnlmum Mesh Size for Kln~ Mackerel GIII Nets Llmlted to 4-3/4 Inches Commnt: Recommend a larger mesh because 4-3/4 Inch mesh catches fish smaller than 25 Inches. Response: The recommended mesh size does result In some harvest of fish smaller than 25 tnches, however, the amount Is small. Length frequency data from 1969 and 1977 Indicated that the gIll-net catch of fish smaller than 25 Inches was less than one percent. Limited data from two areas In 1979 A-5 IndIcated that the catch was approxImately four percent. Increasing the mesh sIze would substantIally reduce the efficIency of gIll-net vessels and theIr catch of larger, more desIrable fIsh. Purse SeIneR.estrlct.Jôns Pròhlbtlon of córímerclal purse seInIng for m8ckerel In the 9:uth Atlântlc, an allocatIon for purse seIne fishIng In the Gulf of MexIco, and a study of purse seIne actIvIty were proposed In the Ft4 and DEIS. FollowIng publIc hearings In March, 1980, these meåsures were recomm$ndèd to the Secretary of Comiìtce for IrrlHementation. The Secretary rejected-the FMP on the basIs that total prohIbItIon of commercIal use of purse seInes In the south AtlantIc was contrary to the Nâtlonal Standards. The South AtlantJc then adopted lImIted allocatIons of mackerels for purse seIneS. The Gulf CouncIl modIfied Its proposed allocatIon slightly to be cónslstent wIth the SOuth AtlantIc Councl I. ThIs Is now listed as purse seIne Measure A. PublIc comment on thIs measure was obtaIned durIng publichèår.lngs held In June, 1981. . The Secrètàry còmmented thàt research shou i d not be a req ui red management measure. The CotJriCI I.S agreed and mOdIfied the measure. Observer requIrements for COmarclal vessels were exPanded and are listed In purse seIne Measure B. The research portIon of the measute was changed tô a resèárch request and Is Included In FMP SectIon 14.4. The origInal measure revlewedi1ipublic hearings In 1980 I s II sted as purse se I ne Measure D. Co.rmnt: stocks. All purse seInIng for mackerels soould be prohIbIted as too effIcIent and a danger to the Response: Purse seIneS are hIghly effIcIent and must be carefUlly controlled. Purse seInIng alloc8tions, as pröpôsed, account for approxImately two percent of MSY and OY for both species. will håve no sIgnIficant adverse Impact on the stock. ThIs Corint : Use of purse seInes to harvest mackerels shòuld be banned untIl proven safe. RespOnse: In thE! absence of any Information to suggest that very lImIted usa of purse seines would be detrImental to the stocks, total prohIbitIon of thIs effIcIent gear Is contrary to NatIonal Standard 5. ThIs Standard specIfIes that management measures shal i promote efficIency where practIcable. The limIted allowable harvest wI II help provIde the data to determIne a safe level of purse seIne harvest. Comment: Use of purse seInes should be lImIted to the last fraction of thè net al locatIon If It Is not gOIng to be taken 10 other types of nets. Respônse:. In practice, a Ilocct Ion ear I y enough " grounds and harvest any It would be ImpossIble I n the seaSon to allow remal~lng excess. to detei"lne the exIstence of a surpltJs In the net purse seIne operator to gear up, travel to the fIshIng Comment: mackerel. Recommend that the purse seIne study be done by vessels which do not presently fIsh for kIng Response: The study was I ntended to gather datá under cònd I t Ions as c lose as poss Ib Ie to tnoSE! wh Ich would prevaIl In a commercIal purse seine fIshery. It was expected that vE!ssels whIch might be used for commercIal purse seinIng would be some of toose presently operating as kIng mackerel gliinetters. National MarIne FIsherIes personnel would have supervIsed all operations to ensure that the Infor mat Ion produced by the study I s accurate and unbl ased. SInce thIs comment was made, the measure has been modIfIed. It Is unlIkely that sufficIent funds are available to charter commercIal vessels for purse seIne research. The need for such research Is less because observers will be present on all purse seine vessels. A-6 Commnt: Catch limit for the study Is too large. Response: The catch limit was considered the minimum necessary to draw a meaningful conclusion from the study. It Is approximately one percent of OY and Is not expected to significantly affect other user groups or the stock. Comment: The Councils should rely on research conducted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Response: Written reprts by FDNR on experimental purse seining were reviewed and an observer Who par ticipated In the reseach was contacted. These studies are valuable, but do not give all the Infor mation need by the Councils. Both written and verbal reprts IndIcate that, In almost all cases, the bycatch of other species Is small. In cases where the bycatch was significant, Thls could usually be determined before the set was made. These studIes did not supply other needed Infonnatlon, Including the ability of fishermen to determine the size of fish before capture, or If a schoo I can be released from the net unharmed. Commnt: The Councils should consider what has happened In otherflsherl~~where purse seines have been used. Response: The experience In other purse seine fisheries has been reviewed. There Is no known fishery which could be used as a reliable predictor of the Impact of the use of purse seines on the king or Spanish mackerel stocks. Unlimited use of purse seines has resulted In overflshlng of some specIes but not In others. Many, but not al I, purse seine fisheries where effort or total catch are limited have been highly successful. Commnt: Allow use of purse selnes as an efficient method of capture, thereby reducing fuel consump tion and prices. Response: Use of purse seines could probably result In decreased fuel use. However, may other fac tors must be considered. The study and comercial allocation In Intended to limIt use of purse seines to a rea9:nable arrunt, while data are gathered which will allow the Councils to make a final decision. Convnt: Recommend an extension of the study deadline to assure collection of adequate data. Response: The deadline was rerved from the research. Observers will be required on commercial vessels until sufficient Information Is available to develop long-term management for purse seining. Commnt: What happens after March 31, 1981? Response: The dead line was deleted, see purse seine Measures A and B. Comment: I s the 400,000 pound II m I t for research subtracted from any user group a Ilocat Ion? Response: No, as research, this amount Is not counted against OY. Ba~ Llmlts imd Slze Llmlts for Kln~ Mackerel by Re~ulatory Amendment Commt: Recommend that the wordIng of these measures and the similar measure for Spanish mackerel be more specific. Response: The wording was changed to clarify who Intentionally left broad In order to give maximum total closure of the fishery. shall InitIate the action. The range of action Is flexibility In protecting the s10ck while preventing A-7 Commnt: Opposed to any bag limits, size limits or trip limits. Response: These measures will be used to slow fishing mortality and prevent exceeding OY. native requIres total closure of the fishery when OY Is reached. The alter Comment: Opposed to uniform bag or size limits In all areas of the FCZ If separate stocks exist. Response: The best available data Is not sufficient to define different stocks, If they exist. Commnt: Recommend that a recreational bag limit on king mackerel be Implemented Immediately: a) b) c) d) Unspecl fled number; Three fish per day per person; Five fish per day per person; Eight fish per day per person. Response: A bag limit Is not necessary at this time. When needed, It can be. Implemented through regulatory amendment much more quickly than plan amendment, while st" I allowJJjg for public review. Commnt: Recommend that a recreational bag limit on king mackerel be Imposed If the states do not adopt conservat Ion measures proposed by the Council s. Response: Th I s can be accopli shed through regulatory amendment, I f needed. Commnt: Recommend a bag limIt of ten king mackerel per person In all user groups. Response: mackerel. This recommendation would effectively prohibit a full-time commercial fishery for king This would severely and unfairly Impact comercial user groups. Comment: A bag limit Is un enforceab Ie. Response: A bag limit Is the most easily enforced measure avalhiible to the Council. 12-lnch Llmlt for Spanlsh Mackerel Comment: Undersized fish caught on hook and line will die when released. Response: Tagging studies show that SpaniSh mackerel can be caught by hook and line and released with little mortality. Some loss will result from this measure, but the benefl ts are expected to outweIgh losses. Comment: Undersized mackerel should be allowed for use as bait. Response: Unlimited allowance for use as baIt would greatly Increase diffIculty of enforcement. There are several alternative baits available, Including balao and little tunny. A small amount of under s I zed Span I sh mackerel w II i be ava II ab i e from the bycatch a I lowance prov I ded. Comment: Opposed to size limit for recreational fishermen. Response: Recreational fIshermen harvest a large fraction of the total catch. To exclude them from this regulation would be discriminatory, Increase difficulty of enforcement and decrease Its blologl ca I ben af It. A-a Commnt: Recommend that tour I sts be exc I uded from th I s measure. Response: Such an exception would make the measure unenforceable. Commnt: To whom does the five percent bycatch allowance apply. Response: To all vessels catching SpanJsh mackerel, either direcly, or as an Incidental catch. Size Limit for Cobia Comment: Opposed because cobia are difficult to release. Response: Cobia can be released with little or no Injury by cutting the line near the hook. Some loss will result from this measure, however, the benefits of a size limit are substantial and will exceed the expected losses. Comment: Opposed to a limit on recreational fishermen. ",- . Response: Most cobl a are caught by recreat lonal fishermen. would make It Ineffective. Excluding them from this restrict Ion Comment: Recommend prohibition on sale of cobia. Response: Such a prohibition would have little effect on total catch of cobia because most commercial landings are Incidental catches. Comment: Recommend a bag limit for cobia. Response: A bag limit would be Ineffective In reducing fishing mortality or Increasing yield from the ava II ab i e recru I tment. Stat I st I ca I Reprt I n~ Comment: Better definitions of commercial and recreational fishermen are needed. Response: The definitions are used only as a basis to allocating OY. which statistics were collected to set the allocations. They correspond to the way In Commnt: Mandatory reprting by charter boats Is unfair. Response: The Councils agreed with this coment and deleted the measure. Commnt: reprt . If all charter captains must reprt, then all private recreational fishermen soould have to Response: It Is economically Impossible to require reporting by all private recreational flshennen. Adequate data can be obtaIned from a statistical sample. Comment: Opposed to the concept of mandatory reprting. Response: The most serious problem In fishery management In the southeast Is lack of good fishery statistics. Mandatory reprting Is considered necessary for cost effective collection of statistics. A-9 Commt: Mandatory reporting Is not fair and equitable to recreational fishermen. Response: Reporting Is mandatory for all user groups. Recreational fishermn will be the le~st affected of any user group because only a small sample will be required to reprt àt any one time. Commnt: Recreational statIstics cou I d be co I lected from fish Ing clubs. Response: Records from clubs have been and will continue to be very valuable. However,.estlmatesof total catch, effort and economic value cannot be obtained from clubs because they are not 'arepresen tatlve sample of all fishermen. Convnt: Reported recreational catch cannot be veri f I ad. Response: By cobining creel census or onslte Interviews with mall or telephone slrveys,recreatlonal statistics can be estImated and verified. Commnt: Obtain compleTe records of commercial and recreational catches to the extent practicable. Response: This .Is the purpose of the statistical reprting measures. ;;: Commnt: I sso Id. Recreational catch of king mackerel can be estimated from comercial hindlngs because most Response: While a sIgnificant fracion of recreational catches may be sold, the normal commercial market chain and Is not recorded. Recorded comercl al extremely high recreational fishing effort and catch are often very low, and of recreational catch. I toftendoesnotenter landings In areas of are nota useab Ie Index Commnt: Recommend reprting be done by dealers Instead of fishermen. Response:Oeàlers reprt Ing similar to that wh Ich has been done In the past will be required. However, 9:me Information can only be collected from fishermen. Commnt: Recommend mandatory vessel registration. Response: Vessel registration was considered and rejected by the Councils as redundant and not cost effective. All vessels used In the FCZ are presently registered, either under state or federal Jurisdiction. The vessel enumeration system makes use of these existing rEllstratlon flies. Commnt: Recommend mandatory fish I ng license for recreàt lonal and commercl al fishermen. Response: This was considered and rejected by the Councils as unnecessary at this t'lme. Commnt: Cost of enforcing mandatory reporting Is not estimated In the FMP. Response: Enforcemnt of reporting requirements Is not expected to require more effort than can be supplied by enforcement agents already funded, or within the enforcement budget estimated for the rest of the FMP. A-10 Genera I Commnts on Nets Convent: All use of nets should be banned: a) b) For all specIes In the management unIt; For kl ng mackerel. Response: Such a total prohIbItIon would be contradIctory to NatIonal Standard 4 by not beIng faIr and equItable and by allocatIng an excessIve share of the resurce to the recreatIonal user groups. In the case of kIng mackerel and bluefIsh, only a smal I fractIon of the total harvest Is taken by nets. Such a total prohIbItIon would have lIttle effect on conservatIon of the stock and would have severe economIc Impacts on the commercl al user group. Commnt: LImit use of gl II nets for catchIng kIng mackerel: a) b) c) d) To 45 foot depth or less; To 100 foot depth or greater; WIthIn ten mIles of shore; Ban use of spotter a Irp lanes. ;;;':..:...:'- . Response: The Councl Is have recommended a restrIctIon on the total catch of nets. Other area, tIme or gear restrictions were consIdered unnecessary and unreasonable restrIctIons of effIcIency. If socIal or economIc conflicts develop In any area, they can be addressed through kIng mackerel Measure A. Comment: The bycatch of small kIng mackerel In SpanIsh mackerel nets should be InvestIgated. Response: The Councl Is agree and have requested such a study as the hIghest priorIty research needed , for thIs FMP. Other Comments Comment: Recommend a 60o-day wa I t I ng per lod before any regu I at 10 ns. Response: There are substantIal problems In thIs fIshery whIch have been IdentIfIed by the CouncIls. These problems requIre that regulatIons be Implemented as 9:on as possIble. Comment: Include cero mackerel and bluefIsh In the management unIt. Response: At the present tIme no regulatIons are needed for these specl es. management unIt when regulatIon Is needed. They can be added to the Comment: I nc i ude sea trout and red drum I n the management un It. Response: The stocks and fIsherIes for these specIes are almost entIrely wIthIn state waters and are not subject to regulatIon under the MFCMA. Comment: Impose a 'Imlt of ten dolphIn per person. Response: There I s no ev I dence that do I ph I n stock are or may become overf I shed I n the near future; therefore. there Is no need for such a lImit. A-11 Commnt': Restrict use of mehaden purse seines because of a bycatch of mackerel and affect on predltor-prey relationships. Response: There Is no evidence that harvest of menhaden predltor-prey relations. It has been well documented In I n menhaden purse se I n es I s very sma I i. ad verse I y affect s mackerel s through many areas that the bycatch of other specIes Comment: Recommend no harvest of Spanish mackerel during spawn Ing season. Response: There Is no evidence that such a prohibition would benefit the stock. Commnt: Recommend pr Ice contro I s or contro i s on mackerel I and I ngs to II ml t pr I c,e fl uctuatlòns. Response: Limiting price fluctuation Is not an objective of this FMP. Commnt: Recommend habl tat protect Ion and protect lon, of young fish. Response: The proposed size limits provide protection for young fish. Habitat protection for these species Is approached on a broader .scope than one management plan. The CouncH'S'fevlew and IInltor many public and private activities which may affect fishery resurces In the FGZ. Comment: Artlflcal reefs should be protected. Response: plan. Construction of artificial reefs Is promoted by the Gulf Councl I through Its reef fish Commnt: Research on fallout of king mackerel from gill nets should get a low prIorIty.. Response: The Councils agree and have reduced the priority. assigned to this research. Commnt: Protect prey species from harvest. Response: There Is adequate data available which shows large surpluses In some bait specIes. exploitation of bait species should not adversely affect this managemnt unit. Present Commnt: Spawning areas should be closed during spawning season. Response: Specl es In th I s management un I t spawn over very i arge areas dur I ng This type of closure I'uld have little or no beneficial effect and would have Impacts on users In the northern hal f of the management area. a wide period of time. substant lal adverse Comment: Under what conditions I'uld regulations proposed by this plan be extended Into the mld Atlantic region? Response: The Councils chose not to extend management of mackerels and cobia Into themld~Atlantlc reg Ion because catches I n that area were to.o sma I I to affect OY. Shou I d catches I ncrease enough to become a significant fractIon of the total catch, the area of management wI Ii be extended by plan amendment process. All Councils concerned and the public will be consulted to determine the minimum necessary extension. Without knowing If, when, or where, such Increases In catch may Qccur, It Is Impossible to specify precise conditions. A-12 Commnt: Opposed to any use of regulö!tory amendment or field o,.ders as giving too much power to the Secretary of Commerce. Response: Meö!sures Including field order or regulö!tory amendments are carefully specified to limit the authority of the Secretary to the minimum required. In addition, regulatory amendments allow almost as much public Input as do plan amendments, but are much faster to Implement. If the delegated power Is used contrary to Council 's Intent, the plö!n can be emended to further limit or remve that power. Coiint: Inltlö!te studies to determine stocks. Response: Th I s has been recommended (see FMP Sect Ion 14.0). ~7. A-13 ~"'.~ FEIS APPENDIX II WR I TTEN COMMENTS '''-:,. ~:.-. i HECEIVr:¡) ~!l\ N 2 () 'i08.n. ).. n o, \. ::¡'~;. . ,~~.'~ ç'~.~,1- ,.." "~/' N¡, ~,..,n\;\/'" In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of!Üle . National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your review and consideration the draft environmental impact statement/fi sllery management plan prepùred by the Gulf of Mexi co and South Atl anti c Fi shery Management Council sin coopera ti on with the Nati anal Mari ne Fi sheri es Sérvi ce of the Nati onal Oceani c and Atmospheric Administration on the Coastal Migratory.Pelagic Resources (Mackerel) Fi shery. ;~ rtC 0' c, i ~- \ ,1!io ~ ~.¡ ~8 Of UNITED STATrs DEPARTMENT OF CQMi".:::E~CE The Assistant. Secratai'y for Science and Ti.chnDlogy Washington, D.C. 20230 January 25, 1980 Dear Revi ewer: Any written comments or questions you may have should be submitted to the contact person identified below by March 17, 1980. Also, one copy of your comments should be sent to me in Room 3425, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230~ ! CONTACT PERSON Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director Gul f of Mexi co Fi shery Management Counci 1 Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 Wes t Kennedy ßoul evard Tampa, Flori da '.33609 Telephone: 813/228-2815 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, /1 ¡i i .'. .()) lJ:2r1~ c-l) 1~.!JJ, j I. yj L) s~ dney R. Ga 11 er ~ Deputy Ass is tant Secretary for Envi ronmental Affai rs Enclosure United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 15 NORTH LAURA STREET JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202 ", ..-i 'oo.... .. July 9, 1980 RECEIVED ) Mr. J. Connor Davis Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 5401 W. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Dear Mr. Davis: ...~. . This responds to your letter of June 13, 1980, concerning the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Species Fishery Plan and its impacts on the endangered West Indian manatee and brown pelican (Log No. 4-1-80-1-218). We have reviewed the plan and concur with your "no effect" decision. Since the plan proposes management in the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) which extends from nine miles off the west coast of Florida and Texas and three miles offshore to 200 miles offshore elsewhere, manatees would not likely be found within this zone. We also agree with your determination that pelicans would not be affected directly or indirectly through their food supply since species taken in the fishery are not normally prey species of the pelican. Several species of endangered and threatened sea turtles may occur in the FCZ and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be contacted since they have jurisdiction over sea turtles in the marine environment. This letter does not constitute a Biological Opinion of the Fish Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species is a response to your request for our concurrence that the plans not affect listed species. Should this plan be modified so that species might be affected, you should initiate consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service. and Ac t. It will listed the Thank you. for your interest and concern for conservation of endangered species. Sincerely ~ ¥~ R ¿)~ Lynn P. Childers Acting Area Manager G'",.. -v... ,'" \..l " ~ .æ;'~; ':~::'.. ~ .~r' ~~ J ~.l;n$ c1" UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF" COMMERCE National Oceanic andAtmaspheric Administration National i\larine Fisheries Service Washington, D.C. 20235 FIHM: lQ MAY 8 1980 Mr. Robert Jones Chairman, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Flo~ .13609 Dear ýll) Enclosed is the result of the National Marine Fisheries Service l s Endangered Species Act ~ction 7 consultation concerning the possi,ble impacts of the Fishery ~nagement Plan for Coastal Higratory Pelagic Resources on threatened and endanKered species otSèc: turtles and-marine mammals. . ft~~..." ;;.. ",'-." It is my biological opinion that the identified activity is..ot likely to jeopardize the còntinued existence of threatened or" eñëangered species of sea turtles or marine mamals or result in the destruction or adverse modifica.tion of habitat that may be criticäl to those species (enclosure). I remain concerned over our responsibilities for safeguarding sea turtles that may be caught incidentally d\lring fishing. A.t the present time, a sea turtle recovery plan is being developed by our Southeast Region. The recovery plan, when implemented, should aid in the recovery of these species. Therefore, although it is premature for the National Marine Fisheries Service to suggest management measures to aid in the recovery of the sea turtles, I will expect the Cmincil' s assistance in implementing measures recommended in the recovery plan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questionsc9ncerni~g this determination. ours, Enclosure ~~:~,~~"~t' ""~i~f.i:'~t ; . ''-'' '. ~.~. £;;i \~. :.t;ii~. ,.:; - ~ ~..., - ~~: "... ~-J.:~:i.r'''r,.I....., ." DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 4970 . JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32201 RECEIVED SA-EE 17 Mac 1.tQ ; 7;;'VII,\I, 2 0 î9S0 ,.ø~1' ~0YI1 ..ç IJ.NA r,PA¡:.\j.V Guf of Meco Fisher Maagemt Council Licoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kenedy Boulevar Tam, Florida 33609 ~~, De Sirs: Ths office ha reviewed the Draft Fish Magemt Plan for the Costal Migratory Pelagic Resources far the Gulf of Meco and South Atlantic Cot. We have no ccmts on th draft statets. us an oprtty for review. Th you for affordig Sincerely, ~. t'/ /JtC¿,: L. GA ji/ Chef, Engineering Division CF: National Maine Fisheries Southst Region 9450 Koger Boulevard St. Petersbg, Florida Seice 33702 SAPIrR HÇJA (DAE.,~P 1 '. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD MAIL.ING ADDRESS. U.S. COAST GUARD( G-OLE-4/ 31) ::¿':i~~ocr' fS5!.OfIs 5 l6476 . l~:: I.. ¡C'~"::'../ '-' RECEIVED~r. William G. Gordon Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Management National Marine Fisheries Service Washington, DC 20235 Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1980 requesting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan (DEIS/FMP) for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources dated January, 19&Q~ The plan has been reviewed and the following comments are submi tted for your consideration: In §12.0 of the DFMP and section §.l not clear that the plan applies only boundaries of the South Atlantic and Counci Is. of the proposed regulations, it is to the FCZ within the geographic Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management In §. 2 of the proposed regulations, the definition of a Vessel of theUnited States should be changed to read: "(1) any vessel documented under the laws of the United States; (2) any vessel numbered under a federal or state system under the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971; and (3) any vessel not powered by machinery which is owned by a United . States national and which operates out of a port within the United States." Definitions for commercial and recreational fishing should be included in §.2 of the proposed regulations. Section l2.3.1.1.C.(4) of the DFMP defines commercial and recreational fishermen; however, there is no analogous definition in the proposed regulations. This is particularly important as there are quotas for commercial and recreational fishing in the regulat ions. In §.3(b), the phrase "and South Atlantic Ocean," should be added at the end of the sentence to reflect the fact that South Atlantic coastal states are also affected by these regulations. The word "visual" should be added between "following" and "signals" in the second sentence of §.8(b) to better explain how the signals will be transmi tted. S:;~~TD \ 5§J It'. e II"" we eel' I,". with. Subj: kèp'ly to Mr. Gordon's letter of February 19, 1980 In §'. 20(b)(2), the notice should be published in the Federal Register vice' National' 'Register. In: §.10(c)(3), the five percent allowance of undersized Spanish mackerel is enförceable only as a catch is being offloaded at the dock; however, the size! limitations of §.24(b) prohibit the vessel from having undersized fish on board, a direct conflict. It is reconmended that this conflict be resolved by adding the word "gillnet" in front of the word "vessel" in §.20(c)(3) ànd revising §.24(b) to read, "It shall be illegal for any vessel other t.hanagillnet vessel to buy, sell, possess or process Spanigh mackerel undèr 12, inches förk length." This will reduce waste and comply with the intent of §.12,3,2.1.B. of the DFMP. 'the opportunity to conment on the DEIS/FMP is greatly appreciated. further questions regarding this matter please fee 1 free to contact Chäppéll of mý staff at (202) 755-1155. If there are LT Bill Sincerely, ~:. ~~ R. H. OVERTON III Captain, u.S. Coast Guard Chief, Operational Law Enforcement Division 2 United States Department of the Interior RECEJV~D March 24, 1980 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ER- 80/154 Mr. Wayne E. Swi ngl e Execut i ve Di rector Gul f of Mexi co Fi shery Management L i nco 1 n Center, Sui te 881 5401 West Kennedy Boul evard Tampa, Florida 33609 Dear Mr. Swingle: Counci 1 ~~.. We have revi ewed the draft envi ronmenta 1 statement and fi shery management plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagi c Resources (Mackerels) as requested in Deputy Assistant Secretary Sidney R. Galler's letter of January 25, 1980; Genera 1 Comments Generally the document appears to be well written and to adequately address the various alternatives. Speci fi c Comments Pages 6 and 7 of Summa~r The docume~t does not cl early show where the 400,000 pounds of ki ng mackerel are to be allocated. Since it is not to be allocated against the commercial catch, the document should show whether it will be allocated against the recreational catch or not counted. If the study on purse seining in the Gulf is not implemented by March 31, 1981, will it be considered at a later date? Better definitions of a commercial and a recreational fisherman should be i ncl uded. There may be great difficulty in establishing a bag limit for a re-' creational fisherman when, by his own option, he can say he plans tosell his catch. . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft environ mental statement and fishery management plan. . Si~Cerei¡r~ James H. Lee Regiona 1 Environmental Offi cer cc: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, DOC, Washington ."-:. C(YYI/VVy,,,) United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY - . ,\ .:'- ¡~ j ,- "'I .~, . \:.J'. Southeast Region / Suite 1412, / Atlanta, Ga. 30303 RECEIVED Richard B. Russell Federal Building' 75 Spring Street, S. i1 March 27, 1980 ER-80/154 Mr. Wayne E. Swingle Executive Director Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 .";-0." Dear Mr. Swingle: This is a follow-up letter to supplement the comments sent to you on March 24, 1980. The following comments are related to offshore oil and gas activities. General Comments The document conveys a general impression of concern that increased outer continental shelf (OCS) petroleum activities in the South Texas area may adversely impact king mackerel stocks. Clarification of some items leading to this con clusion would be helpful. Spec if ic Comments Section 5 .1.1.2, page 5.3. It is stated that large fish are caught off Louisiana and Texas coasts in winter. Finucane, et al* (1979) (p. 31-32) state: "Thus, within the Gulf of Mexico, the king mackerel seasonally migrates northwesterly during the spring and summer and southeasterly during the fall, except for the large individuals off Louisiana which apparently do not migrate." This item should be addressed and, if it is unsupportable, it still should be mentioned. If it cannot be rejected, the section should include a thorough discussion of the im pI ications (e. g. separate stock). 2 .Section ..5.1.1.9, larvae. . Page ..5. 7 . Subsection b) creates the distinct impression. that kingrnackerel do not spawn offshore of Louisiana.;rtis unclear if this "absence" reflects real absence of "larvae or absence of sampling. We are not familiar with any comprehensive egg/larvae sampling programs offshore Louisiana; if any have occurred, they should be documented in this section. . Further ,if king mackerel do indeed overwinter offshore Louisiana and are non-migratory, can it be assumed that these fish spawn there also? The entire situation concerning king mackerel offshore Louisiana needs to be addressed indetail. Section 6.0. Page 6 .1. --,0 In view of the considerations expressed in the previous comments ,we suggest this section address whatever ramifica tionsbecome apparent and their significance. .Forexample, if spawning does occur off Louisiana, its significance in relation to the magnitude of spawning off Texas, shotild be discussed. Further, it would follow that whatever effects Des oil and gas activities potentially would have on South Texas king mackerel spawning areas has and/or is occurring offshore Louisiana. Since king mackerel has a protracted spawning range arid duration ,i tis not clear why this species is potentially more susceptible to adverse effects than other species wi thpelagic eggs and larvae. In the paragraphs dealing wi theffects of oil pollution, we suggest Struhsaker i s 1977** paper be included in the discussion. In sunary, we Louisiana king substantially, the Plan. suggest that the apparent omis.sion of the mackerelsi tuation could alter the conclusions and recommend that this topic be analyzed in Sincere:(~ .James H. Lee Regional Environmental Officer 3 *Finucane, J. H., L. A. Collins, L. E. Barger and J. D. McEachran. Environmental Studies of the South Texas OCS. "Schthyoplankton/Mackerel Eggs and Larvae". NOAA Final Report to BLM under IA AA550-IA7-21 during calendar year 1977., 1979. **Struhsaker, J. W. "Effects of benezene (a toxic component of petroleum) on spawning Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi". Fishery Bulletin 75 (1): 43-49, 1977. cc: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, DOC, Washington -~ . ~..-.. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Duval Building 9450 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33702 April 14, 1980 F/SER7:JTB TO: Wayne Swingle, Executive Director ~~~hery Management Council~ Chief, Fisheries Management Division FROM: SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagics Resources (FM) ~-:,. . The attached memorandum from Roland Smith to Bill Stevenson provides NMFS comments of a critical and substantive nature with respect to the above subject FM. We have additional comments of a technical and/or editorial nature that we will provide you for your perusal. Attachment cc: F /SER, William H. Stevenson F /CM, William G. Gordon ,.O""'-~ 11.f~I..'..'Ii--\'1 .c.,r ~ o,~NTofc'i~" ''''', l~V , \~oij j #t.ru " ~ l'L hh -"I.U/:. /10 tJNITED STATES DEPA'RTMiENTOFCDMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmosph'eric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Washington, DeC. 20235 APR I A C:Q F /CM6 :DL FROM,: TO: SUBJCT: Com.nts On the Draft Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (FMP) ~C;: r-l5ER- S-S L I attach the National Marine Fisheries Service . s informal comments on the draft FMP, e nvi rorme ntal impa:ct statement/draft regulatory analysis, and draft propos'ed regulati:ons., for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources. . We have also attached comments received from the u.s. Coast Guard. . ~..-. The NMS comments are divided into two categories; critical issues and substa:nti've issues. Cri tical issues are those which may affect the approvability of theFMP, and substantive issues are those which would strengthen the FMP. All comments should be communica\ted to the Gul.fof Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils for consideration in convertingthe docuent into final form. . We understand the NOAA Regional Counsel will provide a legal review of the FMP which will be available to the joint ma.n,gement committee at its meeting on April 15 and 16. Based on our review of the FMP and requested revisions, it may be necessary to hold additional publi c heari ngs. After the FMP is rev.ised, the NOAA Regional Counsel should be consulted to determi ne whether or not additional publi c hearings will be needed. A tta'chments 8.1','\." ;( -~. ,.. .. .~ Comments of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) CRITICAL ISSUES 1. Management Measure D. Management Measure D specifies that "It will be illegal to buy, sell, or process for commercial use, king mackerel under 25 inches fork length." The FMP states "This measure will have mi nimur effect on the total yield, but will increase the abundance of larger fish and decrease the possibility of overfishing." Duri ng development of the FMP, the CounCil concluded that this management measure would have a mi nimur adverse impact on the commercial sector, whereas, if instituted as a posse?~ion law it would have a substantial adverse impact on recreational fishe~e~. We conclude that the measure, as written, does not have a. sufficient basis and, if implemented, would be difficult to enforce. Also, we note that information obtained at the public hearings indicates this measure would have a substantial adverse impact on the commercial sector, i.e., commercial hook and Ii ne and commrcial ki ng and Spanish mackerel netters. We recommend that this management measure be eliminated. If the measur~ is retained, it should be restructured as a possession law or in Some other way that would have a lesser effect on commrcial fishing. 2. Regulatory amendment process. It is our understanding that the Councils generally favor the "regulatory amendment" as a means of instituting changes, as opposed to (1) "field orders.' which require less time, and (2) the "plan amendment" which requires a much longer period. We understand further that the principal reason the Councils favor the regulatory amendment is that it provides additional opportunities for the general public to participate in the decisionraki ng process. Because the regulatory amendment is of limited responsiveness in terms of immediacy in resolving gear conflicts within a given fishing season, we recommend that this process be fully described in the FMP. The draft FMP implies that the regulatory amendment process will provide "prompt" solution to a potential conflict (page 12-8). We are concerned that expectations of timeli ness on the part of the users and general publi c will be greater than the Councils and NMFS can fulfill. 3. Provision for closure. The FMP establishes total 'allowable annual catches (Le., 37 million pounds of king mackerel and 27 million pounds of Spanish mackerel') and allocations of king mackerel to the recreational fishery, the commercial hook and Ii ne fishery, and the commercial net fishery. The language of the FMP is clear that the implementation by the Secretary is intended to: (1) limit the mackerel catches to the specified optimum yield; and (2) control the amount of ki ng mackerel caught by each of the three identified groups receiving allocations to maintain the relative proportion of the resource to each group as well as introducing a degree of flexibility into the regulatory regime by considering certain factors (Section 12.3.1.1.C.(3)) prior to a closure decision. However, the FMP also states the Secretary should consider these factors and make a decision on closure "if the catch exceeds the allocation." Such a constraint is inconsistent with the Council's intent that the relative share of each user group be maintained. We recommend that the Secretary be authorized to initiate the closure process in advance of the time when the Secretary has reason to believe that an allocation or a. total annual catch will be exceeded. This process should be initiated sufficiently in advance to' allow for the decision to be made and appropriate action to be taken. "Initiate" used in this context, means to consider the identified factors and consult with the Council prior to making a decision. The FMP establishes a closure mechanism because of "the poteIl.lal for depletion of the resource through exceedi ng OY" (page 12-11). Once a decision is made to affect a closure to safeguard ei ther an annual catch limit or the share of a specific user group, it is necessary to have a mechanism to implement such closure in a timely manner to achieve the Council's intended purpose. Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary be authorized to implement closures by field order. You may wish to include an explanation of what the Councils intend the Secretary to do in the event an allocation is exceeded by any user group. In addition, you may want to clarify the effect of exceedi ng the optimum yield. 4. Purse seines. The Councils propose in the draft FMP to prohibit purse seines in the South Atlantic fishery conservation zone (FCZ) and allow purse seines in the Gulf of Mexico FCZ, under a limitation of 400,000 pounds of king mackerel in a research program. This restriction is to be imposed in spite of "the lack of docuental evidence on the possible and/or negative impacts of purse seines. . . " (page 12-14). The imposition of such restrictions through Federal regulations, in the absence of such vital information, is inconsistent with the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended. We recognize that the possible use of purse seines in this fishery is a highly emotional issue. Nevertheless, we request that the Councils readdress this issue and reach a common agreement on the matter of regulating and monitoring the use of purse seines in the fishery. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES 1. Def i ni tions . A. Overfishing. The term "overfishing" is used in several sections of the FMP (12.1,12.2, 12.3). It is not sufficiently clear whether the meaning is that reduces the spawning stock size to a level that allows f ish to be harvested at size or age. the level of fishing cri ti cal poi nt or, a a less than optimal B. The discussion of whether cobia do or do not spawn at age one is inconsistent and should be clarified. 2. Length of the FMP. We urge the Council to consider reducing the length of the final FMP to provide a more usable public docuent. There is presently much detail provided that could be summarized, shifted to the appendix, or placed in a separate source docuent. Also, the cost of publi cation in the Federal Register now is $372 per page and will be increased to $408 on October 1, 1980. 3. MSY - OY - DAH - TALFF. Section 12.1 Spanish mackerel as "to prevent exceedi ng averager:~ in this FMP MSY is set equal whether OY is the more appropriate term. lists objectives for king and MSY. n Si nce MSY ~s a long-term to OY, the Counci¥;sngld consider Sections 12.2.1 and 12.2.2 and the following Sections appear to make the flat statement that OY equals some point in the range of MSY. This is acceptable; however, the social and economic reasons allowing this equality are not presented. Perhaps this is because the mackerels and cobia are highly recreational fisheries and not over-exploited commercially. If this is so, then the FMP should state this. In the equation MSY = OY = DAB + TALFF, DAH is adequately des cribed in Section B. The weak portion in deterri ni ng a zero TALFF is the assessment and specification that MSY = OY. 4. Draft proposed regulations. The draft proposed regulations (prepared by NMFS) need to be substantially revised. NMFS, with assistance from NOAA General Counsel, will make the necessary revisions. 5. Addressing the fishery throughout its range. The plan as presently structured does not address mackerels and cobia in the Mid-Atlantic region. We understand that only a small portion of the total stocks are harvested in that region. However, we would suggest that it would be prudent to extend the plan to the Mid-Atlantic, especially in light of that Council' 5 apparent acceptance of the management system. ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COASY GUARD. MAILI~C ADDRESS. U.S. COAST CUARD( G-OLE-4/ 31) ~HA;::~pr~bqt'fs5~ïi55 l6476 ç k,,~~;'L W.,;,INI, i FIS!-: ":~S Si ,., vie ~1ß.R , 7 IC"'ì",CI;.1 s:. P"'t'~¡".'.R Lioridi RECE!\'E 0 ~r. William G. Gordon Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Management National Marine Fisheries Service Washington, DC 20235 i.~ ; ',' .." '~1 RC.;'~IN.. Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1980 requesting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery ManagEment Plan (DEIS/FMP) for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources dated January, 1980. The plan has been reviewed and the following comments are submi tted for your consideration: In §12.0 of the DFMP and section §.l not clear that the plan applies only boundaries of the South Atlantic and Councils. of the proposed regulations, it is to the FCZ within the geographic Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management In §.2 of the proposed regulations, the definition of a Vessel of the United States should be changed to read: "0) any vessel documented under the laws of the United States; (2) any vessel numbered under a federal or state system under the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971; and (3) any vessel not powered by machinery which is owned by a United States national and which operates out of a port within the United States." Definitions for commercial and recreational fishing should be included in §.2 of the proposed regulations. Section 12.3.I.L.C.(4) of the DFMP defines commercial and recreational fishermen; however, there is no analogous definition in the proposed regulations. This is particularly important as there are quotas for commercial and recreational fishing inthe regulations. . In §. 3 (b) , the end of states are the phrase "and South Atlantic Ocean," should be added at the sentence to reflect the fact that South Atlantic coastal also affected by these regulations. The word "visual" should be added between "following" and "signals" in the second sentence of S.B(b) to better explain how the signals will be transmitted. . (.. ., '..! ." I . 3-. 19. fo ,:l .,1 C:'- nc t1.-.,-:.J lt. . law W8 e.n Uw. with. .',. North Carolina Department of NaturalResources &Community Development DIVISION OF f\1ARINE FiSHERIES JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee; Secretary Connell E: Purvis Director Box..769. Morehead.:C ¡('I 28557 Telephone 919 /26-7021 March 17 1970 Dr:. Jackson DaviS' South Atlantic Fishery Hanagemen t Council. Sou.thpark Building ¡Fl. Southpark Circle Charleston, South Carolina ~sr;S"T-:-lj MAR 20. lS.SO SO~:T;~ -.~-:.:.T.-' :;..:...:'~y ~~~:4~¡L'~~;.~~L;~. ~~: ,~.¡ 29407 Dear. Jack ~-.-.' Enclosed are sumary king mackerel statistics for 1977-79 for North Carolina.:, including distance from. shore. Detailed monthly data for 1979: are. includ.ed. . I have: a general comment on the plan. There. have b:een many comment$. o.n. the large numbers of sport fishermen affected, compared to- a relative:ly Eew commer.cial fishermen. COnmercial fishermen, however, are the same as farmers in that a small number of producers provide food for larg:e numbers o f consumers. Our economic sys:teI!. provides. thos:e consumers, often far removed from the site of. production, with a. wide choice in the marketplace. For seafood products',. the marketplace includes a.t:. Leas-t. special ty s-eafòod markets, grocery s:tores: an.d.. res.:t'au rants. Undue r.estriction of commercial. fishing operations in favor of re:creational fishing. may well affect the rights of verY' large numb:ers" oE consumers to. choices in the market. The ultimate econom:Lc rights of those consumers.who may well outnumber the sport. fishermen and who. have no means t:o catch king mackerel mus.t be. considered in questions: of:' allocation of- the catch between commercial and recreational fishermen. Sincerely yours ~//. ,/t// Co . .... ' Michael w. g tr.ee.t, Chief Fisher.ies Management Section ms Enclosures 1.. ¡;"....01 1'1...."..-, ..:... .1 'f-¡r"",,'¡I'~ Ji"inn ~,.n'nv~'r MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ROOM 2115 FEDERAL BUILDING NORTH & NEW .STREETS DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 DAVID H. HART Chairman ELIOTT GOLDMAN Vice Chairman TELEPHONE: 302-674-2331 RECEIVED JOHN C. BRYSON, P.E. Executive Director MAR 1 7 1980 ~)-(. CJ~ ~1'.~ ~~' . /f)- C; MI1NAGn,,'C~~ 17 March 1980 Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard ~~ Tampa, Florida 33609 RE: Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery Management Plan Dear Wayne: The following are the comments of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council on the January 1980 draft of the subject FMP as approved by the Council at its March 12-14, 1980, meeting. The Plan should be revised to clarify the relationship between it and the Bluefish FMP being prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Council. It is our understanding that as a result of the discussion you use in the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources FM on bluefish the fact that there is no need for an FMP for bluefish relates only to the Gulf of Mexico. We further understand that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council agrees that a plan is needed for bluefish in the Atlantic Ocean. The proposed management unit of our Bluefish FMP is all bluefish in US waters in the Atlantic Ocean. You agreed with this approach in your letter of June 8, 1979. Therefore, we believe that the Coastal Migratory ~elagic Resource FMP should be revised accordingly. We also believe that the FMP should be revised to clarify the specific conditions under which Mid-Atlantic fisheries would become regulated by this 2 FM. -In Section 12.0 (page 12-1) the FM states "Should a fishery develop which does have a significant impact on these stocks and is in theFCZbeyond the area in which management measures will be applied, the Secretary shall , after consultation with the Councils, extend the area .affected by management measures ."Webelieve that the FMP should include specific critedaso that "significant impact" may be known in advance or, if criteria cannot be developed at this time ,the FMP should clearly indicate that its geographical coverage will not be extended without a plan amendment. This seems to be the onlýway to insure adequate public input into any decision to extend the geographical coverage of the FMP beyond the South Atlantic and GùlfFCZ. Our above comments concerning the expansion of geographical coverage also apply to the development of regulations for species other than dçîngmackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia. Section 12.2.4 (page 12-6) states that "Optimum yield was not specified for the other species because of lack (jf data to estimate MSY. When sufficient data become available to estimate MSYandlorOY for other species in the fishery, and the need arises for managementme:asures, the Council will develop such estimates. At that time, these species .will. be added to the management unit by the Regulatory Amendment process." While we are aware of the time and effort necessary to prepare a full plan amendment, weco not believe that MSY, OY, and regulations should be developed and imposed without the public review process required by a plan amendment . Therefore, we recommened that Section 12.2.4 be revised by deleting ".. .by the Regulatory Amendment process. "and adding in lieu thereof "by plan annendment." In addition, we do not understand how you will apply your definitions of commercial and recreational fishermen to the several quotas established in the plan. Sincerely, ()g- ¿~ ¡~h:C. Bryson, Executive Director cc: ErnestPremetz MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL . ~OOM 2115 FEDERAL BUILDING NORTH & NEW STREETS DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 . o\.\ \:" RECEIV=D DAVID H. j.iART Chairman ELIOTT GOLDMAN Vice Chairman March TELEPHONE: 302-674.2331 JOHN C. BRYSON, P.E. Executlye Director 3 í 880 31, 1980 Mr. Wayne E. Swingle Gulf or Mexico Fishery Management Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 tJest Kennedy Boule':ard Tampa. Florida 33609 Council Dear Wayne: ~. This is a follow up to my letter of March 17 concerning the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery Management Plan. Our staff has gone over the plan and. come up with some things you might want to consider with respect to the hearing draft of th¿ C03St Pelagic Plan. I hope these comments will be of some help to you. In developing our bluefish management plan we have learned a few things that may be useful. Spawning now appears to take place in other than the Atlantic so the likelihood of the Gulf population being separat~ from the Atlan tic is ~uch greater. Because of this believed separation, we do have an XSY calculation for bluefish in the Atlantic which the Natural ~rine Fisheries Service has given us. This might change your discussion in sections 5.1.4.9 (b) ánd 5.4.5.1. Section 5.3.4 (a) deals with the north Atlantic. It might be useful to add any data from the GLli populetion which you cay have. This might further show the difference in the two groups. Wilk's 1977 paper has also been of great value to us concerning bluefish b~t his t~ble of catches which you use on page 8-5 has several errors. I have enclosed cur updated version. In working with commercial catch statistics, We nav¿ not found any area in the Atlantic where bluafish are a major contributor to total landings. You seem to have found otherwise by your discussion in sections 8.1 and 8.2.1, which for bluefish, appear to apply only to the Atlantic area. tJe would be i~tÚested to knoi; any differences in the Gulf where commercial landings seemed relatively insignifican t . Table 8.¿ on page 8.10 shows the percent of total anglers but we ar~ not sure what is meant by total. Perhaps this could be clarified. In the cobia discussions there are a few questions. The Chesapeake Bay plays an important role in this fishery. You might want to expand on this in 3ection 6.1.2 as this area is very fragile. The MSY information seems the same to uS as that ~~ic~ is available f~r bluefish. In pddition, most of the background materi~l appears to have come from. the Atlantic area. If the Guli has a åifierent stock, as you seem to believe, is an MSY based on Atlantic data applicable? In light of this. we think the cobiû OY n¿eds to be identified in section 8.2.8.3 as being fo c the management unit area only and this whole discussion needs to be added in section 12.5. ~ .. z: The 33't cobia size lim! t could cause pr~biems in the Mid,.Atlantit~ area as' you recognize in sections 5. 1. 6. Y and' 5. l. 6. 6. On the other hand~, the' 3:3." s:ize llini t on. cobia Just allows females to have reached maturity. . It seems to us' tha:t it 1.s more 1inport'ant' t'o increase abundánce than it is to increase yield p.er re.cruit':. A bag limit would appear to be. the much better opt ion as anglers would still' return the small ones so. the ones they keep could be big. Thi,s would not inte:r'fer~e.: wt~th their enjoyment and- would seem to be a much faster me.thod of insuring". stock r.ebiiildîhg. This method has been very successfttl with blÙefln tuna. t'¡è are curiÖus. wny' you believe in section 12.2.3 the mortality of released fish increases with size. Is there any infbrmation available to support this? We would be interested. tD know how you will arrive at the. stati.sti.caT. samp'le: fDr: reporting' from the differ.ent segments of the fishery which is discussed in: section 12..3.~S. h OUr: experience has been that full reporting by all. commercial: segments of the fishery provides better information wi.th little effort:, since:: they,' ar:EL alL keeping records anyway. In addition,. alL the recreational vess'elS, fo-r hir.e have to be registered so they, can be sampled effectively. These are just some of our: thoughts. Please let us know if we~..an D'e oe any further help along- these- lines.. We did notice two typos which you might.. have, a1:ready seen page 7-7 line. five from the bottom. seeding. is probably seeking '.. and. pag.e. 8~2L Exhibit. 8-11 1971' Florida (west.) is 510 pounds, no.t 410,. Best. of luck with your efforts. Sincerely, ~ d . /. .--.r-/~ t,,, / n-/~~ òhn C. Bryson JCB: JM: lad. cc: Mr. Ernest' Ptemetz T s b l e 1 1 1 . C o m m e f ' d a l L i i n d l n g s o r B l u e r i s h b y S t a t e . 1 8 8 0 1 9 7 4 ( 1 n t h o u s n n d s o r p o u n d s ) A d a sh ( ) 1 n d lr a te s In fo f'm a tin n n o t n vs lln b le ~ A n s s t e f ' l s k ( * ) I n d i c a t e s l e s s t h n n 5 0 0 I b s . c a u g h t . F t. E as t W es t !s . ! 2! 1 E ! £ L ~ 2£ ~ ~ " ~ . & l !L H 1 . .ll . IS 80 30 00 36 35 46 10 15 46 60 0 20 0 5 25 44 9U L 18 87 .. 28 53 47 89 38 3 12 86 76 1 15 8 7 73 13 7 10 38 0 18 88 3( ,5 4 46 61 57 6 21 11 84 7 15 1 6 24 6 78 is 6 12 15 1 18 89 . 50 27 85 65 10 76 11 0 5 36 1 58 90 13 24 15 3J 4 16 90 57 40 92 91 46 0 14 72 15 J9 10 0 7 42 0 56 96 13 26 19 22 0 18 91 55 09 72 28 51 6 16 42 15 09 3 18 97 i I 14 6 51 64 16 7 15 05 19 10 40 46 26 5 20 4 33 4 30 20 53 4 19 01 93 51 61 10 10 0 75 5 . 16 31 6 19 02 10 49 1 82 35 0 21 12 * 16 I 5 J 1 19 04 11 41 4 27 23 91 56 7 14 79 5 19 08 31 91 18 50 14 24 2 12 58 7 58 0 37 2 5 18 3 10 75 50 19 18 .. 32 3 3 5 56 1 27 1 11 63 19 20 74 17 8 25 2 19 21 10 83 22 43 1 33 27 19 23 89 7 7 11 01 41 6 4 6 1 24 34 19 25 56 15 7 . 21 5 19 U , 26 2 62 8 10 90 D 19 27 " 85 2 13 77 2 62 0 46 30 6 1 23 40 19 26 75 4 4 50 59 9 39 0 31 27 1 18 56 19 29 . 50 73 21 9 77 3 29 60 30 21 2 51 0 63 1 28 60 9 51 3 10 3 1 6 " 1 67 28 19 30 21 0 24 3 25 1 88 0 29 62 31 26 8 23 0 8 4 3 ' * 1 40 0 75 3 21 19 * 71 1 2 19 31 19 1 12 1 40 7 67 1 25 35 7 i 47 3 J( ,3 67 6 2 56 6 64 2 35 18 ' 3 67 54 19 32 i 22 6" 13 4 28 5 91 3 3M 4 10 36 0 55 1 68 7 4 90 7 51 5 12 5 2 84 56 19 33 43 0 19 4 29 6 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 5 5 11 9 64 6 49 75 19 34 ' 32 9 93 6 17 66 3 1. 44 5 48 9 29 .4 99 7 19 35 91 1 (, 4 11 8 10 02 19 60 i 4 31 3 34 0 39 85 19 36 .. 12 9 J 1 7 20 28 10 3\ ?6 60 8 72 63 40 19 31 46 14 0 JJ 85 8 14 84 . 6 81 52 8 16 57 30 21 \7 0 70 9 28 84 70 19 )8 11 39 10 25 0 10 38 3 5 I 30 3 18 f' ) 43 36 28 85 2 21 81 58 19 39 10 15 8 21 9 68 2 57 83 10 09 6 23 83 76 8 23 52 63 i 9 4 0 26 15 25 10 5 4 15 44 8 4 13 66 59 7 24 26 29 19 41 16 22 0 38 19 42 10 2 45 16 7 63 43 )) 0 19 4 J 30 3 7 12 2 14 8 31 0 19 4( , 4 i 9 IJ 91 11 4 99 47 38 7 19 45 3 11 11 10 5 26 5 10 2 i 2 1 62 7 11 12 74 55 7 31 I 31 19 19 46 i 4 6 10 5 73 20 3 39 2 19 47 2 14 10 11 6 39 9 l l . 1 3 8 25 /, 93 3 19 48 2 17 21 2( ,1 61 1 5 13 1 27 2 . 6 * 1" 13 07 19 49 Z ; 25 10 25 1 10 55 .6 3 87 30 5 56 4 5 2 5 2 23 99 T a b l e I I I . ( ~ o n t l n " c d ) ! J. E e s t W e s t Y ee r. ., ~ N Y N J ~ ~ "I I) ~ ~ ... 2L C A . ~ t. f. O .8 S t . l* . J L M 1 L !g ~ ll 19 50 61 56 20 12 7 12 96 21 10 6 31 1 12 72 10 99 0 40 8 4 1 3 * 46 88 19 51 28 37 54 19 1 11 00 5 85 17 9 92 6 1 2 . 14 31 59 4 26 " 46 68 19 52 1 48 90 20 8 14 39 I 11 1 14 4 73 7 11 11 15 91 7 24 4 i * 48 50 19 53 30 80 56 16 3 11 39 2 46 17 5 54 2 7 11 01 , 96 8 10 4 " 43 26 19 54 31 91 24 40 2 12 61 2 89 18 5 32 ) 8 80 4 12 29 5 * 43 54 19 55 17 8 37 31 32 46 9 10 15 3 63 22 0 43 5 39 10 13 67 2 15 2 " 42 24 19 56 19 48 13 37 1 10 19 3 10 1 22 4 63 3 53 77 1 78 0 6 3 " 40 44 19 57 25 59 19 43 8 91 6 5 93 19 3 81 6 11 * 11 07 10 92 5 4 2 48 45 19 58 3 10 2 11 6 91 6 32 15 6 43 7 3 84 5 14 38 10 3 10 " " 32 52 19 59 5 20 6 26 2 37 6 4 30 18 3 74 0 I 12 84 90 0 11 2 " 38 24 19 60 1 5 34 5 4 1 4 44 3 I 10 13 0 61 5 " 10 90 71 8 1 4 34 80 19 61 18 49 11 50 5 46 2 19 29 4 75 2 I " 97 9 62 4 4 18 37 36 19 62 34 11 0 31 75 8 10 92 8 64 52 4 95 5 5 13 93 94 4 I 4 59 23 19 63 47 82 52 69 7 82 3 21 42 63 2 81 3 11 4 " 13 62 88 9 " 5 55 83 19 64 42 90 60 67 5 54 1 6 39 5 51 5 31 6 12 02 77 9 II 15 46 47 ,. 19 65 14 3 10 8 60 10 36 87 0 .. 7 20 5 70 4 84 85 5 85 9 5 72 50 08 :1 19 66 12 7 72 56 93 3 10 08 I 17 24 2 82 1 15 8 1 13 53 58 4 9 10 2 54 84 :1 19 67 70 79 62 55 0 50 2 18 12 0 88 8 48 13 46 51 3 4 79 42 79 19 68 87 81 62 57 7 76 5 " 14 1 2 4 I 87 2 24 19 10 55 6 4 83 54 03 I 19 69 15 0 12 4 83 11 19 68 0 54 22 3 11 71 5 20 80 52 9 31 25 . 5 9 7 8 1' 19 70 16 9 32 3 .8 5 16 02 10 64 69 61 6 49 6. 8 20 46 65 0 21 21 72 00 19 71 2 27 2 27 1 83 1 2 1 I 97 9 14 1 61 1 57 8 13 16 25 51 0 . 1 3 10 " 63 19 19 72 37 2 31 1 49 10 0) 81 2 I 59 12 16 11 68 18 76 51 1 22 14 " 14 14 19 73 59 55 6 27 8 96 U 12 88 8 3 27 6 29 05 20 08 3 15 83 49 3 27 10 " 10 59 7 19 74 30 39 0 26 7 89 10 67 10 03 6 55 9 31 37 21 83 " 12 72 50 1 9 1 6 . 1 1 10 54 0 19 75 12 54 9 38 1 15 89 0 12 81 15 27 7 32 84 19 75 2 .. 10 21 43 6 7 75 12 10 23 1 19 76 .. 45 0 24 2 23 60 0 12 81 12 50 4 41 67 13 56 I " 13 80 52 8 2 66 2 10 61 4 19 77 A " 50 4 24 5 13 98 6 13 98 32 52 4 31 69 23 31 10 " i 37 3 11 32 0 '" F ro m : W i l k , 1 9 7 1 , w i t h ~ 0 l ' r e ~ t l o n 8 i i n d u l ' d : : t l n g t o y e 8 l ' f r o m 1 9 6 6 t o t h e p r e ø c n t f r o i i F 1 8 h c r y S t s t l s t l c s o f t h e ! U S . ¡, ':. . PLEA ADDES REPLY TO: COASTAL AREA BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 755 DAPHNE, ALABAMA 36526 205--626-1880 P.o. Box 755 EXECUTIVE DIRECOR E. BRUCE TRICKfY June 3, 1981 Mr. Wayne E. Swingle Executive Director Gulf of Mexico Fishery ~funagement Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 ..;..:~ Dear Mr. Swingle: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the fishery management plan for coastal migratory pelagic resources in the Gulf of Mexico. We have reviewed the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan and have found it to be consistent with the Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan. Sincerely, EBT : BAD l~keY (( Executive Director MR. GARY GREENOUGH MR. BILL STARNES DR GEORGE F. CROZIER COASTAL AREA BOARD MEMBERS MR. HUGH SWINGLE MR. THOMAS J. JOINER MR. BAY HAAS MR. JERRY 80YINGTON MR. STEVE McMILLAN MR. JAMES P. NIX pt.. .. ......'-.' .. . (I ~.. JAMS M. HUCHION DEPtrY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~-"'. MICHALBOURGEOIS ~,~\.~ Of ,11~:-.:"" DJRCTOR DIVISION OF STATE LANDS I r.~ p;r~r:'j,!,;;:~/';;l,\ Apri 1 28, 1981 \' 'ii"" ,'.. .' '..,. \ . :!...I."\ 1 U ! '~1HI-,. \-!t -' f; "\:.':~ .~::',j. ç"-' ¡ ", ,if A''' ., / " ,4lo~Gr;"~." /'~~. FRANK A. ASHBY, JR. SECRETARY Mr. Wayne E. Swingle Executiv~ Director Gulf of Mexi co Fi shery Management Counci 1 Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 W~ Kennedy Bl vd. Tampa, Flori da 33609 '-~-:,' RE: C8l0382 - Coastal Use Consistency Gul f of Mexi co Fi shery Management Counci 1 Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Gul f of Mexi co (Mackerel) Dear Mr. Swingle: We have revi ewed the II Fi shery Management PL an, Fi na.l Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Statement, Regulatory Analysis for the Coastal Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) September, 198011, and, in view of the fact that the proposed plan will have little effect on Louisiana's coastal resources, we find it consistent with Louisiana's Coastal Zone Management Program. However, the porti on of thi s management pl an concerni ng the status of Louisiana1s Coastal Zone Management Program is in error since it reports that Louisiana's Program is lIin progressll. Louisiana's Coastal Zone Management Program was offi ci ally approved by the Offi ce of Coastal Zone Management on September 20, 1980. Therefore, Loui si ana i s Program status should have been listed as linear completionll in the aforementioned F.E.I.S. We appreci ate the opportunity to comment in thi smatter.~e~1. JOEL L. LINDSEY CMS/DNR ADMINISTRATOR JLL/mw POST OFFICE BOX 44396 . BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING Apri 1 30, ,.--..... C" c.. Of M, .,'.." .."..' ....1/,. "\1981 ~., L'c. \.. ~i~'eë.""'.'!' \ ':.". . . . \ .., ." W ,-n :~~.'Ý 0 (-I ig~ l :: ..;drt. .. ~i;' , \h ... !. ,'~ri .~;." ./.., .,' It'" or ~A\', ,~,~~~ :~::;:",/ WILLIAM WINTER Governor Mr. Wayne Swi ngl e Executi ve Di rector Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33609 Council MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Dear Wayne: .;~ " Bureeu of Merln. R..ourc.. P. O. Drawer 959 Long Beach, MS 395 (601) 86-4602 Enforcement Dlvlslon.374-3205 The Bureau of Marine Resources has received the Fishery Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels). Staff members involved with imple mentation of the state's coastal program have reviewed the plan and determined that it is consistent with this program. Commissioners: Sincerely, Allen D. Bruton Scooba, MS ~ L.C. "Bily" Gollott Blloxl, MS Richard L. Leard, Ph.D. Burea'u Di rector Dr. Edmund Keiser Oxford, MS RLL: DHW: mac Jim Hunter McCaleb Cleveland, MS Fred K. Rogers Clinton, MS RICHARD YANCEY Executive Director RICHARD L. LEARD Bureau Director Ke!J '~~~'J~, .....'.." '~,...: Wejl Charler JjtJalmenlJ ~ oIJJociation'J J.IJC. RECEIVED P.O. BOX 2522 March 27, 1980 r;E WEST, FLORIDA 33040 ~ : Mr. Wayne E. Swingle Eulf of ~exico fis.he.r~ Managennent Lipcoln, Center, S.u::é: 881 5-4Ql~tt~ Kên::'lêdr -m.lVd-:: Tampa, Floriâa 33~ Counci;I ~..~.. Dear Sir: The enclosed letter was written to the National Marine' Fisheries Service concerning the netting of kingfish. The Key West Charter Boatmen.' s Association is sending this le.tter to you for your records and would like to ask for your support in restricting net fishing of kingfish to a 45 feet dep-th or less. This is a com~ promise solution to, a very serious proDlem. If you have- any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to ask. Resp,ectfully, TH. E KE. Y W,. EST C~,TE.R... BOA.. TMEN' S ;(2 (" ) /) )f\((r-t) .,~ Roger Push Presiden t ASSOC. RP /bp Enclosure We3l C harlér ~' J1oatmen!," ":r . Jnc.oI330cialion, P.O. BO X 2522 KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040 March 27, 1980 ..,-'. Dear Sir, The Key West Charter Boatmen's Association believes that the net fishing of kingfish is severely depleting our kingfish stocks. In just a few years, our kingfish grounds in the Gulf of Mexico North and West of Key West haveoeen totally decimated. The only productive area left for hook and line, cnarter and recreational boats in the Key West area is the deep water reefs south and southwest of Key West. This area has always been left alone by the netfishermen due to the depth of the water (ranges 50-130 ft.) and the rugged bottom and swift currents. That is until this year~ This year the kingfish netters production was very low in their traditional areas of the Gulf of Mexico, so they fished the deep water reefs off Key West. In order to do this, they tied two shallow water nets together and set them around the schools of kingfish in the deep reefs. The catches were astronomical, and so was the waste and slaughter. One boat, The Solemn Judle lost two thirds of his net because the weilht of the fish combined with the strong currents and reef Dottom ripped it apart. In the one third of the net that he retrieved, it was reported he caught over 23,000 pounds. It is estimated that twice that mucn (46,000 Ibs.J was lost: Dead and rotting, tangled in the net on the bottom: This tremendous waste and slaughter occurred mainly because of the geography of the area. The bottom is rough and jagged and the currents are swift. The water is deep and drops off quickly. Net fishermen have traditionally fished in the shallow flat sandy areas of less than 50 foot depth. They should not De allowed to fish deep reefs - only more waste and destruction will occur. After the net fishermen set their nets, the kingfish schools left the area and the sharks moved in to feed on the dead fish, Our catches dropped dramatically and so did those of the hook and line vessels. The Charter Association does not desire to put the net fishermen out of business, only to limit the areas they are allowed to fish. We feel that they should be limited, to a net depth of 45 feet or less. They have traditionally fished with nets of this' size and are required to do so by Florida law in every County except Monroe. This year the Florida Legislature will include Monroe County in this law, and we urge the Council to pass a Federal Regulation with the same restrictions as Florida. If this is done, you will separate two di fferent user groups - net fishermen inside /l5 foot depth and all others outside the 45 foot depth - and will stop incidents such as the following f£om occurring again: Page 2 This past Fe~bruary ,th'e charter fleet and. the hook and line fleet were fishing a school of kingfish southwest of Key West. A.oundmidday,three net fishing hoa:tsfrom other areas (Solemn Judge, Tiimp.a, Fla, Two Boy, Port Salerno, and the LadyLynn,Ft.Pierce) came intotffearea. These three vessels deliberately ran the Charter boats and hook and line fishermen out .ofthearea so they could set their nets. The CharterhoatJollyRoger IT, Linda DIl, and Shark TTIwere forced to hreak their fishing circles orberaned on our port side. One vessel, the Jolly Roger II, had to throw his vessel in reverse and hack over his lines to avoid a collision. This incident was reported to the U. S. Coast Guard. They said they had no Jurisdictionandrererred us to the National Marine Fishexies Service Law Enforcement Division. We contacted Mr. ChailesFressin St. Petersburg. He informed us there was little he could do and to relay our story to the Fish Councils. It seems strange to us that a boat has to be rammed before something can he done. Tfthere is no law or controls, then matters will soombe settled in other ways . We hope it .does not come to that. We are law-abiding people and are asking for your help . The Key West Charter RoatAssociati'on believes that incidents such as those describedahove can be eliminated if the 1faILagement Councils pass=-à law prohibiting king fishnets over 45 feet deep. The Council will separate two conflicting user groups and at the same time leave an area for the kingfish schools to replenish their stocks for future generations . RP/ bp Sincerely yours, KEY WEST CHARTER BOATMEN'S f&r /~ Roger Push President ASSOC .,INC. ~~ Concerned Fi!!!HL11en of Florida /" Dedicated to Sound Fisheries Management P. O. Box 3024 ., Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 r".,~ r-~- - -j\EID::\ March 2 1980 W., ,. -- ~ ~I\', RECEIVED i:LÛ; '- Usecretary - . ~ Mf' 6 ~ South Atlanti~ Management Uounc 1.!\f¡AR 1 7 1980 -- . r;yi 1 60u thpark uircle '% -, iITH ATi-~~ci¿UNCli.; Sui te 306 . ')~' ~~ r,'¡ANP.?E¡¡..o"" s.Co ~Qi, " liy ~ ç:, CHA.RL.ST "'l uharleston,;:outh uarolina 29407 MI1NAr,¡:N\t\\Y To whom it may concern: Enclosed is a copy of my statement to the Management Council a t their public hearing in Ft. ~ierce on the king mackerelmanagement plan. -~ uhairman o. B. Lee requested .L send such a copy to you so that all members of the council might receive a copy. Than You..~ ¡l--'\, '.\ --..~./' \" - -.\ .. \ \ \ '." V i .-- '\ ..... ':j Roger R. Farlow ..resident () O-'-\:, v \:-, . ',l l , ;;~.' Concerned Fishermen of Florida Non-Profit Corporation Dedicated to Sound Fisheries Management P. O. Box 3024 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 My name is Hoger Farlow, 1 am president of the Concerned ..'ishermen of 1"lorida, whose membership is composed m.ostly of hook and line kingfishermen. uur organization was formed specifically for the purpose of resolving the gear conflict between the hook and line and net kingfishermen. ~his conflict was precipitated in the ..'t. ..ierce area in February, 1978 as a result of the intro duction of kingfish nets into an area that has historically been fished only by hook and line. uf great concern to us is the proposed gear separation regulation in the king mackerel management plan. AS it now reads it would be an absolute disaster to all hook and line kingfishermen since we depend ~almost one hundred percent on king mackerel during the winter, season. we must be àble to follow the fish whereever they appear. Our prime kingfish area is the norteast grounds off Ft. Pierce which would be off limits to us every other year unde~ the proposed regulation. ~f the present season is any indication, a gear conflict no longer exists, since we have practically no kingf ish in the Ft. .Pierce area. We would like to recommend again that the Uouncil ban king mackerel net fishing in the area from west ~alm Beach to vape Canaveral under paragraph (2) ta) page 5 of the king mackerel plan which allows the ~ecretary to prohibit use of a gear in a geographical area when a conflict arises through the introduction of a gear into new regions where they have not been historically fished. ~uch a regulation would allow the fish an area of re£uge so that eventually the stock might be rebuilt. ~he only area on the east coast where any amount of king£iah have appeared this winter is Jupiter where the natural conditions of deep water, rocky bottom and strong tides have prevented the nets from setting the fish and ruing them off as they have done in other areas of the state. We believe the management councils should consider whether it is better to have a fleet of overly efficient large boats fishing a few months each year and depleting each area they fish so that they must range farther and farther afield in order to support themselves, or a large fleet of small boats, fishing year round, produc. ng a quality product and supporting a variety of servic and s les organizations in the local economy.' i2) We are not asking that king mackerel net fishing becom:pletely eliminated tonly that we be allowed to continue making our livlic hood on our traditional hook and line grounds. '.L'han You ...".-. (f7i-~; . Florida league of ong;2rs, inc~..~~7'''\~','':'" . J-' oJ' '" '"July 23, 1980 RECEIVED ROBEin C SCHWEBKE: P't'~idf"ni XEG:UTIVE COMMITTEE l YI.IAN E ROGERS C'",aii",,,:" f. "1f"lIli,~ ARßY AROUTHNOT \',(,. (.rf'~'n"",' GEORGE L FOTI \"(P t.,r\,.'!..-' ROLLIE FRANlFN ViCt' PU''Cln~ p.' AL PFL UEGER. JR \li(,f" P,Pj,Ic1...¡l M T STooPELBEIN ~"C"f'ai, H C KRESGE. JR Trt'd~urf' WAL TER M HUNDLEY ~ J:l'Cut."t' DI'(,C'1:.~ BOARD OF TRUSTEES ARBY ARBUTHNOT Sun Coi., Crni~i GEORGE L ro.ii fi llhl",.'IOil'" ROlLiE FRAI\ZrN Ð:i:-~ ....i!." OR RICHAnD GAINf.S (),'\.'Irltl,' f'",I''' OWEN Gt.NZEL Jõt:¡" ..ron.' -," JOSEPH Jr:NUS. Jrt f 1 \'1';tI!!ln li,-,.,.i H. C KnËSGr. JR '.'.1 I II.l"1 r: CAPT BOU L (\\IS 'irw J(("..~ "T DAVIS L MM1KETl,.JH 1.,,,,,.4 REV, JOHN I MERZ 1,11...\ .11.. AL PFLUEGER. .m J.1~lnl"tJ .." NATHANIEL P. REED ti\)l'" ~\..ir:r1 L VI.IAN E ROGEns l'l,.1.1 RODERT C SCH\\E£~KE t,,11,1ftll M T. STOf'PELßrlN :.,..,."., EUGE"iE TunNER ~I ""lfot!\hU'lJ II....r" 34/4'/ Honorable Philip M. Klutznick Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. .1 .-:.'"i L.~ 1 AUG 22 1980 ~.. CJ~ ~((-9 ~.:Y A :\ \.. f;:NAG(\Aí:~ Re: Gulf and South Atlantic Councils 0ishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mäckerels) Dear Secretary Klutznick: On behálf of the Florida League of Anglers" the statcwide rcprcscn . tative of recreational, charter boat, head boa-i",:and commercial hook and,. line fishermen, divers, and many support industries, I submit that the F~W as proposed is a time bomb that could explode, resùl ting in serious' bodily injury or death.- For reasons hereinafter specified, you are urged to review and disapprove all portions of the FHP that permit netting of king mackerel and incorporate in an amended F~W the recommendations of the FLA hereinafter set forth. REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF FJW KING MACKEREL NETfING PROVISIONS: 1. THE HfP VIOLATES- THE LEITER AS WELL AS THE INTENT OF TIæ /iCT (a) The ACT is enti tIed the "FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEHENT ACT OF 1976" for a reason. (b) The first word of six of t.he seven national standards spelled out in Section 301 of the Act is CONSERVATION. (c) The first of the standards reads : "Conservation and manage ment measures shall prevent overfishing. . ." (d) As defined in the Act (Sec. 3 (2), "the term conservation and management" refers to all of the rul es, regulations. . . (A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery resource and the marine environment; and en) which are designed to assure that (i) a supply of food and other products may be taken, and that recreational benefits may be obtained J on a continuing basis; (ii) irreversible or long term adverse effects on fishery resources and the marine environment are avoided;" Yne lett~r and legislative intent of the ACT is crystal clear. The emphasis is to be on rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining the fishery resources for the long term and avoiding overfishing or long term adverse page ,2 , effects. I submit that by no stretch of the imagination can gill nets or purse seines be deemed to be compatible with those obj ecti ves. . There are those supporters of the FMP who mistakenly argue that there is no scientific proof that nets are harmful to the king mackerel populations as required by the "standards." Actually the pertinent standard, the second,. reads: "Conservati on and management measures shall be based on the best scien tific information available." -- INFORMATION, not proof! As a matter of fact, there is very Ii tt1e in the way of proof of anything under the surface of the water due to the limited knowledge of the yet comparatively embryonic science of marine biology. Since the FHP undoubtedly reflects the "best sci entific information available." the statements contained on pages 5-43 to 5-48 are significant. . "Present condi tion of the stock (5) of king mackerel cannot be conclusively established. The data available to assess present condition is somewhat contra dictory." Cpp 5-43) "Effort and total cat.ch are rising rapidly and may exceed-MSY in the future if no measures are taken to control harvest." Cpp 5-43) ~ . "They (data) do show clearly the decline in catch and CPUE in 1977 and 1978 reported by many recreational fishermen tn the northern Gulf of Mexico. The causes of this decline are not known. . . It seems likely that such a dramatic decline in abundance would have been accompanied by reduced landings in the winter fi sheries in South Florida, both commercial and recreational. This does, not seem to be the case, although landing statistics and other documentation are lacking." "If either of the upper bound estimates is correct) then the stock is not presently in any danger of being overfished and present levels of fishing pres sure are not significantly affecting the abundance of the stotk. If one of the lower bound estimates of MSY is correct, then the stock is overfisJied and is decl ining. I four' best' estimate is correct, the stock is not now overfished. but increasing fishing pressure in recent years may have caused some decline in abW1dance. II (pp 5-46) "Interpretation of the future condition of the stock on the basis of MSY estimates should be very conservative." Cpp 5-48) On examining the lengthy formulas and computations contained in the HIP (pp 5-35 to 45) where virtually every figure or character in the formulas reflects an imprecise estimate or assumption based upon other equally imprecise estimates or assumptions. it is readily apparent that the margin for error is so great as to make the MSY no better than a not too well-edu~ated guess. The great disparity between uP1JCr and lower estimates indicates that MSY estimates should be very conservative indeed. Even if MSY is assumed to be reasonably accurate, it is baSed substantially on 1975 data and recreational £ishing pres sure is increasing by an estimated 9. S% per year ar:cording to the HIP Cpp S-A6) or some 57% since 1975. It is therefore likely that MSY has already been ex ceeded. Obviously, the "best scientific information available" is imprecise to say the least, SB it is essential to consider thc experience of knowledgeable fish ermen a~ well. Repoi'ts. intc:;:ï!Íew3, test:! mony before various bodies and ov'~r JOO responses to my 0\\-0 wJ"itten SIJrVi~y. c.overlnB virtually all of the fisli.ing page .;5 ports and docks from the Georgia to Alabama borders, indicate that knowledgeable hook and line, charter, head boat, and recreational fishermen report essenti ally the same experiences, \vhich are summarized as follows: a. M1ereas king mackerel, until five or six years ago appeared simultan eously in several areas along Florida's coast, in huge school s sti"etchinB as much as 10 or 12 miles in length, today they are, when found (except for Dne location off Key 1Vest) in small scattered schools in only a fraction of their former areas. In many areas of former seasonal abundance, the king ís a rarity. These reports appear to tie in pretty well with the following statements con tained in the HiP: (i) "The mackerels and bluefish have in common the formation of gigantic schools." (pp 5-1); (ii) "Conuercial catches have been expandi ng rapidly since 1974. This has been primarily in response to the great expansion of the power roller gill-net fleet." (pp 5-46) That explains why conuercial catches have held up. The roller rigs began netting outside the bar in the Fort Pierce-Stuart area for the first time in February .of.¿i978 and found an abundance of kings that no longer exists. In 1980 the netters intruded for the first time on the last large concentration 6f kings in Florida waters at the. end of the bar out of Key West. If they follow the pattern and netting continues, by this time in 1982 there will .be no knOl.m large concentration of kings inFlorida waters. . b. When a strike is made, hook and line fishermen (commercial or reCTea tional) are unable to catch kings in that area for a matter of days, weeks, or the season. c. The more alarming fact is that in the 1979-80 season, the size of the fish has declined dramatically (which, according to scientific theory, indicates that the fish stocks are in trouble). d. That one more season of gill netting by about 30 gill netters will pretty well clean out the Fort Pierce area kings and will deprive the 300 com mercial hook and line fishermen of their livelihood (the hook and line commer cial Spanish mackerel fishermen are long since gone). The charter boat and head boat fleets are in trouble (in some areas they are already gone) because their mainstay (king mackerel) is in such short supply or gone altogether. And many 'resident recreational fishermen are giving up as are tourists who came to some areas for the excellent runs of kings that no longer occur. The enclosed chart which I prepared from 16 years of daily records of one capable hook and line commercial fisherman reveal the trend. It is particularly significant to note that his catches never declined two years in a row until the 1978 season when the large roller net boats crossed the bar in the Fort Pierce area. . e. In the 1979-80 season, the only concentration of king remaining in Florida waters was located in an area at the end of the bar out of Key West which had never before been netted. The recreational and commercial hook and line fishermen were doing vel')' well until the spotter pI anes and net boats arrived and made their strikes. That ended the hook and line fishing for the next three weeks. However, following those strikes, kings appeared off Napl es for the first time in 6 or 7 years. Some enthused that the king had returned to the West Coast~ as the netters pursued them up the coast towards St. Peters . burg. It would appear that a more logical conclusion might be th~t the survivors of the Key West strikes fled northward along the Gulf side. Now that nctters have found a way to strike the last remaining area rif concenttation, they will return next season and the next and that after that it won't matter because page .4 . there won't be enough kings to worry about. If they follow the pattern, we may see a somcwhat smaller run along the West Coast next year, a substantially smaller run the fOllO\oJing year, and thereafter virtually nothing. f. The irony of this situation is that not only are these fC\oJ short sighted men going to drive the 300 hook and line commercial fishermen out of business, but themselves as well. g. Miile it is obvious that the ~egislature did not consider the economics and sociological considerations to warrant major emphasis in the Act, they are factors to be considered. It is undeniable that tourism is a major industry in Florida's economy and that maj or cJ cments of Florida's tourism are boating, diving, and fishing. As a result, boat manufacture, marina operation, charter boat, head boat, and recreational fishing (resident and tourist) plus all the support industries are seriously affected by the quality of fishing in Florida's waters. Based on the Bell report and MSY allocations, the net value of the netters is in.consequential compared to the recreational and commercial hook and line king fishery. . ~,.-. There has been propaganda aisseminated in Florida to the effect that if the gill nets .are outlawed, the price of fish would go up as a result of the shortage. Ilowever, it is obvi ous from the FMP that such would not be the case. "About 65 percent of Florida i s East Coast production has in recent years gone to the New York market iced in boxes in whole form. About 75 percent of king mackerel from the Florida Keys and the Florida West Coast has gone to Puerto Rico." Cpp 8-46) Obviously, there is a substantial margin above domestic demand. 2. SERIOUS RISK OF DEATH OR BODILY INJURY INHERENT IN rMP So serious is .the risk that the South Atlantic Counci 1 decmed it necess&ry to set a special hearing on the so-called "Fort' Pierce Options" "a5a means of preventing significant loss of gear, or death or serious injury in the king mackerel fishery in this specific geographical area." . FMP and "Options" fail to address the issue, propose alternatives that guarantee that the 300 or so commercial hook and line king fishermen will be deprived of their livelihood, naively assumes that this is the only area to be affected and that the gill netters are inclined to be concerned about the future of the fishery. . To begin with, it is approached on a conditional basis of if a conflict arises. Anyone at all familiar with the Fort Pierce fishery knows that the con flict began the day the first strike was made outside the bar and will continue until the nets are prohibtted, the kingfish are gone, or someone is killed. The options: separate users by areas, by day of the week, or close the area to all fishing are in fact no options at all. A gentlemen's agreement as to areas was tried and worked until the netters had cl eaned out their area an~ then they went outside the bar. Al temate days of the week simply means that hook and liners arc deprived of their livelihood and what is left of the king fish are being given to the nettt:rs, for once a strike is made, the fish are not going to be biting in that area for a matter of days or weeks. Furthermore, there is no adequate means of enforcement. Thç Coast Guard and NMFS and DNR can't stop the drug and illegal alicn t:caffii.. How are they going to police this situation to prevent death or bodily iDjury? They aren't! . page. 5 Anyone who thinks that they can \~ork Ylith the netters ona reasonable compromise basis is naive indeed. To illustrate, a copy of an. article from Florida Sportsman magazine is enclosed. But the degree of their concern for the other fellow and the fishery is expressed by their pbiined actions reported to me at the hearing. Since the kings are now reduced to small and scattered schools too small for current nett~ng practices, the ncttcrs are nOH readying drift gill nets of extreme length which are expected to be set tliis fall to drift for a period of time and then hauled. Thus they will be able to pick up those scattered fish remaining, plus any other species that may be present. Even sai lfish arc likely to become entangled in the nets and eithcr be killed or, if able to escape, be 50 spooked as to abandon which has heretofore been the sailfish capital of the world. Ultimately, it means the end of Florida's hook and line fishery and disaster for Florida's economy, but in the meantinc, if you think there is conflict now, wait until this winter when the drift nets are set! TIiis so-called gear confl ict is addressed as though~t is a Fort Pierce phenomenon. Wait until the Key Westers realize what ishoppening to them this winter when the net boats descend upon them at the end of the b~r! Heretofore there were several tremendous schools of kings in the Key West area, so when the net boats intruded, the hook and liners retreated to one of the other hot spots. But now there is nowhere else to go. This is the last remaining large concentration. 3. ¡1.lfY EXPERIMENT WITH PUHSE SEINES? Purse seines have been prohibited in Florida for years as too destructive a device for taking food fish. Now, to reintroduce them even experimentally by way of thc FMP is incredible. THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF ANGLERS RECO¡,r.fENDATIONS FOR N'fEND~fENT OF FMP arc fully compliûnt with the letter and intent of the 1976 Act, coi1sistcnt wi th the seven national standards, and warranted by the facts confronting this fishery. 1. Delete all provisions in the plan permitting nets and restrict the catching or taking of king mackerel to hook and line only, thus elimi nating all conflicts in the fishery. 2. In conjunction with (1) above, impose a possession limit of S king mackerel per person, except for duly licensed commercial hook and line fishermen, seafood processors,wholesalers, retailers, restaurants, or taxidermists. 3. Sct forth as policy the obj cctive of incre~sing abunda~ce of the spe cies and accordingly develop a system for monitoring the catch and stocks of king mackerel with a view to adjusting limits or other reg ulationsso as to accomplish that objective. .. Provide on board and dockside catch audit or survey, beginning early this fall, of all Spanish mackerel netting and to the extent practicable the hook and line catch as well, to determine the number of unòersize king mackerel taken in the Spanish mackerel fishery. FLA wil i be happy to rcçruit volunteer help for this in order to hold costs to a minimum. Impose a li!1iH of 10 doJ pìiin per perscn. Specify that the Spa:1.ish mackerel plan is a temporary onc, pending the 4. 5. 6. page 6 outcome of studies and analysis of stock. The reason for this recom mendation is the apprehension, based on available information, that due to the fact that most of the Spanish mackerel in the state are concentrated in the Stuart-Hobe Sound area, they are particuJ arly vuJnerable to stock overfishing. We know that fish abundance through out the balance of the state has declined and to the point of non existence in some areas. 7. Ini tiate studies to determine stocks, complete record of commerci al landings and recreational to the extent practicable. Let me assure you that FLA's interest in this matter, and as a matter of fact the reason for this organizatio:1' s existence is the very sincere alarm at the obvious decline in abundance of virtually all marine fish and especially king mgckerel. This alarm is based, not upon sketchy and imprecise scientifi c theories, but on actual experience of knowledgeable and, in some cases, the most expert recreational fishermen in the country who know tlle area they fish like the back of their hand and who have Nitnessed the deCCÍnè- for as many as 30 years or more.' Let me also assure you that we are not opposing corn.:nercial fishermen, only certain destructive gear which imperil the fishery. Our obj cc tive is to restore former abundance to the extent possible. We recognize thC11 all users must cooperate in ordc:L that all may enj oy the ocean's bounty and. have therefore rcconunended the king mackerel 1imi t when nets are proJJibi teCl,. Mr. Secretary, the plain fact is that netting of king mackerel. is incom patible with both recreational and commercial hook and line fishing. Prohibit netting and there is no conflict in this fishery and .no risk of death or bodily injury. We urgently request that you not wait until someone is seriously inj urcd or killed, or until the abundance of king mackerel has been so depleted that they are beyond recover)', that you prohibit all netting in this fisher)' and that the plan be amended to include the FL/\' s recommendations. FLorida 33432 RAF:pl enclosure l!rt . r,;')O Vr.: . l \ t " ; .#" ..OCC ~: li . cc"N .f ~~ .~ ;-.' U7 .:7 (,;.~. L TrÓÓ~ h~~;:~-;iriT~TJr; Fr.~~;r.~l.;I\;T"~ CJ\TCr.i ;or KING i~1~c~~;:f~; : j"ì-" ¡ ¡ .£1.Q1£)11/)=.: D..iJJJY! IlILÇORDS Jli'R 11 f) .S,::¡,~:: .':,~. ..1~:A:;ON !COJjIJHL.(jj';D IOF F,(HrR~ : yl ~~G KHGF'lSH ,BON' HS' O~ iDE?'U'1BFR, iT:,i;~'.J~Yt .fff~BRUARY. 'ANn'HJ\RCT~: ¡ ! 1 ¡ j ¡ ¡..i H ¡ !-i-j.! ¡: ~ ¡ ¡ !.; ... I ; ¡ ; ! Ii: : ; ¡ i i i 1.. I. : J I' , ~-D1¡l'-t-J~ ;,-~~ -~ ~ 1 ~ i :.1-- -::~.~. ; -- .11' --.' - ~ : - LJ ~ +~-i ~j:. .j-i-~-!-~+-i " j ~ ¡ ¡ ¡ ! ~ ~ I 1 'l~.. ~ ' : ~ i'. l'l~ l)~"; i.; j ì : i 'i:'!!: ¡ ,. ; i, I -I i-I. -. 1.1 .'. : .: , ¡ . Ii l I.; ¡' ¡ 1 'I" .'" .I'~:.;. . . "i;; ¡ . I ! J .i ,I i I,." Ii F'(:' /7 OJ . i ..'. . I j., 11 i'ii: ¡ 'I: i i ¡iii!j !J¡:' ;;. ::' ¡ :~ ;71jJ ; i ¡ I r,I.. 1'1~'-/'1 :,.' ,-!.i . . i. ,1, i I j L I i ! !! ~ . . . 7 ", l-¡; I 'l:: 1- -. i :¡ , ! V: 1'''t.-I¡t-f-- --~ . - . l . --~-- . . l' -r 1 ' jll:H I y i ./j ¡ Ij ; H J, : ¡ , : , : ¡ :.: : ,i :.:: ¡ i l. ~ --. . .11 'j ".i ¡~1111v.¡ilH: i'¡'i,rii' i ¡;::.:. ;:1' ¡¡il),! 11,' Jl¡¡ ! I; 11 1J"~í 9~.¡'¡ ~: i : i ! :. '~')1:;: .' :; Ii .....:) ¡ i I I: !! ¡ ¡ I ! ; i : ø: i ¡; ¡; i I ¡ ¡ ~ i ¡ j. ¡ ! ;¡":: 'i-~; .~~T\lt1 r i ; : ii' .., ¡: '; ! I f I! ! i . ¡I, i ,." I., : ..,; ! I . l i i I ,¡ I 5.1 n,' ~ I i ¡ ¡. i . Ii .11 ; ¡ : ¡ l,i ,: j i;;:. i',;; ; i II! Ii I". I. .. !.. : ~. .. - j !i l1 J i I .. I . i ¡i. i I. i Il ¡ : 1 . ~ ..j ... .; . 1 ¡, '" "!' : r - j. .'. . - - - - I j ¡II I i 1 :1' .11-'': i 'II ~~ '+~~~1-.j~ i ii. ; ; ~. .II. -.. -i-: ,:~' ; ; ;. :,-1'11' ¡ rmi-.~- -¡í If- - I I. . ..' I I I l 1. i .:. : i i :.1 I i ¡-I j.! 1 . I. .. " i t.1 -j . i.: I' . # ;: I . ¡. i L ; ,- . .- . I, ! u . 11 .. . u ,. ; j l¡' "1' . ! i ! . :: . ,; ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡:! ¡ I - II ¡ .. -1 . ¡ .1. -". I i i--., '1.-, ! ~ 1j~¡'1~- ¡; ¡! ': :~ --~ I ¡ i ':-i~v~tl i /stí'tjl-! i ¡ " I''! I " 'ii ~I¡ -Ii !/"I i ! " ! : : ¡ ; ¡ ¡¡ ¡ Ii ! '.111 :gíl"~ft1~21r,~i I . 'j i I . I':: i ' . : , . . I i i.. j - .. i I . - ,- .', !. . 1 .: j - j'.1 J .1. ; ¡ : : ': ::: J ; ¡ i 1\: - ¡ ~ ..11. ,j - 1.= =- ~-1 i I . - I I. .4. : " i i, .: . I i I I I I I ., I I i. , , I I I , . ' . i I j II i i: ¡ ! I i ¡ I : -.- - . ; : ii ¡\ ; ¡ i I : ¡ I 1 1 I I i I II I ¡ I' ¡ I ¡ ¡:::: : : : i ! \ ! 13~~?' ii' I ! ¡ 'i I ¡ Ii' 1. ¡ ¡t¡ ill i : : : , ': i i;; i I 1):1, l I . '¡ ¡ 11- I ~ ". '1' I i-1L ~-t1- ~. "Ii! ¡: ,- -. ¡ J 'i'j i, II ji,.¡ jli'j!':1 .1. i ¡ i . - ~. ¡Ii .1 .1... ..1 : i i i , ; ¡ :! I ¡ i \ ' I Ii -Ii. -- . I. 'i -. ~ - - . j. - - '-~ ~ . j ¡..': . -- i ¡ ,i ¡ i , !: ! . ~- ,- ~ ii. .i..' . I,,:.. I j ! 111/ ! id~r~ i ¡ I ¡; ¡ II )).111 ji.. -- . - . ~11~ -~f---. 1"'1: -i.j .1-='- -.-1' 1;1. :,' ; : i , ¡ ! ii ; ¡ ¡ I: I ! I"ii ¡¡',! " .1.11,-- I."i ; ! i ¡ '1 ,¡ i I I I i' I i i I I - i ~ ,- l T ¡ i 11 I j; i : ,; : - :-;': ¡ i :. i ¡ I ¡ .1 I ¡ TT r-j - /. I: I' ~ I i j t' I : ; i II : I ! ! ¡ I : ~lH - ¡ I: td j IJ I t + j ¡ ¡ j ¡ ; II ; ¡ ¡ : : i jj j:¡� - +hlH II i i 1TW~llWIElT MarC~, 1980.. !I APR719 TO: South. Atlantic Council Members SO~JTH A"'L.',i"1T1C !'T~"-'1Y MANA~~S:,.. .:,:.: ;i;lj;'...:L . CHARL£S"ION.S;C. .2~4iì1 lam .writing this letter in regards to the MackeralManagement Plan to express my concern of the proposed lines of division. This plan would put me out of the fishing industry comple,tely. Under norml conditions, all handline fishing is done north of 'Sebastian Inlet, approximately from November 1st to December Zls:tj from January 1st till the middle of FebruarynorthofFt . Pierce InlettoVero Beach, and up till the use of the giii "nets, from . February 15th to the end of the winter season ,eastandsou.teast ofFt . Pierce Inlet. As you can see ,this plan would completely stop me from making a living at all, every other year.. I do not have tota.l statewide landing figures of "lrigmackeral, but can state without a doubt that the East. Coast landings are down for the 1980 season to a dangerous level. My total catch for February was 700 lbs., prior to the use of gill nets, this was considered only a fair catch for one day. Januarywasalso the poorest catch record to my knowledge, with a total catch of only a little over 3,000 lbs. by mostly all of the handline boats. The conditions that exist on the historic East Coast Florida king fish grounds were predicted when the large scale netting of king fish started only 3 years ago. These predictions were based on past experience by longtime conmercial handliners from what hap pened on the West Coast of Florida, which is the almost total lack of kingfish for the last 5 years. Please, when considering these facts and the landing statistics, don It assume the fish have moved north. The larger landings in the Carolinas is easily explained by the fact that a large number of Florida handline boats are fishing these areas in the sumer for the first time. In the sumer of 1979, there was a fair size fleet in the Carolinas for the first time and the SUIer of 1980 there will be many more due to the fact that our incomes are greatly being affected by the lack of king fish . in Florida waters . Your help is needed. There is a problem in Florida and only the Management Council can solve it. Sincerely, k(/--udJ Y-~ Robert Thomas 3335 - 2nd Street Vero Beach, Florida , 5 óil +1, A 1-1A-rr+/~ Fis/' (..ý ;vA-/I//.J.. ~¿dt C.OUNC; / I 5 pufJ, /4~1c C ¡i-Q. /e/ :5 u/ 1- 3 0 l, ,1. ¡¿C- / tJl¥/;Jl;~) i J. () 0 ¡:f: W/1/.Jo/V We. fii~ £-M L,C e ri ct, '53 4/.Ç,,. ':; '. i~, if n ¡¡~ P\ ;¡tf:A~~;':~~~); \\V' V~ I~L!9 ?iÒ . .i~'~' ," ~ C '1 ""*:;.Ln , . 'R ~ ~-.~..¡~ 19 1SO o .¡ '\ ~ t1 jj tV A.: ë. M ¿ ~ f C 0 (.011 c ( j f:: ~~'.'~. ."L\';~ ;~,::::r~L:~~r. £ /Iè. /0 S¿. AI-.¿ fA'! c.~ Ie-l, l- ec. oJ-ds f()~ It C)() Æ. I\j /i~.¿ ,k 1".')I'~¿'" fOJ- i.A~'¡ we. c.~/( f-I'L Wl~l¿ y- I-~;. ( b,¿tN7 -Çi-t/O l)~ / .. MAs- 31 ~ 4- l- e. f ¡- , "" "v),' ~ h f-// "",.¿ -G, s' /, ?V e l- t- Cd pf" HI .I ¡; , "' fe(\1 Ml-(¿j !\(o~fAol 5¿b o.S¡'/~'" i--f¿.f- ri"~"¡ø-N Mllr!s 50Clfl "r (+- P,~vo.¿ ,'¡.!..J-, I 5f//vteJ ~,,~ "',,"'c-l~i ,,;1,,:', ;'1 1.73 W 0 l- /" ~'J ,,1\ q i olJ 5 f e;- ¡¡wd 5 I' /I 'VI 5 J, i-ooh -,. J b 0 "f-. f1A-K:1' ler1'! I sf-it~¡.~j hj)ck. ANc/ II~,¿ A/(~7 l(S/7/~'" IN ;1lp,oj, /9'7S" r J (J ~ f fi s 4 M t. c- h b ~ è Ct ~s Go I PC( J- C. ii "- s ~J a AI e U/ b 0 q -f ~ .,.$'l~ -- 7h.. ILL (.ot/ b ¿.. D-f ¡oc' U iii .Is ~ t (, ; 1, c '~¡2.. ¿¿ ~ ~ j I'() l th Ii e.A-t-I'I pcc"fò-- lll-ç p-e¡.l"J /'5 1't.~1, I~'S? fll~¡¡ ¡-JJ~ . ¡;vo-1+9""' (J,c.""- d "¡",Æ-s 'I~~v, +0 leo.'" +4" '¡tP~ "fA",,,,,, 11 A- r e-h I q .7'f / ~ 7 $ L¿ . )j~tJ ó..,~.t F~h 75- :)./ 'IS- L bs f1 # 7J- - '8l3.' h '5. , ¡Ç b 7 b - 'I r 0 ~j b ::L lLtJl. 1 l.~- 3 S9 3d/;5 r:~b 7/-7(;'I'I/65 í!IJ1-77-S,oS?L656.:hn- H~rs :lo!l- . h. h 7'D -- 230). / h ~ 11 4l- J~ - () fJo!lcL. ¡. d$ ';i~f - - -- . - ---- . Fr!-6 71;.' i :: JJ ') / b,ß. 11 ¡¡¡. 7'7 - 0 F~6 "3ù, - 0 11 ¡¡¡. ?f 0- 0 IJ ¿c;, 117'f - 5 lib ~ /.ffs V lJN. 75".. atf 6 '- / bs D¿c- 19'5 - 3.2J~ )h"5 i-- 7fi- 'f/1J.J, /b5 f)¿è- IQ76 - 5Ç;'6~ /6s JA-N 77- 3¡7r I/;, 1)~c./97? -S~(J'1, /6:: J4A/ 71 -/~(.'11 Jb5 D¿.c-117'i - 3' oS, /6:: U/Jrl 7'1 - ~; 'f£¡5; / b 5 o ¿c Icr 71- '¡lJOI /65 . .7t1t' ~I ,- )'103 '~ s /1 J f - i 0/ 7 S ~ 111':.3 2 J. h 5 i 1 '/ ~ - 11 7? - i 51 r i? /. 6.s I ~ 7 ~ - 11 ? I 2./1 S? éJ L b 5 I 977 - ('' 7 'D ?; G b1 J 6 j ¡ý. 0 f-~ 10'" J. X Me, (3 ¿ fc.. No! l~. I '~'? 55 - i 0/ 7 ~) ',1 q~J. b :;7 ~. 4 ., ~ 'h ¡ r 7 '7 - i erg () i /0-" 1. cS Iht,.: ?f.4¡",'sffC.~ wv-~ +IfÁL, 6..v"" M,y. ;.d:!CIcJ¿ý 5t-/JfMel,d5 11¡'1:t,.I~AL/~ /1 . ... t j,1,:."".i./ . I '.,,~.. ~. . ~~'.w~.ì:'/ ' ~ l i ~"""\ Ii I) ~ ~c""';i l ~~..¡,--,/ /,~,~~ i " "-..,- ,. . ..,' ,- , f ¡'- /-i J-- . I--,,:. ,/V,"'~ ~,J/'.ç;. j:,;,1 ~. . :'" 17- JqA,..L-.~¿,.. .,c,""J ';"' /:Ju.~,..~'~(;1.'~ "'4.:~ ..~/ .. ..I...,';~ .. ,'J ¥1....."'..,..~... ';1~.;/ :. "" d~J .'.J:',~ k&,,r ....:;),i.~v~,¡/,/, ./~~~~" '.. .' "J,I .. /¿;%-.~..,. '~"~ .I ';~'~ . .. , ." .. J.. L~~.i) , ~L--,L .. "7".,~;.,~ ;z. ¿.. , ':A) .- --~~,.tt.,- , .;.¿. ,~ .~"'../J.J .' l/ ~-:L.~ ;.¿;;~~ .1 .,/.;~, . . ;. Lø,-" i. L,' ;'.; . ) ...~ ~ ""V'~""i' ;:t.z.~ " // .,'.')l.~)~t \ , ~ ..¿~UW';c. .//; J.-; :'~~~',"")J /..""/l~ /.--..~,..i.i. ,...l. ..~ -' (M~,7-.'v... -..~ .e 7'-/' /i. /!,-t~,,-.-( .-7:.:..-. ..',,~ / .. . /. 1 .. J .~...:/ " ~.i" . /c.¡r)l.d,./ 7'- ",/-""".~~. l ". ./~i,:r /3 ,. ~-o. / ..~'~~~J ~-- i ;"' '~.1)~~/.~,.;~JJ) ;-~~:"L . ,,-- , 0;" / ' . ~';'''~. .-. ,:,.;..~ ¿'.:a..~. t w, .;~¡.~,,¡,..~.. ... ...'. ./ .:-;l;.~~~ .".. ,...¿- / ,i :.'/.,~ ,/~ J..',11i"'--~~''''~'' ,;;--1-./ .:~ /.L,'-,(..,i.-';",~ ~.. ,., ".' J ... ';-~;.a.'i;lt..""/ .. Ä~"..i. ,..i- ."' .. \ ~ ~l.~ .. i.æ ",..LC ~ ~J'..¿;., .-ar: , " , . ~'l-v~"",/ "":" ~.~,. -' Ìi..i.õo~ ~ l~ .~. ~ .~ ~ t ...J"" ,. .:,;:/ ,. .~-~-;,\, '''.'';~.4~-'r~ .,~. " , ic., ../"" ../-'~ ~~~/ "-.......,, .- . r~': .~)..i..C. ~ ."~::. " .'\..";) I . /~..'--. .;v . '...';-:,'...~. , ~'~ . 0 ..:1/ j ~~l ,f~, :, '- i,l. :./~.\. \,. :.¿..)l-j' / 1,J."-~- ::!J ./~.. " :.,~.,:,. .. ., ¿ .i'/i-~ ,.: "..:'.~.... ....'~lc. ;,... I ... .. .: '- "- ,';,\,,;--t.L~:.': -'~' --:ì~~'~':"~,~~ ' ". ..-;.~''):'- -: ;''' ~-, ..-,..¿..l. ~~,. ~;: i 0- ' / , . ....- .I.'-- ~~,¡,-,,'. ...~ .-... .. "\...".. , . . /..¿..~;-. .' ;J. vio"'.;;'1 /-~.. . ..."" j..~'~ "'t.' K JdA UM:US F. CLA VERIE, JR. ATTORNf:Y AT LAW . THIRD I"LOOR- e30 UNION STREET NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70112 TI!LI!PHONI! (e0.) !52..-e""e Ma 24, 1980 Mr. ~ Jons, Chai.m QQf Fishery Maemt Cbcil Sute 881 5401 wes Ke Boulevar Tan, Floric; 33609 Fe: \f '.)1- IVIC,,. \:'0 'I,,,C RECEIVED ~ APR 1 0 1980'!1(¡~ .~.. ~r 4? c.~~" .1NAGEMt~\ ~, 1r n ~ TJ fF íí\ ~p...~ ~:i ;1 \'t' iL. ;, '¡, it;~ ;. Li W lÇ; i ¡~~.::) l-~ ~ \R " Ç' 1980.1. SO!,; fit AG~~;.ì~.T'!-.cc~t~~¿~Y M \,-:A ."',"' , áiÂRLES'IvN. s.c. ~Q1 ..~.,.. (bta Migrato~ Pe¡egc :Rsoce . Draft EIS/F.. Dear Mr. Janes: '!s is wrtte cct as inite in th Notiæ in th Fedal Reister, c pae 9303, Febru U, 1980. At the p.lic hearg in New Orlean, v. 1eaaed tht no inODntion oonærn th soologica imct on recretiona fishries of a rndatoi: report syste ha been a:msidere, eith by the Cocil or in th EI. In view of the reate statats on the record in Panel hearings an pulic heains tht a rntoi: re¡;rtg systa is contrar to the recrationa . ascts of retinal fishig, it is suggested tht th EIS \od be inte if ths sujec we not fuly exlor. . Sincerely, Maun F. Clavee, Jr. MFr/kj c:: OO, Soth Atlantic Fish Magat CDcì ~~. 2200 1 E:th STREET NORTH PO. BOX 3B42 SI. PETERSBURG, FL 33731 (813) B22-4616 2468 S.R. 5BO CLEARWATER. FL 33515 (B13) 796-1031 9021 OAKHURST ROAD, SUITE 3 Po. BOX 3037 SEMINOLE, FL 33542 (B13) 596-1511 RECEIVED BENNTT WALIACE WELCH~~ GREN (9 INSURANCE. INC. IN REPLY REFER To: St. Petersburg March 17, 1980 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 "'''T." Gentlemen: 1 attended the Public Hearing at the Bayfront Center in St. Petersburg this past week and wish to commend the Council for attempting to do something about the obviously poor situation we have particularly as it affects the availability of Kingfish and Mackerel. As Mr. Green set the tenor of the meeting in the beginning stating that he did not wish to have input from anyone who could not directly give him facts and details which the committee. could use in their deliberations, i did not choose to speak. My observations which 1 might have wanted to make were based purely on personal experience and not on any basis of statistics. i am desirous of using this form of communication to state to you some personal observations wh ich were denied at the meeting. i was born and raised in St. Petersburg and have fished all my life in the salt waters both coast wise and off shore. Up until 1976-77, 1 spent the majority of my recreational fishing time fishing for Mackerel starting about this time of the year through the cold weather in the Fall and Kingfish on their migratory runs in the Spring and Fall. We always seemed to have a good supply of Mackerel from March on through when ever cold weather sent them southward. About 5 years ago this supply of both Kingfish and Mackerel began to decline, and I,along with a number of others who were at the meeting, have not boated one single Kingfish since that time. We obviously are not commercial fisher men but have obtained a certain degree of skill in catching these fish through our many years of experience. If they had been here, I am sure we would have gotten our share. The point of my message is that there just aren't any fish. i don't know why there aren't any fish, and 1 am sure there are a number of factors contributing to this. 1 do know that there are not any fish and if we don't move to take some drastic action quickly, 1m afraid there will never be any fish. MEMBER ORlD OF FLORIDA 2~ Gulf.ofMexicÖFishery Mahagement Council 3/17/80 lam gréàtly suspèct of over~ fishing through modern niethods, of.iettingand;spotter:aircraft~. i. db not bèl i evèthat these fish can stànd that kind or pressûreahd wovldstrongly,urge"the' coiTmitteeto cÒnsider abahdôningall netting of these fish fOr a period.oftime:to lets see if 't the population can make a come back on its own 0 This will notdenythe,cömmerciaHisher¡; men. Theycahstill catch these fish by hook and line aSCOh the sports fisherman, and:we may. well all get a cràck at some fish in the future. If thisdoesn'tseemtòbe~doingthetrick over a two cir three yedr period of tirne¡then I wouldsusgeststrongly that we completely close the season for Whatever period of time it takes this fish to make acome-backandithen open it for hook and line ohly once again to see if we can hold our oWn~ Mr. Green who seemed to Chair the Committee this past week, mddèa statemehtwhich I'can aliTostqûOte, II thiscomiTittee is not in a posHion to make any recommei'çkitibnswhièh'wouJd affect sbiTeone's livelihood from this fisheryll. This rTay beslightlyoffl:titisthemessage I got when I left that meeting~ and Mr. Greeh repeated it several times. If this committee has been forrned to helpdràft a managernentplan¡ then I think, ifthey. cannot make such recommen dations, we better get rid of this cOrnmiteeand find one who can. Some dtastic action'is going to have to be taken by people of authority. If ir is not done, all of the commercial and sports fishing interestSiTight as well write off the Matkereland KÎngfishing. Itisnot'goingtoexist any longer. I wish you much sUccess in yoùr deliberations. I hope that you wiH make some quick recommen dati6n'stohelp.our sitüat10n outhereoh the WestCoCistof Florida. Muchtestimonywastèèken this wèek which backs up what I haVe to say. Many of the fishermen ih the audiÉmce' expressed; the same sort ofsentirnehtsas I, and I thiÏik their opinions should be tttkento heart even though they dOn't represent hard factual evidence. The time for study is over:, the tiiTlefbr action is now. Yours very tru Iy , A /1d~ John l-. Welch, CPCU cc: Congressman C.W. BHf Young 2453 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 JIW/nc THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MARINE SCIENCE INSTITUTE Port Aransas Marine Laboratory March 14, 1980 RECEIVED PorI Aransas, Texas 78373 Phone 512 749-6711 Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director Gulf of Mexi co Fi shery Management Counci 1 Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Bou1 evard Tampa, Flori da 33609 Dear Mr. Swingle: f\'¡;~R 1 R '¡y(40 )'.- - 0 -."dO ¿;i-So -'''0'-9 10"';y CJ/ ~11..!1r,n~t\~)/ ~.,. The comments below are with reference to a January 25, 1980 request for a revi ewof the draft, IIFISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS) II, prepared for The Gu1 f of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. I find that the plan is quite good insofar as available information and currently p1 anned research can be coll ated. However, it wou1 d be valuable to all concerned if there were a brief introductory summary outlining the inadequacies of currently available data. The stories I hear on the quantity and quality of Gulf fisheries data are at great variance, depending on whether I am talking to management people in the front office, the fishermen themselves, fisheries scientists, etc. Quite obviously data could always be better, but I believe that a con solidated statement of how m~ch better and why would be in order and most appreciated. You might also note that there has been von Berta 1 anffy growth model (page 5-1) (e. g., pages 5-35, 36). A recent paper be noted in a final draft; it is: considerable objection to the as used in the yield formulas on the subject should at least Roff, D.A. 1980. A motion for the retirement of the von Bertalanffy function. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 127- 129. I wish you the best of success with the management plan and its execution. Sincerely,~$CV~ Donald E. Wohlsch1ag Professor DEW: hg cc: Dr. Sidney R. Galler ll r- - TE~NNE .BANK & TRU.ST.COMPANY L ~ f\,1jR ?, R ,Çj80 (J' . ". &' BERNARD B. (Brody) SAXOI~, JR. '*, ~ (h'!!r (,Ç:'V . . - .. I~ANAGEMt~'\ P L '14 2." ç' I~: .. I J ~'t-t ~L .4~ ~~ I .~dJ ~~tk ((~"vv' - . I~ ~~~.~~~ i ~. .. PJ.AJ. . ." Ct tr 7 i.~'t1'Cf .~. .. tf.~ ff ~J. ... . I i ~~1r .u ~ -3, ~.I cc~50?d~' ~~~~ -t ~ ~ ~ ~~rv ~;:~ J~rkMÂ~ ë:!fJ¡(l::~ ~~ l flJ(u~ tk ~~ , l1 fMdA!~-r~.~~~~~ dd~dtt . ~ . I ~tk . . . -4 I ~ ~~k~'t d JErrEr\SON ROI) AND GUN CLUB P. O. ,.;,-'x 23362 HARAHt' r¡, LA. 70123. March 18 t .l 98CD,,'.. . ..' ~ù RECEIVED Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 He: Oobia, Spanish and King Mackerel Public Hearing, New Orleans La. ~ Dear Members of the Council;' After reading this draft the members of the Jefferson Rod & Gun Club disagree with the council on several points. In the introduction of this draft the council said they were mandated by the Fishery Conservation and Managem~nt act of 1976. This implies that something has to be done. Even if nothing is wrong wi th the spe cies affe cted. This law provides that any fish ery management plan must be consistent with national standards. We feel that Louisiana's waters are better than the national. standards because of the great Mississippi Hi ver washing nutrients into the Gulf of Mexico attracting many thousands of bai t fish which is the major food for larger spe cies. We feel the counciløhas no way to measure correctly the total allowable catch of 37 million pounds. And if the catch exceeds the allocation the secretary has the power to close the recreational or commercial fishing. Bag limi ts for fish in Louisiana's waters is impractical JEffERSON ROi) AND GUN CLUB P. o. r~:-,x 23362 HARAH/. Ii. LA. 70123 Page 2 with the many varieties of fish that congregate around the oil ~rigs. Drift fishing is very popular in La. for a variety of fish and trying to release a large king mackerel can be ver.y dangerous'.. This draft has a framework for inst.ituting bag limits" fishing zones and what days to fish. This will 1imi t the available days for the charter boat business. This draft also calls for enlarging conmercial fishermen reporting. That is more paper work for t:he. Q local fishermen. Our members are against the Total Allowable~.. Level of Foreign Fishing. We want no Foreign fishing in U. S. waters. Keep these boats out and we may not need this propose management. After this draft becomes law the council will expe.c.t.... Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Gomm. to enforce this law. We feel Louisiana Wildlife li Fisheries Gomm. is doing a f'ine job .. managing the fi,sh and wildlife of the state and they should the controlling body for all management plans for the Gulf be of Mexico. Very truly yours, ¡lp(¿¿; Robert F. He2~ President Jefferson Rod &. Gun Club ~.m~'m~~~Ak..~ .' j-ul~r 3, 19L1 ~~. David Gould, ~ecutiv8 Director South At1r~:-:t:t c :;:i S~:.8::';t Ul::ar:.:;ment CounciJ. 1 SouthD ar~~ Circ18, Suite 366 r.i-,r.rle""-ton :: r' "J(',). 07..1 ..'"" - o. , w..,J . ,-, ~ " ~"".....~.~",~ ''0\.~' (Ii'. 111l'" (\:"J -tè'''~!!I~';~';;8:J\ ~:~~\ ~"-- .i~?' j~;). rt / ''''-,'ll. ~'\ r¿j'l :.~1!V'1 GEMí-\~' /' . ""¡\,--I1 ..:.Dear l:r. Gould: I 'Hri te th:~. s letter a3 a last effoi.,t to :: nfor::ll ~h:; South ..~tlantic Fishery Ií8.nagel~lent Council tho.t I object to any tillocation for Purse Seines" for the taJd.n:7 of King and Spani sh I:ackerel. I uri te thi s letter 5 n r.W official capacity p.~s a I1cYlib(::r of the Kine and Spanish I.;ackerel Advisory Sub-Panel, as the State :Ùirectæ:~,Port Salerno Chapter, Organized Fishermen Of Florida and as a Commercial Fisher man Hho is concerned about the stocJes of the I'1aclærels. The purse seine is not a selective tJ~e of sear, contrary to what I hav~ heard at advisory sub panel r.eet:. ngs. The p'urse seine has a str.3tch mesh of betHeen one anä. tHO inches it Hill catch u~der si ze kinGs and spaï1Îsh riac:::ei"el to sr~all for thG eatable :-jQr~:ct, tüus, t':ese snal~- fis~i -,:i:-1 b:3 so~.à. fo::' bait (lobct..::n', crab '3tC.). I.~ust the S.AFl.::C DGrmit '~':1e dis-sruct:i ol1 01' thei:;e sinG.:!~'- i~:~.sh b,Co.:.-.8-:: :rou do not haye e~ouc:h foi"esiC;ht to sa-,! EO to :n:tI'~3 r:ei:iinf;? Listen to the advisor:;, sl.;,b-i;ai:ol, li~t:2m to ~cl~e pcopië at thc :;ubÌic 1:1G8.i'inGs, dont t list::3l to a few cor,rnorcial fi.s;.e::men i;.!ho. all'cad-,;- usa pUI'se seine 8 ( ,fOi' bait) ~.Th() have the attitude to G8'c i"ich~~ic:: Hi th little. ,'3ffo:."t ~""uininc the stoc':s \,If 1":1o.c1:o1'818 and then TIOV8 ..:)2. to ot:i:ier s,ccies a~d put their fellow fi8har~en out of busine~s. I :1D.VG O:1n:i1 t::::.à, at :J.rlvj.SOi--"7 Si11J-.()L;,"l1:J~- j,-:..J "':"t:t":1f;S, t~lD.t 1'JO l:lL1.St uset. -. ... t-~ie b '3 S .~~ 9. "'ia:~ J alJ 2:~ ~- r~f 0i")l":~ t:L O~'~ t:) .:-~.i~~~:l "r\iC :Jt :: de c ::~ ::,~ on. It s c (~r:'.8 li~~G ~~l:J~ b08.~~ ::'.\, 'a:tlriblc :~.11r':):'~Y:.B.t:io~~1 at~ c¡.~is 1Joi~t i~ t.o 11st.:)n to the '0'30,:18 '1(\ ar:" t'l..i'1(' to t.~11 ,ro" "'O":1,.".4-~".in'" - ;'Do".- ", .tt 8,1 1 o'"T ..)ur'1n SC.."n-- .1..'."" ." -', . ~-'- ..,, ... ..I \,.. " ."---V -.'.- L;;' tJ.. i21ß of: t11~ ~ .ac1':ei~eiS!! . T/)"S :-':ß sive :ro1' some ed1.cat,)d fact",. BOt(l the 'd.i'1..: .s.nd snanish me, c '. P"7 0 1 ~ '11U ~ ':-. ""T" '..., t (' 'hI" '" p --L. 11''' i f' ~-, '.. "'''' r. --'''' .., 1 ''''l.'' 0.. '1L-:; (.'. ",1. "T-J" ':~'11 f. '''ur C1.~ . .. --"- - -~. -\. ...... oJ ,- ."c.'\. ,... ..,. ""--""', '-..- '.' ".)"'..1.. L.,.-.- \... - fo s~iTIe t1l.':~11 dri¡-;d .:)-~ ':3na'J.f:~h JL:::) t.c.~l:- j.f t:1C fis51 ai"1Q :11!la:i, J;:l1GY 1-1iii start d~:c5.'"'-C bni'or3 tl:c net c~:~l b(')'~'~:-13c1 u'! :;0 l8'~~ ~:ho :CJ.sL'. 2..;11" fp00 the yast ::laj::rit:¡ ~ri i:: be de8.d if not 8.11.'. JLUT.l de~d f:~ 81~! .:~bsolutcJ-:T absurd, :~f t':a ~'llall f'iÚl are 1 ¡?nd3Ct a::d :)1ac.:;cl 0'.1 'C~-!:; "Oo.:'-'c i.,arl:et t1,~r' th-~'" 'i", oi."'C'Jut"'1",- a"aC'~-c 01"'~ V",l'.i';'bl" -"..,~-- .~"n- '." :-'-", "mal'- ',"'.. ..~. iJ -.. ..l. ..' . V--,.. ~'.. oJ..I' , .. l. "" .. ;",.:. "-'..-.'. .L.. oJ --, .1 v ~..l:" ..) i .. fis~1 ar'., ')lo.ced.ìn tho f::od :;13.::':"t j.t 1~ill C8.LJ.;:;:1 .::1:,) '):,'ic:: :.)1' ti:B fisht i t - i-' -, " - I . . " " 1 - .. .¡' -o crop JOvt1.; ii~,')J:'r:¡cn, 1";S'C a"S1.E":;, 'cn.:) ~)!';.c~:: \.¡-::..-" n:n:; CCl'DP lIO 'CtlC CO:'su:ner. 1 Eore .facts; the int:eoduc"cion of purse seines ~~nto the T¡lLèc :sr::l fi sher~" 1,;:'11 caus e a vast conflict of p.:)ar, nti-c::i larßei"" t~-:::n t~ie "'0 call cd iJ.~t P-i .~""'ce. i-,,"'-i O.nll 'T1~", co. ,:~""",,,,,c-~"'l ",~-.o~,. a'lQ' i.¡ ""''r''lo -~-- .J -. -----~ \.~Jl,- . -L..\:; ------ J. c.- ~J.J ..i... - .~.. .., the gill nett.3rs and the recreational fi8hG:~:-~8:C1. '..:5.11 mors than li~æly take up arms Ec;a:lnst t'~8 purse 8Gin8::s. ~.=orc facts; the pt1.rse ssines Hill cause so ciLl pr':JbJ.e~rr8 't,;it~Ün th;) fi s'r:::nc COIT.it unities. There ';.TL.J, be l1eat~~d discuss:~ ons, fights, destr'~.ct:ton oi' gear or perhaps rTOrso. The purse 30:'.113S u::ll cause ff'l:1ilies to split) to fight amonG themselves. All this is not 1:rhat I alone thinl:: this is --hat I hear around the fishhouses, on the str'eets, at:meetings etc. t:1is is 1vhat I have been told b-:r some very serious people. The quotas that have been set for purse seines can not be regula~ced or enforced the purse seinel"s 'Hill find a 1;1ay to land f'ish after the ouota has been i"'eached. For example; the purse seinei"'s operat ing on the East Coast of' Floi"ida Ho!'Jdng under a st ~te 'bait perr.ii t has rèpeatedly landed rood fish, only ti'lO arresJc hære- been made one a'oDealed to his conviction and the case Has thrm-f out of court, the other 11as fined fifty dolJ.ars but he !"anaged to v1eiGl~ up three thousa.nd five hundred dollars t'JOrth of fish. If the Federal Govel"n IT'3nt can t t stop the illegal landing of DRUGS then hOl'J ca.i- it stop the il.legal landing of FISH. If' a vast effort is made to !~oiice the purse seiners then that effort should be made t01'Iards sto:?ing the dru.gs and not 0.1101-1 purse seines period. If the South Atlantic and Gulf Councils an.d The lJational i.~aa"ine Fisheries Sei"'vice Hânt to find out for theri1selves 'what DUT'se seines a:re capable of doing then I sUGgest again, a study be 2:ioàe using an tinbias vessel and unbias captain to :i:iake the stud;;' with EFIFS person- . neland DDT3 personnel aboard, (I attended a meeting in St. ?e'cers bur¿r Hi th the IT:IFS uhen they 1-Jere proposing to mal:e a purse s;:rine stud¿r. The stud:,r at that time had '::.0 rlal1~r rla.Hs and loo¡)h:Jles in it ì. At thi s time if' there is no money to ma1r0 a study tn.311 thinGs shouJ d sta7 s-c;atu ::uo a.'yco,no ne1-1 gear introduced into the 11ac1::8re1 í'i shery. r"his thing is a.f'i'ectin~ and HiJ.l afi'ect too man:.' people to òe ha:--dled inth9 Ha~T it is beins '.handled. ':hecou:!ciJ.s 9 ná the X1D?S is listen inr' to too ;",,1' ~)""Y"l""~ It "'''1)'''''1'''' -'11"'." 'C',..." '.)1""''''- co"i"'''.'' .;,...".~ -is go.., -- oJ .;- -" .!J ~'. i....1 ...ç'\ Ú ~~ (,.. . '. Lv:. .'.- ,-,.. i:'-..- ...."- ~-,~ l:v.t: .. 5.nc: to hlon HidG :.)~) :;:, a,''d ci"céc') a b~G brrC ai' uor:ms. :rn the Dro')OSeCi r.ac1:0Y'c~1 'Ola~ i t s.~:ates: r--",')ducG '-car end "S'~"" rrrouY1 cO:':7"i i" ct-,,;; ~-.~ii" .s. .. t..": . ....- ,--, ,,- t.:; ,;,.1'" ~ - ..- --. "' - 4 ~1i JJ. c 0:~ta.~r.ly not he dO:"0 if TH1.r 30 s:i:Lies ar') int:'o,-1.'.!.c ;::d into t.~ie f-j n~~.!J~:"'T It Ift~,.~ ùut"ze seins iS3U:; is n07- '~"'''n: "'d 1-'''Ol).--Q-''Y ( Pl-' ~,"o.""':¡-:, .0' O'.1~~,.1 ...J.l "u',:c)'- -. . . V a.L1 -,,,,- ,.. ) - . -- ..- . -....... \. ¿. u. i-) ""\ ¥ then I TIlU3t feel tr:at the ti~''-e :: ;~aV03 s')ent- attend:':1S .i:''P ~1eetinGs v has been 'Vmi sted, I !'u3tf:3el the rei.nbur s.JJJen-c s :: i1r.'.e ::occived a.ttbnding tr1ese meetings '.ms 8. 'rast3 of ta:;: nayei:'~~ 110:13'.-, I must f'ae2. the tL1e spent attendinG public hJa.rinss 'Has- a '.a~1tc of"d:;~c "GÌ!'le, most of rÜL I must f'eel the ti11d lost. fro m/ f:i shine (lnco:::.G) a.:: te:idi!lG the) above meetings Has .i-asted 1.¡hich can ',iever be r'3coV0roJ.. ' 2 I 1:Jant t;,~) ~~a"'vi~ f'e.i tl-:. in Jchc Pi sl::~r'..- S ~"...rc :~ 18 ':C'J :~:2L1c.,~:; ~3 '~~~~G S toe ~.: s of fis"!: -:)l'"Qperl:r I do 11~lt i:':,9.:~i.-; to J.:)03-3 t~-~t~t f',:?..2.tíi "O:~C8.~~~~:J I F~l) St GO to Har to d~fcnd ":T:: r5 ght to !nJrsu,:: i-ri~,C vocai:.io:: o.d to cJ.d"~.:nd tbe fi she It ~as ta1~8!'! rr:r tim.:=? n8 four U~) h:;-u.r 3 t.o: co;:,:'r. 0 8 .~~ -- -; .'1 r~,':,;.~- - L.; t t :3 T' , n.:'.V c I \,-,;~:: t ~'~d "7 8r-r S:~:1C ~::. :; i-.c , ~J~Z~'~.Iom u-I'OOVC:':' P.O. Box 027 Port Salerno, Fla. 33492 cc: Er. Harold .1Ulen, HEFS Hon. Junnita Ereps, USDC-NOAA Sen.HSJdp" Bafa¡is 111s. Peggy Starey, SAFTíC ¡~. Wayne Swindßlc, G~f¡C Dr. ~lton Gissendanner, FDNR ¡;,...:o-' 3 ~-c. ",t'../û",' j(, 287.7800. Day or Nile .--~ . ie.L=.~-~~~~~.- .ê.~X~!.§.~... . .. . CAPT. W. R. LAUGHON. U.S.N. ReI. REALTOR June 29, 1981 Secretary of the Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20260 c.c:i (j ~';.. :: .1. ..N ;. oS -'1ii-. 1 in -..,""J-: ~ .- ;; ,,-' :-. i~~;ei~ ""'7 D ~~~~; 'iT1":~~ :: Dear Mr. Secretary, =:: This i:: in, regard to a recent al'1o1L'1Cem.êJit which indicated that it is planed to open the way to purse seining of Kingfish and Spanish MackereL. c:- -., . .-' .''' I live ,. in Stua.rt , Fl9rida \-There mackere l..Ji shing until three' years ågo was as good as any-vhere.. 'in the United States. At that point, however, roller rigs with their spotting planes assembled off the St. Lucie Inlet and took all of the mackerel in a week or two. It was so disheartening to see the tails of thousands of mackerel rise but of the water, ov'''r .ÍJhe roller and into the hold of the net boats. Wnile we still had more sailfish then than any other place in the United States, the elimination of my favorite food fish, Spanish Mackerel, was the major. reason ,..hy I sold my two charterboats, ANCHOR and ANCHBR TOO. Both Mackerel and Kingfish become more s~arce ëach winter. vlln purse seining COmEences in our area, sport fish e~men as well as food fishermen may as well sell their boats ~~d give up. I underst~~d that it is the intent of the Federal Fisheries Law to maintain and conserve AmericaL Pisher ies for domestic, cowÆercial and recreational use. I implore you to do something about it. p, ""'.'l i";'r~-;::~~'i.¡;::--- Sincere ly /,)!". ",. s~';:':i~"v",-,,-) i -- ~ /~~ 1:1". ~ ~.~ ?' ~.. . . J~:L S ';231 !W. R. Lauó~on, Capt. U.S.N. Ret. 1tffL: jem - ,'''-.ca~r.=~p~.; ~~..~-~~~ :: (''.' .-~' .. . - . .,--j Anv inf."\rrrotion gi'..en herewirh is obtained from sources we cor.sider relioble. However, we ore not r'!sponsible fe:r :'iis..staterrent of foCf'51 errors, omi!.sJon, prior sole, withdrawal from r.iarket, or change in price withouT notice. rn PEI'.LlOR " ~-: REGULATæy IMPACT REVIEW (RIR) OF THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS) THE GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUt-1 L LINCOLN CENTER, SU ITE 881 5401 W. KENNEDY BOULEVARD TPMPA, FLORIDA 33609 (81 3) 228-2815 SOUTH ATLANT IC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNC I L 1 SOUTHPARK CIRCLE, SU ITE 306 CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROL! ~ 29407 (803) 571-4366 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 9450 KOGER BOULEVARD ST. PETERS3lJG, FLORIDA 33702 (813) 893-3141 ';;'..:~. ;;~. . I. I I. I II. IV. CONTENTS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTRODUCT I ON ... .... ...... ...... ....... ...... A. Background of RIR ... ...... ............ ....... B. Background of the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP ............. C. Problem Identification ............ ...... ....... D. Spec I f Ic Object Ives of the FMP .............. ....... E. Achievement of stated .Objectlves .............. . -="-;' -. Proposed Management Measures ................... A Iternat I ve Management Measures .................... ANAL YS I S OF PREV I OUS YEAR'S FMP ........... ...... .... METHODOLOGY ............................. .. A. Procedural Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,8 . . . . . . . . . . B. Data Base . ...... ..... ........ ....... ... . . REGULATORY IMPACTS ......... ............. ..... . . A. Proposed Management Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ..... . . B. Alternative Management Measures .............. ..... C. Oompar I son of the Impact s of the Proposed and A I ternat I ve Measures . . . D. Paperwork Reduct Ion Act .................. ....... E. Regulatory Flexlblll ty Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . Page JI. II 2 2 3 B 9 9 9 9 9 9 19 25 27 27 . . 27 SUMMARY The coastal migratory pelagic (mackerel) fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic Is of Impor tance to recreational and comercial fishermen, the businesses direcly serving them, and the regional economies. The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of the migratory pelC!glc management unit In the Gulf and south Atlantic FCZ Is 65 mil lion pounds. This estimate Includes stocks of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobl C!. The recreational fishery occurs both Inshore (within three miles of shore) and offshore for Spanish and king mackerel, respectively. Recreational surveys Indicated that In 1975, anglers caught 33.1 million pounds and In 1979, 15 million pounds. The poor nature of recreational catch stat Istlcs makes It difficult to say If Indeed catches have been declining over time. However, expenditures related to recreational fishing have been constantly Increasing over time; In 1980, the value of sales related to the management un I t was an est Imated $103 million wi th an associ ated 2,840 person-years of amp loyment. The commercial fishery for king mackerel Is conducted offshore while the Spanish mackerel fishery occurs In both zones. Commercial landings of king mackerel have peaked at 10.5 million pounds In 1974, and Spanish mackerel commercial landings have peaked at 18.0 million pounds In 1976. The value of the commercial fishery Increased steadily; In 1980, the dockside value of fhe-Klng and Spanish mackerel fisheries was $8.5 million and Its contribution to the Gross National Product In excess of $20 million. ., The Increasing level of effort In both fisheries may have contributed to a decline In the relative abundance of stocks of both mackerel species. Cobia stocks In particular are overflshed. In addi tion, Intense conflicts exist between recreational and commercial users of the mackerel stocks, and between commerc I a I users emp loy I ng d If ferent gears. The alternative of taking no action would result In stock declines and adverse economic Impacts. The management measures proposed by the Councils are responsive to the problems In the fishery and repre sent the most cost-effective approach to prevent overflshlng. Rejected management measures were generally more costly to Implement, more burden9:me to user groups, and less responsive to the conser vat Ion of the resource. Benef I ts that will C!ccrue from Imp lementat Ion of the proposed measures come from the prevent Ion of overflshlng. The benefits, In terms of pounds of fish, Is the difference between the optimum yield (OY) specified In the plan and the amount caught after overflshlng occurs; In monetary terms, the benefits are the difference between the contribution to the Gross National Product (GNP) wlthOY and the contribution to GNP associated with the catch after overflshlng occurs. The expected benefits range from $5.6 million to $27.9 million annually over the next five years. Empirical data Indicate that the level of fishing effort by commercial and recreational fishermen Is Increasing rapidly and mackerel stocks and catch will decline If effort Increases. Therefore, Implementation of the FMP Is vital for protect Ing the resurce from decline. Annual costs for development and Implementation of the plan are estimated at $412,271. The RIR Indi cates that the adopted measures ml n Iml ze the burden on the pub" c and address the problems I n the fishery In a cost-effective manner. The proposed action Is not a major rule requiring the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. " I. I NTODUCT I ON Executive Order 12291 "Federal Regulation" established guidelines for promulgating new regulatIons and revIewing existing regulations. Under these guidelines each agency, to the extent permitted by law, Is expected to comply with the following requirements: (1) administrative decisions shall be based on adequate Information concerning the need for and consequences of proposed 9'vernment action, (2) regulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefit to society for the regula tion outweigh the potential costs to society; (3) regulatory objectives shall be chosen to maxImize the net benefits to society; (4) among alternative approaches to any given regulatory objective. the alternative Involving the least net cost to society shall be chosen; and (5) agencies shall set priorities regularly with the aim of maximizing the aggregate net benefit to society. takIng Into account the condition of the part Icular Industries affected by regulations, the condl tlon of the national economy, and other regulatory actions contemplated for the future. In compliance wIth Executive Order 12291, the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) require the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions whIch either Implement a new fishery management pl~~or sIgnificantly amend an existing plan, or may be significant In that they effect Important DOC/NOAA policy concerns and are the object of public Interest. The RIR Is part of the process of developing and reviewing fishery management plan and Is prepared by the Regional Fishery Management Councils with the assistance of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as necessary. The RIR provides a comprehensive review of the level and Incidence of Impact associated with the proposed or final regulatory actions. The analysis also provides a review of the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluatIon of the major alternatives that could be used to solve problems. The pirpose of the analysis Is to ensure that the regulatory agency or Council systematically and cOprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the publIc welfare can be enhanced In the most effIcient and cost effective way. The RIR al9: wi II serve as the basis for determining whether the proposed regulations Implementing the fishery management plan or amendment are major/nonmajor under Executive Order 12291, and whether or not the proposed regulations will have a significant economic Impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L. 96-354). A. Back~round of RIR ThIs RIR Is based on the most recent commercial and recreational migratory pelagic (mackerel) Infor mation. The RIR was Initiated after Secretarl al review of the plan. The RIR supersedes the previous . Draft Regulatory Analysis for this plan which lacked many provisions and review requlranents contained In Execut I ve Order 12291. B. Back~round of the Coastal MI~ratory Pela~lc FMP The Gulf of Mexico and South AtlantIc Fishery Management Councils, established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). are responsible for preparIng management plans for the fishery resurces In the fishery conservation zone (FCZ) of the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic. The Gulf and South Atlantic Councils, recgnizing that mackerel stocks constitute a valuable fishery, developed a fishery management plan (FMP) to address and overcome problems In the fishery. C. Prob I em I dent I f I cat Ion The Councils recognized and addressed four basic current or potential problems In the coastal migra tory pelagIc fishery. They Include: RIR-I D. 1. Current and accurate biological and economic data needed as a basis for management decisions are not available. The Incomplete and at times Inaccurate data Is particularly true for the recreational fishery which accounts for the majority of the king mackerel catch. 2. Intense conf II cts exl st between recreat lonal and commercl a!' users of the mackerel s1ocks;and between comercial users employing different gears. 3. Rapidly Increasing fishIng effort for king mackerel could soon act Ion I s taken. Because of the II ml ted mackerel resurce and competition Is Intense between al I user groups. The mackerels and as food fish. resu I.t In overf I sh I ng I f no the Increasing fishing effort, are high Iysought as gamef Ish 4. Cobia are presently harvested at a size below that necessary for maximum yield and may be overflshed In some areas beyond the area for management. The available evidence Indicates that cobia stocks have suffered a decline and that yield could be Increased by Increasing the average size at harvest. Spec If I c ObJ ect I ves o f the FMP .-.,..~. The 9'al of the fishery management plan for the coastal migratory pelagic resurce Is to determine the optimum yield within the U.S. fishery conservatIon zone and to provide management measures to achieve MFCMA object I ves and the Nat lona I Standards for fishery managementp i ans. Thespeclf Ic object I ves of the management un I t are as fo I lows : Kln~ Mackerel 1. Institute management measures necessary to prevent exceedIng MSY. 2. Establish a mandatory statistical reprting system for monl1orlng catch. 3. Minimize gear and user group conflicts. Span Ish Mackere I ~ E. 1. Institute management measures necessary to prevent exceeding MSY. 2. Establish a mandatory statistical reportIng system for monitoring catch. 3. Mln I m I ze gear and user group conf II cts I n the event they arl see 4. Promote the maxi mum use of the resurce up to the OY est I mate. 1. Institute management measures necessary to Increase yield per recruIt and average size and to prevent overflshlng. Ach I evement of Stated Object I yes The Gulf and South Atlantic Councils adopted a MSY estimate of 27 million pounds for Spanish mackerel, and all cobia equal to the tip of the head to the center of the tall (fork length). 37 ml' lion pounds for kl n9 mackerel. or larger than 33 Inches In length from RIR-2 the Councils have recommended an OY tor each separate fish species above equal to their respective MSY estimates with the following measures to prevent overflshlng: KING MACKEREL PROPOSED MEASURES MEASURE A - FUTURE CONFL I CTS A. The Secretary of Commerce may Imp lement measures des I gned to provl de Ilmltat Ions, where appropriate, on any gear or device used In the king mackerel fishery to reduce gear and user group conflicts. The Secretary, after consultation with the affected Councils, may take the following action by regulatory amendment based on the following criteria: . ( 1 ) When a conflict arises through expansion of a historical fishery In a traditional fishing area or region, the Secretary shall Investigate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economic and sociological Impacts of any viable limitations on the expanded fishery or other users, other 9: i ut Ions to the conf II ct and other rei evant factors.~- - The Secretary, after con sultation with the aff~cted Councils and states, may reslve the ~nfllct as fairly as possible by taking one or more of the following actions: ( a) Separate the users or gear by area (t I sh Ing zone). ( b) Separate the users or gear by t I me (day of week). (c) Assign local quotas to each gear or user group based on the historical catches of each for that local area. ( d) A i low un II m I ted usage of the gear or dev Ice. (2) When the conflict arises through the Introduction of gear or devices Into new regions where they have not been historically fished, the Secretary shall Investigate the harvesting capa city and efficiency of the new gear or device In the local area, the economic and soclo logi cal Impacts on users of historical gear, the historical level of stock abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultation with the affected Councils and states, take one or more of the following actions: ( a) Prohibit use of the gear or device In that geographical area. ( b) Allow only limited use of the gear or device to ncre fully evaluate Its Impacts and potent lal s. (c) Limit the number of units of the gear or device which can be utilized In that area. ( d) Allow unlimited usage of the gear or device. (3) When a conf Ilct arises as a result of circumstances In the fishery, other than as described In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures designed to obviate such conflicts by measures provided for In (1) and (2) above, or take such other action as may be appropriate and necessary to reslve such conflicts In a manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan, the National Standards, the MFCMA and other applicable law. RIR-3 FORT PIERCE OPT I ON B. When the Regional Director, Southeast Region, NMFS, determines, based on rell~ble Information, that a conflict, as described In FMP Section 8.2.6, exists or Is about to exist, he will take one of the following actions by field order. The time period during which such restrictions shall be enforced will be determined by length of time a direct conflict exists or Is expected to exist. ( 1) Establish a fishing window within the following points: (a) Bethel Shoal light (27° 44.3'N, 80° 10.4'W). ( b) A wreck 15 miles southeast of Fort Pierce Inlet (270 23.5'N, 80° 3.7'W). (c) Marker WR 16, five miles northeast of JupIter Inlet (27° 0.6'N, 80° 2.0'W). (d) 100 fm depth due east of pol nt c (27° 0.6'N, 79° 55.0'W). (e) 100 fm depth due east of point b (27° 23.5'N, 79° 54.0'W). ~~ (f) 100 fm depth due east of pol nt a (27° 44.3'N, 79° 53.5'W). The Regional Director may prohibit use of gill-net gear to take king mackerel wIThin the area a-b e-f, b-c-d-e or a-c-d-f. If additional action Is needed, prohibIt use of hook and lIne gear to take king mackerel within a window landward of a line between the points a-b, b-c or a-c. (2 ) Establish two fishing zones seaward (east) of state Jurisdiction. These zones shall be the waters of the FCZ between 27° 10' north latitude and 27° 50' north latitude divided Into two areas along the II ne of 27° 30' norh latitude. ( a) In the first year In which a conflict arises, the use of gll i nets for taking of king mackerel shall be prohibited In the area south of 270 30' north latItude and use of hook and" ne gear for takl ng of kl ng mackerel shall be proh Ibl ted I n the area norh of 27° 30' north latitude. In any succeedln~ year when a conf Ilct develops. the area In whlch each ~ear Is prohlblted may be chan~ed. ( b) When a conflict arises, use of each gear within the zone between 270 10'N and 27° 50'N may be alternated dally. (I) On even days of the month, use of gill-net gear to take kl n9 mackerel may be pro h I b I ted . (I I) On odd days of the month, use of hook and I I ne gear to take kl n9 mackerel may be prohibited. (c) Close the fishery for kl ng mackerel to a II users wi th I n the zone between 270 10 'N and 27° 50'N. This measure shall only be Imposed If the conflict results In: (I) Death or serious bodIly Injury. (II) SIgnIficant gear loss. Procedures for evaluating the existence of a conflict: RIR-4 ( 1) (2 ) The following procedures must be employed regard I ng the ex I stence of a coof I I ct for ImplementatIon of such a field order. by the Regional Director In his decisIon process wh I ch a f I el d order Is appropr I ate and pr I or to the (a) At such time as the Regional Director Is advised by any party that a conflict exists, he must confirm the existence of such 8 conflict through Information supplied him by NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard or other approprl ate law enforcement agencl es. ( b) In the event that such Information Is not ascertaInable fran those law enforcent per sonnel as provided In (a) above, such confirmation may be made through Information supplied by personnel of the state agency with marine fishery management responsIbility. (c) Confer with the Chairmen of the affected Councils, with the marine fishery management responsibility, Regional Director deems appropriate, If any. the office of the state agency(s) and such other persons as the Restrl ct Ions on f I el d orders ~-'. (a) No flel d order may be Implemented which results In the exclusive access of any user group or gear type to the fishery during the time the field order Is In existence. ( b) A field order may be rescinded by the Regional Director If he finds through application of the same procedures set forth In (I) above that the conflict no longer exists. (c) No field order may be Implemented for a time period greater than five (5) days except under the conditions set forth In Section (e) above. . (d) At such time as the RegIonal DIrector submits to the Federal Register a field order for Implementation under these provl s Ions, he shall Immed I atel y arrange for a fact-f I ndl ng meeting In the area of the conflict to be convened no later than 72 hours fran the time of Implementation of the field order. The following shall be advised of such fact find I ng meet I ng : ( I) The Chairmen of the affected Councils; (2) The office of the state agency with fishery management responsibility; (3) Local media; (4 ) Such user group representatives or organizations as may be.approprlate and pract Icab Ie; (5) Others as deemed appropriate by the Regional Director or as requested by Chairmen of the af fected Council s or the state agency. This fact-fInding meeting shall be for the purpose of evaluating the following: ( 1) The existence of a conflict needing resolution by the field order; (2 ) The appropriate term of the field order, I.e., either greater or less than five (5) days; (3) Other possible solutions to the conflict other than federal Intervention; RIR-5 (4) Other relevant matters. (e) In the event It Is determined as a result of the fact-finding meeting that the ter of the fIeld order should excee five (5) days, the Regional Director may., after cOo sultatlon with the Chairmen of the affected Councils and the Invo Ived state agency, extend such field order for a period not to exceed 30 days from the date of Initial Implementation. In the .event the Regional Director determines that It Is necessary or appropriate for the term of such field order to extend beyond 30 days, such extension may be made after consultation with th.e Chairmen of the affected Councils and for such period of time as necessary and appropriate to reso Ive the conf Ilct. ALLOCATIONS C. A total allowab Ie catch shall be estab II shed at 37 mil I Ion pounds per year. ( 1) Annual stock al locatIons shall be made as fo I lows: 28 million pounds for the recreational fishery and nine million pounds for the comercl al fishery. \ ( 2) ¡;.,- . The commercial allocation shall be divided between hook and line gears and net ~ears as fo I lows: Hook and line: Nets 3,877,200 pounds 5,122,800 pounds (3) I f the catch of any user group exceeds Its allocat Ion, the Secretary shal I c lose the fishery to that group for the rema I nder of the fish Ing year. (4) Commercial and recreational fishermn defined as follows: A commercl al fisherman I s a per9:n who sells his catch. A recreat lona i f I sherman I s a person who does not se I I his catch. MINIMUM MESH SIZE D. The minimum mesh size In the FCZ for all king mackerel gill nets shall be 4-3/4 Inches stretched mesh In the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic RegIonal Councils' areas of Jurisdiction. BAG, TRIP AND SIZE LIMITS E. ( 1) The Regional Direcor, Southeast Region, NMFS, may Institute a bag limit for king mackerel taken by recreational or recreational for hire users and/or a trip limit for commercial users by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data becoes available and after con sultation with the affected Councils. (2) The Regional Director, Southeast Region, NMFS, may InstItute a size limit by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data becoes available and after consultation with the affected Council s. SPAN I SH MACKEREL PROPOSED MEASURES RIR~ MEASURE A - FUTURE CONFLICTS A. ~.N SIZE LIMIT B. The Secretary of Commerce may Implement measures desIgned to provide limitations, where appropriate, on any gear or device used In the SpanIsh mackerel fishery to reduce gear and user group conflicts. The Secretary, after consultation with the affected Councils, may take the followIng action by regulatory amendment based on the followIng criteria: (1) When a conflict arises through expansion of a hIstorical fIshery In a traditional fishing area or regIon, the Secretary shall Investigate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economic and sociological Impacts of any vIable limitations on the expanded fishery or other users, other 9:lutlons to the conflict and other relevant factors. The Secretary, after con sultation with the affected Councl Is and states, may res Ive the conflict as faIrly as possible by takIng one or more of the following actions: ( a) Separate the users or gear by area (f I sh I ng zo ne). ( b) Separate the users or gear by time (day of week). ~.. (c) Assign local quotas to each gear or user group based on the hIstorical catches of each for that local area. (d) Allow un limIted usage of the gear or devIce. ( 2) When the conf II ct arl ses through the I ntroduct Ion of gear or devl ces 'nto new regions where they have not been hIstorically fIshed, the Secretary shall Investigate the harvesting capa city and efficiency of the new gear or device In the local area, the economic and sociologi cal Impacts on users of historical gear, the historical level of stock abundance In the area and the other relevant factors. The Secretary may, after consultation with the affectec Council s and states, take one or more of the fo flowl ng act Ions: ( a) Proh I bit use of the gear or dev I ce I n that geograph I ca I area. ( b) Allow only limited use of the gear or devIce to nore fully evaluate Its Impacts and potent lals. (c) Limit the number of unIts of the gear or device which can be utilized In that area. ( d) Allow un limited usage of the gear or device. (3) When a conflict arises as a result of circumstances In the fIshery, other than as described In (1) or (2) above, the Secretary may Implement measures designed to obviate such conflIcts by measures provided for In (I) iind (2) above, or take such other action as may be appropr I ate and necessary to res i ve such conf II ct sIn a manner cons I stant wi th the goa I sand objectives of the plan, the National Standards, the MFCMA and other applIcable law. SIze Limit ( 1 ) A 12-lnch fork length minimum size limit shall be set on Spanish mackerel In both the commer cial and recreational fisherIes. RIR-7 (2) A catch allowance for underized fish will be allowed equal to five percent of the total catch by weight of SpanIsh mackerel on board a vessel In the Spanish mackerel fishery or any oTher fishery. BAG LIMITS, TRIP LIMITS C. The Regional Director, Southeast Region, NMFS, may Institute a bag limit for Spanl.sh mackerel taken by recreational or recreational for hire users and/or a trip limit for canmerclal users by the regulatory amendment process when supporting data become available and after consultation with the af fected Council s. FISHERY CLOSURE D. If OY Is taken, the fishery for SpanIsh mackerel will be closed for The remainder of that fishing year. \ \. COB i A PROPOSED MEASURES ;;~ . The following measure Is proposed for cobia by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Councils: A. Possession of cobIa less than 33 Inches fork length shall be prohibited in the FCZ. PROPOSED PURSE SE I NE MEASURES A. ( 1) Harvest of king mackerel by purse seine gear will be allowed up to a maximum of 400,000 pounds per year I n the area of jur I sd i ct Jon of the Gu i f CouncIl, and 400,000 pounds per year In the area of jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council. Any purse seine harvestwlll be tountedwlthln the commercial allocation for all net gears. A. (2 ) Harvest of Spanish mackerel pounds per year I n the area area of jurisdiction of the by purse seine gear wi II be allowed up to a maximum of 300,000 of jurisdiction of the Gulf Council, and 300,000 pounds In the South Atl ant Ic Council. B. Observers, under the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, must be required on all purse seine vessels while fishing for king or Spanish mackerel during the first three fishing years after this plan Is In effect. STATI ST I CAL REPORT I NG MEASURES A. The Councl Is conceptually accept a vessel enumeration system and creel census data system that would provide sufficient Information for fishery management. Mechanics of the system are to be developed by National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regulatory Measures Committee. B. Require a reporting system for all user groups and processors based on statistical sampling whereby It would be mandatory for a selected respondent to provide answers to the sampling questionnaire on a recurring basis that Is not of great frequency. AI ternat I ve Mana~ement Measures Management measures cons I de red and not adopted by the Councl i s are d I scu ssed under Sect Ion I V (B), Regulatory Impacts - Alternative Management Measures. RIR-8 II. ANAL YS i S OF PREV 10US YEAR'S FMP Not applicable since no PMP or FMP Is now In effect for coastal migratory pelaglcs. III. METHODOLOGY A. Procedura I Framework The procedure used In estimating the economic Impacts will adopted and rejected management measures. Each management analyzed with regard to Its effect on: Include a systematic dl scusslon of both measure to the extent possible, wi II be ( 1) Changes In price - price flexlbilities will be used where appropriate. (2) Changes In supply - effects on production and marketing costs and related changes throughout the distribution system. ;;--" (3) Changes In employment - total number of Jobs affected. (4) D I strlbut Ion of t Ion, reprt Ing groups. Income, benefits or costs - universe of affected flshenmn, Income dlstrlbu burden, and other effects on vessels, crewshares, processors, and user ( 5) Productivity - relative to altering output, Investment, and technology. (6) International Implications - effect on foreign fishing or foreign markets. (7) Market structure - changes In the size, number or locations of firms. (8) Government - administration, data collection, and enforcemnt costs. After all measures are examined, Impacts under the above categries will be summarized. B. Data Base Most data used In this RIR are contained In the FMP. iV. REGULATORY IMPACTS Management measures considered and currently In effect In the Gulf and South Atlantic st~tes or through the NMFS are reprted I n the FMP. Management performance under the measures In ef fect will serve as the basis n)r estimating the added economic Impact of new or different measures. The Impacts of the proposed management measures are summarized In Table 1. A. Proposed Mana~ement Measures 1. Kln~ Mackerel A. No adverse economic Impacts are anticipated or can be quantified until a specific conflict Is addressed. Any negat Ive Impacts will depend on what act Ion, If any, Is taken. The measure requires the Regional Director and the relevant Council to IrNestlgate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economic and sociological Impacts of any viable limitations on the expanded fishery or other users. Given the fact that the economic effects of any action will be evaluated, RIR-9 T ab le 1 . S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c I m p a c t s o f t h e P r o p o s e d M a n a g e m e n t M e a s u r e s P ro po se d M an ag em en t In te rn at io na l M ar ke t G ov er nm en t R e cr e a t lo n a l M ea su re P ri ce S up pl y E m p l o y m e n t R ev en ue s P ro du ct I v lt y I m p a ct S tr uc tu re C os ts P ar ti ci pa ti on K i n g M a c k e r e l A . 0 0 0 0 P o t e n t i a l s m a l l 0 0 1 0 I n cr e a se I f g e a r c o n f I l c t I s a v o i d e d . B . 0 0 0 0 P o t e n t i a l s m a l l 0 0 1 0 I n cr e a se I f g e a r c o n f l i c t I s a v o i d e d . c. P os si bl e H o l d s s u p p l y 0 P os si bl e P o t e n t i a l t o 0 M a y s e r v e t o 1 H o I d s re cr e a I n cr e a se I n t o 9 m i l l i o n o p p o rt u n I t y r e d u c e g i l l n e t m a i n t a i n a t lo na l ca tc h to e x c e p t l o n a l l y po un ds . P os l o s s o f p r o d u c t I v i t y I f le ss 28 m il li on g o o d y e a r. s l b i l i t y t h a t $ 1 . 2 4 m i l l i o n al lo ca ti on I s co nc en tr at e po un ds . ¡; t h I s l e v e l w o u I d to g ill n e t re ac he d. h a rv e st I n g H ;d b e b e l o w f u t u r e f I e a t . s e c t o r i l u n r e g l a t e d s u p p l y a In o cc as io na l ye ar s. D . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 E . o o o o P re ve n ts o ve rt I s h I n g 2 o o o 'I , I. ¡ , T o t a l e n f o r c e m e n t c o s t I s $ 2 9 4 , 4 4 4 a n n u a l l y . 2 P r e v e n t i o n o f o v e r f l s h l n g r e s u l t s I n b e n e f i t s b e t w e e n $ 5 . 6 m i l l i o n a n d $ 2 7 . 9 m i l l i o n p l u s a c h i e v e m e n t o f O Y / M S Y e v e r y y e a r . Ñi: - a)ëë0 N II .a a)0) i:i: .¡ i: :J .¡0 n¡ 0 II N0 0 0 1I .c ã):; i: 0.¡.- .¡II e a) a)n¡ 0 i: - .a II i:a) :; a) .. .¡n¡L :: L .c Ëa) UJ0 L a) a) II Qj ::a) n¡ L :: - a.c: a. a. 0 lL - L U .¡ i: a) II e .¡i: II 0L 0 a) U :: 8 . a) N a) L n¡.¡:; L a) .¡ .¡.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :: i: 0L :; n¡ a)n¡ L :: 0:: .¡ en II a) L :; IIn¡ a)::.¡ i: a)e Q) 0)n¡ i: n¡:: i: a) II o 0 o L a. a).c.¡ .¡ ::.¡ o :;i: o L a. II a) :; i: a) :: a) c: .. o II.¡o n¡ 0 e o ~ i: o o UJ .. o :: L ~ e:; en :; en ~ .i:.¡ i: o o.. a) o L a. a) .a n¡ I .¡ i: i: a) a) e a) II a) L.o 0) :;0- n¡ IIo i: n¡ L. n¡ a)a. :: :: o L n¡ 0 a) ::~ 0) n¡ II .. II n¡ a) .¡ II 0 .¡ n¡ -i: a) -a) L ...¡ 0 i: o i: 0 a. .- 0 o o o a) L a¡ .0 o n¡:: .c II o i: n¡ en . cC o .i: a)i: o o o o .¡ i: n¡ o .. a)- :: .i: .¡ O).¡ 0.- - n¡ II II 0-i: 0 e 0 . cc o o o o N 0) i: .c II N 0) i: .c II .. L a) :: o II.¡ i: a) :: a) L a. .. L a) :: o II.¡ i: a) :: a) L a. L o.. a) II n¡ a) L o i: i: .- :: n¡ L.¡ .¡L II a) :;o i:i: i::: o a) II n¡ a) L o a)c o a) LlII n¡ .. a) CDL .. o i: :: .a . a) a¡- II.a n¡ a) II L II 0o i:a. . o a) II n¡ a) L o a)c . a) a¡- II.a n¡ a) II L II 0o i:a. . o o a) II n¡ a) L o a¡c IIi::: i:.a :; o a) 0 IIn¡ 0a) 0L '"o ..i: ,. N . a) a)- II.a n¡ a) II L II 0o i:a. o Q) II n¡ a) L o i: a) i: o o . U il a) en a) II L :; a. . cC . C . cC RIR-ll o ;;0." o o o o o . CD T a b l e I . ( c o n t d . ) S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c I m p a c t s o f t h e P r o p o s e d M a n a g e m e n t M e a s u r e s P ro po se d M an ag em en t M ea su re P ri ce In te rn at io na l M ar ke t G ov er nm en t R ec re at io na l S u p p I y E m p lo ym e n t R e ve n u e s P ro d u ct I v lty I m p a ct S tr u ct u re C o st s P a rt l c l p a t Io n A . S ta t I st I c a I R ep or ti n o o o o o o o $7 6, 69 1 1 , 2 5 9 h o u r s r a p o r t I n g bu rd en B . :; H :; I I- tV o o o o 1 , 2 4 0 h o u r s re pr ti ng bu rd en o o $5 ,1 68 o ',. , " ' It Is likely that the benefits as~clated with the reslution of a conflict will outweigh any detr Imental Impacts. Posslb Ie Impacts, although un II kel y, may I nc I ude short-term unemp loyment resulting from the closure of a fishery, reduced productivity due to gear restrictions and reduced landings resulting from area closures. Because the measure requires that potential economic and sociological Impacts be Investigated before actions are taken, It can be anticipated that solu tions that minimize or cause no .changes In supply, prices, employment, revenues and Incoe will result. In fact, having the framework to deal with potential gear conflicts will, In all lIkeli hood, contribute to productivIty In the long run by preventing economic disruption. The costs of enforcement for th Is measure, and all other proposed measures as a who Ie, are stated at the end of this section. B. N; adverse economic effects are anticipated or can be quantified until a conf Ilct develops and one or more methods are chosen to address It. By the nature of this field order, action must be taken. Without this measure, unreslved conflicts wi i I lead to economic loss through reduced efficiency, catches and revenue on the part of diverse comercial user groups, Including for-hire recreational operations; social benefits enjoyed by recreational fishermen would also be reduced. Th Is measure wi II minimize adverse economic effects, If any, on such user groups who wi II all be subject to restrictions Im~sed under the field order. Hook and line 56åts may be restricted to deeper water where they have traditionally fished and can operate easily, and net boats may be restricted to shallower water where they have traditionally fished and can operate safely. The affected area accounts for 400,713 pounds of commercial landings ($304,542) during the most affected time period (January-February), and approximately $840,000 In revenue to local charter/ h ead boats. Part of this, or all, may be affected by a possible conflict and a resulting field order, and depend I ng on wh I ch opt Ion I s chosen. c. This measure addressed Issues In the fishery (2) and (3) and attempts to achieve Objective 1 under king mackerel. Because of the Intense copetition for the resurce and the large amunt of capi tal Invested by various user groups, the resurce Is allocated among them. The allocations are based on the average percentage of total landings contributed by each group. Therefore, the pro bability of any group exceeding their allocation In anyone year, at the expense of another group, i slow. The allocation attempts to prevent overflshlng of the resurce while maintaining the historic distribution of catch among user groups. Any closure of the fishery to a specific group or loca lity may cause short-term adverse economic effects. However, these possible losses are the short term sacrifice necessary to prevent overflshlng and decreases In catch In future years. The commercial fishing sector would be the least affected from any local or general closure of the fishery. This user group Is highly mobile with respect to fishing area, and can also target other species for revenue during the year. The handline segment's largest annual catch to date (1975) Is only 80 percent of Its proposed allocation. Hypothetical catches In excess of the allocation should be regarded as opportunity costs, I.e., foregne revenue In an alternative enterprise which cannot be engaged In, In this case. The opportunity cost concept can be applied to the gill-net segment as well, In which the proposed allotment was exceeded In 1974 and possibly 1977. The. estimate for the difference In catch In 1974 (1.63 million pounds) would be $1.24 million using the 1980 average price of $0.76 per pound of klngflsh. This estimate can be cons Idered the maxImum potential opportun Ity cost to this group. The recreational fishing sector would be more seriously affected In the kIng mackerel fishery If a closure affecting this group should occur. Altogether this sector accounted for $54.7 mil lion of expenditures and 1,590 person-years of employment In 1980. Rocreatlonal-for-hlre fishermen would experience an actual drop In revenue and Incoe, unless they redirect sport fishermen to other specl es, as they are pa Id on a da Ii y bas I s rather than a per pound bas I s. Recreat Ion I sts In pr I vate RIR-13 boats V\uld be restricted to fish for other species. A closure would also affect complementary firms support I ng the recreat lonal sector. The magn I tude of these ef fects wou I d vary wi th the extent and duration of the closure, as recreational participation varies In the management area by time of year. A closure of the fishery would likely take place at the end of a fishIng year, during April, May and June. Such timing would mainly affect the fishery In the northern south Atlantic and norther Gulf areas. Prorating the number of charter/headboats and private boats In North and South Carolina, the Florida panhandle, Alabama, Mississippi, and louisiana (east of Mississippi River), to recreational revenue/sales for the Gulf and south Atlantic In 1980, approximately $6.2 million and 180 man-years of employment may be affected by c losing off the last half of their season. D. No adverse economic Impacts are expected as a result of this proposed management measure. The restriction on mesh size wi II not require any alteration to the gill nets currently used In the fishery and Is consistent with existing Florida law. Nearly all king mackerel gilinetting takes place In waters off the coast of Florida, and the measure Is copatible with the current practices In the fishery. Thus, no regulatory or economic burden Is placed on Industry. This measure also prevents use of net with mesh smaller than 4-3/4 Inches wh Ich results In harvest of smaller mackerel and In waste through the "fall-out" of larger Individuals cau g!!t In the net. ;;-c." E. These proposed measures are Intended to prevent overflshln9 and would be Implemented only If data Inclated that other management measures already In effect had been Ineffective In preventing over fishing. These measures have no Impact of any kind until Implemented. No estimate of short- or long-term Impacts can be precisely stated until one or more restrictions are proposed. If Implemented, short-term adverse economic Impacts on the users V\uld occur In order to maintain long-term pro ductivity of the resurce. Trip limit restrictions would Impact the commercial sector most severely, while bag and/or size limits on the recreational sector would reduce mortality but not short run participation In the fishery. These measures would have substantially less Impact than a closure of the fishery. A closure of the fishery wou i d jeopard I ze both the commercl al and recreational revenue/sales cited above, employment, and disrupt markets for mackerel. Monetary estimates are difficult to quantify but would exceed $8.9 million. 2. Sp an Ish Mackere I A. No ad verse econom I c Impact s are ant I c I pated or can be q uant I fi ed un t ii a spec I f I c conf II ct Is addressed. Any negat Ive Impacts will depend on what act lon, I f any, I s taken. The measure requires the Regional Direcor and the relevant COuncil to Investigate the causes and extent of the conflict, the economic and sociological Impacts of any viable limitations on the expanded fishery or other users. Given the fact that the economic effects of any action will be evaluated It Is likely that the benef Its associated with the res lutlon of a conflict wll'l outweigh any detrimental Impacts. Possible Impacts, although unlikely, may Include soort-tenn unemployment resulting from the closure of a fishery, reduced productivity due to gear restrictions and reduced landings resulting from area closures. Because the measure requires that potential economic and soclo loglcllf Impacts be Investigated before actions are taken, It can be ant Iclpated that 9: lu" tlons that minimize or cause no changes In supply, prices, employment, revenues and Incoe will result. In fact, having the framework to deal with potential gear conf Ilcts will, In all II kef 1 hood, contribute to productivity In the long run by preventIng economic disruption. The costs of enforcement for th Is measure, and all other proposed measures as a who Ie, are stated at the end of this section. Since the Spanish mackerel fishery Is less contentious with respect to use~ com petition, this measure Is less likely to be enacted. B. Little or no negative economic Impact can be anticipated as a result of this measure due to the small level of catch of less than twelve-Inch Spanish mackerel. The State of Florida (which RIR-14 accounts for over 95 percent of the commercial catch) currently has a twelve-Inch minimum size limit. Fish under this size are not particularly desirable because they cannot be filleted or cut Into steaks. Thus, they have a limited food value which results In larger fish receiving a higher price per pound. Because of thIs price differential, commercial fishermn actively attempt to target the schoo is of larger fish current i y. This measure does not appear to significantly affect the recreational fishery as sportflshermen generally prefer a large fish. The catch of small Spanish mackerel by recreational fishermen Is not thought to be large, and releasIng undersized fish Is faIrly easy In the recreational fishery. Thus, no new economic or regulatory burdens are placed on Industry or the sportflshlng public. c. Th I s proposed measure I s I ntended to prevent overf I sh I ng and wou I d Inclated that other management measures already In effect had been fish I ng. be Implemented only If data I n effect I ve I n prevent I ng over This measure has no Impact of any kind until Implemented. i' estimate of short- or long-term Impacts can be precisely stated until one or irre restrictions are pr~sed. If Implemented, short-term adverse economic Impacts on the users would occur In order-'f maintain long-term pro ductivity of the resurce. Trip limit restrictions would Impact the commercial sector most severely, while bag and/or size limits on the recreational sector would reduce mortality but not short run participation In the fishery. These measures would have substantially less Impact than a closure of the fishery. A closure of the fishery would Jeopardize both the commercial and recreational revenue/sales cited above, employment, and disrupt markets for mackerel. Monetary estimates are difficult to Quantify but would exceed $5 mil lion. D. Any closure of the fishery would be carefully considered In light of such factors as an abnormally high abundance of fish, Increased local availability, Increased effort, Inaccuracies In the historical landings data and other factors which may show that there Is a minimal posItive bio logical Impact associ ated with closure. A closure would cause short-term adverse economic effects on commercial and recreational fisheries. Although these effects may be decreased through the extent fishermen can redIrec their efforts to other species, these possible losses are the short-term sacrifice necessary to prevent overflshlng and decreases In catch In future years. Overflshlng would Jeopardize the com mercial and recreational values of $3.1 million and $48.4 million, respectively, In 1980 and employment opportunities In excess of 1,250 person-years. 3. Proposed Cob I a Measures A 33-lnch fork length restrict Ion Is expected to have a minimal Impact on commarcl al harvesters of cobia; It Is not a prime target species and Is usually a bycatch. Oommerclal catch Is expected to Increase approximately In proportion 10 the expected Increase In total yield. This Increase Is expected at 10-32 percent (21 percent average); since this species Is long-lived and has several year classes at one time In the fishery, thIs yield Increase would be the total expected afTer five years. Average cobia landings between 1967 and 1977 were 130,000 pounds; average price In the fishery was $0.40 In May, 1981; usIng yield Increases of 3.2 percent, 3.7, 4.2,4.2, and 4.2for a five-year period (to account for compounding) and a ten percent discount factor, the pres ent value of Increased revenue over five years Is $8,150. This will be widely distributed among many fishermen from severa 1st ates. Recreational fishermen In the Gulf and south Atlantic landed an estimated 900,000 pounds of cobia In 1970, or about 119,000 fish (see Section 8.0 of the FMP); the 1979 NMFS recreational survey contained no cobia Information. While this measure will decrease recreational catches In the RIR-15 short-term while the stock replenishes Itself, no measurable negative economic Impacts can be anticipated because the fishery Is so small. Cobia make up only 1.6 percent, at most the total catch of charter vessels In the fishery (Section 8.2.1.2 of the FMP). In local areas of the northwestern Gulf, however, cobia tournilents are Important for about one month out of an elght month sea9:n, representing approximately $3 million In revenues to charter/head boats. 4. Purse Seine Measures A. This measure to allow limited use of purse seine gear In the mackerel fisheries would under various assumptions cause economic effects ranging from Increased total Industry revenue to signi ficantly reduced catch per unit effort (CPUE) for all other users. A survey (Centaur Associates, 1981) has shown that at least 75 percent of firms which would employ purse seines would coe from the existing net boat fleet. Therefore, most of the differential In catch and revenue would remain In the existing Industry; however, since purse seines are more efficient gear than gill nets, the catch and revenue may be reallocated among Industry members. This measure to limit a purse seine fishery Is neces!Xry because when a FMP Is Implemented for the mackerel fishery It Is the position of the Councils that state regulatlon!! wlil not be appllcab Ie In the FCZ. In such a situation the Introduction of a new gear may have -Sbstantial and adverse Impacts on all other users, especially a purse seine which Is much more efficient than existing gear In the fishery. To comply with the national standards of the Magnuson Act and yet recogn Ize the ecnomic and social concerns In the fishery, this measure limiting purse seine use Is proposed. In the situation that the total allocation for net gears Is not attained by 800,000 pounds or more, then purse seine operations for klngflsh In the Gulf and south Atlantic would Increase I ndustry catch and revenue up to a maximum of 800,000 pounds and $608,000 annua I iy. However, because of their greatar efficiency, purse seine gear would negatively affect the CPUE for other users by 5.6 percent each (Table 2). Assuming linearity between catch, effort, and costs, other user groups will either expend 5.6 percent more effort and cost to catch the same amount or earn 5.6 percent less revenue. The monetary Impacts are II sted I n Tab Ie 3. Under the same circumstances for Spanish mackerel and Its OY/MSY, purse seine operations would Increase Industry catch and revenue up to a maximum of 600,000 pounds and $156,000 annually. Effects on CPUE of other user groups and monetary Impacts are listed In Tables 2 and 3. For both mackerels, Increased landings would not depress the per unit price of all mackerel because of the essentially zero price flexibility estimates (Cenhur, 1961, p. 204). The price of purse seine caught fish would be similar to that caught by hook and line because of comparable quality. The size of purse seine caught fish may be smaller which would decrease per unit price; however, until purse seine operations begin, the size question Is unsubstantiated. In the situation that the klngflsh net gear allocation will be attained, then purse seine opera t Ions harvesting the maximum allowable will decrease CPUE of all other net boats 14 to 28 percent (Centaur, 1981; p. 212). Total I ndustry catch and revenue \IU I d rema I n constant, but It wou i d be allocated on a more skewed distribution. Individual gIll-net boats would experience a 14 to 28 percent decline In CPUE and revenue at the expense of fewer purse seine operatIons. The two other user groups for klngflsh (Table 2) would experience declines In CPUE comparable to the above situation. Monetary Impacts In this example are listed In Table 3. In a situation where OY/MSY may be attained 9:mewhere between Its estimate and 800,000 pounds (600,000 for Spanish mackerel) below It, then the Impacts on user groups would vary between zero to 28 percent for klngflsh and zero to 1.9 percent for Spanish mackerel. The likelihood of attaining the OY/MSY estimate Is conditional on extenuating factors discussed for proposed measure 2.D. RIR-16 Tab Ie 2. Decrease In catch per unit effort for king and Spanish mackerels from allocation taken by purse seine fleet. User Group Type of allocatlonl Klng2 Fishery Span I Sh3 Large sca I e net General Specific General 5.6 percent4 28.0 percent4 1.9 percent4 Small scale net 1.9 percent Hook and II ne Gen era i Recreat lona I Genera i 5.6 percent 5.6 percent 1.9 percent Type of allocation refers to whether the purse seIne allocation Is made under conditions where the OY/MSY will not be attained overall (General), or where the OY/MSY wi II be attained and the alloca tion will be taken from that al lowed all net gears (Specific). 2 A 800,OOo-pound allocation In the Gulf and south Atlantic. 3 A 600,OOo-pound allocation in the Gulf and south Atlantic. ""7:. 4 This estImate Is approximately twice the probable percentage since any decrease In gill-net catch will be irre than offset by a corresj)ndlng Increase In purse seine catch, 75 percent of wh Ich accrues to converted large-scale gill netters. Source: Centaur Associates, 1981; Exhibit 8-1, and discussion, p. 211. Tab Ie 3. Monetary Impacts to kl n9 and Span I sh mackerel user groups from allocat Ion taken by purse seine fleet. User Group No. of Un Its Revenue/Sa I es! i n crease Decrease OR Increased Costs Purse seine fleet 1 Large scale gl II net1 (General allocat Ion) 13 $764,000 $52,000 Small scale gill net2 Hook and" ne3 Recreat Ion a 11 70 1534 1715 $132,.358 46, 525 117,285 9,972 85,576 37,701 Charter/head boat Private boat owners 1,082 90,000 1.3 mil lion 2.8 mIllion TOTAL $764,000 $4.4 mil lion $216,958 Includes operations from king and Spanish mackerel; see text for recreational discussion. 2 Operations from Spanish mackerel only. 3 Operations from kl n9 mackerel only. 4 5 Includes 130 full-time vessels and 23 part-time. Includes 105 full-time vessels and 66 part-time Source: Centaur Associ ates, 1981. RIR-17 The cost of th 1 s measure will be borne by the National Mar I ne Fisher I es Servl ce wI th hel p from The Councils and Interested states. No additional funding should be required as the level of effort necessary to provide observers Is expected to be small, and Is well within the current capabiliTY of the agencies Invol ved. The range of possIble observer days Is expecTed to be 47 - 520, with the lower end of the range being much more likely (see FMP SectIon 12.3.5.1). 5. Stat 1st I ca I Report I n9 Measures A. Recreational data will be collected through surveys and Interview techniques. A one-question addition to state vessel registration forms to Identify the universe of boaters can be accomplished with almost no additional cost. The surveys for boat owners would be conducted annua Ily and for nonboat owners once every three years. The cost for every recreational contacT will be about the same as contacts under NMFS NatIonal Survey, or $8.75. Based on a 90,000 boaT unIverse targeting the management unIt and a five percent (random) sample, annual costs for thIs segment are $39,375. Based on a 353,540 shore fIshermen universe and a three percent (random) sample, total cost of thIs segment Is $92,801. Since this would be an every-three-year survey, annual cost based on a capItal recovery factor, three years at ten percent would be $37,316. Total annual recreational costs are $76,691. Although these data collection costs appear subs Tan t I ai, they wou I d dec" ne for each exl stl ng FMP as other plans are I mp i emen~,. Report I ng burden Is 1,259 hours based on five minutes per fisherman. B. Data from commercial and recreatlonal-for-hlre fishermen will be gathered primarily through exIsting NMFS reporting efforts. Some additional samplylng of these user groups wll I be necessary to estimate fishing effort. The economic Impact to Industry of additional reporting on randomly selected fIshermen Is maInly one of lost time. Per \esse i costs to the government for printing., distribution, collection, data processing, and publIcation Is expected to be $20 to $25. Reporting would take place annually at Intervals specified by NMFS and Its statistical reporting division. Based on a un I \erse of 394 full- and part-time commercIal operators and a 25 percent sample, annual costs for this segment are $1,970 to $2,463. Based on a universe of 1,082 charter/headboat operators and a ten percent sample, annual costs for this segment are $2,164 TO $2,705. Total annual costs for this effort are $4,134 to $5,168. The reporting burde.n Is 1,240 hours based on s Ix hours per year per respondent. Report I ng Measure B supports Measure A by req u I ring a rep I y from those persons se i ected for the sur vey. It al so I ncl udes processors I n the mandatory report I ng requl rement for that Information deemed necessary by NMFS. ThIs Information Is already being collected on a \Oluntary basis, bUT some processors do not report at present. Costs of th I s measure are I nc I uded I n Measure A. B. AL TERNAT I VE MANAGEMENT MEASURES The Incremental Impact that would have been associated with measures or the I mpact of not adopt I ng them Is descr I bed In native management measure are summarized In Table 4. the adopt Ion of the a i ternatl ve management thIs section. The Impacts of the alter AI ternat I ve Mana~ement Measures Cons I dered for King Mackere i Alternatlve Measure F would have placed a minimum size of four pounds on all king mackerel for both commercial and recreational fishermen. This measure was aimed at preventing harvest of king mackerel below the sIze corresponding to a maximum economic yield. Rejection of Alternative Measure F also results In not placing a minimum weIght on the recreational sector. It was rejected because: (1) the survival rate of kIng mackerel released by recreational fishermen Is low, (2) severe economic Impacts would be likely, and (3) small king mackerel are specIfically targeted by recreational particIpants. Undersized recreational catch has been reported as high as 79.5 percent In some localities (northwesT ,FlorIda In 1978 based on data from NMFS, Panama CIty Laboratory), and It Is believed thaT such a RIR-18 restriction would significantly curtail seyeral recreational fisheries. Recreational catch of these small king mackerel Is greatest In northwest Florida and detrimental economic Impacts could be expected to be most seyere In this region. Angler reaction and thus the economic Impact are Impossible to quantify; howeyer. the ad~rse economIc Impacts are bel I eyed to significantly outweigh any potential pos It I ye Impacts. AI ternat I va Measure G wh I ch wou I d II ml t the recreat I ona I catch to f I ye k i ng mackere I per day for each fisherman was considered and not proposed. This measure would haye unnecessarily restricted the catch of recreational fishermen whether or not the recreational allocation was reached. This measure would decrease the tota I catch of recreat lona i fishermen by an amount wh I ch cannot be ca i cu i ated wi th avaIlable data. Howeyer, It Is likely that It would haye a detrimental affect on participation In the fishery and would thus reduce the level of economic expenditures associated wIth the recreational king mackerel fishery. Total annual expenditures for the purchase of goods, charterboat fees and general tourism associated with the recreational king mackerel fishery for the region was estimated at $55 mIll Ion for 1980 (see Section 9.1.2 of the plan). Any reduction of recreational participation In the fishery can be expected to affect this leyel of expenditures; howeyer, the extent of the ImpacT cannot be prec I se i y stated. ,..".-" Alternatlye Measure H would requIre a minimum mesh size of five to 5-1/2 Inches for the kIng mackerel gIll-net fleet. This measure would Increase the average sIze of captured king mackerel by Increasing the mesh size used In the gill-net fleets. The motlye of such a measure would be to Increase the average size of captured fish and reduce the catch of fish I ess than 25 I nches. However, current nets wIth a 4-3/4 Inch mesh sIze wll i only be landing an estimated 24,157 pounds of undersized fish In 1980 or 0.47 percent of the total catch. Although no data Is available on a~rage fish sIze and escapement rates for different gl II-net mesh sizes, It Is most likely that landings and, thus, revenue of the gIll-net fleet would be substantially reduced. In addItion, a change In the mesh size wI II require a major refitting effort by the 33-yessel. fleet. TypIcally, each net averages 1,500 x 80 feet (Section 8.2.6.1 of this plan) and has an estimated replacement cost of $15,000. If this measure were Imposed on the fleet, an Initial outlay of $495,000 ($15,000 x 33) would be requIred by the entire fleet before the 1982 season. Alternatlye Measure I would establish a procedure for regulating length and height limitations on nets used In the kIng mackerel fishery should a kIng mackerel net fishery expand Into an area not hlstorJ ca II y f I shed. Th I s measure was not proposed I n II eu of Proposed Measure A. Measure A I s more comp i e tely defined, more expedIent and provides greater flexibility In dealing wIth new and unexpected problems whIch may arise. No economic Impacts can be anticIpated until a specIfic Issue Is addressed. Howeyer, the Impacts whIch can be anticipated as the result of dealing with a specific Issue would be equal to or slIghtly greater with this measure than under Proposed Measure A. This Is due to the fact that Measure A provides greater flexIbIlity In dealing with conflicts whIch may arIse. Alternatlye Measure J whIch would require permits for all vessels fishing In the FCZ was considered and not proposed. This measure was dIscussed as a possIble method to facIlitate data collection In the fishery. A statIstical reporting system based on mandatory trip tickets for commercial, party and charter boats and a vessel enumeration system for private boats based on the existing state registra tIon lists was substituted for this measure. A ~ssel permit system, assuming a $10 permIt fee (a typical charge necessary to coyer administrative expenses of permits) would cost the commercial fleet $14,760 and the estimated 90,000 private recreational boats targeting the specIes an addItional $900,000. The mandatory permit system was thus consIdered too expenslye for the marginal Increase In data derlyed and would have Imposed an unnecessary regulation on the fishery. Alternatlye Measure K would haye prohibited the use of purse gill nets with the Intent that this Issue be specifically discussed at public hearings. The direct economic Impacts of this regulation would be nonexIstent at this time as there are not any king mackerel purse gllinetters known to be operating In RIR-19 T ab le 4 . S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c I m p a c t s o f t h e A l t e r n a t i v e M a n a g e m e n t M e a s u r e s A I t e r n a t I ve M a n a g e m e n t I n t e r n a t I o n a I M ar ke t G ov er nm en t R ec re at l on al M e a su re P r Ic e S u p p I y E m p lo ym e n t R e ve n u e s P ro d u ct l v lty I m p a ct S tr u ct u re C Q Ji l5 P a rt I cl p a tlo n F . K I n g M a ck e re I G . H . I. J. K. L. M . S l i g h t p o s i t I v e I m p a c t . o o o o o S l i g h t p o s i t i v e I m p a c t o n k l n g m ac ke re l. o K i n g m a c k e r e l su pp ly r ed uc ed .. o S li gh t re d u ct I o n . o o o R e d u ct io n I n l a n d i n g s b y th e gi ll n et fl ee t. o o o o o o o o o o o P os si bl e re d u ct I o n . o P os si bl e re du cc I on . P o ss ib le I n te r~ ru p tlo n s ln s u p p l y o f k i n g m âc ke re l. o P o s s l b l I i t y t h a t a c h o n i I e : re tu rn s ir u I d bE r ed uc ed " o o o E xt e ri s I ve r e d u ct I o n o f r e c r e a t l o n a l ca tc h co nc en tr at ed I n s e ve ra I r e g I o n s. o o o E xt e n s I ve r e d u ct I o n I n r e c r e å t l o n a l ca tc h" P ro du ct iv it y r e d u c e d a n d $ 4 9 5 , 0 0 0 a d d i t i o n a l In ve st m e n t re q u ir e d . o o o P o t e n t i a l s m a l l In cr ea se . o o o L ic e n se f e e s ir U i d c o s t f l e e t $ 1 4 , 7 6 0 . o o L ic e n se f e e s w o u i d c o s t r e c r e a t l o n a l b o a t f I s h e r m a n $ 9 0 0 . 0 0 0 . S l i g h t p o t e n t I a l t o h o I d b a ck p ro d u ct I v i t y a t f u t u r e d a t e . o o o S l i g h t r e d u c t i o n . o o o 'i, Ii . P ro d u ct I v I t y re du ce d. o o o T a b l e 4 . ( c o n t d . ) S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c I m p a c t s o f t h e A l t e r n a t i v e M a n a g e m n t M e a s u r e s A lt er na ti ve M an ag em en t M ea su re N . o. t; H t; I N I P . Q . R . P ri ce o o o P os si bl e sl ig ht In cr ea se . o E . S pa n I sh M ac ke re I o In te rn at io na l M ar ke t G ov er nm en t R ec re at io na l S u p p I y E m p lo Y m e n t R e ve n u e s P ro d u ct I v lty I m p a ct S tr u ct u re C o st s P a rf I cl p a t Io n o o P o te n tia l f o r re d u ce d s u p p I y I f M S Y I s ex ce ed ed . U nc er ta In o o In cr ea se d r i s k o f c l o s u r e m a y r e s u l t I n u n e m p l o y m en t. U nc er ta in R ev en ue s to ha rv es ti ng s e c t o r r e d u c e d . P ro b a b le r e d u ct io n I n p r o d u c t i v i t y . o P o s s I b l e I n c r e a s e s I n pr od u ct I v I t y. P os si bl e lo ss o f r e v e n u e d u e t o I n c r e a s e d r i s k o f c l o s i n g fi sh er y. P o t e n t i a l t o r e d u c e g i l l n e t p ro d u ct I v i t y If a ll oc at io n Is re ac he d. P os sI bl e lo ss . U rc e rt a I n S I I g h t re d u ct I o n . 0 S l i g h t r e d u c t i o n . 0 0 11 , ., ' 0 0 0 P o s s i b l e I n c r e a s e d 0 pr od uc t Iv l ty . .,. o M a y a c t t o di sc ou ra ge e n t r y I n t o h o o k a n d I I n e fi sh er y. o o In cr ea se d en fo rc em en t a n d le g a I e xp e n se s '/U I d b e I n cu rr e d I f c o n f I l c t s d e v e l o p e d . o M a y s e r v e t o l e s s e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n I n h a rv e st I n g se ct or . o o o o In cr ea se d en fo rc em en t a n d le g a l e xp e n se s '/U I d b e I n cu rr e d I f co n f II c ts de ve lo pe d. o o H o I d s r e c r e a t l o n a l c a t c h t o 2 8 m il li on . o o o T a b l e 4 . ( c o n t d . ) S u m m a r y o f E c o n o m i c I m p a c t s o f t h e A l t e r n a t i v e M a n a g e m e n t M e a s u r e s A I t e rn a t I ve M a n a g e m e n t In te rn a tio n a l M a rk e t G o ve rn m e n t R e cr e a tio n a l M e a su re P rl c e S u p p I y E m p lo ym e n t R e ve n u e s P ro d u ct I v lty I m p a ct S tr u ct u re C o st s P a rt I cl p a t Io n C ob ia B . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i S ig ni fi ca nt ly re du ce d re cr ea ti on al ca tc h. c. 0 R e d u c e d b y 0 R e ve n u e s re d u ce d 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s . b y $ 5 2 , 0 0 0 . P u r s e S e I n e c. 0 0 0 0 M a y l i m i t f u t u r e 0 0 0 0 p r o d u c t I v l t y . D . S am e ef f ec t In G u I f as P ro po se d M ea su re A a nd B . 1 S ta t I st I c a I R e p o rt I n ~ c. S a m e e f f e c t a s r e j e c t e d K i n g M a c k e r e l M e a s u r e J . D . 0 0 0 0 3 ,2 4 6 h o u rs r e p rt I n g . 0 0 $ 1 6 , 2 3 0 $ 2 0 , 1 0 0 0 E . 0 0 0 0 1 , 5 7 6 h o u r s r e p r t i n g . 0 0 $ 7 , 8 8 0 $ 9 , 8 5 0 0 F . 0 0 0 0 6 4 9 1 , 2 9 8 h o u r s 0 0 $ 2 , 1 6 4 $ 2 7 , 0 5 0 0 T o t a l a n n u a l e n f o r c e m e n t c o s t o f $ 2 9 4 , 4 4 4 . ' I , ' I. ¡ , the Gulf and south Atlantic FCZ at thIs time. Potential posltlye benefits Include a reduction In "fallout" of dead fish from gill nets which Is alleged to occur. This measure was not proposed at this time because a study Is currently underway wh Ich will assess the Impact of a gl II-net "fallout" problem. The data provIded by .thls project wi II be used for an evaluation of all the alternatIve forms of th I s gear type and, I f necessary, regu I at Ions proposed at a future date. Alternatlve Measure L would establish a 25-lnch minimum size lImit for the commercial fishery and no size limit for the recreational fishery. Alternative Measure L was rejected because It Is discrimina tory to one user group without adequate JustIfIcation. Alternatlve Measure M proposed to restrict the use of spotter aircraft In the king mackerel fIshery. Spotter aircraft are used predominantly by large gIll-net boats to locate large schools of king mackerel. This measure would signIficantly reduce the economic efficiency of the gill-net fleet and would most lIkely Increase the variability of the catch. Although specific projections of the dollar Impact of the measure cannot be made, there Is general agreement that the regulation would adversely affect the gIll-net economic returns by causing higher costs and would cause Interruptions In the supplies of fish to consumers. ~~ Alternatlve Measure N whIch was not adopted, would have restrIcted the number of lines and hooks used I n the kl ng mackerel fishery. The measure was not cons I dered to be necessary because catch II ml ta tlons to prevent the harvest from exceeding MSY have been adopted. It was also rejected because of the adyerse economIc effect on the user groups using thIs gear type. It Is ImpossIble to suggest the specific economic loss to the hook and lIne fleet wIthout specIfying the number of hooks to be allowed. However, It Is safe In assuming that a significant restriction on the number of lInes per mitted In the fishery would reduce the revenue, efficiency and productivity of the fishery. Alternatlve Measure 0 would have allowed the In conf II cts In wh Ich there was a h I story of i I ght of the extens I ve framework estab I I shed gear and user groups. Secretary to aid In the prosecution of persons Involyed vIolence. The measure was felt to be unnecessary In I n Proposed Measure A wh Ich deal s wI th conf Ilcts between Alternatlve Measure P allocates eight million pounds to the commerlcal fishery, 25 million pounds to the recreatIonal fishery and maintaIns the remaIning four millIon pounds of the optimum yield In a reserve to be allocated on a regional basIs to the fishery If the Initial limits are exceeded. The rejected measure also required that the reserve be allocated In accordance with the contribution to total catch that each specific fishery made In the previous flye years. In addition, P places a per sonal limitation of three fIsh per day on the recreational fIshery, a 10,000 per day limit on all gill-net yessels and a 400 pound per day limit on all yessels In the hook and line fishery If It appears that the respective allocation wIll be reached. Thl.s allocation system was not adopted In II eu of Proposed Measure C wh I ch I s be II eved to provl de the same benef I ts and not req u I re as comp I ex an administrative framework. The similar adopted measure also provides a more sophisticated system of controls to restrict the fishery once the reserve Is reached and the flexIbility needed to allow for fluctuatIons In abundance and avaIlability. There are two basic economIc Impacts that could be expected had Alternative Measure P been adopted. First, because the allocation system mandated Is so extensive catch data wIth a shorter time lag In reporting would be needed. Collection and analysis of data this frequently could be expected to cost substantially more than the proposed reporting system. Measure C allows for the consideration of whether or not the excess catch Is a result of a hIgh abun dance of fish, Increased local availability, Increased effort, InaccuracIes In the historIcal landings data and the degree of biologIcal Impact of closing the fIshery. The more efficIent and simpler Measure C pro vi des for certa I nty on the part of user groups and thus hIgher economl c returns. AI ternat I ve conf II cts. oyerlapplng Measure Q would separate two groups of commercIal mackerel fishermen to avoid gear The separat Ion I s by depth and t I me. Th I s measure was not proposed because (1) there are zones In which fishing can take place by both gear types; and (2) the length of the R I R-23 separaTion I n time, although at the peak of the season, I s not long enough to allow for availabIlities of mackerel year to year. Because of these factors enforcement would be conf II cts may st ILL occur, and ef f I c I ent use of both gear may be I nh 1 b I ted. dl tferent d Iff I cu It, Alternatlve Measure R would make II legal the buyIng. selling, or processing for commercial use, king mackerel under 25-1 nches fork length. Th I s measure wou I d have prevented fishermen from market I ng a small (but unquantlflable at thIs time) amount of kIng mackerel under 25 Inches. SInce small Indl vl duals are regularly caught when striking a net for king mackerel, and for SpanIsh mackerel at times, the result would be waste of a protein resource. No restrictions were contemplated for recreational fishermen and thus the measure I s a I so d I scr I ml natory on Industry. Alternatlve Measures for Spanlsh Mackerel Alternatlve Measure E provided that the Secretary would aid In the prosecution of perpetrators of violence In fIsherIes having gear or user group conflIcts. The measure also gives the Secretary emergency powers to separate users by gear or assign local quotas. This measure was not adopted sInce I ts des I gnated goa I was more ef fect I ve I y ach I eved by Proposed Measure A. The on i y economl c Impacts which could be anticipated are slightly Increased enforcement costs and addItIonal legal fees. The extent of these expenses would be totally dependent on the characterIstics am.extent of any future conf II cts. Alternatl ve Management Measures for Cobia A Iternat I ve Measure B wou I d have provl ded a bag II ml t of one cobl a per person per day I n the SouTh Atlantic Council area where data supported the need for protection. This measure would have reduced recreatIonal enjoyment of the fIshery and could slightly reduce partIcIpation In the fishery. Howe ver, any econom I c Impact cou I d be expected to be ml n I ma i as on i y 0.4 percent of sa i twater ang I ers In the regIon are estimated to land cobia In a given year. The prImary negative economic Impact of this measure would most likely have been localized In communities whIch hold cobIa tournaments yearly. SpecIfic dollar values for the Impact cannot be estimated as no data are available on expenditures for cobia fishermen or on the potentIal reaction of anglers to cobIa bag limits. Alternatlve Measure C Is aimed at prohIbIting the sale of all cobIa. Cobia Is not a targeted species of any commercIal fleet and Is only caught Incidental to other species. Total commercial cobia catch Is typically only ten percent of the total cobia catch. ThIs measure would have little beneficial biological Impact whIle depriving the commerlcal fleet of a supplementary source of revenue. If adopted, Measure C would have deprl\€d the commercial fleet of $52,000 In revenue based on 130,000 pounds average landIngs and $0.40 per pound. This revenue loss would be concentrated among fishermen along both coasts of FlorIda. Alternatl ve Mana~ement Measures for Purse Seines AI ternat I \€ Measure C proh I bIts the use of purse se I nes to har vest kl ng or Span I sh mackerel I n the area of JurIsdiction of the South Atlantic Council except for specified research. ThIs measure limits technological change by the Industry. ProhIbItIon of purse seIne gear would not have altered the sta tus quo In the Industry since purse seInes were eIther lIttle or not used at all. Since there was no documentat I on to supporT a tot a i proh I bIt I on, th I s measure was rejected. Alternatlve Measure D recommends a research program on the use of purse seines In taking kIng and SpanIsh mackerel; until the research Is completed, purse seine operations would be limited to 400,000 pounds annually of kIng mackerel and SpanIsh mackerel (an additional 250,000 pounds for an existing commercial fishery) In the Gulf of Mexico and observers would be requIred on board. This ræasure was rejected because the one-year limitation on catch and observer partIcipation was not sufficient for proper management of the resource or fishery. R I R-24 AI ternat I ve Stat I st I ca I Report I n~ Measures AI ternat I ve Measure C wou I d req u Ire perm I ts for a I I users was rejected as an unnecessary burden on I ndustry and the King Mackere I A I ternat I ve Measure J. for statistical purposes only. The measure public. Its cost ($914,760) Is discussed In Alternatl ve Measure D would require a mandatory trip ticket system for charter/head boat operators targeting Spanish mackerel. Assuming 75 percent of the 1,082 charter/head boats In the fishery target SpanIsh mackerel, and an annual per unit cost of $20 to $25 for data collection, collation, and publI cation, total costs would be $16,230 to $20,000. The reporting burden at 0.5 hour per month for an eight-month season would be 3,246 hours. The measure was rejected because sufficient Information can be obta I ned from a samp I e of operators. Alternatlve Measure E requIres commercial fishermen to report catch and effort data using trip tickets. With 100 percent reporting and an annual per unIt cost of $20 to $25, total cost would be $7,880 to $9,850. The measure was rejected because sufficIent Information can be obtained from a sample of operators. Reporting burden, 0.5 hour per month per operator for-eight months, would be1,576 hours.. - . . Alternatlve Measure F requIres logbook reporting for all charter/head boat operators, or a limited sample necessary to obtain sufficient data. Costs to government and reporting burden would be the same for th I s group of operators as I n Proposed Measure B. Th I s measure was rejected because It dIscriminates use of a survey Instrument on one user group. C. COMPAR I SON OF THE i MPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AND AL TERNAT I VE MANAGEMENT MEASURES 1 . Proposed Measures The benefIts of this FMP derive from maIntenance of a high le~1 of yIeld, pre~ntlng a decline In yield and loss of economic ~Iue to the nation. FishIng effort Is rapidly Increasing and will soon result In a decline In yield from the fIshery unless total harvest Is limited. (See FMP Section 5.4.) However, It Is not possible to calculate the degree to which mackerel stocks could be overf I shed I n any 9 I ~n year and correspond I ng benef I ts from regu i at Ion because of the II ml tad data available and uncertainty about the precision of the MSY estimate. A reasonable approach to estimating benefits from regulation Is to compare the costs of the plan to the range of potential benefits. Recent history of a sImIlar fishery, Atlantic mackerel, gl~s an I nd I catIon of potent I al losses wh Ich cou i d occur I f no act Ion I s taken. Maxi mum susta I nab Ie yield for this stock Is estimated at 210,000 to 230,000 mt. During the early 1970s, excess fIshing effort greatly reduced the stock size and yield declined. Total present catch from U.S. and Canadian waters Is approximately 65,000 mt, less than one third of MSY. The current Atlantic Mackerel FMP lImits catches In U.S. waters to 30,000 mt in an attempt to Increase spawning stock sIze and Improve recru i tment. In the case of AtlantIc mackerel, the drastic reduction In harvest needed to rebuild the stock was accomplIshed by reducing allowed foreIgn harvest and was relati~iy painless for U.S. Interests. If similar reductions became necessary for king or Spanish mackerel, U.S. fishermen would bear the entire burden, with serious adverse Impacts on sport and commercial fishermen. GIven the present trend In fishing effort In the kIng and Spanish mackerel fisheries and present condition of those stocks, It Is probable that MSY will be exceeded and yield dec! Ine In the near future unless total har~st Is limited. For the purpose of estimating potential benefits from the plan, It Is reasonable to assume losses of five to 25 percent wIthin the next five years, and 20 to 50 percent within the next ten years, If no actIon Is taken. These estimates are somewhat R IR-25 arbItrary, but are believed to be conservative. As can be seen from the exampl.e of Atlantic mackerel ,greater losses are possIble. Thus,annua I benefIts assuming I I nearlty between economic value/expendItures (commercIal and recreational sectors) and catch\Ery between $5.6 mIllion to $27.9 tnil lion during the next five years derived from thlsFMP through prevention .of o\\rflshlng. Direct monetary benefits Include the poteritlal Increase In annual revenue of up to $608,000 for kIng mackerel and $156,000 for Spanish mackerel by purse seine vessel operators, and $8,150 (present value) over five years for Increased cobIa landings. . A summation of the dIrect annual costs topr I vate Industry and .government Isapprox (matel y#376,303, all of which Is attrIbutable to the government. If and only If largescaleglll net boats convert to purse seines, Industry wIll face potentIal costs of up to $216,958 or a:potentlal $4.4 ,mi Illon In lost revenue/sales for commercial and recreatIonal users CTable3). The potential lost revenue/ sales comes almost entirely from the recreatIonal sector ($4.1 million). This Impact Is probably greatly overstated. In the absence of more reliable information the Impact was esti:mated by assuming a linear relationshIp between decreases In CPUE and total revenue/sales. Howe\Ær, Itls unllkelythatasmall change In CPUE (1.9 to 5.6 percent) will have any Impact on recreational fish I rig 'ef fort. The mot I ves for fish I ng are not so Ie i y to catch fIsh wl!h rrny f I sherman f Ish I ng because of the general recreational benef Its. . -~~. . Annua I costs to government are classIfied as followIng: Mon I tor Ing and data co Ii ect Ion $81,859 Enforcement Coast Guard NMFS Total $184,444 $ 11 0,000 Tota i annua I costs $294,444 $376,303 The costs to develop thlsFMP amount to $306,204. The Gulf CouncIl Is the lead Gouncllfor thIs plan and has assumed most of the costs for meetings, offlce/staft,and actual PM" contractual arrangements. For the purposes of th Is RIR, a 2o-year II fe Is gilln to the FWprocess and struc ture. Its annual cost basedona ten percent capital recovery factor Istherefore.$35,968. 2. A i terna.t lve Measures Beneflts from the alternaTive measures are less than those cIted for the proposed measures with Fegard tooverHshlng. This Is due to the InflexibIlity and ImposItion of Jlre burdens on 'Industry and the publIc from 'alternative measures. It is not possIble toclteâ quantItative estimate of lesser benefits wIth the alternatives, but only to poInt out qualitatIve differences. A summation of the direct annual costs to private Industry and government Is approxImately $1.9million, of "whIch $429,980 Is attributable to government (see Alternative Measures for Enforcement and Statistical CollectIon); $1.4 Is attrIbutable to Industry and the public from license fees, mandatory gear, and prohibItion of sale of cobia. FMP developmental costs would be Incurred as well. .3. Summary Insurrmary ,annua I .benef Its from the proposed measures range from $5.6 mIllion TO $27 .9 mil lionfrompre:~ntlon of overflshlng, and a potential $762,000 In Increased revenue to purse seine R i R-26 operators. Annua I costs of the proposed measure are $412,271, costs for statistical collection, monitoring, and enforcement, FMP. of which $376,303 are direct annual and $35,968 for development of the Annua I benef I ts from the a I ternat I ve measures are sign I f I cant I y be low those est I mated for the pro posed measures; however, because of limited data, no quantitative estimate Is possible. The a Iternatl ve measures are more rigid, I nf lex I ble, and. burdensome regu lations and thus benef ITS would be less. Annual costs of the alternative measures are $1.9 million, most of which Is I mposed on pr I vate I ndustry and the sportf I sh I ng pub II c. . D. Paperwork Reductlon Act (44 U.S.C. 350 et seq.) The proposed management measures will not Increase the reporting burden for commercIal and recreational fishermen and processors. The major change wIll be a change from a \Qluntary to a mandatory reportIng system. Data will be collected on a random basIs whIch minimizes the report I ng burden on the fishermen and costs to the federa i government., E. ;;-:. Regulatory Flexlbility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The proposed management measures result In both positive (and possible negatl ve) economic Impacts to the smàll businesses associated wIth the mackerel fishery. Virtually all the busInesses asso cIated with the mackerel fIshery are classifIed as small buslnesses, and will consequently receive most of the economic gaIns resulting from the proposed measures; conversely, most busInesses wI Ii be affected from negative economIc Impacts, If any. The benefits to the fishery, and regional and national economies, as well as the number of fishermen affected by the proposed'management measures Is dIscussed In Sections iv. A and C (Including Table 3). REFERENCES Centaur Associ ates, Inc. 1981. "Socia-Economic Study of the Mackerel Purse FIshery, Task I I Report." Prepared for National MarIne FisherIes ServIce, St. Petersburg, Florida. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery Management Plan. Management Councl Is, Tampa, FlorIda. 1980. Gulf of Mexico and SouTh Atlantic Fishery R i R-27 ;;~ . 5270 Federa Register I VoL 48. No. 25 I Friday, Februar 4, 198 I Rules and Reguations DEPAREN OF COMMERCE National Ocan and Atm~ Admlnl8 50 CFR Pa 84 (Doet No 21021-211) CoI Migra Peeiglc A8IUf of the Gulf of Mul an the SothAtltl ., . AG8N National Oceanc and Atmoipheric Admtrtion (NOAA). Commer . 'ACTN: Flal nne. SUMMARY NOAA IIiU81 fi reationaimplementi the Flh.. Manasement Plan for the Coaita MIatory Pelagc Ruoi of the Gul of Mexco and the South Atlantic. The intended effec of th.. reationali to reuce uier-up coiúct and preent overfshing of the lc and Sp8l mackerl and cobia ItOck EJCT DAft Fetiru 4. 198 ADDRISSU: A copy of the combined 55al reguatory flexibilty analyiii¡ reguatory impact review iiay be obtaied frm Jack T. Brawner. Regional Dirctor, Southeait Region, National Mae Fisheriei Servce, 9450 Koger Boulevar SL Peteribur Florida 331O 1'11 JlRTU INFORMATION CONTAC' Jack T. Brwner, 81~11i. 8UINARY INFOIiMATlOO The Aaliitant Admitrtor for Flheria, NOAA .appred the Flih81 ManaSUQ8Dt Plan for Coaital Migrtory Pelagic Reiourei of the Gul of Mexeó and the South Atltic (FM on Apri1, 1982 under the authority of the Magnuion Fisher'ConaeratioÍl and Meagement Act (Magnuson Act). ,Theie reationalmplement the FM, which wai prar jointly by the' Gul of Mexco and South Atlantic Fiiber Manement Council (Coundla). A propoae ruemg wa. published on May 18, 198 (41 FR 2127), intiati a 45y comment peod ~ened JulY Z. 198 .. The pr nnem contaed inortion on the coltal mitor pelagc fi.her, its ecomc value, and Ita reative impoance to th reation and commer iecor , The major problemi in the fùher (1 prvenUon of over and su . co) and th maement JD1U to reve them we alao dflCUled JJdebd . In the pro retiona I MZ peai to ierdq an repo wa rnad Th .econ i8 alo bein l'ere. in th fi rue . beU1 the reor iyitem hu not be completely develed and for have not yet been prar It i8 : . anticipated tht th matory re iyitem wi be implemted when -I8 ~ur an re for ar devope and appro Th for wi be autted to th Ofce of Mangement and Budget for clear" under section 3S of th Paper Reducon Act of 198 Seon 88( e) in th prpoae re.Uona prhibited ff for id mack with gi neta havia meth. ..ii of leii than 4'4 inch.. In th fi nn.. thi .don hu be ched to , prohiit poss..ilon of Jd mackerl JJ th FC on boar . vea with gi neta leu th th .1z ext ai prvided for 1Ider I 66(a)(Z). Seon . .64(a)(Z) ba be re.ed to alow uu inddeta catch of lc macker ~qual to te pert of the tota catch by 'number of Spansh mac: on boar. veaiel with gi neta with. mesh iiz imaerthan 4'4 inch.. (itrtched meah). Theie two chan.. have been made to racitate enorct of the FM. The fial nne diers from the . proposed rue In that ieveral mior techcal modicationi were made for clarcation in the definitioni orfish~ry conservation zone and commercial fisherman, I 84%. and in the tex" of II 842.1(d) and (1), 642.8(b). and 842.4(&). Errs in the location ofPoÏDta 3 and 4 on Table 1 of l 64(a)(1)(1) ar corrcted The u.s. Coait Guard (USCG) requeited miqr revisioni of l 648 to reec ret changei JJ USCG boarg proceurl and of I 84 to reflec the ret reiion of SO CP Par 62 (Civi Procedurs); theie ar revised in the fial rue. AliO, change. were incorported in the fial rue in response to comments reved dur the public coent perod Th.. chang.. aN dflC~ ~iow. . ¡. ~"' 18 an R8In88 . ~e Cocil and theF10rida Dep~ent of Na~al Rei~ (FNN quelUoned coi8teDcy of the ¡)po.it regueUOD with th FM coce the mandatory requient of placi ob8881 on pure-seiD vnae The Council reuested modcation of I 88(t) and 188(b)(4) to clar their intent that aU pUleJJe vel88la fishi for , Span and ki mackerl muit bave e øbHrer aD bo un..s IUch ob C8ot be made available by th Nation Mae Flsherea Servce (N. Seon 64)(4) wu rette in rë.pODe to thi reat The Cc alo remmended tht I 64(b)(1) and (Z) be chaned to lpa the contents of the letter of JJtent and telephon notication pripr to fiihù with pure 1e1.. Th.. include the num of v.... an ar to be fihed and inoimtion on th port of depar and retu Seon M24(b)(1) an (2) we re to coply with th rees . IDm questioned implementation1of the PM without an efecve statiUca re iystem The Sotheat : F'iaerei Ceter wi utW ita pre~t conecn iyøtem with an exedtiOO any. of dealer and prCesor data for the commeral fier. Th catc data frm cher bota åxande to other reatianaliegenta wi be used for detertion of th reaUon fier catc Thea methoda wi be adeqte for . maement puea unUl the FM1 mandator statilUca report iyltem i8 developed and implemte The State of Misippi cOented tht the reation we iniitmt with ita Coastal Zoe Mangement Prgram (CZ due to thei CQvere of arai with Miaiippi So~ over Fed Regiter I Vol. 48 No. 25 I Friday, February 4, 198 I Rules and Reguations 5271 which thejurdicatioDil,dbputed. between Mil8iå8ippaDcLtheUDited. Stat... The.. aru ar referd. toa8. ena~e...i... ar1urdedby State waters butiuhject.toFedera juidictfoa.MJi..ippf ,.. cODclu8ioD'of inconsistency depead.upoDthe questioD ofjurcUoDover. theie enves rathertbaay.iubitantive coiúct betweaJbepro.ed rqtioDlud tb,teetsofits CZ. The prsent furdlcaltatuofthese . enclaves I8tbttbyarwwerFedera fur.dlètioDtudaotwtth Miis8ippi'. coa.talzonemanagetjurctom NOAA's Offceof:CotalZone. Management. In a I1pplementalftdh dated Janua 28 198 speed tbtthe enclaves are not par of Mis.is8ippi's coa.tahone. Therefore. ai a matter of law, there iino.inconiiltencywitb Miiiissippi"sCZ, The FDNR questioned theconsiltency of the reatiQaswtth Florida's CZ, to the extent that thueguations alow the harest of coastal pelagic fih with pW'e .seines.Statelaw, incorporated. Into Florida'ICZ¡prohibitsthe utUationofsuch gear totae,fóod fish within and without thewaterr.of Florida. (Florida Statutes 1370.07(3)). Florida's cJaimofincoasisteiicy Ii without legal foundaUonfor the foUowireasons: 1. The Guuof Mexico. Fl8hery Management Counciforwardedcopie8 of the FM to Florida'sOffceotC-oa8tal Zone Management on April 8t 198, and on October 18,1981, \VthJetterr requesting comments OD itsJÙ1ding,of consistency withFlórida's CZ; The FM.sent in October contain.. an extensive discus8ion of the pW'e~seine mea.ures and:rea8on8..(includig, statutory prohibitions) for rejectig. Florida's ban on theu8e otthis.geari . Florida dfdnot respondJo either of these letters until FDNRsubmifed its commentsontheprop08edreguation. . last July. In accordance with the provisionsotI5CFR930.41,lti. appropriate for the Federalagency to presume Stateagl!ncyagrement to the . Federal detenninatfon of consistencyafter45daysi NOAAnasproperly assumed Florida 'iaggeement. wi th . the . Gulf Councü' sconclusion of . consistency, o 2. The Admistrator, NOAA, has . independently reviewed the i8sue,of consistency with Flórida's CZMPand, detenninedtha t . the.. FM is consistent to .the maximum.extentpracticable. The regulation regarding purse seines Is. in' concert with the articulated goaLot Florida's. CZM regarding the utilzation , of the marine resources olthe State. as . iet forth at page 1I';330ftheCZMP. Though the Federal and State . rqtion.arnotidentical, identity II not reui bythe'Cóa.tal Zone .0 MaaiementAct (CZM). The statutory reuimentofconsi.tencylsqualied. Consi.tency fa reui only to the . '"axum extent .practicable" (CZ 130c)(1)). Th. qualifed requiment ofconai.tencyreui that Federal acviti..befuyconsistentwith State cot.i zoe Pl'aø. "unes8 compUan Ii prohiaitedbaied on the. reuimets otexti lawappUcable totb.Federal agency's operaUona~'(15 . CP932(a)). In thi lntace~ .NOAA faaJnstrmed by'1heMagnuaon Act...TCJ fmplemeta.rqation prohibiti the ü.eofpu iemes for theblUeltof coastal,pelagi fI.h would violate severl of the national standaraof the Mquan A~ Therefore, .to the llum extent practicable,. ths reatioDlsconsistent with Florida's CZ. TheAdminilitrtor of NOAA haa considere and rejected ,Florida's re..ttodeeay fmplementationofthe PMbeuae the State did not respond to the Council'. consistency detertionwiththe45day period, . andbeu.eFlorida .ba8 offered no chUene to NOAA'sdetermation,tht theFMI. consiltent with the CZ "to the maxum extentpractfcable." . Onecommenter..questioned..whether her statements presented dur pubUc bearhad been considered. This colDenter ilso questioned why her wrtten comments had not been appended to the fial Env1nmental Impact Statement (FS). A review of tbeiadm.lrative rerd estabUsbed dur the: prepartion oftheFMó showed that the comments were coniidered:bxthe Councils. their Scentific and 'Slatistical Commttees. andNM~ The wrtten comments were notapp~nded to theFEISbecause.'they were not submitted durng the Nattonal Envionmental Policy Act comment period. Cliiifcation. The. Assistant Admistrator for Fi.heries, NOAA (Aiiistant Administrator), after considerig.aU comments received on the FM and the prop08ed regulation.. has detenned thatth'FMand final regulations. comply with the national standards, other.provision. of the Magnuson Act, and other applicable law, . The adoption and implementation of theFMi8amajor Federal action that wi1 have a signifèant impact on the; quality olthe human environment. Under the National Environmental PoiicyAct.andNOAA.Directive02~10, a.. draitenvironmentalimpact statement was fied with tneEnvionmental Protection Agency. The noUceof availabiÜtywa. published on Febnnar 5. 198(45 FR 7831). Theft envinmental.impact statement was 6ledandthe~'notice'ohv8ilabiUtywls publlshedonApril 30.198(47 FR1882). . The Adm8trtor. NOM has determed that these propo.ed reations ar not major under Exective Orer.12. ARègatory Impact.Revtew(R) has been prepard tbatanalyzes theexp,ectedbenefit. and coits of the reatory action~ The . review provides. the ' b..is ,for. the Acitrtor~8detemm8ttolL The PMscmanasementmeaiurs .ar designed. tomaintaincuntla.ndiis andtheprouctivityohachu.er grup, whie preventig overüshig of the ic , and Spanh.mackerel andcobiastoc1s. The RJind1c:tes thatthepròposed reations wi result in benefits to fihenaeDand,the- ecnomy that are gratee~thanth, u.ocated. Federa costs tomanase theñ8hery 00 a coatiuinl,baai.;.Benefilstht ..wiU accre frm implementation of the proposedmea.ures;come frm the preventionofoverftàhig.The benefit, in term. ofpowwd.offish. i.thedifference between.theOY speciledin the plan and the amount caugt after overfishingi oc:inmonetary terms, the benefit Is the difference between the contrbution to the Gross National PPdùct (GNP) by OY and the contrbution to GNP u80ciatedwith the catch after overfshini occu. The expected benefits range frm$S.6to $27.9 milion anually over the next five yeann. Empirical data, indicated that the lenl of ftshing effort by commercial and recrational ftshennen i.increasing rapidy, and mackerel stow and catch wiUdecline if effCJrtincreases; These regula.tions wiU have, a iignifcant impact on a substantial number ofsmallentities.under the Regulatory Flexibilty Act A final. relatoryflexibiUty analysis(RA) has been prepared in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibilty Act and has been. combinedwitt theRI summarized above. Copies of the final RFA/RIR are offëred to the. public. The..fM.and.ímplementing. resulaUon. wil not increase. the Federal paperwork burden.asdefined:by the Paperwork Reduction Act. because the data collection. system win not be implemented at this time. Section 842:24(bl oltheimplementing re8\lations requires that owners or operators of purse-seine'vessels fishing for king and Spanish mackerel report their catch for each trp by telephone. Since there are fewer than 10 vessels in this fleet, this informs tionisto be 5272 Federal Register I. Vol. 48. No. 25 1 Friday, February 4, 1983 1 Rules and Regulations- ~~ --..t:~II ..........~~...~.. .- -: gathered from fewer than 10 persons. so no "collection of information" is involved ror purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. . The Coastal Zone Management offce. for each State having an approved program under the CZMA and whose territorial waters are adjacent to the management area were provided copies of the FM ror review as to consistency with their coastal zone management programs. The only comments.are discussed above. NOAA has concluded that. to the maximum extent practicable. the FMP is consistent with the applicable coastal zone management programs. The Slates of Georgia and Texas do not have approved programs. The Assistant Admnistrator has determined that there is a good cause to waive the 3O-day period of delayed effectiveness required under the Administrative Prcedure Act. Fishing. activity for Spanish mackerel begins to intensify in October, and effective reguations are essential durg that period to ensure orderly prosecution of the fishery. The re'gulations establish annual quotas and allocations ror various user groups. Delaying implementation of the regulation would also interfere with the orderly installation of observers aboard purse seine vessels. and thereby result in adverse impacts on this segment of the fishery during the initial part of the. faU fishing season when mackerel are most susceptible to that gear. For these reasons. the Assistant Admnistrator has found that it would be impracticable to delay the effective date of ths action. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Par 64 Fish. Fisheries. Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requiements. Dated: Februar 1. 198. Willam H. Stevensoa, Deputy Assistant Administrtor for Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service. 50 CFR is amended by adding a new Part 642 to read as follows: PART 642-COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC Subpart A-General Provision. Se 642.1 Puose and scope. 642.2 Definilion.. 642.3 Relation to other law.. 642.4 Pennits and fees. 642.5 Recordkeeping and reportng requirements (Reserved). , 642.6 Vessel identification (Reservedl. 642.1 Prohibitions. 642.8 Faciltátion of enforcement. 642.9 Penalties. Subpart B-Management Measure. Scc. 642.20 Season.. 642.21 Quótai. 642.22 Closures. 642.23 Size restriclions. 642.24 Vessel. gcar, equipment limitation.. 642.25 Specifically authorized activities. 642.26 Area. time limitations. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 180 et seq. Subpart A-General Provisions § 642.1 Purpose and scope. (a) The purose or this Part is to implement the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic. Resources developed by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils under the Magnuson Act. . (b) Ths Part reguates fishig for coastal migratory pelagic fish by fishing vessels of the United States within the fishery conservation zone off the . Atlantic coastal States south of the Virginia-North Carolina border and in the Gulf of Mexico. § 642.2 Definitons. In addition to the definitions 'in the Magnuson Act. and unless the context requires otherwise, the terms used in this Part shall have the following meaning: Authorized Officer means: (a) Any commissioned. warrant. or petty offcer of the U.S. Coast Guard (b) Any certifed enforcement offcer or special agent of NMS; (c) Any offcer designated by the head of any Federal or Slate agency which has entered into an agreement with the Secretary and the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard to enforce the provisions of the Magnuson Act: or (d) Any U.S. Coast Guard personnel accompanyig and acti under the diection of any person descrbed in paragraph (a) of ths defition. Center Director means the Center Director, Southeast Fisheries Center. NM. 75 Virinia Beach Drive, Mial1. Florida 33149; telephone 305-61-5761. Coastal migratory pelagic fish means the following species: King mackerel. Scomberomorus cavallo Spanish mackerel, Scomberomoros maculatus Cero mackerel, Scomberomorus regalis Cobia, Rachycentron canadum Uttle tuy. Euthynnus alletteratus Dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus Bluefish. Pomatomus saltatrix (GuJf of Mexico only) Commercial fisherman means a person who sells, trades, or barters any part of his catch of coastal migratory pelagic fish. Dealer means ihe person who first receives or purchases fish directly freln a commercial fisherman. F~he~ conseITalion zone (FeZ) means that area adjacent to the United Slates which. except where modified to accommodate international beunda'ries. encompasses all waters from the seaward boundary of each of the coastal States toa line on which each point is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea of the United States iii meSSOtéd. Fishing means any activity, other than . scientifc research conducted by a scientific research vessel. which involves: (a) The catching, laking. or harvestingof fish;. , (b) The attempted catching, taking. or haresting of fish; (c) Any other aclivity which can rëãsonably be expected to result in the ' . . catching. takig, or harvesting of fish; or (d) Any operations at sea in support of. or in preparation for. any activity described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) ofths derintfon. , Fishing vessel means any vessel. boat, ship, or other craft which is used for. equipped to be used for, or of a Iype which is normally used for: (a) Fishing; or (b) Aiding or assisting one or more vessels at sea in the performance of any activity relating to fishing. including,' but not limited to. preparation. supply, storage, refrigeration. transportation, orprocessing. : Fork length means the distance from the tip of the head 10 the center of the tail (caudal fin). . . Magnuson Act means the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 180 et seq.). NMFS means the National Marine Fisheries Servce. Operator. with respect to any vessel. means the master or other individual on board and in charge of that vesseL. Owner. with respect to any vessel,means: i (a) Any perso'n who owns that vessel in whole or in part (b) Any charerer of the vessel. whether bareboat, tie. or voyage; or (c) Any person who acts in the i capacity of a charterer, includig, but nót limited to, parties 10 a management agreement. operating agreement. or . other similar arrangement that besto~s control over the destination. fuction. or operation of the vessel; and . (d) Any agent designated as such by any person described in paragraphs (a). (b), or (c) of this definition. Person means any individual (whether or not a citizen of the United Slates). Feder Regter I VoL. 48 No. 25 I Friday, Februar 4, 1983 I Rules and Reguations 5273. . corporation. paerhip. u8OatioD, or (c) POI..I In or harest frm the FCZ other entity (whethr or Dot or8Jed or Spanh mackerel under the mium exti under the laws of any State), 8i1lt ipeced in l 64(a)(1), ud any Fed State loc or foreig except for the catch allowanca speced aovemment or any antity of any such' In l 84(a)(2); aovemment. (d) Po.... In or haest frm the FCZ JII'm8au a perlOA who cobia under the mium size Umt . pro..s ß8h or ß8h prouct for. lped In l 84(b):. commeraJ 1I or coDSption. (e) Po.. In the FC ki mackerl &,onaJ Dirl' m88D the Region OD bo a vu.el with gi nets with a Ditor. Southa.t Regon. NM . mium meh size less th that DuvaJ Budl 94 Koger Boevar -. .peced In l 844(a)(1). exept for a SL Peterbu Florida 3310 te~hoae. catc alowance u speced in 813-41. or a deig l MZ(a)(2); Sttm m8au .the Seta of (f) FIh for kù or Spansh mackrel Commerc or . desagee. UlÚI . pue seine. except In U.s fish pl"SQl'me8D a fadUty complfanca.with l 844(b): Ioated with th~ United States for, and (g) Po..ess. have cutody or contrl vessels, of the Unnted States used for or of, ship, trport offer for sale. seD. equipped. for, the procaSill of ß8h ror puase. Import Iud, or export any commercaJ use or conaumptioa.- ß8h or par thereof taen or retaied in U.s-haresWi fish me8D fi caugt, . violation of the MappUln Act, ths Par taen. or haested by veiel of th 01 any oth retion undee the United States with any foreipp or . Mappuson Act; domestic fisher reated under the (h) Refuse to pert an Authonzed MappUln Act. . . Offcer to boar . ß8hh vessel subjecVøssel of lhe Unnted Slatas mean: to suc peron's contrl for puroses of (a) Any ves.el docented or - conduct1g any sear or InpecUon in Dumbere~ by the U.S. Coast Guard coecUon with the enlo~ement of the under Unnted States law; or . Mappuson Ac ths Par or any other (b) AIy vesseL under five Det tona, reatioD or pemmt issued wider the that is re.tered under the laws of any Mappuson Act; . State. (i) Forcbly to assault, resiat, oppose. f 842. Rela to oth8f la.. Impede. Intidate, thaten. or interfere ~ (a) Persons afected by these with any Authonzed Offcer in the reations should be awar that other conduct of any sear or inpecUon Federal and State statutes and descrbed in paragraph (h) of ths .reguationsmay apply to their acUvities. section; (h) Certain responsibilties relating to (J Resi.t a lawññ arest for any act data coDecUon and enlorcement may be prohibited by ths Par performed by authoried State (I) Interere with delay, or prevent. personnel under a cooperaUve by any mean. the apprehension or agrement entered into by the State. the arst of another person. knowig that U.S. Coait Guar, and the Secrtary. such other person has commtted any (c) These reguations apply with the act prohibited by th Part; or boundaries of any nationa park. (1) Transfer diectly or indiectly, or monument. or marine sanctuar in the attempt to 10 transfer, any U.S. Gul of Mexico and South Atlantic .Fez harested coastal misratory pelagic fish to any foreipp fishig ves.el. while suchf 842. Pwlt an ,.. vessel Is in the Fez uness the foreign No permts or fees ar requid for ß8hi veSlel haa been isiued a pennt domestic recreational or commercial, UDder Section 20 of the Magnuson Act fishig vessels engaged in fishi In the ''hich authories the receipt by such Coastal migratory pelagic fishery. vessel of U.S.-harvested coastal f migratory pelagic fish;842.5 Recordkeelng and reprtng (m) Violate any other Provision of this l-ulrementa (R888ed) Part. the Magnuson Act. or anyl 842.8 V""ldentlftC8t1on (R..8fed) regulation or permt ¡isued under the 1842.7 Prohlbltfon.. Magnuson Act. It Is unawful for any person to: t 842.8 F.dlllatfon of enforcement. (a) Fan to comply immediately with (a) General. The owner or òperator of enforcement and boarding procedures any fishing vessel subject to. ths Part Ipecified in § "82;8; . shall imediately comply with . (b,, Fish forking or Spanish mackerel inst1ctions issued by an Authorized in V1olaUon of any area closures or Offcer to faciltate safe boarding and leason closures as specifed in l 642.22 inspection of the vessel. its gear. or i 6-Z.26; equipment. logbook. and catch Cor puroses òl enorc the Magnuson Act and th Par . . . (b) SisnaJs. Upon being approached by a U.s Coast Guar cutter or airft or other vessel or airaft authoried to enorce the Ma8Du80nAc the operator of a ashig vessel shaD be alert fE~ sløal conveyi enforcement . Intrctions. The foDowi signl. extrcted frm the Intemational Code of Sippal. ar among those which may beue~ . (1) '1" mean ''You should stop your . vesel instantly," (2) "SQ3" mear "You should stop 01 heave to;. I am going to boar you." (3) "M AA AA etc." fa the ca to an unown station. to which the signaled vessel should respond by identig the vessel by radio, visual sippals or ilumtf the vessel identicaUon.and . (4)--RY-C mean '"ou should . prcee"d at .iow speed. A boat i. comig, . to you. ". . (c) Boaring. A venil signaled. to itop or heave to for boding shall: (1) Stop imediately and lay to or maneuver in such a way .s to permt the . Authoried Offcer and his par to come aboa (2) Prvide a ladder. enough Ught. and a safety line when iiecessar or requested by the Authoried Offcer to facitate the boar and inspection; and (3) Tale such ather acUons as necessary to ensure the safety of the Authoried Offcer and his party and facilitate the boudig. l 849 Pen.IU... Any person or fishi vessel found to . be in violation of ths Part is subject to the eivü and crimial penalty provision. and forfeitue provisions of the Magnuson Act. and to 50 CFR Part 820 (Citations). 50 crn Part 62 and 15 CFR Par 90 (Civi Procedures). and other applicable law. Subpart B-Management Measures t 842. SUsoL The fishing year oC all species of coastal migratory pelagic resources begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. t 842.1 QUOt8L (a) Hook-and-line and net fishing.--I) ICng mackerel. The total allowable catch ror king mackerel ia 37 milion pounds per ye8.. (I) Anual quotas are 28 milion pounds Cor the recreational fjsh~ry and 9 millon pounds Cor the comm,,rcial fishery. A fish i:: counted against the commercial quota if it is sold. 5274 Federal Registér / Vol. 48, No, 25 / Friday, February 4, 1983 / Rules and Regulations " -, ... (ii) The commercial quota is futher divided between hook-and-line fishing and net fishing as fõllows; Hook and Line: 3,877,200 pounds Net: 5,122,8Q pounds . (2) Spanish macKerel. The total allowable catch for Spanish mackerel in 27 millon pounds per year. (l) Purse seine fishing.-(I) King macKerel. The harvest of king mackerel by purse seines is limted to 40,00 pounds in the Atlantic an~ 4O,() . pounds in the Gulf of Mexxco per fishiñg year, King mackerel harvested by purse seines are included in the net quotas. under paragraph (a)(I)(ii) of this section. (2) Spanish macKereL. The harvest of Spanish mackerel by pure seines is limited to 300,00 poiids in the Atlantic and 300,00 pounds in the Guir or . Mexico per fishing year, Spanish. . mackerel hårvested by purse seines are included in the total allowable Spanish mackerel catch under paragraph (a)(2) of; this section. (3) Geographic boundary. The boundary between the Gulr of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean begins at the intersection or the other boundary or the FCZ and the 83. W. longitude, proceeds north to 24.35' N.latitude (Dry Tortugas), east to Marquesas Key, then though the Florida Keys to the mainland. § 642.22 Closures. (a) The Secretary, by publication or a notice in the Federal Register, shall close the king or Spanish mackerel fishery for a particular gear type or user group when the quota for that gear type or user group under § 642.21(a)(l) or (b) has been harvestea. . (b) The Secretary, by pub1ication or a notice in the Federal Register, shal close the king or Spanish mackerel fishery when the total allowable catch for the fishery under § 642.21(a)(I) or (2) has been harvested, § 642.23 .Slze restrictlonL . (a) Spanish macKeref--(I) Minimum size. The minimum size limit for the harvest or possession of Spanish mackerel in the FCZ is 12 inches (rork length) ror both the recreational and commercial fisheries. except ror the incidental catch allowance under paragraph (a)(2) of trus section. (2) Catch Allowance. A catch of Spanish mackerel under the 12-inch.fork length is allowed equal to five percent of the total catch by weight of Spanish. mackerel on board. . . (b) Cobia. The minimum size limit for the possession or cobia in the FCZ is 33 inches (fork length). § 642.24 Vessel, gear, equipment limitations. I (a) Giï nets. -(1) Minimum size. The minimum mesh size for gil nets used to fish ror king mackerel is 4J' inches (stretched mesh). (2) Catch allowance, A catch of king mackerel is allowed equal to ten percent or the total catch by number of Spanish mackerel on board a vessel with gil nets with a minimum mesh size smaller than that specified in paragraph (a)(I) orthis section. . (b) Purse seines, Owne.rs or operators of pure seine vessels fishing for king or Spanish mackerel shall (1) Send a letter or intent to fish for king or Spanish mackerel. indicating the number or vessels and area to be fished. to the Regional Director (i) at least three months in advance of beginning fishin each fishing year, or (ii) within a shorter time period deemed reasonable by the Regional Director and publicized in the news media; (2) Notify the Center Director by . telephone. 48 hours in advance or each trp, or departure information (port dock. date. and time) and or the expected landing information (port dock. and date); (3) Report to the Center Director, by telephone. the quantity of.Jandings, by species, for each trip as soon as practical after landing, and not later than 15 hours after unloading; (4) Accommodate observers for scientific and statistical puroses; and (5) Provide for embarkment and disembarkment of observers as detennined by' the Center D.irector, 'i 642;S Specifically authorized actlvltleL The Secretary may authorize. for the scquisition of inrormation and data. activities otherwise prohibited by these regulations. § 642.28 Area, time IImltatlonL (a) Field orders,-Subject to the . procedures and restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. the Secretary may take any or the following actions by field order under the circumstances specifed: â.JIfthe Secretary determines that a conflct exists in the king mackerel ' . fishery between hook-and-line and gilnet fishermen in an area of the FCZ between 27" 0.6' N.latitude and 27. 50' N, latiude off the east coast or the State of Florida. the Secretary may: (i) Prohibit use or gilnet gear to take king mackerel within the areas (depicted . in Figure 1 and described in Table 1) encompassed by points 1, 2. 5, and 6: 2. 3. 4. and 5; or I, 2, 3, 4. 5, and 6; Table 1 Point 1-.Bethel Shoal light at 27.44.3' N. latitude. SO' 10.4' W. longitude: Point 2-A wreck 15 miles southeast or Fort Pierce Inlet at 27. 23.5' N. latitude, 80' 03.7' W. longitude: Point 3-Marker WR 16, five miles northeast or Jupiter Inet at 27. 0.6' N. latitude, 80' 2.6' W. longitude: Point 4-2r 0.6' N. latitude. 79. 55.0' W. longitude at approximately the 100 rm. depth due east or Point 3: Point 5-27. 23.5' N. latitude, 79. 54.0' W, longitude at approximately the 100 rm. depth due east or Point 2; and Point ~27. 44.3' N. latitude, 79. 53.5' W. longitude at approximately the 100 fm. depth due east of Point 1, BIWNG COO 3510-22-11 Federa Regiter I Vol. 48, No. 25 I Friday, February 4,1983 I Rules and Regulations.\ . "5275 1,:0 .. ¡ ~ ..) ~ .. . . .\,,:~~O ~ . \g . ~~\ . ~\. \i.b'.' '0.;; . ~ , :r~ ~ \.. . ilØ ~ '~r- -~-.~ - - - . .-. - - - - -¡--270S0'N. la:titude- 'i:: \ ') -- ..~. .\ \"--? i~6 ~ \ '" \ ~~~\~ 1 \ 1 ~ --: ~ \ .- \:3 .~ \::~ .~,~,=-\ =. ~-= . \. :,~ \~ \ ~. F. \ ~ ?" \A.~ . \~l \ ~ % \. ~. ; 6. \. ..".-; \ .. '\ i/t---~ \ \ \ \ ., 2. \ . .\ .'"''1 1 ~ y \ ; IYt '. . l~ \\ / lj ; 0'; ~'7.:~ '. ./"":..,. ,// r.j . -=~ -~ '- (\ - i.n\ \--' ..i*~~ \" ., \, ( ¡ s ::~~ -: ' 4 . ~\ 3, '. Figure i. Area divisions under ä642.16. Ft. Pierce IIHQ cOOt J5100n-c ;. \ 27°30' N.. latitude \ 5.. . --27°10 IN. latitude 5276 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 25 / Friday, February 4. 1983 / Rules and Regulations (ii) Prohibit use of hook-and-line gear to take king mackerel in the FCZ landward of line between points 1 and 2, 2 and 3, or 1, 2, and 3: (iii) In the first year a conflct arises. close the FCZ between 27. 30' N. . latitude and 27. 10' N. latitude to the use of gil nets for taking king mackerel, and close the FCZ between 27. 30' N. latitude and 27. 50' N. latitude to the use of hook-and-line gear for taking king mackerel (in any .succeeding year that a .. conflct develops, the Secretary may change the zone that is closed to each gear): or . (iv) Alternate daily the use of each gear wi thin the area between 27. 10' N. latitude and 27.50' N. latitude as follows: (A) On even days of the month. close the area to the use of gilnet gear to take king mackerel. (B) On odd days of the month, close the area to the use of hook-and-line gear to take king mackereL. (2) If a conflct described in paragraph (a)(l) of this section results in death or serious bodily injur or signficant gear loss. the Secretary may close the fishery for king mackerel to all users in the FCZ between 27. 10' N. latitude and 27. 50' N. latitude. (b) Procedures. The Secretary shall use the following procedures in detenninng whether a confct exists for which a field order is appropriate: (1) When the Secretary is advised by any person that a conflct exists. he wil confrm the existence of such a confict through information supplied him by f''M. the U.S. Coast Guard. other appropriate law enforcement agencies. or personnel of the State of Florida agency with marie fishery management responsibilty. (2) The Secretar shall also confer with the Chairen of the South Atlantic and Gul of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (Councils). the State of Florida agency with mare fishery management responsibilty. and such other persons as the Secretary deems appropriate. . (c) RestrIctIons on field orders.--l) No field order may be implemented which results in exclusive access of any user group or gear type to the fishery. during the time the field order is in . effect. (2) No field order may be effective for more than five days, except under the conditions set forth in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. . (3) When the Secretary submits to the Federal Register a field order for implementation under this section. he wil immediately arrange for a fact finding meeting in the area of the conflct, to be convened no later than 72 hours from the time of implementation of the field order. (i) The following persons wil be advised of such a meeting: (A) The Chainnen of the Councila: (B) The State of Florida agency with fishery management responsibilty; (C) Local media: (D) Such user-group representatives or organizations as may be appropriate and practicable: and. (E) Other persons as deemed appropriàte by the Secretary or as requested by the Chainnen of the Councils or the State of Florida agency. (ii) The fact-finding ireeting wil be held for the purpose of evaluating the following: (A) The existence of a conflct needing resolution by' field order; (8) The appropriate tenn of the field order, i.e.. either greater or less than five :--days: - ~- . (C) Other possible solutions to the conflct besides Federal intervention:and . (D) Other relevant matters. (4) If the Secretary determnes. as a result of the fact-finding meeting. that the tenn of the field order should exceed five days. he may. after consultation with the Chaiman of the Councils and. the State of Florida agency, extend such field order for a period not to exceed 30 days from the date of initial implementation. If the Secretary detennines that it is necessar or appropriate for the term of such field order to extend beyond 30 days. he may extend it a second time. after consulting with the Chairman of the Council. for such period of time as necessary to resolve the conflct. (5) The Secretar may rescind a field order if he fids. though application of the same procedures set forth in paragraph (b) of ths section. that the confict no longer exists. (i: Do 11 FUed z.1-a ¡:OI pia 1 8IWNG CODe 351O-22